I agree with you, let em call and we can hit the send to VM button. And if that means China and Russia step in to try and gain influence then let them. It will just blow up in their faces as well. I am by no means an isolantionist but I do think the US needs to step back from the World stage and focus internally and fix our own house. Time to put the rest of the world on the back burner and let them figure their own messees out.
I'm not an isolationist either. I'm all for the US strengthening bonds with countries that share our values. There's infinite opportunities for that. Those opportunities are few and far in between in the ME. I understand that Middle Eastern power vacuums are dangerous for the whole world, but us filling that vacuum is just as bad if not worse. We should recognize a lost cause when we see one and withdraw our influence from the region and let them reach out to us. We're still here. We're not going anywhere. When they're willing to come to the global table in a positive and responsible way we'll be here ready to work with them. The US has to have some basic minimum standards to do business with another state. I'm not saying we need to insist on democracy everywhere ... but just some basic rudimentary recognition of human rights, minority rights, women's rights etc ...
America has never cared about countries records on human rights, minority's rights or women's rights all we care about are our personal, geopolitical,economic, national security and economic self interest. Carter tried that route which was noble hut perhaps wasn't realistic. Business is business I see no problem engaging in work with states as long as it's mutally beneficial. The isreali-american relationship would not qualify in that scenario.
Still in one piece? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ll-islamic-state-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/
Pretty good column by a conservative commentator for a liberal newspaper: http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf..._expertise_mulshine.html#incart_story_package "Boot suggested that we take on the forces of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad at the same time we are fighting Assad’s mortal enemies, the insurgents of the Islamic State." You can't make this stuff up.
So would you propose the EU to follow and let the Russians & Chinese step in alone? We Europeans are also facing enough problems within our borders these days. The problem is that we have to deal with millions of refugees from the Middle East if the mess keeps going some more years...
Then it is YOUR problem. It is not ours and should not be ours. (You Europeans drew these borders in the first place). Maybe it is time for Europe to look to (and pay for) its own defense and not rely on the US taxpayer (we can no longer afford it).
So we Europeans rely on the US taxpayer? Hmm, interesting. Anyway, is the average European taxpayer responsible for the huge mess in Middle East?
For your defense, yes you rely on us. Europe (with the exception of the UK and France) freeload on our defense budget. We cannot afford it anymore. We should stay out. You worry about the threat of refugees, then it is your problem, no ours.
My thoughts are that the US cannot continue to put itself in situations that aren't our concern. Look at the ME. We have been mired in that mess for how long and what has it gotten us? A lot of wasted US treasure and lives. Lives being far more important. Hell in the 90s we got stuck dealing with Serbia, again wasn't our problem and we should not have gotten invovled. Not saying that it was an issue that didn't need to be addressed, but it was one that Europe should have handled. The US should leave the ME. If they want it to burn, fine let it burn. Israel has more then enough capablity to protect itself, let em. Not our problem. As for Ukraine. I have no problem with the US selling defense systems like advanced anti-air systems, and anti-tank systems to ukraine to defend themselves from Russian aggression, but that's as far as I would go. And I think the US should honor its comiitment to NATO, but we should only supply a proportionate amount of weapons, and personnal to the alliance that is on a par with other NATO members. As for China and Russia, I don't think Russia can afford to extend themselves too much, and China has already made it clear what their goals are, I say the US should protect our own interests in Asia which does mean keeping our alliances strong and keeping a strong presence in Japan, Korea, and near Taiwan. The East and South China Sea as well. As for China, they are investing heavily in Africa and I'm good with that. Let them spend their treasure there, I will have to look it up but they have had more then a few problems in that region.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast...hter-pilot-after-jet-comes-down-syria-n274266 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ot-warplane-Syria-claim-monitoring-group.html I doubt that relatives mentioning the pilot's opposition to ISIS will help him.
Time to bring some old posts up, this one from 2012 which met with much derision from the usual crowd.
Below is another old post I like to bring up about the nature of US policy in Syria, and its phantom allies.
I bring these posts up to make the following point: both the ultimate outcome of what the policy the US had charted, and its motivating influences, were already clear back in 2012. Yet, many people stubbornly supported those policies -- policies that have left millions of people displaced, hundreds of thousands of people dead, and a country in complete turmoil. Policies that have made even the US president, who foolishly went along with them, admit to feeling haunted by its consequences.
Syrians don't need to read Orwell's '1984', having lived it for decades. How Syria’s Forgotten Revolutionaries Rose Up “To Kill This Fear" 'Under the Assad regime, Syria had become a police state whose prisons were notorious for torture, murder, and indefinite detention. Many activists, including Ghiath Matar, known as “Syria’s Gandhi,” and the Syrian anarchist philosopher Omar Aziz, had lost their lives in Syria’s torturous detention facilities. “Even before the revolution, we all grew up hearing stories of people who disappeared, we knew the fear this created,” Khadr reflected. He told me that now he dreams of a country with “no prisons” — a country where the all-encompassing fear that characterized Baathist rule is finally removed.'
A regime that has on its despotic hands, the blood of more than tens of thousands of Syrian children uses prime time TV to question the suffering of one child ... in the same way as the regime's apologists and supporters always turn to questioning the veracity in absolute terms of Assad's chemical attacks while the crude barrel-bombs continue to blight entire cities and villages. It's all about distraction and deflection, about confusion and conflation.. in an attempt to maintain the status quo of his killing fields and scorched earth policy. https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/819850928156416/
Leaving aside that all polls, not to mention the Syrian elections in 2014, clearly show that the Syrian people don't agree with your views on the Syrian regime, what is interesting (given the location you claim as your country) is that the Egyptian government has begun to see the light as well. Indeed, while I am no fan of the coup leaders who took over Egypt, the fact that Egypt's position on Syria is moving closer to Iran's is illustrated by 2 recent news stories. https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/n...equested-us-invite-egypt-to-syria-peace-talks Iran requested US invite Egypt to Syria peace talks http://www.themedialine.org/more-from-the-media-line/tensions-egypt-saudi-arabia-grow-syria/ Tensions Between Egypt and Saudi Arabia Grow Over Syria
Assad’s Sham Election In 2014, Assad did not win an election. If political opponents of Assad would be sent to jail for saying the sieges or barrel bombs are a war crime, then the electoral process was rigged to shut out Assad’s real opponents. Supporters of Assad, whether they are powerful nations such as Russia and Iran, or individuals, invariably rely on the 2014 Presidential “elections” in Syria as the cornerstone of the regime’s legitimacy. Assad himself often points to these “elections” to buttress his claim as the country’s rightful, legitimate leader. But the truth is that, like all previous elections under the Assad family’s control, the 2014 “elections” and Assad’s “victory” were rigged and illegitimate.
Selective outrage at mass oppression, genocide and crimes against humanity that depends on who's perpetrating them and which superpower is the principal backer isn't moral or principled; it's empty, cynical posturing. Why the silence? What’s outrageous in Gaza is no less so in Aleppo Why the silence? What’s outrageous in Gaza is no less so in Aleppo. The United States and Israel are bombing an ancient city, targeting hospitals and slaughtering children, women and other non-combatants. All across Europe, ordinary people are appalled. Protest marches to the US and Israeli embassies attract hundreds of thousands of people, denouncing these crimes against humanity. But what if the perpetrators are Russia and the Assad regime in Syria? Protests against the bombing of Aleppo, such as that in Dublin last weekend, have been small and muted. Why are Russian war crimes so much less obnoxious than American atrocities?...
Morality and hypocrisy over Palestine and Syria "If your support for Palestine entails justifying Assad's mass slaughter, you are no friend to Palestinians or Syrians" “How can we campaign for Palestinian freedom and deny that fundamental right to others?” the writer asks, responding that “we support them not because they are Palestinian or Syrian, but because they are civilians facing brutal regimes, backed by powerful allies, for daring to seek what others take for granted: to live freely and with dignity.”
Lets forget that the 2014 Syrian elections had observers from 30 countries, including the two largest non-aligned democracies in the world, namely India and Brazil; Lets forget that the results of those elections are consistent with numerous Western polls taken before and since; Anyone who seriously believes and pretends that they are standing up for the rights of the Syrian people would presumably endorse the idea that the Syrian people should be given the chance to decide if they want Assad or not? Yet, the opponents of the idea of letting the Syrian people decide the issue in elections monitored by the UN are those same folks who want to pretend to speak on behalf of the Syrians but who in fact are nothing more than sponsors and supporters of criminals, traitors, terrorists, and mercenaries who have plunged Syria in such bloodbath and mayhem!
Elections in places like Syria or Egypt (other than the one free election they had several years ago) are meaningless. Given what had happened since, it would not surprise me that many Syrians, maybe even a majority, would be OK with going back to how it was pre-civil war. A police state is better than a war zone. And given that you will turn a discussion of rain in Scotland into a treatise about Iran I am going to jump ahead of you. While the system in Iran is better, you still have the issues of (i) the Guardian Council having to approve all candidates for office and (ii) how much power the elected president really has as opposed to the Supreme Leader.
Elections in Syria used to be meaningless, but not the one in 2014. I can explain that, but ultimately my point is if that election was meaningless, hold a meaningful one! Under UN supervision. Which is exactly what Iran and Russia have endorsed, and which the supporters of 'democracy' in Syria oppose because they say Assad shouldn't be able to run!