Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Do you want a Democratic, pro-American government or a second Taliban?
Haha, you know, all that moral rhetoric of yours has led us into inadvertently creating Al-Qaeda, reinforcing the 'first'* Taliban, and setting innocent Americans and Europeans into the target sights of terrorists. Your moral rhetoric of Zero accountability has created a vast environment of hate for the injustices from US interventions--ranging from imposing and subsidizing dictatorships to funding and arming extremist rebel groups, who have no desire for spreading "democratic, pro-American governance."
*
There already is a 'second', in Pakistan--distinct from the Afghani Taliban, and guess who's causing them to take up arms? The US.
Admitting to the costs of past and current pattern of US intervention is difficult, but it must be done. Otherwise, the US will continue to needlessly aggravate foreign populations of which we hardly understand and will endlessly lose not only American citizens and soldiers but also those citizens and soldiers of our Allies.
If you wish to be a reckless, to be uncaring about more lives ruined or destroyed, then don't support foreign intervention.
This is recklessly stupid of you, BBS, not me. You haven't spoken about any specific facet of Syria or the fight there. You just don't know what you're talking about and espousing generalized opinions about the middle east and war. I'm sure that you're sincere, but the problem is that you still don't know anything about Syria.
Again remember everyone:
Without foriegn intervention, there would be no United States of America. At all. French ships won the Revolutionary War for us. Our history begins with foriegn intervention. Isolationism only helps the oppressor. That means that there is an inherit moral predicament that comes with standing by and watching people be slaughtered.
Anyhoo- If you want to admit the costs and pattern of US military intervention then let's f-ing do it.
WWI - USA loved like all hell in all Westernized nations but those defeated in Central Europe. And actually, they're not really begrudging.
WWII - USA WORLD HEROES LOVED EVERYWHERE, we demolished our tanks and planes and really liberated people, when we could have occupied them forever and ruled the world. We rebuilt our enemies economies.
KOREA- US LOVED LIKE ALL F*CKING HELL in South Korea to this day.
VIETNAM - total disaster, Isolationist attitudes prevail in the USA
First Gulf War - US follows UN rules for liberation of Iraq, LOVED LIKE ALL HELL IN KUWAIT, Middle East
AFGHANISTAN - Total disaster, war run by corporations and incompetent civilian leaders
IRAQ - Virtual disaster, incompetently run by corporations and terrible civilian leadership. Iraqi's say Iraq is still a better place to live today.*
Read Coyne's After War. Teach yourself to understand the political process.
(lol about blaming it on corporations. The poor government had nothing to do with it! Please, no scapegoats).
Also, most of your claims in capitals are false. Ever traveled outside of this country? Ever talked to ex-pats about those places? Please. You're confusing the rhetoric of various politicians with the actual words of those citizens. Stop doing that.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Not every fight is the same. And you isolationists need to accept that. The worst wars that we ever fought in were the ones under the Bush Administration, because they were run by total idiots and corporations. The Afgahni people didn't ask us to come. The Iraqi people didn't ask us to come. But the Syrian people are begging for relief. Your other words are just ignorant and senseless. The rebels are fighting a dictator; the Rebels are fighting for a Democracy. The US has been helping the FSA specifically because they have a chance to win, and because they are non-sectarian, and non-religious. They are made of Christians and Muslims. They are physically fighting with al-Nustra, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations. They want a Democracy. They want freedom.
Syria has traditionally been a country where people from all different sects and religions have lived peacefully together. There is absolutely 0 reason to suspect that the FSA would bring about Sharia Law, a military dictatorship, or anything negative at all. Syria is closer to Bosnia or Turkey than Iraq.
That's not my assumption, so whatever you've hinged upon that strawman falls apart.
You don't care about outcomes--except for the old tired imagined one of Freedom, Democracy, and the End to Conflict (which hardly happens in reality, and the relative 'success' is lackluster). Your moral rhetoric obviates that need to understand, which is dangerous, and you neglect to mention alternatives. You only harp about intervention (militarily too) because you prevent yourself from viewing alternatives. If you read more, then you'd get a wider perspective.
Good luck.
More importantly, why ignore the following:
Haha, you know, all that moral rhetoric of yours has led us into inadvertently creating Al-Qaeda, reinforcing the 'first'* Taliban, and setting innocent Americans and Europeans into the target sights of terrorists. Your moral rhetoric of Zero accountability has created a vast environment of hate for the injustices from US interventions--ranging from imposing and subsidizing dictatorships to funding and arming extremist rebel groups, who have no desire for spreading "democratic, pro-American governance."
If you don't see the pattern of US military intervention, then it's obvious how your hypotheses frame your conclusions. You need to update, son.