By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is “KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.”
In his Orwellian September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations, President Obama said that if democracy had existed in Syria, there never would have been a revolt against Assad. By that, he meant ISIL. Where there is democracy, he said, there is no violence of revolution.
This was his threat to promote revolution, coups and violence against any country not deemed a “democracy.” In making this hardly veiled threat, he redefined the word in the international political vocabulary. Democracy is the CIA’s overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran to install the Shah. Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan’s secular government by the Taliban against Russia. Democracy is the Ukrainian coup behind Yats and Poroshenko. Democracy is Pinochet. It is “our bastards,” as Lyndon Johnson said with regard to the Latin American dictators installed by U.S. foreign policy.
A century ago the word “democracy” referred to a nation whose policies were formed by elected representatives. Ever since ancient Athens, democracy was contrasted to oligarchy and aristocracy. But since the Cold War and its aftermath, that is not how U.S. politicians have used the term. When an American president uses the word “democracy,” he means a pro-American country following U.S. neoliberal policies. No matter if a country is a military dictatorship or the government was brought in by a coup (euphemized as a Color Revolution) as in Georgia or Ukraine. A “democratic” government has been re-defined simply as one supporting the Washington Consensus, NATO and the IMF. It is a government that shifts policy-making out of the hands of elected representatives to an “independent” central bank, whose policies are dictated by the oligarchy centered in Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt.
Given this American re-definition of the political vocabulary, when President Obama says that such countries will not suffer coups, violent revolution or terrorism, he means that countries safely within the U.S. diplomatic orbit will be free of destabilization sponsored by the U.S. State Department, Defense Department and Treasury. Countries whose voters democratically elect a government or regime that acts independently (or even that simply seeks the power to act independently of U.S. directives) will be destabilized, Syria style, Ukraine style or Chile style under General Pinochet. As Henry Kissinger said, just because a country votes in communists doesn’t mean that we have to accept it. It is the style of “color revolutions” sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy.
In his United Nations reply, Russian President Putin warned against the “export of democratic revolution,” meaning by the United States in support of its local factotums. ISIL is armed with U.S. weapons and its soldiers were trained by U.S. armed forces. In case there was any doubt, President Obama reiterated before the United Nations that until Syrian President Assad was removed in favor of one more submissive to U.S. oil and military policy, Assad was the major enemy, not ISIL.
“It is impossible to tolerate the present situation any longer,” President Putin responded. Likewise in Ukraine. “What I believe is absolutely unacceptable,” he said in his CBS interview on 60 Minutes, “is the resolution of internal political issues in the former USSR Republics, through “color revolutions,” through coup d’états, through unconstitutional removal of power. That is totally unacceptable. Our partners in the United States have supported those who ousted Yanukovych. … We know who and where, when, who exactly met with someone and worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructors were. We know everything.”
Where does this leave U.S.-Russian relations? I hoped for a moment that perhaps Obama’s harsh anti-Russian talk was to provide protective coloration for an agreement with Putin in their 5 o’clock meeting. Speak one way so as to enable oneself to act in another has always been his modus operandi, as it is for many politicians. But Obama remains in the hands of the neocons.
Where will this lead? There are many ways to think outside the box. What if Putin proposes to air-lift or ship Syrian refugees – up to a third of the population – to Europe, landing them in Holland and England, obliged under the Shengen rules to accept them?
Or what if he brings the best computer specialists and other skilled labor for which Syria is renowned to Russia, supplementing the flood of immigration from “democratic” Ukraine?
What if the joint plans announced on Sunday between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Russia to jointly fight ISIS – a coalition that US/NATO has refrained from joining – comes up against U.S. troops or even the main funder of ISIL, Saudi Arabia?
The game is out of America’s hands now. All it is able to do is wield the threat of “democracy” as a weapon of coups to turn recalcitrant countries into Libyas, Iraqs and Syrias.
63 comments
Comments are closed.
“We know who and where, when, who exactly met with someone and worked with those who ousted Yanukovich, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructors were. We know everything.”
That sounds like a pretty clear threat to the Democratic front runner for the Presidency to come to terms, or else. While it is good to see someone threatening accountability, it would be nice if it didn’t have to come from Russia.
Accountability will not come from an Administration that made Victoria Nuland an Assistant Secretary of State in the first place.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/
~
No doubt, but I was kind of hoping that the progressive caucuses might make more of a fuss than they did over our “the king is dead, long live the king”, foreign policy. That is, after all, what got many of them elected. It never ceases to amaze me how fast candidates become coopted by the establishment once elected.
The establishment has files on them.
Hudson’s piece reads as a prelude to war.
This post is nothing but tinfoil-hattery. I can assure you, the US is shedding no tears for the pain Russia is about to inflict on itself by putting Russian boots on the ground in Damascus.
Thanks so much. We’ll just take your assurance for it. There’s no need to trouble us NC readers with evidence or a logical argument, is there?
Did a latter-day Charlie Wilson tell you that? I have no doubt that the stuck-in-the-past meatheads in DC have a wet dream over just such a scenario. I also have no doubt that Russia (as well as China and Iran) have no intention of falling into such a trap. The ongoing peeling-off of Euro/NATO lemmings is as clear indication as any that the US will end up either backing off or try to go it alone. The latter is a recipe for disaster, as even Obama realizes. So right now it’s all posturing for domestic consumption, behind the scenes things are a bit different as certain recent incidents would seem to indicate. But hey, we can dream the Russophobic/Slavophobic dreams, amiright?
Yeah, my reading too.
I also have to point out how ironic it is that a country stuck in several unresolved conflicts that continue to drain resources and produce instability years later is hoping that, somehow, their opponents get suckered into a quagmire in a country they are already stuck in.
So, sure, I guess that’s what they’re hoping for. Makes about as much sense as anything else they’ve come up with recently (including direct confrontation with Russia just to enrich a few ME and corporate pals.)
And “tinfoil hattery” is generally used as things not accepted and proven. Which part of this isn’t proven? US toppling democracies and installing dictators who we then call democratic? That we have less pull on the international stage than anytime in our lives? That the other bloc has a serious advantage in this conflict, and going forward? These are all facts…
Give Nick a little credit now; there is a shred of cleverness to the comment(!). He’s trying to plant a big lie inside of the framing – namely, that the rise of IS is a legitimate rebellion within Syria.
When of course the truth is the opposite. It’s IS that is the foreign invader; Russian boots on the ground would be working with the recognized government, not against it. Indeed, the comparison might inadvertantly be quite apt. Syria looks more and more like a marker on the road from Pax Americana to a multipolar world. Just like the Soviet-Afghan war was a marker on the road from the Cold War to Pax Americana.
Perhaps another incident is a better comparison. Maybe Syria is our Suez moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Nick,
Tinfoil-hattery, interesting choice of words. So who’s conspiracy are you talking about?
As to your assurance; well it would be a bit more convincing if you were to unveil your identity so that I know who speaks for all of us (US),
Oh, crikey Nick.
What codswaddle!
As near as I can tell, the US Foreign Policy establishment is driven by think tanks that are funded by oil companies, Saudis, Israelis, and others for whom ‘putting America first’ means covering their own asses and letting the US military (and well-compensated military contractors) do all the heavy lifting.
As if that weren’t bad enough, we also have the R2Pers (“responsibility to protect”), whose hypocrisy could gag a maggot — the R2Pers seem to think it is urgent to solve every other nation’s (and corporations) problems — indeed, so very urgent that kids from Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Idaho, etc should all be sent into harm’s way in distant lands, whose languages the R2Pers don’t happen to speak, whose histories the R2Pers are ignorant about, and whose cultural nuances are unknown to the R2Pers.
IOW, Washington DC appears to be awash in egoism and careerism.
I think that Russians have managed to figure that out.
I find it rather amusing that this is the best the Democratic establishment can throw at posts pointing out the idiocy of imperialism. How the Obots have fallen.
@Nick, whether intended or not, you sound like a CalPers/CalStrs board member…”Leave the Bully in the China shop Alone!”
High five!
It isn’t just the lies and abject stupidity that keeps the U.S. constantly at war, it is our alliances with repressive dictators, like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that is leading the U.S. toward confrontation with civilization, and Russia. Not so much a leader, the U.S. has become the militant vassal of KSA. The undying irony is that it was wealthy Saudis who started the most recent mess on 9/11/01. This will not end until the U.S. turns its back on the KSA.
Or KSA self-destructs.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/collapse-saudi-arabia-inevitable-1895380679
Russia has always maintained that the Ukranian revolution was CIA-backed if not -instigated. It’s a shrewd move given the US’s track record with regime change. No one will ever be sure if the new Ukranian government is entirely legitimate or not.
What really gets terrifying is when you take a step back and realize that the 1800s imperiaist regime never really changed. When you start talking about “superpower” or “regional power” you are no longer talking about power in the military or economic sense. These countries regularly meddle in, if not directly control, the politics in other countries. It honestly does not matter to the United States or Russia or any other country what your government chooses to do as long as it does what the other country wants.
The Kiev rump failed to meet constitutional standards for impeachment even with the threats of the mob, and with elections just three or four months away in September following the Maidan event, there was no practical reason for a forceful removal of the government. Third party or not, the Kiev rump government has the same legality as the Confederacy. The “separatists” and the Crimeans saw their country dissolved by a mob, not an election with a regularly scheduled one on the horizon. The Ukraine was not a case where they would be waiting four years under a tyrant. If they had made it to September with electioneering issues, then the situation would be different, but as the current cabal didn’t do that, they are akin to Jefferson Davis just with a better hand.
Americans as celebrators of the Declaration of Independence should note it is not legitimate to change established governing customs because your side might lose there has to be a litany of grievances with no possibility of redress. By Mr. Jefferson’s standards, this country should have nothing to do with the Kiev government until the concerns of the separatists have been addressed. Unfortunately the use of law doesn’t exist in this country.
Obamacrats rhetoric and behavior (policy) are both reminiscent and escalation of Bushco in so many ways.
Wasn’t it Bush Jr. who said something along the line of “Democracies don’t attack each other”?
It’s just the old Democratic peace theory. It’s utter garbage. I’m sure 43 said it because he repeated the last thing he heard anyway. World War I is pitched as a battle between old world tyrannical such as Germany (with universal male suffrage for its power base) versus shining beacons of democracy such as the UK and France which weren’t quite democracies yet. Hitler sort of won a national election. Churchill was selected in a secret meeting when Chamberlain had to step down. So where is the democratic line? It’s always been subjective test.
Of course, all governments rule by the consent of the governed.
Excellent and brave essay.
The title of Hudson’s book no doubt looks interesting. On the other hand considering: “his latest book” seems to demand quite a bit of patience. ;)
That said, not quite familiar with matters around here? Did I get this right, Yves posted an article by Hudson?
And no, I am not familiar with Hudson, and not too well with Yves or the blog either.
*****
“It is a government that shifts policy-making out of the hands of elected representatives to an “independent” central bank, whose policies are dictated by the oligarchy centered in Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt.”
reminds me of the fact that the last time I stumbled across a critique of or an argument against independent central banks was here.
May I ask a question as economical nitwit?
How exactly does this independence, and independence alone, make the rich richer? Which I guess should work as a weak substitute for the oligarchs. No?
Michael Hudson has a long history of writing in detail about these subjects.
SuperImperialism (1972), Global Fracture (1977). Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992, updated 2009) and the recent Bubble and Beyond
Similar in nature to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine.
Yves Smith is the reason we are all here.
Central banks seem to have a history of favoring large financial institutions which is why there have been various proposals for ‘QE for the people’.
Can’t discern if your interest is genuine…if it is, then “his latest book”, as well as the others mentioned by fm, are well worth the time and effort.
“How exactly does this independence, and independence alone, make the rich richer?”
Loaded questions, usually get ignored, as they should…otoh and again, if the interest is genuine, you may consider clarifying your assumptions and context prior.
Alejandro,
would a full disclosure help? In spite of the fact I have close to no knowledge in economics,apart from a special degree for people working in the field of arts, where incidentally enough I found law much more interesting. Maybe since I come from the humanities? And law and its specific cases, to the extend I grasped, could be translated to us ordinary people? Quite possibly. Beyond that I have to admit I have a degree of prejudice against economics… Or maybe vulture economics, economical laws without protection for the weak, from the top of my head.
Sorry if it felt like a loaded question, it surely wasn’t one. I am a self-declared nitwit on many matters.
But since you force me, yes, the idea of financing public losses with taxpayers money felt odd, and yes, I basically support the Occupy movement. On the other hand, see above.
In that case, you’ll find NC invaluable and unrivalled. If you visit often enough, you may notice a strong and healthy skepticism with economics. Neglected mentioning ECONNED by Yves Smith-I often take it for granted that everyone that comments here has read it.
Actually, Leander, the vaunted “independence” of the central banks of the US, Great Britain, and Deutschland is largely a fiction. And this very fiction has the effect of hyper-empowering both the financial sector and the oligarchs with whom the financial sector exists in a symbiotic relationship; in point of fact, these “independent” central banks are largely mere creatures of the financial sector and the symbiont oligarchs. The carefully cultivated appearance of independence is a sham under whose cover the truth about how central bank policies cater slavishly to the interests of the financial sector and oligarchs remains unrecognized.
Careerist movement back and forth between the central banks and the financial sector (along with the academic and think tank communities in which neo-liberalism reigns supreme as the only accepted school of economics) facilitates the group-think that culminates in the intellectual capture of the “independent” central banks. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Welcome to Naked Capitalism; our hosts provide us with a rich spread of knowledge and analysis, rather as Col. Lang does at his blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis, at which I have also read your posts.
In United States administrative law, the word “independent” has an interesting meaning: it refers to an executive regulatory agency that is “independent of the president,” in the sense that the president cannot easily remove the head of the agency. The Fed is independent in this sense: the president cannot easily fire Chair Yellen or any other member of the Fed’s board of governors.
An agency can be “independent” in this sense and still completely captured by the industry it purports to regulate.
The Federal Reserve (the FED) is as federal as Federal Express and has no reserves. The FED is a private corporation that is owned, for the most part, by the major Wall Street Banks. So in effect the Wall Street banks are supervised by an entity they own. The FED is independent of the government, but not Wall Street and the oligarchs. Of course, the government is also controlled by Wall Street so it come out to the same thing.
*Sigh*
The Fed is NOT owned by banks.
Banks hold shares of non-voting preferred stock in regional Feds. The Board of Governors, which approves the hiring of all regional Fed presidents, is most assuredly part of the Federal government. The regional Feds are more like a nasty public-private partnership with a bad governance structure (as in the regional Fed boards on which banks have some, and I stress some, director seats, cannot hire or fire ANYONE at a regional Fed, they do not approve budgets or other policy actions. Their role is strictly advisory, although the regional Feds, being more than a little captured cognitively, give that advice a fair bit of weight.
To give an idea how much power those banks you incorrectly deem to be owners have: Congress is looking at passing a bill to cut the dividends of the all but small banks how hold shares in the Fed by 75%. Pray tell, can Congress tell a private company to cut its dividends?
Hi Yves : I don’t see any Fed “independence” in action and haven’t for quite some time.
OK Yves. Like the lady in orthopedic shoes, I stand corrected. :-)
thanks for the welcome, JJ. Seems it makes sense to use the same aka everywhere. I’ll pay attention to your aka from now on, to the extend I’ll notice it.
I did have my struggles with Pat Lang, the worst one offline, really. But I also respect him deeply by now. Meaning: I wouldn’t dare to claim I understand the one special severe disagreement. Or for that matter, why we clashed at that point.
“Independence” in this sense just means “privately owned” as opposed to publicly and under some form of democratic control. See: “Wall Street is our Main Street — love ’em or hate ’em.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/new-york-fed-kathryn-wylde-conflict_n_933729.html
hey, this is great. An Edit button? That’s a really rare post-sent-feature . ;)
Ah yes, the notoriously secular and definitely legitimate PDPA government of Afghanistan ‘overthrown’ by the US. Is that a joke? Has Michael Hudson ever read a book about the Afghan civil war, a highly complex, decade-plus asymmetrical conflict with constantly shifting actors and allegiances? Reducing it to a narrative about US imperialism is intellectually dishonest on its own (there is no evidence that the US ever provided material support to the Taliban – everything from HRW to internal US documents to the academic consensus to journalistic accounts such as Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban (2001?) contradicts that claim), nevermind that the Khalqi-Parcham government was a Soviet puppet government and an imperial construct in its own right. Check out any works by Barnett Rubin (U Nebraska?) or Thomas Barfield (B.U.)
The Mujahideen debacle (Which is both a separable and conjoined issue to the rise of the Taliban depending on time frame) was a result of poor US oversight of Pakistan, an internal US policy failure (no accountability or human intelligence on the ground) and of course intimately tied to the USSR’s campaign of genocide in Afghanistan. Yes, the CIA gave the ISI $2-3bil in loose change to funnel into the Mujahideen (which were not united in any meaningful sense at any point in time, and frequently factionalized over pork-barrel / ethnic / tribal issues), however, the US policy at the time was hands-off with regard to how that money was spent, and if you read Peter Tomsen’s book about his time as HW’s special envoy it becomes quite clear that the blinders were on in Washington with regard to what was actually happening there on the ground.
Here’s a quick and outdated overview for anyone who would like to educate themselves about this conflict: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm
I understand that the Russophilia on this blog runs strongly but the inhumane destruction visited upon the Afghan people by the USSR’s geopolitics is and was sickening, imperialistic and functionally a genocide. How am I supposed to take any of this polemic seriously when the author can’t even be bothered to read about a conflict? This is a prime example of ideology driving discourse. There are plenty of fair-game examples to call out the US’s short-sighted and globally destructive foreign policy. I do not see the point in allowing ideology to cover for misinformation and misrepresentation of historical facts – that’s the playbook of neoliberal hustlers.
“…the notoriously secular and definitely legitimate PDPA government of Afghanistan ‘overthrown’ by the US. Is that a joke?”
Umm, Max buddy, where in this article did Hudson say such a thing? Right, he didn’t. But thanks for the Afghan history lesson anyway.
“Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan’s secular government by the Taliban against Russia.”
It’s right there in the opening paragraph, and the accusation is rather explicit.
That’s an awkward sentence to be sure, Max – I puzzled over that one myself. I’m more in favor of this extract from Putin’s speech at the UN:
“. . .We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress. . .”
Sort of ‘puts paid’ to trying to equate the Russian Federation with the Soviet Union, doesn’t it?
Is that the same HRW that can’t find evidence of Kiev purposefully targeting and killing civilians? The same HRW that has never said a thing about the US support for murderous regimes in Latin America? Or about US war crimes? Yeah OK, I will take their word on how Afghanistan went down, over the US’ proven track record of destroying any and all left-leaning Third World governments from 1950 onward.
Attack one of my sources, fine – the others still exist in far greater numbers. Barnett Rubin is my favorite, his book “Blood on the Doorstep” is excellent.
Is everything part of the US capitalist plot or is there some verifiable source that you will accept without dismissing out of hand? You didn’t even attempt to read the source.
The Afghan government was left leaning in the sense that it was more socially progressive than the population living outside of Kabul, all 80% of the country that the government did not control in fact; and their authoritarian approach to instituting gender equality and abolishing Islam had a disastrous effect on the government’s popularity and tribal credit, which was and is necessary to gain the support of the rural population. Other than that it was your typical post-Stalinist tankie failed experiment in land redistribution and Party education apparatus that only served to create a new class of insular elites & alienating/disenfranchising the majority of the population while hamstringing developmental progress made by actual Afghans in the decades before the Soviets (and eventually Pakistan and the US) got their hands in the pot.
IOW, the Soviets and the US were like peas in a pod. Funny that the “accomplishments” cited by Empire apologists also used to include gender equality and the creation of insular elites. So what’s your point, that the Soviets tried to prop-up their flunkies by force? Pot calling the kettle black, much like 0bama’s speech yesterday. And HRW has often acted in concert with the US to cover up its crimes while hypocritically calling out those who weren’t “our sonzofbiatches.”
That’s plain vanilla propaganda. Or more charitably you are oversimplifying the issue and try to embellish the USA behavior. Which was a horrible crime. Soviets were not that simplistic and attempts to abolish Islam were not supported by Soviets. They tried to create a secular country that’s right but with Islam as a dominant religion.
See http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_soviet_occupation_of_afghanistan=afghanwar_tmln_us_aid_to_islamist_mujaheddin
And how many years Afghan government survived after the USSR dissolved and financial and technical aid disappeared. You need to shred you post and eat it with borsch. It’s a shame.
Great explanation there Max, though it looks like many people in here have a man-crush on Putin.
Stay classy, Nick.
Ah, but: “A man is known by the company he keeps”.
Whatever Putin is besides, he is *not* a friend, ally and global protector of Saudi Arabic Wahhabism!
With friends like that, it is clear o everyone else that you people are circling pretty close to the drain already and we non-USA-nian un-people prefer to not be sucked into your decline via TTIP et cetera.
Hey Nick, the 1990s called. They want their veiled homophobia back.
Max, your comment does not make sense.
All I can say is that this blog is NOT Russiaphilia. That’s name calling. It is not Russiaphilia to note the effect of U.S. foreign policy on bolstering the most right-wing fundamentalist Islamic groups, Latin American right-wing kleptocracies or other dictatorships.
Whatever Soviet oppression was in Afghanistan, it did not back religious extremism. Just the opposite.
Nice to hear a voice from teh US that says what seems to me the truth but that is carefully hidden in Europe, where everybody seems to kiss the shoes of the master Obama.
“It is a government that shifts policy-making out of the hands of elected representatives to an “independent” central bank, whose policies are dictated by the oligarchy centered in Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt.” – Michael Hudson
Says it all. Warfare no longer needs boots on the ground – it is fought through neoliberal policies (economic warfare).
It seems we are seeing something similar in the BOE and UK military response to the Jeremy Corbyn election.
i don’t think Obama’s UN speech was convincing. He was flat and worn out and cliche. After he finally got some scattered applause he seemed to perk up like he was going for more, but the audience was clearly jaded with him. And the back-and-forth between Obama and Putin was a little unconvincing. I get the feeling it’s all theater. When the parties most eager to intervene in Syria for their own interests are the UK and France, who didn’t discuss it at all. And clearly the motive is oil. So this is even more weird in light of Hollande’s UN speech. He raved on about the climate conference in Paris in December and said the only question is, Can human civilization come together in time to prevent our own destruction? He acted like he was at a football rally, juicing up a very bored UN audience with things about as trite as, Yes we can! And it all looked to be so very democratic.
Let’s see: France is bombing the crap out of IS in Syria with all sorts of collateral damage and the ultimate goal is to get a pipeline from the Gulf to Europe for moar energy resources – because very lucrative and profitable and all those funds must then be profitably invested for more profit, etc. Paris is holding the do-or-die climate conference in December because Copenhagen was clearly a “fiasco” and the early PR is about cleaning all the cars off the streets to do a real-time experiment on how well everyone can get around without all those stinking cars. ( So VW’s fraud will be just a passing thing.) And Hollande, never one to let an opportunity slip by, suggested on the UN podium that France would consider making loans to EM countries so they could undertake climate change projects… or yes, even grants! Same old same old.
What’s wrong with any of that? Oh you left out, breaking news, France is opening war crimes inquiry of Assad regime in Syria.
Should’t it open war crimes inquiries into Dubya and Obama first? After all, their crimes predate any Assad may or may not have committed.
“France is bombing the crap out of IS in Syria with all sorts of collateral damage” and you have to ask “What’s wrong with any of that?” Well, indiscriminate aerial bombardment is a war crime, for starters, so there might very well be something wrong with creating all sorts of collateral damage. “France is opening war crimes inquiry of Assad regime in Syria.” But it’s France that’s conducting the aerial bombardment that’s creating all sorts of collateral damage.
Oh, wait, indiscriminate aerial bombardment is only a crime if the law of war is enforced, and France is too big to prosecute.
Nick was probably one of those who screamed about cheese-eating surrender monkeys while stuffing themselves with supersized freedom fries orders.
Ahem. Egypt. Egypt had a brief democracy.
Iran had a very real and true democracy (1955) but it was wiped out by the US.
Lot’s of countries actually have democratic elections but when the people elect someone the US disapproves of, that democracy has to go and is ALWAYS replaced by a dictatorship.
Obama’s a corrupt idiot. Syria is a mess only because the US made it that way, NOT because Assad is a meanie.
It’s possible that Assad is a meanie AND that Syria is a mess because as usual we half assed support people who are just as horrible as him. It isn’t like Saddam wasn’t our great friend before we declared him horrible, terrible awful leader.
The words in their respective UN speeches were very clear. Obomba: “I believe that what is true for America is true for virtually all mature democracies”. Putin: “No one is obliged to conform to a single development model that is considered by someone else as the right one”.
Ask yourself which statement the Founding Fathers of the U.S. would agree with. Yankee go home.
“Hope and change”, baby! The long arc of history bends toward despotism.
This has been a favorite US tactic since the Marines hit Tripoli (anti-piracy myths notwithstanding), took off with the Spanish-American War, went through the roof when the Latin American interventions started in earnest in the 20s, and became our peculiar and cherished institution with the Cold War. Obama is just continuing the tradition.
I’ll give him this- it’s as close to being transparent on our foreign policy as I’ve seen any of his predecessors come.
At least, he’s admitting that our end game has always been first and foremost about our own interests. Now if he’ll only admit that THIS is why the world really hates us. Being selfish and protecting only your own interests at the cost of others is never going to be a winning plan to encourage people to like you or trust you(particularly when you collude behind closed doors to carry out those interests.)
*Sigh* We’re America. We set the bar low when it comes to caring about how others wish to govern themselves, our only criteria is that your leader always consider US interests first(nevermind that they aren’t actually a US leader and should be putting their own inhabitants first.)