09-03-2013, 03:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2013, 03:46 PM by FireIceTalon.)
It seems odd to me that the U.S. only wants to get involved in this conflict now, when it has been going on nearly 3 years. It reeks of imperialism more than it does humanitarian purposes, given its track record and the results of the Iraq War. They say the use of chemical weapons crosses the line, but there is two issues with this:
1. They have no reliable proof or hardline data that Assad has used chemical weapons, much in the same way they were misinformed about Saddam having them back in 2003. It was an excuse to further push the interests of American capital - not because they wanted to liberate the people of Iraq. And even if they did have such data....
2. Hundreds of thousands have already died in the Syrian conflict - and not from chemical weapons, but from bombs, guns, and knives. Why is the US only becoming interested NOW? Was not the use of violence by standard weaponry from Assad enough?
Actually there is a 3rd issue as well, and that is none other than the US media, which has provided an extremely biased and one-sided viewpoint of the entire situation. The actions of Assad are horrible to be sure, but the media pays very little attention to the atrocities committed by the rebels, which are equally violent.
It seems funny to me that back when Iraq was our ally, the US backed Saddam, or at the very least did nothing, when he used chemical weapons on his own people, but now when Assad allegedly does it to a few of his own people (even though most of the people killed in this conflict, again, have been killed by bullets and grenades, not chemical weapons) the US suddenly has a problem with it. The hypocrisy is astounding. I think the real reason is because the US knows that as of now is because Assad's forces have a favorable position in the conflict, and this is unfavorable to the interests of US and Israeli capital. Also, the US has backed many groups that are linked to Al Quada, our sworn enemy - as Eppie already hinted at. In short, screw western media and its unbalanced/biased, hypocritical, half-truth reporting. As was the case with Iraq, we have little interest in actual regime change and humanitarian purposes unless we can use it as an excuse to further US imperialism. The moment we can do that, we send in the good ol' boys and use our lovely bourgeois media system to call it a 'national liberation movement' or some other attractive phrase that the average person will suck up in a 30-second sound byte, and think once again their country is some heroic entity doing a great deed of spreading so-called freedom, democracy and peace around the world, and not a imperialist dictator waving a big stick to make a bunch of corporations and the military industrial complex already wealthier than it is - at the expense of everyone else involved. And when we can't do that, we stay behind the lines and wait for the opportune moment, surprise surprise. My humble, red viewpoint of things.
1. They have no reliable proof or hardline data that Assad has used chemical weapons, much in the same way they were misinformed about Saddam having them back in 2003. It was an excuse to further push the interests of American capital - not because they wanted to liberate the people of Iraq. And even if they did have such data....
2. Hundreds of thousands have already died in the Syrian conflict - and not from chemical weapons, but from bombs, guns, and knives. Why is the US only becoming interested NOW? Was not the use of violence by standard weaponry from Assad enough?
Actually there is a 3rd issue as well, and that is none other than the US media, which has provided an extremely biased and one-sided viewpoint of the entire situation. The actions of Assad are horrible to be sure, but the media pays very little attention to the atrocities committed by the rebels, which are equally violent.
It seems funny to me that back when Iraq was our ally, the US backed Saddam, or at the very least did nothing, when he used chemical weapons on his own people, but now when Assad allegedly does it to a few of his own people (even though most of the people killed in this conflict, again, have been killed by bullets and grenades, not chemical weapons) the US suddenly has a problem with it. The hypocrisy is astounding. I think the real reason is because the US knows that as of now is because Assad's forces have a favorable position in the conflict, and this is unfavorable to the interests of US and Israeli capital. Also, the US has backed many groups that are linked to Al Quada, our sworn enemy - as Eppie already hinted at. In short, screw western media and its unbalanced/biased, hypocritical, half-truth reporting. As was the case with Iraq, we have little interest in actual regime change and humanitarian purposes unless we can use it as an excuse to further US imperialism. The moment we can do that, we send in the good ol' boys and use our lovely bourgeois media system to call it a 'national liberation movement' or some other attractive phrase that the average person will suck up in a 30-second sound byte, and think once again their country is some heroic entity doing a great deed of spreading so-called freedom, democracy and peace around the world, and not a imperialist dictator waving a big stick to make a bunch of corporations and the military industrial complex already wealthier than it is - at the expense of everyone else involved. And when we can't do that, we stay behind the lines and wait for the opportune moment, surprise surprise. My humble, red viewpoint of things.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)