Originally posted by ColoradoJens
To the point. Syria. Horrible atrocities against what appear to be civilians. Horrible atrocities against what appear to be government troops.
Hospitals where torture takes place and where doctors die if they speak. First person videos looking out upon the street as a car of thugs pulls up
gets out and rushes YOUR house. And nothing from the US. Not a peep. No UN intervention. Nothing.
First of all, can you post evidence, actual evidence of Syrian police/army killing innocent civilians?
People are being killed no doubt about it, but who is doing the killing? Are the army killing innocent people or defending the country from an
uprising of foreign funded terrorists who are blowing up police stations and shooting people in the street?
You remeber watching when we pulled down the statue of Saddam? - we all remember that absurdist moment in history, right?- the plot had changed from
WMD's to Democracy - and supporting the people of the world who wanted it but were being crushed by tyrants so they could not have it. Many good men
and women have died saying just that, and believing it too.
We fight for oppressed peoples! Now it is in our "interest" to fight not defensive wars, but ones that help implement "democratic" governments.
Except, if you look at the world as a whole, we are actually very picky about the regimes we decide to fight (in the name of democracy). So many cry
out and we look the other way - can't fight EVERY bad regime; we must be careful when choosing the bad guys.
To me, you are speaking some truths but missing the overall picture that guides US foreign policy.
Iraq was never about removing an evil dictator, it was never about helping the people of Iraq. Do you forget Saddam Hussein was an ally at one point-
the USA even providing him support to wage war on Iran.
They intervened in Libya because they wanted hold of the oil, and Gaddafi was not fitting into their idea of a NWO- he wanted to create an African
currency to rival the dollar and euro- they couldn't have that, hence they funded 'rebels' to cause unrest in order to destabilise the country and
then intervene to remove Gaddafi.
There was never any evidence at all that Gaddafi's forces were going round killing innocent people like the MSM argued to justify the NATO campaign.
The evidence is not there.
There was and still is evidence of extreme police brutality and oppression against civilians in Egypt though. Yet remember that Mubarek was the USA
puppet dictator to be Israel's ally for the past 30 years- so the West would never get involved there. They've sat back and watched Egypt fall
apart because it now fits the agenda of further isolating Israel.
I can assure you, Iran is on their hitlist, and one part of the checklist was taking Egypt out of the picture as an ally of Israel. In fact, with the
muslim brotherhood in power Egypt may well even turn against Israel as an enemy!
If we apply the "over throw the tyrant" idea it should be used here. If NATO and the rest of the UN gang can take out Tripoli with such casual
indifference, why not help the poor people of Syria? The silence is sickening and the videos (all the real news I get) are horrific. Playing out
religious differences to further one's agenda is all this really is about - why can't the world see through it? The Saudis are backing the
opposition - for good or their own reasons? Why are we so conditioned to accept this? What happened to us?
With this part you again see some of the truth- the hypocrisy of helping some nations and leaving others. But once you see it is NEVER about helping
other people, you can start to put the pieces together. You only have to look at a map to see the importance of Syria (it's a door way right through
to the Med' sea)- realise that 'intervention' has already started.
When NATO bombed Libya- it didn't help the people, it just sped up the process of removing Gaddafi- the rebels are essentially working for the CIA
and the same rebels in Libya are now in Syria. The intervention has already started in Syria- the end game is to remove the leaders and impose
It's a chess game, whereas they could speed up the process in Libya by dropping bombs and taking out Gaddafi's forces, assisting the rebels, they
can't do that just yet in Syria because the Russians are friends with Assad. So rather than intervene through NATO, they've simply upped the
violence- the country is at war right now- they may not even need to intervene through NATO to achieve their goal, it will just take longer without a
When you talk about 'US' accepting it and sitting back, the people don't get a say in our wars anyway. It's the puppet leaders and the guys
really in charge who make the decisions, the average person wants peace, never be fooled into thinking those in charge act on humanitarian grounds.