I really can’t say anything better in response to so many of you than Sean Lee, a blogger living in Lebanon already has:
[I]f your opinion of Syria is actually an opinion about the United
States, I have no interest in hearing it, and it’s probably safe to
say that most Syrians (or at least all of the ones I know) who are
faced with the business end of the regime’s ordinance don’t either. I
can’t think of a single Syrian who’s willing to get killed so you can
flaunt your anti-imperialist street cred from the comfort of your
local coffee shop.
Well, Israel’s strategy is closer to geographic genocide than it is to ‘ethnic cleansing’. That nation almost acts like a reverse foodie – IE, if it’s local, klll it. I’m sorry, their craziness makes me need to laugh: bwahahahahahaha!
I don’t know what else you can call the process by which Israel seizes Palestinian land and drives the Palestinians into ever-shrinking enclaves while systematically starving them and depriving them of the means of a full life. I would call most of the actions of the Arabs against Israel “self-defense.”
I doubt there are many Syrians willing to die to fulfill the US/Israeli goal of turning Syria into a failed state like Libya or Iraq that can’t threaten Israel hegemony. This is why they have had to import so many Qatari-financed fanatics to do the fighting for the “rebels.” When America is lining up for an all-out assault on Syria and calling for the arming of Al-Qaeda fanatics to fight a proxy war, we need to talk about America.
I can’t think of a single Syrian who’s willing to get killed so you can
flaunt your anti-imperialist street cred from the comfort of your
local coffee shop.
Did Sean Lee say that from the comfort of a coffee shop or hunched down in an uncomfortable ditch?
How about we give them options, and ask them what they want as individuals, rather than punishing them collectively?
Generally, our foreign policy stops at ‘creating refugees and disgruntled foreigners, turning a number of farmers and artists into ‘terrorists’’
For a BILLION dollars we can offer up a whole bunch of sustainable eco-villiages, planned communities, or even use a private corporation to buy land and give them their own self-governing city-state. Put a couple of basic mind-hacks on top (places that invite only peaceful people will be magnets for people who would rather get away from war, etc.) and so on.
They’re PEOPLE, and each one is a person. Most are at last as capable We should give each person the choice of a suite of options.
I bet ‘Death and poverty, please!’ won’t be the most popular choice, especially among the children.
It’s not just good, it’s the only option if we’re going to interfere at all. Just because throwing war at strangers for their imagined benefit is considered socially acceptable doesn’t mean it’s ever been okay.
The best long term approach I’ve got is what I’ve been trying to put in the co-opernation site that turned into TL;DR for too many people, so obviously the ‘hiring people into productive citizenship’ angle is still untapped, so we could use help there. And a person’s a person, right? A refugee who wants the sort of life we talk about there is by definition a prime candidate, since it’s all about the motivation. There’s a few mind-hacks inherent in the design.
Maybe if somebody actually knows a group that’s trying to set up a sustainable community but needs more people to get some economy of scale they could connect a group with that or another good vision? Many of them also have that ‘every human’ approach . . . and really the ones who gravitate to that sort of thing are the ones that deserve it, right?
Barring that, maybe get some people to get some numbers together and start trying to spread them everywhere or get them in the hands of Cory, Xeni and the rest. Maybe there’s a good meme somebody could put together, right? I’m not terribly artistic but I live outside the box and occasionally can tighten words well enough to make some good zingers. Use our best words and make them better. Ideas should be free, I think.
I wrote carelessly. I was thinking of it from the angle of the parent dealing with a badly-behaved kid. The USA seems to think it’s the parent of the world.
This is in no small amount about Russia. They supply Syria. To take out Syria’s air force (easy targets) means that Russia will be enticed to more actively intervene, to keep the contract money flowing. If Russia intervenes, the possibility increases that radical Islamists (Al Quaeda) will not be allowed to assume power when Assad topples. But there’s risk, because there are lots of groups with simultaneous, conflicting interests in Syria.
Syria is a Mexican standoff. It’s Assad, the radicals, the non-radicals, Russia and the United States, all facing off. We are weighing whether a push-button attack will entice the others to act, or if anything we do will blow up right back in our faces.
Personally, I say no attack. I’m a peacenik. I’m for humanitarian aid, all the way. War is rich guys playing Risk and moving the pieces around. I hate that game. It means innocent people suffer and die. So I hate war and don’t want us to get involved. But I think the stage has already been set, and we’re probably going to wring our hands for another couple days then do it. Sad. Mainly sad for the innocent people just trying to live.
I have said it before and will likely say it again. It is not about you or what hat you wear. Try not having an opinion for 24 hours and see how much difference it makes.
