Stop trying to align yourself away from Obama. You're both nationalistic , conservative and in favor of killing foreigners by the thousands, except he actually has.

Obama isn't nationalistic...

He's the president, that's one of the most nationalistic/patriotic things you can be , besides a Uncle Sam cosplayer or a G.I circa 1942.

Well, he's changed his outlooks since, but in 2009, he got a lot of hate for not being nationalist, for "denying America's heart and soul" (I think Mike Huckabee said this) for saying something like "I believe in American Exceptionalism, just as I strongly suspect the Brits believe in British Exceptionalism, and the Greeks in Greek Exceptionalism.".

MGSB: I think your confusing "patriotic" and "lucrative".

I believe that Obama is as patriotic as Hitler was Zionist.

I used to be a sort of war hawk (I believed the US should intervene as much as is possible.)

My opinions have greatly changed, though.

This was exactly me before 2012. The one thing that I hoped Obama would actually do was be more non-interventionist than the Neocons and War-Hawks that were still pulling the strings after the fall of communism. I remember being (falsely and sadly I regret it) an ardent supporter and defender of the Iraq Invasion and defending Bush's Middle East Policy and War on Terror. I was naive to think regime change could work and that we could spend our way to setting up democracy in the Middle East. All it got us was a strong Military-Industrial Complex, a Totalitarian Police State through the Patriot Act and creation of the DHS and NSA, and an even more entrenched War Hawk coalition within the Democratic and Republican Parties.

America's foundation is as a non-interventionist state and we've strayed away from that. We have no interest in arming Ukraine or sending missiles to the Baltics. We have no interest in preventing Russia via a no-fly zone from helping to defeat terrorists. We have no interest in prodding a conflict with China by sending warships to the South China Sea. There is very little damage that anybody can do to the USA militarily due to our geographic position and military might. When Obama came to office, I had hoped that he would end the old ways of foreign policy and bring an end to the power of Neo-Cons. But he turned out to be interventionist himself - in Libya, in Syria, in Ukraine - and that is one of the reasons I turned to Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan as my political and philosophical sources of thought.

Edited 2/6/2016 04:24:18

I used to lean very heavily towards interventionism. However, over the past few years I've come to realize that throwing away so many of our own resources trying to solve the problems of other countries is really stupid. If we focused our military just on protecting U.S soil we'd save a lot of cash that could be spent in other areas.

However, we also have to avoid becoming head-in-the-sand isolationists who ignore what's going on around them. As with most things, a moderate and balanced approach is needed when it comes to foreign policy.

To begin with, we have to understand the root cause of the Syrian Civil War. It was not Assad slaughtering his citizens that led to rebels, the FSA was organized by the nearby Sunni countries. Saudi Arabia and Turkey especially, and within weeks there was NATO planes flying illegally into Syrian airspace aiding and assisting them. There's numerous leaked recordings, videos and documents of Turkish and Saudi involvement in the war and the fact they think ISIS is a tool that can be manipulated. The whole "Assad used gas on citizens!" is a complete lie that's been debunked. The Turkish government in particular has been extremely involved, Saudi would be more but they're busy in Yemem. This is not an opinion, this is a well-documented fact. The Western coalition funds the FSA, but these are not "moderate" rebels like you hear so many politicians preach it. It's a fact that they work alongside ISIS, sell weapons cheaply to ISIS/Al-Qaeda and they themselves kill civilians indiscriminately. Once again, this is not an opinion but a fact. There's hundreds of videos of the FSA killed civilians, strangely not that many of the Syrian army. Weird how that goes, huh? The FSA itself is a bunch of factions, it's not a well-organized group in the first place and their objectives are fairly unclear other than overthrow Assad and help ISIS.

There's historical feuds between these Sunni and Shi'a countries, but even putting aside that there's extremely geopolitical reasons why countries like Turkey are so involved. The Kurds. Or better yet known as a people with tens of millions but no country, who've been committing terrorist attacks in Turkey and fighting in Syria/Iraq for Kurdistan. Their country, not a zone in Iraq that they're "allowed" to be automated. We're talking a country they control, which takes a chunk out of Iraq/Syria/Turkey and is called Kurdistan. This is extremely hard for Turkey since they see the Kurds as terrorists that're willing to do pretty much anything indiscriminately to make this a reality. The PKK (Kurdish group in Turkey) has committed terrorism, while they have different goals they do work together with the Syrian group of Kurds. Turkey is deathly scared of Kurdistan becoming a reality, it's a two-way road and Turkey has committed atrocities against the Kurdish people. Basically, since the Kurds are already autonomous in Iraq and if they win in Syria they'll be practically guaranteed a slice of land... all eyes will be pointed towards Turkey.

These paragraphes is mostly taking some extreme speculations (but possible, but unproven) and literally saying that it is 100% true. Could you at least source your things?

"everyone as human earns the right to move from their country if they want to."
Says who? I don't believe that anyone should be able to go anywhere they want. They should stay there and fix their problems, not give them to us.

This is a bad mentality, it's not "their" problem. It's their government's problem, and it's some rebels' problem, which is now literally hurting just about everyone in the country. As human, you earn the right not to be killed. And the problems given to "us" is extremely relatively little.

This is a bad mentality, it's not "their" problem. It's their government's problem, and it's some rebels' problem,

"Their" government is "their" problem. Syrians are citizens and thus responsible for their government's policies and actions. We cannot assume responsibility for an internal civil war that we had nothing to do with.

You've caused the deaths of thousands, because you're American.

shut up Major General Smedley Butler. I realize you hate patriotism and Western exceptionalism, but don't blame proud patriots for people dying.

"Their" government is "their" problem. Syrians are citizens and thus responsible for their government's policies and actions. We cannot assume responsibility for an internal civil war that we had nothing to do with.

No, "their" government is not their problem. I can't stop my government from killing me, and I definitely do not think I am responsible for my own death if the government kills me. If I was responsible, tell me, how should I go on, doing what is constitutionally legal, without getting killed by the government for dissent? Even in a perfectly democratic country where every vote counted and anyone could become leader, and so on, there's still going to be 1to50% folk who will not like it, and did what they could against it, but failed. What do you suggest to do there? I most certainly think that denizens should not be held accountable for their government's deeds. And this war is a great part America's responsibility, from misdeeds in Iraq to directly training the Mashriq and other rebel groups.

Jai said Syrians are responsible for their governments, so that applies to Americans. And Americans are apparently fine with thousands being killed.

I don't actually believe this, I'm just applying his logic to Americans.

You've caused the deaths of thousands, because you're American.

So sue me. You're distorting my point.

No, "their" government is not their problem.

You guys must live in bubbles.

This comes from http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/20/bashar-al-assad-the-democratically-elected-president-of-syria/

“Butcher”; “thug”; “dictator”; “murderer”; “savage”; “tyrant”; “oppressor”; “despot”. These are just some of the words that many in the Western world associate with the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, after four years of incessant and hypnotic war propaganda. Democratically elected leader of a sovereign country however, is not a narrative the propagandists want to be circulated. The 2014 election in Syria is an event that the ‘Ministry of Truth’ in the West desperately wants to be memory-holed, as it runs in stark contrast to the narrative they are still trying to inculcate in the minds of the public.

In June of last year, Assad won Syria’s Presidential election with 88.7 percent of the vote, in the country’s first multi-candidate election in almost five decades. In a country which had a population of 17,064,854 in July 2014 (according to an estimate from CIA World Factbook), over 10 million people voted for Assad. 73.42 percent of the Syrian population voted in the election, with voting only taking place in government controlled areas.

A group of international observers emphasized that the election was a valid and democratic expression of the views of the Syrian people. Predictably, Western nations denounced the election as a sham and a fraud, with US Secretary of State, John Kerry, calling the election afarce a few months prior to the vote.

Despite the efforts of the Western establishment to delegitimize the election, it is obvious that Assad has popular support in Syria. The Western narrative – which claims that Assad is an insane dictator who butchers his own people – is illogical, as if this was true, Assad would have been ousted years ago."

The Syrian people elected for Al-Assad and they are thus responsible for the tyranny he has created. I will support to the death the decision of other Muslim countries to depose Al-Assad, but the US has no role and no interest in removing a democratically chosen President simply because he doesn't listen to us.

Edited 2/7/2016 04:02:11

I am not distorting your point, now stop giving weapons to ISIS.

You've lost all validity in this discussion with the use of sarcasm.

Edited 2/7/2016 04:15:06

This is the most a rant thread of mine has been commented on.

You've caused the deaths of thousands, because you're American.

So sue me. You're distorting my point.

He's not distorting it, he's applying it. You are to be held responsible for the tortures at the black sites, responsible for the human rights abuses in Iraq, responsible for killing and killing so many.

You guys must live in bubbles.

This comes from http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/20/bashar-al-assad-the-democratically-elected-president-of-syria/

“Butcher”; “thug”; “dictator”; “murderer”; “savage”; “tyrant”; “oppressor”; “despot”. These are just some of the words that many in the Western world associate with the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, after four years of incessant and hypnotic war propaganda. Democratically elected leader of a sovereign country however, is not a narrative the propagandists want to be circulated. The 2014 election in Syria is an event that the ‘Ministry of Truth’ in the West desperately wants to be memory-holed, as it runs in stark contrast to the narrative they are still trying to inculcate in the minds of the public.

In June of last year, Assad won Syria’s Presidential election with 88.7 percent of the vote, in the country’s first multi-candidate election in almost five decades. In a country which had a population of 17,064,854 in July 2014 (according to an estimate from CIA World Factbook), over 10 million people voted for Assad. 73.42 percent of the Syrian population voted in the election, with voting only taking place in government controlled areas.

A group of international observers emphasized that the election was a valid and democratic expression of the views of the Syrian people. Predictably, Western nations denounced the election as a sham and a fraud, with US Secretary of State, John Kerry, calling the election afarce a few months prior to the vote.

Despite the efforts of the Western establishment to delegitimize the election, it is obvious that Assad has popular support in Syria. The Western narrative – which claims that Assad is an insane dictator who butchers his own people – is illogical, as if this was true, Assad would have been ousted years ago."

The Syrian people elected for Al-Assad and they are thus responsible for the tyranny he has created. I will support to the death the decision of other Muslim countries to depose Al-Assad, but the US has no role and no interest in removing a democratically chosen President simply because he doesn't listen to us.

And what international organisations are trustworthy on this kind of stuff? They're going to either be payed either/and be threatened if they don't fulfill someone's agenda. And they say how could the Syrian state live on so long without popular support? A country doesn't need popular support as long as it has a powerful, loyal army. The foreign support is nice, too. Also, I bet if you held these elections in other, non-government controlled sites, you'd have the elections be most toward whoever holds the land. And the article says that all the fighting in Syria has come from foreign, while that is a big bit, it's probably at most, half. It started in 2011 as purely a denizen revolt, which turned bloody, and whether began by government, or folk, it's clear that the government is being hated here. Just looking it up, I can see one big undemocratic thing, that is a requirement for voting: being Muslim.

And even then, even if it was all democratic, I already addressed that. And the US most certainly has interests in removing or absorbing its foes and dissenters, not important democratic or not. The great majority of countries nowadays are not democratic, though.

Edited 2/7/2016 05:09:01

What is this cancer?

5 nerds trying to prove America are not as genocidal as you may think.