In any case, I don't actually believe that we "rule" the world. We simply happen to be the most powerful player in it at the moment.
Unfortunately, this means that we have a rather large amount to lose, and no end of potential rivals looking to supplant our position. I believe we should act accordingly in order to defend our interests.
Alliances are all well and good and ultimately necessary. Unfortunately, however; if one goes by the historical precedent, they tend to have a less than stellar track record when it comes to accomplishing anything particularly meaningful under peacetime circumstances.
As a matter of fact, what you described above is more or less exactly what we have now. It honestly seems to accomplish little more than a lot of ineffectual bickering between ourselves and our so called "partners" while our enemies forge ahead doing exactly what they please either way regardless.
The simple fact of the matter is that the situation now unfolding in Syria could make or break our strategic standing in the region. If we back down, and Assad remains in power, Iran's position will be stronger than ever while our's stands close to a nadir.
This could effectively hamstring any possible means of slowing down or preventing the completion of Iran's nuclear program we could hope to enact in the future.
Furthermore, if Iran ever does succeed in going nuclear, we will have effectively lost the Middle East. No US or European leader in their right mind would ever risk going to war with a nuclear armed power, and so our ability to ever again meaningfully impact Middle Eastern affairs will have gone kaput.
If Turkey and Saudi Arabia follow suit, the situation only gets that much worse, as we now might have a potential nuclear war on our hands.
Personally, I agree with most of what you're saying. Intervention should be used only sparingly, and preferably in less heavy-handed ways than full on invasions and occupations.
However, there does come a time when the more "direct" approach is called for, and I doubt that a Libya style air campaign is going to quite "break the bank."
Even a "Talibanized" Syria might frankly be preferable to one in Russia and Iran's pocket at this point in the game.
"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her." -- G.K. Chesterton
What a bunch of pointlessness in your analysis.
I get it. You hate Russia and you hate Putin.
How that leads you to conclude then we should go to war against Syria is beyond me.
The most valid statement he made? That our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya didn't make matters better. The Taliban still controls Afghanistan. Most see no benefit from the mega war in Iraq. Libya is chaos.
NO, WAIT! Because Putin said it, then YOU conclude that all is a lie. We were TOTALLY successful in Iraq, the Taliban is forever gone in Afghanistan, and the Bengazi attack is all myth that never happened at all and instead it is now the Democratic ideal vacation spot in the region.
This DIVERSION by the new DEMOCRAT WARHAWKS demanding more wars for which the USA is the policeman of the world going to war against countries that poise no risk to us whatsoever is as your message - to DEMAND Americans declare their loyalty to OBAMA OR PUTIN - and to prove you are loyal to American and Obama you support declaring war on Syria.
The war talk diverts from all domestic and economic issues. Next, divert discussion of the war to a debate between who's better, the USA President or the Russian President as to whether or not we go to war. There is no rational debate when it comes to Obama. Just diversions.
We should attack Syria to prove we don't like Putin? That is as absurd as it gets.
Last edited by joko104; 09-06-13 at 05:45 AM.
Obama & Putin at the G20 - where strut meets swagger.
I always find it tragically amusing when people treat the US, Israel, UK, France, etc. as sinister imperialists but don't so much as question whatever Russia says or does. Putin has become a hero to both the pacifists on the Left and the isolationists on the Right, even though pretty much everything he does is in violation of both philosophies.
Take the chemical attack in Syria. US, French, and Israeli intelligence all seem to point to the government as having carried out these attacks - and sure, you can bring up our intelligence failure prior to the Iraq War, but (according to Israeli members on the board) Israeli intelligence hasn't failed since 1973, and that's when they underestimated a security threat. That doesn't matter to these people. Even suggesting that Assad used the chems is to wish to extend corporatist and Zionist domination across the Middle East at the expense of its free people. In order to provide evidence for their agenda, they present clearly biased Russian sources, including Putin (as well as conspiracy blogs) and don't even bother to consider the fact that Putin has an agenda that he wishes to promote in Syria.
The Russophiles' hypocrisy is abysmal. Russia and China get to condemn the US for promoting our interests in Syria, although they've been doing the same for over a year. They get to condemn us over civilian casualties, even though they've been supporting Assad, who has the worst record (IIRC) of civilian casualties. Russia and China get to insinuate that we're imperialists seeking to oppressively dominate the rest of the world and brutally destroy anyone who stands in our way, although both countries have already attempted to do this: Russia waging indiscriminate warfare against Chechnya and Georgia, and China repressing dissent in Tibet and Xinjiang, as well as engaging in war with India over disputed territory.
I'm not saying Putin is necessarily wrong (although he is in this instance). I'm just saying that everything he says should be taken with grain of salt, because he also has an agenda he wishes to promote in Syria and is no less willing to lie and deceive in regards to the conflict than we are.