The refugee crisis now confronting Europe, with hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants pouring across multiple borders, has opened up deep fissures in the European Union. The crisis threatens to tear the EU apart, but it’s truly global in nature, with roots in decades of conflict, from Afghanistan to Somalia to Eritrea; in the multiple upheavals stemming from the Arab revolutions, from Libya to Yemen; and in the regional instability and extremism brought about by the US invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq.
The US has NO moral authority from which to call for Assad's ouster.
"regional instability" is the name of the game. What good is a bloated MIC without conflict? As we all know, the five members of the UN security council are the five biggest arms dealers. How to stop the civil war in Syria? Stop selling arms to the belligerents. If disarmament is a pipe dream, so is diplomacy.
It's a bit of a silly article in the fact that it calls for a immediate end to the military 'solutions' in Syria. The U.S. ONLY submits military solutions as corporate America decides who shall and shall not be bombed into oblivion. The American public (the 99%) have absolutely no say in U.S. foreign affairs. Therefore the article should have begun with... "The first step in solving the Syrian crisis, is for democracy to take root in the U.S. with an immediate call to oust all Democrats and Republicans in office and replace them with politicians who represent the desires of the 99%."
Anything short of this means that all calls to "demilitarize" will fall on deaf ears. The American MIC despises the 99% and has no intention of allowing rational solutions to interfere with the machinations of war. Syrians are as much victims of the MIC as the American public; both of which appear helpless in their ability to prevent the massive saturation of weapons into the region and the rest of the globe.
How surprising (not) that the Nation has an article that doesn't challenge the main propaganda points of the Empire, but instead only seeks a more 'liberal' approach to solve the 'problem' that the Empire tells us we must solve.
In this case the propaganda point is that Assad is a terrible bad guy, far beyond the pale of any other bad guy. The real message of this article is that Obama was right in his UN speech about Assad.
What happens is that propaganda attacks are made on the bad guy de jour by the Empire, asserting some terrible thing done by the bad guy de jour. Now the terrible thing might have happened, like gas attacks in Syria or a jet airliner crashing mysteriously in the Ukraine or chemical warfare by Saddam, but either there is complicity by the US (Saddam) that is left out of the narrative or there is not certainty that the bad guy de jour actually did the terrible thing.
But the propaganda wing of the Empire (the media) immediately begins repeating this factoid and doesn't care if it is true because it is so filled with truthiness. It becomes the common wisdom inside the bubble and the average citizen, who doesn't have the energy or the means to do real independent research due to being over worked, stressed and bombarded by diversions of entertainment, ends up not seriously challenging policy based on the propaganda.
Later evidence comes to light that the original assertion isn't actually true. The propaganda wing of the Empire simply ignores this.
Assad is not the monster the Empire paints him. Assad is no different than other leaders in the Middle East. But our 'guys' don't get scrutinized for their use of force against their citizens. Assad did not gas his own people; the rebels the US supports did that. Assad did not attack peaceful protestors and start the civil war; they weren't peaceful and they acted with violence and the government responded as governments do. When our fascists in Kiev do this the US Congress decides to send them more money. When Assad does this the Empire sends its front man to the UN to give a speech that the key to peace is removing the terrible bad guy.
The US Empire caused Daesh to exist. The US Empire trained them and supplied their arms- perhaps not intentionally, but who knows? The US Empire encouraged the turmoil from the relocation of vast numbers of people within Syria due to the drought caused by climate change and shaped it into violent rebellion. The US Empire looked away when Turkey used this whole thing as a cover to attack the Kurds. The US Empire began bombing and arming rebels.
The entire problem in Syria was caused by the Empire.
But the faux leftists who write for the Nation don't challenge the basic assumptions of Empire. They in fact do the service of Empire by completing the circle of consensus on the main propaganda points, insuring that the center-left will not question the assumptions behind Empire nor that the bad guy de jour is the real problem, instead of the Empire being the problem.
Did I miss something, or did they somehow skip the fact that Russia is launching bombing attacks now? Russia has said they took out an Isis command and control center yesterday, while the rebels say they flattened a mosque.
We must rap our heads around the fact that the principal US ally in Syria is ISIS. The coalition to fight ISIS is a hoax. It contains all the nations that supply ISIS with funds and weapons. ISIS captured oil is sold on the open market without US sanctions. US aerial attacks on ISIS are lackadaisical window dressing. That the Russians stepped in to defend Assad, the only secular leader in the MIddle East, means they are fighting against the de facto US ally.
It can be that they did both in the same attack. ISIS really couldn't care less where it operates out of. Also, I find it interesting that neither the Nation article nor any of the comments mention Israel as a player in the stirring the pot of antagonistic violence and treachery.
That's why the rag is calling for comprehensive negotiations now, whereas before Russia came into the picture, it was ok to keep on bombing.
Remember the time when US planes "accidentally" dropped weapons/munitions at the wrong spot, only to be taken by the ISIS? When that "news" came out, I couldn't help choking with laughter. I think Jacques Ellul had written about the contempt propagandists have for their audience. But in the modern internet world, it takes retards to imagine the public is stupid.