Skip to main content

US Foreign Policy Lows, Lets Turn It Around & Apply It To Them (An Exercise In Hypocrisy)

I've come up with a novel way of getting those who don't have a good sense of international policy norms to instantly identify with the plight of those victimized by US foreign policy.  Put yourself in their position. Lets do an exercise where we place Bashar Al-Assad in the role of the US and the US in the Role of Syria. We will substitute local elements at play with their equivalents on the opposite side and allow the neighboring countries to assume to relevant roles in reverse.

Turning it around:
If Trump or Clinton, who Assad considers unfit to lead, win the US election, the method requires arming and funding local rebels (In Trumps case I think Mexican Drug Cartels would be the most enthusiastic) but he can find moderates like the Colombians too. All the Leaders of South America will support Assad and the Drug Cartels in their freedom bombing which will be branded a "Civil War". These groups can then bomb US towns and cities and innocent US women and children as well as the US military. The newspapers won't report that, they will report that "Trump Must Go" and brand any attempts made By Canada to intervene for a political solutions as "support for a brutal regime" Canada will be demonized for trying to stabilize the situation across her border. her border with the US. 

The elections will be branded illegitimate, and the fleeing US population will flood South American countries, the ones who support Assads bombing, where they will be attacked, insulted and generally not offered any sympathy. The South American countries will be criticized for their handling of the US refugee crises, but will get no heat from the media for supporting Assad bombing the US, the root cause. of the crises. Just as the US is about to fall to the drug cartels, Canada will intervene with its military and defeat the cartels, at which point the media will target Canada for bombing civilians (actually bombed by Assad and the cartels) and their liberation of the US from the external regime change attack will not really get any coverage, but Canada will remain the focus of the ever watchful media due to its territorial aggression.

If you are a Westerner, you will most likely find that situation sound absolutely bonkers in 2016?
It's no exaggeration. This is reality. Same principles in play but perhaps you can now get a better sense of why so many people feel this is completely unacceptable and at odds with our stated global goal of becoming more civilized as a planet. This is exactly what the US is doing in Syria, but this time they failed. Some people still don't see a problem with the scenario I just painted above and want the US and their media using this method around the world for freedom. The people who are against it will only oppose it when it happens to their country.... so they are in the minority every time.

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

You Don't Know What Capitalism Is So Stop Using The Word!

I am writing this for one purpose, to be able to post it every time the issue comes up in conversation to prevent myself from dying of boredom on a few key issues with label intellectuals, you know, the sort who drop labels for the singular purpose of demonstrating their talent at dodging real issues by posing as someone who knows the definition of a word.

When it comes right down to it, I personally think most economic and, for that matter, socio-economic systems across the entire capitalism/ socialism spectrum could work if corruption could just be reasonably controlled.  Many forget that Socialism still runs on the capitalism economics system and the finer points actually come down to policy and regulations. This is often missed.  That being said, I am fairly sure that many of the criticisms of communism for example are valid, and views that it does not work especially well because it tends to kill the inventiveness and passion of the human spirit do stand, but not for the reasons…