https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/01/the-wickedness-of-our-foreign-policy "If you want to see how inhumane people can be, just watch those who make and execute foreign policy. We could spend all day discussing the cruelties that politicians and bureaucrats commit against people who live inside the United States. Think how many are caged like wild animals because they manufacture, sell, or consume disapproved substances; gamble where government has forbade it; traded sexual services for money; possessed a gun they weren't "supposed" to possess; etc. ad infinitum. Naturally, America leads the world in locking up people. But at least the policy of mass imprisonment gets increasing attention. Subject to far less scrutiny is how America's (mis)leaders, (mis)representatives, and public (self-)servants treat foreigners, especially those with dark skin and a still-unfamiliar religion. When we talk about foreign policy, how easy it is to get wrapped up in abstractions like empire, intervention, nonintervention, and kinetic military action. These are important concepts to understand, of course, but foreign-policy conversations often become sterile examinations of "policy," when what we need is a full awareness of the harm to individual human beings, and the destruction of their families, homes, communities, and societies. These persons are the victims of our rulers' geopolitical stratagems, which seemly outrank all other considerations. Yet each victim has a story embodying unique relationships and aspirations, a story that is permanently changed by an American cluster bomb, drone-launched missile, or special-ops mission. The best that can be said of the perpetrators of this carnage and social devastation is that they are guilty of gross negligence. Many of their acts, however, cross into the territory of premeditated murder and the infliction of mayhem with malice aforethought. One need not look hard for the most egregious examples taking place right at this moment. In Yemen the Obama administration gives indispensable material support to Saudi Arabia's barbaric war -war ought not to require a qualifier like barbaric, but it seems necessary these days-on the poorest population in the region. The U.S.-facilitated starvation blockade and cluster-bombing take an untold number of Yemeni lives while devastating the social order. Policymakers (a euphemism for the architects of devastation) can rationalize this cruelty in geopolitical terms-the Houthis, who incidentally are fighting al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadis, are (falsely) said to be instruments of Iran-but the fact remains that individual persons who did no harm to anyone are being slaughtered and starved with the help of American politicians and military bureaucrats. Or how about Syria? U.S. conduct carries out a seemingly incoherent policy of simultaneously targeting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and one of his chief adversaries, the Islamic State, while helping another Islamist group, al-Nusra Front, that has pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's successor as head of al-Qaeda, perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Estimates of the death total in Syria's civil war reach as high as 340,000, a number that represents the toll at the hands of both government and rebel forces. (The total is sometimes invidiously attributed to Assad's military alone.) The injured and refugees are probably uncountable. What must be understood is that most of these deaths, injuries, and dispossessions would probably not have occurred had the Obama administration-most especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton-not early on intensified the civil war by declaring Assad's regime "illegitimate," demanding that he "go" (i.e., die), and overseeing the transfer weapons and jihadi fighters from Benghazi, Libya. While doing all this, the Obama administration was thwarting promising efforts toward a negotiated settlement, which might have stopped or at least reduced the killing of innocent persons. For details see these three articles by the excellent investigate journalist Jonathan Marshall. And then there's Libya itself, which Clinton boasts is an example of "smart power at its best." In 2011 she had egg on her face because she was on the wrong side of the Arab Spring, having defended Egypt's military dictator, Hosni Mubarak, as a family friend and trusted world leader to the bitter end while throngs of aggrieved Egyptians were in the streets demanding his exit. Needing to clean up her image (perhaps in preparation for her quest for the presidency), she along with administration national-security VIPs Samantha Power and Susan Rice persuaded a reluctant Obama that the residents of Benghazi had to be saved from Col. Muammar Gaddafi's alleged genocidal designs. The only problem was that Gaddafi had no genocidal designs. (Also see this and this.) And in a classic exhibition of mission-creep, the U.S.-led NATO air campaign went from protecting Benghazi to changing the regime in Tripoli, prompting Clinton to gloat, "We came. We saw. He died." (Gaddafi was killed extrajudicially, reportedly in a most gruesome manner.) Since the U.S. intervention, Libya has been wracked by sectarian civil war-even the Islamic State now holds territory there-prompting many Libyans to flee to Europe, which now has to contend with a growing refugee crisis. As noted, the Libyan power vacuum, featuring the unlocking of Gaddafi's arsenal of heavy weapons, helped to boost the Islamist rebel militias in Syria, to the delight of U.S. allies Turkey (which fears the Kurds) and Saudi Arabia (which fears Iran and the Shi'ites). After the nightmare in Iraq, one has to wonder what Clinton was thinking. The closest thing we have to an answer is from then-Secretary of War Robert Gates, an opponent of the intervention, who said, "we were playing it by ear." (And let's not forget: destabilization itself can be an objective.) Of course we could point to Iraq, George W. Bush's invasion of which in 2003 set most of the aforementioned mayhem in motion, and Afghanistan, but the story is largely the same: innocent lives are sacrificed to the politicians' grand agenda. Little people living small lives can't be allowed to stand in the way." I tried to block quote this but it didn't work. Anyways I think we can agree Mr. World Peace himself President Obama has not exactly had an enlightened foriegn policy. And once again the Interventionists have fucked up real bad. Because of the actions of this administration yet another generation of young muslims will grow up in a chaotic warzone and hate the United States for its role in their misery. Expect the cycle of violence and the war on terrorism to continue for decades longer. With innocent people caught in the middle.Its all further evidence that you have no real choice in American elections even if you vote for the "peace" candidate your still going to have violence and war perpetuated.
Yes the American voters have become whores. Whether its red or blue we are willing to forget the horrors of the presiding dictator. And I say dictator because the president red or blue rules through executive action and a compliant congress to commit war crimes just because he or maybe now she identifies with a color red or blue. Where are the anti war protests under Obama the left has show itself to be utterly hypocritical when its their guy occupying the white house, while the right is almost lost cause when it comes to warmongering. Ron Paul had all the right wing credentials but was sidelined because he refused to support state sponsored murder. It is all just so sad. When will people realize that just because their political party clown supports something it doesn't mean that its right. Leave the world alone and instead lead by example. State violence is wrong as much as personal violence. The only time there should be a war is in legitimate self defense. Otherwise you are intruding into a conflict you couldn't possibly understand. Especially with the simplistic rhetoric that rules the day in American politics. Shit isn't simple, there is rarely a case where black and white rules the day. For those who support Obama unconditionally you are just as bad as those who supported Bush unconditionally. They have both ordered the murder of children. I know its easy to single out Bush but Obama had a teenage Muslim on his kill list for Christ, Allah, Buddah and the Spaghetti monsters sake. You don't murder children unless they are about to kill you or your family and friends which was not the case in any of this.
Cant even blame the gov't. Alot of Citezens are morons who take everything the gov't tells them on the chin. And us who dont are only good for discussing it during a cyphe or on forums.
It's the apathy that is the hardest to take. Nobody cares. The slaughter brings fervent nationalistic chest beating, our boy's are keeping America free. The flags are on display on every front lawn. Support our Boys. I will never understand this. The wars are obviously wrong, a huge injustice is being carried out in the name of their country and nobody cares. The response to this thread is evidence of this. People don't care. Abortion, LGBT rights and "My right to have a grenade launching machine Gun" are much more important than non Americans being slaughtered.
Don't go back and read American history too closely. You'll start to discover just how many wars the US has justified getting into based on trumped up bullshit. "Remember the Maine"? Got us into the Spanish-American War. But the incident was more likely a boiler explosion on the shop rather than an attack by a foreign enemy. How about WW!? Just ask Vicious about that one. lol And what about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (and subsequent resolution)? That piece of fiction justified the massive buildup that became the Vietnam fiasco in all its glory. And on and on... When one knows that we have a propensity for either starting or jumping into existing military excursions, that person can never trust their own government for being honest. And history also shows that it doesn't matter whether the Left or the Right is in power. Same propensity - just different rationale. As a result, we better not allow such a government to expand itself without restraint - something we currently seem hampered in recognizing!
what's with this "we" crap This is why I hate stateism. I get lumped in with tthose fools and am now an accessory to Americas imerialisn. All the America haters in the world hate me because I'm a citizen of America and its not even voluntary. -Yuri
Well asking Hunter is not an option so take it whatever way you wish Yuri. I guess it's up to you to decide. It is served without salt but I agree with the essence of it. I don't think that can be disputed.
You do have a point. Not every American has been a party to this I haven't. I call the bullshit everytime I can.
if you don't like the players who create foreign policy, replace them. http://www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/foreign-policy.html "...In forming U.S. foreign policy, the president relies on advice from the National Security Council. This group is made up of the vice-president, secretary of state, secretary of defense, head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the nation's highest military adviser). The secretary of state heads the U.S. State Department and often represents the president abroad. The State Department carries out foreign policy decisions and helps develop foreign policy for every region of the world. Attached to the State Department is the U.S. Foreign Service, or diplomatic corps. It is made up of ambassadors (who represent America's political interests in every county), consuls (who represent America's business interests), and other officials who specialize in technical matters and issues of foreign aid. Congress also plays a role in America's foreign policy through its power to set duties and tariffs on foreign exports and imports, regulate foreign commerce and immigration, and declare war. It sets quotas on immigration, chooses which countries will benefit for most-favored-nation status in trade agreements, votes on foreign aid, and sets the defense budget. But Congress is usually in the role of accepting, changing, or rejecting policies proposed by the president. The Supreme Court plays a limited role in foreign policy. It has jurisdiction over cases involving treaties, admiralty and maritime law, and ambassadors and other public ministers. It also is charged with deciding disputes between states and foreign states and their citizens and subjects." http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/who-makes-american-foreign-policy "...The Constitution vests the power to make foreign policy in the federal government. It precludes the states from entering into “any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.â€[1] Within the federal government, the Constitution divides foreign-policy making power between the President and the Senate, giving them shared authority over the making of treaties and the extension of diplomatic recognition to other nations. Specifically, the Constitution gives the Senate the power of “Advice and Consent†on treaties, which the President is responsible for negotiating. The Senate also has the power of “Advice and Consent†in the appointment of ambassadors nominated by the President.[2] Thus, while the Constitution reserves foreign policy for the federal government, it gives the states-as represented by their Senators-an indirect but potent influence over the making of foreign policy. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives no separate powers in the realm of foreign policy, though in cooperation with the Senate and the President it shares the power of issuing formal declarations of war. But the House can still affect foreign policy. The Founding Fathers understood that U.S. foreign policy would be influenced by what George Washington referred to as “enlightened†public opinion.[3]"
I know how its supposed to work, point is it doesn't. Voting doesn't mean shit when the two choices are warmongering Red vs. Warmongering Blue. Look at 2008, we had John McCain who never visited a country he didn't want to invade or Barrack Obama the supposed peace candidate who turned out to be anything but. I usually vote third party but thats pretty much a waste of time/protest vote because the system is so rigged a third party just can't win.Congress is a joke, they haven't even declared a war since World War 2 but the country has been at war constantly since then and they refuse to use the power of the purse so they are irrelevant.
Maybe so, but its not even close to enough. At least not from the point of view of 'collateral damage' victims. I dont agree with any of this at all, I dont agree with anyone targeting civilian population based on the actions of their governments whether its us or them, however can you blame civilians from the other side targeting civilians on this side of the world based on 'wickedness of our foreign policies' ? Can you imagine whats it like displacing millions of people? We cant possibly fathom the nightmares they live through on daily bases, how could we? People getting mad because theyre fucking big macs either dont come out fast enough or theyre out completely. While other people dont know if the rest of their families survived the drone strike on a building because some guy might have looked like someone barry didnt like, never mind that those drones create way more enemies than they kill...because that would be using critical thinking and aint nobody got time for that, my phone camera is only 8 mega pixels and I need 16, why? when all I take are selfies who cares, I dont care about what my tax dollars do, or what people elected in my name carry out, who cares about personal responsibility, out source that shit to Mitt Romney aka the moral epitome of humanity.
Some naive Americans still have no clue what's going on at all, But many already know this. I know people that think we should glass the whole Middle East. Its an old school Nationalism/Crusader thing that's lasted since the Civil War. People will feign ignorance, or will support the nation in wartime. Hell, lets go beyond America for a second, for the last 10,000 years of recorded history humans rally around their national banner and war. Its what we do, we're really good at it(with no other comparisons around...) and the advancement of technology has only made it more global in scale. We're violent, hive-mind, indoctrinated people. Life has been a fight of survival until today, and even then only a select lucky few get to enjoy it. Its sad really, and with the creation of ISIS, America isn't going to stop any time soon. Really its predictable when you think about it. How else are a people going to stop America? Ban the Middle East together, and install the one thing that can unify with violence, Religion, to create one nation. Like it was in the good ole days with Muhammad or Saladin. I think America finally got what it wanted, but that's another discussion for another time.