US Invades Syria, Kills People, Claims Self-Defense

submitted by [deleted] from caitlinjohnstone.substack.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Now you are ignoring relevant context, such as the fact that we were the ones funding ISIS to use them to destabilize governments we didn't like and it backfired on us

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/battling-isis-iran-iraq-war-redux

Literally every time we fuck around in the Middle East it ends very very badly, and its all about our interest in oil, not human rights. We don't intervene in many countries with worse human rights violations

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well - hold on. Of course the west did not fund or use Isis. That's just your exaggeration as is not supported in either link.

Seamus Milne is a pretty problematic dude in a lot of ways, but this is the crux of his argument in your first link

That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded.

Sure, and there was no Tesla Inc or TikTok before March 2003 either. Seamus has to do better than that to prove they "funded and used" Isis.

Then your second link just reiterates that America funded the Asad opposition, and later isis were supposedly in opposition to Asad (although I never saw any indication of conflict between them).

America and the west are not, like, writing a cheque to Isis or sending them a cargo jet full of mortar shells like we see with Ukraine.

Both articles just say - America's actions ended up helping Isis. We can deal with and talk about that claim if you want, but it's not the same as funding and using Isis like you wrote.

Also, both links are opinion columns and not the editorial position of either publication. If what you wrote was true, it should have been easier to find real journalism on the topic, instead of minced words from problematic opinion columns

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We've also had 2 wars in Iraq, the Afghanistan debacle, and the Iran Contra affair, all of which are so extensively documented that I won't bother citing anything. None of those adventures ended well for anyone, except perhaps the terrorists which are now running Afghanistan. We have a long history of destabilizing that region for financial reasons, and creating the conditions where terrorism thrives. Our actions in the Middle East clearly were what inspired terrorist attacks on our soil. I am really confused as to how you can see our military activity in the Middle East as a postive thing or a good idea at this point.

I'd also like us to stop destabilizing South America and doing coups and food embargos, which no doubt contribute to our immigration problems

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think Kuwaitis would beg to differ.

But still. Every American intervention you listed was made in good faith principles, with the backing and insistence of the voting public. It's just that fate, the agents of chaos, the opposition forces of Iran and the russia, the highly skilled non-symmetric insurgency warfare operators, all conspired to make outcomes that America didn't plan for. Still I insist that every intervention was made in good faith on sound humanitarian principles.

(I was totally against Iraq war 2003 at the time. But since 2022 we've seen the danger of a habitual invader who possesses WMDs. So today I am glad that we nipped that in the bud. Or else Saddam would have had his Kuwaiti genocide and a strangle hold on the gulf shipping)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I was totally against Iraq war 2003 at the time. But since 2022 we've seen the danger of a habitual invader who possesses WMDs.

Yeah...except he didn't have WMD's and they just lied to drum up support for their invasion that they really wanted for the oil contracts for Cheney's homeboys

Also funny that we don't care about genocides in Africa nearly as much as genocides in oil countries. I didn't see us deploying the troops to save the Congo

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Saddam absolutely did have WMDs. What you're misremembering is the "sexed up dossier" saying he could attack within 45 minutes. That was Alistair Campbell and HMSS trying to exaggerate for the public.

Saddam also stopped cooperating with un weapons inspectors, which you may remember was a causus belli.

He had masses of CBRN and had already used them against Kurds and Iranians. So yes he had WMDs.

He didn't have nukes, as such. In retrospect I am totally fine with an invasion of a country when all these boxes are ticked

Armenians and Azeris working together. Different Balkan nations working together. Yeah I think if all those things are true and you have historic enemies all agreeing to work together to fix a problem - then you're probably on the right course of history.

So in retrospect I have no issue with Iraq 2003.

Also funny that we don't care about genocides in Africa nearly as much as genocides in oil countries. I didn't see us deploying the troops to save the Congo

See this is where I am 100% aligned with you. But for different reasons. You say, you don't want any invasions, even if Rwanda is carrying out a genocide, even if Saddam is about to strangle the planets energy supplies.

I say that I do want security council authorising missions to Rwanda, Iraq, Bosnia etc.

So I don't know why you bought up Congo, because from the conversation we've had, you would be totally 100% against an intervention there if it did happen

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

See this is where I am 100% aligned with you. But for different reasons. You say, you don't want any invasions, even if Rwanda is carrying out a genocide, even if Saddam is about to strangle the planets energy supplies.

So I don't know why you bought up Congo, because from the conversation we've had, you would be totally 100% against an intervention there if it did happen

If we are going to spend trilliions of dollars in military aggression because 'humanitarianism in the middle east' I want to see the same concern when we don't have the economic incentive - such as the Congo - or these claims of humanitarianism motives ring very hollow, and are just cover for our imperial aggression (I strongly suspect this is the case as you might guess).

What I want is consistency in applying principles. To me what I see is this: We use our military to intervene in our own economic interests, then claim it was for humanitarian purposes. This isn't OK with me. If we are going to go the world humanitarian police route, I need to see this applied without the drastic skewing towards or own economic interests. Also maybe don't give MBS a fist-bump Joe, that guy was a murderous dictator 'pariah' (Joe's words) who did human rights violations and chopped up WaPo reporters, but now that we want some oil again he's just a bit of a rascal. The way our policies towards Middle Eastern countries just happen to alwasys perfectly coincide with our economic interests is truly damning

Either actually be the good guy and consistently act according to these principles we supposedly have, or stop the MIC. I wan't consistency more than I wan't any particular policy, although yes, given our history of 'unintended consequences', I'd have to say I lean towards more non-interventionalist policies, and strongly question the judgement of the people currently making the decision to keep using the military this way

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that's a fair and well reasoned argument.

I maybe just disagree on the chain of causality in this statement

We use our military to intervene in our own economic interests, then claim it was for humanitarian purposes

Probably the #1 overriding national concern for all governments for the past ... 100 years or so, has been the fact that, without daily oil imports everything everywhere will end. A total disruption to the oil supply is the end of the world, period. Take virtually any major global incident of the past century, and you'll probably find oil politics at the heart of every issue.

So even a benevolent angel as president, who is dropped into the oval office, would have to plan their humanitarianism around satisfying the immediate demand for oil.

So let's say, if we lived in a far kinder world than our own, and there were only two genocides, two government collapses taking place at some point in time. And the benevolent angel president can rally enough democratic mandate for only one intervention. Does the angel intervene in the arabian gulf power vacuum. Or in the Central African power vacuum.

It's a trolley problem, it's always a trolley problem. What about if the hypothetical Arabian gulf genocide has 100k victims and the central African genocide has 5 million victims. Should we secure the gulf, or the larger humanitarian disaster? What about if we do chose the Congo, then the Hormuz straight gets closed and the end of the world kills 6 billion?

I do believe that all the interventions which you listed were humanitarian first and foremost. But always taking place against the backdrop of trying to stop the world from ending.