McVeigh & Why Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right
Control is the issue where Syria is the question, and if you can read beyond Molyneux’s description of the people as cattle, this video provides excellent analysis of WHY we are going into Syria. I have wondered for days why we would want to go into a country that proffers no danger to Israel, has a moderate amount of resources (but far less than other countries we would take over easily), and poses no danger to the U.S. homeland. Molyneux thinks that it is rule (rule qua rule) of the region, as you can see here:
…but I am not so sure that justification is good enough. Of course, it has nothing to do with humanitarian ends. Why would we kill Syrians to stop Syrians from killing Syrians – and who understands the warring in-groups enough to make the determination who is an aggressor and who is not? The truth is likely much more than that, and I would imagine it has something to do with Bretton-Woods, the petrodollar, and the stability of the U.S. as an economic powerhouse. All of the above are in danger of crumbling due to various causes, and the turmoil in the MidEast – the source of oil for much of the world – are likely to upset the balance and dethrone the U.S. as the greatest economic power on earth for a very long time. You own it to yourself to understand the huge implications of this war and the previous few interventions in Libya, Iraq, Yemen, et cetera. Start here…
Then again, maybe bombs are the solution: Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns.
Related posts
