VS.
Case #1: A sovereign government is in place in a defined territory. Foreign countries (Israel, UK, US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) attempt to destabilize this country by relocating its militia (called ISIS) from Iraq to Syria. Now the Syrian government with assistance from Russia and Iran are beating back this EXTERNAL influence and the USA says STOP IT!
".. “As a guarantor of this de-escalation area with Russia and Jordan, the United States will take firm and appropriate measures in response to Assad regime violations,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement late on Friday [25MAY2018] ..."
Reuters news service goes on to spin:
".. A war monitor, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, reported on Wednesday that Syrian government forces fresh from their victory this week against an Islamic State pocket in south Damascus were moving into the southern province of Deraa..."
What is the problem with this?
The fact is that Syrian state-run media have reported that government aircraft have dropped leaflets on rebel-held areas in Deraa urging fighters to disarm. (is this not proper?) The U.S. warning comes weeks after a similar attack on a de-escalation zone in northeastern Syria held by U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. U.S. ground and air forces repelled the more than four-hour attack, killing perhaps as many as 300 pro-Assad militia members, many of them Russian mercenaries.
Reuters continues the spin:
"... Backed by Russian warplanes, ground forces from Iran and allied militia, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, have helped Assad drive rebels from Syria’s biggest cities, putting him in an unassailable military position..."
Seriously? The SAA is in fact allowing those serving as early as 2010 to leave the army. The Syrian government is in the home stretch of getting those illegals OUT of Syrian territory. That includes US troops as well as their buddies ISIS.
Case #2 A sovereign country that is a confederation of 33 states (in their original configuration, they ONLY gave up enough of their sovereignty to allow for regional security and internal free trade). The northern states started to become more powerful in the 1830s and therefore utilized the government to favor their regions (North and "West"(Midwest)) by being the beneficiary of taxes and tariffs (on particular products) collected mainly at southern ports and being configured in a way that disadvantaged the south. (anyone that knows US history knows of the "Tariff of Abominations" right?
Starting in December 1860, some of these states held legal proceedings and voting towards peacefully exiting the confederation EVEN when the promise of a constitutional amendment would have allowed perpetual slavery. These states knew as well, that being OUT of this union of states meant that their run-a-way slaves could NOT be captured in the northern states and returned to them. Despite this, EACH state chose what to do. Some states chose to stay (Virginia, etc.) and others (7) chose to leave and remain outside this "marriage". Thirty plus years of abuse was enough.
In case #2, this was INTERNAL peoples desiring to exit a contract, not unlike what happened in 1776 with the American colonies and the British Empire. It seems that ever since 1776 the US has wavered on whether to support the will of the people in lands far from its shore. In the 1970s the US encouraged and funded the Mujihideen in Afghanistan (Bin Laden and crew) .. but in Crimea, there is a constitutional secession from Ukraine to Russia and the USA goes nuts.
The US government (as always) does not operate on principle, but on selfish desires while it sees the world as its responsibility. Even Abraham Lincoln was bi-polar like this when he said in December 1846: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." In April of 1861 he no longer believed this.
[NOTE: In this resource, the above quote is conveniently left out .. REALLY?]
The myth making of Abraham Lincoln and at times the outright deification is nauseating .. but I digress.
Also in case #2 there were forces at work in the remaining 26 states (a minority of the general population of these states were Pro-War in fact as of March 1861 when Lincoln was inaugurated as President of the United States .. getting only 39% of the vote and not one vote in most southern states) that spread a panic of the financial fallout and fear of a future with a "free trade zone" to their south. This minority would use fear of the future to further its goals. New England's internal exports of goods would dry up, Western farmers saw the path of their products to the world via the Mississippi River getting worse case blocked or best case taxed. The government itself saw revenues from tariffs from cotton exports severely diminished as the newspapers went from assuming peaceful separation towards calling on a FORCED effort to stop the secessions.
The secession did NOT start the war. In fact, Lincoln carefully avoided acknowledging the secessions, kept the stars on the flag all because he used an "insurrection" law from the 1790s to justify his calling up 75,000 troops and NOT calling Congress to session until July 4th 1861 .. so that he could get the preparation for war and its natural momentum in place. People and presses that were not for Lincoln were shut down and imprisoned without trial, legislatures in Maryland and Delaware were threatened should they even consider meeting to discuss secession. THESE Lincoln actions caused four more states to officially secede from the union.
In summary, in case #1, the US participated in the war in Syria .. in case #2 the US participated in the war against its own people .. for ITS OWN SELFISH DESIRES.
Government is evil.
Case #1 source material
Case #2 source material is up to you to research .. it is out there!
No comments:
Post a Comment