The problem with our nation is the gridlocked bureaucracy. I think we have considered this issue and there seems to be bipartisan consensus behind this diagnosis. Constant conflict between politicians generates an atmosphere of negativity; with everyone just trying to make sure “the other side” doesn’t get an advantage, you can imagine our government as two magnets that are repelling each other. There is no attempt to bring the two parties together, let alone recognize that a full third of the nation is Independent.
An argument for publicly-funded elections could go on for a hundred pages, but a major benefit of this reform would be to enable more Independents to be elected in the federal government. A third of the population thinks neither party is living in reality, and so far too many people are ignoring politics because they understand that there is no chance to have representation in our government.
It’s not about Democrat vs Republican. Whoever is in control pleases the people who are in control, but our petty language is drowned out under a waterfall of cash. We revolted against England because we had no representation in their government. Perhaps we can look into having the fifty states revolt against DC; the difference this time is we have an election and a constitution that encourages revolution.
What drastic event could motivate an entire country to revolt against the establishment? I think we’re all looking at Syria and trying to swallow with a dry throat. This situation in Syria is the most ridiculous thing you could think of, and we’re a leading actor in it. A lot of people, at least the liberal pundits, are terrified and confused about why we’re even in Syria.
Yeah, Assad broke some treaty when he used biological weapons. There was a punishment attached to the treaty, and I figured we’d send inspectors in to clear out all the weapons. But then ISIL sprang up in Iraq and has been moving into Syria. As William Butler Yeats said, “What rough beast, its hour come round at last / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
When we are fighting a desert caliphate set on Jihad, and when that caliphate is described in a poem written nearly one hundred years ago as:
A vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
I guess we’re destined to discover whether prophecy is real. The thing is we are living in these times, and even though none of us think we’re a part of it, all of us have paid money to create this situation that was described by Yeats. Unfortunately I believe in mysticism; yet, I don’t believe in the same God as the Abrahamic traditions. So I think it’s better we dispense of the apocalyptic allusions; ISIS is simply a response that the Abrahamic traditions conditioned into that part of the world. The apocalypse is never going to happen, but there are always religious fanatics who are willing to usher in their promised apocalypse.
Even without any of these considerations, the pointless conflict between The United States and Russia in Syria is completely insane. We sent in ground forces after Russia entered the arena because of stupid conditioning that was wrought upon the older generations by Cold War propaganda. So the quagmire we have in Syria involves Russia and the United States being really weird around each other because they’re still traumatized by the Cold War; and it involves the fight between the different sects of Islam, with ISIS being an entirely separate entity–the apocalyptic cult of Islam.
I think the public has a general consensus that we shouldn’t get into war with Russia; only lunatics push that idea. But with the hawkish behavior of the Obama administration, we might have to consider what lunatics are in his cabinet. I can’t think of any possible justification for sending ground forces into Syria, and I really do feel like we’ve been completely misled about the whole thing.
The whole reason we’re involved in this conflict is because of ISIS beheading American citizens. We were going to get our retribution. At the time, everyone had forgotten about Assad using chemical weapons and how we were trying to hold him accountable. I suppose we assumed that we were getting inspectors in to deal with the weapons.
We never got a resolution to this piece of drama, and I suppose that when ISIS started rampaging into Syria everything got too complicated for any kind of resolution, and all of a sudden Vladamir Putin tells us that The United States is trying to overthrow Assad so that we can put in a puppet government. It turns out this is true, but Obama acted like we should have been aware of this all along.
So at some point between the beginning of our attacks on ISIS and now, military strategy switched from attacking ISIS to attacking Assad. From the sounds of it, we’ve been attacking Assad’s supporters all this time like Russia’s fighting the rebels. It is a very close range proxy war between the Cold War super powers, and The United States is to blame. We knew Russia had ties with Assad, and their only military bases in the Middle East were in Syria.
So, it really seems like the people behind this conflict don’t really understand that the Cold War is over. There is no reason for us to be antagonizing Russia, but there it is. This quagmire in Syria seems to me like it has all the ingredients that would lead to World War III.
The difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Syria is that Bush and Cheney tried their hardest to convince the public to support the war. There’s been no such communication between Obama and the public. We’re all completely out of the loop, and Putin had to step up to let the American public know what we were doing in Syria. He gave a perfectly reasoned assessment of the situation, but because there is some moral ambiguity, apparently it doesn’t work for us.
When Putin said that overthrowing Assad would be the same as overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I think Putin showed an understanding of the American public that our government doesn’t show. It seemed like he understood that we were not being kept in the loop about what was going on in Syria, and he thought if he informed us we could prevent our military from creating any more situations that were prophesied a long time ago.
I think it’s important for all of us to understand that Putin is intelligent and capable and as the President of Russia, he shouldn’t be held at fault for his conditioning. We need to do understand this so that our older generations can overcome their conditioning, so that they can start to think of Russia as our friends. I don’t think anyone under thirty five would find anything wrong with having a friendly relationship with Russia. We just don’t because our politicians are conditioned to fight against Russia.
All this warmongering is insane, and we need to get out of all wars. Our government is supposed to produce peace, not war. And this is why Benghazi matters. Because Hillary Clinton was involved in that completely random decision to overthrow Gaddhafi in Libya. Remember what it took to overthrow Hussein? Not even a second thought in Libya. Obama and his cabinet just acted like it was nothing to worry about, we’d just be in and out.
I remember thinking that there was no reason to worry because it would probably be over within a week. I didn’t realize that we went into this country, overthrew the government and then had people working in Libya doing undisclosed, classified operations. Apparently the embassy that was attacked wasn’t even an embassy.
What were we doing in Libya while anarchy was loosed upon the country? According to Breitbart:
Officially the CIA was there to track and collect dangerous weapons left over from the war that ousted Qaddafi. But the evidence suggests the CIA was also either tacitly or actively involved in a multi-national effort to ship those weapons to Syrian rebels. Our covert effort in Benghazi, Libya was connected to our escalating involvement in Syria.
It makes sense that we were involved in weapons, and so we could hypothesize that the “embassy” in Benghazi was a base of operation for this weapons trade–first we took the guns in Libya and then sold them somewhere else. Or could we have been profiting from the anarchy in Libya, selling the Libyans our weapons? Don’t you wonder at how wars spring up wherever we send weapons?
Libya was predominantly a CIA operation, and when the anarchy became too overwhelming, The US evacuated thirty Americans from Libya. Only seven of these worked for the State department, according to The Daily Mail, and twenty-three Americans remained in Libya. The reason Clinton didn’t handle security for the embassy was because the embassy was really a covert CIA operation.
We can only use the show Homeland to imagine what kind of insane plots the CIA was cooking in Libya, and Hillary Clinton was the front-line defender of this CIA operation, telling us all that it was an embassy and fabricating a story about why it was attacked.
We’re several years later now, and I don’t think we’re any clearer on what happened in Libya. The Republicans are handling the investigation terrible because they don’t disapprove of our actions in Libya and they just disapprove of the failure to keep our people safe. But the problem wasn’t failing to keep people safe in a dangerous situation–the problem was that we created that dangerous situation, and we know that a conspiracy is being covered up; I mean, it was a CIA operation so this goes without saying.
The problem is we don’t know what conspiracy is being covered up. If we can’t trust Hillary Clinton to be honest and to work for peace and prosperity for American citizens, then how can we trust how she would handle Syria as Commander-in-Chief? We’re not just trying to topple a government, we’re fighting a proxy war with Russia, in such close proximity we could easily decide to fight each other. If the theories about smuggling weapons from Libya to Syria is correct, then we will be directly responsible for any Americans dying in Syria.
Our foreign policy under Obama started off with good meaning, but something happened and we switched right back to the same script George W. Bush was reading off of. Hillary Clinton tried to convince the public that we needed to overthrow Gaddhafi because he was fighting a war with rebels and was planning on attacking them. Of course this argument didn’t mean anything, and I don’t think anyone was really paying attention. We assumed that Democrats were supposed to be anti-war, so we had no idea how hawkish Obama became over his Presidency.
When Hillary Clinton says she’ll be like a third Obama term, you can be sure that she’s talking about foreign policy. Clinton used to be a Republican in her youth, and as the saying goes, if you’re conservative when you’re young you have no heart (and if you’re liberal when you’re old, you have no brain). If Clinton wins the nomination, she will want to show the country just how not liberal she is so she can appeal to the general electorate, and we know from her experiences with Libya that she likes to overthrow foreign governments and then cover up top secret CIA operations after they blow up.
All the polls say that very few people trust Clinton, but we can trust her when it comes to foreign policy: she will do in the future what she did in the past.