4 ms·

That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US a

by finid 10y ago

That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US ambassador to Syria just before the protests broke out. It's from the same playbook that was used successfully in Libya and Ukraine, and almost succeeded a few years ago in Cuba. It's an interesting exercise if you have the time. Venezuela is in the same neighborhood too.

hx87 10y ago
That's the conspiracy theory narrative, and it's the real real absurdity here. US ambassadors don't have the power to raise hell on the streets of any given country, especially in one where a significant portion of the population have long-standing and legitimate aggrievances against the current government.
- tdkl 10y ago
  That's why CIA exists.
- finid 10y ago
  Ambassadors are not supposed to meddle in the affairs of the country they're serving in, but when was the last time that stopped us from doing what we want? Even our elected officials are not supposed to do that, but who's gonna to stop them?
- ufmace 10y ago
  It's not a conspiracy theory so much as a oddly popular Chompsky-ite view of foreign policy that can be summarized only a little tounge-in-cheek as: America is somehow responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened anywhere in the world. Nothing bad can happen anywhere without it somehow being a result of something that America did. Which serves to infantilize the entire population of every other country in the world. See the GP's belief that apparently a few words by the US Ambassador is more powerful than thousands of years of history and culture, very difficult conflicts between religious sects, clans, and tribes, etc.
  - saganus 10y ago
    I was under the impression that it's not so much about America being responsible for every bad thing in the world, but that historically America has been taking advantage of those thousands of years of history, culture and of course conflict, to their own benefit. So if due to some political agenda there is profit or benefits to be reaped from nudging certain conflicts this or that way, there's a high probability that people in power would try to obtain said benefit. I think it's in that sense that "America puts its nose into every conflict around the world". Not saying that I agree or disagree with that view, but I do think it's a bit naive to say that America is the root of all evil, as much as it's naive to think that the most powerful nation in the world (for different definitions of most powerful) would have no interest in other countries' conflicts or in influencing them to their benefit. In other words, if for whatever reason an escalation in the conflicts in Syria or other parts of the Middle East (or the world for that matter) could benefit the US, would it be so far-fetched to think that they would have a vested interest in creating the conditions for that escalation to actually happen?
    - hx87 10y ago
      It's one thing to have a vested interest in an event happening, another to be competent (and lucky) enough to pull that event off yourself. Nudging is easier, but then you can't put 99% of the blame on the nudger.
    - ufmace 10y ago
      I do think we're involved in some minor way in most conflicts, even if by not doing anything at all. When you get this big and powerful and economically interconnected, it's hard to completely ignore something - if you trading with somebody is normal and economically necessary, then not trading with them is an intervention. The reasons behind any particular policy are of course complex. Some may be for good and noble reasons, others for not so good reasons. A few turn out well, many go badly or not at all as intended. Many people in foreign countries even try to get us to intervene. Often they want us to fund them or to suppress their enemies. Some want us to suppress violence in other countries, just because they think we can - see Darfur. Their motives aren't any cleaner or dirtier than ours are, just saying we aren't uniquely or cartoonishly evil. I think the important part to remember is that our real ability to change things abroad is very limited indeed and fraught with risk. We can nudge things a bit, sure. If a country is on the verge of civil war, we can maybe nudge them towards it or away from it, but we can't create the war from scratch, or control what the sides are. If they really want to fight, they will, and we can't stop them. If they really have no desire to fight, we can't make them. If we try to nudge, we may just cause the opposite thing to happen instead. It's a mess, and it's likely to continue to be a mess no matter what we do or don't do. There's always the hope that we can encourage things to be a little bit less messy, but that may not be in the cards.
- sorokod 10y ago
  Consider Chile - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973%E2%80%9390)#Rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile... Consider Nicaragua -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua#Presidential_Directive_to_Support_Rebel_Cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua#Pr...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ralmidani 10y ago
I am from Syria. I've been following events there from the very beginning. The protests were indeed peaceful, despite your use of air quotes in an attempt to defame.
- finid 10y ago
  The protests were peaceful, eh? So the govt forces that were killed during those "peaceful" protests shot themselves.
  - ralmidani 10y ago
    That's the problem with ideology. Facts don't matter, and history can be revised to fit the desired narrative. Countless videos show assad forces shooting at unarmed protesters, in some cases killing and wounding dozens. I do not deny some soldiers were killed in the early stages of the Revolution. Some were killed for refusing to follow orders. Others may have been killed in isolated incidents. But again, the protests were largely peaceful, and assad forces were (and still are) responsible for the majority of deaths. Edit: typo

by finid 10y ago

hx87 10y ago

That's the conspiracy theory narrative, and it's the real real absurdity here. US ambassadors don't have the power to raise hell on the streets of any given country, especially in one where a significant portion of the population have long-standing and legitimate aggrievances against the current government.

tdkl 10y ago
That's why CIA exists.
finid 10y ago
Ambassadors are not supposed to meddle in the affairs of the country they're serving in, but when was the last time that stopped us from doing what we want? Even our elected officials are not supposed to do that, but who's gonna to stop them?
ufmace 10y ago
It's not a conspiracy theory so much as a oddly popular Chompsky-ite view of foreign policy that can be summarized only a little tounge-in-cheek as: America is somehow responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened anywhere in the world. Nothing bad can happen anywhere without it somehow being a result of something that America did. Which serves to infantilize the entire population of every other country in the world. See the GP's belief that apparently a few words by the US Ambassador is more powerful than thousands of years of history and culture, very difficult conflicts between religious sects, clans, and tribes, etc.
- saganus 10y ago
  I was under the impression that it's not so much about America being responsible for every bad thing in the world, but that historically America has been taking advantage of those thousands of years of history, culture and of course conflict, to their own benefit. So if due to some political agenda there is profit or benefits to be reaped from nudging certain conflicts this or that way, there's a high probability that people in power would try to obtain said benefit. I think it's in that sense that "America puts its nose into every conflict around the world". Not saying that I agree or disagree with that view, but I do think it's a bit naive to say that America is the root of all evil, as much as it's naive to think that the most powerful nation in the world (for different definitions of most powerful) would have no interest in other countries' conflicts or in influencing them to their benefit. In other words, if for whatever reason an escalation in the conflicts in Syria or other parts of the Middle East (or the world for that matter) could benefit the US, would it be so far-fetched to think that they would have a vested interest in creating the conditions for that escalation to actually happen?
  - hx87 10y ago
    It's one thing to have a vested interest in an event happening, another to be competent (and lucky) enough to pull that event off yourself. Nudging is easier, but then you can't put 99% of the blame on the nudger.
  - ufmace 10y ago
    I do think we're involved in some minor way in most conflicts, even if by not doing anything at all. When you get this big and powerful and economically interconnected, it's hard to completely ignore something - if you trading with somebody is normal and economically necessary, then not trading with them is an intervention. The reasons behind any particular policy are of course complex. Some may be for good and noble reasons, others for not so good reasons. A few turn out well, many go badly or not at all as intended. Many people in foreign countries even try to get us to intervene. Often they want us to fund them or to suppress their enemies. Some want us to suppress violence in other countries, just because they think we can - see Darfur. Their motives aren't any cleaner or dirtier than ours are, just saying we aren't uniquely or cartoonishly evil. I think the important part to remember is that our real ability to change things abroad is very limited indeed and fraught with risk. We can nudge things a bit, sure. If a country is on the verge of civil war, we can maybe nudge them towards it or away from it, but we can't create the war from scratch, or control what the sides are. If they really want to fight, they will, and we can't stop them. If they really have no desire to fight, we can't make them. If we try to nudge, we may just cause the opposite thing to happen instead. It's a mess, and it's likely to continue to be a mess no matter what we do or don't do. There's always the hope that we can encourage things to be a little bit less messy, but that may not be in the cards.
sorokod 10y ago
Consider Chile - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973%E2%80%9390)#Rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile... Consider Nicaragua -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua#Presidential_Directive_to_Support_Rebel_Cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Nicaragua#Pr...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ralmidani 10y ago

I am from Syria. I've been following events there from the very beginning. The protests were indeed peaceful, despite your use of air quotes in an attempt to defame.

finid 10y ago
The protests were peaceful, eh? So the govt forces that were killed during those "peaceful" protests shot themselves.
- ralmidani 10y ago
  That's the problem with ideology. Facts don't matter, and history can be revised to fit the desired narrative. Countless videos show assad forces shooting at unarmed protesters, in some cases killing and wounding dozens. I do not deny some soldiers were killed in the early stages of the Revolution. Some were killed for refusing to follow orders. Others may have been killed in isolated incidents. But again, the protests were largely peaceful, and assad forces were (and still are) responsible for the majority of deaths. Edit: typo