Jump to content
myouvial

Aggressive posture (of USA)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/424447-dna-us-bush-obama/

Aggressive posture

Published time: 18 Apr, 2018 07:53Edited time: 18 Apr, 2018 13:29
© Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
  • 63
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Does American foreign policy possess a specific DNA? It would seem so. It doesn’t matter who the president is. It doesn’t matter which party controls the White House. One can easily ask the following question: Is Trump’s time in office serving George W. Bush’s third term or Barack Obama’s third term? The neocons are firmly in the saddle.

CrossTalking with Hillary Leverett, Michael Patrick Flanagan, Don DeBar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Propaganda machine of aggressiveness at best ?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/out-of-26-major-editorials-on-trumps-syria-strikes-zero-opposed/5636762

Out of 26 Major Editorials on Trump’s Syria Strikes, Zero Opposed

Global Research, April 19, 2018
FAIR 18 April 2018

printme.png

 24 
  4  0 
 
  30
us-army-syria-deployment-boots-on-ground

A survey by FAIR of the top 100 papers in the US by circulation found not a single editorial board opposed to Trump’s April 13 airstrikes on Syria. Twenty supported the strikes, while six were ambiguous as to whether or not the bombing was advisable. The remaining 74 issued no opinion about Trump’s latest escalation of the Syrian war.

This is fairly consistent with editorial support for Trump’s April 2017 airstrikes against the Syrian government, which saw only one editorial out of 47 oppose the bombing (FAIR.org4/11/17). The single paper of dissent from last year, the Houston Chronicle, didn’t publish an editorial on last week’s bombing.

Seven of the top 10 newspapers by circulation—USA Today,Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post,Chicago Tribune, Newsday and Washington Post—supported the airstrikes. The New York Daily News and San Jose Mercury News offered no opinion, while the New York Times (4/13/18) was ambiguous—mostly lamenting the lack of congressional approval, but not saying that this meant the strikes were illegal or unwise. “Legislation should…set limits on a president’s ability to wage war against states like Syria,” is the Times’ conclusion. A complete list of editorials on the airstrikes can be viewed here.

Almost every editorial spoke in the same Official, Serious tone that demanded “action” be taken and “international norms” be “enforced.” Some, such as theWall Street Journal (4/16/18), went further, insisting on a wider war against the Syrian regime, Iran and/or Russia in vague but menacing terms.

Washington Post: Trump Was Right to Strike Syria. But the Mission Is Far From Accomplished.

“Only…with the departure of the Assad regime, will it be possible to ensure that Syrians do not suffer more atrocities,” the Washington Post (4/14/18) editorialized.

“Barack Obama dealt Mr. Trump a bad hand by letting Russia, Iran and China believe they could advance their goals of regional domination without US resistance,” the Journal insisted. “In Syria as elsewhere, Mr. Trump has to decide if he wants to ratify that American retreat or develop a strategy to stop it.”

The mid-market Toledo Blade (4/15/18) punched above its weight class and delivered the most bellicose and jingoistic editorial of them all with “The West Stands Up”:

Make no mistake, this was a warning to Vladimir Putin as well as Bashar al-Assad.

The United States and its two longtime allies redrew the red line that had been obliterated by a failure of nerve by the US and the West generally: There will be cost for your barbarities….

But in the larger sense, the West did what it should have done a long time ago. It stood up for decency and international law. It stood up for those who are defenseless. It stood up for itself, and for simple humanity, and redeemed some self-respect.

If Assad regime officials find themselves catching up on news from the greater Northwest Ohio region, they will surely take heed.

None of the top 100 newspapers questioned the US’s legal or moral right to bomb Syria, and all accepted US government claims to be neutral arbiters of “international law.” Many editorials handwrung about  a “lack of strategy” or absence of congressional approval, but none so much that they opposed the bombing. Strategy and legal sanction are add-on features—nice but, by all accounts, not essential.

The total lack of editorial board dissent is consistent with major papers’ tradition of uniform acceptance of US military action. The most influential paper in the country, the New York Times, has not opposed a single US war—from the Persian Gulf to Bosnia, to Kosovo to Iraq to Libya to the forever war on ISIS—in the past 30 years.

The scope of debate among major editorial boards is not if Trump should bomb the Syrian regime, but how much bombing he should undertake—and when, roughly speaking, he should maybe get around to letting Congress know.

*

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

The original source of this article is FAIR
Copyright © Adam Johnson, FAIR, 2018

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some points l noticed:

~ 4 minutes; Debar made the observation that since 1917 one country, Russia, has been the bugbear for the US. My Question point: how does the Bush Dynasty's, with Harvard Un., support and guidance with Boris Yeltsin's campaign for President of Russia fit into this?

~11 minutes Debar said hegemony has ended as a failed strategy.

~20 minutes Debar said the Pentagon's jihadis have fought the ClA's jihadis.  Stuff like this has happened before.

~23 minutes Hillary Mann-Leverett discussed US imposed limits on regional powers and regional powers in general. My comment: this started with the Nixon Doctrine which not only was applied to Vietnam, but also the Shah (he started buying a lot of weapons for a large area country with a 'small' population), lsraeI, (Dita Beard, lTT and) Chile, Thailand, and infrastructure in Morocco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment to occurrance in the world is simple :

We can not control other human actions, but we can control ourselves action. Approval of Allah SWT upon ourselves controlship will increase when our knowledge from the teaching of Ahlul Bayt a.s. increases. Hence, it is necessary to learn, study, investigate the tenet, teaching of Ahlul Bayt a.s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×