“There are no vital national interests at stake in Syria. None. Not Iran, not Israel and not oil. Yes, we can watch from the sidelines and let the Iranians and Syrians form their own politics. This is what the U.S. did with Mexico and Canada. Did the U.S. relish interference from Spain, France, Great Britain and Russia into its affairs? How brainless is it to act as if the refugee crisis is an independent reason for intervening, when it is an outcome of the war itself, encouraged every step of the way by the U.S.? And why must the U.S. rectify this tragedy? What good is a ‘freedom’ that marches us off to wars willy-nilly or grabs our wealth to do what it wills?”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/138136.html
(Visited 38 times, 1 visits today)
Related posts:
California’s Economic Suicide and other News from Yesterday’s Ballot Measures
Americans are Now Traveling Overseas for Surgery
U.S. 10 Year Bond Yields in Perspective (1790-Present)
Obama admin. sends guns to Syria…without background checks
Digital Technologies vs. Truth Suppression
Private Investigators Targeted in Britain
Ron Paul: Obama Has No Middle East Strategy? Good!
The Phony Trade-off Between Privacy and Security
To those who say ‘trust the government’: Remember J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI?
U.S. States Protect, Subsidize Bitcoin While Feds Moan About 'Terrorism' And 'Illicit Activity'
Bill Bonner: Can a credit system last in the modern world?
Meles Zenawi: The Ethiopian Marriage of Marxism-Leninism and Capitalism
Which One Should Be Banned?
My Answer To A VC's Bitcoin Question
This One Group of Bankers Can Help You Predict the Markets