who cares, we are in america, not Iran

Um, not everyone on this site lives in the U.S.

You should since these are the people "terrorizing" our country.

And we're not all from America on this forum so please, enough of the snide remarks.

America is a member of NATO, so this effects us too, not just the people of Iran or Syria

This is an international site with people from all across the globe, if you don't care, why post in the thread at all?



i'm an American and I care because innocent people die during these wars, wars not waged in self defense.

We're also in debt and yet we're waging all these wars in countries, many of whom we shouldn't be in and they're cuting back our programs here, cutbacks for Police Officers, Fire Fighters etc. due to lack of funds, that's not right, these wars are not in self defene, especially not the current one in Libya



Getting involved in these conflicts only causes anger and resentment, if we went back to our neutral status of days past, we'd be in better shape diplomatically, economically, and socially.

NATO's original goal was basically a defense organization to protect against a possible invasion by the Soviet Union, that goal has changed drastically and the Soviet Union is gone.

If you weren't aware, the United States is a globalized country and changes in one globalized country can affect the whole world. In a country as small as Finland for instance, there were some big political changes this year here and a noticeable change was perceived in world economy and "world" includes USA. I suppose all you care is your own business though so don't bother reading, please.
Sometimes, when there are lots of small wars in an area for a line of time, a bigger war can actually be for good. It may solve the whole situation once and for all. Of course, countries must be very careful and considerable when deciding these things.

dated august 10th and your gona wanna read this



Obama Is Implementing Plans For War Throughout the Middle East Created 10 Years Ago by the Neocons





Politico reports:




The U.S. has dramatically ratcheted up the pressure on Syrian President Bashar Assad, slapping new sanctions on key companies Wednesday as White House press secretary Jay Carney said the leader is guilty of “heinous actions” and the country would be better off without him.

***


President Barack Obama and other administration officials have already said publicly that Assad has “lost legitimacy” and must begin the push toward democracy in Syria or step down. A few weeks ago, after months of protests on the streets of Syria and little progress from Assad without explicit U.S. calls for his resignation, administration officials began to consider calling for Assad to step down, CNN said.

The new push from the White House, officials said, will make clear Assad is no longer a credible reformer and should give up his post.


A Nato plan for a post-Gaddaffi Libya - carving up the country, and giving the richest spoils to the UAE - has been leaked.

The U.S. is already at war in Somalia. As the New York Times noted last month: "U.S. Expands Its Drone War Into Somalia".

The U.S. is always trying to justify war against Iran (see this, for example) and Lebanon.


What explains these widespread wars throughout the Middle East?

As American reporter Gareth Porter reported in 2008:

Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.


Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states...


***


General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].


***


When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."


***


The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy" their military capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD)...


Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.


Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.


***


A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for being a superpower".
General Clark added some details in 2007:


I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you’re too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September.


***


So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it’s worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."
Obama is simply carrying out the Neocons' war plans created right after 9/11 ... if not before.

Postscript: The former director of the CIA’s counter-terrorism center says that American policy in the Middle East is failing because the U.S. doesn't believe in democracy.

And security experts - conservative hawks and liberal doves alike - agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

Oh well ... can't change policy now, can we?