While the World Burns Under Western Imperialism, Americans Tweet About It

So Syria looks like the next Muslim majority country to be soon relegated to a failed state, a decision that Western governments see necessary to fulfill their God complex, ignoring the sovereignity of other nations, their leaders, ways of life and populations.

Aleppo today.

Donald Trump, the clown that many Americans had no choice but to vote into office because their only other option was a revolting criminal, is now set on playing the part of World Police. There's no difference between him and his predecessors, though – from Barack Obama, to George W. Bush, to Bill Clinton – most US Presidents, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, tend to blend together to the point of unnecessary distinction as they gleefully drop bombs on civilians, destroy other nations, and neglect their own population – 23 million of which live at or under the poverty line in the US.

Nikki Haley, the infantile US Ambassador to the completely-useless-and-for-show-only United Nations tried to shame Russia in response to the alleged recent chemical attacks in Syria, referring to them as, "the Russian regime, whose hands are all covered in the blood of Syrian children."

This from a person who back in December said of a nation that for the past forty-so years has thrived on the ethnic cleansing and exploitation of Palestinians and their lands: "Israel has been forced to live under constant security threats like virtually no other country in the world. It should not have to live that way." That quote was pulled from this Haaretz article, in which it also described Haley as a darling of AIPAC, and noted her obsession with the Isreali state.

From The Guardian article :

British prime minister, Theresa May, said: “We are working urgently with our allies to assess what has happened. But, we are also working with our allies on any action that is necessary.”

French president, Emmanuel Macron agreed that a strong joint response was urgently needed.

Does all of this sound familiar? Western allies getting together to show concern for specific populations of the world and human rightism, in places where they have vested interests, and after all of their illegal interventions and world-policing that sets countries on fire – this is the unconcealed strategy of modern day Western imperialism.

And yet we still have people like this guy, a political scientist he says, who makes it known to readers in the first line in his article that he's coming from a well-reasoned, educated standpoint : "Earlier this week when I argued that the United States has an ethical obligation to intervene in Syria...".

I laughed after reading that line, and scanned the rest of the unremarkable write-up in which the author, Joseph Amodeo refers to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) mandate of the UN Charter in an exceedingly feverish endorsement of US military intervention. War mongers are rampant in the US, be it in politics, the mainstream media, or even pseudo-intellectuals who write op-eds, so this isn't really anything new. It’s the pomposity that always tickles me.

The author writes, "I believe that we are now at a point where military intervention is no longer an option, but rather a necessity to bring an end to the harm being perpetrated against the Syrian people by Bashar al-Assad’s regime."

It's so cute how this guy tries to pretend that he cares for the Syrian people. Imagine if he encouraged that same regard towards the Americans who've long been on the receiving end of their own government's inhumane policies. His endorsement of war masquerading as concern for Syrians simply translates to : Come on, let's do some real damage already!!!

He follows with, "In Kosovo, the United States and NATO forces undertook a 78-day bombardment, which resulted in no western casualties."

Bombing civilian areas and infrastructure in Kosovo – just another day for NATO.

And how many civilian casualties did the US and NATO cause with their overzealous bombing?

Funny that Amodeo neglects to mention this crucial point that is central to the R2P mandate (after going on about the harm being done to Syrians) because according to the Human Rights Watch report, about 500 casualties were counted in ninety separate NATO attacks. Additionally, "more than half the deaths occurred as a result of attacks on illegitimate or questionable targets."

What little I know about R2P I learned from a course in International Law I took in college, so how is it that I can see why R2P is problematic while a college professor of political science is drooling at the mouth, while using words like "ethical" and "necessity" to justify more bombarding of a state already so devastated?

Americans are generally a deluded group of people who’ve bought into their own propaganda, warring folks who want to enforce the idea of American exceptionalism and demand everyone else believe it as well. It's fine if the West shows up in your country and kills anyone that gets in their way, because that's the price to pay for democracy and freedom — two things the US government couldn’t give two shits about as evidenced by their treatment of people on their own soil.

Critics of R2P have argued that intervention could set a dangerous precedent by allowing powerful states to breach the sovereignty of the less powerful, as is demonstrated time and time again by the US and its allies.

What this is really, is Western imperialism masquerading as humanitarian intervention, with NATO overstepping its authority and violating international humanitarian law with conceit. Remember when a US aerial bombing of a mosque in Aleppo back in 2017 caused 43 civilian casualties? Because of faulty intelligence that had them believe they were targeting an al Qaeda meeting? And how the US Defense Department first tried denying it, and then finally shrugged and said it was legal even though it was clearly a war crime?

Aleppo mosque bombing by US air strike.

Amodeo stupidly insists, "We cannot merely watch as the crisis in Syria spirals into further attacks on Syrian citizens and, in turn, draws the United States and the international community into an even deeper threat to global security," ignoring the fact that the United States is why most of the world is in a fucking mess in the first place.

Because it can't stop intervening for self-interest, greed, power, natural resources and through violent, unbridled attacks, murdering anyone in their path, be it through open savagery or secret wars.

What do Americans do about the continuous destruction of other lands and its people by its government? They do nothing. It's almost as if even Americans are afraid of their leaders. Because deep down they know just how evil and unconscionable their own leaders are, and it's much easier to tweet about their feelings, and comment enthusiastically on news stories than try to actually take action and prevent more diastrous outcomes in the world. That is called passivity, and also cowardice.