In this Sept. 24, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly. The United Nations Security Council is expected to adopt a binding resolution this week that would require nations to bar their citizens from traveling abroad to join terrorism organizations, part of a U.S.-led effort to galvanize the international community against what Obama administration officials call an “unprecedented” threat from extremists flocking to Syria and Iraq. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)
So, here’s yet another blatant example of the surreal double standard at the heart of the United States’ political psyche entrenched in our government, our mainstream media, and perhaps most disturbingly, among the vast majority of the people in our nation.
Recently, after what still remains in the eyes of millions as an illegal coup of a democratically elected government, the newly imposed regime in Ukraine moved swiftly and violently to suppress opposition in the regions that rejected its new ultra right wing, ultra Ukrainian nationalist authority. Mostly, this was done in the ethnic Russian regions of the country.
Low and behold, after months of barbaric military action, those regions today lie in ruins. Whole villages were completely destroyed and hundreds of ethnic Russia civilians were killed, including scores of children. All along, the US and European Union allies have time and time again warned Russia not to intervene, even with the provision of humanitarian aid, and additionally accused Russia of illegally intervening and supporting the rebel forces. These accusations, even if one were to consider them politically responsible, have gone mostly unproven, at best supported only by circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless, they’ve resulted in huge sanctions and even military threats against Russia by the US and the EU.
While in the middle of this Russian intervention in Ukraine condemnation high theater pouring out of the US government and all across the mainstream media, a US journalist was executed by ISIS/ISIL in Iraq. This was done by the same group that the US allowed Saudi Arabia and Qatar to arm and fund for more than three years in its neo-colonialist zeal to see Syria’s Assad deposed.
Without even blinking and eye, the US made it clear that ISIS had finally crossed a line. That the US had no intention of tolerating its citizens being murdered anywhere in the world, much less by barbaric Islamist terrorists, etc. So, without any consent by Syria, without any legal authority founded in international law, without any approval from the UN security council or any other UN body, without really ANY legal right whatsoever, the US gives itself the green light to launch a military attack against ISIS inside the borders of an internationally recognized sovereign nation (as per the last time I checked).
Now, please explain all the above to me. If I gather the US perspective correctly, Russia has no right whatsoever to intervene to try to stop the ongoing massacre of ethnic Russian civilians in neighboring eastern Ukraine (at the hands of a democratically challenged regime to boot), but the US reserves itself the right to intervene militarily and directly in a country thousands of miles away from its shores, over the fact that ONE of its citizens has been executed.
Having successfully launched its “Operation One American is Worth More than a Thousand Ruskies, for Fucking Real, and That’s Why We Get to Intervene Wherever We Want and They Don’t,” the US seems to have also decided that they might as well go all out and make it an all-inclusive imperialist venture! Hell, let’s not just bomb ISIS/ISIL according to how and where we choose to neutralize their threat to our citizens. Let’s also bomb the region at will according to our wider geopolitical interests! Like dropping a couple of bombs on ISIS and on critical Syrian infrastructure facilities, like its largest gas/oil refinery, for instance. Nice two-for-one strike for Empire that was …
As if the whole original American exceptionism premise that the US actually has “the right” to arbitrarily bomb sovereign countries it is not a war with, in order to take out whoever it has deemed as a bad guy, wasn’t surreal and corrupt enough already, they also feel completely entitled to redraw the political and economic map of the entire region, almost as if it were part of its own national territory!
In closing, if the US were a person, it would most likely have to be locked up in a mental institution as a dangerous sociopathic criminal. A delirious megalomaniac convinced to the core that his crimes are not really crimes, his transgressions are not really transgressions, his egregious lies and deceptions nothing of the sort — he is innocent, a victim even, of the world’s lack of understanding and even jealousy of his real kindness, generosity and obvious moral and intellectual superiority.
Please, let’s find a way to lock this dangerous monster up and throw away the key …
Content posted to MyMPN open blogs is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to MintPress News.
I’ve admired your words for a while so it’s great to have your writing here at MyMPN! And writing like this is so important, because someone has to point out the elephant in the room. The mainstream media certainly won’t do it!
I feel like nothing good can come from this latest front in the endless “war on terror,” either at home or abroad, and worry our nation is poised to double down on repression domestically too.
the reality is that the Islamic State invaded a sovereign nation Iraq first, slaughtered peaceful villagers and has openly and publicly called for a global attack on the USA and its citizens. Had they not crossed into Iraq, our allies and the country who we owe a debt to for the unlawful 2003 invasion, we would not need to act. The Islamic state defiled an international border by crossing between Syria and Iraq. Had they not done this and had they not called for a global muslim call to arms against the west, the USA would not have needed to get involved.
In addition, Assad has implicitly approved the strikes by not officially condemning them. “Syria has “no reservations” about airstrikes against ISIS and wants to work with Washington to tackle the militants, the country’s deputy foreign minister told NBC News. He urged the US to join with Syria in the fight against ISIS, suggesting a broad coalition against the militants that would also include Russia, China and Iran. One former official said that as long as the attacks were confined to ISIS the regime would not intervene.”
One other point is that obama has repeatedly sought to make this an international effort emphasizing the role of other arab and muslimstates-saudis, qatar, turkey etc. Many US citizens like me are hesitant to get involved and see how complex the situation has become.
Regarding Russia, Ukraine was not crossing into Russian territory or threatening their sovereignty in any form and thus has no right to intervene in donetsk and luhansk. If anything Russia is the one who has shown the intent to annex territory in the past year(Crimea).
Poroshenko won the vote with 55% in may this year. You say millions see this as a coup? well, tens of millions more see the ethnic ukranian Poroshenko as their democratically elected leader.
“The Islamic state invaded a sovereign nation when they crossed the border?” What border? May I remind you that there is no such country as the “Islamic State” with a border! What do you mean then “they invaded”? So Syria is now not a sovereign nation then, but the Islamic State?
Obama’s effort for an international coalition…that is a big geopolitical joke right? You mean our client states in the Gulf and our NATO allies? And who armed ISIS in Syria anyway? What is the role of our Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey allies in all of this while ISIS was committing its forces to only overthrowing Assad?
Of course Syria wishes to create some kind of united front against ISIS! Specially if by the random impossible chance that the US would agree, it would tie the deal for them in terms of limiting US rogue actions against Syrian targets as well.
So…what else can Syria do, but to NOT intervene anyway? They can’t defeat ISIS, you mean they can dare to threaten to tackle a US attack if the US were to choose to launch it?
The Crimea was always a historical Russian backland until Khrushchev gave it to Soviet Ukraine as a good gesture gift in 1954 . That is why Ukraine did not really object to its loss in the first place. Because of the complicated ethnic and geographic conditions left unresolved after the collapse of the USSR, the self legislated, right wing, ultranationalist Poroshenko regime does not have to “cross” into Russia to slaughter thousands of Ethnic Russians. It has done it from the safe confines of the present boundaries of the Ukrainian state. Maybe millions of Ukrainians do see the regime as their rightful leadership. Sure, that is obvious enough. Yet, the fact remains that those elections came after an illegal coup, which illegalized and or persecuted all significant traditional opposition prior to the rigged elections, from which almost all ethnic Russians inside Ukraine abstained. I don’t think anyone can honestly say they support an election result controlled by coup leaders held without the participation of any true opposition party. The prior government supposedly deposed by “the people” for undemocratic practices did not even do that!
Labeling Poroshenko as ‘ultra right wing, ultra Ukrainian nationalist authority’ is irresponsible journalism. Assuming Russia was not bringing in arms when Putin openly admitted to bringing in pro-russian forces into Crimea is utter naivety(Beginning on 26 February, pro-Russian forces, subsequently confirmed to be Russian troops by Vladimir Putin, began to gradually take control of the Crimean Peninsula).
Most would argue Ukraine was fighting against armed separatists and thus military intervention was just. Ethnic Ukrainian citizens and children have also died in this conflict in the Donbass and yet you paint it as a nationalist, fascist attack on ethnic Russians??
If they were a person I would label China, Russia, Iran, Syria, ISIS and many many others as psychopathic, dual personality criminals who should be locked up. The USA just holds more power but if one of these others held more power, their tyranny would, in all likelihood, surpass that of the US.
Good points, This is just an anarchist view. America’s evil. We know Adrian. Everything is a conspiracy. Grow up dude. So should the US just not do anything at all about Isis?
I suppose then that non anarchists like myself can have anarchist views as well then! And BTW, no. I
do not believe in conspiracy theories. I believe in facts. The fact is
that the US has continuously condemned others for doing but a fraction
of what it gives itself the green light to carry out itself with
impunity. Sorry if that FACT offends yours or anyone else’s US
world-supremacist sensitivities.
How would you responsibly label the Poroshenko regime then Mr Jones? May i remind you that the Ethnic Ukranian controlled coup that overthrew a democratically elected government happened WITHOUT the consent of all of the citizens or regional governments of that country and therefore your presumption that this regime then had the right to “fight against separatists” rings rather hollow. A coup happens, coup leaders arrest or depose all members of the opposition, they hod an election they themselves control and then grant themselves the legal authority to combat those that oppose the whole illegal debacle for trying to divide the country…Oh yes, I think I see the logic.
You want us to believe that if any other country were to hold the type of absolute power the US does, they would be worse. Right? Well, the problem is that you have no basis whatsoever for affirming that as a fact. It is the logic of supremacist imperialists everywhere:.”As bad as we are, you can bet that we are better than everyone else if they were in our position.” Of all countries in the world besides the US, has been in an almost uninterrupted state of war during the last two hundred years. Neither has any other country try to intervene directly in the affairs of other countries as much as we have, nor tried to overthrow other countries’ governments…So, if you want to pretend that no such historical facts matter because of an utterly speculative, and if I may say so myself, apparently apologist premise about how you think other countries would behave even worse given the chance, please go ahead. Facts are facts. Speculative conjecture is another thing altogether.