The U.S. Wouldn't Allow An Armed Takeover Of The Government, Why Should Syria?

[Huckleberry3911948]

this is a great post. we are helping and supporting and cheering for all these government overthrows in the mideast which btw will probably be retaken by islamic state, worse run and more oppressive than b4. but what american government is concerned about is; militias and gun control right here, not illegal immigration not crime not debt not offshoring jobs, but militias and gun control #1 concern. #2 concern young people protesting no jobs aka wallstreet occupation, biggest midea smear since vietnam protests.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by dorado0359

Is this another case of U.S. foreign policy hypocricy?

Uh, wut? When has US Foreign Policy not been hypocritical?

You can look at it from a Machiavellian point of view, and say that you do whatever you need to do, but that conflicts with every idea the US espouses, such as self-determination, democracy, freedom, etc etc etc.

Pakistan gets self-determination, but the Kurds don't. The East Pakis (now Bangladesh) and the West Pakis (now Pakistan) get self-determination but the Kurds don't. The Czechs and Slovaks get self-determination, but the Kurds don't. The Kosovars get self-determination, but the Kurds don't.

And you can substitute any number of groups for Kurds.

If you go back to the Clinton-era and look at his Washington Plan, "spreading democracy" is merely a euphemism for "open your goddamn markets to the US or we'll overthrow your government."

Hypocritically...

Mircea