Barack Obama is recognised to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously — both what he says, and what he omits.
As the very environment I inhabit continues to shake and rumble, and as both my future and that of Japan itself are as unsteady as the foundation of the building I live in, my eyes turn to the middle east and to America’s, and “The West’s”, misguided tramplings.
The definition of cynicism is as follows:
1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others
Libya, Bahrain, Occupied territories
The deputy national security advisor Dennis McDonough told the Washington Post, “We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent… We make them on how we can best advance our interests in the region.”
This says volumes while explaining very little other than further illustrating that there is more going on in Libya besides “humanitarian intervention”.
It seems clear that the use of American military power was brought to bare on a sovereign foreign country, one with whom we have often collaborated, in order to “advance our interests in the region” under the smoke screen of a “humanitarian intervention”.
As discussed in this article the USA is quite picky in regards to which humanitarian interventions it wants to involve itself in. Libya was seen as something worthwhile while the West bank, Bahrain and the Ivory Coast are not worth America’s time.
One can only be left at best confused yet more likely with a developing sense of cynicism spawned and easily maintained by the extensive menu of lies, cover ups, screw ups and bad policies that the American government insists on implementing and maintaining with genuine vigor.
But is it cynicism?
If the facts tell the truth and if one accepts very basic moral principles regarding what constitutes a moral/immoral action then perhaps it’s something other than cynicism.
When the president of the United states claims in no uncertain terms that a military action (bombing in Libya) is purely humanitarian yet his deputy national security advisor states it’s to “advance our interests in the region” than who is lying? When we have clearly used force to aid in the ousting of a particular regime (Gaddafi) yet then claim that “If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter,” how can one trust anything that these people perpetuate and put forward?
According to the current US president, bombing is not using force.
The double think is so prevalent the Obama administration should be paying George Orwell royalties.
“The double think is so prevalent the Obama administration should be paying George Orwell royalties.”
I hope you will allow me to use that sentence some day.
Use me, Use me, cause you ain’t no average groupie.
haha, well, I DO like big butts, about that I can’t lie.
You…other brothers can’t deny….
This is the kind of post I like seeing these days. Speaking of Orwell, I am reading his “Why I Write,” which talks about how much stronger patriotism is in the middle/low classes than the elite. Makes a lot of sense how they can sell us on aggressive acts when appealing to our sense of duty, honor, love of country, etc.
Great writing. Found you via. Biggie.
Egypt gets billions from us so we held their nuts in the end. Libya makes billions with oil and we don’t have their nutz.
Just money…thats the diff. Obama is a 2 faced stunningly typical in-experienced politician.
Obama is a gimmick, he’s a trendy T-shirt. Whoever they “elect” next will be no better. An honest genesis requires a starting point that few in America want to descend to.
They outta take the lead from the Middle East and revolt. The White House logs of who comes and goes has become a joke.
Revolution…I ain’t shittin.
BTW your gonna be a member of a new site.
Look forward to seeing your posts in the future