Sunday, July 29, 2012
Most destabilizing
Trying to pay no attention to the fake "election" shit, but sometimes it gets too annoying to avoid.
Vulture Romney says: "Iran is the world's most destabilizing power."
Wrong in too many ways to count, but I'll try.
1. Ideally, stability shouldn't be an important variable. A powerful nation should serve the interests of its OWN PEOPLE. Sometimes the best actions lead to stability and sometimes the opposite. It's a side effect, not a goal.
2. Nevertheless, from 1861 to 1980, from Mass-Murdering Madman Lincoln through Helpless Imbecile Carter, stability was a main goal of American foreign policy. We consistently helped brutal tyrants and smashed all efforts toward self-determination. (In Lincoln's case, of course, the brutal tyrant was Lincoln himself; nevertheless, he established the rule that everyone else followed.)
3. Reagan broke the rule and took the pragmatic view. When he collapsed the Soviet Empire, he destabilized the world; but Reagan properly saw that as a side effect.
4. After Reagan, all presidents have specifically worked to destabilize the world even more. Since 1990, America is unquestionably the "world's most destabilizing power." Nobody comes close. Bush The Father destab'd Iraq. Clinton destab'd Yugoslavia. Bush The Son destab'd Afghanistan and Iraq (again). Obama is destab'ing Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Persia. But we do NOT destabilize Yemen or Bahrain or Saudi, because our Israeli and Saudi bosses tell us not to.
5. Persia has done some destab'ing in the past, notably Lebanon in the '80s. They were happy to watch us remove Saddam in 2003, and probably steered us toward that goal. (Remember Ahmed Chalabi?) But in the current situation, Persia is SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTING THE STABLE DICTATORS. The same dictators that we were supporting (much more effectively) back in the pre-Reagan days when we sought stability first.
Good lord, this Romney idiot can't even keep up with his own party's fast-developing idiocy. He's stuck in the Carter era and doesn't even know it.
(FWIW I don't see any problem with his comments about the London Olympics. Simple truth, and his experience gives him the authority to speak on that subject. Pretty much the only time Vulture has made sense.) ¶ 4:56 PM
Vulture Romney says: "Iran is the world's most destabilizing power."
Wrong in too many ways to count, but I'll try.
1. Ideally, stability shouldn't be an important variable. A powerful nation should serve the interests of its OWN PEOPLE. Sometimes the best actions lead to stability and sometimes the opposite. It's a side effect, not a goal.
2. Nevertheless, from 1861 to 1980, from Mass-Murdering Madman Lincoln through Helpless Imbecile Carter, stability was a main goal of American foreign policy. We consistently helped brutal tyrants and smashed all efforts toward self-determination. (In Lincoln's case, of course, the brutal tyrant was Lincoln himself; nevertheless, he established the rule that everyone else followed.)
3. Reagan broke the rule and took the pragmatic view. When he collapsed the Soviet Empire, he destabilized the world; but Reagan properly saw that as a side effect.
4. After Reagan, all presidents have specifically worked to destabilize the world even more. Since 1990, America is unquestionably the "world's most destabilizing power." Nobody comes close. Bush The Father destab'd Iraq. Clinton destab'd Yugoslavia. Bush The Son destab'd Afghanistan and Iraq (again). Obama is destab'ing Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Persia. But we do NOT destabilize Yemen or Bahrain or Saudi, because our Israeli and Saudi bosses tell us not to.
5. Persia has done some destab'ing in the past, notably Lebanon in the '80s. They were happy to watch us remove Saddam in 2003, and probably steered us toward that goal. (Remember Ahmed Chalabi?) But in the current situation, Persia is SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTING THE STABLE DICTATORS. The same dictators that we were supporting (much more effectively) back in the pre-Reagan days when we sought stability first.
Good lord, this Romney idiot can't even keep up with his own party's fast-developing idiocy. He's stuck in the Carter era and doesn't even know it.
(FWIW I don't see any problem with his comments about the London Olympics. Simple truth, and his experience gives him the authority to speak on that subject. Pretty much the only time Vulture has made sense.) ¶ 4:56 PM
