Columbia University Professor Gary Sick on the apparent “curtain of silence [that] has been drawn” over the aid being sent by the US and its allies to the Free Syrian Army:
…I look — mostly in vain — for any detailed disclosure of the sources and methods that are making the FSA such a formidable military force…
When opposition forces were battering the US in Iraq, we were treated to regular revelations in the media of Iranian supply of IEDs and other weapons, as well as training and direction. Some of those “exclusives” were based on very flimsy evidence, but that did not prevent them from becoming front page stories and lead items on the evening news, day after day. Even in Syria, we get a regular stream of speculative reports about Iranian support for Assad — money, oil, technical support, intelligence, even, some say, Revolutionary Guards fighting in Syria.
But now that the shoe is on the other foot, and governments friendly to the US are engaged in harassing Assad’s army, we are getting only the vaguest possible references to the description and sources of all that new weaponry, the training of FSA cadres, and how much it is costing to build a new army from scratch.
Last week it was revealed that Turkey has not only been giving shelter to the FSA, but that it has been providing extensive military training as well. US aid also continues to flow along with arms from the Gulf states, despite a growing list of accusations that the rebels have been committing crimes like torture and executions of Assad supporters.
In the Western media, this is called “humanitarian intervention” or “shaping the conflict,” whereas Russia is propping up a dictator and Iran is engaged in a proxy war. Just like how our occupation of Iraq was an exercise in “democracy promotion,” while alleged Iranian aid to Iraqi insurgents was criminal and nefarious proxy terrorism.
The U.S. ought to leave the internal affairs of foreign nations to be decided by the citizens themselves. It's enough to have spies stationed there, whether American or otherwise, to keep us abreast of conditions.
Iraq proved definitively that even our open support and our direct intervention will yield more local hostility against us, the "occupying" invaders, than good will and good faith. Insurgents, many perhaps Iranian-backed to be sure, attacked our convoys in a manner and to a degree that was never brought against the convoys and processions of Saddam Hussein and his regime–also an enemy of Iran.
The real question: Do the Iraqi people, or any Middle Eastern peoples so stormily divided by sect and ethnicity, have the temperament to establish and maintain a stable, peaceful society under any conditions? (Israel excluded.)
http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/2…
Whether or not the peoples of other nations have the temperament to establish…. any conditions, as you had asked, is really none of our business.
A peaceful society works best when individuals are left alone to do as they please so long as they don't aggress against others. To think that other societies should be set up as democracies, and that is the best form of government is arrogant. Whether 1 rules over 99, or 51 over 49, some are still slaves to others..
I agree with every thing you wrote. And I frankly don't care whether the people of the Middle East choose a democracy, a theocracy, or anarcho-capitalism: It IS none of my business.
My proposed system of direct democracy divides our own nation up politically, into its own voting precincts, thus allowing local communities to live more fully by whichever philosophy they find to their liking–within certain constitutional limits. How else does one transition to the best system? Why would this be so objectionable?
If an all voluntary system then proves to be best for all, it will be adopted by all. The trouble with libertarians is that they have no credible means by which to reach their all-voluntary promised land–and they're too principled to take even the smallest steps toward it. Ron Paul, running as a Republican, knows better.
http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/2…
I'm not a libertarian. I do not affiliate with any political party. A non-government Libertarian is an oxymoron. Robert Lefevre said it best "Politics is the arena in which some gain control and authority over others." I am a non-voter. No one has the right by majority vote to force any system, whether it be voluntaryism, democracy etc… In fact, democracy is a structure, as is a theocracy. A system is the free market, or voluntaryism.
If you want to divide it down to the states, and then to communities, why stop there? It should go down to the individuals. Autarchy = Self-Rule.
Your idea is objectionable because it starts from the top down. That is a structure. Voluntaryism starts from the bottom up. If 10 people get together and want to form a theocratic community amongst themselves that is fine. But if you say that each voting precinct NEEDS to vote on something, then that is contrary to freedom. There should be no "idea" we need to follow. Ideas are generated and put into practice on their own, voluntarily.
Furthermore, the constitution can be used best as a napkin. It is a "social contract" in which it is neither social nor a contract as it is not voluntary. I could care less what it says. I didn't sign it, and I don't have to live within its bounds. The limits I follow are property limits and the non-aggression axiom. My "rights" (arbitrary concept derived from property ownership) are not derived from the constitution, nor from anything other than simply being born and having ownership over my body and its derivatives.
You sound like a libertarian, whether you call yourself one or not. It's the sound of a logical brat, really, who takes for granted the order around him–protections that allow him the spare time to pretend that he could do just fine without them.
The only world safe for voluntarism would be one in which everyone already supported it. And even if all initially did so, problems would arise in the normal course of providing for oneself and one's family. Scarcity causes conflict. People born into voluntarism would also be just as likely as they are today to say: Why should I have to ask for something that I could easily take without asking?
When hungry people with kids come across the same solitary apple dangling on a branch, if only one is dedicated to voluntarism, who do you think gets the apple? The real world is full of scarcities–and full of people who don't play nice. If, for example, the state were dissolved in favor of your ideal tomorrow, what do you suppose the people in the Pentagon and conservative gun-toters would do to you Autarchists?
Spare me brat logic. You'd submit or you'd die. All the Autarchians together, each only contributing financially and physically as much as they felt like volunteering, wouldn't stand a chance against a heirarchical compulsory force.
It's intellectually lazy, and ultimately immoral martyrdom, not to propose a means by which to get from the constitutional system we're under now to the non-system you desire. Changing minds requires a hands-on instruction for many people; thus, I devised a system of mass political participation, where political "force" is as minimized as possible, while still preserving the protections of the state in the meantime.
Of course I'd LIKE to live in a world NOW in which everyone went about their affairs in voluntary exchanges. We'd probably all like super powers too. That doesn't require any deep thinking.
http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/2…
Spare me the ad hominem attacks.
"You sound like a libertarian, whether you call yourself one or not." – As I said before, Libertarians have a political party. I do not affiliate with any political party, including the LP. Yes, there are similarities with the LP and myself but that doesn't mean, nor does it matter if I am one.
"order around him" – Order comes about via human action, not from a political structure put in place by anyone.
"Why should I have to ask for something that I could easily take without asking?" – except in this day and age, theft is legal via the state. In a voluntaryist world, it does not matter whether one believes in it or not, just as it does not matter if one believes in slavery or not now: Either way punishment or justice would ensue, the difference is who does the punishing, defending, or justice. In my world, it would be private, not a public good (defense). So no, a safe world does not depend on what one believes, be it voluntarism or constitutionalism. Either way, crimes will happen. Taxation is theft, and to say that theft is good, or the ends justify the means, is a short sighted illogical argument.
"The real world is full of scarcities" – And in the real world the "market" determines the most efficient ways to distribute these scarce goods. Hence the reason capitalism works so well. Did I mention the market is "voluntary"? Scarcity isn't solved by redistribution and socialism. Even Russia had to acknowledge that throughout their 5 year plans.
"You'd submit or you'd die." – Not much different than slavery is it? Sounds like your view says "I don't care what's moral, I care what is possible (though only in your subjective head).
"All the Autarchians together, each only contributing financially and physically as much as they felt like volunteering, wouldn't stand a chance against a heirarchical compulsory force." – So that force is then justified? Where is your morality?
"It's intellectually lazy, and ultimately immoral martyrdom, not to propose a means by which to get from the constitutional system we're under now to the non-system you desire." – Wow, that is some good logic, I'm glad you have made a proven point. Oh wait, you didn't prove anything, you just made another ad hominem attack.
"I devised a system of mass political participation, where political "force" is as minimized as possible.." – Yes, you devised a mandatory (think involuntary servitude aka slavery) system in which we force people to do something, with minimal amount of force. Now that's a circle jerk of morality if I ever heard one..
…I look — mostly in vain — for any detailed disclosure of the sources and methods that are making the FSA such a formidable military force…