Comments on: Syria’s charming offensive http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/17/syrias-charming-offensive/ Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: breezinthru http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/17/syrias-charming-offensive/#comment-1111 Mon, 04 Apr 2011 11:52:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=904#comment-1111 Two comments:

Firstly, I greatly envy those who had Professor Dominguez for a college professor. I hope his students realize their good fortune.

Secondly, as demonstrated by Iraq and Afghanistan, the expenditures of military might, vast sums of wealth and diplomatic energies result in only a modest effect on entrenched social and political forces.

Selectively promoting changes in political leadership in a few countries that are ripe for the process will likely promote a gradual positive change in the regimes that remain; America’s current endeavors are likely to eventually yield better results than war at a much lower cost.

]]>
By: Danny_Black http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/17/syrias-charming-offensive/#comment-1087 Sat, 26 Mar 2011 21:26:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=904#comment-1087 BTW, which governments that are “more brutal” than the Baath regime does the US support. I realise under Obama’s “reach out to genocidal maniacs” policy, he was trying to cuddle up to Syria but now Sadam has gone it is hard to see a worse regime in the Middle East. At least Hizbollah builds hospitals.

]]>
By: cyberfool http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/17/syrias-charming-offensive/#comment-1066 Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:08:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=904#comment-1066 Well, the real problem with Syria is that doesn’t even come close to observing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Being that it is truly “Universal”, it is not biased towards the US economic arrangements or any other US issue.

States don’t have to be “subordinate” to the US to follow the UDHR. They don’t have to agree with the US on military or economic policy. Actually the opposite is the case, when countries move to observing the UDHR they tend to be in less conflict with their neighbors, less antagonistic towards the “western world”.

It is not a surprise that when Venezuela moved from generally observing the UDHR to a gross violator of the UDHR they also became antagonistic of the US. When they get democracy back & resume observing the UDHR they will likely be more friendly with the US. That doesn’t mean they will be subservient to the US.

]]>
By: Greenfelder http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/17/syrias-charming-offensive/#comment-1065 Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:56:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=904#comment-1065 Thank you for saying what needed to be said Noam. I am guessing there were many other comments similar to yours that were removed by moderators because their names didn’t have marquis billing. Watching recent events throughout the Arab world and it is plain to see that U.S. puppets are largely excluded from any meaningful regime changes while the US and it’s corporate allies encourage the ones that displace socialist revolutionary regimes like Libya’s. Syria and Venezuela will be next, while Egypt’s ongoing dictatorship will be allowed to remain, along with Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and every other pliable client state. Newscorp and Reuters need to stop playing along with corporate spin and read a few good books by yourself and William Blum to get some perspective.

]]>
By: 1968Ford http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2011/03/17/syrias-charming-offensive/#comment-1064 Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:17:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=904#comment-1064 The only thing being discussed is that there was an assassination and Syria was involved in it. How come Syria is in Lebanon in the first place? Why did the US welcome Syria in Lebanon in 1976? Why did George Bush I support Syrian presence and domination and influence in Lebanon in 1991 as part of his campaign against Iraq? Why did the US support the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982? Why did the US support Israel’s 22 year occupation of parts of Lebanon, an occupation in violation of Security Council resolutions? All these topics, and many others, are missing from the discussion.

In fact, the general principle is that anything that places US actions in a questionable light is omitted, with very rare exceptions. So if you blame something on an enemy, then you can discuss it, and Syria, right now is the official enemy. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the charges against Syria are wrong. It just means that everything else is omitted.

The problem for the US is that Syria is not a subordinate state. There are a lot of serious criticisms you can make about Syria, but the internal problems of that country are of no special concern to the US, which supports much more brutal governments. The problem with Syria is that it simply does not subordinate itself to the US program in the Middle East. Syria and Iran are the two countries in the region that have not accepted US economic arrangements.

– by Noam Chomsky

]]>