This should be called the chart of hypocrisy. The Great Liberator (Shining beacon on the mountaintop) was perfectly willing to let the Congoese and Liberians wipe out 11% or 12% of their populations, but must make a stand in Syria where 0.5% of the population has been victimized. I wonder if the Congo or Liberia had billions of barrels of oil under their swamps, whether we would have been more concerned? I guess Israel wasn’t too concerned with the darkies in Africa, so our Congress didn’t snap to attention and do what they were told to do by AIPAC. The world is a brutal terrible place. There are evil men doing bad things in dozens of countries. When the U.S. decides one dictator is really bad, you know there are ulterior motives behind the scenes. Oil, currency, and cow towing to the Jewish bankers are the true motivations for attacking sovereign countries. The media propaganda will reach a fever pitch in the next couple weeks as the war drums are pounded. Who controls the media? I think you know.
Why Did Obama Choose Syria?
The US intervened 11 times over the last century in foreign civil wars: Korea (1950’s); Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and the Dominican Republic (1960’s); Lebanon (1980’s); the Yugoslav Wars/Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia and Iraq (1990’s); and Libya (2011).
The success of these interventions, difficult as they are to assess, is mixed at best with Korea and Kosovo as examples of where positive outcomes occurred (in Haiti, a descent into complete chaos was perhaps prevented). Some turned out worse, given what followed.
As JPMorgan’s Michael Cembalest notes, on a purely humanitarian basis, Syria’s tragedy is exceeded by many conflicts that the US abstained from participating in. So when thinking about civil wars and how the US defines its national interest, one has to ask why Syria would qualify for direct intervention while others conflicts did not.