It’s no secret that D.C. so called drive to support foreign democracies is actually a

[crAT]

It’s no secret that D.C. so called drive to support foreign democracies is actually a smoke screen to change regimes in other countries up to USA liking. Sure thing, you can just observe how Yankees do this in other places but where’s the guarantee they won’t penetrate your own land to support your domestic ‘democratic opposition’... well ... thru violence and blood... just the way we could see that recently in some Muslim countries.
I’spose we’d rather seek some way out to stay safe from similar disasters. I’m absolutely sure we should focus at financial flows from abroad (USA in the first run) to support ‘democrats’. Syria is a vivid example imho. Since George Bush rule D.C. command has been highly supportive of the local opposition forces lusting for ‘constructive changes’. In fact Americans have been sponsoring Barada TV in Syria. Still there has been no change of power in Syria. The clue is that clever Syrians have been keeping a sharp eye on that sponsor aid from the overseas! According to Wikileaks citing some American officials, ‘democratic activists in Syria lack courage to get American financial help". Sure thing, they are just scary to be accused of corruption and find themselves behind bars. That’s actually the real recipe to preserve independence. Whist’s your vision folks?

 

[waltky]

Arab League gonna give Syria the boot?...

Arab League Discusses Suspension of Syria
OCTOBER 16, 2011 — The Arab League has called an emergency meeting Sunday to discuss whether to suspend Syria, officials said, ramping up the pressure on Damascus to end its bloody crackdown on anti-government protesters.

Suspension is unlikely to have a direct, tangible impact on Syria, but it would still constitute a major blow to President Bashar Assad's embattled regime by stripping Damascus of its Arab support and further deepening its isolation. Despite the growing international chorus for an end to the crisis, Assad has shown no sign of backing down or easing his campaign to crush the seven-month-old uprising. On Sunday, security forces opened fire on a funeral for a slain activist in the east, while security forces arrested at least 44 people in the capital's suburbs in house-to-house raids Sunday and more than 900 people in the central city of Homs over the past week.

Arab League officials said the meeting Sunday in Cairo was called at the behest of several Gulf countries and aims to pressure President Assad to halt the crackdown, which the U.N. says has killed more than 3,000 people since the uprising began in mid-March. Many Gulf states, including heavyweight Saudi Arabia, already have withdrawn their ambassadors from Syria to protest the regime's bloody response to the protests. Other Arab countries, however, have remained silent or reluctant in their criticism of the Syrian crackdown. Syria is a geographical and political keystone in the heart of the Middle East, bordering five countries with which it shares religious and ethnic minorities. Its web of allegiances extends to Lebanon's powerful Hezbollah movement and Iran's Shiite theocracy, and there is real concern shared by many Arab countries that Mr. Assad's ouster would spread chaos around the region.

One official said the Arab League will consider other measures if suspension fails to compel the Syria to stop the bloodshed. He declined to elaborate. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media. The 22-member Arab League suspended Libya's membership earlier this year after Moammar Gadhafi launched a violence crackdown on protesters there. The League has since reinstated Libya under the country's new leadership.

Meanwhile, around 7,000 people took to the streets Sunday in the eastern Syrian city of Deir el-Zour for the funeral of an activist, Ziad al-Obeidi, who was killed a day earlier. Mr. Al-Obeidi worked for the British-based Observatory for Human Rights in Syria, and had been in hiding since troops stormed the city two months ago. Observatory director Rami Abdul-Rahman said security forces fired live ammunition to disperse the mourners Sunday, but there was no immediate word on casualties.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Assad better watch out or he may be the next to go the way of Khaddafi...

With Qaddafi's death, world attention turns to Syria
October 21, 2011 - Qaddafi's death emboldened protesters across Syria Friday. While international appetite for intervention is low, the Syrian conflict could intensify as regional actors back particular factions within the country.

With the death of former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi bringing to an end Libya's nine-month revolution-turned-civil-war, international and regional attention is likely to now focus more squarely on Syria, another Arab country in the grip of anti-regime unrest and violence. “Yes it will, especially as violence rises and the scale of the human rights offenses grows. This will be especially the case if regional players begin backing different factions in the country,” says Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute and author of a newly published book on the country. Boosted by the collapse of the Qaddafi regime, protests erupted across Syria after noon prayers Friday. Syrian security forces had killed at least 16 civilians by mid-afternoon, 10 of them in the flashpoint city of Homs, which has emerged in recent weeks as the main hub of anti-regime activity.

“Your turn has come Doctor,” ran a message on the Syrian Revolution 2011 Facebook page, referring to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president. In Taynnah, in the southern Hawran district, demonstrators were filmed chanting "Qaddafi is dead, prepare yourself Bashar." At least 3,000 people have died since the uprising began in mid-March, according to the United Nations. The civil war in Libya, where rebels supported by NATO tenaciously fought their way to Tripoli, slowly driving back Qaddafi’s forces until the former Libyan leader’s final stand in his hometown of Sirte, made for a dramatic and compelling news story. But the broader impact of the revolution in Libya pales in comparison to the potential ramifications of the uprising in Syria. Under the leadership of the Assad dynasty for the past 40 years, Syria has secured enduring and powerful alliances. It exerts multiple strands of influence across the region, intersecting with the Middle East’s major fault lines of the Arab-Israeli conflict and rivalry between the Sunni Arab states led by Saudi Arabia and non-Arab Shiite Iran.

If the Assad regime collapses and a new administration emerges better reflecting the Sunni majority in Syria, it will deliver a blow to Iran, Assad’s closest regional ally, and undermine the so-called “axis of resistance” that unites countries and groups opposed to Israel and Western interests in the Middle East. Still, despite the rising death toll in Syria, for now there is little international appetite to transfer the NATO support mission in Libya to Syria. Furthermore, the Arab League, which gave an initial green light to NATO for the Libya campaign, is unlikely to sanction a Western intervention in Syria, and Russia and China, two permanent members of the UN Security Council, are still adamantly opposed to foreign interference in Syria. However, the confrontation in Syria is slowly evolving into an armed conflict. The Free Syrian Army, composed of defectors from the regular Syrian forces, are thought responsible for a growing number of attacks against security forces, staging roadside ambushes and attempting to carve out enclaves in the north of the country around Idlib and near Homs.

While a descent into armed conflict is widely predicted by analysts, the balance of military power for now will remain with the regime. That could lead to an intensification of the conflict, further violence, and increased loss of life, with rival regional actors offering greater support to different factions in Syria. With the NATO role in Libya coming to an end, Assad’s beleaguered regime may soon begin to bear the brunt of increased international diplomatic heat in the weeks ahead.

Source

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you THINK that replacing the dictators within Lybia or Eypt was in the US long term favor. You're smoking the crack again. How the fucking hell is killing or removing friendly dictators for the muslim brother hood good for us?

 

[Londoner]

Compare the British Empire to the American superpower model.

The old way of Empire was achieved through direct, and sometimes brutal, territorial rule. The new way of Empire is done by achieving favorable market relations. The forms of coercion are much different, and the benefactors no longer fall along nation-state lines. Rather you have a complicated spectrum that has the global investment class on one end and a global working class on the other end.

In the new way of Empire, the superpower finds or installs a corruptible elite inside resource rich 3rd world countries. Then, the corruptible elite "agrees" to massive Structural "Improvement" Loans - awarded by the IMF in the form of no-bids to the corporations who are in control of the given superpower. Upon default, the Superpower secures ultra-favorable conditions for the extraction of cheap resources and labor. This is technically called "opening markets to foreign investment". As a part of the deal, the corruptible elite is retained so long as they maintain the political and social conditions necessary for the extraction of cheap labor and resources. To protect the assets of the superpower, the ruling elite is sometimes called upon to crush nationalizing movements (comprised of a population seeking say higher wages, better working conditions, etc). The ruling elite must also prevent any do-gooder environmental movement from protecting the drinking water. The biggest threat to any global supply chain is when an expensive, freedom seeking middle class takes over and refuses to work for pennies a day. Political Freedom is anathema to capital's need for ultra-cheap labor; this is why any superpower worth its salt has to put military bases across the globe, so that all vital regions can be "stabilized" when necessary. Regardless, the point of Soft Empire (based on market arrangements not territorial occupation) is to make sure the lion's share of a client-state's wealth goes to the outside investors.

In order to understand how this works, you need to see things like the Cold War as more than just a conflict with the Soviets, but a context for the expansion of US Globalism, i.e., creating a postwar market system which is policed, maintained, and operated largely on behalf of the US investment class. Likewise the War on Terrorism, which provided a context to protect our regional assets in the middle east.

A second component of this system is ideological. When intervening in the 3rd world, you must always claim to be fighting evil, spreading freedom, and civilizing the world. Typically, this narrative is created for the women, children and republicans back on the homeland, who simply cannot handle what real men must do the outlying colonies. This is why we see such benign narratives in university econ departments about western capital tapping the unused potential of 3rd world resources/labor. Nobody can accept that the world is bloodier than this. Tragically, the republican base tends to accept this government created narrative. They simply do not question their leaders when it comes to foreign policy. They eat up simplistic cliches about freedom without ever questioning the source.