I think there is a class point your side often misses in these situations, Rocco.
Are you trying to say all Americans, Russians, Israelis, Syrians and Lebanese and Persians stand to gain or lose to the same extent as the richest 1% of the aforementioned people?
For example, how would you critique this "trap between delusions of total victory and its true consequences?"
"by: Deepak Tripathi is a British historian of the Cold War, the Middle East and the United States in the post-Soviet world. His latest books Imperial Designs: War, Humiliation and the Making of History (Potomac Books, imprint of the University of Nebraska Press) and A Journey Through Turbulence (Dignity University Press)..."
"The outcome of the recent Moscow visit of President Obama’s new secretary of state John Kerry is instructive.
"America’s agreement with Russia that they co-sponsor an international conference to find a negotiated settlement raised some eyebrows in Washington and among U.S. allies in Europe and the Arab world.
"President Vladimir Putin seemed to have prevailed in his insistence that Assad’s exit cannot be a precondition. But this precondition is the starting point for the Syrian rebels and many of their foreign supporters who have a wider Middle East agenda.
"A commentary in Italy’s rightwing publication Il Geornale said in its headline, 'Obama’s Defeat: To Pacify Syria He Is In Cahoots With Putin...'"
"s for Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov maintains that Moscow is “not planning to supply Syria with any weapons beyond the current contracts,” which, he says, are “for defensive purposes.” Russia’s message to Washington, delivered a year ago, continues to be “hands off Syria and Iran.” Obama continues his rhetorical maneuvers. And the war goes on."
George and Sherri and others have decided to side with the poor.
Which side is the CIA on?
America?s Syrian Riddle » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names