Last night Our Dear Leader said that our nation has been "the anchor of global security for seven decades."
The obvious question is, global security for whom.
Certainly not for the Guatemalans, whose country became a bloody anarchy after we invaded it in 1954.
Certainly not for the Korean Peasants whom we shot in the back by the thousands as they tried to flee the war.
Certainly not for the Vietnamese Peasants, whom if we did not kill, torture, or mutilate we poisoned with tons and tons of Agent Orange.
Certainly not for the women Iraq, many of whom fled our war only to wind up as sex slaves while others must see their babies born as irradiated cyclopses because of all the depleted uranium we dumped upon their mothers.
I could go on (after all, there are many, many thick books that document all the atrocities we've committed while we were "the anchor of global security"), but I trust that anyone reading this with even half a brain will get my point. Whatever Obama may have meant by "global security", he obviously could not have meant security for the poorest and weakest among us. If there is one thing that stands out like a garish neon sign in a desert in the seven decades we've supposedly been the anchor of global security, it is this: our anchor has always fallen upon the weak and has crushed, killed, maimed, mutilated, deformed, starved, desolated, and poisoned them. U.S. Foreign Policy doesn't care about protecting those who cannot protect themselves. At all.
And if you believe that this time our President actually means it when he says he wants to protect the poor, defenseless people against the big, bad meanies who rule Syria, even though everything in the last seven decades of U.S. Foreign Policy should have removed the Commander-in-Chief's benefit-of-the-doubt privileges years, if not decades, ago, then, well, I've got some really cheap beachfront property to sell you. And a bridge in Brooklyn as well.
Yeah, fine, that's a cliché. So is the use of a humanitarian sob story to justify our Imperialist Interventionism.