CNN: ISIS Takes Libyan City.

[CJCRANE]

16. I agree with most of your points

except I think that Assad's side was the one providing stability.

Our "side" and our interventions destroy stability. If we didn't initiate or support those interventions there would be less instability.

It seems that we are merely on a "side" with a whole bunch of countries which often have little in common at best and conflicting or hostile interests at worst. We don't stand for anything or at least no one believes us anymore when we say we do because the people we partner with, the techniques we use and the results we achieve don't match our rhetoric.

All our promises of liberal democracy ring hollow. Liberal democracy is being dismantled in the west and we are in no position to implement it anywhere else both morally, practically, militarily or financially.

And in fact, all the assumptions that there is a "we" are false. You and I and nearly everyone else has no real input on what happens. We are not part of this "we" that we talk about when we talk about American or western interventions. These decisions are made somewhere else outside of democratic control or oversight. The various countries involved (where they are "democracies&quot try to involve their voters as little as possible in these decisions and make plans and forge alliances behind the back of, and over the heads of their populations.

So, if "we" are going to get involved , I'd like it to be a real democratic "We the People" who inform these decisions with informed consent, not "We the Oligarchs" as it currently is. This is not possible at the moment because the MSM is owned by "We the Oligarchs", who have no intention of informing the populace of the real facts of any situation.