When you consider that the persons backing this misadventure are the same ones who backed the war in Iraq, which has turned out so well, the question answers itself.

Americans refuse to learn from the past.

We even refuse to learn from the bleeping present.

Is the United States becoming the big daddy for countries who can't fight their own battles.

Well, if the rest of the world doesn't care if the poor regular folks in that place get gassed then why should I?

The US and it's western European allies are struggling with one of the worst financial crises in history...

The US is a war economy, Britain and France are also big arms exporters. As with Iraq this is another opportunity for profit. None care about Syrian civilians and in fact military action by the west will result in many more casualties and prolong the conflict even further.

The current civil war in Syria is being bankrolled by some western governments, the Saudis, Qatar, etc who have been supplying a rabble of jihadists, extremists and others against the Assad regime. Without money and equipment from the west and some Arab countries, this war would have ended two years ago and there would not be an estimated 100,000 dead and several hundred thousand displaced Syrians living in squalid refugee camps.

This is not a new tactic and indeed it was the US and others who supplied the Mujahideen in Afghanistan just to stop the Soviets gaining a foothold. It was this same Mujahideen who then split into factions and proceeded to blow Kabul and the rest of the country apart, before the Taliban (bankrolled and supplied by Pakistan and the Saudis) swept them away and took power in '96... we all know what happened next. This will happen in Syria if these "rebels" win and the ruling Ba'athist regime is toppled.

There seems to be a pattern here, of arming and funding terror groups, islamist groups, destabilising the target country and then lots of hand wringing over civilian deaths and sabre rattling from the political wordsmiths in order to "sell" the war to the masses at home, followed by "military action" (the new catchphrase for bombing and invading).

Really disgusting.

You forgot phase 5:

Profit!

It is hardly the same set of politicians or groups backing this misadventure as backed the invasion of Iraq.

A large majority of Republicans in Congress and a smaller (but still majority) of Democrats backed the Iraq invasion. Notably Clinton backed it and Obama did not.

This time a tiny minority of Republicans back it and a larger but still minority of Democrats. Obama chose to bomb Libya against the clear objection of a majority of Congress (and to continue illegally bombing after the 90 day limit on the President engaging in war despite the objection of Congress). Obama is on track to do the same in Syria, having already armed the Sunni terrorists in Syria against the objections of a majority in Congress.

Here, I'll give you a hint. Look at Great Depression I and check the number of years it took for WWII to bring an end to it. Now look at Great Depression II ... Heck you can even match the dates of Dust Bowl I and Dust Bowl II. I can't help but see a pattern.

Correlation does not prove causation.

WWII causing the end of the Great Depression is one of the established myths of history. But the facts never supported that myth.

The Great Depression ended in most of the world long before it ended in the USA. It was deepened and prolonged in the USA by the government policies that were sold to the public as the solution for the Depression, but were really designed to increase government power and corruption. Exactly the same as been true of the government "stimulus" for the current economic downturn. The real purpose is pure corruption and the real effect is to prolong and deepen what would otherwise have been a trivial economic dip.

Having the rest of the world already out of the Depression was the major reason FDR's continuing corrupt and hopeless policies were overwhelmed by the world economy and the US was pulled out of the depression. We can't rely on that again, because Europe is now even deeper into the same insane economic policies that Obama is using to prevent the US recovery.

Having the rest of the world go into a war well ahead of the US entering the war, also provided a significant boost to the US economy. That was a smaller effect compared to the overwhelming economic boost the US got from being late into WWI, but it was still significant.

Most countries had poor wartime economies. Total production was lower than in peace time, while the government share of consumption was higher. In terms of national morale, that might be masked by the sense of patriotism and shared sacrifice needed to win a war. But it was still an economic disaster. That effect was much more heavily masked in the US by the pent up potential for economic growth that had built while years of technological advancement were suppressed by vicious government interference.

Historians for some reason want to believe that war is good for economies, so they cherry pick the few misleading samples that support that idea out from the vast contradictory background.

As Eisenhower and many other Generals foresaw, there is no military justification for the World (of) War that has been waged continually since 1950. But there is a tremendous economic justification. The United States, in particular, will spend money on "War, Inc." to the detriment of its own people, and it will subsume its own supposedly-"democratic" processes in its pursuit, e.g. by keeping most of its own Congressional decision-makers "in the dark" (no security clearances, y'see ...) about what is really going on.

The net effect of this endless "war-wh*ring" is like that of a ravenous cancer that a person denies having. The legitimate economy dries up as anemia sets in. But there is so damn much money to be made by a very-few, and the size of the bribes goes off the scale. Just pretend that you don't see it, take the money and run.

What they say is what matters, because they are responsible.

Making up your own terminologies. Great Depression II?

I do kind of wonder how so called enlightened countries can ignore so many world issues. From hunger to totalitarian regimes to little girls getting acid thrown on them because they want to go to school. Where is the justice? Where is the so called enlightened society?

I rather doubt any military intervention in Syria would benefit the US in the long run. Syria's government had been bolstered by the USSR for many years and I doubt the locals would like the US there. Kind of like Iraq. They seemed to be doing a good job of killing way before the US stopped by. By common reports Saddam's leadership ended more than a million (M) lives. Yep! The US should have let him continue, he'd have been up to 3 or 4 by now. The US should have never interfered in Afghanistan either. What do I care if they acid attack girls, and murder their own. If Syria want's to murder their own then fine. Let some other country worry about it. Those folks probably deserve to be gassed. If other countries don't care then so goes my opinion. Let the people in Africa murder each other too. Not my problem. If Ireland wants to cause genocide to Protestants then fine too.

They haven't got the support of the UK, even though Cameron wants to go in, so the status quo may continue for a while yet.

Saddam Hussein was actually backed by the US government, they even new about him planning to use chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war and against the kurds before he used them. But it was in their interest at that time to not intervene. So much about so called enlightened countries. This is purely a political/economical (in my eyes the same in the US) decision and has nothing to do with being humanitarian, IMHO.

Right on Jefro. I hear their camps are so bad that escape means China (who empathetically gives them back to N. Korea)

More on the Racket of War.

That is who wrote this

I am all for Isolationism, let somebodies else's kids die for their own freedom. Send in Wall Street Instead.