1. SPT brings you the latest in amateur sports tracking device. Check your speed, distance and heart rate through games.

    Use the coupon code “BIGFOOTY” for a $15.00 discount - while stock lasts

  2. Congratulations to referee and wpotter for tipping 8/9 and 11 points off the tie-breaker margin. FREE Platinum BFSC for you!

    Get your tips in!

Politics War with Iran

Discussion in 'Society, Religion and Politics' started by Yellow Feathers, Nov 3, 2011.

Put it out there
  1. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne

    (Log in to remove this ad.)

  2. OldBlueFan

    OldBlueFan 3rd Gen Blue Fan!

    Carlton
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 09
    Posts:
    2,149
    Location:
    Eltham
    I heard the same rant about Powell from friends of mine when I was arguing that they should join me on the anti-war march that took place in Melbourne that year. "oh no, but Colin Powell wouldn't be saying this if it wasn't true!".

    The lead up to the Iraq war was nothing short of a marketing campaign, and CP was the poster boy. He was either an arsehole or a gullible fool and by the time the neocons were done with him, he was left with not a shred of integrity.

    Could you have missed the point by any wider a margin?

    I talk about the deaths of over a million people, the displacement of several times that number and destruction of infrastructure so complete that it will ensure the survivors live in misery for decades, and all you can do is smirk.

    Are you deliberately trying to prove my point?
  3. Si Botak

    Si Botak Debutant

    Fremantle
    Other teams:
    Light Horse
    Joined:
    Jun 11
    Posts:
    552
    Location:
    Up the Old Seadog
    Rant? There's only one of us posting in an aggressive tone here friend, and it's not me.

    I think he was definitely made a fool of, and was gullible in that he had too much faith in the neo-cons around him. Doesn't mean that it's not somewhat possible he had access to information or other mitigating intel which would've altered his overall judgement, hence my use of the qualifier. If you think that people are evil or morally corrupt simply because they get played, then I pity you.

    Not at all, although I fear you may have missed mine. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't consider the toll in human suffering in Iraq a tragedy and a disgrace. I was in that paragraph posing an only semi-related hypothetical (which I identified as a tangent just btw) regarding how your moral compass operates in relation to other 20th century conflicts. Are you more interested in a contest or a verbal stoush than an actual discussion?

    No offence but you're coming off as a contrary and argumentative for the sake of it.

    Smirking? Really?

    *Sigh*

    Well that's a shame. Here I was to this point posting in a polite (although forthright tone) to someone who is beginning to appear to have no intent of being anything other than presumptive, contrary and obnoxious whilst piling prejudicial assumptions and ad-hominem one upon another like a game of 'Jenga; Teenage Angst Edition(TM)'.

    Prove your point? The only thing being proven here is that you see only what you want to see, in the colour, tone and shade that you choose to see it.

    I think I'll give it one more try before I tell you to EAD and add you to my ignore list. Now pay attention because this is probably the key take-away...

    You've completely misunderstood the use of one word, and have needlessly gone to DEFCON 2 in an attempt to brutally stamp out some moral opposition to your values which doesn't exist. In doing so, you're being belligerent, argumentative and unnecessarily adversarial and personally I'd appreciate it if you stopped for a second, and acted like a normal reasonable sociable person.

    You need to chill and take a deep breath.

    You're either a genuinely sociable reasonable and otherwise quite nice person fired up over a perceived slight to your moral code which doesn't exist or you're just a contrary THIS WORD IS A BLOCKED SWEAR WORD looking for a fight that I can't be stuffed giving to you, because to be honest, it's beneath me.

    If it's the latter, let me know now so I can add you to my ignore list - there are plenty of other reasonable people here to chew the fat with, and dignifying behaviour like this with responses really isn't a worthwhile use of my time.
  4. OldBlueFan

    OldBlueFan 3rd Gen Blue Fan!

    Carlton
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 09
    Posts:
    2,149
    Location:
    Eltham
    Wow, an awful lot of projection going on in your post dude, perhaps it is you who should take a Bex and then look back at the "aggressiveness" of our various posts.

    For example:

    By making the statement that the Iraq war was only "probably" not justified, you infer that it "possibly" was justified. You claim to be interested in honest debate, so why not elaborate on what makes you believe that it was "possibly" justified, rather than introducing completely irrelevant comparisons with WWII?

    The point that you missed from my post was the real reason for the Iraq war and the resulting carnage that ensued in light of that, not the numbers in and of themselves.

    Personally, I had no doubt whatsoever that the Iraq war was not justified BEFORE it even took place (hence my participation in the anti-war rally) and everything I've read since has only reinforced that view. If there was any real justice in the world, the neocons - and Colin Powell - would have got the Nuremberg treatment by now.

    And I think the ambivalence and vacillation of people like your good self, as demonstrated by the qualification to which I originally took exception, becomes an enabler of future atrocities, such as the subject of this thread.
  5. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
    Si, you gotta handle on those pipeline negotations yet? Batshit crazy? Read the sources I provided.

    This is why I fail to consume the stuff that Gordon Junger Ricks put out. It is supposed to be lapped up by an American PBS centre left. Funny that, centre left is further right than the Norwegian Brevek and the right wing in Scandanavia.

    But they did look at Afghanistan as a key plank in their resource strategy, the pipelines from central asia, and so they could move central asia in a different direction than Russia. Zbig Brzezinski 101
  6. Si Botak

    Si Botak Debutant

    Fremantle
    Other teams:
    Light Horse
    Joined:
    Jun 11
    Posts:
    552
    Location:
    Up the Old Seadog
    Erm, well let's see... so far I've played the ball, not the man. I'm yet to question your sense of human decency, as an example which is more courtesy than you gave to me - although another aggressive post where your entire response was based around implying I'm a heartless jackass who smirks at slaughter would've had me questioning yours.

    Correct, and I thought I already had? I can explain again if that'll help; As a relative layman to someone deep inside the circle of Bush Administration, I don't have access to the same level of information.... now that's not to say I can't form opinions based on what we as lay-people do know.

    On the strength of that information that is available, I'm of the opinion that it wasn't a justifiable military action - my use of the word "probably" was simply a qualifier indicating that if someone else was joining the conversation with more or better information than I'd had access to, I was and am prepared to give that contribution due consideration on it's merits (or lack thereof). This is where I think you've gotten the wrong idea or maybe I communicated badly? Either way, there's an argument created where really no disagreement exists.

    Dude. This is the third time I'm saying it - it was a tangental question. A "BTW what do you think of this?" put to you so that I can gauge your value system and understand where you're coming from as I talk to you. Again, I thought that was made pretty clear?

    Oh no, I get it alright. High margin transport and logistics contracts for the old boys, infrastructure projects tendered at whatever bid price the US chooses, one-sided terms of trade, a strategic shift to get one more major nation "on our side", as well as a greater level of oil supplied without having to touch it's own (considerable) strategic reserves... all done on the basis of a nearly 10-year old Security Council resolution that the UN wasn't sure applied, implemented at the cost of American, Iraqi and Australian lives. There is absolutely no disagreement there mate, not from me at any rate.

    Still not sure I'd lump Powell in with all of those guys. The fact that they kicked him out of their little club for protesting too much says something about that. On that point we might just have to agree to disagree.

    I don't consider waiting until I have all the available information before I'm incontravertibly set on a qualified unwavering point of view (and that's all the qualifier was meant to be) to be vacillation.

    Likewise, that comment I made that you thought was me "Smirking", was a genuine one. I've devoted a significant chunk of life both in terms of time and health for the benefit of others. I'm a lot of things, but I don't think I can be accused of being ambivalent.

    I too hope that "future atrocities" are avoided, although my life experience tells me that they won't be. Either way I don't think the decision makers will really give a sh!t what we say or think about it. History has shown us, repeatedly, that even the most "benign" or "enlightened" governments will do just whatever the hell they like if they see a need. Sadly, nothing said or done here will change that.

    Thanks for your post. :thumbsu:
  7. Si Botak

    Si Botak Debutant

    Fremantle
    Other teams:
    Light Horse
    Joined:
    Jun 11
    Posts:
    552
    Location:
    Up the Old Seadog
    From "anti-war.com"? :rolleyes: Mate the name of the domain doesn't imply balance of commentary. Not that I'm against left-wing sources. Find something from Al-Jazeera for example and I'll read it. :)

    Hmmm... ok, value statement there. Of course, you're welcome to your opinion and I respect it, but needless to say I think that's a bit hyperbolic and I don't agree with it. You're right, the American Left is probably where our Right is, but that doesn't necessarily match up with a guy who considers himself part of a direct action cell which affiliates with and names itself after a militant order of medieval christian extremists.

    Ok look I'd have preferred to not state the obvious here.... but to get an idea on just how bad an idea building an Oil or LNG pipeline through Afghanistan is, all you need to do is look at a map.

    The Oil that the US wants is in the Arabian peninsula... Saudi, UAE, Iraq etc. To build an overland pipeline you can either throw it north up through Azerbaijan, Georgia et al around the Caspian through Turkmenistan before you even hit Afghanistan... or you can go through Iran (lolwut).

    The former option is politically plausible before you consider the tribalistic, insecure, inherently unstable warlord ridden landscape that has been Afghanistan since forever (it's certainly not plausible by any considerations once Afghanistan/Pakistan enters the picture), but not economically... there are already a swathe of pipelines that far north that do the job already.

    The latter might make sense after any war with Iran, but thereotically to pull this off GWB and Co should've gone for a Ghan and Iran combo meal not a Ghan and Iraq (inb4 "Iraq, Iran, what's the difference, put a load up guy relax";)).

    Alternatively there's the third (sane) option which the world uses. It's proven, cheaper and it works. Quite simply put you use the Suez Canal for what it was intended for and you ship the sh!t to Rotterdam. The pipeline thing is an invention of interest groups who have a moral disagreement with the action in Afghanistan in a poor attempt to detract from the established legal basis of the operations there.

    And like any invented pre-text (much like the Right's pretext over Iraq), once the light of day is thrown on it, it starts looking a bit shaky.
  8. OldBlueFan

    OldBlueFan 3rd Gen Blue Fan!

    Carlton
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 09
    Posts:
    2,149
    Location:
    Eltham
    Ask yourself these simple questions and note that they need no knowledge of "inner sanctum" deliberations:

    Why was a non-existent link to AQ invented and repeated ad-nauseum to the US public?

    Why was a non-existent link to the events of 9-11 invented and repeated ad-nauseum to the US public?

    Why were UN weapons inspection results ignored in favour of the baseless claims made by CP in front of the UN?

    The only possible answer to these questions is that the war was in no way justifiable on any reality-based grounds. If it was, why the need for fabrications?

    So, 1,000,000 people die for these reasons and the best you can do is say it "probably" isn't justification? You certainly seem to be wanting to have a bit each way on this.

    I believe in small steps. And one of those small steps is that people who consider themselves to be compassionate and hold themselves up as having an awareness of political realities at least acknowledge and confirm that their country has engaged in an illegal war. And whenever the opportunity is granted to them, be prepared to share this view in a forthright manner with others, in the hope that the awareness grows and the possibility of future atrocities (at least with the timid complicity of nations like ours) is diminished.
  9. Si Botak

    Si Botak Debutant

    Fremantle
    Other teams:
    Light Horse
    Joined:
    Jun 11
    Posts:
    552
    Location:
    Up the Old Seadog
    Well... as much as I still believe that Powell was duped as opposed to being complicit, his gullibility is kinda irrelevant to the wider point you're making...

    They're good questions, especially the last one. I mean, I was thinking maybe there must've been some other kind of genuine rationale which at least some of the softer members of the administration (who later got marginalised) were operating under... otherwise how can a government be so stupid??? Expensive wars are the kind of things which culturally and economically kill Empires....

    But you know what? I think you're right... I don't think that matters.

    That was never my intent mate.

    But in this case it's a moot point. You're right; they were that stupid.... Otherwise why go ahead and pull the trigger? Why start a war based on a few powerpoint slides with no reconstruction strategy other than "She'll be right mate" because they had other things on their mind, eg making cash? There's no other explanation that follows any kind of rationale, flawed or otherwise.

    And I can't find any primary sources that I'd consider trustworthy or balanced which dispute the points you're making. I've tried to do in the last few days so purely in the interests of ensuring I'm coming to an informed conclusion; Nudda.

    I'd apologise for the earlier obstinance over the qualifier if I didn't believe in coming to conclusions in my own good damned time.... but you can call me convinced.

    The 2003 Invasion of Iraq can't be justified; Simple as that and it is what it is.

    Well, I guess I'm a bit cynical that regard - nothing's going to reduce the possibility of future wars or future atrocities.... Human beings just aren't that bright. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying though. ;)

    On the other hand I suppose if we don't identify the bad policy decisions our government makes (and that our civilians and soldiery have to put up with), it makes it that much harder for us to identify the good policy decisions our government should be making (regardless of whether those decisions involve war or not)...
  10. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne

    anti-war are a bunch of rightist libertarians. Ron Paul is a regular. They also have Seymour Hersh interviewed too. And Ellsberg.

    Pity you dont wish to engage.

    THEY ARE NOT LEFTISTS.

    They are not even the primary source. This is about the Taliban Pipelines across Afghanistan, and you smeared me. And you wont even go and see how I corrected your information.

    I am far far too generous extending a good faith in this thread. Usually I bang on and pull the trigger and play harlequin. Guess it has not served me well to be serious in this thread.

    Afterall, lets get back to some good old Hird v Buckley v Voss arguments. Mcuh more edifying
  11. Si Botak

    Si Botak Debutant

    Fremantle
    Other teams:
    Light Horse
    Joined:
    Jun 11
    Posts:
    552
    Location:
    Up the Old Seadog
    Just because I don't consider your evidence balanced doesn't mean I wasn't discussing with goodwill mate...

    Up for that too.... Crazy crazy Vossy...

    (Log in to remove this ad.)

  12. OldBlueFan

    OldBlueFan 3rd Gen Blue Fan!

    Carlton
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 09
    Posts:
    2,149
    Location:
    Eltham
    Glad we cleared that up. :thumbsu:

    Now you can give BC's points the attention they deserve ;)
  13. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
    "Getting used to the idea of double standards" Robert Cooper - Blair's advisor for Foreign Affairs
    'The underlying maxim is: we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends' Tariq Ali

    what about the Salon.com reference to the pipelines Si?

    U smeared me, but you have failed to even check the simple sources I coughed up in one phlegm stricken minute.

    http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
    OBF, I think we are deluded if we believe they deserve attention eh. Si has just glossed over this, and made out I am profoundly ignorant in mentioning this apocryphal "fact" (sic). Yeah, intentional invoking that dichotomy/paradox.

    The pipeline negotiations existed as figments of my imagination. I was stupid to assume this was common knowledge. Does Gordon Junger or Ricks reference this? How can you not if you wish to write on the occupation?
  14. Mustafa1982

    Mustafa1982 Draftee

    Adelaide
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Apr 12
    Posts:
    26
    I agree with you completely.
    Iran overlooking the most important waterway in the world.
    Everyone will lose in this war.
  15. Si Botak

    Si Botak Debutant

    Fremantle
    Other teams:
    Light Horse
    Joined:
    Jun 11
    Posts:
    552
    Location:
    Up the Old Seadog
    1. I never said anything about you being ignorant. I never personally slighted you or smeared you, as you say. Let's get that straight right now. I did, quite correctly, point out a) you have no place, business or perspective attacking a man who did his best to make a bad situation in Iraq somewhat better for things going on in Afghanistan, b) that your objections to Afghanistan are based on moral and political misgivings, not legal ones, c) that your notion that the war started so that an Oil/LNG pipeline could be built was a ridiculous one (Note how this is different from calling you personally ridiculous).

    2. I'm aware and have always been very much aware of the Salon.com reference. Why? Because it's the same "factoid" trumped out with the same "cross-referencing" back to a single source. You want to know why I refuse to argue about this? Because like all such references,the single source all of them rely on is one single article written in a French paper, Le Monde, which made no serious demonstrable attempt at source verification or fact-checking (Coz Newspapers never do that in an attempt to sell copy huh?? ;)) and that establishes no reliable basis as to what Karzai's involvement with Unocal actually was, especially given the vagaries around the French that was used in the article and the fact that it's entirely possible that he was confused with Zalmay Khalilzad instead.

    The only reason this conspiracy theory (At this stage that's all it is) has more than a minute's phlegmy consideration given to it by anyone is that at the time Michael Moore (Objectivity? LOLWUT?) took it and decided it was ironclad fact and presented as much in Fahrenheit 911, without any independant verification or crosss-reference work being done.

    3. As a result, my stance on this is pretty much summarised in the last paragraph here.... This is why I said blanket, straight out, "Nope, not getting into this one")

    At best, this is yet-to-be-substantiated conjecture. You're not only painting it as established fact, you're painting it as established fact in an attempt to cast doubt upon what is established in fact - that ISAF are in Afghanistan at the specific behest of the legitimate government, backed by UN Security Council resolutions, operating according to UN-backed and regulated Rules of Engagement and internationally recognised Laws of Armed Conflict.

    My take? I think you're misguided... you're not ignorant, or stupid, or disingenuous. Just (as far as this goes) wrong for placing too much weight of evidence on something that's tenuous (at best) and has remained so for years without any decent supporting evidence (other than other theorists citing each other in a circular fashion whilst presuming it's fact) surfacing anywhere.

    EDIT: I thought we were going to talk about Crazy Vossy? :p
  16. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
    yeah, Michael Moore is a joke. But I dont go to him for my references.

    But we differ in one respect. You find the Grey Lady and WaPO as the world papers of record.

    Me, I assume there are CIA and FBI and Mossad operatives in their staff, even if they needed them to be there (cia/fbi need) because these papers are captive.

    I dont need to hold Judy Millers head on a platter ti know this. As Chomsky says, and he got it wrong on the http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sudan%20pharmaceutical%20bombing%20chomsky&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAl-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory&ei=4hCaT5yQFaitiAfp-OnADg&usg=AFQjCNHZ08N4O6QqGA3No4FeZu2ptlQlew re: fatalities as consequences
    ...
    ... we know of the Eddie Bernays consent manufacturing old Noam writes of.

    We cant go to the fairfax and News sources, to pull out the truth behind the truth. I usually try and check, time pending, the sites, and the who is. I mean, Alex Jones, and Infowars, if a big red flag. So it is a problem, when we have reputable sources, who have material that Alex Jones is using.

    Then William Blum is on one of those sites I linked to, a major contributor. But I dont agree with him that 9/11 was a conspiracy.And it matters little about the 3000 of rich western folk who copped it, in comparison to the million+ who dies because of the US adventurism. I can disagree with Blum on that one matter, but still seek him out as a legit source.

    AntiWar.con is a very good site. You dont get Hersh and Ron Paul being interviewed by Kooks. They even have had Kucinich and I think Wesley Clark. So that is the foremost investigative journo, plus 3 president race party nomination election candidates...
  17. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
  18. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
  19. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
    wiki does it ok
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#Pipeline_path_.27clearing_and_holding.27_forces
  20. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
    http://www.historycommons.org/searc...tles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

    this Khalilzad the American ambassador to the UN in the Bush administration

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0995turkenistandeal#a0995turkenistandeal

    I mean, Si, there is denial and denial. My point on Kilkullen was, can u do good in a theatre of war and occupation, that is immoral, (if it parses some inscrutable un legality)

    and I said it is instructive, to how many folks in military costume, actually resigned. Evidentally, they all have the omnipotence to change things for the better from inside, cept those like manning and ellsberg. And they are two of p'raps 20 million than have been thru the armed forces since ellsberg and before him.

    You cant do good from inside, they arent asking the questions. Lets ask the questions, and try and change things publically. Like Assange and the Collateral Murder. Atleast JA takes a potshot, as delusional it might be to change big power from his position.
  21. Si Botak

    Si Botak Debutant

    Fremantle
    Other teams:
    Light Horse
    Joined:
    Jun 11
    Posts:
    552
    Location:
    Up the Old Seadog
    If that was your question, the answer is "Yes", see below. As for the links, they're based on Coll. Not a bad source, I likey.

    Now you have demonstrated that a company had concrete agreements in place to put a pipeline in from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan.... I still think it's a batshit insane idea, and apparently from what other information is available online, thanks to your links, I can see I'm not the only one who thought so. Even the UNOCAL execs thought it was a shot in the dark.

    Regardless, as much as we all know that Coll has quite correctly pointed out some of the power that resides in the wider extended Karzai family (especially with Ahmed Karzai), that doesn't reinforce your theory about Harmid Karzai - especially given a) as I've pointed out the timing of Karzai's career doesn't support your theory, b) Karzai was not in a position to influence US State Department opinion in 2001, let alone in 1995, c) while the association may explain Karzai as a choice for provisional president prior to the elections, it doesn't establish a pipeline that Harmid Karzai may or may not have had anything to do with was a cause for a war six years after it was announced.

    You've got major issues of timing and political linkage that you have to sort out if you're going to convince me, and that won't be easy.

    This is irrelevant. Kilcullen was ADF. We're not discussing the US Military, and never were. Furthermore, and generally speaking, military personnel wear uniforms, not costumes.

    Again, wrong. I fundamentally and completely disagree with the notion that a soldier caught in a conflict not of his making can't make a bad situation better for anyone.... that's dangerously simplistic, bordering on prejudicial.

    By your theory, then-Sgt Michael Bernhardt didn't do any good in point blank refusing to open fire on civilians at My Lai in 1968 and helping expose the slaughter. I supposed if what you're saying is true, then I suppose WO1 Hugh Thompson Jr and his helicopter crew aren't heroes for a) refusing to take part, b) physically preventing soldiers committing war crimes from committing further acts by landing his helicopter across an embanked pathway and c) refusing orders to move his aircraft and indeed threatening to use his crew-served weaponry on Calley's soldiers if they tried to get past his chopper to kill more people?

    I suppose Oskar Schindler, despite being a paid up member of the Nazi Party, did absolutely nothing to help a couple of thousand Jews living in Eastern Europe?

    I think at this point you should probably just acknowledge that you were barking up the wrong tree with regards to Kilcullen, and we'll move on.... Pipelines, Crazy Vossy, or even Iran... I'm open to any of them.
  22. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
  23. CLUBMEDhurst

    CLUBMEDhurst Team Captain

    Collingwood
    Other teams:
    Man City
    Joined:
    Sep 08
    Posts:
    4,109
    Location:
    Asha Bhosle's bosom
    Ah Dennis, you will be missed

  24. DivideandMultiply

    DivideandMultiply Club Legend

    West Coast
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 08
    Posts:
    15,444
    Location:
    Between the lines.
    Deeply concerning.

    I think it is far more complex than one particular reason.

    Eliminate a competitor with Israel for regional hegemony, destabilise an unfriendly Islamic nation, eliminate a potential competitor(s) for American multinationals in the energy market, positive internal political boost/national distraction, eliminates any continued push by Iran to promote a system that trades in other currencies outside of the greenback, new market for multinational defence contractors....the list goes on......

    Unjust war for profit and political gain, I really hope this time more of the US's allies have the balls to tell them to GTFO you are on your own.
  25. blackcat

    blackcat Club Legend

    Richmond
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Dec 03
    Posts:
    15,019
    Location:
    melbourne
    Kucinich is retiring too, thinks he can be more effective outside the House.

    Divideandmultiply, I think you missed the elephantine motive on capitol room.

    Power Projection.

    The US now feel a little impotent, and know their empire is accelerating toward an horizon.

    With impotency, is sporned aggression in denial. We have an inverse dynamic, reins of power exercised, as its exorcised, or excised and emperors veil lifted like an islamic niqab.

    True power, is but when you dont need to bring the smack down.