http://www.collateralmurder.org/

[christo-f]

They have to do a lot more then admit and take responsibility publicly, they have to be criminally prosecuted for war crimes.

 

I think you'll be waiting a while for that to happen, but hey, you keep banging your head against that brick wall.

 

 

Absolutely false. The reasons were unsound, falsified, lies, and of no benefit to the American people whatsoever.

 

Oh dude, you just don't get it, do you? I'm not talking about the lies and publicly stated reason. I'm talking about why it actually happened, not why the said it happened. I think you're incapable of getting past that because you just want to be angry and moralistic.

 

So, you think the strategic reasons were unsound, fine. Now tell us why they were unsound. Until you put up an argument that address a strategic rational you just have your claims. Without reasoning a claim means nothing.

 

And if you're going to continue being all pissed off about the politicians not telling us the truth you're going to have a tough life. They're politicians, that's what they do.

 

 

The justification for invading Iraq was never to secure US interests, it was directly correlated to September 11th, the War on Terror, and Saddam Hussein having WMD's. AQ was created and funded by the CIA to bankroll Osama Bin Laden. Watch BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares". If you don't believe the CIA is capable of this, read Prouty's "The Secret Team" http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/ST/

 

I don't care what their justifications were, everybody knows that it was bullshit. Seriously dude, who gives a shit? I'm saying that regardless of what bullshit we were fed the real reason they did it was in the benefit of the US anyway and had good strategic reasoning behind it, it was just the execution that was poor.

 

Now go back and re-read that paragraph again. If you're going to go on telling us about how their justification was fictitious, please don't. We don't care.

 

 

 

So according to you, this war benefited both the American and Iraqi people. That's incredibly interesting, being that it is estimated over 1,000,000 people have died due to this invasion. But, I guess a million deaths is worth getting rid of that tyrant Saddam Hussein. I'm sure the Iraqi's who lost their families would agree with you, or the American's who lost their children. You're absolutely right. /sarcasm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Try reading what I wrote about securing the Mid East and denying the creation of an Islamo-fascist caliphate and Iran from being the regional hegemon again. And also pay attention when I say that removing Saddam was an incidental benefit, not the core reason.

 

 

The current life of Iraqi's is hell on earth. I guess though, it's fine since this is only ONE GENERATIONS WORTH of pain and suffering. All of those deaths will be worth it a few more generations down the road when peace and prosperity is established under a new world order and Iraqi's just forget about the millions of people who died because of it. I'll ask them in 10 years how they feel.

 

New world order...., get off the drugs, dude.

 

 

So, we should probably invade Iran then right? I'm certain concocting valid reasons for this is somewhere in your job description.

 

Yes, I am a conspiracy.

 

I'm not sure that it's possible to have a reasonable conversation with you. I just spelled out some very rational strategic decisions without mentioning anything that cannot be researched in open source and you can't even argue against it. I'm not sure you're capable because you don't actually understand the logic and what is going on.

 

 

 

 

 

Serious with this? Referring me to the history of these empire's is something I thought I should be doing for you, since you clearly don't understand how and why they fall.

 

Sure, maybe they fall but they last for a large number of generations and control large parts of the world. I get the feeling that you'd rather some one else other than the US controlling the world. Who would rather, the Russians, the Chinese or the religious fundamentalists? Just because the US empire won't spell the end of history and last forever doesn't mean it should just give up and let some one else control their destiny now. Why would you do that?

 

 

Well, you're absolutely correct on this. Can't argue with you there.

 

Right, so why would you allow yourself to be dominated by some one else? Doesn't this mean that all countries should try and control as much as possible in an attempt to stop some one else fom controlling their interests?

 

 

 

Stupid logic. What makes you think our government is any different. No government is more righteous then the next, they are all run by man who is imperfect. That is why check & balances are required, and the constitution should be followed.

 

Who said anything about being righteous, ya fucking dullard??!! The US is definitely different than the Russians, the Chinese and religious fundamentalists. If you argue about that I'd suggest you look at the way the Chinese government works, the way the Iranian, Egyptian and Taliban government worked/s, the state of their economies, their judicial systems and social climate and tell me you'd rather live under that system.

 

The US is far from perfect but I'd sure as fuck rather them than the alternative.

 

 

 

"SHUT UP BOYYY, DON'T YOU SPEAK OUT AGAINST US!! BE A GOOD LITTLE SLAVE NOW BOYY, AND YOU LIKE IT!!" ; that's what you sound like to me.

 

Yes, but you've got a preconceived idea in your head and that traps you in to believing things that confirm it. And if I was part of some govt PR/psyop do you really think I would be wasting my time with a fucking graffiti forum? There's about ten people who actually read anything in Crossfire and 3 of them are serving i the US military as it is. Seriously.....

 

 

 

Exactly, and that is probably what will happen eventually; the brutalisation of us in our homes because those who are leading and manipulating us into these wars and killing millions of brown people have the same thing in store for us.

 

Yeah, it probably will but it would also probably happen even if the US didn't have an interventionist foreign policy. That's why I listed a few of the previous empires in history, but I guess you just don't catch the logic.

 

The Russians and the Chinese were trying to globalise the Communist revolution. IF the US ignored that your interests would have been determined by Moscow/Beijing. The Germans didn't attack France and Russia because the French colonies in Africa made Berlin angry and Japan didn't attack China because the Chinese were doing anything to Japan.

 

Countries will try to dominate other countries so the surest way to protect yourself is become the most dominant. If you don't chances are some one will dominate you. China didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before it was hit by the Japs. Brazil didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the Portuguese took over. The Australian Aboriginies didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the English took over. The Native Americans didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the Europeans took over. East Timor didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the Indonesians took over. Afghanistan didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the Russians attacked them.

 

What makes you think that everyone would leave the US alone if they just holed up at home and kept to themselves?

[christo-f]

If the goal is to keep others weak so that the United States can keep its position of prominence, then the US has been very successful. That is not the stated goal though.

 

This has happened in US history many times, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Cuba... etc. Creating democracy or helping those countries be better has never happened, even though it was always the stated goal. Keeping them weak though has been a strong point for the United States.

 

Obviously Iraq has far more resources than those countries though. Which may mean that keeping them weak would be unsuccessful.

 

Sorry, I didn't have have too much stamina for making rational and legible responses when previously replying. Sorry I'm not sure I understand the logic in your last sentence. Could you expand on it a bit for me, please?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

So what actually matters?

 

Not the loss of life?

 

Or the fact that this incident was spun to look like it was a job well done on our part?

 

Is it not the overall decision to invade a country for absolutely no reason what so ever. Resulting in the deaths of THOUSANDS of people. (Anyone who quotes this and than says something about resources in the region, please slap yourself across the face before making that point.)

 

Because I think those are all things that matter.

 

The fact that you admit that our government and all governments behave in this manner should be also something that matters.

 

All of this goes on because the American public at large accepts these things, and until that changes, nothing else will. All of the issue's here matter though, and downplaying them is just stupid.

[Zig]

So what actually matters?

 

Not the loss of life?

 

Or the fact that this incident was spun to look like it was a job well done on our part?

 

Is it not the overall decision to invade a country for absolutely no reason what so ever. Resulting in the deaths of THOUSANDS of people. (Anyone who quotes this and than says something about resources in the region, please slap yourself across the face before making that point.)

 

Because I think those are all things that matter.

 

The fact that you admit that our government and all governments behave in this manner should be also something that matters.

 

All of this goes on because the American public at large accepts these things, and until that changes, nothing else will. All of the issue's here matter though, and downplaying them is just stupid.

 

no, none of it matters. who gives a shit? why are we even discussing this?

[Zig]

 

They have to do a lot more then admit and take responsibility publicly, they have to be criminally prosecuted for war crimes.

 

I think you'll be waiting a while for that to happen, but hey, you keep banging your head against that brick wall.

 

I have no doubt in my mind that it will never happen, and that is a sad reality. However, I will never cease to call them for what they are; criminals who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law just like the rest of us are for pettier things.

 

Absolutely false. The reasons were unsound, falsified, lies, and of no benefit to the American people whatsoever.

 

Oh dude, you just don't get it, do you? I'm not talking about the lies and publicly stated reason. I'm talking about why it actually happened, not why the said it happened. I think you're incapable of getting past that because you just want to be angry and moralistic.

 

Well, yes I DO have morals, we all have morals actually. I guess you are the exception to this? I realize that the Iraq war happened for various other reason besides those publicly stated, that much is obvious to 99% of American's and is actually the reason we are so angry and upset, because the publicly stated reasons is what justified the invasion. So let me get this correct, being "angry and moralistic" is in reference to me being upset that the justification to invading Iraq and killing millions of people were lies? OK, duly noted. I'll remember to remind everyone else who is upset about that very same fact that they too are being angry and moralistic, shame on them!

 

So, you think the strategic reasons were unsound, fine. Now tell us why they were unsound. Until you put up an argument that address a strategic rational you just have your claims. Without reasoning a claim means nothing.

 

And if you're going to continue being all pissed off about the politicians not telling us the truth you're going to have a tough life. They're politicians, that's what they do.

 

The justification for invading Iraq was never to secure US interests, it was directly correlated to September 11th, the War on Terror, and Saddam Hussein having WMD's. AQ was created and funded by the CIA to bankroll Osama Bin Laden. Watch BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares". If you don't believe the CIA is capable of this, read Prouty's "The Secret Team" http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/ST/

 

I don't care what their justifications were, everybody knows that it was bullshit. Seriously dude, who gives a shit? I'm saying that regardless of what bullshit we were fed the real reason they did it was in the benefit of the US anyway and had good strategic reasoning behind it, it was just the execution that was poor.

 

Now go back and re-read that paragraph again. If you're going to go on telling us about how their justification was fictitious, please don't. We don't care.

 

I give a shit, my friends give a shit, the people I go to school with give a shit, my family gives a shit, my friend's families give a shit, my neighbors give a shit, a majority of Americans give a shit according to various polls. Don't ask me who gives a shit.

 

The real reasonings behind it were in no way of a benefit to the American PEOPLE, the average joe American. No. Stop. That is why our economy is collapsing right now, right? Why don't you go around asking middle class American's if they think it benefited them. Where are you living, in the fucking twilight zone? Whatever it is you think benefited us is no where visibly seen here by anyone I know. Gas prices didn't even drop, nothing got better over here. Stop pretending.

 

What are you even insinuating? That I should be content with the fact my country killed a million people if my gas prices dropped (which they didn't) and my economy was boosted (which it wasn't).

 

the justification WAS fictitious.

 

So according to you, this war benefited both the American and Iraqi people. That's incredibly interesting, being that it is estimated over 1,000,000 people have died due to this invasion. But, I guess a million deaths is worth getting rid of that tyrant Saddam Hussein. I'm sure the Iraqi's who lost their families would agree with you, or the American's who lost their children. You're absolutely right. /sarcasm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Try reading what I wrote about securing the Mid East and denying the creation of an Islamo-fascist caliphate and Iran from being the regional hegemon again. And also pay attention when I say that removing Saddam was an incidental benefit, not the core reason.

 

The current life of Iraqi's is hell on earth. I guess though, it's fine since this is only ONE GENERATIONS WORTH of pain and suffering. All of those deaths will be worth it a few more generations down the road when peace and prosperity is established under a new world order and Iraqi's just forget about the millions of people who died because of it. I'll ask them in 10 years how they feel.

 

New world order...., get off the drugs, dude.

 

I only smoke pot, and I'm not ashamed to admit it (but you'll probably judge me for that anyway). I've never done any other drug in my life, and I don't see what drugs has to do with a term that many notable politicians use when referring to U.S dominance and control, something you yourself have stated clearly exists. So, if you're in some sort of denial that this term is used and exists then you're the one on drugs.

 

So, we should probably invade Iran then right? I'm certain concocting valid reasons for this is somewhere in your job description.

 

Yes, I am a conspiracy.

 

I'm not sure that it's possible to have a reasonable conversation with you. I just spelled out some very rational strategic decisions without mentioning anything that cannot be researched in open source and you can't even argue against it. I'm not sure you're capable because you don't actually understand the logic and what is going on.

 

This was a joke, a bad one probably. I don't believe your a conspiracy, but you are pretty close to the problem I will say that, and you know what they say about people who are too close to a problem.

 

Serious with this? Referring me to the history of these empire's is something I thought I should be doing for you, since you clearly don't understand how and why they fall.

 

Sure, maybe they fall but they last for a large number of generations and control large parts of the world. I get the feeling that you'd rather some one else other than the US controlling the world. Who would rather, the Russians, the Chinese or the religious fundamentalists? Just because the US empire won't spell the end of history and last forever doesn't mean it should just give up and let some one else control their destiny now. Why would you do that?

 

I don't want anyone "controlling the world", I want freedom, law, equality, and all of these things. I want the constitution of our country to be followed by our political leaders, and respected by foreign nations. I want freedom for all of humanity, and all the nations, and peoples of the world.

 

Well, you're absolutely correct on this. Can't argue with you there.

 

Right, so why would you allow yourself to be dominated by some one else? Doesn't this mean that all countries should try and control as much as possible in an attempt to stop some one else fom controlling their interests?

 

No, absolutely not. I think our country should concentrate on producing on our own, being self-sufficient, protecting our borders, going to war only if necessary, follow our constitution, not have entangling alliances, etc. I don't believe it is necessary to dominate the world to secure freedom, SORRY BRUH. I DISAGREE.

 

And honestly, you refer me to the history of those empires and then you advocate the very thing that brought those empires to their knees for my country? That's just ridiculous. Also, the US is not an empire, it's a Republic, keep that in mind. I support Democratic Republics, not empires. My Democratic Republic should not be behaving like a militaristic empire, thank you very much.

 

Stupid logic. What makes you think our government is any different. No government is more righteous then the next, they are all run by man who is imperfect. That is why check & balances are required, and the constitution should be followed.

 

Who said anything about being righteous, ya fucking dullard??!! The US is definitely different than the Russians, the Chinese and religious fundamentalists. If you argue about that I'd suggest you look at the way the Chinese government works, the way the Iranian, Egyptian and Taliban government worked/s, the state of their economies, their judicial systems and social climate and tell me you'd rather live under that system.

 

The US is far from perfect but I'd sure as fuck rather them than the alternative.

 

I don't even know what a dullard is, must be some aussie insult or something. Anyway, I know all governments are corrupt and go bad. I am aware that every government oppresses it's people. The US is no different, I don't want any of these government's in control over us.

 

"SHUT UP BOYYY, DON'T YOU SPEAK OUT AGAINST US!! BE A GOOD LITTLE SLAVE NOW BOYY, AND YOU LIKE IT!!" ; that's what you sound like to me.

 

Yes, but you've got a preconceived idea in your head and that traps you in to believing things that confirm it. And if I was part of some govt PR/psyop do you really think I would be wasting my time with a fucking graffiti forum? There's about ten people who actually read anything in Crossfire and 3 of them are serving i the US military as it is. Seriously.....

 

Yea, I never said you were part of any government psyop or whatever it is you think I think about you. Get over yourself.

 

Exactly, and that is probably what will happen eventually; the brutalisation of us in our homes because those who are leading and manipulating us into these wars and killing millions of brown people have the same thing in store for us.

 

Yeah, it probably will but it would also probably happen even if the US didn't have an interventionist foreign policy. That's why I listed a few of the previous empires in history, but I guess you just don't catch the logic.

 

The Russians and the Chinese were trying to globalise the Communist revolution. IF the US ignored that your interests would have been determined by Moscow/Beijing. The Germans didn't attack France and Russia because the French colonies in Africa made Berlin angry and Japan didn't attack China because the Chinese were doing anything to Japan.

 

Countries will try to dominate other countries so the surest way to protect yourself is become the most dominant. If you don't chances are some one will dominate you. China didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before it was hit by the Japs. Brazil didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the Portuguese took over. The Australian Aboriginies didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the English took over. The Native Americans didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the Europeans took over. East Timor didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the Indonesians took over. Afghanistan didn't have an interventionist foreign policy before the Russians attacked them.

 

What makes you think that everyone would leave the US alone if they just holed up at home and kept to themselves?

 

In closure...

 

I absolutely do not think the US would be left alone. I know we have real enemies, real threats to this country that have been caused and brought upon us by the criminals who represent us around the world and commit atrocities under our name for reasons that do not benefit the American people. We're brave, we have means of defense and we can declare war constitutionally and legally on those who would attack us. Dont' give me slippery slope arguments about why we can't bring our troops home, it sounds ridiculous when you claim Armageddon will ensue.

[Zig]

I tried to argue with Christo until I found out where he works and that it's nickname is

"the shadow CIA".

 

Christo isn't someone just talking out of his ass and he admits when he doesn't know much about something. Sneaky ass Aussies. They try and win your trust with their "Foster's: Australian for beer", kiwi women, and polite nature,,,,but it's all just b/s because you know as soon as you pass out from the "Foster's: Australian for beer" they're gonna strip you down and take pictures of you fucking a kangaroo and then post them on kangafuckers.com.au or whatever the fuck site they use to make fun of us "yanks".

 

yea i understand that, and i'm aware of where he supposedly works. it's interesting that these sort of opinions and arguments always come from the people who have family that work in these fields, or people themselves who work them. meanwhile, you talk to 90% of the general public who share opinions and sentiments from my perspectives, but no... those people don't matter. who gives a shit? they're wrong, they're stupid.

[Spitfire15]

90% of the general public are fucking retards like you. Come back when you graduate high school, dumb ass.

[Zig]

90% of the general public are fucking retards like you. Come back when you graduate high school, dumb ass.

 

try doing something for this thread besides insulting me, or throwing in random comments, because i could care less. at least i come into threads stating my position clearly, and putting up an argument. i haven't seen you do anything of that sort.

 

i personally don't believe 90% of Americans are stupid or unintelligent either. I'll give American's the benefit of the doubt and say that a good majority of them are smarter then we are given credit for, and also aware of a lot of the topics discussed here. There are a lot of American's though who don't take these issues serious enough, and would rather dumb themselves down with all of the materialism that surrounds us.

[lord_casek]

yea i understand that, and i'm aware of where he supposedly works. it's interesting that these sort of opinions and arguments always come from the people who have family that work in these fields, or people themselves who work them. meanwhile, you talk to 90% of the general public who share opinions and sentiments from my perspectives, but no... those people don't matter. who gives a shit? they're wrong, they're stupid.

 

 

He really works there.

 

You have to understand something: The people that work in the intelligence field are privy to more information than we civvies. That doesn't necessarily mean they fully disagree, nor does it mean they are propagandizing.

 

More than you realize are on the good guys side.

 

As soon as I stopped arguing with the people "in the know" I started learning. What I have been learning is that if you close your mouth (or stop typing) and start listening (reading) you are able to see things in a whole new light. What you learn may not change your opinion but it will open up doors to things you hadn't thought of before.

 

Sure, it's fun to throw someone a bone every once in a while and see if they'll bite (argue with me), but it's a hell of a better prize to learn something new and see things from anothers perspective.

[lord_casek]

try doing something for this thread besides insulting me, or throwing in random comments, because i could care less. at least i come into threads stating my position clearly, and putting up an argument. i haven't seen you do anything of that sort.

 

i personally don't believe 90% of Americans are stupid or unintelligent either. I'll give American's the benefit of the doubt and say that a good majority of them are smarter then we are given credit for, and also aware of a lot of the topics discussed here. There are a lot of American's though who don't take these issues serious enough, and would rather dumb themselves down with all of the materialism that surrounds us.

 

 

He just threw in the bait and you bit.

[Zig]

He really works there.

 

You have to understand something: The people that work in the intelligence field are privy to more information than we civvies. That doesn't necessarily mean they fully disagree, nor does it mean they are propagandizing.

 

More than you realize are on the good guys side.

 

As soon as I stopped arguing with the people "in the know" I started learning. What I have been learning is that if you close your mouth (or stop typing) and start listening (reading) you are able to see things in a whole new light. What you learn may not change your opinion but it will open up doors to things you hadn't thought of before.

 

Sure, it's fun to throw someone a bone every once in a while and see if they'll bite (argue with me), but it's a hell of a better prize to learn something new and see things from anothers perspective.

 

i agree with you, but at the same time it isn't like i don't already have an idea of his perspective first of all, and second of all it isn't exactly like there is a mutual respect here for each others perspectives. if he was in fact showing even the slightest amount of respect, then my tone would be different but that doesn't seem to be the case on these forums so.

[russell jones]

Sorry, I didn't have have too much stamina for making rational and legible responses when previously replying. Sorry I'm not sure I understand the logic in your last sentence. Could you expand on it a bit for me, please?

 

My point is that the United States has been involved in operations in foreign countries for most of the 20th century, and none of those countries (with the notable exception of South Korea, at the loss of the North) have been to be beneficial to the United States. The US got involved with the Philippines in 1898, lost about 4000 troops in action there, and they are still an unstable regime whose only use to the United States is providing us with cheap sneakers. Nicaragua has been invaded several times, going back to the teens, continuing through the 20's, and then ending with almost secret operations against the Sandinistas in the 80's, with little success or benefit to the United States. Cuba is an obvious failure, and again involvement there goes back to 1898. Iran has become a pretty serious threat, and I wouldn't doubt if blow back from the support of the Shah has a little something to do with that.

 

I could go on, but I don't see much of a chance for success in Iraq or Afghanistan given the history of similar operations. If the goal is to simply prevent an Islamic caliphate from forming, how can that goal be accomplished without a permanent commitment of troops to those areas, involving casualties over decades? It will not happen. Eventually the United States will tire of it, leave, and they will determine their own destiny either way. What's the point in putting it off? What does the US have to gain?

 

It seems that the best possible outcome for the United States could come from using far less oil, so why not put our resources there? I'm not naive, I wouldn't think this could be accomplished quickly, but I don't see how US military operations in the area could accomplish beneficial goals for the United States any more quickly.

[lord_casek]

i agree with you, but at the same time it isn't like i don't already have an idea of his perspective first of all, and second of all it isn't exactly like there is a mutual respect here for each others perspectives. if he was in fact showing even the slightest amount of respect, then my tone would be different but that doesn't seem to be the case on these forums so.

 

He's an Aussie. They all act like that.

 

There actually is mutual respect here. Why do you think moderators leave us alone in crossfire? There aren't bannings going on, there are no "pics of things you ran over" threads,

etc.

 

People talk a lot of shit in here. We all back and forth each other with comments. Toughen up. It's life. People aren't all hippy dippy love drum circle shit on the planet or on the internet.

[lord_casek]

My point is that the United States has been involved in operations in foreign countries for most of the 20th century, and none of those countries (with the notable exception of South Korea, at the loss of the North) have been to be beneficial to the United States. The US got involved with the Philippines in 1898, lost about 4000 troops in action there, and they are still an unstable regime whose only use to the United States is providing us with cheap sneakers. Nicaragua has been invaded several times, going back to the teens, continuing through the 20's, and then ending with almost secret operations against the Sandinistas in the 80's, with little success or benefit to the United States. Cuba is an obvious failure, and again involvement there goes back to 1898. Iran has become a pretty serious threat, and I wouldn't doubt if blow back from the support of the Shah has a little something to do with that.

 

I could go on, but I don't see much of a chance for success in Iraq or Afghanistan given the history of similar operations. If the goal is to simply prevent an Islamic caliphate from forming, how can that goal be accomplished without a permanent commitment of troops to those areas, involving casualties over decades? It will not happen. Eventually the United States will tire of it, leave, and they will determine their own destiny either way. What's the point in putting it off? What does the US have to gain?

 

It seems that the best possible outcome for the United States could come from using far less oil, so why not put our resources there? I'm not naive, I wouldn't think this could be accomplished quickly, but I don't see how US military operations in the area could accomplish beneficial goals for the United States any more quickly.

 

 

Carroll Quigley "Tragedy and hope" would be something worth reading. I'll dig up the pdf if you're interested.

[russell jones]

Sorry, I didn't have have too much stamina for making rational and legible responses when previously replying. Sorry I'm not sure I understand the logic in your last sentence. Could you expand on it a bit for me, please?

 

Sorry, I forgot to address the last sentence directly. I believe that you said that keeping Iraq and Afghanistan in a week position would benefit the United States. It would difficult to do with Iraq, given its oil reserves and US dependence on it. It seems to me that working on energy policy would be a better way to neutralize the threat of Iraq (and Iran) than military action.

[lord_casek]

Sorry, I forgot to address the last sentence directly. I believe that you said that keeping Iraq and Afghanistan in a week position would benefit the United States. It would difficult to do with Iraq, given its oil reserves and US dependence on it. It seems to me that working on energy policy would be a better way to neutralize the threat of Iraq (and Iran) than military action.

 

 

Destabilizing Iran?

 

A "Good" Terrorist Captured by Iran

 

By RAY McGOVERN

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern02262010.html

 

Destabilize Iran?

Rigi asserted that the U.S. representatives said a direct U.S. attack on Iran would be too costly and that Washington instead favored supporting militant groups that could destabilize Iran.

"The Americans said Iran was going its own way and they said our problem at the present is Iran… not al-Qaeda and not the Taliban, but the main problem is Iran,” Rigi said, according to Press TV.

"One of the CIA officers said that it was too difficult for us [the United States] to attack Iran militarily, but we plan to give aid and support to all anti-Iran groups that have the capability to wage war and create difficulty for the Iranian (Islamic) system,” Rigi said.

Rigi added that the Americans said they were willing to provide support “at an extensive level.” However, in Press TV’s account, Rigi did not describe any specific past U.S. support for his organization.

Iran's security forces announced that they had arrested Rigi on Tuesday by bringing down his plane over Iranian airspace, as he was onboard a flight from the United Arab Emirates to Kyrgyzstan, where he said he was expecting to meet with a “high-ranking” U.S. official.

Rigi’s capture represents an embarrassment for Western and Israeli intelligence, which have tried to stir up Iran’s minorities, comprising almost half of the population. Jundullah contends that it is protecting the rights of Sunnis in Shiite-dominated Iran.

[christo-f]

My point is that the United States has been involved in operations in foreign countries for most of the 20th century, and none of those countries (with the notable exception of South Korea, at the loss of the North) have been to be beneficial to the United States. The US got involved with the Philippines in 1898, lost about 4000 troops in action there, and they are still an unstable regime whose only use to the United States is providing us with cheap sneakers. I wouldn't say that, Philippines is a formal ally of the US. You have the Status of Forces agreement with them and basing right, you have a vote in the UN, etc. etc. Most importantly you are where you need to be in oder to control the sea lanes/trading routes of Japan, ROK, China and Taiwan. That's very important leverage and not just being able to block them. Having the power to take something away but not actually doing it is just as important to the being able to threaten some one with it. IT shows you to be a benevolent power and increases your support in countries like Japan, etc. for supporting open trade and markets. Nicaragua has been invaded several times, going back to the teens, continuing through the 20's, and then ending with almost secret operations against the Sandinistas in the 80's, with little success or benefit to the United States. My knowledge of Central America is not what it should be, unfortunately. I really don't know what is going on there and what actual policy and strategy was. Cuba is an obvious failure, and again involvement there goes back to 1898. YEah, pretty hard to look at Cuba as anything else than a total failure in policy/strategy. Iran has become a pretty serious threat, and I wouldn't doubt if blow back from the support of the Shah has a little something to do with that. I have little doubt that it is. The Iranian Revolution that bought the Ayatollahs to power was a direct result of Pahlavi's behavior.

 

I could go on, but I don't see much of a chance for success in Iraq or Afghanistan given the history of similar operations. If the goal is to simply prevent an Islamic caliphate from forming, how can that goal be accomplished without a permanent commitment of troops to those areas, involving casualties over decades? It will not happen. Eventually the United States will tire of it, leave, and they will determine their own destiny either way. What's the point in putting it off? What does the US have to gain? This can be accomplished by having sympathetic governments running countries like Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, KSA, etc. You can also have troops based in regions without casualties, ROK and Japan are two good cases where it has been of great benefit to both the country and the US. Things aren't looking so good for the US on that front right now, but that's because they fucked up the invasion by having too few troops on the ground after the country fell. Just because you have a good idea doesn't mean you actually pull it off.

 

It seems that the best possible outcome for the United States could come from using far less oil, so why not put our resources there? I'm not naive, I wouldn't think this could be accomplished quickly, but I don't see how US military operations in the area could accomplish beneficial goals for the United States any more quickly.

 

It's not only about oil, but a large percentage of it is. And even if the US worked off renewable energy that wouldn't stop you from wanting control over other people's access to it. You simply just don't want any country dominating a region, any region. You want countries too busy competing with each other to keep them from competing with you. If one country is strong enough to dominate a region they are likely to be in a position one day to challenge you or your interests. Yo don't want that.

[christo-f]

Destabilizing Iran?

 

A "Good" Terrorist Captured by Iran

 

By RAY McGOVERN

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern02262010.html

 

Destabilize Iran?

Rigi asserted that the U.S. representatives said a direct U.S. attack on Iran would be too costly and that Washington instead favored supporting militant groups that could destabilize Iran.

"The Americans said Iran was going its own way and they said our problem at the present is Iran… not al-Qaeda and not the Taliban, but the main problem is Iran,” Rigi said, according to Press TV.

"One of the CIA officers said that it was too difficult for us [the United States] to attack Iran militarily, but we plan to give aid and support to all anti-Iran groups that have the capability to wage war and create difficulty for the Iranian (Islamic) system,” Rigi said.

Rigi added that the Americans said they were willing to provide support “at an extensive level.” However, in Press TV’s account, Rigi did not describe any specific past U.S. support for his organization.

Iran's security forces announced that they had arrested Rigi on Tuesday by bringing down his plane over Iranian airspace, as he was onboard a flight from the United Arab Emirates to Kyrgyzstan, where he said he was expecting to meet with a “high-ranking” U.S. official.

Rigi’s capture represents an embarrassment for Western and Israeli intelligence, which have tried to stir up Iran’s minorities, comprising almost half of the population. Jundullah contends that it is protecting the rights of Sunnis in Shiite-dominated Iran.

 

First, beware using anything that is quoting Press TV, it is an Iranian media station and is about as reliable as FoxNews. Second, there was no plane forced down. Rigi was handed to the Iranians by Pakistan, which was where Jundallah operates from. He may have been thrown under the bus by the US in a deal to get Iran to stop supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan during Obama's troops surge. There's very little doubt that the US uses proxies in Iran. Good policy if you ask me.

[christo-f]

So what actually matters?

 

Not the loss of life?

 

Or the fact that this incident was spun to look like it was a job well done on our part?

 

Is it not the overall decision to invade a country for absolutely no reason what so ever. Resulting in the deaths of THOUSANDS of people. (Anyone who quotes this and than says something about resources in the region, please slap yourself across the face before making that point.)

 

Because I think those are all things that matter.

 

The fact that you admit that our government and all governments behave in this manner should be also something that matters.

 

All of this goes on because the American public at large accepts these things, and until that changes, nothing else will. All of the issue's here matter though, and downplaying them is just stupid.

 

Yeah, the Bush admin was a fuck up for more reasons than one. No doubt about that. They also let Russia get its foot back in the door, idiots. They treated the US people as idiots, as did the Liberal Party of Australia. They screwed up the invasion of Iraq and let Afghanistan fester. If the invasion of Iraq had been done as the generals wanted it done far, FAR fewer people would have died.

 

But please don't be saying that there was no reason what so ever because I've just spelled out very extensively as to why it was a strategically good idea. If you disagree with it then tell me why. But just ignoring a rational argument and making categorical statements of your own without any explanation to back it up does you no favours.

 

But as for the way things were handled by the Bush admin, yeah it was a major fuck up. I Think I've already said as much a number of times now, haven't I?

[russell jones]

Carroll Quigley "Tragedy and hope" would be something worth reading. I'll dig up the pdf if you're interested.

 

certainly, post it if you can.

[russell jones]

It's not only about oil, but a large percentage of it is. And even if the US worked off renewable energy that wouldn't stop you from wanting control over other people's access to it. You simply just don't want any country dominating a region, any region. You want countries too busy competing with each other to keep them from competing with you. If one country is strong enough to dominate a region they are likely to be in a position one day to challenge you or your interests. Yo don't want that.

 

 

The few successes you mentioned seem to be a matter of luck and cultural/economic factors as much as a result of policy. I still fail to see how ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan can bring about the conclusion you hope for.

 

My biggest problem with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, beside the moral one, is the difficulty in determining when the goals of the United States have been reached closely enough to withdrawal combat troops. Defining those goals clearly seems to be necessary. Insurgents always have the advantage of time and endurance, especially in the hostile political/religious climate of Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the motivation for Iraq and Afghanistan becoming friendly with the United States? How can that be sold to the people of those nations? How does military action accomplish this goal? How does it hurt this goal?

 

BTW, I didn't mention Japan, or Germany for that matter, since those were total wars, that are not as related to the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan as my other examples. Japan and Germany were also very advanced technologically, which allowed them to slot into post WWII economies with little effort. I don't see similar resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[lord_casek]

Tragedy and Hope- Carroll Quigley

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TSWAJLM9

 

The Anglo American Establishment- Carroll Quigley

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PVZM3S9Q

[christo-f]

Oh man, I told myself I wouldn't bother arguing with some one who doesn't even understand the argument I'm making. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with it, but I feel that it's being ignored. So, this will be my last in my discussion with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a majority of Americans give a shit according to various polls.

 

Well, not according to the 2004 election, the only poll that mattered.

 

 

 

 

I only smoke pot, and I'm not ashamed to admit it (but you'll probably judge me for that anyway). I've never done any other drug in my life, and I don't see what drugs has to do with a term that many notable politicians use when referring to U.S dominance and control, something you yourself have stated clearly exists. So, if you're in some sort of denial that this term is used and exists then you're the one on drugs.

 

You are so easily upset, so much fun. Have you ever heard of a guy called CityOnSmash?

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want anyone "controlling the world", I want freedom, law, equality, and all of these things. I want the constitution of our country to be followed by our political leaders, and respected by foreign nations. I want freedom for all of humanity, and all the nations, and peoples of the world.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! That's fucking priceless!! hahahhaa. From now on I'm going to call you Mahatmah Jesus!!

 

 

And honestly, you refer me to the history of those empires and then you advocate the very thing that brought those empires to their knees for my country? That's just ridiculous. Also, the US is not an empire, it's a Republic, keep that in mind. I support Democratic Republics, not empires. My Democratic Republic should not be behaving like a militaristic empire, thank you very much.

 

 

Goddamn you are hilarious. However, "bought to their knees"? Since when was Great Britain bought to its knees? What about Russia, haven't seen them on their knees yet. Wouldn't exactly say Turkey were on their knees at the end of WW1 either. Dude, just because an empire ends it doesn't mean the country turns to shit. FFS, have you ever heard of the British Commonwealth? What about the Collective Security Treaty Organisation? Seriously, read a history book, mate, stop trying to just guess your way through all this and just make your mind up without actually understanding things first. Not every empire ever got smashed, some just wore out and their central countries are still massive powers some 100 years later. Educate yourself before you believe something.

 

 

Stupid logic. What makes you think our government is any different. No government is more righteous then the next, they are all run by man who is imperfect. That is why check & balances are required, and the constitution should be followed.

 

 

I don't even know what a dullard is,

 

Oh for God's sake, http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

 

 

The real reasonings behind it were in no way of a benefit to the American PEOPLE, the average joe American. No. Stop. That is why our economy is collapsing right now, right? Why don't you go around asking middle class American's if they think it benefited them. Where are you living, in the fucking twilight zone? Whatever it is you think benefited us is no where visibly seen here by anyone I know. Gas prices didn't even drop, nothing got better over here. Stop pretending.

 

What are you even insinuating? That I should be content with the fact my country killed a million people if my gas prices dropped (which they didn't) and my economy was boosted (which it wasn't).

 

the justification WAS fictitious.

 

 

And this is where and why I will leave off chatting with you on this any further:

 

If you think that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with the recent financial crisis you are not even worth discussing politics with. Seriously, pick up a newspaper, book, read a few websites that don't just confirm your ideas. The financial situation was based on banking, housing, regulation, bad management and greed, etc. etc. Seriously, you are so wrong it's ridiculous. Shit, there are even threads on here that discuss it in far more detail than I ever could.

 

If you think controlling strategic energy reserves is based on and will result in cheaper prices for cars??! Holy crap, I don't even know where to start with that one. Dude, not trying to be rude when I say this but you have to read more, stuff that is objective and not pushing an agenda. You probably won't believe me but that is what we do and why we are the top of our game, no "right and wrong" or "should and shouldn't" simply what is and what isn't. If you'll notice I don't say that it was good or bad to go in to Iraq, I don't say it was even a good idea. I have only said that the strategic rationale was sound and that the tactics were flawed. I haven't given a personal opinion if I supported it. That's my own private opinion that I keep to myself. Where as you, you just want to argue your point of righteousness and all the shit that really doesn't figure in to policy formation. Actually some would argue that it would be IMMORAL for the world leaders to act any other way. Pretty much everybody in the world who creates strategic policy clearly agrees with my perspective of security, otherwise there would be no alliances, empires, aircraft carriers and spies. The dominating belief in all governments is that you have to act to secure your country's security and that involves either being strong and domineering or attaching yourself to some one else who is. Even if 99% of the world follows your model of foreign policy, all it takes is one country to act aggressively and you're all fucked! What do you think the chances are of all the world's leaders actually being honest and not trying to take something that isn't theirs? If you would gamble your country's security on the HOPE that everyone else would be benevolent it would be YOU betraying your people because history shows beyond a shadow of doubt, some arsehole would come along and fuck you up. You may be able to take that risk for your own personal safety and then be responsible for your own demise, should it happen. But if you are a leader of millions of people/families, you don't have the luxury of betting their survival that Vladamir Putin is going to be a nice guy, that Xi Jinping is going to be as restrained as Hu Jintao or even that the guy that takes over from Hatoyama won't split with the US and become a PAcific power again. You can't tell what the future will hold and you don't have the luxury or the RIGHT to take risks with the whole country. You have to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

The US pres. is elected by the US people, not the French, the Indonesians or the Nigerians. He has a responsibility to US citizens, no one else. If his policies protect the US people and others get trampled in the in the process, as sad as that may be, that is the fault of the other leader for not having a policy that protected his/her country. If you would just read some history you would see that this is the way the world has worked since before civilisation. Each person, family, clan secures the best and the most resources for their own be it at the expense of others if required. We are all responsible fo ourselves if others can't defend themselves, that's their problem. Read some history, dude. But I'm sure you won't because it may not support your ever so heart-felt position.

 

And that brings me to your final point. No matter how many times I agree with you, you still want to yell at me that the justification for invasion was a lie. You don't want to discuss, you just want to tell everyone what you think, how pissed off you are and that you are such a righteous and sincere person.

 

 

Good luck bringing peace and justice to the world, kid.

[lord_casek]

C'mon Chris, you were an optimistic teenager once, If he lives where you live now and had access to the info you see, his mind might change.

 

Took me a while to see the bigger picture. And sure, I believe in a cabal of very wealthy men who want to control the world...but who can blame me when they freely admit their goal?

[christo-f]

Oh definitely. Probably why I react so much because I see my own stubborn and misguided attitude from years ago and don't like to be reminded of it.

 

As much as I can be abrupt arguing stuff like this, I do have respect for Zig and people like him. At least their heart is in the right place. The only thing I would suggest is that people pay more attention to counter arguments more often.

[christo-f]

Also, I just want to clarify that the whole "Shadow CIA" thing is total bullshit. It was a silly thing that a magazine said about us once and people like to quote because it sounds mysterious.

 

In reality, we just another privately owned think tank that gets a lot of press only because of our client base.

[lord_casek]

Also, I just want to clarify that the whole "Shadow CIA" thing is total bullshit. It was a silly thing that a magazine said about us once and people like to quote because it sounds mysterious.

 

In reality, we just another privately owned think tank that gets a lot of press only because of our client base.

 

 

Referring to your intelligence gathering ability it sounds like a good thing....referring to our CIA...well.....not such a good thing.

[Zig]

And this is where and why I will leave off chatting with you on this any further:

 

If you think that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with the recent financial crisis you are not even worth discussing politics with. Seriously, pick up a newspaper, book, read a few websites that don't just confirm your ideas. The financial situation was based on banking, housing, regulation, bad management and greed, etc. etc. Seriously, you are so wrong it's ridiculous. Shit, there are even threads on here that discuss it in far more detail than I ever could.

 

If you think controlling strategic energy reserves is based on and will result in cheaper prices for cars??! Holy crap, I don't even know where to start with that one. Dude, not trying to be rude when I say this but you have to read more, stuff that is objective and not pushing an agenda. You probably won't believe me but that is what we do and why we are the top of our game, no "right and wrong" or "should and shouldn't" simply what is and what isn't. If you'll notice I don't say that it was good or bad to go in to Iraq, I don't say it was even a good idea. I have only said that the strategic rationale was sound and that the tactics were flawed. I haven't given a personal opinion if I supported it. That's my own private opinion that I keep to myself. Where as you, you just want to argue your point of righteousness and all the shit that really doesn't figure in to policy formation. Actually some would argue that it would be IMMORAL for the world leaders to act any other way. Pretty much everybody in the world who creates strategic policy clearly agrees with my perspective of security, otherwise there would be no alliances, empires, aircraft carriers and spies. The dominating belief in all governments is that you have to act to secure your country's security and that involves either being strong and domineering or attaching yourself to some one else who is. Even if 99% of the world follows your model of foreign policy, all it takes is one country to act aggressively and you're all fucked! What do you think the chances are of all the world's leaders actually being honest and not trying to take something that isn't theirs? If you would gamble your country's security on the HOPE that everyone else would be benevolent it would be YOU betraying your people because history shows beyond a shadow of doubt, some arsehole would come along and fuck you up. You may be able to take that risk for your own personal safety and then be responsible for your own demise, should it happen. But if you are a leader of millions of people/families, you don't have the luxury of betting their survival that Vladamir Putin is going to be a nice guy, that Xi Jinping is going to be as restrained as Hu Jintao or even that the guy that takes over from Hatoyama won't split with the US and become a PAcific power again. You can't tell what the future will hold and you don't have the luxury or the RIGHT to take risks with the whole country. You have to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

The US pres. is elected by the US people, not the French, the Indonesians or the Nigerians. He has a responsibility to US citizens, no one else. If his policies protect the US people and others get trampled in the in the process, as sad as that may be, that is the fault of the other leader for not having a policy that protected his/her country. If you would just read some history you would see that this is the way the world has worked since before civilisation. Each person, family, clan secures the best and the most resources for their own be it at the expense of others if required. We are all responsible fo ourselves if others can't defend themselves, that's their problem. Read some history, dude. But I'm sure you won't because it may not support your ever so heart-felt position.

 

And that brings me to your final point. No matter how many times I agree with you, you still want to yell at me that the justification for invasion was a lie. You don't want to discuss, you just want to tell everyone what you think, how pissed off you are and that you are such a righteous and sincere person.

 

 

Good luck bringing peace and justice to the world, kid.

 

going to roll up a blunt, smoke, and respond to this...

 

for the record, i'm not a hippie (far from it), i'm not a bleeding heart, i'm not a teenager, and i'm not upset with anyone here on these forums. i'm upset about these issues, but not to the point where i am running out into the streets protesting and trying to bring justice to the world either. i have a hard time managing my own life, i don't ever plan on trying to manage anyone elses.

 

give me 20 minutes, and this will be my last word on this issue in this thread. i appreciate your posts christo-f and the advice casek, but i will get in my final 2 cents.

[lord_casek]

going to roll up a blunt, smoke, and respond to this...

 

for the record, i'm not a hippie (far from it), i'm not a bleeding heart, i'm not a teenager, and i'm not upset with anyone here on these forums. i'm upset about these issues, but not to the point where i am running out into the streets protesting and trying to bring justice to the world either. i have a hard time managing my own life, i don't ever plan on trying to manage anyone elses.

 

give me 20 minutes, and this will be my last word on this issue in this thread. i appreciate your posts christo-f and the advice casek, but i will get in my final 2 cents.

 

 

I could've sworn you said you were 19 or so. My bad, man. I apologize.

Keep posting. It's always good to have another voice to be heard.

[Zig]

i dont know where your making these assumptions about the things im thinking, you just keep saying things like you think this you think that but i dont think any of those things your talking about, i didnt say i did believe any of those things. the invasion of iraq has something to do with why we're in our current financial crisis? well no not directly, but id say that being engaged in all of these illegal wars and stationed around the world pursuing the securing of these resources and our dominance is a reason why our economy can't be better. look at all the money we spend on these perpetual endless engagements, and security infrastructures, and law enforcement, and prisons etc. which could be better used on other issues of value which could also improve our dominance on the world. what is it to say that the only way to secure a role in the world is by the means of force or through war. even obama talks about how we should be improving in our education fields and increase our standards so we can become a more intelligent and self sufficient society that isn't dependent on the control of these resources. the entire green movement from my understanding is attempting to come up with alternative energies and resources that would free us from the grips of oil. whats righteous? not wanting war? wanting the constitution followed? being upset at innocent people dying? not wanting to be at war? ... its not my job to be secular, or unbiased, so i say what im thinking. i dont keep it private. i couldnt begin to comprehend the responsibility of the president leading the nation, but i dont hold the individual presidents responsible for decades of bad policy and corruption. i do hold them responsible though for doing something about it not assisting it, not giving it credibility, not embracing it, not expanding it. you said it was your last post on the subject so im not going to continue arguing.