weltweit
Well-Known Member
A cynic writes ...
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
A cynic writes ...
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Whereas the vileness of the likes of you are well out in the open.
Idaho
blah blah blah
That doesn't hold water.
a) Trying to pump, contain and export oil in a war zone is extremely difficult and costly.
b) Chaotic states are feared by the west and Israel as places where extremists can train and organise.
Spion
I hear ya
You're being kind. It's total bollocks
Surely I'm just pointing out the obvious?
The West has recently invaded three Muslim countries. They (we) are also fighting a covert war in Pakistan. They (we) are obviously poised to mash up Iran at a moment's notice. Wherever we go, we bring chaos and permanent warfare.
Now it seems to me that anyone who doesn't understand that all of this is a single carefully-planned, long-anticipated, daring and bold geo-political gambit is incredibly naive. Especially since American think-tanks and policy-makers have been publicly recommending it for over a decade. The key name to recall is Wolfowitz, who made his name instigating a "democratic revolution" in the Phillippines, and who recommended extending this tactic to the middle east.
The long-term aims are two: (1) to ensure unrestricted access to oil in an era when resources will be rapidly depleting, and (2) to ensure that Israel can live in permanent security.
This is not about a bunch of photogenic rebels on Facebook.
A strong state wouldn't be compliant.
Spion
I hear ya
Give us a link or two to these think-tanks etc saying this
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't have the links handy, but dwyer is right about this. If you search on here you should find some links from Bernie Gunther somewhere.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
You're giving the Americans too much credit, here. There's a strong element of planning behind all of this, of course, but a lot is simply a big cock up. What did they do after 1953? They fostered a strong and friendly Iranian state. And later on they also had Saudi and Egypt as their useful partners in the region, able to do police work.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
He's mostly thinking about the Project of the New American Century, imo.
100% masahiko
i is a professor and is magical like totoro
You have an unrealistic faith in the ability of political forces to follow a planned route.
Idaho
blah blah blah
People who believe in these long-game uber conspiracies are often loners who don't have much experience of working in large organisations. If they did they would realise that humans are naturally far too disorganised and inefficient to ever pull off any such conspiracy. That's without adding the massive chaos factor of other players and external events.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Why did Israel hamstring Lebanon for so long, then
Idaho
blah blah blah
Because they made a mistake?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's not so much an uber-conspiracy as an explicitly stated agenda and method, and this is what is being followed.
Yes, but the ideological groundwork is done in places like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American Enterprise Institute. You probably know the LRB article from 2006 on the Israeli lobby, which is the most concise explanation of how all this works:
"Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies … Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction.
Once Baghdad fell in mid-April 2003, Sharon and his lieutenants began urging Washington to target Damascus. On 16 April, Sharon, interviewed in Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put ‘very heavy’ pressure on Syria, while Shaul Mofaz, his defence minister, interviewed in Ma’ariv, said: ‘We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done through the Americans.’ Ephraim Halevy told a WINEP audience that it was now important for the US to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post reported that Israel was ‘fuelling the campaign’ against Syria by feeding the US intelligence reports about the actions of Bashar Assad, the Syrian president.
Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments. Wolfowitz declared that ‘there has got to be regime change in Syria,’ and Richard Perle told a journalist that ‘a short message, a two-worded message’ could be delivered to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: ‘You’re next.’ In early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria ‘should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless, irresponsible and defiant behaviour could end up sharing his fate’. On 15 April, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled ‘Next, Turn the Screws on Syria’, while the following day Zev Chafets wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled ‘Terror-Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too’. Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on 21 April that Assad was a serious threat to America."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
Yep. Nothing secret about it. Nor is there anything strange or irrational about it. If your aims are to ensure access to oil and the security of Israel, then this is precisely the way to pursue them.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
ah, they thought that occupying the south and supporting a proxy force there would lead to stability.
Spion
I hear ya
I thought as much. I don't remember them advocating turning mid eastern and other states into "a permanent state of warfare and chaos" tho
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
It is wrong, though, to talk about the israeli lobby as though they are somehow driving a reluctant US ruling class towards this end. The aims of the Israeli ruling class, and those of the US one are very similar, partly because Israel has been a US client state for a long time. This is why they push in the same direction, not because US politicians are being lobbied.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
No i think phil has made a slight detour towards megiddo with this analysis.
Spion
I hear ya
they sought to turn Lebanon into a strong christian ally of Israel. The chaos that ensued was a by-product of that failed project
Spion
I hear ya
None of which equates to "a permanent state of warfare and chaos" in those countries.
Yes they did. That policy didn't turn out too well for them did it?
They don't fear chaotic states. Chaotic states can't defend their own natural resources, and they can't attack anyone. What they fear is well-armed, well-organized and violently hostile states.
Iran, for example. If you were Israel, would you sit back and watch Iran get nuclear weapons?
Idaho
blah blah blah
Are you asking me to justify, in hindsight, a failed policy? Spion sums it up - they had big plans which went spectacularly wrong.
You think?
Alright, let's look at the results of Western intervention in the Muslim world.
Iraq? Permanent warfare and chaos.
Afghanistan? Permanent warfare and chaos.
Libya? Yet to be seen, but sure looks like warfare and permanent chaos to me.
Now, what could be more plausible than to argue that the aim of a particular course of action was to achieve the end that has in fact been achieved?
Spion
I hear ya
I don't know what you are good at, but please steer clear of history and politics as you are clueless in the extreme. Never heard of unintended consequences?
Heh. I lifted the sentence you quote directly from Immanuel Wallerstein.
If you've heard of him, I think you'll agree that he knows something of history and politics.
And so you now look silly.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
