littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The concept of 'mission creep' is itself an artefact of propaganda, as the sands shift in terms of the lies that are judged the right ones to be told to the population to justify wars.
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
rekil
to menny cranks
Sinn Fein don't like the colonel much.
Despot who backed IRA denounced by republicans.
Despot who backed IRA denounced by republicans.
Ian Paisley junior of all people approved the use of PSNI officers to train Gaddafi's goons.
Spion
I hear ya
There's an element of conspiraloonery creeping into the thread. Like there's some monolithic agency guiding everything, pre-arranged plans and propaganda revealed by a single hand to a set timetable.
Nope. The evidence is before your eyes. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya: Western intervention = permanent warfare and chaos.
I suppose if you were really desperate you could claim that this happened by accident (although three times in a row is a lot of accidents).
But then again, everyone knew before the interventions that permanent warfare and chaos would be the results. Didn't you? I certainly did.
I suppose you could argue that the leaders of the West are the only people in the world so stupid that they didn't see what the obvious results of their actions would be. Though that seems a difficult argument to sustain too.
I think the onus is on you to show that the West wanted something other than permanent warfare and chaos. Perhaps you might start by explaining why they would want anything else?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
No. I think there is a very confused sense of "mission" and in many respects are reacting to ongoing events. There was one goal from the beginning yes, Regime change and shepherding the rebels to power. Apart from that I think events follow their own logic.
I think you have a far far too conspiratorial view of history Phil. Overall I agree with Spion
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
No. It is realism. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq and the way the reason for the action has changed over the years. You think any of those stated reasons is the real reason?
It's not conspiraloonery at all. Nobody has ever started a war for humanitarian reasons. Ever.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
A strategy of 'the fastest route to regime change without frightening the arabian horses' seems pretty simple.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
This makes no sense. Iraq has been a disaster for the US. The Iraqi government is facilitating Iranian interests in the country, influence which is set to grow in the wake of the planned pullout at the end of the year. Are you seriously arguing that the US wanted to help expand Iranian regional power? Obama is secretly in league with Iran? Don't be silly.
As I posted early I think they are trapped by the logic of their own narrative, a narrative which is imposed onto the realities of countries they don't really understand and then are forced to deal with consequences that were not expected. There are forces at work that are not under their control, forces which are not predictable. The failure of the rebels to take and then to hold ground, created a new reality which had to be addressed. Hence Western intervention. The ability of Gaddafi to retain popular support in some areas and to hold off a rebel offensive even after a "no fly zone".Hence talk of ground troops. on and on, deeper and deeper. These events create realities which then create new decisions etc.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I also wouldn't suggest the Neo-cons had a clue what they were doing.
Idaho
blah blah blah
I really think there is a relationship between ones own experience of working for, and managing within, large organisations, and the tendancy to believe in the near omniscient power of governments. They are chaotic and confused places with conflicting demands and agendas. The end results tend to be confused and conflicted - as we are now seeing. Those with experience in large organisations see this. Those without this experience have an outsider's awe at the power of these organisations.
I really don't know what it will take to convince you. When we go into Iran, will you be saying that it is because of a rigged election, or because Ahmidinajad is a horrid monster?
The West is following a course of action that was publicly recommended by its most influential policy makers over a decade ago. That course of action is entirely commensurate with its interests, and those of Israel. In fact it would be very strange if they weren't doing this, or something very like it.
Spion
I hear ya
Yesterday you said think tanks and policy-makers had been publically declaring their aim of 'permanent warfare and chaos' in states they had their eyes on. The fact you now can't provide a single shred of evidence for this speaks volumes about the utter bollocks you're talking.
Doing business, and extracting things like oil, requires order and stability. Any chaos resulting from any of these interventions is only seen as a short term inconvenience until a more friendly guarantor of order is rearranged
Spion
I hear ya
No shit, Sherlock. Just what do you think you're arguing against here?
Iran will be dealt with very soon, don't worry about that.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
There is a flaw in your argument above.
The quickest way to maintain oil supplies would have been to permit Gaddafi to quell his revolution without Britain and France and the USA taking any action. It would have been over quickly and the west would not have had to spend a dime on munitions to achieve it.
As I have mentioned before, Libya accounts for just 2% of oil production.
No it doesn't. You just build military bases next to the oil wells.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I only half agree with dwyer about the intelligence of the warmongers. If you read the works of the intellectuals behind them, they are really quite mad half the time, with an abhorrently distorted view of the world, and there is no reason why their actions should be successful on their terms.
Iraq has been a disaster for Iraqis. For the US, it certainly isn't working out well at the moment generally as populations in the Middle East rebel against their US-approved leaders, but I'm not suggesting that what they are doing is working well for them. As for how much the US really genuinely fears Iran, I don't know. Logically, they should not fear Iran at all.
Iraq has been a disaster for Iraqis. For the US, it certainly isn't working out well at the moment generally as populations in the Middle East rebel against their US-approved leaders, but I'm not suggesting that what they are doing is working well for them. As for how much the US really genuinely fears Iran, I don't know. Logically, they should not fear Iran at all.
Spion
I hear ya
You two really aren't following what people are saying here are you?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
If Israel cares, the USA cares. And Israel cares an awful lot about Iran.
Spion
I hear ya
Absolutely hatstand
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
On Urban - surely not!!1!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You quoted what I said about mission creep. At least two people on this thread and lots more out in the country appear to believe the propaganda about what is going on – Idaho and weltweit. Even you seem not to grasp what is really going on here. Dwyer is right when he said that this was all laid out in general terms over a decade ago. I'll try to find some stuff for you if you haven't read it.
It's worth addressing this again, because it's the biggest canard rolled out by the suckers.
The extraction of natural raw materials does not require "order and stability." Was there "order and stability" in Africa or America when the colonialists arrived? If you mean by "order and stability" a strong central state, then obviously that will be an obstacle to the extraction of natural raw materials.
Why? Because a strong central state will insist on being properly paid for their raw materials, and may even decide it doesn't want to sell them at all. In this region any such state, if representative of the people, would also be dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
You haven't been following events in Iraq too closely have you?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Was there order, stability, infrastructure when the colonialists were extracting raw materials? Yes.
Spion
I hear ya
Well done! You've IDed the two most prominent people who do have some illusions in the intervention. Now you can get onto picking out what others like me and Dylans are saying here
I'm well aware of the PNAC and its aims. I am mostly disputing that their - and the western states - aim is 'permanent warfare and chaos', which dwyer is pushing, with not a shred of evidence, plus his ludicrous arguments
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Someone should have maybe mentioned this grand plan to Tony Blair.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Firstly, I am not sure I agree that I have swallowed the propoganda, and further, even if I had, it has been spread far and wide via many and various news organisations that you would have thought should know better, if it has in fact been propaganda.
What I think you are doing however is fitting a conspiracy theory to a situation that does not warrant it. Sometimes what obviously seems to be happenning, is actually what is happenning.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Just to add...
How tenuous a conspiracy that it required the persuading of 5 Security Council members to abstain rather than vote against or veto. It was a very touch and go resolution, it could easily have gone the other way.
And Obama and Cameron certainly did not want to do a Bush / Blair and conduct warfare without the full legal support of a UN resolution.
So you are arguing there is more going on here, it is, if it is, only by the skin of its teeth!
You have the most common illusion about it, which is that the West wants to build a functioning democracy, or at least a strong central state, in the places it invades.
Now tell us: why on earth would they want to do that?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
