US wants a middle east civil war

reply to post by oozyism


I'm British, I assure you, our Empire no longer exists in any shape or form.

Yes, the USA and Russia probably could be described as having Empire's, yet they should be more accurately called economic conglomorate's.
However, I don't think either had world domination as it's primary driver during WWII.
The USSR wanted revenge and then space to ensure that any future European conflict would be fought on non-Russian soil, a sort of buffer zone.
The USA wanted to defeat Hitler and then limit the spread of communism, and of course make a profit!

If they were intent on world domination they would have fought each other then.

Not long afterwards M.A.D. ensured that neither would gain total world domination.

reply to post by nenothtu


thank you for your reply yeah i consider it the same as you do i just figured id devils advocate it and try to find something from his point of view but its not much to stand on again thank you for the wisdom

reply to post by Freeborn


Yes, Britain as an empire doesn't exist anymore, that is because Britain, just like most of Europe collapsed and was absorbed by either US or USSR, there was a battle over Europe.

They wanted world domination, and the evidence is clear, as you can see US still wants it, but have become too weak to continue.. In the last 10 years it has invaded and occupied two countries that didn't consider the US as their Ayatollah. Actually Saddam did in the past, but later in his life, he changed as evidence of his behavior clearly shows.

Since USSR collapse, Russia has become cautious, and simply trying to control its territories and not loose any, hence Georgia.

The secret wars that are being played out can be seen in glimpses, because the empires that are fighting them are rogue.

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Interesting that neither of you chose to mention operation ajax, aka the 1953 UK/ US plan to bring down the Mossadaq government.
Slayer I can understand, but as a long time lurker I am suprised at you omitting it nenothtu.

Apologies. I didn't bring in Operation Ajax because I was referring to the assertion that the CIA "installed" the Shah to the throne, when he was clearly already there before the CIA was a glimmer in the Dulles' boys eyes. Ajax clarified who was running the country, it didn't institute a "regeime change" and put the Shah there out of nowhere, as has been insinuated. What Ajax did was to replace one sub-official with another, with Mossadegh having committed a treasonous act against the Shah. What it amounted to was a CIA interference in what was fast becoming a "civil war", but it wasn't a regieme change as so many have tried to tell me it was.

Could I ask you question Neno. Why do you think the Carter government chose not to support the shah. Was it simply that they thought Khomeini would be extremly anti soviet or did the revolution really catch them unawares?

The revolution caught them unawares, just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did. Carter's government didn't get involved because Carter was a limp-wristed weakling, who was trying just as hard as he could to placate every enemy he could find, while simultaneously trying to crash the economy here at home.

Sounds familiar to me.

Carter's way of handling things had a direct impact on why I went into the line of work I did. Inflation was in the double digits, and work was scarce where I was at. There was a demand at the time for folks to involve themselves in places that Carter feared to tread.

Wheres Brzezinski nowadays?

I didn't really keep track of him, but I believe he's back to plotting and scheming in the shadows with the Trilateral Commission.

reply to post by oozyism


Come on oozy, I don't think you can liken skinheads in the UK with Sunni's and Shia's blowing each other up in Baghdad.

And no, I don't think there could ever be another full blown US Civil War, but then again, that's only an impression I get as I'm not American and could well be wrong.

I certainly doubt there will ever be another English or British Civil War.

So I guess we all agree that US wants a Middle Eastern civil war between countries in that area to weaken Iran, just like it did using Saddam.

Iran is becoming an example for other Middle Eastern states, an example that states you can remove US control from your nation, and still prosper. While the US tried to make Afghanistan and Iraq an example states for the Middle East, which failed miserably

reply to post by Freeborn


I see you choose your words carefully, as you said you don't think you will see another civil war, meaning in your life time I suspect. Well my argument revolves around vulnerability, neither US is not vulnerable yet, but it will be, when it is, that is when you will see.

All prosperous nations have civil order, even with deep rooted hate amongst the population, even prosperous Islamic societies had that civil order, because they were not vulnerable and had the means to defend itself. Now it is another question, we have US soldier in Saudi Arabia lol

You get what I mean right, then again I don't think we will ever agree/

reply to post by oozyism


To be fair, if the US wanted to conduct military operations in accordance with the morals of yesteryear and were to apply all their might then they could quite easily bomb Iraq, Afghanistan and the whole region into oblivion in a very short time.

That they haven't shows the benefits of M.A.D. and modern diplomacy which has ensured that civlian casualties are actually kept to a minimum and the desire for lasting regime change.
That this also provides other benefits will be seen as a bonus.

Originally posted by oozyism
So I guess we all agree that US wants a Middle Eastern civil war between countries in that area to weaken Iran, just like it did using Saddam.

I can only speak for myself, but no, I DON'T agree with that. There is no such thing as "a civil war between countries", Middle eastern, European, or otherwise.

No such critter.

Iran is becoming an example for other Middle Eastern states, an example that states you can remove US control from your nation, and still prosper. While the US tried to make Afghanistan and Iraq an example states for the Middle East, which failed miserably

It still remains to be seen whether or not Iran will "prosper". So far, Iran's MOST prosperous times in recent history were under the Shah.

It likewise remains to be seen whether Iraq or Afghanistan will be "failures" or not. I suspect they will, because the people there are just not geared towards success (in the "western" conception of the term). Personally, I'm all for completely erasing the Taliban by any means possible, and then just vacating the entire region and allowing them to bludgeon one another to death with rocks to their hearts content.

reply to post by Freeborn


Having a policy of world domination, it wouldn't be wise to level the whole place, what would be the agenda behind leveling the middle east to the ground? This is about greed, power and control.

Yes the US has that capability, no one questions that, in fact I don't even question the US's ability to destroy the whole planet.

double post

reply to post by oozyism


Where did I say that?

I think you'll find that I said quite the opposite and that one of the major continuing contributory factors in both the current and previous confrontations is the never ending circle of religious, tribal and ethnic differences and the contnued reluctance to accept any responsibility at all for the current situation but would rather blame everything on the convenient scapegoats the USA.

reply to post by Freeborn


Ohh shiz I thought you said you don't think you will see, so you are saying there will never be one:

I certainly doubt there will ever be another English or British Civil War.

Just to clarify, are you saying there will never be another civil war in your country, or in the US? That is an interesting stand point, can you clarify based on what information do you stand your judgement on.

Bomb blast injures 3 kids in N. Ireland

reply to post by oozyism


I don't think the US has a policy of world domination.

I do think that elements within US government, military and administration etc think they have a right to defend, protect and even promote their interests above anything else, anywhere.
This appears to come at quite a cost, to us all.

TO THE OP: US wants, huh? Well I am part of the US and I don't want a middle eastern civil war. Neither do many friends of mine. Perhaps you should have titled your post some in the US want a middle eastern civil war. But how could really say the US as a whole???

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
TO THE OP: US wants, huh? Well I am part of the US and I don't want a middle eastern civil war. Neither do many friends of mine. Perhaps you should have titled your post some in the US want a middle eastern civil war. But how could really say the US as a whole???

Sorry, but you are just the hands and legs of US, the point is, the people in control of US wants this. I can guarantee you that neither you, nor your friends control US..

reply to post by oozyism


Northern Ireland is not a civil war.
It is a very small group of gangsters and racketeers who rue the loss of control they had over their respective communities during The Troubles.
Not even anything on the scale of a civil uprising let alone a civil war.

Unfortunatley I think the majority of Brits have been anesthetized so much that they are far too apathetic to get up in arms about anything!
They are far too interested in drinking cheap Lambrini, watching X Factor and worrying about who get's voted off Big Brother rather than concern themselves about the #ty state of affairs our country is in.

Seriously, civil unrest is a likelihood, civil war highly unlikely.

reply to post by Freeborn

Seriously, civil unrest is a likelihood, civil war highly unlikely.

Now we getting there, so you are saying that a civil war is possible, but highly unlikely?

The reason why I posted that news had to do much about the fact that you think it will never happen, while I say, how hard is it to support the IRA, give them some guns and some bombs and see what havoc they can create in Britain? But as I said before, that won't happen, because the US + Britain has strong intelligence agency therefore can counter any attempt by world powers to cause unrest and civil war.

reply to post by oozyism


Yes of course your right(your always right). Americans are crying over the loss of a few thousand troops and we cry over the loss of one also!!! Even though the losses continue, we will still keep coming. Take that message to your freinds back home.

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
TO THE OP: US wants, huh? Well I am part of the US and I don't want a middle eastern civil war. Neither do many friends of mine. Perhaps you should have titled your post some in the US want a middle eastern civil war. But how could really say the US as a whole???

Sorry, but you are just the hands and legs of US, the point is, the people in control of US wants this. I can guarantee you that neither you, nor your friends control US..

Actually we do, we elect politicians to serve us. So in a sense everyone controls the US who votes. Politicians are the elected representatives of the people.