|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| So Leon, if you were in charge, what would you do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| So Leon, if you were in charge, what would you do? |
Impossible to say. I don't have a clear enough view of what the situation is on the ground, I'd need to have access to the intelligence. I guess now that a lot of it leaked I do to some extent.
In Afghanistan I would make on last large push and then incrementally leave, similar to what Obama is doing. I would also put far greater pressure on Pakistan to clean up the federally administered tribal areas. I feel that this strategy does the most to decrease the likelihood of the Taliban reemerging as the ruling party in all of Afghanistan for the least cost. I would like to see the deadline for next year for the withdrawals happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| So Leon, if you were in charge, what would you do? |
Impossible to say. I don't have a clear enough view of what the situation is on the ground, I'd need to have access to the intelligence. I guess now that a lot of it leaked I do to some extent.
In Afghanistan I would make on last large push and then incrementally leave, similar to what Obama is doing. I would also put far greater pressure on Pakistan to clean up the federally administered tribal areas. I feel that this strategy does the most to decrease the likelihood of the Taliban reemerging as the ruling party in all of Afghanistan for the least cost. I would like to see the deadline for next year for the withdrawals happen. |
But there lies the conundrum and why Pakistan has yet to do so. How do you pressure Pakistan to clean up those tribal areas? By threatening to reduce aid? Then maybe that destablizes the Pakstiani government even more and empowers those forces we are seeking to weaken. We're stuck.
I don't mean to be shooting down ideas or be mr. negative but I'm simply frustrated that there really isn't a solution to this madness. At least a solution that I'm aware of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:20 pm Post subject: Re: More Proof Afghanistan is Money Down the Drain |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And do you really think fighting Islamic fundamentalism is winnable through aggressive military action? If so, where has been an example of where it has worked? Algeria perhaps, but its elite didn't support the fundamentalists like some Pakistani elite have supported fundamentalists. |
The Algerian fundamentalist didn't have enough domestic support. I've heard many Algerians say that most of those who voted in the fundamentalists did so to vote the old order out. At that time they were probably quite naive as to the consequences.
Anyway, are we really in Afghanistan to fight Islamic fundamentalism? I actually find this hard to believe. There must be other factors that are keeping us there. |
We aren't in Afghanistan to fight Islamic fundamentalism, at least we shouldn't be. It is/ should be a simple matter of security. That being said the distraction of trying to nation build is probably part of the reason we're taking so long. Mere stability should be a top goal, and a very worthy one at that, especially considering the region and the history. |
Can you explain how it is a matter of security, and how the war contributes to this security? |
Really? It's simple, Afghanistan was a safe haven for terrorists. When you throw in the fact that it's also a narco state located next door to an unstable country with nuclear weapons than it gets even more clear. The war in Afghanistan probably will increase our security in the long term, but it has been mishandled and nation building was an unrealistic goal. |
The terrorists who attacked the US, did not do so from Afghanistan. It was masterminded from Germany. By its very nature, terrorism in the technological age cannot be prevented by a conventional war in a third world country. The lads who blew up buses and trains on the underground in London did not need Afghanistan's help to do what they did.
But what bringing death and carnage to helpless citizens in Afghanistan did do, was to galvanise support for terrorism among people who had previously had no such interest. It was images of the suffering of ordinary muslim folk in Afghanistan and Iraq that became a very successful recruiting tool for organisations such as Al Quaeda. This was predicted by the time, and proved correct, as the former head of M15 testified very recently.
Manningham-Buller was right about the Iraq war
| Quote: |
| Tony Blair ignored the MI5 boss's advice, as he did the public's protests, but history has proved her fears to be uncannily accurate |
Eliza Manningham-Buller at the Iraq inquiry
| Quote: |
9.42am: Here�s a short Manningham-Buller reading list.
� The intelligence and security committee report from September 2003. This is the report that revealed that intelligence chiefs warned Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq would increase the danger of terrorist attacks. The key quote is in paragraph 126.
In their assessment International Terrorism:War with Iraq, dated 10 February 2003, the [joint intelligence committee] reported that there was no intelligence that Iraq had provided [chemical and biological] materials to al-Qaida or of Iraqi intentions to conduct CB terrorist attacks using Iraqi intelligence officials or their agents. However, it judged that in the event of imminent regime collapse there would be a risk of transfer of such material, whether or not as a deliberate Iraqi regime policy. The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.
� A speech Manningham-Buller delivered in November 2006. In this speech, which is on the MI5 website, Manningham-Buller said Britain�s involvement in the Iraq war was one of the factors motivating Islamist terrorists who attack the UK.
There has been much speculation about what motivates young men and women to carry out acts of terrorism in the UK. My service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it, as far as that is possible. Al-Qaida has developed an ideology which claims that Islam is under attack, and needs to be defended.
This is a powerful narrative that weaves together conflicts from across the globe, presenting the west�s response to varied and complex issues, from long-standing disputes such as Israel/Palestine and Kashmir to more recent events as evidence of an across-the-board determination to undermine and humiliate Islam worldwide. Afghanistan, the Balkans, Chechnya, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir and Lebanon are regularly cited by those who advocate terrorist violence as illustrating what they allege is Western hostility to Islam.
The video wills of British suicide bombers make it clear that they are motivated by perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims; an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam promoted by some preachers and people of influence; and their interpretation as anti-Muslim of UK foreign policy, in particular the UK�s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan |
Iraq and Afghanistan provided a recruiting bonanza for terrorist orgs.
I know a lot of muslims, and I saw a big shift in their attitude toward the US when bombs started raining down on ordinary muslim people, who had had no hand in terrorism. They couldn't believe it. One guy I knew had such great faith in the US. He thought it was a great country, and wished his own country could emulate it. He had great respect for westerners, as he thought highly of our civilisations and our political mechanisms. When the war started, he thought America must be doing it for good reasons. As the war went on, and he saw more and more dead Arab babies on his telly set, he started to talk about the US with hatred. I shall never forget the way he turned. But he was heading for middle-age and too wise to see terrorism as a noble way to address the wars. However, I find it easy to see why young impressionable males became so empassioned that they jumped on planes to join terrorist groups in the Middle East.
Good policing and intelligence work and increased co-operation between nations would have done far more to improve our security than to bring horrendous war and suffering to largely innocent faraway populations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: More Proof Afghanistan is Money Down the Drain |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And do you really think fighting Islamic fundamentalism is winnable through aggressive military action? If so, where has been an example of where it has worked? Algeria perhaps, but its elite didn't support the fundamentalists like some Pakistani elite have supported fundamentalists. |
The Algerian fundamentalist didn't have enough domestic support. I've heard many Algerians say that most of those who voted in the fundamentalists did so to vote the old order out. At that time they were probably quite naive as to the consequences.
Anyway, are we really in Afghanistan to fight Islamic fundamentalism? I actually find this hard to believe. There must be other factors that are keeping us there. |
We aren't in Afghanistan to fight Islamic fundamentalism, at least we shouldn't be. It is/ should be a simple matter of security. That being said the distraction of trying to nation build is probably part of the reason we're taking so long. Mere stability should be a top goal, and a very worthy one at that, especially considering the region and the history. |
Can you explain how it is a matter of security, and how the war contributes to this security? |
Really? It's simple, Afghanistan was a safe haven for terrorists. When you throw in the fact that it's also a narco state located next door to an unstable country with nuclear weapons than it gets even more clear. The war in Afghanistan probably will increase our security in the long term, but it has been mishandled and nation building was an unrealistic goal. |
The terrorists who attacked the US, did not do so from Afghanistan. It was masterminded from Germany. By its very nature, terrorism in the technological age cannot be prevented by a conventional war in a third world country. The lads who blew up buses and trains on the underground in London did not need Afghanistan's help to do what they did. |
Wrong. Small scale independent terror cells and lone wolf terrorists are dangerous, but nothing compared to well organized and financed groups. Those groups need lawless places to be based out of. The plan for 9/11 may have started in Germany, but they were trained in Afghanistan.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| But what bringing death and carnage to helpless citizens in Afghanistan did do, was to galvanise support for terrorism among people who had previously had no such interest. It was images of the suffering of ordinary muslim folk in Afghanistan and Iraq that became a very successful recruiting tool for organisations such as Al Quaeda. This was predicted by the time, and proved correct, as the former head of M15 testified very recently. |
This is true, but overall the terrorist groups that were based out of Afghanistan are much weaker.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Manningham-Buller was right about the Iraq war
| Quote: |
| Tony Blair ignored the MI5 boss's advice, as he did the public's protests, but history has proved her fears to be uncannily accurate |
Eliza Manningham-Buller at the Iraq inquiry
| Quote: |
9.42am: Here�s a short Manningham-Buller reading list.
� The intelligence and security committee report from September 2003. This is the report that revealed that intelligence chiefs warned Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq would increase the danger of terrorist attacks. The key quote is in paragraph 126.
In their assessment International Terrorism:War with Iraq, dated 10 February 2003, the [joint intelligence committee] reported that there was no intelligence that Iraq had provided [chemical and biological] materials to al-Qaida or of Iraqi intentions to conduct CB terrorist attacks using Iraqi intelligence officials or their agents. However, it judged that in the event of imminent regime collapse there would be a risk of transfer of such material, whether or not as a deliberate Iraqi regime policy. The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.
� A speech Manningham-Buller delivered in November 2006. In this speech, which is on the MI5 website, Manningham-Buller said Britain�s involvement in the Iraq war was one of the factors motivating Islamist terrorists who attack the UK.
There has been much speculation about what motivates young men and women to carry out acts of terrorism in the UK. My service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it, as far as that is possible. Al-Qaida has developed an ideology which claims that Islam is under attack, and needs to be defended.
This is a powerful narrative that weaves together conflicts from across the globe, presenting the west�s response to varied and complex issues, from long-standing disputes such as Israel/Palestine and Kashmir to more recent events as evidence of an across-the-board determination to undermine and humiliate Islam worldwide. Afghanistan, the Balkans, Chechnya, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir and Lebanon are regularly cited by those who advocate terrorist violence as illustrating what they allege is Western hostility to Islam.
The video wills of British suicide bombers make it clear that they are motivated by perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims; an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam promoted by some preachers and people of influence; and their interpretation as anti-Muslim of UK foreign policy, in particular the UK�s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan |
Iraq and Afghanistan provided a recruiting bonanza for terrorist orgs. |
Please stop mixing up Iraq and Afghanistan. They are completely different situations.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I know a lot of muslims, and I saw a big shift in their attitude toward the US when bombs started raining down on ordinary muslim people, who had had no hand in terrorism. They couldn't believe it. One guy I knew had such great faith in the US. He thought it was a great country, and wished his own country could emulate it. He had great respect for westerners, as he thought highly of our civilisations and our political mechanisms. When the war started, he thought America must be doing it for good reasons. As the war went on, and he saw more and more dead Arab babies on his telly set, he started to talk about the US with hatred. I shall never forget the way he turned. But he was heading for middle-age and too wise to see terrorism as a noble way to address the wars. However, I find it easy to see why young impressionable males became so empassioned that they jumped on planes to join terrorist groups in the Middle East. |
Again, this is more Iraq than Afghanistan.
Good policing and intelligence work and increased co-operation between nations would have done far more to improve our security than to bring horrendous war and suffering to largely innocent faraway populations.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Just came across another reason put forward.
| Quote: |
| After 9-11 the Bush regime decided to use the changed circumstances (the climate of fear and to some extent Islamophobia) to invade Iraq. He had wanted to do this for some time. In early 1999 he�d told the man who was planning to ghostwrite his autobiography: �One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade---if I had that much capital, I�m not going to waste it. I�m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I�m going to have a successful presidency.� |
http://counterpunch.org/leupp07222010.html
While I don't accept it as an ultimate reason, I certainly don't dismiss it as a contributing factor. |
When I was in grad school I attended seminar after seminar about why America attacked Iraq. Big swinging dick IPE/IR theorists would attempt to find rational reasons for the most irrational action. Nobody had a good theory. There was no geo-political benefit. No benefit for oil firms. No benefit to security. No WMD's. WTF. |
Was it really an irrational action for someone like Dick Cheney who potentially had a lot to gain personally by his involvement in companies like Haliburton who stood to profit greatly from the war? War often does have financial benefits, although with hindsight this war was financially disasterous for US. Then there was the religious loon, George Bush, who told the French President that he was off to fight Gog and Magog - perhaps not an irrational motive if you are a rightwing Xtian nutter. And then there was Murdoch, not a Jew, who was really pushing for the Iraq war with his vast media empire. I remember him being asked why he was lobbying for the war, and he said something about how it would lower the price of oil, and that would be a good thing. Perhaps some really believed it was going to bring such a benefit? In fact it did the opposite. Or perhaps bringing up the price of oil was perceived as a great benefit to certain parties.
Yes, this was purported at the time. But I find it hard to believe that the whole country went along with this war if they really didn't think there was actually something in it for them too. There are surely various factors that set this war in motion. Not least the loopy Xtian zionists (which surely outnumber Americas Jews, many of whom were against the war) who believe war in the middle east and the accendancy of Israel are necessary conditions to bring about Judgement Day - which they hope is coming any day soon. Perhaps Cheney's material greed. Perhaps some belief that these kind of wars help destabalise certain regions helping to keep US dominance prominent. Sadly, I think these wars have helped hastened the West's decline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: More Proof Afghanistan is Money Down the Drain |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Quote: |
The terrorists who attacked the US, did not do so from Afghanistan. It was masterminded from Germany. By its very nature, terrorism in the technological age cannot be prevented by a conventional war in a third world country. The lads who blew up buses and trains on the underground in London did not need Afghanistan's help to do what they did. |
Wrong. Small scale independent terror cells and lone wolf terrorists are dangerous, but nothing compared to well organized and financed groups. Those groups need lawless places to be based out of. The plan for 9/11 may have started in Germany, but they were trained in Afghanistan. |
then attact their finances! It doesn't matter where they were trained. They could be trained in the deserts of Arizona if they had a mind to be.
| Quote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| But what bringing death and carnage to helpless citizens in Afghanistan did do, was to galvanise support for terrorism among people who had previously had no such interest. It was images of the suffering of ordinary muslim folk in Afghanistan and Iraq that became a very successful recruiting tool for organisations such as Al Quaeda. This was predicted by the time, and proved correct, as the former head of M15 testified very recently. |
This is true, but overall the terrorist groups that were based out of Afghanistan are much weaker. |
Yeah, but it doesn't matter. They've just moved elsewhere. They've descentralised. There are sleeping cells all over the world. They don't need Afghanistan.
| Quote: |
Again, this is more Iraq than Afghanistan. |
It doesn't matter. It's the same principle. If there hadn't been such sensational footage from Iraq, the recruiters could have better used the suffering in Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: More Proof Afghanistan is Money Down the Drain |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Quote: |
The terrorists who attacked the US, did not do so from Afghanistan. It was masterminded from Germany. By its very nature, terrorism in the technological age cannot be prevented by a conventional war in a third world country. The lads who blew up buses and trains on the underground in London did not need Afghanistan's help to do what they did. |
Wrong. Small scale independent terror cells and lone wolf terrorists are dangerous, but nothing compared to well organized and financed groups. Those groups need lawless places to be based out of. The plan for 9/11 may have started in Germany, but they were trained in Afghanistan. |
then attact their finances! It doesn't matter where they were trained. They could be trained in the deserts of Arizona if they had a mind to be. |
Their finances are being attacked, but they are very good are funneling money and hiding it. Arizona, haven't you been following the news, they'd be deported.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| But what bringing death and carnage to helpless citizens in Afghanistan did do, was to galvanise support for terrorism among people who had previously had no such interest. It was images of the suffering of ordinary muslim folk in Afghanistan and Iraq that became a very successful recruiting tool for organisations such as Al Quaeda. This was predicted by the time, and proved correct, as the former head of M15 testified very recently. |
This is true, but overall the terrorist groups that were based out of Afghanistan are much weaker.[/quote]
Yeah, but it doesn't matter. They've just moved elsewhere. They've descentralised. There are sleeping cells all over the world. They don't need Afghanistan.[/quote]
The groups themselves are much weaker, not just in Afghanistan. They need somewhere, there are very few places as perfect for them in Afghanistan.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Again, this is more Iraq than Afghanistan. |
It doesn't matter. It's the same principle. If there hadn't been such sensational footage from Iraq, the recruiters could have better used the suffering in Afghanistan.[/quote]
Yes and no. Iraq was clearly unjustified, but Afghanistan is harder to paint in that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's hard to follow your post, as you don't bother to set out the quotes properly.
You state that terrorist organisations are weaker, but I would argue that this is DESPITE the silly wars, and rather BECAUSE OF other factors, such as better intelligence gathering and co-operation between nations and finding ways to obstuct their finances, which has also been going on since the invasion of Afghanistan.
If you are going to argue that the war has increased security, please describe in better detail just how it has done so.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just reading more of the article mises posted.
| Quote: |
However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.
|
This would have been as much in America's own interests as in Israel's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
It's hard to follow your post, as you don't bother to set out the quotes properly.
You state that terrorist organisations are weaker, but I would argue that this is DESPITE the silly wars, and rather BECAUSE OF other factors, such as better intelligence gathering and co-operation between nations, which has also been going on since the invasion of Afghanistan. |
Yeah, I just noticed the quote thing, my bad. The leadership is pinned down in Pakistan. They can not move freely. Many major leaders have been killed. These are direct results of the war. This makes them much weaker organizationally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But I find it hard to believe that the whole country went along with this war if they really didn't think there was actually something in it for them too. |
One media, one voice with one message. Americans believe what they're told. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Just reading more of the article mises posted.
| Quote: |
However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.
|
This would have been as much in America's own interests as in Israel's. |
Who could possibly have believed this?
The Israelis wanted a destroyed Iraq that would turn Sunni against Shia. Neo-cons have a nice history of running interference with other groups for perceived ethnic safety. They'll do the same in Iran. Weaken the state and encourage social conflict. Takes attention off of them.
"... it would lower the price of oil, and that would be a good thing. Perhaps some really believed it was going to bring such a benefit? In fact it did the opposite. Or perhaps bringing up the price of oil was perceived as a great benefit to certain parties."
It of course raised the price of oil, as it was supposed to. When oil, which is priced in dollars, appreciates in dollars, the aggregate demand for dollars around the world increases. This means the Fed can funnel more cash into the economy via the primary dealers, who are the organizations that actually profit from the increased inflation. Shall we talk about the Wall Street/neo con intersection now? Where do you think all these tax free political organizations get their money? From Terry the accountant?
http://www.committeeforisrael.com/
Last edited by mises on Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Many major leaders have been killed. These are direct results of the war. This makes them much weaker organizationally. |
Leaders get replaced. Every Hamas leader that Israel assassinates for example, usually seems to result in an even more extreme successor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Just reading more of the article mises posted.
| Quote: |
However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.
|
This would have been as much in America's own interests as in Israel's. |
Who could possibly have believed this?
The Israelis wanted a destroyed Iraq that would turn Sunni against Shia. Neo-cons have a nice history of running interference with other groups for perceived ethnic safety. They'll do the same in Iran. Weaken the state and encourage social conflict. Takes attention off of them. |
I agree that Israel gets a disproportionate say in how the US runs things. But I've never been convinced that the 'tail wags the dog' as even some of my Israeli friends have boasted. I really don't think the US would let itself be used entirely in another nation's interests, unless they thought there was much to be had for the US too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
