Why The US Wants Civil Wars in Middle East

[JK8]

Why does Bush like Israel so much?

 

[Xarog]

Probably becuase he's a fundamentalist Christian who believes the Jews have to be living in Israel for the end-times to come. Of course that's a rather cynical view because as Revelations has it, non-christians fry anyway.

But I guess that particular brand of anti-semitism doesn't bother the Israelis.

 

[Cara]

I stand to be corrected but I also have the impression that there are quite a few influencial Jewish people in America, if you are president you pretty much have to keep them happy .

 

[d0b33]

I stand to be corrected but I also have the impression that there are quite a few influencial Jewish people in America, if you are president you pretty much have to keep them happy .

like the quote by Ariel Sharon posted earlier(or on one of the threads)

 

[Syndyre]

I stand to be corrected but I also have the impression that there are quite a few influencial Jewish people in America, if you are president you pretty much have to keep them happy .

The AIPAC (Israeli) lobby is one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington I think.

 

[kilo39]

I understand that, but I still don't agree. Relationships like that are marriages of convenience, much like Saddam was once America's (and the CIA's) best friend.

When the reason to be allied disappears, so does the alliance. That's not to say it cannot be picked up again later.

Yes but if you are 'prepared' to agree this then we really have no idea what goes on in the world and who/which are the true alliances. The world you live in is not the world you think you live in.

Btw, I mean argument as in a POV (or as one makes an argument in a computer programming language) - I'm not saying you're arguing with me

This kinda proves my case. Support an ally until he becomes inconvenient and then blow him to smithereens.

I do realise it's possible for the CIA to have 'double agents', and theoretically bin Laden could be one of them.

Previous comment.

I do agree with you that the main economic benefits are probably the fact that war props up the war industry. It's often said that America has been in a state of war, with a war economy, ever since the 2nd world war. However, that's got little to do with my point that if you co-operate on something it doesn't mean you co-operate on everything.

But you do everything to support this system even if it means "working with the enemy." Now tell me in this case: is there really an enemy? For instance BL?

Hard to say. I doubt the US would admit to their spies being part of the CIA. I do know that American spies have been tried before, though. My point is that if you're part of the CIA and you go snooping in a foreign country, you have to *evade* the law. You cannot merely go over its head. In other words, you have to observe those power structures. Being above the law suggests that those legal systems cannot touch you, and clearly that's not the case here.

Only in America (that I know of.) And Gary Powers for instance. Nothing in Despot Third World Countries (a traditional cia op zone.)

Point: no law, no ethics, no morality. In service of the mighty dollar. They can all die as long as my dollar is supreme. 3000 dead american troops not too cheap?

 

[d0b33]

Now tell me in this case: is there really an enemy? For instance BL?

(assuming BL is Bin-Laden)
I was pondering the same thought, noticing how Saddam and Iran are making the headlines as a threat(Saddam in the past tense) Osama is slowly being forgotten, it wont be long before it's Osama who?

adding more fuel to the conspiracy fire

 

[kilo39]

(assuming BL is Bin-Laden)
I was pondering the same thought, noticing how Saddam and Iran are making the headlines as a threat(Saddam in the past tense) Osama is slowly being forgotten, it wont be long before it's Osama who?

adding more fuel to the conspiracy fire

Yeah our buddy BL. It is already Osama who? George would rather forget or pretend to forget until BL's next blockbuster video of course: probably just in time for the elections "if we don't have another bogus bomb scare in between." Or worse a "major event" set up by some peep in a cave.

 

[Amerikanse]

(assuming BL is Bin-Laden)
I was pondering the same thought, noticing how Saddam and Iran are making the headlines as a threat(Saddam in the past tense) Osama is slowly being forgotten, it wont be long before it's Osama who?

adding more fuel to the conspiracy fire

I honestly don't think Bin Laden is forgotten, or will be. His name is synonymous with 9/11. It's just that on the moment Americans have more on their plate, like Iraq.

 

[kilo39]

I honestly don't think Bin Laden is forgotten, or will be. His name is synonymous with 9/11. It's just that on the moment Americans have more on their plate, like Iraq.

That is just an excuse. Yes we have the Pakistani, Afghanistan connection: but George has pulled (actually Rummy) all the special forces off this task (whose speciality it was to find BL. GB doesn't want him found, he is too useful.)

 

[Amerikanse]

That is just an excuse. Yes we have the Pakistani, Afghanistan connection: but George has pulled (actually Rummy) all the special forces off this task (whose speciality it was to find BL. GB doesn't want him found, he is too useful.)

Right. You conspiracy theorists think BL is the new Emmanuel Goldstein. Well, I've got news for you bud. GW needs the popularity boost he would gain by bumping off BL--much worse than he needs him alive.

 

[kilo39]

Right. You conspiracy theorists think BL is the new Emmanuel Goldstein. Well, I've got news for you bud. GW needs the popularity boost he would gain by bumping off BL--much worse than he needs him alive.

Right until the next bomb explosion in Madrid or wherever: all of a sudden George will be "the man." Far better to keep him on the loose, also on the loose is better for the entrenched interests of the halliburtons of the world.

 

[Xarog]

Yes but if you are 'prepared' to agree this then we really have no idea what goes on in the world and who/which are the true alliances. The world you live in is not the world you think you live in.

That might be true. But by that standard it becomes impossible to know what the true alliances are. And frankly I don't think it's terribly important. Even if there is a shadow government, their actions are usually visible. Even if it was the PNAC that pushed for the war with Iraq, one can still see that there was a war with Iraq - looking at the reasons given and the outcomes one can still decide whether or not it was a good or bad thing.

But you do everything to support this system even if it means "working with the enemy." Now tell me in this case: is there really an enemy? For instance BL?

Complicated question. First off, I don't do anything to support that system, infact I'm rather violently opposed to it. Secondly, the case against bin Laden has never been proven. If the public evidence was brought to an impartial court, bin Laden would walk out an aquitted man.

Most of the enemies of the US are manufactured enemies, but then one doesn't need to resort to conspiracy theories to prove that either - it's rather obvious.

 

[kilo39]

That might be true. But by that standard it becomes impossible to know what the true alliances are. And frankly I don't think it's terribly important. Even if there is a shadow government, their actions are usually visible. Even if it was the PNAC that pushed for the war with Iraq, one can still see that there was a war with Iraq - looking at the reasons given and the outcomes one can still decide whether or not it was a good or bad thing.

No dude, it makes a major difference. If 'they' are telling you they are the enemy when in fact they're not that is a big problem (and a big threat to world peace. Not that there is any of that. I wonder why?)

Their actions may be visible but you do not know who is the true 'motivator' or perpetrator. Who is standing in the shadows (and there has to be somebody, beyond what is visible.) Hah!

Complicated question. First off, I don't do anything to support that system, infact I'm rather violently opposed to it. Secondly, the case against bin Laden has never been proven. If the public evidence was brought to an impartial court, bin Laden would walk out an aquitted man.

Um you mean like Saddam (an impartial court?) I mean "the system," the capitalist system, or the Haliburton system. Do you not see that "the system" for instance "the system of war" is not isolated, they are all intertwined, in effect one and the same thing. Or even better "the system of war" enables many other systems: the systems of research, or star wars or whatever. Massive money, massive budgets. The biggest. Would you not do all in your power to 'support' this if you were in a position to do so. For instance VP of the US?

Most of the enemies of the US are manufactured enemies, but then one doesn't need to resort to conspiracy theories to prove that either - it's rather obvious.

Disagree unless you would like to argue 'communism' was 'manufactured' by america. Or Chavez is actually a Republican.

Note your comments on BL: so 911 was a hoax, it wasn't him?

And no america hasn't manufactured "it's" enemies: it manufactured forces against 'the forces of communism or socialism,' in effect against the people. (Witness Chavez, he be against GB's wishes, usa admin is no longer preeminent. Witness Pinochet.)

 

[Xarog]

No dude, it makes a major difference. If 'they' are telling you they are the enemy when in fact they're not that is a big problem (and a big threat to world peace. Not that there is any of that. I wonder why?)

But you don't need to know that there is a shadow government in order to tell whether an action is wrong or not.

Their actions may be visible but you do not know who is the true 'motivator' or perpetrator. Who is standing in the shadows (and there has to be somebody, beyond what is visible.) Hah!

Why does there have to be somebody beyond the shadows?

Um you mean like Saddam (an impartial court?) I mean "the system," the capitalist system, or the Haliburton system. Do you not see that "the system" for instance "the system of war" is not isolated, they are all intertwined, in effect one and the same thing. Or even better "the system of war" enables many other systems: the systems of research, or star wars or whatever. Massive money, massive budgets. The biggest. Would you not do all in your power to 'support' this if you were in a position to do so. For instance VP of the US?

I mean the economic imperialism, the economic system that has been set up so that American needs to constantly fight wars to stay above water, and I mean the system that has been put in place so that America can constantly fight wars in the first place.

And no, I wouldn't support any of it. If I were in a position to make real decisions I'd dismantle the whole bloody lot.

disagree unless you would like to argue 'communism' was 'manufactured' by america. Or Chavez is actually a Republican.

What I mean is that America's foreign policy has caused brought most of their enemies into existence. Had America not interfered with latin America for decades and propped up ruthless regimes, then there wouldn't now be a general dislike of America as a whole - Chavez is a product of that interference. Same goes for the middle east. Do you think Arab's dislike of America is totally baseless, or do they have at least some legitimate grievances?

Then take the war against Iraq - the US manufactured a threat (WMD) as an excuse to invade. Now they're doing the same against Iran. This is nothing new, it's business as usual.

Note your comments on BL: so 911 was a hoax, it wasn't him?

Can't say whether or not the WTC bombings was a hoax. However I do think they're pointing the finger at the wrong person.

 

[kilo39]

But you don't need to know that there is a shadow government in order to tell whether an action is wrong or not.

And what of the peeps who can't tell the difference? Your argument is endorsing the idea of conspiracies, ie, the conspiracy of propaganda, misinformation. If these are not recognised surely there is no wrong?

Why does there have to be somebody beyond the shadows?

Isn't there always? Especially in the world of the cia.

Then take the war against Iraq - the US manufactured a threat (WMD) as an excuse to invade. Now they're doing the same against Iran. This is nothing new, it's business as usual.

If your statement is true (which it is) then this is a 'de-facto' conspiracy.

Can't say whether or not the WTC bombings was a hoax. However I do think they're pointing the finger at the wrong person.

Oooh ya? Who?

 

[Xarog]

If your statement is true (which it is) then this is a 'de-facto' conspiracy.

Fair enough. However it's a conspiracy involving known people, known organisations with a clear and plausable motive behind the conspiracy.

Isn't there always? Especially in the world of the cia.

Maybe there is someone moving behind the shadows, but that doesn't mean that there has to be someone moving behind the shadows.

And what of the peeps who can't tell the difference? Your argument is endorsing the idea of conspiracies, ie, the conspiracy of propaganda, misinformation. If these are not recognised surely there is no wrong?

I can only answer that each person should look at the source and then examine their motives.

Oooh ya? Who?

See above.

 

[kilo39]

Fair enough. However it's a conspiracy involving known people, known organisations with a clear and plausable motive behind the conspiracy.

Maybe there is someone moving behind the shadows, but that doesn't mean that there has to be someone moving behind the shadows.

I can only answer that each person should look at the source and then examine their motives.

See above.

Nah, BL not the war in Iraq. If it wasn't BL who was it. And it can't be the above 'cause then that is america striking against itself. Again a de-facto conspiracy.

If you argue americas 'imperialism' and you say it wasn't BL then who was it. And it can't be "see above" 'cause again that is a de-facto conspiracy.

 

[Xarog]

I have no idea who it was. I just doubt the stated case against bin Laden.

 

[kilo39]

I have no idea who it was. I just doubt the stated case against bin Laden.

ROFLOL. (again) Illogical captain.

However I do think they're pointing the finger at the wrong person.

De-facto conspiracy. I rest my case.