Iran in 'backroom offers' to West

[Rob W 0]

that's the problem with any organisation - you set it up and it starts to spread its area of interest ............

 

People like MI6 and the CIA have to keep busy now the Red Threat has gone so they dabble all over the place -there's this idea that you'll gain "influence" ...... never actually seems to work TBH

[Cid_MCDP 0]

They weren't open about it at all. It was a tissue of lies that started with WMD, then went on about democracy and ended with 'we just didn't like the cunt'.

 

Well you'll never convince me removing Saddam was an absolute bad thing™ (whatever the reasoning or lack of planning); leaving him in power was killing Iraqi's day in day out (directly and indirectly) and oppressing vast amounts of people with a police state that controlled things down to the very street level.

 

Saddam had directly killed many hundreds of thousands of people over the years (through direct policies, not with his bare hands), and indirectly killed millions.

 

Leaving him in power would have certainly made the last few years less bloody in Iraq, but that's an argument that can be applied to almost any conflict or tyrant no matter how bloody and brutal (it can be applied to Kosovo in fact).

 

 

 

 

 

Ignoring that for now though, you need at least two sides to have a war.

 

Iran was supplying several sides in the recent Iraq civil war (directly and through Syria), its intention was not just to honk off the USA, but also to destabilise Iraq by encouraging as much sectarian violence as possible.

 

Iran directly killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi's (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia) for political goals, people that would not have died had Iran not supplied weapons money and other support to several sides.

 

 

 

No matter how much you may or may not hate the USA, Iran was nothing but a "bad guy" in Iraq with much blood on their hands, any US guilt does not absolve Iran of that.

 

Removing Saddam wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but the way it was gone about was.

 

There's tons of asshole dictators oppressing/ torturing/ killing their people all over the world. That doesn't mean it's ok for the U.S. to go against the U.N. and invade them. In my opinion, that's where we fucked up.

 

Unlike many of my countrymen, I hate this idea of the U.S. being this World Cop. It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately only pisses everyone else off. I'd much rather see this country take all of the resources, money, and manpower and use it on itself rather than Iraq. I guess maybe if we had it all figured out with a strong economy, 1% unemployment rate, no racism, and parity between a governmental surplus and defecit for the past 30 years you might be able to talk me into it, but with things being what they are (and were, for that matter- when we got into this mess we weren't much better off as a country), it's hard for me to go rah, rah, rah, we just saved a bunch of Iraqis who never asked to be saved to begin with.

 

It's nothing to do with being a world cop and all about strategic asset grabbing.

 

CIA and Mi6 are still supplying arms and logistics across the planet, even to known Al Kidder (Chechnya etc) to make sure the get oil pipelines and strategic corridors.

 

The last thing it is about is some kind of world cop thing, that's just for consumption by a clueless american public.

 

I don't know man, I think you're right about the CIA and Mi6 part, but I honestly believe the rest of the military, congress, and certainly Bush were all about enforcing their will on the people who deserved it (in their opinion).

 

I'm not one of those people who was all, "Bush is an idiot! Ha, ha, ha." The dude wasn't a great speaker by any means, and was corrupt as the day is long, but don't forget, the man is a Yale graduate. Did he act stupid? Did he do stupid things from time to time? Sure, but to make him out to be some Paris Hilton is to seriously underestimate him. I think he understood the "strategical importance" of places like Iraq, but I also think he was too shitty of an actor to completely not believe in all his Axis of Evil bullshit. I really do think there's a large contingent of people who were running this country around 2002 that were seriously invested in this World Cop idea like it was a second manifest destiny.

 

Now, to imply they hadn't also considered the fallout of such activities and their subsequent effect on corporations like Haliburton, KBR, and contractors like Blackwater I think would be disingenuous. I think it was viewed as a two-birds-with-one-stone kind of deal. Not only do we get to spread democracy and Christianity, we also hook up the stockholders! Nice!

Edited February 27, 2009 by Cid_MCDP

[Park Life 71]

They weren't open about it at all. It was a tissue of lies that started with WMD, then went on about democracy and ended with 'we just didn't like the cunt'.

 

Well you'll never convince me removing Saddam was an absolute bad thing™ (whatever the reasoning or lack of planning); leaving him in power was killing Iraqi's day in day out (directly and indirectly) and oppressing vast amounts of people with a police state that controlled things down to the very street level.

 

Saddam had directly killed many hundreds of thousands of people over the years (through direct policies, not with his bare hands), and indirectly killed millions.

 

Leaving him in power would have certainly made the last few years less bloody in Iraq, but that's an argument that can be applied to almost any conflict or tyrant no matter how bloody and brutal (it can be applied to Kosovo in fact).

 

 

 

 

 

Ignoring that for now though, you need at least two sides to have a war.

 

Iran was supplying several sides in the recent Iraq civil war (directly and through Syria), its intention was not just to honk off the USA, but also to destabilise Iraq by encouraging as much sectarian violence as possible.

 

Iran directly killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi's (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia) for political goals, people that would not have died had Iran not supplied weapons money and other support to several sides.

 

 

 

No matter how much you may or may not hate the USA, Iran was nothing but a "bad guy" in Iraq with much blood on their hands, any US guilt does not absolve Iran of that.

 

Removing Saddam wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but the way it was gone about was.

 

There's tons of asshole dictators oppressing/ torturing/ killing their people all over the world. That doesn't mean it's ok for the U.S. to go against the U.N. and invade them. In my opinion, that's where we fucked up.

 

Unlike many of my countrymen, I hate this idea of the U.S. being this World Cop. It's stupid, wasteful, and ultimately only pisses everyone else off. I'd much rather see this country take all of the resources, money, and manpower and use it on itself rather than Iraq. I guess maybe if we had it all figured out with a strong economy, 1% unemployment rate, no racism, and parity between a governmental surplus and defecit for the past 30 years you might be able to talk me into it, but with things being what they are (and were, for that matter- when we got into this mess we weren't much better off as a country), it's hard for me to go rah, rah, rah, we just saved a bunch of Iraqis who never asked to be saved to begin with.

 

It's nothing to do with being a world cop and all about strategic asset grabbing.

 

CIA and Mi6 are still supplying arms and logistics across the planet, even to known Al Kidder (Chechnya etc) to make sure the get oil pipelines and strategic corridors.

 

The last thing it is about is some kind of world cop thing, that's just for consumption by a clueless american public.

 

I don't know man, I think you're right about the CIA and Mi6 part, but I honestly believe the rest of the military, congress, and certainly Bush were all about enforcing their will on the people who deserved it (in their opinion).

 

I'm not one of those people who was all, "Bush is an idiot! Ha, ha, ha." The dude wasn't a great speaker by any means, and was corrupt as the day is long, but don't forget, the man is a Yale graduate. Did he act stupid? Did he do stupid things from time to time? Sure, but to make him out to be some Paris Hilton is to seriously underestimate him. I think he understood the "strategical importance" of places like Iraq, but I also think he was too shitty of an actor to completely not believe in all his Axis of Evil bullshit. I really do think there's a large contingent of people who were running this country around 2002 that were seriously invested in this World Cop idea like it was a second manifest destiny.

 

Now, to imply they hadn't also considered the fallout of such activities and their subsequent effect on corporations like Haliburton, KBR, and contractors like Blackwater I think would be disingenuous. I think it was viewed as a two-birds-with-one-stone kind of deal. Not only do we get to spread democracy and Christianity, we also hook up the stockholders! Nice!

 

 

I hear what you're saying but there is a long list of countries america is invested in logistically purely for strategic and asset gain. quasi terrorist organsations in London and parts of America are encouraged to recureit mujahaddin to fight against regimes we and the U.S. don't like and want to destabalise. I think the cia is sttill actually flying arms into Kosovo, albania, Chechnya, Kazakistan etc...A lot of the Arabs fighting for global islam have been recruited with the help of your money.

[Cid_MCDP 0]

Oh no question about that- Afganistan and Iraq are both perfect examples of organizations/ regimes/ whatever we funded at one time then fought another. There's not a doubt in my mind after being old enough to remember the whole Iran-Contra deal that shady stuff is still not only going on, but is the price of doing business these days.

 

I wonder if after the USSR tanked the folks in the intelligence community didn't all sit down and have a Justify Your Existence meeting...

 

Sorta like how nobody wanted a new Windows but Microsoft made one anyway to stay in business and make money? I kinda think the same thing happened with the intelligence community- these dudes all operate off the books anyway- their budgets are just black holes from which not even light can escape, and in some twisted, idealistic way, I could even see how these deluded individuals would think they were actually helping.

[Fop 1]

A lot of the Arabs fighting for global islam have been recruited with the help of your money.

 

Well yes and no, a lot were in the 80's as they were fighting against the USSR, but it's unlikely the current Islamofascist wave wouldn't have occur if this hadn't happened, it was always there waiting for the right time and lack of other enemies (and lets not forget terrorist issues pre-80's too).

 

It even moves politically and is largely behind both the Zionist is racist and trying destroy freedom of speech in relation to "religion" movements here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7916191.stm

 

Islamofascism is bound to get much, much worse no matter what anyone does, to the point where WW3 is likely to be drawn along those lines.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Fop

[Park Life 71]

A lot of the Arabs fighting for global islam have been recruited with the help of your money.

 

Well yes and no, a lot were in the 80's as they were fighting against the USSR, but it's unlikely the current Islamofascist wave wouldn't have occur if this hadn't happened, it was always there waiting for the right time and lack of other enemies (and lets not forget terrorist issues pre-80's too).

 

It even moves politically and is largely behind both the Zionist is racist and trying destroy freedom of speech in relation to "religion" movements here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7916191.stm

 

Islamofascism is bound to get much, much worse no matter what anyone does, to the point where WW3 is likely to be drawn along those lines.

 

Don't waste your time quoting the BBC on this.

[Park Life 71]

Oh no question about that- Afganistan and Iraq are both perfect examples of organizations/ regimes/ whatever we funded at one time then fought another. There's not a doubt in my mind after being old enough to remember the whole Iran-Contra deal that shady stuff is still not only going on, but is the price of doing business these days.

 

I wonder if after the USSR tanked the folks in the intelligence community didn't all sit down and have a Justify Your Existence meeting...

 

Sorta like how nobody wanted a new Windows but Microsoft made one anyway to stay in business and make money? I kinda think the same thing happened with the intelligence community- these dudes all operate off the books anyway- their budgets are just black holes from which not even light can escape, and in some twisted, idealistic way, I could even see how these deluded individuals would think they were actually helping.

 

When I have time later I will show you something. I agree total there has to be an enemy without and it has to be ever present and if there isn't one, well they just go ahead and create one.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Park Life

[Fop 1]

A lot of the Arabs fighting for global islam have been recruited with the help of your money.

 

Well yes and no, a lot were in the 80's as they were fighting against the USSR, but it's unlikely the current Islamofascist wave wouldn't have occur if this hadn't happened, it was always there waiting for the right time and lack of other enemies (and lets not forget terrorist issues pre-80's too).

 

It even moves politically and is largely behind both the Zionist is racist and trying destroy freedom of speech in relation to "religion" movements here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7916191.stm

 

Islamofascism is bound to get much, much worse no matter what anyone does, to the point where WW3 is likely to be drawn along those lines.

 

Don't waste your time quoting the BBC on this.

 

Exactly the same thing happened a few years ago though, that's the thing with UN legislation it is democratic (in a world sense), but that doesn't mean it ends up being anything like Western democracy or Western values/freedoms.

[Rob W 0]

A lot of the Arabs fighting for global islam have been recruited with the help of your money.

 

Well yes and no, a lot were in the 80's as they were fighting against the USSR, but it's unlikely the current Islamofascist wave wouldn't have occur if this hadn't happened, it was always there waiting for the right time and lack of other enemies (and lets not forget terrorist issues pre-80's too).

 

It even moves politically and is largely behind both the Zionist is racist and trying destroy freedom of speech in relation to "religion" movements here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7916191.stm

 

Islamofascism is bound to get much, much worse no matter what anyone does, to the point where WW3 is likely to be drawn along those lines.

 

 

Something in this - those well known liberals the CP of the USSR, General Suharto, the Saudi Royals, the Pharoah of Cairo and others did their best to keep the Islamists in the bag and to some extent lost it in the 90's

[Fop 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7917726.stm

[Park Life 71]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7917726.stm

 

For bad outcome for the world read Israel.

[Fop 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7917726.stm

 

For bad outcome for the world read Israel.

 

More regimes as totalitarian as Iran's getting nukes = bad for everyone.

 

In a related sense the Taliban might have their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal sooner or later.

[Park Life 71]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7917726.stm

 

For bad outcome for the world read Israel.

 

More regimes as totalitarian as Iran's getting nukes = bad for everyone.

 

In a related sense the Taliban might have their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal sooner or later.

 

More democratic than Saudi Arabia 'our big friend'.

 

Thanks to America who lied to the world for 10 years while Pakistan developed the bomb.

[Park Life 71]

Oh no question about that- Afganistan and Iraq are both perfect examples of organizations/ regimes/ whatever we funded at one time then fought another. There's not a doubt in my mind after being old enough to remember the whole Iran-Contra deal that shady stuff is still not only going on, but is the price of doing business these days.

 

I wonder if after the USSR tanked the folks in the intelligence community didn't all sit down and have a Justify Your Existence meeting...

 

Sorta like how nobody wanted a new Windows but Microsoft made one anyway to stay in business and make money? I kinda think the same thing happened with the intelligence community- these dudes all operate off the books anyway- their budgets are just black holes from which not even light can escape, and in some twisted, idealistic way, I could even see how these deluded individuals would think they were actually helping.

 

 

A Primer.

 

I'll boil it down for you.

 

From the U.S. perspective, any democracy or peoples movement that develops in its sphere of influence has to subordinate to the U.S. or face the consequences : financial blackmail, isolation, a counter insurgency or finally invasion by the U.S. or a client state of the U.S. that is the given playing field, America is perpetually at war.

 

If we look at Lebanon Hezbollah is the Govt, it provides services and does its best to look after the poor and defenceless. America isn't interested in that and wants Lebanon as a playground for the rich (there are loads there) and a corridor of influene in the region. Islamic state fundameltalism is essentially a creation by default of the U.S. and in some cases Israel (Hamas in Gaza a s counter to the PLO). They did it as they saw secular pan-Arab nationalism as a threat way back in the 70's with Nasser in Egypt. Arab secularism was spreading like wildfire and back then there was a strong sense of finding Arab solutions in the Arab world with limited outside interference (never going to be tolerated by America who see Arab assets (oil) as essentially their own.

 

The destruciton of Arab secularism was counterproductive and the key indicator in the rise of militant Islam along with the game changing backing Al Kidder got in Afghanistan. Militant Islam saw the victory in Afghanistan as a sign of what could be achieved with funding and weopans (they beat Russia ffs!!). This bevcame the official blueprint for Al Kidder and its associates around the world. All this was fine while Osama still had his CIA trackphone, but when he and his followers went off reservation....Well the rest is history.

 

When you take one route away from people they don't give up, they turn to another, in this case etremist religious fanaticism (often the last port of call for a desperate people).

 

The United States has been the strongest external supporter of Islamic fundamentalism bar none. When Saudi Arabia's tyrannical Govt was under threat from pan-Arabism orginally embodies by the likes of Nasser in Egypt, Israel stepped in in 1967. Again Israel created Hamas to go against the PLO which was actually becoming a threat because it was secular and looking for a solution (America and Israel don't want solutions as it gives stability and time for the victim to build). Israel and the U.S. never wanted a negotiated solution (infact his address ((Arafat)) to the U.N. was a pain in the arse ((as Chavez is becoming)). He kept asking for a brokered solution and therefore had to be got rid of. Somewhere in the CIA and Mi6 in the the 80's and 90's it was decided that if these cunts are going to contiune to elect/support extremism, then it's going to be the extemist WE BACK.

 

Look at Pakistan, for me the epicenter of radical Islam and the madrassa movement (funded by Saudi Arabia and by default the U.S. for turning a blind eye). The Reagan administration let Zia develop nuclear weapons even though the military Govt's in Pakistan are notoriously weak and one day will succumb to the radicals (mad mullahs and the like) who will have their own nuke. It's a calculated gamble that Reagan and at the time the NSA took and then Clinton pretended wasn't happenning (not only that Clinton single handedly funded the mujahaddin in Bosnia and Kosova - trained in Pakistan by the SAS and navy seals, inc British citizens from Birmingham and Leeds). They kind of lucked onto a new trick, get radical Isalm (the poor/badly educated and propoganised brown kids from around the world) to fight by defalt for the West against regimes or states they didn't like (the latest Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Kazakhistan). We can see infact that the Finsbury Park mosque wasn't closed down or Hookey arrested/deported for ages even though it was clearly a threat - because MI6 was using it for information and a center of recruitment to fight 'for us' in countries we wanted to de-stabalise. Al Kidder in London and Mi6 were having more coffee together than the over 60's club in Camden........

 

More later..Part 2 'The Covenant'.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Park Life

[Fop 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7917726.stm

 

For bad outcome for the world read Israel.

 

More regimes as totalitarian as Iran's getting nukes = bad for everyone.

 

In a related sense the Taliban might have their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal sooner or later.

 

More democratic than Saudi Arabia 'our big friend'.

 

Thanks to America who lied to the world for 10 years while Pakistan developed the bomb.

 

In all honesty Saudi ruled by another system (including genuine Democracy - initially at least) would be another Afghanistan under the Taliban (only richer), whilst I'm not a fan of Arab totalitarian monarchies at all, they maybe are a least worse system.