[demonrail666]

America could've bought off Sadam. He was a business man at the end of the day. His religion was money and power. So long as he had more of one and at least appeared to still have the other he'd have struck a deal. The problem with the way dictators have been dealt with since the war is that people are too quick to relate back to the case of Hitler, who couldn't be appeased. The Hawks continally relate back to Hitler when justifying going to war with dictatorships. But Hitlers are rare, most dictators have their price.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Wasn't the original problem with Saddam that he nationalised Iraq's oil, or something? Or am I confusing Iraq with Iran?

[ni'k]

he was going to change the currency iraq used away from the US dollar, which was the main factor. saddam was really just the PR part of the operation, and used as an excuse. he was armed and funded by the US back in the 80's, i'm sure you remember that infamous picture of him shaking rumsfelds hand. it was about the oil, getting into the middle east, getting into iran etc. the reasons have been listed already in this thread numerous times. it really had fuck all to do with saddam being a dictator. the US has never been averse to funding dictators or installing puppet ones when it suits their interests. basically saddam wasn't playing ball with the americans anymore, and who could blame him? their sanctions had been starving the population of iraq all throughout the 90's.

what's funny is the WMD thing, he knew he didn't have them, but he called America's bluff right to the very end, thinking that if they were gonna make up false propaganda against him to convince people of his evil he could at least use it to his advantage. i don't think he ever thought they were actually stupid enough to convince themselves of their own lies and that some of them did think he actually had WMD's.

in 09 a coalition of countries included russia, france, iran and china came together in talks to do just this. i didn't see it reported anywhere but the independant but it will have a MASSIVE effect on america's position this century.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by ni'k

in 09 a coalition of countries included russia, france, iran and china came together in talks to do just this. i didn't see it reported anywhere but the independant but it will have a MASSIVE effect on america's position this century.

The idea of a China-Iran-Russia coalition has enormous consequences I think. That's near Death Star levels of power.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by ni'k

their sanctions had been starving the population of iraq all throughout the 90's.

yeah, bearing the sanctions in mind I can't understand how anyone could have thought that they could manufacture so-called WMDs. I think even pencils were sanctioned because the graphite could be put to use in a weapons capacity.

I read about these people about 10 or 12 years ago and found it very informative.
http://vitw.org/

[ni'k]

yep. it's a shift in the global balance of power. the 20th century was america as solo superpower, but now it's days of dominance are over. if you want to place a particular moment as official aknowledgement of this then it would be obama and hu jintao at the g20. if you want to place the blame it was when none of you claimed your constitutional right and killed george bush and overthrew his government. i don't really think short of a complete overthrow of the cia/fbi/nsa/dod/dhs/bush admin/assorted corporate leaders/lobbyists/neo con regime back before 9/11 (which would have most likely averted it) - which would need some sort of mass revolt and complete reorganisation of society - you could have averted the worst aspects of your downfall, like the poverty and human cost, and pumped those trillions lost on war into your own infastructure and health and paid off all that debt you owed to china, but your economy would still be fucked and you would still loose economic dominance. i'm getting into territory i'm not qualified to comment on, but i don't think a capitalist economy can function without this kind of war, or some sort of expenditure like it to get rid of the surplas. actually when reading back this part of the post i realise i still don't fully understand how neo liberal economics affects these things. it is my understanding tho that if the wars didnt happen some sort of equal expenditure would have been needed to keep the economy afloat, and since america's economy is so tied up in the military industrial complex it would have to involve the arms sector. but i am not sure on this stuff. i'm not sure if it was an inevitable economic structural fall from dominance or if it could have been averted by a different set of people in power and so comes closer to human failings. i don't know if it can be fully blamed on a born again fundamentalist former alcoholic baseball loving texan had the election rigged for him, definitly one of the worst poltiicians since hitler, and his cabal of former oil execs still in their pockets, hawks and general utter assholes, who absolutely fucked up everything they touched.

of course i'm not saying that china will be any better, it's just interesting that the balance of power has shifted.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

Wasn't the original problem with Saddam that he nationalised Iraq's oil, or something? Or am I confusing Iraq with Iran?

probably

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The idea of a China-Iran-Russia coalition has enormous consequences I think. That's near Death Star levels of power.

LOL, china and russia are just as likely to go to war with eachother and iran is a joke.

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by ni'k

yep. it's a shift in the global balance of power. the 20th century was america as solo superpower, but now it's days of dominance are over. if you want to place a particular moment as official aknowledgement of this then it would be obama and hu jintao at the g20. if you want to place the blame it was when none of you claimed your constitutional right and killed george bush and overthrew his government. i don't really think short of a complete overthrow of the cia/fbi/nsa/dod/dhs/bush admin/assorted corporate leaders/lobbyists/neo con regime back before 9/11 (which would have most likely averted it) - which would need some sort of mass revolt and complete reorganisation of society - you could have averted the worst aspects of your downfall, like the poverty and human cost, and pumped those trillions lost on war into your own infastructure and health and paid off all that debt you owed to china, but your economy would still be fucked and you would still loose economic dominance. i'm getting into territory i'm not qualified to comment on, but i don't think a capitalist economy can function without this kind of war, or some sort of expenditure like it to get rid of the surplas. actually when reading back this part of the post i realise i still don't fully understand how neo liberal economics affects these things. it is my understanding tho that if the wars didnt happen some sort of equal expenditure would have been needed to keep the economy afloat, and since america's economy is so tied up in the military industrial complex it would have to involve the arms sector. but i am not sure on this stuff. i'm not sure if it was an inevitable economic structural fall from dominance or if it could have been averted by a different set of people in power and so comes closer to human failings. i don't know if it can be fully blamed on a born again fundamentalist former alcoholic baseball loving texan had the election rigged for him, definitly one of the worst poltiicians since hitler, and his cabal of former oil execs still in their pockets, hawks and general utter assholes, who absolutely fucked up everything they touched.

of course i'm not saying that china will be any better, it's just interesting that the balance of power has shifted.

the u.s. is still the lapdog of the oppressors though because we have the best military. also their, the oppressors, empire is global and therefore no country has any real power. they're all just pawns, borders are more meaningless now than they ever were and nobody notices are seems to care. we should probably all be killing ourselves right now because the near future so bleak.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by dale_gribble

the u.s. is still the lapdog of the oppressors though because we have the best military. also their, the oppressors, empire is global and therefore no country has any real power. they're all just pawns, borders are more meaningless now than they ever were and nobody notices are seems to care. we should probably all be killing ourselves right now because the near future so bleak.

no, we need to fight them by any means neccessary

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by ni'k

in 09 a coalition of countries included russia, france, iran and china came together in talks to do just this. i didn't see it reported anywhere but the independant but it will have a MASSIVE effect on america's position this century.

I wouldn't believe The Independent if I were you. They're liberal media.

[ni'k]

yeah i'm pretty sure that story was completely fabricated. obviously.

i wouldn't believe your own brain if i were you, it doesn't seem like it can be trusted.

[ni'k]

very interesting interview with chris hedges, (if it bores you at the start skip to 6:57 onwards).

really fantastic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_quWatFkY

he says -

empires destroy themselves from the inside out - and this is the fate of the US (obvious truth but few dare articulate it, especially on a mainstream media outlet!). he calls out both the dems and repubs for presiding over a corporate rape of the US. and goes on to say the left is bankrupt, because it has allied itself with corporate forces, so a backlash will come from the right. this is the same point chomsky has been making sine obama got elected, about how a dumbass populist right wing movement is at risk of mounting a coup. and of course, while these people may be generally absolute idiots they are rightly angry at their increasing poverty.

russia today is an example of a mainstream outlet that provides the kind of commentary on US politics that a channel operating inside the US never could. of course when it comes to russia it just tows the party line (in russia everybody knows journalists get murdered all the time). fantastic stuff. of course the russian authorities couldnt give a fuck about clamping down on reporting that the US establishment would go nuts over, and so they can get away with it.

[Rob Instigator]

Japan and china are supposed to control asia

Europe is supposed to control africa

The US is supposed to control south america and the middle east.

this keeps the already rich, richer, and the already poor, poorer.

[knox]

that and immigration control.

[ni'k]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Japan and china are supposed to control asia

Europe is supposed to control africa

The US is supposed to control south america and the middle east.

this keeps the already rich, richer, and the already poor, poorer.

not really. its not like they came together to decide this, or that this is accurately how it works at all.

[knox]

maybe they did.

my paranoid mind can envision things.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by ni'k

not really. its not like they came together to decide this, or that this is accurately how it works at all.

go read Chomsky

Thy DID get together and DO get together regularly to discuss this shit.
Bilderberg Group, the G8 summits. read up man.

The USA maintains profitable (to itself) instability in south and central america.

Europe maintains profitable (to itself) instability in Africa.

China and japan maintain profitable (to them ) instability all throughout asia.

[ni'k]

im not denying the exploitation at all but the way you said it made it sound like the specific plans a few leaders pulling all the strings.

and is it not more america that exploits africa now? is it not more globalised anyway and multi nationals doing the exploitation? i would assume its less specific guys getting together at the g8 and developing fuck africa policies and more conglomerates and corporations doing it and hiring lobbyists or financing politicians if the law gets in the way.

either way im not disagreeing really disagreeing with you in the main.

and i really dont want to read anymore chomsky at the moment, there are a lot other more interesting authors.

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

no, we need to fight them by any means neccessary

i know, sorry it's hard to be sarcastic in writing.