191–200 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Iraq has "lost" at least a billion dollars of military equipment in recent years" That's... one tenth of one percent of the cost (to the US) of the war.
That’s the wrong measure by a long shot. If I lose a $2000 rifle, and that rifle is then used to massacre a school, was the loss a mere $2000?
LORA based mesh could help here https://nootropicdesign.com/projectlab/2018/10/20/lora-mesh-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. USA ousts Saddam Hussein, and is obligated to help Iraq transition to a democratic government (because they invasion was done under the pretext of liberating a country from a mad dictator with weapons of mass destruction, instead of the commonly cited argument of securing resources for the American empire). 2. USA backs a candidate and initially gets a government elected that is favorable to the USA. However, thes…
> instead of the commonly cited argument of securing resources for the American empire). I'm sorry but there are very few "citations" that state that the war was about securing resources for the American "empire". It was primarily about exactly the stated reasons and there is a popular and uncited belief that it was about oil. If you have some scholarly articles that state that it was completely about oil I'd love to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And Europe has to pick up the pieces in terms of refugees For us (Europe) this is essentially dress rehearsal for upcoming climate-related migrations, and it turns out we're not handling it well.
What would handling it “well” mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more complicated that naked corporate interest pushing for conflict. There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. (I'm absolutely NOT saying that makes it "okay") I think the disaster-capitalism aspect of things is just an unfortunate byproduct.
>There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. These are access to resources in event of war, and control of trade routes. Such a war would only benefit corporate interests, the people stand little to gain. And control of trade routes is only useful for war and corporate interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles. It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if…
I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren’t there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles. It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if…
I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren’t there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the government is backed by Iran (puppet) and it's fully corrupt?
Wait, didn't America wage a war to install a pro-American government in Iraq? Are they somehow pro-American and pro-Iran at the same time, or did they switch alliances while nobody in the west was paying attention?
The same mistake is repeated again and again, even today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like. I don't the right prior here is "elections = real democracy", for cases like Iraq. The US has long history of installing "democratic" governments that are not actually democratic, but rather military states who violently suppress the people, but supp…
Ironically whole thing started with CIA staged double coup(first one did not work apparently) in Iran during 1953(declassified recently). It was so successful that they copy-pasted it to LATAM and elsewhere. [1] Interesting fact: Kermit Roosevelt Jr. a grandson of U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt, played the lead role in the CIA-sponsored overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader of Iran, in…
Well mission accomplished .. I guess. A great documentary if you haven't seen it is "Iraq: No End in Sight." It's pretty clear that the completely failed (non-existent) reconstruction efforts of the Bush administration would lead eventually to a failed state. The same thing is happening in Libya after the Obama era bombings. These places weren't democratic paradises before or anything; I'm not saying that. They had c…