Strongest allie

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by kestak, Jan 11, 2011.

  1. kestak

    kestak New Member

  2. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    Didn't Sarkozy also call Obama a delusional narcissist?

  3. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    Re: Strongest ally

    It was pretty well covered that Chirac's objection to the invasion of Iraq was over his personal loss of income in the oil for food program. Yes he was personally profiting from it. But like any politician, he was clever enough to justify his personal interests in obfuscation.
  4. Hack Causality

    Hack Causality New Member

    So, uh...what did we accomplish by invading Iraq, again? The guy that spent five years leading the most powerful insurgent group that murdered both Americans and Iraqis alike is now one of the most powerful men in the Iraqi government, has more star-power than Obama could have ever dreamed of, and loathes everything that even reminds him of America.

    I guess we took out Saddam's conventional forces. That's something. Or it would have been if they weren't a decrepit collection of ill-maintained vehicles and apathetic infantry.
  5. kestak

    kestak New Member


    I think you should all read the "free" weekly Startford reports coming out. The analysis are quite enlightening sometimes.

    One of the report explained the "Bush move" of tipping over the governments of Irak and Afghanistan. A very short explanation: Taking out Iran would have been a nightmare because of its geography. His goal was to isolate Iran and give an opportunity to its people to destitute the government. It happened!!!!!! In June 2009. The population was outside in the streets..and got whacked and whacked and whacked...with hope to get some political and logistical support from the US. Obama sided with the Ayatollah and the tiny troll dictator.

    Of course, it is not what the main-lame media analyzed and reported....
  6. bdee

    bdee انا باتمان

    When you say troll dictator, I assume you mean Ahmadinejad. You must keep in mind that he was the favored candidate, because he was seen as the more easily controlled of the candidates. His opponent was Rafsanjani. We were saying almost identical things about him just a few short years ago. We he began to stretch his legs, he was allowed to be defeated in the next election. The US only supported his candidacy to destabilize the country. We would have demonized him in different ways than Ahmadinejad, but demonize him nonetheless.

    The United States sees oil is of vital strategic importance. Up until 1979, we had a lock on the vast majority of the oil coming out of the region. We had puppet regimes in most of the major oil suppliers. The reason we had a problem with the loss of Iran was not over religion, but a loss of our ability to control the region. That is why we have tried so hard to isolate the regime.
    We supported Saddam in the Iran Iraq war in hopes of generating a popular uprising in Iran so that we could get a more compliant regime. That is why after taking out al-Qaeda and the Taliban, we stayed in Afghanistan, and the reason we have never allowed the idea that bin Laden is already dead to get out. That is the real reason we invaded Iraq the second time. Apparently Rumsfeld never thought beyond the invasion itself and didn't secure all the borders. It may have been strategic to allow the appearance of chaos

    You really have to wonder why it is that one of the major players in the Iran-Contra scandal was Robert Gates. Then he became the SecDef under Bush, and was the only cabinet member to stay under Obama. It is not a coincidence.

    Is it any wonder that GE was the major beneficiary under Iran-Contra, and they are the major supplier of technology for Iran's nuclear technology?

    We could have easily taken al-Sadr out at any time in the last five years. But he serves to muddy up the waters. That serves to obfuscate what's really going on.