You are half right about much of what you said and you make some great points except...
the US policy of creating chaos in unstable regions is not for corporate benefit, although I suppose it has an indirect benefit.
This goes back years, likely the Eisenhower years where he preferred covert operations as opposed to direct military ones.
The Iran/Iraq War was a perfect example as we assisted both sides and in many ways, it kept both sides 'honest.'
Our mistake in the current day Middle East is the instability we are creating is in each country as opposed to country on country. This allows extremist elements to manifest themselves.
Keep in mind that in poor countries with a weakened government and thus, weakened police or governmental force, the more brutal and armed a group is, the more power they will have. Enter ISIS.
Good points indeed and I have hard time believing that "they" didn't have all consequences considered. Like everything else, people with power/money tend to reap the most benefit.
You are half right about much of what you said and you make some great points except...
the US policy of creating chaos in unstable regions is not for corporate benefit, although I suppose it has an indirect benefit.
This goes back years, likely the Eisenhower years where he preferred covert operations as opposed to direct military ones.
The Iran/Iraq War was a perfect example as we assisted both sides and in many ways, it kept both sides 'honest.'
Our mistake in the current day Middle East is the instability we are creating is in each country as opposed to country on country. This allows extremist elements to manifest themselves.
Keep in mind that in poor countries with a weakened government and thus, weakened police or governmental force, the more brutal and armed a group is, the more power they will have. Enter ISIS.
Good points indeed and I have hard time believing that "they" didn't have all consequences considered. Like everything else, people with power/money tend to reap the most benefit.
You are half right about much of what you said and you make some great points except...
the US policy of creating chaos in unstable regions is not for corporate benefit, although I suppose it has an indirect benefit.
This goes back years, likely the Eisenhower years where he preferred covert operations as opposed to direct military ones.
The Iran/Iraq War was a perfect example as we assisted both sides and in many ways, it kept both sides 'honest.'
Our mistake in the current day Middle East is the instability we are creating is in each country as opposed to country on country. This allows extremist elements to manifest themselves.
Keep in mind that in poor countries with a weakened government and thus, weakened police or governmental force, the more brutal and armed a group is, the more power they will have. Enter ISIS.
You are half right about much of what you said and you make some great points except...
the US policy of creating chaos in unstable regions is not for corporate benefit, although I suppose it has an indirect benefit.
This goes back years, likely the Eisenhower years where he preferred covert operations as opposed to direct military ones.
The Iran/Iraq War was a perfect example as we assisted both sides and in many ways, it kept both sides 'honest.'
Our mistake in the current day Middle East is the instability we are creating is in each country as opposed to country on country. This allows extremist elements to manifest themselves.
Keep in mind that in poor countries with a weakened government and thus, weakened police or governmental force, the more brutal and armed a group is, the more power they will have. Enter ISIS.
The mainstream news is already saying the US will shoot down any planes of the Syrian Army if they get in the way of US air strikes on ISIS.
US sells the American people on a war against ISIS. That will lead to airstrikes in Syria. That will turn into a war on the Syrian Army. That will lead to Assad falling. Then the US will go into Iran.
That will lead to a puppet government in Syria and Iran.
The mainstream news is already saying the US will shoot down any planes of the Syrian Army if they get in the way of US air strikes on ISIS.
US sells the American people on a war against ISIS. That will lead to airstrikes in Syria. That will turn into a war on the Syrian Army. That will lead to Assad falling. Then the US will go into Iran.
That will lead to a puppet government in Syria and Iran.
Syrian rebels join forces to fight ISIS and Assad.
Does anyone know what the US has against Assad? If rebels want to take out the US we call them terrorists .. If rebels want to take out Syria's government we call the moderate rebels.
Syrian rebels join forces to fight ISIS and Assad.
Does anyone know what the US has against Assad? If rebels want to take out the US we call them terrorists .. If rebels want to take out Syria's government we call the moderate rebels.
On June 3rd, the Syrian people went to the polls to choose a president. Voter turnout was very high (over 73% in spite of interference from the U.S. backed rebels). Bashar al-Assad won by a landslide, taking 88.7% of the vote, international observers reported no violations.
On June 3rd, the Syrian people went to the polls to choose a president. Voter turnout was very high (over 73% in spite of interference from the U.S. backed rebels). Bashar al-Assad won by a landslide, taking 88.7% of the vote, international observers reported no violations.
Ever since the 2000 Bush election debacle, I dont know how it is that we stand for the model of democracy and free elections...
could you imagine explaining the 2000 Bush election debacle to a foreigner as how we do elections..
once the ballots are counted they are then scrutinized for if the hole is punched correctly or if the chad is hanging or not.... so we tell the foreigners to make sure they stock up on magnify glasses and volunteers to choose which ballot count in the end and which dont once they are casted...
or imagine explaining the 2004 Bush election to a foreigner..
Foreigner asks: "So once you count all the ballots the candidate with the most ballots becomes president?"
USA response: "No, the guy with less ballots is the president"
Ever since the 2000 Bush election debacle, I dont know how it is that we stand for the model of democracy and free elections...
could you imagine explaining the 2000 Bush election debacle to a foreigner as how we do elections..
once the ballots are counted they are then scrutinized for if the hole is punched correctly or if the chad is hanging or not.... so we tell the foreigners to make sure they stock up on magnify glasses and volunteers to choose which ballot count in the end and which dont once they are casted...
or imagine explaining the 2004 Bush election to a foreigner..
Foreigner asks: "So once you count all the ballots the candidate with the most ballots becomes president?"
USA response: "No, the guy with less ballots is the president"
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.