So at school today, I went to our school's Model UN...thing. It got me thinking about, you know, world politics. It's a pretty general topic, but what do you all have to say?

This is a topic I could write essays on. i'll get back with a finely tuned piece that doesn't ramble soon-ish.
Good thread sinistre! (deliberate misspelling, you left hander you)

I should be a lefty, but alas, I am not. My dad is. Left-handed people are smarter, and cooler, and that makes me angry.

So, the US and Syria have 'opened talks' in the unspeak of our time.
Of course, this meeting between Condi Rice, and Syria's foreign minister is a public exercise to show the American people that Bush is still strong on terrorism.
Anything substantial is already discussed in other covert meetings, and deals are surely being negotiated over Syria's part to play in the upcoming Iranian war.
The fact that the Foreign Minister of Iran left before Rice got to the dinner in Egypt, equally speaks volumes.
Syria has a lot to gain if they can broker a deal with the US, and they know this is the moment in time to strike.
Last month, Cheney is saying its 'bad' to visit Damascus, and now , Rice is there. Things are coming to a head.

Equally, notice the Saudi's public expression of reluctance to side with the US in thoughts that Iraq is improving. The Prince talks about his American 'friends', but he is still attempting to play both sides, as Iran still hasn't been fully worked out yet, strategically, as far as I can make out.

Upcoming Iranian war? What evidence do you have of that, Ish?

I don't think he meant that. It would be too close to Biblical prophecy.

Certain sections of the US government most certainly want a war with Iran. The current Iraqi conflict could be seen coming a year ahead of time, as the fabrications concerning weapon development and UN weapon inspecting began to circulate.

The American media is notoriously weak on getting to the truth of the matter, so you must look to alternative sources.
Recently, US officials in Baghdad were claiming to have Iranian made weapons, found in the hands of insurgents. But the US banned recording of the find..how convenient.
The officials claimed there were, amongst other things, 81 mm mortar shells, but Iran has no plants able to make these. The shells also were stamped, according to officials, with a 2006 date. Of course, this cant be true, as the Iranians use a Persian Islamic calendar, so the date wld be 1427....suspicious yet?

Bush and his cronies love to talk up how the Iranians are helping the US enemies in Iraq, but equally there are factions allied with the US that Iran are supporting...the Mahdi army , whom are a big target for the US, have very little to do with Iran.

This is a tiny bit of the propaganda wars going on.

In Congress, and elsewhere, you will hear Bush and his cabal singing the same hymn....Iran are a threat, and they are recalcitrant, and a threat to the nation. (trans: a threat to the Oil).
According to the Jerusalem Post recently, The American Navy have sent USS Bataan & USS John C. Stennis into the Persian Gulf; joining the USS Eisenhower....around 50 warships..

Le Figaro noted that the US can fight in the air for 40 days, 24 hrs a day, in the region.

The US g/ment keep saying that Iranian agents are around in Iraq, but no proof yet. The officials talk about their 'evidence', but show nothing. The Iraq invasion was built on lies and propaganda, and this upcoming war is being built the same way.

The New York Times, on 29 Jan., reported that the Egyptian ambassador to Iraq was assassinated as a result of 'Iranian intelligence'....based on no more evidence than some 'anonymous' source, quoted in an Egyptian newspaper. The Times will do its' patriotic duty, and beat up the threat.

There is a ton of stuff on this. Try reading dailykos, or Mother Jones, the BBC, the Guardian weekly, Project Censored, New Statesman...just to name a few.

Be certain people. The US g/ment have a very handy grip on the gulf region, with their lapdogs, the Saudis backing them up; and now is a good time to strike.
All the elements are coming together, and Iran is getting shouty too, which just helps Operation 'Get the Oil.'

I hope this helped you some, less.

Oh, and just so it doesn't seem that I'm simply American bashing, my own disgusting g/ment is a part of this whole sorry affair as much as any group.

I almost forgot...check out irannewswatch.com for all the latest!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kulturtrager,

Ish, I don't dispute that the US would love to take out the Iran government. I do dispute this single-minded focus on oil, however. Perhaps I give people the benefit of the doubt too much, but I do have a tendency to believe that the neocons running the government aren't just interested in using Iraq for oil. I completely disagreed with the Iraq war from day 1, so you'll probably be able to jump all over any arguments I present for the neocons, but I'll do my best here:

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that if we had been successful, if our government had properly judged the state of the Iraqi people, Iraq would have been a better place as a result of our invasion. They had economic potential, an educated(and intellectual) population, and a ruthless dictator(no matter what Farenheight 911 may have told you). Yes, they also had oil, but the neoconservative philosophy is as much about spreading democracy as it is about gobbling up what remains of the oil. Iraq and Iran are two places that in theory are fertile for democratic governments, and obviously the middle east is strategically a very important area. Furthermore, Iran WILL have nukes, and once they have nukes, we pretty much can't fuck with them ever again.

Now somebody from both sides please tell me I'm an idiot who doesn't understand anything about international politics. I admit that it's quite possible.

I won't do that. One thing I will say is that Bush is a Lame Duck, but if he actually wants to complete his term w/o being kicked out of office, he WILL NOT start any other specious wars. He's hanging by a string as it is now.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

No doubt, they NEEDED the Iraq war to go well to allow them to invade Iran. I also don't see any way they'll be able to garner the public support for invading Iran... short of orchestrating a second 9/11.

Major, mark, thanks for contributing to this, but I have to strongly disagree with you both.

Firstly, the pursuit of oil is not the only thing the US is concerned with, but it is of primary importance. Have a look at some of the memos that have leaked.
The neo-cons don't care about democracy, my god, how can you entertain that thought for a minute?
The US installs puppet g/ments, and then plays out a fake democratic scenario...see Afghanistan, Haiti, et al.

The fear mongering about nuclear weapons is as old as the technology itself. Do you remember Tony Blair telling the world how the UK was within reach of 'weapons of mass destruction' which would take mere minutes to be activated and fired? Total fucking lies intented to create a populace willing to support all g/ment initiatives.

Bush won't be kicked out of office...he has too much control. He vetoes anything that disagrees with his endeavours, and it is indeed the US congress which is the lame duck. This g/ment don't need public support. They do what they want, and if they feel that they do require some P.R., well, that is exactly what they are doing now by creating false evidence about the Iranian situation.

Now, I am a leftie of the most socialist kind, as is Michael Moore, but neither of us believe that Hussain was anything more than an evil, corrupt totalitarian. Iraq surely needed to be rid of him, so I would be very careful of buying into the right-wing agenda which whispers that all lefties are sympathetic to people like Hussain et al.

The US g/ment installed Hussain, and they have supported dictatorships for decades. We lefties don't like bullies, not matter what their religion, creed or flag.
Beware the Unspeak.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
Firstly, the pursuit of oil is not the only thing the US is concerned with, but it is of primary importance. Have a look at some of the memos that have leaked.

I don't doubt we have a strong interest(obsession even?) with oil. I accept it's important to our decisions and completely clouds our ability to make impartial judgments. I just don't think oil tells the whole story.

quote:

The neo-cons don't care about democracy, my god, how can you entertain that thought for a minute?

Well, I REALLY wish we had a neocon(or even a conservative) here to back this up or refute this, but everything I've read about the neocon school of thought suggests that it believes it is possible to spread democracy. That might even be a core tenet. I've viewed it's recent manifestation as an extension of the cold war school of thought against communism(domino theory). Now, I of course think both ideas are severely flawed, but I don't think it's fair to simply write off the neocons as selfish assholes. They may be, but it doesn't get us anywhere in civilized debate.

quote:

The US installs puppet g/ments, and then plays out a fake democratic scenario...see Afghanistan, Haiti, et al.

I've got no argument against the Afghanistan gov't sucking. I don't see how we could install a gov't that doesn't suck in Afghanistan. We struck down the Taliban because of 9/11, and we're still trying to ensure the Taliban stays away. Again, I don't argue with our doing a shitty job with replacement governements. I do think that our government was optimistic that these governements would not suck, but has probably micromanaged to the point that that just wasn't a possiblity.

quote:

The fear mongering about nuclear weapons is as old as the technology itself. Do you remember Tony Blair telling the world how the UK was within reach of 'weapons of mass destruction' which would take mere minutes to be activated and fired? Total fucking lies intented to create a populace willing to support all g/ment initiatives.

Sure, there's been fear mongering about nukes, and sure my government has lied about it, and I don't like that. I also fully believe they are legitimately concerned about the presence of nukes in countries that don't like us and won't like us(IRAN!!!!). I feel like Iranian nukes are pretty much inevitable, and my own opinion is that we should try to develop a working relationship with Iran rather than to take them down, but I can also UNDERSTAND the concern with an extremist muslim nation with terrorist ties obtaining a nuclear weapon. Is it hypocritical to be upset at them? Of course. Do I agree that we can really control them? Nope. Do I understand why others feel the way they do? Yeah, I think so.

quote:

Bush won't be kicked out of office...he has too much control.

No, you're right, he won't be kicked out. He isn't quite stupid enough to invade Iran right now. He HAD too much control. He doesn't even have unanimous republican support anymore though. If the Democrats throw somebody up there worth voting for, I'm confident they'll win.

quote:

He vetoes anything that disagrees with his endeavours, and it is indeed the US congress which is the lame duck. This g/ment don't need public support. They do what they want, and if they feel that they do require some P.R., well, that is exactly what they are doing now by creating false evidence about the Iranian situation.

I don't know if this evidence is fabricated or not. Honestly though, do you have so much faith in the Iran government that you'd believe that they aren't supporting militant shiite militias. You don't think the ayatollah would LOVE to see us fail, loves seeing us screwed up in Iraq so we can't concentrate on Iran, and would love to see the more militant shiites come out on top? I mean, I admit I can't really trust anything the U.S. government says, but lets not start calling Kahmenei a bastion of morality.

quote:

Now, I am a leftie of the most socialist kind, as is Michael Moore, but neither of us believe that Hussain was anything more than an evil, corrupt totalitarian.

No, Michael Moore isn't that stupid to believe that. However, that's the image he portrayed in Farenheight 911. Leftists aren't above propaganda themselves. They can be just as bad.

quote:

Iraq surely needed to be rid of him, so I would be very careful of buying into the right-wing agenda which whispers that all lefties are sympathetic to people like Hussain et al.

Trying to understand the right-wing agenda hardly classifies me as buying into it. I simply think that they think they're what's best, and so do leftists, and for some reason both sides seem to think the other is a bumch of selfish assholes.

quote:

The US g/ment installed Hussain, and they have supported dictatorships for decades.

We certainly did install him. That was a different fight, my friend. You probably remember the time a lot better than I do(being that I was born in 1982). We did a lot of things in the Reagan administration you and I and the rest of the non-FoxNews watching world disagree with. That was a different battle though. That was a fight against communism, against the spread of communism. You want to go even worse, we installed the Taliban. That was then. This is now. Look at the difference between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Bush Sr. didn't take out Hussein when he had an obvious chance. Why? Because his government was operating under a different ideology then this one. Now, our government IS trying to install a working, progressive government in Iraq. Clearly they're failing, but they are trying. They're actually making an effort to improve the middle east situation. I don't see that as buying into their propaganda so much as acknowledging that they aren't pure evil.

I feel dirty whenever I defend my government, so you're in agreement with everything I said, right? Hopefully, any day now, a conservative will come along and adequately explained what I've been unable to do justice do.

quote:

We lefties don't like bullies, not matter what their religion, creed or flag.

Though you probably don't believe it, I'd consider myself fairly leftist too. Certainly not socialist, and certainly not as leftist as I was in early college, but easily left of the center. I too resent my nation's bullying, and I think we've been utterly retarded in that regard. Because we've become bullies, even our own allies don't like us anymore. Furthermore, I believe that the arrogance of our leaders is astounding and has been one of the single greatest contributors to our post 911 demise.

First off, I was under the impression that Bush just used his second veto last week. Secondly, Bush has very little control at this point, except that he can name people all over the government, but when he's tossed, in less than two years, the incoming Dem can remove almost all of 'em (except for the Supreme Court justices).

I realize you are a radical, but I am too. I believe I have a better grasp on the "realities" of what's going on here, but hey, be my guest to claim that somebody living in Commieland knows better.

Bush is almost "this close" to being handed his head at this very moment. Maybe foreigners don't get that, but Americans with open eyes do. Go ahead and talk about "secret meetings". I've sat in on a gazillion. Most of them end with Bush being lynched.

Major, thanks so much for taking the time to really enter into this discussion. I love talking politics.

Neo-Con is just more Orwellian Newspeak. These guys, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Bush snr. & jnr. and the rest of the cabal have been operating illegally for decades. They are not new, there is no new ideology at work here.
However, they are very clever and know that placing their business pursuits under a veil of democratic reform plays better.
I am not simply writing them off...there is a mountain of evidence of how these people operate. I am not coming at this subject naively, in a simple 'pissed off, oh these guys are tools' emotional framework. I have been reading and studying politics since 1980, when my Uncle sat me down and made me aware of the then recent Afghan/USSR events.
The US government are interested in strategic implementation of their interests. Whatever ideological cloak they need to wear to get them thru the door, they will don it. Oil isn't the whole story no, but it is absolutely critical to their plans. Have a look at Halliburton's operations in the Middle east. Study the Saudi business reports of US involvement.

Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't really matter. Big business rules Washington, and ever it was.

There are good folk in the government of the US. But don't be fooled. People are people, and they will do whatever is expedient. Doing what is 'right' hardly comes into it. The current administration are venal, desperate and indeed willing to fabricate and lie outright (as they have done so often) to create a wedge in the Middle East.

This is not paranoia. This is my opinion based on decades of reading, research, and indeed teaching of world & US politics.

It is the same in Great Britain, and Australia, my own country. Howard (our PM) and Blair have been caught out blatantly lying, and what do the public do? They shrug their shoulders, and say 'Oh, all politicians are liars, long as taxes don't go up.'

Apathy is killing us all, and the most vulnerable of all, in 3rd world nations, know all too well the vapour trails and bombs of US, British, and Australian planes. as they (even as I write) smash the living daylights out of Iran and Syria.

It's much, much, worse than you think. Dear god, it's inexpressibly bad.

Oh, mark.....there you are posting at the same time as me...so a quick response. ...Here in Maoland, we string up the likes of you sitting there in yr secret meetings. When exactly is Bush getting lynched, cos they do it every Wednesday here, if yr overbooked? I'll bring the chips.

First off, mark f, despite my fear that you're going to tell me I have no clue what you were talking about, I'm pretty sure I'm in agreement with you on the remaining clout of the Bush administration. I don't think he'll be kicked out, but I'm positive he doesn't stand a chance at initiating another war.

Ish, my knowledge of world politics is undoubtedly a small fraction of yours, so it's very difficult for me to carry this debate on my own. Also, I acknowledge that Neo-Con might not be the best term to describe many members of the administration, but rather more the term thrown around in the media. However, I find it damn near impossible to believe that the US government has anything resembling control in the middle east right now. If you really think this was by design, I think that's giving my governement WAAAAAAAYYYYYY to much "credit".

Also, we're currently bombing Iran and Syria? That's news to me. Why aren't Iran and Syria complaining about this?

Lastly, if the ideology hasn't changed from Reagan/Bush Sr. to Bush Jr., and is an ideology driven solely by selfishness, could you please explain to me two things:

1) Why have a number of prominant former Reagan aides and supporters come out against the current administraton's foreigh policy? Here in VA, we just elected one as a Democratic senator.

2) Why didn't Bush Sr. invade Iraq when he had the chance and didn't need any fabricated evidence? Why did W invade now, when he didn't really have nearly as good a justification?

"Maoland". It sounds like a theme park... a really, really awful them park. Almost as bad as "Stalin World".

Major, it is true that there are men and women of conscience in the US government, who have been vocal about their disagreements over policy, but that doesn't mean that the machine itself is/has changed/changing.

Reagan's former aides are mostly arguing over the manner in which the Republican party are handling Iraq, rather than a deep ideological difference in Middle Eastern policy. I will have to get back to you with more evidence on this.

The issue of why Bush sr. didn't finish the Iraq situation has many facets. I will again get back to you on this, as it requires marshalling my thoughts and data to present a clear argument. (i'm running around like a mad chook at the mo').
Old Dubya had excellent justification to invade Iraq, at least as presented to the public. Iraq had weapons ready to fire, they were defying UN inspections, they were making deals with African nations and Al Qaeda to obtain chemicals and other equipment, they had helped plan the 11th of September attack, Colin Powell presented 'evidence' of military transports in Iraq shifting 'rogue' materials....and so on.....all of these bogus reasons were enough to convince most of the worlds press, pollies and business heads.

Of course, the US acted illegally when it invaded Iraq, much to the displeasure of the French & German g/ments, to name 2.
Why did the US take such a chance?
a) Because no-one stands up to the US.
b) The american people were hurting and wanted heads. Afghanistan wasn't enough, and so Cheney and his lads said....now George, now,....here is yr defining moment, and our chance to enhance ourselves strategically.

Now of course, a clear eyed conservative will argue that it is only sensible for the US to position itself in the Middle East, to eliminate threats, that realpolitik demands such a course of action.
I and others are not so sure......

I feel like there are two schools of dissent on the Bush administration from former Reaganites, and I'll try to come up with examples later.

1) The people that supported the war but think our administration bungled it.
2) The people that believed in our cold war policy because they believed communism and the USSR was such an enormous threat, that we had to deal with them as we did. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Iraq was the threat that the Soviets were. The people in this school of thought are generally fiscal conservatives and only accepted the ridiculous deficit spending of Reagan because they believed in the threat.

My understanding is that the current administration's policy is a logical extension of the Reagan ideology, but not the exact same ideology, and therefore open to dissent from Reagan supporters. In fact, I have a friend of this school of thought, who staunchly believes that if Bush Sr. were to express his honest opinion of the war in Iraq, he would have been against it. I couldn't tell you for the life of me if my friend is actually right.

quote:

b) The american people were hurting and wanted heads. Afghanistan wasn't enough, and so Cheney and his lads said....now George, now,....here is yr defining moment, and our chance to enhance ourselves strategically.

I'm not sure if this is the claim you were making, but W did not need to invade Iraq to endear himself to the American public. They LOVED him. 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan was the best thing that could've happened for his approval ratings.

Certainly they did view that support as a chance to enhance themselves strategically. I also think they honestly believed they could install a working democracy there, and I do actually think they would be thought of as liberators. I also think they were delusional.

Now, I do agree with you that from conservatives' perspective, it IS sensible to create an ally in the Middle East in the form of Iraq(especially with the perhaps bigger Iran threat on the horizon). I too am not so sure.

Just a quick note, as I think I'm being followed...

Sorry Major, I wasn't actually meaning to say that W was trying to endear himself to the public, but rather that he and others saw the opportunity to claim Iraq as their 'historical' moment.
Go down in the books as true hawks. Presidents love those chances to make a mark as head boy, but he certainly did get all the cards falling his way with 11/9, Al Qaeda et al.
Gotta run...debate later..

Cool, the more I thought about it, the more I figured I'd misinterpreted you. Sorry bout that. Yeah, I certainly do agree that he saw that as his chance to make his mark.