Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CrashedOutAndBurned

Us Nutbags At It Again...

Recommended Posts

Okay, so the US arm, fund and train fundamentalist guerillas linked to Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan, which becomes the real-life backdrop to the mostly fictional 'Al Queada'. In Iraq, meanwhile, the US arm and fund the Baathist Party against the Iranians.

After they tell lie after lie about Iraq's threat to the west - a country ravaged by tend years of bombing and sanctions with b'all weapons of conventional destruction, let alone WMDs - the US says, 'Ah, well at least that evil regime's gone'.

Now the USA are arming Baathist-linked Sunnis against 'Al Queada'-linked Shiites.

The reason for the war was what again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/mi.../11iraq.html?hp

BAGHDAD, June 10 — With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.
In Anbar, there have been negotiations with factions from the 1920 Revolution Brigades, a Sunni insurgent group with strong Baathist links that has a history of attacking Americans. In Diyala, insurgents who have joined the Iraqi Army have told reporters that they switched sides after working for the 1920 group. And in an agreement announced by the American command on Sunday, 130 tribal sheiks in Salahuddin met in the provincial capital, Tikrit, to form police units that would “defend” against Al Qaeda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason for the war was what again?

To destabilise the muslim near east by playing off one faction against another. This divide and rule strategy ensures that no strong Arab block can emerge that can threaten western oil supplies or the security of Israel.

Of course the US can't openly admit to that so throws in a lot of rhetoric about freedom from tyranny / demcoracy to justify indivdiual actions.

All makes sense if not exactly occupying the moral high ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By restoring the Baathists to power the US is essentially turning the clock back to the days of that nice Mr. Hussein. I think the US have learned that western-style government does not work in Muslim fundamentalist states. Brutal dictators such as a Saddam or the disco-suited tirade King are best for stability. You just have to make sure they are equalised without one becoming too dominant which was the direction Saddam was taking when he planned to annex Kuwait and Saudi. Next phase in the plan: find a brutal dictator to run Iraq and the Ba-athists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.