Comment by epsters
25 days ago
I mentioned many conflicts and many countries so this is very broad to cover in one comment but i will try, briefly. I have heard many theories given over the years to justify these interventions - democracy, capitalism, liberalism, oil, minerals, gas-pipelines, gas-fields, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, neo-colonialism, fighting terror, WMDs, fighting rogue states, checking expansionism, checking communism, countering soviet union, countering russia, countering china, oil contractors, defense contractors, petrodollar, maintaining global reserve system, global security, stability, American national security, European security, national security of Gulf allies, shipping lanes and trade routes and finally Israeli national security. How many of those goals were achieved? What did America get out of the Iraq War? Was Libyan intervention a net win for France ? Or Europe? My question is after 20 years, how much of those theories still hold up. Don't get me wrong, many of those things mentioned were indeed motivations and played a part in many of the cases. But ultimately most of these theories crumble in the face of 20 years of evidence. Except the Israel Theory. Reading Israel's national security strategy (outlined in documents like the "Clean break" report and the "Yinon Plan") Suddenly all the seeming 'naive' and 'futile' actions of the west , all the failed intervations, human catastrophes, blowbacks and disasters; they all make sense.
I am not saying all the people, protestors/fighters, parties, involved were mossad/cia agents or all of them arose out of covert action. I am saying that is what shaped them, and ultimately determined their outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...
I think you're completely right, and the fact that most people don't realize this makes me think that even most 'smart' people are pretty stupid when they have to think outside of what the media tells them.
I don't think they're stupid and i don't fault them. I made extraordinary claims and it took me 20 years of seeing extraordinary evidence to face reality.
Completely crazy. Not only had the war in Iraq hurt Israeli security, rather than improving it, Israel opposed the war knowing that it would be damaging rather than beneficial. What you have is not "the Israel Theory", what you have is a conspiracy theory.
Netanyahu came before Congress in 2002 to strongly urge the invasion of Iraq. What universe are you living in?
Ariel Sharon was the prime minister of Israel in 2002. Netanyahu was a civilian. You seem to be unable to tell these two very different people apart. I suggest going easy on the green stuff.
2 replies →
>Israel opposed the war knowing that it would be damaging rather than beneficial
Here's a video of Benjamin Netanyahu doing the opposite of opposing the Iraq war in front of Congress in 2002.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVPauUOVrmk
>Not only had the war in Iraq hurt Israeli security, rather than improving it
I am aware there was internal debate in Israel on relative benefits of taking out Iraq's conventional military capability, its economic potential, remnants of its WMD program and breaking apart Iraq's territorial integrity versus the risk of Iraq falling under Iran's influence. Evidently Netanyahu's faction prevailed in the debate. Though both sides would have preferred taking out Iran first before going after Iraq.
>what you have is a conspiracy theory.
You can call it whatever you want. The true test of a theory is if it fits the evidence and its ability to predict events. Do you have a better theory of why Americans and Europeans repeat the same failed policies over and over in the middle-east?
Here's my prediction on Iran : I don't know what Trump will do ,if he will ultimately accede to Israel's wishes, but if a 'civil war' breaks out or If Trump or any future American regime decides to invade Iraq. It will conservatively lead to a decade of war, one million deaths, millions of refugees (from Iran, Iraq). If the Islamic Republic collapses I am doubtful on whether Iran will survive as an integral nation. But Israel will get what it wants. which will be - taking out Iran's nuclear program, breaking Iran apart and Israel becoming the regional uncontested power (until Turkey or Egypt emerges but thats the next round). Israel will likely formally annex more of Syria, and Southern Lebanon as well or create a buffer zone rump state. Palestinians will never see sovereignty. They will be ethnically cleansed or live in a glorified bantustan. Iraq may not survive in its current form. It will be a bloody, expensive mess for everybody else. Likely American lives will be lost. I struggle to see how a regime change would be achieved without US boots on the ground. The Iranian people will be all but certainly worse of. Just like the people of Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, etc.
Like I said to the other person here, Netanyahu was acting in a private capacity as a civilian, not a representative or office holder of the government of Israel. It amazes me how you conspiracy nutters can't tell the difference.
You don't have a "theory". You worked backwards from your conclusion that "Israel = bad" and created an entirely false narrative that only sounds plausible in your own deluded head. Furthermore, you have absolutely no proof, obviously, for your conspiratorial ravings, so the most charitable description of your thoughts on the matter would be a "conjecture" not a "theory".
And I'm sorry but I don't care about your predictions.
1 reply →
Your brain is fried. To think one tiny country is controlling and directing all world events is just laughable.
>To think one tiny country is controlling and directing all world events is just laughable.
No. i think one tiny country directs American foreign policy in the MENA region, and Europe by-and-large follows its lead. You haven't countered the substance of my claims. You frankly seem low-information on the matter.
> What did America get out of the Iraq War? Was Libyan intervention a net win for France ? Or Europe? My question is after 20 years, how much of those theories still hold up. Don't get me wrong, many of those things mentioned were indeed motivations and played a part in many of the cases. But ultimately most of these theories crumble in the face of 20 years of evidence. Except the Israel Theory
This is pretty poor reasoning, just FYI.
We don't need a centralized "theory" for why western powers have interfered in the Middle East for so long. There's no conspiracy or orchestration, what you're referring to are a handful of related but ultimately separate sagas involving a litany of countries, ethnic groups, and geopolitical motivations. To suggest there's a singular theory or plan is just silly.
This is Qanon level thinking, I'll be honest.