wow, that was concise and it certainly made sense. I wish every American could see this.
Ever since 9/11 I've wanted to understand why we're so hated in such a distant part of the world. But of course it's blasphemous to suggest that they might have some legitimate grievance.
Why We Fight... an incredibly informative documentary. Watch it critically, not passively; it has how we got where we are and how difficult the situation is, but watch it critically.
It is hard to believe, that folks who consider themselves enlightened as to the workings of the planet's contrived systems, that no one has bothered to mention how simple it would be for an octopus like the old and gas and military, all working hannover fist, to keep theirs for them, could not use, governments, leaders, or orchestrated events like 9/11's controlled demolitions and protracted war on terror, to remain in place as long as they can....fuck, if a couple of bombs going off in some city E.U. , etc., can illicit fear that effects worldwide economics.....then the few lives and improvements on some real estate, is a small goddamn price to pay......especially when you control all media, this includes Fox, CNN, and all of them, control all diversion such as sporting events, and political campaigns, social issues, have a lockdown on a "legal" world drug trade, arms manufacture, agri-biz, federal and national reserves......I mean fuck people, talk about being able to get away with murder.....and with the internet, the availability of knowledge and history to the masses, there are STILL, folks who refuse to believe the possibility even exists.....
here's a perfect example of diversion, keeping someone happy as a clam to think they are somehow superior to a so-called conservative.. "Because most conservatives don't bother to learn the truth unless Fox News spoon feeds it to them."
FUCK FOX NEWS!!! FOX NEWS IS A TOOL, YOU ARROGANT SYMBOL-ADDICTED MONKEYS!!!
just like YOUR favorite news organization, is a tool, just like the candidate you think will do best, is a tool.......
fox news is not news at all Associated press, reuters, tools cnn is not news at all msnbc, major networks....they are tools in the hands of a powerful few....though they were at one time some of the first-gens, reputable sources, they have putrefied, and the masses along with them, as feeding on such, will contaminate the organism......
i heard in lithuania they have a problem because all the young journalists seem happy to write PR propaganda instead of news. advertising is really blatant here.
Ok, I'll debunk - This is a very one sided view. It starts by providing a correct case of historical oil-reasoned involvement from the 50's, then continues by assuming that all involvements afterwards are the result of the same reason. Not to mention that it totally discounts any motive that is not US. "Oh, Saddam invaded Kuwait? That must be because he was angry with the US, not because he wanted access to the sea." Yes, the US did not oppose Saddam's rise to power. He was never a US puppet - the CIA were at the time involved with any insurgent in countries the were considered unfriendly. Why would they oppose when he took over from an unfriendly regime? Then, when he attacked another unfriendly regime, why would they interfere? Actively demonizing Saddam? Indeed, he's just another enlightened ruler that did no harm to anybody.
Claiming that because the US once interfered with middle east politics because of oil then any following interference is oil-related is not a valid logical statement.
And I'm not even going to debunk the weird "oil is important because the army needs it".
None Dare Call It Conspiracy. ---------------------------------------------
"why isn't this more obvious to more people?"
it IS obvious to people and has been since at least WW1, the problems is - what do you DO about it. Write a stern letter to the editor? Email your congressman? Riot in the street? Raise consciousness? Bitch and moan on forums? Post videos on YouTube? Vote???
"If voting really changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
change that to 'if anything really changes anything, it becomes illegal', it sums up the futility of anything short of global revolution.
"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more!" Oh really.
"If voting really changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
nice one hence you have a pseudo monarchy in the USA.
rightwinger, thanks for that, seriously. When looking at the motives for invading Iraq, i find it hard not to think of the word "empire", that's all. It seems so obvious, the pieces on the chessboard, the enormous oil under the ground (why not invade Rwanda or Zimbabwe?)
Also, you say that past darkside CIA/British oil theft is not proof of present oil theft. You are right. But what proof have you got that it was all about human rights and WMD? I mean, if it's not about the oil and the empire, what is it? If you can't provide a more logical alternative i am going to have to go with my hunch about the oil.
There is this theory that the USA should not have any "foreign entanglements" or something... can't remember who said that...
You're thinking of the George Washington Farewell address: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it." Or maybe about the Non-intercourse act.
That attitude held for a long while. It's the reason the US didn't intervene in WWII until Pearl Harbor. That's when the US "realized" that even if they don't act, the foreigners will still react, and the only defense is to be active abroad.
As for an alternative motive for Iraq - here's one - you have three problematic countries fomenting unrest - Iran with it's "export of the revolution" as a cornerstone of it's policy, Iraq which was working very hard to convince everybody they have WMD (kicking out the UN observers and similar games) and Saudi Arabia, where Bin Laden came from. Since Iran is democratic, and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, while Iraq is a brutal dictatorship, what better way to get some stability to the area then topple Saddam? The grateful population, freed from their dictator will form a democracy and then the US will have a local ally, right between the two opposing Shi'ite and Suny countries. Of course, that's assuming you can accomplish everything before those two countries wise up and start meddling.
This published video has been declared as non-functional; embed code must fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.
This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jwray.
This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by xxovercastxx.
Tags for this video have been changed from 'iraq, us, shah, iran, gulf, chalmers johnson' to 'iraq, us, shah, iran, gulf, chalmers johnson, why we fight' - edited by kronosposeidon
It's important to know at least this much about America's history in the middle east in order to make sense of what's going on in Iran today. Though that video only lasted 3 minutes, you'll never hear those facts by watching the nightly news.
This is why it's so dangerous in Iran to be associated with the west, and Britain or the US in particular.
Stumble This
because most americans are dumb and believe everything that is spoon fed to them.
Ever since 9/11 I've wanted to understand why we're so hated in such a distant part of the world. But of course it's blasphemous to suggest that they might have some legitimate grievance.
denial is a motherfucker
"Because most conservatives don't bother to learn the truth unless Fox News spoon feeds it to them."
FUCK FOX NEWS!!! FOX NEWS IS A TOOL, YOU ARROGANT SYMBOL-ADDICTED MONKEYS!!!
just like YOUR favorite news organization, is a tool, just like the candidate you think will do best, is a tool.......
fox news is not news at all
Associated press, reuters, tools
cnn is not news at all
msnbc, major networks....they are tools in the hands of a powerful few....though they were at one time some of the first-gens, reputable sources, they have putrefied, and the masses along with them, as feeding on such, will contaminate the organism......
yup, still no debunking.
Yes. It was called that at one point.
This is a very one sided view. It starts by providing a correct case of historical oil-reasoned involvement from the 50's, then continues by assuming that all involvements afterwards are the result of the same reason. Not to mention that it totally discounts any motive that is not US. "Oh, Saddam invaded Kuwait? That must be because he was angry with the US, not because he wanted access to the sea."
Yes, the US did not oppose Saddam's rise to power. He was never a US puppet - the CIA were at the time involved with any insurgent in countries the were considered unfriendly. Why would they oppose when he took over from an unfriendly regime? Then, when he attacked another unfriendly regime, why would they interfere?
Actively demonizing Saddam? Indeed, he's just another enlightened ruler that did no harm to anybody.
Claiming that because the US once interfered with middle east politics because of oil then any following interference is oil-related is not a valid logical statement.
And I'm not even going to debunk the weird "oil is important because the army needs it".
---------------------------------------------
"why isn't this more obvious to more people?"
it IS obvious to people and has been since at least WW1, the problems is - what do you DO about it.
Write a stern letter to the editor? Email your congressman? Riot in the street? Raise consciousness? Bitch and moan on forums? Post videos on YouTube? Vote???
"If voting really changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
change that to 'if anything really changes anything, it becomes illegal', it sums up the futility of anything short of global revolution.
"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more!"
Oh really.
nice one
rightwinger, thanks for that, seriously. When looking at the motives for invading Iraq, i find it hard not to think of the word "empire", that's all. It seems so obvious, the pieces on the chessboard, the enormous oil under the ground (why not invade Rwanda or Zimbabwe?)
Also, you say that past darkside CIA/British oil theft is not proof of present oil theft. You are right. But what proof have you got that it was all about human rights and WMD? I mean, if it's not about the oil and the empire, what is it? If you can't provide a more logical alternative i am going to have to go with my hunch about the oil.
There is this theory that the USA should not have any "foreign entanglements" or something... can't remember who said that...
You're thinking of the George Washington Farewell address: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it."
Or maybe about the Non-intercourse act.
That attitude held for a long while. It's the reason the US didn't intervene in WWII until Pearl Harbor. That's when the US "realized" that even if they don't act, the foreigners will still react, and the only defense is to be active abroad.
As for an alternative motive for Iraq - here's one - you have three problematic countries fomenting unrest - Iran with it's "export of the revolution" as a cornerstone of it's policy, Iraq which was working very hard to convince everybody they have WMD (kicking out the UN observers and similar games) and Saudi Arabia, where Bin Laden came from. Since Iran is democratic, and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, while Iraq is a brutal dictatorship, what better way to get some stability to the area then topple Saddam? The grateful population, freed from their dictator will form a democracy and then the US will have a local ally, right between the two opposing Shi'ite and Suny countries. Of course, that's assuming you can accomplish everything before those two countries wise up and start meddling.
It's important to know at least this much about America's history in the middle east in order to make sense of what's going on in Iran today. Though that video only lasted 3 minutes, you'll never hear those facts by watching the nightly news.
This is why it's so dangerous in Iran to be associated with the west, and Britain or the US in particular.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Robert-Newmans-History-of-Oil