The Battle for IRAQ

[M.A.D.]

---

Well people are beginning to think that the US makes all this up in order to keep their MIC(military industrial complex) in business. They really don't have any clear enemies or competitors which they haven't antagonized. It's all about US foreign policy, the parties whether it be republican or democrat don't make any difference.

Students and scholars of foreign policy and international politics and economics know what it's all about. Anyway look for any online copy of the books below. The author is a respected member of the US elite, he is known to formulate one of the long term strategies for US foreign policy.

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives: Zbigniew Brzezinski: 9780465027262: Amazon.com: Books

Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power: Zbigniew Brzezinski: 9780465029549: Amazon.com: Books

Of course, their rivals or those they have forced into submission can only wait. There's no point fighting, all this abuse by the US is just going to come back at them at some point in the future. Unfortunately it won't be that dramatic as the system the world runs on today relies on what the US along with the allies built right after WWII.

[M.A.D.]

Meh, all that tech was taken from the germans especially from Verner von Braun(correct spelling) who designed the V rocket which was the basis for most of the missile technology of US and Russia. After Germany gone, there wasn't anything left to fight so maybe it was time for a proxy war between US and Russia.

Some people even say that the two A-bombs that were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were totally unnecessary since the only condition japan would surrender is that they can surrender but they must still have their emperor. They say it was because the two bombs(forgot their names) were meant to demonstrate their power to Russia, which the US would later antagonize.

The communist dream was a total failure. The centrally planned and controlled government could not compete with capitalist US plus the fact that when there were cracks open the US was able to put Russia in debt. I'm not really keen on the details but Putin blames the US for Russia's problems. US hates Putin now so much because Putin is able to remove their pawns and was able to extricate Russia from the debt of IMF and WB.

Most MENA states deserve a ruler with an iron grip. Islamic variations such as Sunni and Shia will never coexist with each other peacefully. I don't know about the history behind it, but it has to do with their religion. Anyway, on Syria, Assad is also a dictator but Syria is better of with him.

[M.A.D.]

It also makes you think that MENA states blaming the US for all their problems is actually much more complicated than originally thought. It was chaotic before the US came in, now it just made it worse.

[gareb]

the radicalization of Iraq is far from a simple problem to solve, nor is it an isolated case.

Why The Middle East Is Now A Giant Warzone, In One Terrifying Chart | ThinkProgress

[æRLO]

I think Slobodan Milosevic was actually more sympathetic with the Russian side as to the US-EU side. We really don't know much about Serbia besides all those 'facts' being shown by media about Slobodan and his purported crimes. It does look like they were trying to fragment Serbia and eventually integrate them into NATO.

All the states left in ruins in MENA are actually at the convenience of preserving the state of Israel. Nothing more.

I think the problem in Bosnia was an old one, and I don't think it was really much in part to external meddling (at least not after the Cold War). My ex's father who actually fought for the Serbs said the animosity was historic so it probably pre-dates NATO. A lot of serbs, croat, and bosniaks take offense when they are called one or the other, even way before they were unified under SFR Yugoslavia. IMO balkanization is just the residual effects of the WWI, WW2 and the Cold War and catalyzed by Tito's death.

Meh, all that tech was taken from the germans especially from Verner von Braun(correct spelling) who designed the V rocket which was the basis for most of the missile technology of US and Russia. After Germany gone, there wasn't anything left to fight so maybe it was time for a proxy war between US and Russia.

Some people even say that the two A-bombs that were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were totally unnecessary since the only condition japan would surrender is that they can surrender but they must still have their emperor. They say it was because the two bombs(forgot their names) were meant to demonstrate their power to Russia, which the US would later antagonize.

OT ghapon: After the Battle of the Bulge it was literally a race for Berlin (and other major German cities) between the Red Army and the West, and aside from some minor resistance, Germany was an open country--it's abundance in technologies and scientists was the loot. Needless to say, both sides already knew of the things to come as the Soviets already knew about the Manhattan project and the U.S. found out about the subsequent Soviet atomic bomb project--all before the D-Day landings.

As for Japan, the "official" rationale for dropping Little Boy and Fat Man was simply because Operation Downfall would be costly for the Americans (I think over a million or so casualties for the first phase of the campaign/operation), but really it was the Soviet's rather oddly late declaration of war against the Japanese and their swift victories against the Japanese in Manchuria. In retrospect, the Japanese would have surrendered anyway because nobody wanted to be subjugated by the Soviets.

not to offend our Muslim brothers here, but I think the rift between the Sunni and Shia sects is petty. Wasn't it about who was supposed to be Mohammed's successor? It's almost as petty as the Great Schisms in Christianity.

[amingb]

Iraq WMD Lies: The Words of Mass Deception

WMD - Words of Mass Deception .. Negosyo ray gi apas aning mga amerkano ...

[M.A.D.]

Yes i forgot to factor in the animosity between muslims and non-muslims in bosnia/serbia. Whenever there's a deeply rooted problem like this which usually involves differing religions the US is always there to exploit it. Can't blame the US for taking initiative. Same thing with uyghur separatists in xinjiang, eastern china which may have CIA written all over it. Also include the chechens near Georgia and currently Ukraine.

This also does not include the other countries in latin america but its no longer attributed to religious differences but may be related to narco politics and nepotism.

I think the problem in Bosnia was an old one, and I don't think it was really much in part to external meddling (at least not after the Cold War). My ex's father who actually fought for the Serbs said the animosity was historic so it probably pre-dates NATO. A lot of serbs, croat, and bosniaks take offense when they are called one or the other, even way before they were unified under SFR Yugoslavia. IMO balkanization is just the residual effects of the WWI, WW2 and the Cold War and catalyzed by Tito's death.



OT ghapon: After the Battle of the Bulge it was literally a race for Berlin (and other major German cities) between the Red Army and the West, and aside from some minor resistance, Germany was an open country--it's abundance in technologies and scientists was the loot. Needless to say, both sides already knew of the things to come as the Soviets already knew about the Manhattan project and the U.S. found out about the subsequent Soviet atomic bomb project--all before the D-Day landings.

As for Japan, the "official" rationale for dropping Little Boy and Fat Man was simply because Operation Downfall would be costly for the Americans (I think over a million or so casualties for the first phase of the campaign/operation), but really it was the Soviet's rather oddly late declaration of war against the Japanese and their swift victories against the Japanese in Manchuria. In retrospect, the Japanese would have surrendered anyway because nobody wanted to be subjugated by the Soviets.

not to offend our Muslim brothers here, but I think the rift between the Sunni and Shia sects is petty. Wasn't it about who was supposed to be Mohammed's successor? It's almost as petty as the Great Schisms in Christianity.