Some earnest-looking Middle Eastern fellow was saying Assad is an enemy of the U.S. and he works to undermine U.S. influence in the region.
It didn't occur to him to ask why the U.S. should have any influence in the region. Unless the U.S. has been invited for some specific purpose or is doing international business, why should the U.S. have any influence or expect that it deserves to have such influence.
One premise is the U.S. takes care of friends but the U.S. did business with Khadaffi for forty years, much of the early period of which was volatile and confrontational. During the more recent years, he had been outing those he considered radicals (i.e. 'terrorists'), paying reparations to the people of Lockerbie, etc. Naturally, that's when the U.S. killed him.
The same applies with Iraq as the U.S., most notably Cheney, had done business with Hussein for years. They loved it when Iraq fought Iran as that was nothing but gravy in supplying that killfest. Hussein didn't change, who knows why they decided to kill him. Caprice is as good a reason as any.
Taking care of friends is complete crap. The U.S. doesn't do anything unless it's going to make some money on it (i.e. the rich will make some money on it, everyone else will pay for the weapons).
Libya has never been about anything but the oil. It was the scene of some the biggest WWII tank battles as Rommel fought Montgomery to keep it. Rommel later tried to assassinate Hitler but that failed and it got him executed. He was a real German soldier, not some damn Nazi.
That was the first news I've seen in some days. I see nothing has changed and there is no incentive to return to it any time soon. There are no Rommels or Montgomerys today, only hacks in suits and ties who play Nintendo war ... but with real dead people.
It didn't occur to him to ask why the U.S. should have any influence in the region. Unless the U.S. has been invited for some specific purpose or is doing international business, why should the U.S. have any influence or expect that it deserves to have such influence.
One premise is the U.S. takes care of friends but the U.S. did business with Khadaffi for forty years, much of the early period of which was volatile and confrontational. During the more recent years, he had been outing those he considered radicals (i.e. 'terrorists'), paying reparations to the people of Lockerbie, etc. Naturally, that's when the U.S. killed him.
The same applies with Iraq as the U.S., most notably Cheney, had done business with Hussein for years. They loved it when Iraq fought Iran as that was nothing but gravy in supplying that killfest. Hussein didn't change, who knows why they decided to kill him. Caprice is as good a reason as any.
Taking care of friends is complete crap. The U.S. doesn't do anything unless it's going to make some money on it (i.e. the rich will make some money on it, everyone else will pay for the weapons).
Libya has never been about anything but the oil. It was the scene of some the biggest WWII tank battles as Rommel fought Montgomery to keep it. Rommel later tried to assassinate Hitler but that failed and it got him executed. He was a real German soldier, not some damn Nazi.
That was the first news I've seen in some days. I see nothing has changed and there is no incentive to return to it any time soon. There are no Rommels or Montgomerys today, only hacks in suits and ties who play Nintendo war ... but with real dead people.
No comments:
Post a Comment