1. I think Iran is doing a fine job of destabilizing itself.
2. I also don't get why American interests would be putting authoritarian allies in jeopardy. If anything, keeping people like Mubarak in power supported our corporate interests better ...
1. Every country has its share of problems, but it takes a body of people who can channel public dissatisfaction in a particular direction, and that requires a good screen-play and a big money...
2. That's what I find hard to understand...
On the other hand, BP was always interested in Iran and don't have the same interest in Egypt... besides, rattling Zionists (including US Jewish lobby) can make them turn against Obama who was so unfriendly to BP...
You are talking of "our government", I'm talking of economico-financial power elites. Their interests no longer reflect interests of American nation, or British nation or any other nation... They are transnational and are looking after their OWN interests.
How did Zbigniew Brzezinski put it?
"...But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization....
Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat..."
9/11 achieved just that: it "fashioned a consensus on foreign policy issues" (war against Afghanistan and Iraq); united Americans around a common goal -- "the war on terror" making them accept "economic self-denial", "human sacrifice" and a "Patriot Act"...
Well, even the multinational corporation argument doesn't hold up with regard to the recent revolts across the Middle East. The corporations in question loved people like Mubarak. Dictatorships are much easier to do business with in many respects because of their long term leadership. With democracies, you have to make deals with new people every decade or so.
As for 9/11, multinational corporations undoubtedly have a lot of power and reach, but again, I would think a far bigger leak would have occurred by now regarding a massive conspiracy if one actually existed. Right now, most of the conspiracy crowd only has anecdotal and circumstantial evidence.
Yes, some things are fishy about how everything went down, and I'm not defending the official story completely, but I also don't believe it all fits nicely into some grand plan.
I think Iran is doing a fine job of destabilizing itself.
I also don't get why American interests would be putting authoritarian allies in jeopardy. If anything, keeping people like Mubarak in power supported our corporate interests better than helping Egypt rise to democracy.
Overthrowing the governments of Libya and Iran match our interests, but most of the other countries experiencing revolutions have current governments that we prefer in power.
This difference in interests by country makes it very hard to believe this is all some American conspiracy.
Not that much and especially not when we're so overstretched in (stilll) Irag and Afghahistan. Being insanely militaristic has some benefits, eventuallly we start to run out of Army (we ran out of money in 2008, course that was more stolen than spent). Keep in mind also that the pubs expected everone in the ME to square dance in the streets, buy a cowboy hat and elect Bush Emperor of he World for Life, they weren't exactly budgeting this to cost 10 trillion or more.
Mubarak "retired" because his own Army wouldn't help him, and because he knew America couldn't.
Last edited by John Drake; 02-23-2011 at 11:59 AM.