All air defense systems on alert amid Iran attack fears — general

Why you put "general" into apostrophes? Respect your enemy, even if you dont like him.

You know Erwin Rommel?

 

Ho wanted American help after WWII. We refused because he was "socialist" and we couldn't have THAT, could we?

 

Ho Chi Minh wanted to ally with America as far back as 1931 when he tried to meet president Wilson.
It's too bad he invaded South Vietnam and too bad liberal Democrats sent our troops there with such limited and vague goals and started a bombing Campaign designed to kill Americans and achieve nothing.

 

No we certainly couldn't!!!
The Truman doctrine was correct it was also moral and just

 

Much more complicated than that. The U.S. knew that after World War Two the Soviets would be one of the major world powers. Despite all the claims by many otherwise, the U.S. had no desire to be a major power or engage in the "great game" with the Soviets. Which is one reason the UN was created mainly at the impetus of the U.S. But beyond that the U.S. hoped the British and French would resume their historic roles as counters to the Soviets. To this end, the U.S. followed a policy of pretty much supporting restoration of British and French colonial holdings because it was long believed that nations drew strength from their colonies (as the British had in World War One).

 

The UN was created mainly by the US to HELP us in the "great game" against Soviet COMMUNISM, the great bugaboo of the latter 20th century, (and still bug a booing right along, going by many on this board) . Communism/Socialism died in the 60's and 70's but it's death throes killed several millions worldwide and the corpse is still kicking in the Trump Regime.

 

No it's corpse is still kicking around in bernie and aoc.

 

Wow. They "whacked" Iran's nuclear scientists a while ago, and now this.

Looks like assassination is part of their foreign policy.

 

Cant be generalized. Germany always paid more into the colonies than it got out. It was more a prestige thing.

 

If we had applied the Truman Doctrine in 1945 instead of 1957 we would have put Ho in power against the French Colonialists. The UN refused to make France divest of its colonies because they were "overseas provinces" and the atrocities they were committing on indigenous peoples in places like Vietnam were "internal affairs". Ho took aid from the Soviets because we wouldn't give him any against the French, he was no more a doctrinaire communist than Wilson in the UK, as present day Vietnam proves.

 

Germany came late to the Colonies game because it didn't really exist until 1871. You're right in that its colonies were more a matter of keeping up than making out. If ALL of the Europeans had just kept their armies home and tried to HONESTLY make money when they could overseas we'd all be so much better off today. The Germans weren't terrible in that regard, they were like the Americans, they weren't that bad at first but they gave the others lessons once they started

 

i agree France was the bad guy to start with but once the country was divided Ho became the aggressor in trying to forcibly reunite them under communist rule which had already proven devastating to the North Vietnamese. Ho's communism was far worse than the corruption in the South.

 

I envision the Gulf states up in flames - and they might burn forever considering the amount of oil they have.

Anyway what Iran should is shut up and stop the threats against Israel. If they stated publicly that they recognize Israel's right to exist and want to better relations, then Israel would have no excuses for its actions.

 

LOLOLOL... If the Gulf States goes up in flames, we'll have a global depression that will make 1930s look like a picnic.

 

no, it was the MIC doctrine= war is profitable as long as its conventional arms and in 3rd world countries

 

I think you have noted that the US doesn't want to wage a regime change war against Iran. And you gave rational and reasonable reasons for your conclusion.

Yet Iran was specifically listed in PNAC that was adopted as our foreign policy that we have followed in some form since right after 911.

All that it would take is for another neocon infested administration. Like we had under the last bush administration.

Gen. Westley Clark told us about seeing the pnac list and I have no doubt Iran was on that list along with Iraq, Libya and Syria.

No pnac policy isnt ration but that has not stopped our breaking. international law and invading.

Obama kept to this insanity but demurred when it came to Iran.

I believe that unless we get someone like tulsi in all bets are off when it comes to Iran. For pnac is still driving our foreign policy even with trump and his campaign promises.

That neocon think tank that created pnac is filled with people of dual citizenship with israel. And both parties are filled with these bastards that support pnac.

When these neocons wrote PNAC they had no qualms about regime change in Iran.

This is one of the reasons that I support Tulsi.

 

HAMAS has only been around since the second intifada. Do you know why?

 

Clean Break Strategy is from the mid 1990s and the PNAC was active in 1998.. but those guys have pretty much run for cover. I wouldn't pay any attention to Wesley Clark.. He loves being the center of attention but he's dumb as a brick.

 

It's not when they were established that's the problem, the problem is they haven't been exterminated yet.

 

You wouldn't say that if you knew anything about how U.S. military operations are paid for. Of course you have a lot of company in that regard.

 

Wesley Clark was the guy that when he ran for president said "the U.S. should be like Switzerland".

He also advanced the idea of "rewilding" the American west (not a bad idea from a preservation and conservation standpoint) with large mammals...because he said that once all the big game was killed off in Africa the U.S. could make a lot of money from safaris..

 

PNAC did become the "Bible" that guided American foreign policy with the rise of the neocons. Its adherents were principally the coalition formed between the pro Israel lobby, the military industrial complex, and the Christian evangelical Zionists. And, in the ME, Iran is indeed the largest, and most important target, of their agenda and aspirations.

But that doesn't mean that, on a tactical level, there are too many (even among the neocons) who are clamoring for a regime change military invasion of Iran. Some of them would even go that far, but the consensus among the neocons has been to bring about an 'implosion' in Iran using the various tools at American disposal, with economic sanctions an important (but by no means exclusive) tool in that endeavor. If and when there is a consensus that Iran has been weakened enough, or that its leadership has been infiltrated enough, to not lash out in case of any direction military action against Iran, military action against Iran (not necessarily invasion) will also become one of the tools to destabilize the regime in Iran.

 

Above, I gave my general view on the issue of PNAC, while below I want to address some specifics when it comes to the different personalities in American foreign policy.

On a personal, philosophical level, Obama was always opposed to PNAC. He was a reluctant warrior in that agenda. But when his prospects for being elected became more realistic, he was unwilling to risk not becoming president by standing up the pro Israel lobby before his election. He went through the rites of passage, made the customary bows of allegiance to AIPAC and Israel, and once elected, in his first term and up to and including his reelection, he essentially handed the apparatus of his policies to those who were trusted by the pro Israel lobby. On Iran, he chose one of their own (Denis Ross) as the person who all things relating to Iran had to be filtered through. And, more generally, we saw Hillary Clinton (a convert from earlier skirmishes between different wings of the pro Israel lobby) as his SOS. It was only after Obama was reelected, some of these figures slowly eased out of his administration, that Obama began to show the kind of resistance to PNAC that he always felt.

While it is not irrelevant who becomes president, as their individual imprint will also leave its marks and there are sufficient tactical divisions within and among the neocons to make some substantive differences on some issues, ultimately the road I described Obama having to traverse awaits anyone who aspires to become president in the US. So I wouldn't put too much faith on any individual (including Tulsi) as there are too many incentives for anyone whose prospects of becoming president become realistic enough, to give into the special interest groups when it comes to certain key appointments and ultimately the main directions of US foreign policy.

 

Not necessarily.. Remember their 3 hour attack on the USS Liberty.

 

I agree... I also agree with your remark here;

The reason the US didn't react has nothing to do with that. And the attack wasn't a 'false flag' by Israel. The purpose of a 'false flag' is to create a pretext to attack, not to create a pretext to look impotent.