Yet another war we get involved in

[JFKvsNixon]

Didn't Americas involvement in Vietnam start with "military advisors"?

 

Yes, but also us and the Americans have sent countless numbers of military advisors into outer countries without it turning into another Vietnam style quagmire.

[callippo]

this is Europe and the UK has no choice but to support their ally France in this. Even the Russians don't mind.

[erebus]

So, "time to nail the evil buggers properly"

 

I agree kill off the poor globally, pretend the wars are about terror, lie and lie, and lie, to justify designating our tax take to specific corporate sectors, the military. Defence is a euphemism for war, who the hell will or could invade us, so we need nuke subs? Global strategy against what …Arabs in beaten up trucks with second rate guns we supplied them with?

 

Who supplied the guns in Mali? Well the USA and Europe through Libya. Libya the country we gave democracy to, like Afghanistan, Libya all nations we smashed to pieces, where tribal wars, abound What were we there to save exactly? Remember Benghazi, where the freedom for democracy fight started, which we helped save a population from expermination apparently? Remember that area sent more people to fight us in Afghanistan than antywhere else on earth? Now all Europeans have been asked to leave liberated, democratised Benghazi by their governments as its full of terrorists who want to kill the infidel.

 

Welcome to the US-NATO Conquest of Africa, a continuing story fought under the umbrella of terrorism, so we can justify the expense and milk our own population through cuts, while pretending to save other people, the world, and civilisation itself.

 

 

Why are we in Mali? Algeria? And back in Libya To help save the peasant population, the civilians? To give them democracy, to help their country or help ourselves?

 

The real reason as I have posted before regarding Mali, is mainly the gold, and uranium ore. Algeria is about BP, that means black gold, OIL, and that is why Cameron is there, serving western corporate interests as usual, just as Blair did.

 

Since when do we give a monkey's about civilians? We are part of NATO, and who runs NATO? The USA calls the tune we and the rest just dance to it. UK, Europe, and many other countries are nothing more than client states.

 

 

Through organisations like NATO the USA exerts its power demanding that client states remain subordinate through ventures to control nation states not yet under its influence and control, namely China, Russia, Iran, to mention the first on the list to be eliminated.

 

 

We saved Libya from Gadaffi and created a nightmare, where murder is an everyday experience, by gangs of murderous thugs, which we equipped, with the weaponry, now used in Mali too. In reality it was to tell China to sod off, about controlling China’s free access to long-term oil imports from Africa. In other words, it is about controlling China itself. But let us pretend that the mess in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Mali, and the other 56 countries the USA is helping with security, is about democracy, like in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other such acceptable tyrannical oil fiefdoms.

[epiphany]

You can't expect amoral power centers (e.g. the state) to commit morally conscious acts.

 

We may be given humanitarian reasons to go to war (what else would we expect?), but given how much we trust our government on other matters and given how much we see them as a self interested elite, why would we necessarily expect war to be the one truly noble and selfless act that comes out of government policy?

 

I am willing to accept that some conflicts are in our interest, but only as a convenient bi-product of the self interest of government and their benefactors.

 

That's not cynical, it's just consistent with what we might expect from government!