No, your words ring a tune.....

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by Alexander from ( on Sunday, September 07, 2003 at 1:18AM :

In Reply to: furthermore posted by Sadie from D006104.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu ( on Sunday, September 07, 2003 at 1:06AM :

...that not only makes sense, but that not many people know...what you say is true...and I will elaborate on a few things, all though I *do* agree with you entirely(and I normally don't find people I agree with entirely on every point, it is rare)...
See below.....My comments are preceded by crosses: +++

<I mean, all this psychological stuff the U.S. government uses on Iraq - it's like an animal puffing itself up to look bigger & more threatening than it really is. Yes the U.S. government has the weapons to conquer, physically, but it does not have the power to make people conform to its desires. Instead, it just tries to manipulate people that look, in the short term, to be the ones most advantageous for the U.S. gov't to back.

< & just look at the brute-force strategies the U.S. uses to "contain" its own creations when they don't follow orders. E.g. sanctions against Iraq - here's someone who stood up to the agency that sponsored him, & that agency couldn't, with all its supposed technology & influence, get that guy to change. So the U.S. gov't decides to use sanctions as a weapon to curb this guy, after they couldn't kill him off in a war the U.S. gov't desperately wanted him to fall for (& fall for it, Saddam did).

+++Saddam simply made the move, not because the US didnt say to do so, but merely because he did not receive objections from the US. The US didn't "lead" him, they just simply let him do it, as if they didn't care, and then they did what everyone is aware of. But yes, I see what you mean.

<Anyway, a powerful country with a powerful spy agency should have, theoretically, been able to do something about it without having to waste so many years. & you might argue that it was in the U.S. government's plans to starve Iraqis into submission for their next sponsored dictator, or council of oligarchs. BUT, I don't think that's what they wanted at the time, until they saw the consequences.... See, it's like a game of chess - the U.S. government makes a move, waits to see what the "opponent" will do, makes another move to see how that affects things, & so on. Th CIA is just a chess piece on the side of the U.S. gov't AS is the FBI, which has been making overtures to the Turkish government for a while now. Now, I ask you, why would a bureau devoted to "domestic" intelligence be sent overseas to serenade the Turkish government? & why does the U.S. government also try to steal & bargain for intelligence from the Mossad? Because it's got crappy spy agencies....

+++Yes, they are crappy, and that's not just in a derogatory sense, they really are terrible; terribly oranised and terribly maintained...A lot of that funding gets lost in the process of incompetencies or paperwork...I wonder how much is really lost.

< That the Pentagon relies more on brute-force tactics should be indication enough that they can't fine tune their strategies to match their supposed "technological advances" in the realm of weapons. Of course, one could say that the brute-force tactic is just another strategy.... But this brute-force strategy really has struck the wrong cord with the European allies (backed by business buddies) that the U.S. gov't has traditionally relied upon to assist it in its various endeavours in the third world. (Essentially, all of the governments in the wealthy nations are business buddies).

: Anyway, it's late, & my thoughts are muddled, at best. Hope this makes sense.... & that it's not just me reiterating something everyone already knows....

+++Have a good night:)

-- Alexander
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-Mail: ( default )
Optional Link ( default )
Optional Image Link ( default )

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from