Attention all moon landing sceptics Page 16

Imagine if the reason was not primarily about oil or money, but about geo-political shift. Iraq and Afghanistan are important strategic footholds in the Middle East. Whether or not there is a withdrawl of US forces in the next few years, strategic presence in the form of permanent military bases will be established indefinitely (see the end-game of WW2 for precidents). One can't be myopic about these things. This backs up an essentially neo-con agenda for expansion of US/European influence in the Middle East and beyond which has been ongoing for years. Ultimately the goals will include control over resources and politics in the region.

The point being that the US had been prior to 9/11 an increasingly isolationist country in terms of foreign policy. It had got out of the habit of acting independently overseas, due to lack of support for foreign intervention at home. Vietnam was the death blow to broad-based support for US "best intentioned" military intervention, plus the scandals which occurred when it got involved through covert missions involving the CIA and contra-funding. Even NATO-led military intervention was losing support at home.

The military was beginning to look like a massively-overfunded white elephant, with no obvious purpose either as a nation-building machine - standing up for democracy and freedom - nor as a defensive neccesity (who was attacking the US?). Budgets were being reviewed, cuts were to be made (even by Rumsfeld, who was shocked by the mad weapons contracts that existed, which swallowed money with little or no result). The arms industry gravy train was drying-up. The US military's influence was diminishing.

In terms of neocon geo-political agenda and both military and arms industry interests, 9/11 certainly came at just the right time. Before then it would have been very hard to gain support from the average US citizen for an interventionalist foreign policy or for more capital spending on defence.

Wallace and Gromit defintely got to the moon. I've seen it.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 3:10 PM BST

Imagine if the reason was not primarily about oil or money, but about geo-political shift. Iraq and Afghanistan are important strategic footholds in the Middle East. Whether or not there is a withdrawl of US forces in the next few years, strategic presence in the form of permanent military bases will be established indefinitely (see the end-game of WW2 for precidents). One can't be myopic about these things. This backs up an essentially neo-con agenda for expansion of US/European influence in the Middle East and beyond which has been ongoing for years. Ultimately the goals will include control over resources and politics in the region.

The point being that the US had been prior to 9/11 an increasingly isolationist country in terms of foreign policy. It had got out of the habit of acting independently overseas, due to lack of support for foreign intervention at home. Vietnam was the death blow to broad-based support for US "best intentioned" military intervention, plus the scandals which occurred when it got involved through covert missions involving the CIA and contra-funding. Even NATO-led military intervention was losing support at home.

The military was beginning to look like a massively-overfunded white elephant, with no obvious purpose, either as a nation-building machine, nor as a defensive neccesity (who was attacking the US?). Budgets were being reviewed, cuts were to be made. The arms industry gravy train was drying-up.

In terms of neo-con geo-political agenda and both military and arms industry interests, 9/11 certainly came at just the right time. Before then it would have been very hard to gain support from the average US citizen for an interventionist foreign policy or for more capital spending on defence.

View original

It's more likely that the West has finally caught on that Islamic world domination may not be a good thing.

The Ruskies invaded Afghanistan in the early 1980s, why? Because of the Islamic threat to their borders. Thank goodness we're nothing like those dirty Reds.

With the Soviets no longer in power, their empire bankrupted and sphere of influence reduced, all the nutty Moolahs can come out to play and blow stuff up. Weeee!

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 3:10 PM BST

Imagine if the reason was not primarily about oil or money, but about geo-political shift. Iraq and Afghanistan are important strategic footholds in the Middle East. Whether or not there is a withdrawl of US forces in the next few years, strategic presence in the form of permanent military bases will be established indefinitely (see the end-game of WW2 for precidents). One can't be myopic about these things. This backs up an essentially neo-con agenda for expansion of US/European influence in the Middle East and beyond which has been ongoing for years. Ultimately the goals will include control over resources and politics in the region.

The point being that the US had been prior to 9/11 an increasingly isolationist country in terms of foreign policy. It had got out of the habit of acting independently overseas, due to lack of support for foreign intervention at home. Vietnam was the death blow to broad-based support for US "best intentioned" military intervention, plus the scandals which occurred when it got involved through covert missions involving the CIA and contra-funding. Even NATO-led military intervention was losing support at home.

The military was beginning to look like a massively-overfunded white elephant, with no obvious purpose either as a nation-building machine - standing up for democracy and freedom - nor as a defensive neccesity (who was attacking the US?). Budgets were being reviewed, cuts were to be made (even by Rumsfeld, who was shocked by the mad weapons contracts that existed, which swallowed money with little or no result). The arms industry gravy train was drying-up. The US military's influence was diminishing.

In terms of neocon geo-political agenda and both military and arms industry interests, 9/11 certainly came at just the right time. Before then it would have been very hard to gain support from the average US citizen for an interventionalist foreign policy or for more capital spending on defence.

View original

America has bases in Saudi etc since Gulfwar 1. American bases are unpopular in Iraq and unlikely to be held onto.

The US arms gravy train is still drying up Humvees, drones and choppers are all cheap. Sea wolf subs and nuclear carriers aren't. They've all be slashed as not apropriate to the war on terror.

And prior to 9/11 you had Gulfwar1, Somalia, Kosovo America has rarely needed much of an excuse to get all invadey. If America wanted an excuse to boost defensive funding why not stir the pot in Taiwan or Korea which would have demanded proper big ticket military spending.

And building bases in Iraq at the expense of possibly losing bases in Saudi is just bizarre.

Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 3:24 PM BST

And building bases in Iraq at the expense of possibly losing bases in Saudi is just bizarre.

View original

Saudi and the US have excellent political and ideological ties (I'm talking about those in power in Saudi, not any religious or democratic issues), US bases are not going to be lost there. The Middle East is very different to other regions you have mentioned, because whatever the regimes and cultural differences of those regions, they offer liberal economies. Even China is a liberal economy in its dealings on the international stage. The problem with the Middle East is its ideological and religious influences spread far beyond its borders, whilst at the same time it is a big collection of failed states and failed economies. The US backs Israel so heavily not so much due to some moral certitude, but because it is a tactical stronghold in the region. It is also a strong symbolic state in terms of Western Civilisation's strength.

And when you say military spending is still decreasing, where is the evidence for this? The cost of fighting a war on two fronts, where is that money going? What about the cost of Homeland Security measures? What about the increases in resources afforded the FBI and CIA? All this money trickles down eventually to companies and individuals. It is a great way to make money because government money is officially clean, the contracts water-tight and the system is so huge indiscretions take years to come to the attention of Congress or investigative journalists (if at all).

1 There was a massive anti American backlask in Saudi following Gulfwar2. It was by no means certain the government was going to back the US bases. Further no Iraq? No need for US bases, if the Iranian government falls absolutely no need.

2 Yes private companies made huge sums in Iraq2. But they made huge sums in every US conflict including Kosovo. It seems bizarre that Halyburton suddenly panicked and bankrolled terrorism out of a fear peace would break out.

And if the excuse for the war was to jsutify infrastructure funds for private comapnies and defence money for the military. Then Sadam in power was great. Allow him a ship full of newer anti aircraft missiles to slip through and you got your justification for Raptors and Sea Wolves right there.

Oh and Bush slashed funding for homeland security prior to the Gulfwar.

And you still haven't even slightly touched on how post invasion investigations in Iraq and Afghanistan were so screwed up.

Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 3:48 PM BST

And you still haven't even slightly touched on how post invasion investigations in Iraq and Afghanistan were so screwed up.

View original

The post-invasion situatios in Iraq and Afghanistan are only screwed-up depending on your view of what the objectives were. With respect to the Allied troops and civilian casualties, the two campaigns are (from a humanitarian point of view) successes compared with Vietnam, Cambodia and Korea in the 1960s and 1970s. Some could say that they have achieved their objectives - getting rid of unhelpful governments in both, establishing military supremacy and holding land. Insurgents and jihadists have to go to fight and die in Allied-controlled territory, rather than the Allies having to justify sorties into other countries.

Of course the situation looked-at with moralistic and ethical eyes is pretty much a disaster. As an step towards re-shaping a region with a long-term strategic purpose, it's a pretty good result. It puts pressure on all other areas of the region, which might have helped provoke the popular uprising in Iran. It also puts pressue on Pakistan and (indirectly) India to put their own houses in order.

And where was the UN Secretary General in all this? Yep, Ban Ki- MOON - and yes, I brought it back on topic. Do I win a free Curly Wurly?

There's a school of thought which suggests that if the vast majority of people truly believed that the moon landing didn't happen, then to all intents and purposes they didn't happen. However, this school is most likely due an urgent Ofsted report.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 4:03 PM BST

The post-invasion situatios in Iraq and Afghanistan are only screwed-up depending on your view of what the objectives were. With respect to the Allied troops and civilian casualties, the two campaigns are (from a humanitarian point of view) successes compared with Vietnam, Cambodia and Korea in the 1960s and 1970s. Some could say that they have achieved their objectives - getting rid of unhelpful governments in both, establishing military supremacy and holding land. Insurgents and jihadists have to go to fight and die in Allied-controlled territory, rather than the Allies having to justify sorties into other countries.

Of course the situation looked-at with moralistic and ethical eyes is pretty much a disaster. As an step towards re-shaping a region with a long-term strategic purpose, it's a pretty good result. It puts pressure on all other areas of the region, which might have helped provoke the popular uprising in Iran. It also puts pressue on Pakistan and (indirectly) India to put their own houses in order.

View original

Investigations! Not Invasion! a truck full of half burned files and hard discs pointing to Al Quaeda, Russia and France. And the US would have been the saviour of the middle east for a century.

Instead when they found pretty much nothing and had to admit the intelligence was based on venal Baathist defectors they ended up looking stupid. And just, just scraped a second presidential win.

Adress the point that if there was a 9/11 conspiracy then the US intelligence community went from the most briliant work of deception, to not even being able to plant a little evidence.

Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 4:19 PM BST

Adress the point that if there was a 9/11 conspiracy then the US intelligence community went from the most briliant work of deception, to not even being able to plant a little evidence.

View original

This presupposes that any cabal who might facilitate 9/11 would have an interest in justifying the resultant invasion and conflict. A group of individuals (from whatever disperate sources they might come from) who would be willling to do this on a US Adminisration's "watch", would little care who looks foolish in the endgame. It's more a case of pushing a button and then seeing what happens. You have worked out the probabilities of the effects of the cause you have created, then deemd the long-term results to be favourable to your desires, justifying your actions.

I'm glad this discussion's still going on.

A secret cabal controlling the government to make lots of money, but doesn't care about the government?

Seems rather like using an atomic bomb to rob a sweetshop.

Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 4:34 PM BST

A secret cabal controlling the government to make lots of money, but doesn't care about the government?

View original

Makes perfect sense to me. In a liberal democracy, governments can get voted out, presidents change. It's not an efficient and certain system for long-term strategic planning. A liberal democracy does have the advantage of encouraging the belief in the power of the individual and discouraging serious dissent, however, which makes it a useful second tier of organisation.

(Oh, and "secret" is your word, not mine. Shadowy people of influence are a silly myth. Serious people of power acting using their influence is another thing altogether. I'm not wishing to start on about Illuminati or the Bilderbeck group or any such distractions.)

A vast cabal of people running the world? Taking advantage of our weak liberal democracies to drag us into pointless wars? Venal billionaires desperate for another billion.

Hmm now who does that remind me of?