Kow wrote:It is, I suppose, easy to be sceptical about the reasons for interventions, given the enormous humanitarian disaster caused by the Iraq invasion, which was ostensibly also carried out for humanitarian reasons, at least according to Blair.
Brooks wrote:Every day I gain a little more incentive to collapse into a pile and expire.
Certainly. There's a large anti-regime movement within Iran itself, and their aims are independent of US designs. Indeed, while it's very unlikely there would be any actual invasion of Iran, bombing its nuclear sites may galvanise support for the regime against foreign aggressors, which would make it more difficult for internal resistance movements.Mod74 wrote:It's not quite the same. Iran's version of stabilise using the examples JB used (ie regionally) is obviously in contradiction to what the US probably wants. You can call it propaganda if you like but I don't think sympathising with the oppression the Iranian people live under automatically makes me a western imperialist. Wanting to see Iran "destabilised" doesn't mean I want it for the same reasons the US might.
Brooks wrote:b). the abandonment of that consumption by punters as they get more familiar with the ethics of supply as currently masterminded by ruthless South American cartels etc.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!