[QatzelOk]

...countries that are ruled by warlords...

In this 1961 speech, President Eisenhower warns that the USA risks becoming a warlord-ruled country.



...

A country truly "ruled by warlords" also lets the warlords create the political narratives and structured vocabulary - all aimed at helping the military to attack better and steal more.

[noemon]

Your abstract anti-Americanism has been done to death in this forum, it is boring, witless and off-topic.

It is also useless because it removes responsibility from all the countries in the world that is not the US as 'noble-savages' and does not even bother to go into any depth anywhere.

The US has been the prime superpower for the past 70 years, no shit sherlock.

That does not excuse the condition in Syria, or in Pakistan or in Afghanistan regardless of the US input in these countries.

There is nothing preventing the Afghani factions from coming together and making peace or the Syrian factions.

Nothing at all, those unwilling to do that point to the "Great Satan" to distract from their own shortcomings and you do exactly the same thing.

It's neither intelligent or new and it's virtue signalling status has lost all its steam.

[QatzelOk]

It is also useless because it removes responsibility from all the countries in the world that is not the US as 'noble-savages' and does not even bother to go into any depth anywhere.

So blaming the WestTM for attacking dozens and dozens of countries with natural resources that can't defend themselves.... places too much blame on the WestTM for attacking them, and NOT ENOUGH blame on the rest of the world for not destroying the WestTM?

You may be right. Perhaps the "rest of the world" is currently paying for its negligence.

[noemon]

So blaming the WestTM for attacking dozens and dozens of countries with natural resources that can't defend themselves.... places too much blame on the WestTM for attacking them, and NOT ENOUGH blame on the rest of the world for not destroying the WestTM?

You may be right. Perhaps the "rest of the world" is currently paying for its negligence.

Your abstract nonsense are totally uninteresting and beyond boring. I have trashed the US in here for specific actions several times and I have taken the time to explain what, where, how and what could have been done differently. You 're just trolling like any bog-standard anti-American parrot.

If you want to blame the US for something, blame it for a specific action so that a factual conversation can develop, preferably on topic, as well.

Abstractly blaming the Global Hegemon for being the Global Hegemon is totally worthless.

[Patrickov]

I find the U.S. / NATO destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria to be far more 'totalitarian' than anything Iran has done, but do feel free to let us know what Iran has done that's so bad, according to you.

This just shows how some of those so-called anti-Imperialists are actually disinterested to know what's actually going on in their countries of champions, and / or to engage in discussions in the more specific forums. They probably are only interested in leaping on any soundbites on the "Today's News" board.

Read the Middle East board and see for yourself the recent threads pointing at Iran for all their anti-human-rights acts:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=180075
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=180093

If not for their (arguably) functioning democracy I would not hesitate to say that Trump's action to kill one of their leaders was 100% right.

[QatzelOk]

This just shows how some of those so-called anti-Imperialists are actually disinterested to know what's actually going on in their countries of champions, and / or to engage in discussions in the more specific forums.

Oh, poor Patrickov. Are the Lib-trdsTM ignoring your poison words as you eagerly try to justify killing other people in other nations?

Do they refuse to listen to your list of evil characteristics that you strategically use to describe your future victims?

Do you sometimes wonder why you even bother smearing the people you want to injure?

[Patrickov]

Oh, poor Patrickov. Are the Lib-trdsTM ignoring your poison words as you eagerly try to justify killing other people in other nations?

Do they refuse to listen to your list of evil characteristics that you strategically use to describe your future victims?

Do you sometimes wonder why you even bother smearing the people you want to injure?

What a stupid comment. I did not share those news on those boards to begin with.

The point is the likes of you being hypocritic and indifferent.

At least I am honest to speak about my contempt of everybody whose ideology and beliefs lead to entities that hurt me, my family and my fellow Hongkongers.

I see myself far more justified than you, who seem to advocate China destroying us no less, just because they are anti-West.

[Juin]

There is more to 1066 than just Castles and that bloody Domesday book. That's why BoJo likes waving them. In honor to his French heritage.

Isnt Boris of Turkish heritage? I can swear I read somewhere that Boris is a Turk

[Juin]

If Iran takes Iraq, why would they stop there?

Why stop there indeed? Logical next step is link up with Hezbollah in Lebanon; and, voila, the Shia crescent from Tehran to the Mediterranean coast

[Juin]

I'm at the edges of my knowledge here, but I don't think that Iran has imperialist-type ambitions -- more to the point is that there would be Iran-Iraq *trading links* and general cooperation.

My impression is 'imperialist type ambitions' is in the human DNA, Iranians not excepted. If given the opportunity, and the means are available, rare are the humans that will not seize it and strike out for global dominance. If ancient history serves me right the Persians demonstrated imperialist type ambitions, even if the Greeks blunted it.

[late]

Why stop there indeed? Logical next step is link up with Hezbollah in Lebanon; and, voila, the Shia crescent from Tehran to the Mediterranean coast

I suspect the next logical step would be to attack their only competitor for the leadership of the Muslim world, the Saudi.

[Patrickov]

I suspect the next logical step would be to attack their only competitor for the leadership of the Muslim world, the Saudi.

I thought Turkey would also count, but you are certainly right that the Saudis are much stronger and yet looks worse.

In either case, this would good news to the rest of the world, although certainly not good news for whoever unfortunate enough to be in one of those countries, as we now see in Yemen.

[Juin]

I suspect the next logical step would be to attack their only competitor for the leadership of the Muslim world, the Saudi.

A Shia crescent from Tehran to the coast of Lebanon by Iran is encroachment into the Sunni realm at the expense of its arch rival in Saudi Arabia. Yemen is also in play as Iran's Houthi proxies challenge dominance of the Arabian peninsula. Attacking Saudi Arabia directly is bound to be a more risky business for Iran, a lose lose situation, if that drags in Saudi Arabia's powerful allies to intervene massively. Iran's interest a best served by use of proxies like Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas

[late]

A Shia crescent from Tehran to the coast of Lebanon by Iran is encroachment into the Sunni realm at the expense of its arch rival in Saudi Arabia. Yemen is also in play as Iran's Houthi proxies challenge dominance of the Arabian peninsula. Attacking Saudi Arabia directly is bound to be a more risky business for Iran, a lose lose situation, if that drags in Saudi Arabia's powerful allies to intervene massively. Iran's interest a best served by use of proxies like Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas

For Iran to take over Iraq (more than they already have) implies we left.

So it's a question of how much, in this scenario, have we disengaged from the ME. You're thinking we would come back to defend the Saudi. I'm thinking we're stuck there until some crisis forces us to leave. Meaning we wouldn't come back in force.

If Americans are willing and able to defend the Saudi, then they would likely set their sets on other countries.

[Juin]

For Iran to take over Iraq (more than they already have) implies we left.

So it's a question of how much, in this scenario, have we disengaged from the ME. You're thinking we would come back to defend the Saudi. I'm thinking we're stuck there until some crisis forces us to leave. Meaning we wouldn't come back in force.

If Americans are willing and able to defend the Saudi, then they would likely set their sets on other countries.

Correct. The Iranians will likely set their sights on other countries; picking at the peripheries of Saudi influence; than directly taking on Saudi Arabia; a move likely to involve them in the kind of fight with the US they cannot win.

Even if the US leaves Iraq or not, Iran taking Sunni portions of Iraq will still be a huge project for them. The Sunnis of Iraq will fight them. And Saudis will be more than happy to provide Iraqi Sunni rebels with an abundance of the best glittering, lethal toys money can buy. There are even more Syrian Sunnis to challenge Persian ambitions. A Shia crescent from Tehran is beautiful only on a map, building that expressway from Tehran to the Lebanese coast may be a project beyond Iran's means.

thanks