Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Invade Iran

Alan · 06-25-2003, 10:55 PM

There is not a unified neo-capitalistic governing system (like the one governing most of market-friendly places), economic and military or otherwise in the middle east and asia. Getting Iraq was a simple step in the enculturation process. In order for the efficient flow of resource out of the middle east, and western asia (including many chaotic former Russian states), there must be access to a whole capitalistic infroastructure that goes beyond national boundaries. One major reason for taking over Iraq is for beginning access to this. Iran is a much more powerful country than Iraq.
It is ironic that the US places and supported Saddam for so many years (until he "got out of hand"). He was backed by the US in the war against Iran, which consequentally fucked the growth and promise that Iran was showing in the seventies.
It's unfortunate that the powerful of the world must become greedy, and seek more power. This is why a change of governance is mandatory in the United States' governmental plan. With the neocapitallistic revolution that has built in the last 50 years, the power structure of days gone by is now superceded by a governance of unknown corporate, banking, and multinational entities - entities that are above the rule of national and international law. Because this is a new system, checks and balances are not yet in place, and the majority of people are not even aware of it's existence, even though they operate within it every day.
Placing mock dictatorships is what the US does to overthrow various countries, at least it has been their business in the past. I don't see why they won't continue doing it.

As to the question of whether the US would rather have dictators or US/Canada-like governences, I would agree with the posters who argue that the ruling bodies do not want other challenging rulers of equal merit; that monopoly is best for those with the monopoly . . . dictators are much easier to control than whole countries or, as the US is finding out in Iraq right now, in comparison to Saddam's earlier years.

06-25-2003, 10:55 PM	#36 (permalink)
Alan Upright	There is not a unified neo-capitalistic governing system (like the one governing most of market-friendly places), economic and military or otherwise in the middle east and asia. Getting Iraq was a simple step in the enculturation process. In order for the efficient flow of resource out of the middle east, and western asia (including many chaotic former Russian states), there must be access to a whole capitalistic infroastructure that goes beyond national boundaries. One major reason for taking over Iraq is for beginning access to this. Iran is a much more powerful country than Iraq. It is ironic that the US places and supported Saddam for so many years (until he "got out of hand"). He was backed by the US in the war against Iran, which consequentally fucked the growth and promise that Iran was showing in the seventies. It's unfortunate that the powerful of the world must become greedy, and seek more power. This is why a change of governance is mandatory in the United States' governmental plan. With the neocapitallistic revolution that has built in the last 50 years, the power structure of days gone by is now superceded by a governance of unknown corporate, banking, and multinational entities - entities that are above the rule of national and international law. Because this is a new system, checks and balances are not yet in place, and the majority of people are not even aware of it's existence, even though they operate within it every day. Placing mock dictatorships is what the US does to overthrow various countries, at least it has been their business in the past. I don't see why they won't continue doing it. As to the question of whether the US would rather have dictators or US/Canada-like governences, I would agree with the posters who argue that the ruling bodies do not want other challenging rulers of equal merit; that monopoly is best for those with the monopoly . . . dictators are much easier to control than whole countries or, as the US is finding out in Iraq right now, in comparison to Saddam's earlier years.