Why don't Americans - I am one - learn US history properly? Imagine how much easier this process would be if Americans knew the truth about American actions in Iran...
One day they will know, and things will be a lot different I hope.
You've eloquently made the point I try and make whenever anyone says there's no difference between the two US parties.
Would Gore have invaded Iraq after 9/11, without the neo-cons and Cheney? It's hard to imagine that to be the case.
At the end of the day, you can basically hang the whole thing around the necks of a few people in the Supreme Court... a lesson for the people that think a few voice make no difference.
I do appreciate that air strikes can buy time, but assuming Daesh doesn't destroy itself, and assuming that the U.S. won't bomb them indefinitely, what's a reasonable strategy?
As you have pointed out so many times, Iraq isn't about to be stable or unified any time soon. Neither is Syria or Libya.
What sort of actual strategy can be used to stop Daesh long term?
Curious where the 100m number came from as numerous media outlets have reported deals in the billions.
Eg U.S. finalizes $30 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia
link to haaretz.com
thanks for doing this Juan. I had asked you to do it a few times and so - whether or not it was partially because of that - thank you.
There's tonnes more as well.
The U.S. - the CIA - created the Iranian secret police.
The U.S. twice overthrew an Iranian leader.
The UK stole money from them for years and when the Iranians copped on and demanded an audit, the UK refused and instead plotted a coup with the U.S.
And on and on and on.
If only Americans knew :(
Why don't Americans - I am one - learn US history properly? Imagine how much easier this process would be if Americans knew the truth about American actions in Iran...
One day they will know, and things will be a lot different I hope.
You've eloquently made the point I try and make whenever anyone says there's no difference between the two US parties.
Would Gore have invaded Iraq after 9/11, without the neo-cons and Cheney? It's hard to imagine that to be the case.
At the end of the day, you can basically hang the whole thing around the necks of a few people in the Supreme Court... a lesson for the people that think a few voice make no difference.
I do appreciate that air strikes can buy time, but assuming Daesh doesn't destroy itself, and assuming that the U.S. won't bomb them indefinitely, what's a reasonable strategy?
As you have pointed out so many times, Iraq isn't about to be stable or unified any time soon. Neither is Syria or Libya.
What sort of actual strategy can be used to stop Daesh long term?
Long time reader and fan, and I've even had a few brief conversations with you via email.
I'm curious about one point:
- if 150k ground troops coUldn't stop a civil war, but airstrikes can meaningfully stop ISIL...well there seems to be a bit of a disconnect there.
What is the long term strategy for the airstrikes and can it suceed considering the dire straights Iraq is in..?
I'm not wanting ISIS to suceed - obviously - but defensive bombing seems to be very.. It doesn't seem like a strategy.
Thanks for your thoughts!