as to Yemen:
the ? you pose is tendentious at best
In the first place change of leaders is not necessarily reform; that would remain to be seen.
More importantly, US imperialism is not carried out by sticking to only one leader no matter what he does or says. (remember Diem). It is simply about assuring that whomever is in power will do what or make available whatever resources the US needs.
The only useful question is what happens when a new regime comes in and what pressure we have and use to bend it to our will.
In unlikely possibility that then new regime (so i hope) is not bent to our will, only then might we conclude that the US supported reform and rejected imperialism.
And then of course if we are so concerned with the humanitarian situation why not the half-dozen other of anti-humanitarian travesties going on around the ME arena.
As always the glaring inconsistencies conclusively demonstrate that our real goals lie elsewhere. Even your insistent claims on behalf of the Libyan rebels seems singular.
Article 5 is Article 5;
Its objective conditions do not exist and therefore its application should be avoided.
Clearly the US is returning the favor it arm twisted out the EU NATO partners vis a vis Afghanistan; continuing the cycle of misplaced loyalties is simply a never ending foolish cycle of self referencing justification for highly questionable policies leading to ever expanding and unresolved quagmire's.
Corn Ethanol should NOT be in the renewables
It is a net consumer of fossil fuel.
you need to resist posting articles that have no links to primary sources where one can actually see the data, not some reporters gloss of it
the units on your numbers are out of synch
tota Iranian supply 1 trillion vs 450 trillion unproen reserves ??
as to Yemen:
the ? you pose is tendentious at best
In the first place change of leaders is not necessarily reform; that would remain to be seen.
More importantly, US imperialism is not carried out by sticking to only one leader no matter what he does or says. (remember Diem). It is simply about assuring that whomever is in power will do what or make available whatever resources the US needs.
The only useful question is what happens when a new regime comes in and what pressure we have and use to bend it to our will.
In unlikely possibility that then new regime (so i hope) is not bent to our will, only then might we conclude that the US supported reform and rejected imperialism.
And then of course if we are so concerned with the humanitarian situation why not the half-dozen other of anti-humanitarian travesties going on around the ME arena.
As always the glaring inconsistencies conclusively demonstrate that our real goals lie elsewhere. Even your insistent claims on behalf of the Libyan rebels seems singular.
Article 5 is Article 5;
Its objective conditions do not exist and therefore its application should be avoided.
Clearly the US is returning the favor it arm twisted out the EU NATO partners vis a vis Afghanistan; continuing the cycle of misplaced loyalties is simply a never ending foolish cycle of self referencing justification for highly questionable policies leading to ever expanding and unresolved quagmire's.