2 ms·
When someone writes about "a big alliance", which however is not evidenced by any public formal contracts of alliance, that is a fairly good indicator that a th
by ptaipale 9y ago
When someone writes about "a big alliance", which however is not evidenced by any public formal contracts of alliance, that is a fairly good indicator that a theory could be considered conspiratorial.
- jessaustin 9y agoIn this thread, both the conspiracist and the "conventional wisdom" rebuttalist seem to be talking about big alliances? As anyone who has tried to get anything done on multiple continents knows, any complicated goal (e.g., build a multinational pipeline through remote and wildly insecure areas) will tend to lose out to the interests of locals. A necessary but insufficient condition for success of such goals is to spend enough to make locals' interests coincide with one's own. The difficulties faced by this hypothetical pipeline lead one to doubt its construction would profit in the long run. The advantage of the USA military-industrial complex is that they actually DGAF what happens as a result of all of our profligate and evil war spending. The spending itself is the goal, and they're just as happy to siphon off a stream of resources supporting ISIS in Syria as off some other stream supporting Kurds in northern Iraq. That's why our international policy (and the media narrative carefully curated to provide cover for it) is so schizophrenic. We believe in democracy!/Down with Morsi!/We DGAF!/War! That is a big conspiracy, but nobody wants to talk about that.