8 ms·

In some versions, the leadership of the country you're flying in uses the crash to justify two long-term wars, one of which lasts a minimum of 19 years, costing

In some versions, the leadership of the country you're flying in uses the crash to justify two long-term wars, one of which lasts a minimum of 19 years, costing trillions of dollars and countless lives and ultimately failing to achieve anything other than even more instability in the middle east.

buildawesome 6y ago
Glad I don't live in this simulation.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  If you can read my comment... I have news for you.
paulcole 6y ago
> ultimately failing to achieve anything other than even more instability in the middle east Hate to break it to you but this was the exact desired outcome.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  Much easier and cheaper ways to achieve that. Are you aware how much technology the state has at its disposal?
  - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
    Not cheaper for powerful profiteering and racketeering enterprises. Arms, oil, etc. State capture by corporate interests is inevitable.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Spending money is the point. Don't imagine that the reptiles care about the region one way or the other. All the bullshit about peace and modernity and hating Islam is pure marketing. That's why their arguments for war in one nation can completely contradict their arguments for war in a different nation. (In Syria they pretended to care about "good governance". In Libya, not so much...) Like every other region of the globe, the Middle East is just an opportunity to reach further into the pockets of American taxpayers.
- the-dude 6y ago
  What is the motivation?
  - mushbino 6y ago
    Unimaginable amounts of money going to military contractors. Countries taking out World Bank loans. Oil companies, obviously. Privatizing public services to the benefit of American companies.
  - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
    Natural resources, endless war is good for defense contractors, and it's a way to have proxy wars with other large states (Russia / China). These incentives hold almost everywhere and not just the Middle East. That's why destabilization in Central/South America and Africa is also compelling and has been ongoing for ages. But, the Middle East has particularly compelling geographic, social, and technological circumstances for a candidate location for endless war. Specifically: 1. It's far from the US and closer to competition ("best defense is a strong offense") 2. Until recently the ethnic and religious make up of Middle Eastern peoples was hyper localized, making them outgroups who were easy to demonize 3. Also until recently it was not likely for media to make its way out of the Middle East where people could see just how terrible war is and how similar the people there are to people everywhere else
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> ultimately failing to achieve anything other than even more instability in the middle east > Hate to break it to you but this was the exact desired outcome. That's not actually true. It doesn't seem like it was deeply cynical and nefarious like that; it was more of an overly-simplistic moral crusade: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/books/review/to-start-a-war-robert-draper.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/books/review/to-start-a-w...: > In “Plan of Attack,” Bob Woodward described Bush as being beset by doubt about the case for war, and suggested that Tenet’s affirmation had been “very important.” Draper disagrees. The issue wasn’t the evidence. It was the spin: “Tenet’s words were ‘important’ only because they helped remove any doubt as to whether the C.I.A. could mount a solid case.” Bush’s thinking was as clear as it was simplistic. Saddam was a monster. It would be a bad idea to leave him in power. According to Draper, Bush’s “increasingly bellicose rhetoric reflected a wartime president who was no longer tethered to anything other than his own convictions.” > In his 2005 Inaugural Address, Bush tried to turn neoconservative ideology into official doctrine: “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” It wasn’t until the shellacking that the Republicans endured in the 2006 midterm elections that Bush began to abandon his fantasies about spreading peace, love and understanding across the Middle East. He fired Rumsfeld and shunted Cheney to the side.
  - paulcole 6y ago
    Oh sorry, I didn't realize Bush was under oath in his inaugural address.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Bush the Lesser made no decisions. He did what his handlers told him to do. Of course the same people who did in Mosaddegh and have done dozens of other coups (and much worse besides) wanted a less stable region. Less stable regions lead to increased spending on armaments and "black" budgets. As we're reminded by the recently-completed "Blowback" podcast [0], blowback is a feature not a bug. The machine works the same way every time, not due to a mistake or the bad luck of having bad people in control but because it is a machine that works the same way every time. [0] https://blowback.show/ https://blowback.show/
nostrademons 6y ago
Also more instability within the country.
fedreserved 6y ago
In other words, by creating more long lasting instability in the Middle Easy they achieved their goal, hypothetically speaking in the simulation of course.

buildawesome 6y ago

Glad I don't live in this simulation.

ignoramous 6y ago
If you can read my comment... I have news for you.

paulcole 6y ago

> ultimately failing to achieve anything other than even more instability in the middle east Hate to break it to you but this was the exact desired outcome.

Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
Much easier and cheaper ways to achieve that. Are you aware how much technology the state has at its disposal?
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  Not cheaper for powerful profiteering and racketeering enterprises. Arms, oil, etc. State capture by corporate interests is inevitable.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Spending money is the point. Don't imagine that the reptiles care about the region one way or the other. All the bullshit about peace and modernity and hating Islam is pure marketing. That's why their arguments for war in one nation can completely contradict their arguments for war in a different nation. (In Syria they pretended to care about "good governance". In Libya, not so much...) Like every other region of the globe, the Middle East is just an opportunity to reach further into the pockets of American taxpayers.
the-dude 6y ago
What is the motivation?
- mushbino 6y ago
  Unimaginable amounts of money going to military contractors. Countries taking out World Bank loans. Oil companies, obviously. Privatizing public services to the benefit of American companies.
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  Natural resources, endless war is good for defense contractors, and it's a way to have proxy wars with other large states (Russia / China). These incentives hold almost everywhere and not just the Middle East. That's why destabilization in Central/South America and Africa is also compelling and has been ongoing for ages. But, the Middle East has particularly compelling geographic, social, and technological circumstances for a candidate location for endless war. Specifically: 1. It's far from the US and closer to competition ("best defense is a strong offense") 2. Until recently the ethnic and religious make up of Middle Eastern peoples was hyper localized, making them outgroups who were easy to demonize 3. Also until recently it was not likely for media to make its way out of the Middle East where people could see just how terrible war is and how similar the people there are to people everywhere else
ardy42 6y ago
>> ultimately failing to achieve anything other than even more instability in the middle east > Hate to break it to you but this was the exact desired outcome. That's not actually true. It doesn't seem like it was deeply cynical and nefarious like that; it was more of an overly-simplistic moral crusade: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/books/review/to-start-a-war-robert-draper.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/books/review/to-start-a-w...: > In “Plan of Attack,” Bob Woodward described Bush as being beset by doubt about the case for war, and suggested that Tenet’s affirmation had been “very important.” Draper disagrees. The issue wasn’t the evidence. It was the spin: “Tenet’s words were ‘important’ only because they helped remove any doubt as to whether the C.I.A. could mount a solid case.” Bush’s thinking was as clear as it was simplistic. Saddam was a monster. It would be a bad idea to leave him in power. According to Draper, Bush’s “increasingly bellicose rhetoric reflected a wartime president who was no longer tethered to anything other than his own convictions.” > In his 2005 Inaugural Address, Bush tried to turn neoconservative ideology into official doctrine: “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” It wasn’t until the shellacking that the Republicans endured in the 2006 midterm elections that Bush began to abandon his fantasies about spreading peace, love and understanding across the Middle East. He fired Rumsfeld and shunted Cheney to the side.
- paulcole 6y ago
  Oh sorry, I didn't realize Bush was under oath in his inaugural address.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Bush the Lesser made no decisions. He did what his handlers told him to do. Of course the same people who did in Mosaddegh and have done dozens of other coups (and much worse besides) wanted a less stable region. Less stable regions lead to increased spending on armaments and "black" budgets. As we're reminded by the recently-completed "Blowback" podcast [0], blowback is a feature not a bug. The machine works the same way every time, not due to a mistake or the bad luck of having bad people in control but because it is a machine that works the same way every time. [0] https://blowback.show/ https://blowback.show/

nostrademons 6y ago

Also more instability within the country.

fedreserved 6y ago

In other words, by creating more long lasting instability in the Middle Easy they achieved their goal, hypothetically speaking in the simulation of course.