3 ms·

Vietnam & Korea: I think you have to ask, all that money was spent... where did it go? In great part, the increased military spending went to contractors who do

Vietnam & Korea: I think you have to ask, all that money was spent... where did it go? In great part, the increased military spending went to contractors who don't care how many helicopters get shot down because they get to make more. The ideological part is about expanding global markets so US interests can extract natural resources and sell it back to them at increased prices. That's called imperialism, but it's also a kind of war profiteering (if you win). Afghanistan: They wanted to place US military bases within striking distance of Iran, China, and Russia -- the few countries in the world that aren't fully integrated into the US lead world order. Afghanistan is also sitting on trillions in mineral deposits that were mapped out by Soviet planners. Iraq has some other stuff going on too, but just look at what country sits between Afghanistan and Iraq. Not too hard to figure that one out.

fnord77 5y ago
if you look at a map with all the military bases in the region, the US has (well had) Iran surrounded. Iraq and Afghanistan were the final two pieces. I don't understand why we're so antagonistic towards Iran? Some corps still mad that their assets there got seized during the Iran revolution? edit map: https://i.imgur.com/qw6dOWE.png https://i.imgur.com/qw6dOWE.png
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Well, US is aligned with Israel. And Israel and Iran are mortal enemies by tradition now. The iranian leadership has the US and Israel as the enemy as their core agenda that is thought in schools. Israelian hardliners brag how about they will wipe out iran (and do carry out attacks) It is hard to break out of that cycle. Plus, it is much more complicated, because the other Ally, Saudi Arabia is mutual enemy of iran, too. Not just geopolitics, also religious reasons. And .. a whole lot more. I think it is sad, because the iranian people I met, were very nice persons.
  - cturner 5y ago
    If the Iranian leadership did not have Israel, they would find something else to fill the same role - Turkey, India, Saudi. Picking fights with neighbours is an effective way to keep the focus of your citizens away from internal corruption and injustice. Foreign guerrillas are a cheap form of power projection, and their antics entertain your supporters. In recent times, Hussein, Gadaffi and Putin have all run the same strategy, as have countless African strongmen who we never hear about on the news because they don’t have oil. Live-and-let-live is not a universal ethos. Just as the Nazis and Stalin were pure power play regimes, so are many current regimes. The ayatollahs do not lead a democracy, and do not deserve your sympathetic words.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "The ayatollahs do not lead a democracy, and do not deserve your sympathetic words. " I do not have any sympathy for the ayatollahs. I have sympathy for iranian people. That is not the same. But the way I see it, the more outside pressure goes on iran as its whole(and not their government), the more they close ranks, naturally.
webmaven 5y ago
> The ideological part is about expanding global markets so US interests can extract natural resources and sell it back to them at increased prices. That's called imperialism, but it's also a kind of war profiteering (if you win). WRT the Korean and Vietnam wars: the market aspect, while present in spirit, was at a few removes, as those particular countries didn't have, at the time, markets significant enough to warrant the intervention. The dot connecting those wars to the market motive was the Domino Theory[0], so in a way those wars were about preserving the option to expand the global market in the future rather than allow the Soviet bloc to expand and dictate those boundaries. IOW, the rationale was effectively "stop them over there now so we don't have to stop them here later". In hindsight, allowing the Soviet bloc to bite off (even) more than they could digest might have resulted in an earlier collapse than 1991. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

fnord77 5y ago

if you look at a map with all the military bases in the region, the US has (well had) Iran surrounded. Iraq and Afghanistan were the final two pieces. I don't understand why we're so antagonistic towards Iran? Some corps still mad that their assets there got seized during the Iran revolution? edit map: https://i.imgur.com/qw6dOWE.png https://i.imgur.com/qw6dOWE.png

hutzlibu 5y ago
Well, US is aligned with Israel. And Israel and Iran are mortal enemies by tradition now. The iranian leadership has the US and Israel as the enemy as their core agenda that is thought in schools. Israelian hardliners brag how about they will wipe out iran (and do carry out attacks) It is hard to break out of that cycle. Plus, it is much more complicated, because the other Ally, Saudi Arabia is mutual enemy of iran, too. Not just geopolitics, also religious reasons. And .. a whole lot more. I think it is sad, because the iranian people I met, were very nice persons.
- cturner 5y ago
  If the Iranian leadership did not have Israel, they would find something else to fill the same role - Turkey, India, Saudi. Picking fights with neighbours is an effective way to keep the focus of your citizens away from internal corruption and injustice. Foreign guerrillas are a cheap form of power projection, and their antics entertain your supporters. In recent times, Hussein, Gadaffi and Putin have all run the same strategy, as have countless African strongmen who we never hear about on the news because they don’t have oil. Live-and-let-live is not a universal ethos. Just as the Nazis and Stalin were pure power play regimes, so are many current regimes. The ayatollahs do not lead a democracy, and do not deserve your sympathetic words.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "The ayatollahs do not lead a democracy, and do not deserve your sympathetic words. " I do not have any sympathy for the ayatollahs. I have sympathy for iranian people. That is not the same. But the way I see it, the more outside pressure goes on iran as its whole(and not their government), the more they close ranks, naturally.

webmaven 5y ago

> The ideological part is about expanding global markets so US interests can extract natural resources and sell it back to them at increased prices. That's called imperialism, but it's also a kind of war profiteering (if you win). WRT the Korean and Vietnam wars: the market aspect, while present in spirit, was at a few removes, as those particular countries didn't have, at the time, markets significant enough to warrant the intervention. The dot connecting those wars to the market motive was the Domino Theory[0], so in a way those wars were about preserving the option to expand the global market in the future rather than allow the Soviet bloc to expand and dictate those boundaries. IOW, the rationale was effectively "stop them over there now so we don't have to stop them here later". In hindsight, allowing the Soviet bloc to bite off (even) more than they could digest might have resulted in an earlier collapse than 1991. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory