"...It's very confusing. I went back through the interview Luke did w/Alexandrova. Yes, Iran was the winner but IMO it doesn't seem like chess was being played between the neocons and whoever wanted Iran to emerge as the winner. I base that on the fact that the Bush administration damn well knew an occupation of Iraq wasn't going to be a cakewalk. They sold that garbage to the public. I don't know who the factions are but IMO the Bush administration acts like a 5th column. Meaning, the occupation of Iraq has been so FUBAR that it may lead to the downfall of the US. Was the goal for Iran to win or for the US public to lose their standard of living?"it is all very confusing - I havent got any of it worked out either. I don't know who wanted what, who got what they wanted, and who got double-crossed. I think that Larisa's theory is that the Bushists really did think that Iraq would be a cakewalk - or perhaps not a cakewalk, but that they'd quickly move onto Iran after having hopscotched through afghanistan and iraq.
it's difficult to imagine who would benefit from "US public (losing) their standard of living" - i dont really believe in the class struggle thing. i'm happy to accept straight-out kleptocracy - but i'm willing to bet that rich people would just as happily steal from other rich people/corps/govts, as from lots of poor people.
update: oops. i meant to add that Noise found this quote in the larisa interview
But I cannot emphasize enough that Hastert is not alone in this or even his “faction” as it were, rather, this is rampant abuse should these allegations be true. Link
No comments:
Post a Comment