[UK] Jeremy Corbyn: 9/11 was 'manipulated' - Polidicks

can i just point out nukes haven't really deterred wars between countries that have nuclear weapons *cough* argentina *cough*

[QUOTE=OvB;48775264]We didn't invade Afghanistan for WMDs. You're mistaking Afghanistan for Iraq. We certainly did use the fear of 9/11 to invade Iraq. But he's talking about Afghanistan and Osama. [editline]27th September 2015[/editline] Aka he's fucking wrong and thinks the NWO is real. At a glance from an American, he's a nut.[/QUOTE] He's not saying NWO like the conspiracy way, he's using it in the political way. Bush, Reagan, etc have used the term NWO to refer to a change in governance, usually by refocusing dingpot dictatorships to liberal market democracies, or focusing on globalized markets and democracy in general. example: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MADYzQstpsU[/media] Keep in mind that these statements were made around the same time that Corbyn's quote is made (1989-1991, Corbyn in 1991). At the time, the term New World Order was not akin to conspiracy theories. It wasn't until a few years later that the term became mostly known as a conspiracy or illuminati mumbo jumbo. Up until that point, it was simply used as a stand in for globalization and peace between cooperative markets and nations. Corbyn's comments make sense in an anti-imperialist, anti-globalization rhetoric. Not a pro-conspiracy, pro-Illuminati belief statement. He's saying the same thing that socialist have been saying for 150 years: wars by advanced nations are for the sake of financial gain and empowerment, and rule by the rich will be imposed upon those nations that fall to economic imperialism.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48775286]Well, no. There wasn't really any involvement of big money, because even if we worked off the logic that it was done for the self-interest of powerful moneyed interests, then they did an exceptionally bad job at advancing and preserving their interests. No matter how narrowly or widely you define a group and their interests, the wars in the region over the past twenty years haven't made any sense for either the big corporations or the national interest.[/QUOTE] how to make a shitton of money off of human suffering: 1. Be construction company 2. Send your CEO to be VP of USA (give him 30mil bonus for his service to the company) 3. Invade Iraq 4. Blow up iraq 5. Use VP connections to get contract to rebuild iraq

You've gotta love "chunkymark." [video=youtube;4PFZwrvWuWo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PFZwrvWuWo[/video] Disclaimer: Views expressed by chunkymark are his own and not mine.

It really, really pains me to see people spouting what they read in the newspapers without bothering to do even the slightest research around matters. Half the people in this thread seem to have opinions delivered directly into their brains by headlines. It should be fairly obvious that the vast majority of newspapers have political agendas - and since most (all?) of them care only about profit, they're quite content to give 0 shits about the poor and backup the current rhetoric because it keeps their richer pals in power. It isn't even difficult to do a quick search around the matter. British democracy is such a fucking sham.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48777756]No one would dare launch nukes at us even if we didn't have nuclear weapons because despite what you say, it is actually very likely that the US would retaliate. It's why Nuclear weapons have never been used since WW2. We don't actually need our own, we're better off putting the money into conventional forces which are far more useful.[/QUOTE] Offtopic, but this makes me wonder if any country would actually retaliate with Nuclear Weapons in response to a Nuclear Launch in this day and age, seeing how much more passively governments act compared to during the Cold War.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48780025]how to make a shitton of money off of human suffering: 1. Be construction company 2. Send your CEO to be VP of USA (give him 30mil bonus for his service to the company) 3. Invade Iraq 4. Blow up iraq 5. Use VP connections to get contract to rebuild iraq[/QUOTE] Except there hasn't been much benefit out of Iraq either for the government or the corporations. Much of the country has suffered a brain drain, infrastructure is damaged or destroyed, billions have been spent on propping up the government and trying to fix the country, and there's oil at home anyways (not to mention prices collapses recently). This begs the question of why the US government would agree to a convoluted scheme to destroy a country and then pay a company to rebuild it through contracts when they could have just done the same thing through paying the company to build or repair infrastructure in the USA itself. I mean they could have paid the company shitloads to renovate Detroit or some bullshit. I mean the idea that Iraq was invaded for the benefit of corporations is a stupid conspiracy meme that doesn't seem to die. "Blood for oil" and other stupid bullshit for people who just discovered non-mainstream politics.

Yeah, most people I know from many different demographics are planning to vote for Corbyn. There isn't any evidence to suggest that he's unelectable, anyway. There is evidence to the contrary that show public support for many of his policies. I'm not going to claim either way if he's electable or unelectable, because you cannot know. Although, if that bumbling fool Ed Miliband could pull in a few votes, I have no doubt that Corbyn can do better. Of course, we're all biased. If you don't like him you're likely to say that he's unelectable, while if you do, you're likely to say he is electable.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48781308]Except there hasn't been much benefit out of Iraq either for the government or the corporations. Much of the country has suffered a brain drain, infrastructure is damaged or destroyed, billions have been spent on propping up the government and trying to fix the country, and there's oil at home anyways (not to mention prices collapses recently). This begs the question of why the US government would agree to a convoluted scheme to destroy a country and then pay a company to rebuild it through contracts when they could have just done the same thing through paying the company to build or repair infrastructure in the USA itself. I mean they could have paid the company shitloads to renovate Detroit or some bullshit. I mean the idea that Iraq was invaded for the benefit of corporations is a stupid conspiracy meme that doesn't seem to die. "Blood for oil" and other stupid bullshit for people who just discovered non-mainstream politics.[/QUOTE] Saying that there hasn't been any benefit isn't evidence that there wasn't a plan, it could have just been a terrible plan. It wouldn't be the first time a politician/corporation has made a bad decision and had things not go the way they thought it would. I'm not saying your wrong, I haven't really looked into it, but when your argument hinges on the Bush administration being infallible you need to think of a better argument.

My issue with his definition with NWO is that it completely ignores Chinese and Russian influence in any of the conflicts happening. More often than not, you find Russian equipment involved or their cheaper Chinese knock offs, not American equipment. In fact ISIS using American equipment was pointed out because of how different it was.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;48784469]Saying that there hasn't been any benefit isn't evidence that there wasn't a plan, it could have just been a terrible plan. It wouldn't be the first time a politician/corporation has made a bad decision and had things not go the way they thought it would. I'm not saying your wrong, I haven't really looked into it, but when your argument hinges on the Bush administration being infallible you need to think of a better argument.[/QUOTE] It's not so much that, but I made the point also there was no conceivable benefit to starting in the first place. If corporations and the government were both colluding and greedy, they would have thought up of a plan that has less opportunity to go wrong. The massive and gargantuan efforts of the USA in Iraq were unneccessary and didn't align with either wide or narrow interests, defensive or economic.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;48784469]Saying that there hasn't been any benefit isn't evidence that there wasn't a plan, it could have just been a terrible plan. It wouldn't be the first time a politician/corporation has made a bad decision and had things not go the way they thought it would. [B]I'm not saying your wrong, I haven't really looked into it[/B], but when your argument hinges on the Bush administration being infallible you need to think of a better argument.[/QUOTE] I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, but that's an awful way of arguing. "I'm not saying you're wrong, but..." is the most typical phrase of someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on. I also don't agree with Sobotnik - the evidence is overwhelming that the Bush Administration did whatever it could to fabricate reasons for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of political opposition from a great portion of the western world and the U.N. itself. The great lengths that the Administration went through in order to commit the crimes shows that an adequate motive existed - even if it wasn't necessarily "blood for oil" or whatever every person somewhere remotely close to the left in 2006 was saying.

[QUOTE=daschnek;48784664]I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, but that's an awful way of arguing. "I'm not saying you're wrong, but..." is the most typical phrase of someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on. I also don't agree with Sobotnik - the evidence is overwhelming that the Bush Administration did whatever it could to fabricate reasons for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of political opposition from a great portion of the western world and the U.N. itself. The great lengths that the Administration went through in order to commit the crimes shows that an adequate motive existed - even if it wasn't necessarily "blood for oil" or whatever every person somewhere remotely close to the left in 2006 was saying.[/QUOTE] You're right, when it comes to the reasons behind the conflict in Iraq, I don't have a leg to stand on. That is exactly why I said it, I wasn't arguing against his position on the war, just against his reasoning for that one point (The reasoning being that there can't have been a plan because there isn't evidence that the plan worked). I just didn't want to give the impression that I was dismissing his point of view entirely based on the fact that I consider that one argument he made to be flawed. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48784650]It's not so much that, but I made the point also there was no conceivable benefit to starting in the first place. If corporations and the government were both colluding and greedy, they would have thought up of a plan that has less opportunity to go wrong. The massive and gargantuan efforts of the USA in Iraq were unneccessary and didn't align with either wide or narrow interests, defensive or economic.[/QUOTE] You're still basing your argument on them being incapable of making the wrong prediction. You might not see any conceivable benefit but you have the seen how the war has played out so far, they wouldn't have had the benefit of hindsight if they were making their plans 15-20 years ago. They could have come to some wildly different conclusions not knowing what we know now.

[QUOTE]It's not so much that, but I made the point also there was no conceivable benefit to starting in the first place. If corporations and the government were both colluding and greedy, they would have thought up of a plan that has less opportunity to go wrong. The massive and gargantuan efforts of the USA in Iraq were unneccessary and didn't align with either wide or narrow interests, defensive or economic.[/QUOTE] What in your opinion was their agenda then?

[QUOTE=squids_eye;48784797]You're still basing your argument on them being incapable of making the wrong prediction. You might not see any conceivable benefit but you have the seen how the war has played out so far, they wouldn't have had the benefit of hindsight if they were making their plans 15-20 years ago. They could have come to some wildly different conclusions not knowing what we know now.[/QUOTE] Well it's true that they couldn't have predicted what would have happened, but considering all that the USA has done in the country, you would at least expect US oil companies to control Iraqi oil wells or obtain massive fees. The fact that they don't receive as high fees as you would expect blows a hole in the argument that it was "Blood for oil": [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq#Service_Contracts_Licensing_Results[/url] [QUOTE=karlosfandango;48786047]What in your opinion was their agenda then?[/QUOTE] I think that virtually every single war that the US has fought in since 1898 (with the possible exceptions of the Korean and 1st Gulf Wars) defies rational explanation. Like, in all of those wars the United States has made a vast and unnecessary effort (like a grand massive project) to rework parts of the world (not even necessarily for the benefit of US citizens, businessmen, or politicians). I think the Bush Administration probably genuinely believed that they could turn Iraq into a functioning westernised democracy and restore peace and stability to the region in addition to ending the terrorist threat. After it turned out this was no longer the case, I think that they stayed wedded to the sunk cost fallacy.

[QUOTE=Explosions;48776148]Not necessarily true. US policy towards Iraq was aimed at removing Saddam and his regime for over a decade before 9/11. It just gave Bush any easy justification and a tool with which to manufacture propaganda.[/QUOTE] You've said this before but could you explain further? I have difficulty imagining a vote to invade passing through congress without the bipartisan support the Republicans had for the Iraq Resolution in 2002.

[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;48787121]You've said this before but could you explain further? I have difficulty imagining a vote to invade passing through congress without the bipartisan support the Republicans had for the Iraq Resolution in 2002.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act[/url]