Wars have many roots but often the trigger is macroeconomic. One example: WWIIThe Economic Consequences of the Peace John Maynard Keynes.
The podcast has political comments which is unavoidable talking about multinational wars. The mitigating content is the Economic Trigger by Aimen Dean at time 34:30 where the replay starts.
The Best Iran War Breakdown on the Internet with Aimen Dean & Richard Miniter
Francis and Konstantin break down the rapidly escalating Middle East crisis LIVE with former MI6 spy Aimen Dean and NYT bestselling national security journalist Richard Miniter.
Aimen Dean spent 8 years as MI6’s top spy inside al-Qaeda. Author of “Nine Lives: My Time As MI6’s Top Spy Inside al-Qaeda.”
Richard Miniter is a New York Times bestselling investigative journalist and author of Losing Bin Laden, Shadow War, and Mastermind. Former Wall Street Journal and Sunday Times (London) reporter.
Their collapsing economy. In addition, the regime offered no light at the end of the tunnel. This combination led to the mass demonstrations seen earlier this year.
If you were looking, the Clintons were deposed as of yesterday. That beat goes on. I do agree the News media have focused on BSing the public elsewhere.
The punchline teaser is that if I were to release the punchline tease it would no longer be a teaser which would defeat the teasing in the first place.
That certainly doesn’t justify us bombing their country (which is the premise of the video). If it did, then there are likely 30-40 more countries we should likely bomb.
I found myself remembering a previous administration that felt it did have an R2P (responsibility to protect) and so bombed Libya along with NATO forces in 2011.
There is UN justification for R2P:
UNSC Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 [in 2011] was seen as a historic measure that would establish an institutional precedent within the United Nations (UN) to address future crimes against humanity that were endorsed and sanctioned by a state against its own citizens. The significance of UNSCR 1973 was not merely that it authorized the use of force, but as Matthias Dembinski and Thersea Reinold note, it authorized the use of force “against the will of an acting government of a functioning state for the first time in history.”
How has that worked out? Last time I checked, Libya isn’t the glowing example of stability.
Stupid is as stupid does foreign policy based on past stupid decisions is stupider than the previous stupidity. Cause, you know, we should be learning from past mistakes, not repeating them.
It didn’t work out well. However, it was/is approved by the UN Security Council even “against the will of an acting government of a functioning state”.
This UNSC Resolution has a deep flaw. A country without leadership that can keep order is the recipe for mayhem. Ayn Rand put it succinctly, I don’t remember the exact words, “Force should be reserved for the government.”
AI can be very helpful:
Ayn Rand’s succinct principle regarding the role of government and force is that a government is the only institution that holds a "legal monopoly on the use of physical force.
Lybia sans Gadaffi is a prime example. Civil war is a way to institute a working governing body but it does not guarantee that the good side wins.
A much better example, 20 years, $3.5 Trillion price tag and 200 K afghan lives, 3600 US, and allied soldiers, during those two decades I have heard so much bravado, especially some of the veteran’s talk… and in the end we gave Afghanistan back to Taliban.
The negotiations were ongoing and made significant progress and concessions from Iran. But clearly, US had used the negotiations as a ploy, and not committed to the talks.
US military is not bringing democracy or peace to the world. It is the most significant destabilizing force. All these wars cost Trillions and then the ongoing interest payments.
The only way to avoid these “wars of choice” is to severely cut military budget. As long as we keep spending on military, the urge to go use these weapons on some country remains. When you have diminished capability then you will rely on diplomacy and negotiations.
In his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (1918), the German sociologist Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”
As we have now been told by Rubio, the reason we HAD TO act was because Israel was going to attack (and apparently we could not stop them or tell them no), so we attacked first for fear that Iran would hit us when they retaliated against Israel.
Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.
Since the destruction Iran has started to reactivate its enrichment program. The focus now is on ballistic missiles. If Iran builds too many then it becomes much more difficult to hit their program again.
After President Donald Trump contradicted the messaging on Tuesday by claiming that “if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand” to attack Iran, Huey-Burns confronted Rubio.
“Yesterday, you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that’s why we needed to get involved. Today, the president said that Iran was going to get —,” Huey-Burns began.
“No. Yeah, your statement’s false,” Rubio interjected. “So that’s not what he — I was asked very specifically. Were you there yesterday?”
