The American Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has told Fox News, that guardian of journalistic standards with it's fair and balanced views, that he was disappointed with the reaction by Europeans and expected more support following the assassination of the Iranian general, Qassem Suleimani.
While Israel and Saudi Arabia (obviously) have been whooping over America's actions, the overwhelming reaction by European leaders has been to call for restraint and rather poo-pooing the reasoning behind America's drone strike which led to Pompeo saying: 'Frankly, the Europeans haven't been as helpful as I wish that they could be' and that 'The Brits, the French, the Germans need to understand that what we did saved lives in Europe as well'.
With a lack of evidence that Suleimani was planning anything to take lives in Britain, France or Germany hasn't helped the American cause but long gone are the days when European leaders default position was to back up American misadventures in conflicts, especially in the Middle East and especially with a President who has been less than friendly to them and took America out of a working Nuclear deal with Iran.
Tony Blair poodling up to George W Bush in 2001 was the last time a European trusted an American led conflict and even then it was pretty much only Britain who went along with the debacle so it is hardly surprising nobody is trusting them now.
That Pompeo is disappointed is not the surprise, the surprise is that he expected anybody else except the usual suspects to back America in bombing yet another Middle Eastern, oil rich country with no evidence provided as to why they picked now to do it.
8 comments:
you call for evidence over and over... when it comes to national intelligence, you are never going to get the details because providing details reveals the methods and sources - which typically invalidates the methods and sources (often gets the sources killed).
just let it go. you have to pick a side then trust the system.
we are stuck in the middle east because Europe needs the energy and europeans don't the capacity to procure it themselves. we had to pick up the pieces for the brits and french as yawl fell from super power status to second tier.
so now, you are shirking all responsibility and make snide remarks toward us as we provide for your defense and economic viability... nice
You are stuck in the Middle East because of George w bush and tony Blair’s terrible war in Iraq and to try and blame anything else is magnificently ignorant.
you are ignorant. the US is stuck in the middle east because:
- in WWI, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration to the leader of the British Jewish community saying the UK intended to create a Jewish "national home" in the Palestinian Mandate.
- in 1918, the Jewish Legion, assisted the UK conquest of Palestine
- in 1947, the UK handed the problem over to the UN
- also in 1947, the UK evacuated from Palestine
- in 1949, Israel and Jordan were genuinely interested in a peace agreement but the UK stopped the effort to avoid damaging UK interests in Egypt
- in 1956, Israel joined with the UK and France and took the Sinai Peninsula but withdrew with UN guarantees of Israeli shipping rights in the Red Sea
- meanwhile, the UK and France needed middle east oil, as did all of Europe but were not able to manage it themselves
- in 1974, the US cut a deal with Saudi Arabia for guaranteed relatively cheap oil...
- until fracking technology improved, the US needed middle east oil
- Jimmy Carter dropped the ball in the middle east, Clinton ignored the middle east. George W Bush happened to be president when the shit hit the fan.
you can't stop reading history when it suits your viewpoints... unless you want to be ignorant... lefty
you can't stop reading history when it suits your viewpoints....and then you stop at George W Bush which is the REAL reason you are stuck in the Middle East, or maybe not for long because it appears even Iraq have had enough of you and want you out.
i stopped at 1990 because you have harped your bogus viewpoints about the US in Iraq a couple of hundred times. the history i noted above shows 50+ years of UK bumbling leaving little choice for the US but to get involved... if the world was to have adequate oil...
second, the middle east, and specifically Muslim leaders, have driven a constant state of war and terror since circa 1400
third, the bullshit that W lied about WMDs is refuted here:
From Michael Hayden, former Director CIA and former Director NSA, in his book "Playing To The Edge" on page 50, and I quote EXACTLY:
"The urban legend has it that we were pressured by the White House, and especially by Vice President Cheney, to write a case for war. I never experienced such pressure, and when I got to CIA and talked to those more directly involved, they reported that they felt no such pressure either. We just got it wrong.
As I was about to leave government, I mentioned to Leon Panetta, who was coming in at CIA, that I had read some of his commentary on Iraq while he was in private life. "Leon", I said, "this wasn't the White House. This was us. We just got it wrong. It was a clean swing and a miss." The IC had lowballed its estimate of Iraqi WMD before the first Gulf War, Now we overcorrected."
Nothing to do with you stopping short of the real reason and not your misleading chunter because you was a bush supporter then and didn’t want any blame attached to him despite all the blame actually being on him?
drink less when you post...
Yep, you drinking and posting would explain a lot. Found it now did you after saying I deleted it? Funny, funny, funny!!
Post a Comment