Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who is behind the drive to war in Syria?
#1
I don't think most of us here really believe that Obama himself is the driving force pushing for war with Syria. He must realize how terribly unpopular the idea is. Who is pressuring him behind the scenes? The Pentagon and intelligence agencies? The banks and oil companies? We need some deep political analysis here.
Reply
#2
You'll probably get many different answers about who is really running the show.

In my opinion, the major global strategy is decided by a very small group of people who control finance and energy.

If you find out who organises Bilderberg and sets it's agenda (forget the attendees) you'll be close.

Whoever it is, they have spent a long time placing the buffers and veils between us and them. "Democracy" is one of the veils.
Reply
#3
Tracy, I suspect that the underlying strategy revealed by General Wesley Clark in 2001 is still active, namely for the US to take out 7 countries in 5 years. The seven countries named by Clark are:

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

There are many websites that have reported this story, but try this one for example.

It seems pretty evident (to me anyway) that there were a small number of driving forces for this, including getting control over the huge Iraqi and Iranian oil fields, and also to nullify that radical muslim nations in the region - and to stop the Iranian atomic programme.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#4
David Guyatt Wrote:Tracy, I suspect that the underlying strategy revealed by General Wesley Clark in 2001 is still active, namely for the US to take out 7 countries in 5 years. The seven countries named by Clark are:

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

There are many websites that have reported this story, but try this one for example.

It seems pretty evident (to me anyway) that there were a small number of driving forces for this, including getting control over the huge Iraqi and Iranian oil fields, and also to nullify that radical muslim nations in the region - and to stop the Iranian atomic programme.

David - why do you think Wesley Clark made these public comments?

Clark was born into a relatively poor melting pot family, and grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas (yes...), before being identified as "a very bright kid", and being sponsored as a Rhodes Scholar (oh yes).

So, Clark was adopted into elite circles and eventually became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe. He came close to starting WW3 with his order for NATO troops to attack Russian soldiers at Pristina airport.

Since then, he's tried to become POTUS several times, and attacked McCain.

His comments in the interview clip play almost as a joke, a throwaway line, but Clark seems sincere to me. I don't think he's making this up.

So what's he talking about? The Neocon agenda? An elite factional agenda to which he is opposed?

I note the following passage from the wiki on Clark:

Quote:Clark has said that he began to truly define his politics only after his military retirement and the 2000 presidential election, won by George W. Bush. Clark had a conversation with Condoleezza Rice in which she told him that the war in Kosovo would not have occurred under Bush. Clark found such an administration unsettling, as he had been selected for the SACEUR position because he believed more in the interventionist policies of the Clinton administration. He said he would see it as a sign that things were "starting to go wrong" with American foreign policy under Bush.[96] Clark supported the administration's War in Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks but did not support the Iraq War. Clark continued to warn people as a commentator on CNN that he believed the United States was undermanned in Iraq. He said the war was "never [about]... WMD or regime change" and believes "the connection to the War on Terrorism was not shown."[97][98]
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Reply
#5
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:
David Guyatt Wrote:Tracy, I suspect that the underlying strategy revealed by General Wesley Clark in 2001 is still active, namely for the US to take out 7 countries in 5 years. The seven countries named by Clark are:

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

There are many websites that have reported this story, but try this one for example.

It seems pretty evident (to me anyway) that there were a small number of driving forces for this, including getting control over the huge Iraqi and Iranian oil fields, and also to nullify that radical muslim nations in the region - and to stop the Iranian atomic programme.

David - why do you think Wesley Clark made these public comments?

Clark was born into a relatively poor melting pot family, and grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas (yes...), before being identified as "a very bright kid", and being sponsored as a Rhodes Scholar (oh yes).

So, Clark was adopted into elite circles and eventually became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe. He came close to starting WW3 with his order for NATO troops to attack Russian soldiers at Pristina airport.

Since then, he's tried to become POTUS several times, and attacked McCain.

His comments in the interview clip play almost as a joke, a throwaway line, but Clark seems sincere to me. I don't think he's making this up.

So what's he talking about? The Neocon agenda? An elite factional agenda to which he is opposed?

I note the following passage from the wiki on Clark:

Quote:Clark has said that he began to truly define his politics only after his military retirement and the 2000 presidential election, won by George W. Bush. Clark had a conversation with Condoleezza Rice in which she told him that the war in Kosovo would not have occurred under Bush. Clark found such an administration unsettling, as he had been selected for the SACEUR position because he believed more in the interventionist policies of the Clinton administration. He said he would see it as a sign that things were "starting to go wrong" with American foreign policy under Bush.[96] Clark supported the administration's War in Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks but did not support the Iraq War. Clark continued to warn people as a commentator on CNN that he believed the United States was undermanned in Iraq. He said the war was "never [about]... WMD or regime change" and believes "the connection to the War on Terrorism was not shown."[97][98]

Jan, it has been my hypothesis-cum-perspective on this that Clark was letting this cat out of the bag because of sour grapes - possibly due to differences with the Bush administration.

Like you I think he is truthful about it. I also see the dominoes falling as he predicted - although not in the same time frame or pattern he laid out, so overall I continue to give this value as a distinct possibility, if not a proven fact.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#6
David Guyatt Wrote:Jan, it has been my hypothesis-cum-perspective on this that Clark was letting this cat out of the bag because of sour grapes - possibly due to differences with the Bush administration.

Like you I think he is truthful about it. I also see the dominoes falling as he predicted - although not in the same time frame or pattern he laid out, so overall I continue to give this value as a distinct possibility, if not a proven fact.

Yup - and Clark namechecks Rumsfeld in the actual quote.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Reply
#7
David Guyatt Wrote:Tracy, I suspect that the underlying strategy revealed by General Wesley Clark in 2001 is still active, namely for the US to take out 7 countries in 5 years. The seven countries named by Clark are:

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

There are many websites that have reported this story, but try this one for example.

It seems pretty evident (to me anyway) that there were a small number of driving forces for this, including getting control over the huge Iraqi and Iranian oil fields, and also to nullify that radical muslim nations in the region - and to stop the Iranian atomic programme.

I remember reading that back in the Bush years. The impression that we're given is that the "neo-cons" are no longer in power, but the "neo-liberals" are not much different in my opinion. The rhetoric they use in public is the main difference.
Reply
#8
Wesley Clark is sort of an enigma to me.I don't know where the guy really stands.I will say that I do respect him as a soldier.We worked the same ground in Vietnam.He took 4 AK-47 rounds in the arm.He's no "Perfumed Prince".
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
Reply
#9
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:
David Guyatt Wrote:Jan, it has been my hypothesis-cum-perspective on this that Clark was letting this cat out of the bag because of sour grapes - possibly due to differences with the Bush administration.

Like you I think he is truthful about it. I also see the dominoes falling as he predicted - although not in the same time frame or pattern he laid out, so overall I continue to give this value as a distinct possibility, if not a proven fact.

Yup - and Clark namechecks Rumsfeld in the actual quote.

That is a potential explanation for this most revealing comment that I have long wondered about. Clearly he is being truthful. But why? Initially I took it at face value, as a warning. That he had parted ways with this philosophy. Some semblance of conscience at work. Has anyone ever asked him about these remarks? He's certainly being quiet on the issue at hand, Syria.

Dawn
Reply
#10
- edited -
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  It's NATO That's Expanding Not Putin: The Ukraine Coup Was The USA's Respons Against Putin for Syria David Guyatt 0 6,467 09-03-2017, 02:06 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  New Week - New War! USA initiates major strikes inside Syria with some other nations Peter Lemkin 3 4,585 23-09-2014, 07:19 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Defense industry finds hope in Syria crisis Tracy Riddle 0 2,461 31-08-2013, 10:01 PM
Last Post: Tracy Riddle
  From Afghanistan to Syria: Women’s Rights, War Propaganda and the CIA Magda Hassan 0 3,177 06-04-2013, 12:18 PM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon Ed Jewett 0 1,826 25-12-2011, 12:28 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  Global Military Bloc: NATO's Drive Into Asia Magda Hassan 0 3,572 25-01-2009, 11:08 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began 0 477 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)