Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Who is behind the drive to war in Syria?

  1. #1

    Default Who is behind the drive to war in Syria?

    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.

  2. Default

    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.

  3. #3

    Default

    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

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    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:

    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

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Klimkowski View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    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:

    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

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    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

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    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.

  8. Default

    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

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Klimkowski View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    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

  10. Default

    - edited -
    Last edited by Charlie Prima; 04-04-2014 at 06:16 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •