Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:it doesn't make sense does it? but that's what we're doing.

Not ready to jump to that conclusion with you just yet. Logically, seeing what the CIA has done in previous known instances, I would think IF we were involved, we would have been much more organized with the rebels well before Russia advanced. I still cannot wrap my head around what we can gain financially by inciting this. It's not oil. Our last war almost bankrupt the nation. I just don't understand what the end game is and that's what makes me skeptical.

Quote:it doesn't make sense does it?  but that's what we're doing.

 

that's what leads to theories about their selfish motives.  one asks why they care so much about overthrowing Qaddafi or Assad, and it's not about "democracy" or "freedom".

 

In my undergrad program back when I went to UNM, I found a pentagon white paper in the law library.  The paper was from 1978.  The whole paper was about how a destabilized middle east was in the best interest of the USA.  A middle east that was united with control of oil reserves was a problem that we've known about for a long time.

 

This is not new to anyone that's been paying attention.

 

The fact is that our foreign policy since at least the 70s when we realized how OPEC could cause such problems with the the corporate economy was to ensure the middle east was a mess.  

 

That is a fact that as basis in actual documents.

 

This idea that the CIA create the Lybian civil war ignores the the facts.  And just throws stuff at the wall to see what sticks.  Once the civil war in Lybia got going, was it in our interest to take out Quadaffi?  Or course!

 

Did we instigate the civil war?  No.  

By the way, here's a good exerpt from Clark's interview with Amy Goodman.

 

This plan to take out middle eastern countries was a neo-con plan that was spurred on after 9/11.  The fact that Syria and Lybia fell into chaos did not go down the way Clark describes it in this interview.

 

Clark is saying in this interview that we're going to invade these countries.  Not topple them with the CIA via covert operations.

 

Think more Gulf of Taunken, not Mujaheddin in Afghanistan.

 

 

<p style="font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(54,47,45);text-align:justify;">I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

<p style="font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(54,47,45);text-align:justify;">So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

Quote:By the way, here's a good exerpt from Clark's interview with Amy Goodman.

 

This plan to take out middle eastern countries was a neo-con plan that was spurred on after 9/11.  The fact that Syria and Lybia fell into chaos did not go down the way Clark describes it in this interview.

 

Clark is saying in this interview that we're going to invade these countries.  Not topple them with the CIA via covert operations.

 

Think more Gulf of Taunken, not Mujaheddin in Afghanistan.

 

 

<p style="font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(54,47,45);text-align:justify;">I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

<p style="font-size:15px;font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(54,47,45);text-align:justify;">So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

 

You're assuming they "fell into chaos" without any intervention whatsoever.

 

And just because he didn't predict the future 100% doesn't mean it's not really interesting to see how alot of it lines up with what has happened over there.

 

And your point that it was a neo-con plan is irrelevant.  Hillary is a neo-con. Obama is a neo-con.  The only difference I can see is that Bush used ground troops.  Obama and Hillary arm mercenaries to do their dirty work who may or may not join ISIS in the future.

 

If you're not going to use your own army to invade, obviously you need to start a revolution so you have an army to do the work for you.  how do you do this?  through covert ops.

Quote:You're assuming they "fell into chaos" without any intervention whatsoever.


And just because he didn't predict the future 100% doesn't mean it's not really interesting to see how alot of it lines up with what has happened over there.

Oh, it's totally freaky!


The bottom line is that our foreign policy toward the middle East has been absolutely awful. It's no wonder a terrorist organization like Isis gets traction over there. All we have done since at least the 1970s was to ensure war and chaos in order to divide and conquer the region in order to maintain cheap supply of oil.


My point is that you don't have to make stuff up that is unsubstantiated to verify that our mid East policy is a total sham.

Quote:Oh, it's totally freaky!


The bottom line is that our foreign policy toward the middle East has been absolutely awful. It's no wonder a terrorist organization like Isis gets traction over there. All we have done since at least the 1970s was to ensure war and chaos in order to divide and conquer the region in order to maintain cheap supply of oil.


My point is that you don't have to make stuff up that is unsubstantiated to verify that our mid East policy is a total sham.

 

It's more like speculation based on reports, not "making stuff up"

Quote:It's more like speculation based on reports, not "making stuff up"

Lol! Whatever you want to call it...


It's unsubstantiated and not neccesary to make the main point.


Why put out unsubstantiated theories when you can provide facts that make your point just as well?


You're sacrificing your credibility in order to make your position only marginally better.


That's a bad cost-benefit ratio. As an accountant, I'd advise against it.

Quote:Lol! Whatever you want to call it...


It's unsubstantiated and not neccesary to make the main point.


Why put out unsubstantiated theories when you can provide facts that make your point just as well?


You're sacrificing your credibility in order to make your position only marginally better.


That's a bad cost-benefit ratio. As an accountant, I'd advise against it.

 

I'm also an accountant and speculating on US foreign relations is irrelevant. Speculate away especially when there is a significant amount of evidence that points to your conclusions.

Quote:I'm also an accountant and speculating on US foreign relations is irrelevant. Speculate away especially when there is a significant amount of evidence that points to your conclusions.

You do it at the risk of your credibility... It's not worth it. There are plenty of facts that back your position without having to make asumptions that will turn people away from your main point.

Quote:You do it at the risk of your credibility... It's not worth it. There are plenty of facts that back your position without having to make asumptions that will turn people away from your main point.

 

It's not some far fetched idea that the CIA and the Pentagon would do something like instigate a rebellion.  That's their MO...

 

That isn't even that bad compared to some of the other horrific ops they've engaged in or proposed in the past.

All of these comments about our foreign policy in the Middle East need a giant asterisk.


* except Saudi Arabia

Quote:It's not some far fetched idea that the CIA and the Pentagon would do something like instigate a rebellion. That's their MO...


That isn't even that bad compared to some of the other horrific ops they've engaged in or proposed in the past.

Correct.


But like I said, the facts are just as damning.


Why not just stick with the facts?

Quote:I would think if the CIA was involved in Syria, we would have been more coordinated with the rebels years ago. Again.. I also don't see how we benefit by what has taken place. The region is destabilized and our most dangerous adversary has amassed military forces in the area AND helped stabilize their own economy by selling arms to Syria. How does America benefit from this? Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand what we have gained or stand to gain. They account for 0.5% of the world's oil production and their reserves are drastically depleted. So why are we behind inciting a civil war if we are behind it. Again, not saying you're wrong. Just trying to logically understand why we would be.

 

It's about outflanking Russia's oil sales to Europe.  The Saudis want to put a pipeline through Syria to the coast. 

As for Libya:

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/ma...ted-dollar

 

According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.

 

And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.

 

---

 

My comments:

The "civil war" was mostly Muslim Brotherhood jihadists sent from outside Libya.  Note that we swooped in and grabbed the 150 tons of gold.  I believe it was sent to the Netherlands.  

 

---

 

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-884508

 

Here are some Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There was  no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free … for all its citizens.
• There was  no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state would  pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms –this was all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home was considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”)
• All newlyweds in Libya would receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is or was  credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child would  receive US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government would  subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya was  $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local could  purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments was all  free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government would fund  them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.

<span>• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya had  no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though much of this is now frozen globally.</span>

 

Gaddafi wrote, “They want to do to Libya what they did to Iraq and what they are itching to do to Iran. They want to take back the oil, which was nationalized by these country’s revolutions. They want to re-establish military bases that were shut down by the revolutions and to install client regimes that will subordinate the country’s wealth and labor to imperialist corporate interests. All else is lies and deception.”

 

Finally, the gold bullion held by the Libyan Central Bank (March 2011) was among the 25 largest reserves in the world, as reported by the Financial Times, citing the International Monetary Fund. This provided Libya a critical lifeline after billions of Libya’s assets were seized by the United States and the 27 member states of the European Union.

During the height of the world economy in 2005 lybia was ranked 70th out of 111 countries for quality of life by the economist magazine.


If I was a tyrant that wanted to maintain power in 2011, I'd probably also invoke the ghosts of the iraq invasion to try and rally support.


Also, the i-report you provided is not verifiable and probably just made up.


The GDP of Lybia wasn't even 10,000 bucks, but every married couple got 50 k to start their lives???


Dude, you want to believe your theories so much that you are willing to ignore common sense.

Quote:It's about outflanking Russia's oil sales to Europe. The Saudis want to put a pipeline through Syria to the coast.

You do realize Saudi Arabia doesn't border Syria, right? Even if it did, none of what you are saying makes any sense. There's barely any oil there. Their reserves are depleted. The civil war in Syria strengthened Russia. I cringe to ask if you have any evidence to support this claim. I remain unconvinced the CIA instigated the civil war in Syria and the lack of any logical gain the US could have or did receive only reinforces this belief.

Quote:You do realize Saudi Arabia doesn't border Syria, right? Even if it did, none of what you are saying makes any sense. There's barely any oil there. Their reserves are depleted. The civil war in Syria strengthened Russia. I cringe to ask if you have any evidence to support this claim. I remain unconvinced the CIA instigated the civil war in Syria and the lack of any logical gain the US could have or did receive only reinforces this belief.

 

My bad.  It' a natural gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria.  Russia can literally freeze the EU any time they want since they supply most of the EU's natural gas. 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04...s-pipeline

So the CIA started a civil war.. then waited forever and did presumably nothing until Russia built up their military in the area, took the Crimean peninsula and made a boatload of cash selling arms to Syria.. So we could prevent Russia from freezing out the EU.


Still not adding up for me that the CIA instigated the civil war in Syria. I am more inclined to believe the people got fed up with their poophead leader and rose up.

The military said they weren't going to be Al-Qaeda's Air Force in Syria, so Obama changed the name to ISIS.  What happened to the worldwide Al-Qaeda network?  Disappeared overnight the same night ISIS was born.  They got re-branded and 99% of America fell for the hustle.  Note that ISIS never attacks Saudi Arabia or Israel.

Al-Qaeda isn't ISIS. Obama didn't change the name of anything. But you're right about Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Saudis hate us, but our leaders have a real incestuous relationship with them. One of the main reasons I fantasize about what our country would be able to do if we truly invested in solar energy. We have made Saudi Arabia rich. What happens to them if we 'kick the habit?' As for Israel, ISIS goes after softer targets than that. Israel would take their lunch money of they tried to attack them. They have taken on the whole region and are still the toughest kid on the block.