General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

Titus Dafoe

New Member
There is a very popular video among conspiracy theorists of retired ex-General Wesley Clark talking about America invading seven Middle Eastern countries over a period of five years.

He is quoted with saying “We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”.

Obviously it has taken more than five years and not all of those countries have been invaded or will be invaded.

So what was Wesley on about and why do CT's cling to his words when he has been wrong?

[video=youtube_share;iuVVml5Dp2s]http://youtu.be/iuVVml5Dp2s[/video]
 

Joe

Senior Member
There is a very popular video among conspiracy theorists of retired ex-General Wesley Clark talking about America invading seven Middle Eastern countries over a period of five years.

He is quoted with saying “We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”.

Obviously it has taken more than five years and not all of those countries have been invaded or will be invaded.

So what was Wesley on about and why do CT's cling to his words when he has been wrong?

[video=youtube_share;iuVVml5Dp2s]http://youtu.be/iuVVml5Dp2s[/video]
he might have got the countries wrong ? Libya , Egypt , Iraq , Tunisia , Syria ,
 

Joe

Senior Member
This Video contains that clip but goes a little more into detail . He says its Petro Dollars for the Iraq war and Libya . I dont agree with all of it but some of it makes you think ?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
There is a very popular video among conspiracy theorists of retired ex-General Wesley Clark talking about America invading seven Middle Eastern countries over a period of five years.

He is quoted with saying “We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”.

Obviously it has taken more than five years and not all of those countries have been invaded or will be invaded.

So what was Wesley on about and why do CT's cling to his words when he has been wrong?
Is it really a shock to you that General Clark says wars are planned (and things don't always go according to plan)? You don't think they are?

If you understand anything about geo-politics and the imperialism of the USukisnato criminal syndicate - then you can see what's going on. Can't you? The US wants domination - nothing less - and controlling resources is vital to achieving that aim; and through that, also controlling the destiny of your rivals.

Iraq? Job done? Only about 1 million dead (since the invasion in 2003 - and about another million due to prior 'sanctions'); 4 million displaced; an epidemic of mental illness; an epidemic of birth defects due to poisoned environment (uranium and other heavy metals); an epidemic of cancers due to the same; nearly one million widows; 2 million directly physically affected by weaponry. A real success. And it continues. They got operation 'Enduring Freedom', but we got a fair bit of the oil, though.

Libya - a country without a central bank system linked in to the rest, ie. independent - and Gaddaffi was doing all kind of neat things, launching a Telecoms satellite and all - that would rob US companies of their african telecoms business, just for one. Don't even mention the oil the Chinese were buying there, and the 30,000 Chinese workers forced out by the er, 'no-fly-zone' aka - USuk turkey shoot. He's out the way now, old Muammar, after being sodomized and strung up - and how Hillary laughed, remember? Freedom and democracy - that's what it's all about. And civilization, mustn't forget that.

Now Syria - arming jihadists to do the dirty work - they have to do Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah) in order to pave the way for Iran - another independent country - and lots of oil too - bonus! The Iranians are currently having their economy ruined by specious 'sanctions' relating to US bullshit about their nuclear situation. A lot of Iranians are hungry right now. It's called 'strategy'.

As for Somalia and Sudan - we'll see. But I'm sure it's part of the plan. What'll also be part of the plan will be the question: At what point do China and/or Russia (+ Brazil, India and South Africa) say - that's it? Do you think they've planned for it?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Is it really a shock to you that General Clark says wars are planned (and things don't always go according to plan)? You don't think they are?

If you understand anything about geo-politics and the imperialism of the USukisnato criminal syndicate - then you can see what's going on. Can't you? The US wants domination - nothing less - and controlling resources is vital to achieving that aim; and through that, also controlling the destiny of your rivals.

Iraq? Job done? Only about 1 million dead (since the invasion in 2003 - and about another million due to prior 'sanctions'); 4 million displaced; an epidemic of mental illness; an epidemic of birth defects due to poisoned environment (uranium and other heavy metals); an epidemic of cancers due to the same; nearly one million widows; 2 million directly physically affected by weaponry. A real success. And it continues. They got operation 'Enduring Freedom', but we got a fair bit of the oil, though.

Libya - a country without a central bank system linked in to the rest, ie. independent - and Gaddaffi was doing all kind of neat things, launching a Telecoms satellite and all - that would rob US companies of their african telecoms business, just for one. Don't even mention the oil the Chinese were buying there, and the 30,000 Chinese workers forced out by the er, 'no-fly-zone' aka - USuk turkey shoot. He's out the way now, old Muammar, after being sodomized and strung up - and how Hillary laughed, remember? Freedom and democracy - that's what it's all about. And civilization, mustn't forget that.

Now Syria - arming jihadists to do the dirty work - they have to do Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah) in order to pave the way for Iran - another independent country - and lots of oil too - bonus! The Iranians are currently having their economy ruined by specious 'sanctions' relating to US bullshit about their nuclear situation. A lot of Iranians are hungry right now. It's called 'strategy'.

As for Somalia and Sudan - we'll see. But I'm sure it's part of the plan. What'll also be part of the plan will be the question: At what point to China and/or Russia (+ Brazil, India and South Africa) say - that's it? Do you think they've planned for it?
Didn't realise it was a conspiracy theory. thought it was a well known conspiracy fact.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
While I cannot deny it is easy to connect dots and make these claims . . .
like most countries and pseudo-empires the average American like the average British subject 200 years ago have no idea of the grand plan nor do they understand their complicity in the process . . . there is so much propaganda, deceit and manipulation most Americans fall for it hook line and sinker . . . and if one questions the truth you are Un-American or crazy or a conspiracy nut . . . so it won't change until those in power use up the lives and fortunes of most Americans and leave a shell of a once proud people who thought they were doing the right thing . . .
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Is it really a shock to you that General Clark says wars are planned (and things don't always go according to plan)? You don't think they are?
The shock to me is saying it into a microphone.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The shock to me is saying it into a microphone.
General Clark was not the first one to do so . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

 

xenon

Active Member
Wesley K Clark ought to know all about these wars.

Because he commanded "Operation Allied Force" in the Kosovo War- the 78 day bombing and subsequent invasion of a sovereign country, without UN approval.

The Kosovo War was the First PNAC War.

Proof: http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

Notice how silent Wesley has been since he made that statement? It's because a Democrat [...] is doing the bombing and drone killing. He's got no problem at all with that.

DELETED BY MOD . . .

When quoting this "general" everyone should remember that he almost started WW3 because he was mad at the Russians.

One of Clark's most debated decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation to attack Russian troops at Pristina International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. A joint NATO–Russia peacekeeping operation was supposed to police Kosovo. Russia wanted their peacekeeping force to operate independent of NATO, but NATO refused. British forces were supposed to occupy Pristina International Airport, but a contingent of Russian troops arrived before they did and took control of the airport. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, who told him "you have transfer of authority" in the area. General Clark then issued an order for the NATO troops to attack and "overpower" the armed Russian troops, but Captain James Blount leading the British troops questioned this order[81] and was supported in this decision by General Mike Jackson, the British commander of the Kosovo Force.

Jackson refused to sanction the attack, reportedly saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."[82][83] Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians, instead insisting that troops encircle the airfield. After two days of standoff and negotiations, NATO agreed to an independent Russian peacekeeping force, and Russia relinquished control of the airport. The refusal was criticized by some senior U.S. military personnel, with American general Hugh Shelton calling Jackson's refusal "troubling". During hearings in the United States Senate, Senator John Warner suggested that the refusal might have been illegal, and that if it was legal rules potentially should be changed.[84] British Chief of the Defence Staff Charles Guthrie agreed with Jackson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Pristina_International_Airport_incident



Milosovec is dead, Embassy's were bombed, marketplaces were clusterbombed, civilians were killed

PHOTO DELETED BY MOD
a victim of the Nis Clusterbombing

and no evidence of "genocide" was ever found in Serbia, either by the FBI or UN investigators, but the base the US built in Kosovo- Camp Bondsteel - lives. And it has a particular reputation

300px-Camp_bondsteel_kosovo.jpg
Camp Bondsteel

Wesley K Clark is part of the problem, not the solution.

The Real Reason for these wars won't ever be told by the likes of Wesley K Clark. But the secret has been out, it's just a matter of time before more people learn the truth

Backing up Globalization with Military Might
http://www.globalissues.org/article/448/backing-up-globalization-with-military-might

Americans might want to keep in mind the fact that ignorance isn't much of an excuse.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Interesting speech.

Some things to consider- he was running for office at the time and thus his words are that of a politician...always suspect. His "quote" is actually somebody else's quote- so a second hand quote from a politician with vested interest in hyperbole and divisive rhetoric.

Of course, he is not without his own issues either...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/wes-clark/

and more recently:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/china...aces-questions/story?id=18292965#.UZkynsqv-1x





Don't even mention the oil the Chinese were buying there

I agree. Why mention it when Libya was only China's 7th largest oil source in Africa and from which approximately 3% of their total oil imports came from

china-crude-imports2010.png Chinese crude_oil_imports_source2011.png
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
While I cannot deny it is easy to connect dots and make these claims . . .
like most countries and pseudo-empires the average American like the average British subject 200 years ago have no idea of the grand plan nor do they understand their complicity in the process . . . there is so much propaganda, deceit and manipulation most Americans fall for it hook line and sinker . . . and if one questions the truth you are Un-American or crazy or a conspiracy nut . . . so it won't change until those in power use up the lives and fortunes of most Americans and leave a shell of a once proud people who thought they were doing the right thing . . .

There are and have been a great many fine USAmericans. The UK is still just as gullible (never mind the 200 years! Lol!), so no preferences here. I wouldn't want anyone to think that when I speak of US or UK in this context that I'm speaking about the whole - I'm speaking of the power structures that have hi-jacked what little 'democracy' there ever was; and continue to. That 'Un-American' thing really gets my goat. It seems to me to be the opposite.

But don't be down-hearted, G; the machine is already beginning to seize up - resource wars and the end of growth will happen - they are happening. Large scale resource wars won't be maintainable when the resources are running right down, and the US empire crumbles from within, as they all do - a process already under way. It's coming to the end of that blip in earth's history that saw the human industrial age. Otherwise known as Interesting Times.

We're too greedy and stupid to realize we're all on this boat together, so it'll likely continue to the bitter end - and then, if not before, Mam Gaia's gonna do it the planetary way, also already gearing up - and she'll kick hom sap back to the mesolithic - if we're lucky. Maybe we'll make a better fist of it second time round.
We're not going to do anything sufficient to help ourselves; but no need to stress; no need to panic; worry; fret - just sit back and experience the Gaian method....

Cheers
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
The shock to me is saying it into a microphone.
Yeah. Ex-military top brass usually play for the home team. Keep schtum about such things. Establishment values and a big fat pay-off to sit on the board of .....name your own military contractor/affliated business. They still have an ego, though. Maybe Clarky's got an axe to grind?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I agree. Why mention it when Libya was only China's 7th largest oil source in Africa and from which approximately 3% of their total oil imports came from

So how many workers, what degree of supply and where in the league table of suppliers would you say it becomes worth mentioning? Obviously it's above 30,000 workers, above 7th largest supplier and above 3% total supply from Africa.

Or: If the US was forced to evacuate 30,000 workers from another country, give up 3% of its overall oil supply from their 7th largest supplier because of Chinese military action against the incumbent govt? - do you think that would be worth a mention?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yeah. Ex-military top brass usually play for the home team. Keep schtum about such things. Establishment values and a big fat pay-off to sit on the board of .....name your own military contractor/affliated business. They still have an ego, though. Maybe Clarky's got an axe to grind?
Yes, it is hard to determine Clark's motivation for loose lips . . . partly ego, partly honesty, partly political, maybe a bit of pathology . . . however, in many ways believable . . . especially to us conspiracy wamps . . .
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Yes, it is hard to determine Clark's motivation for loose lips . . . partly ego, partly honesty, partly political, maybe a bit of pathology . . . however, in many ways believable . . . especially to us conspiracy wamps . . .
Why is it hard? He was running for President as a Democrat when he made that speech- motivation seems quite clear- fear mongering to pander for votes.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why is it hard? He was running for President as a Democrat when he made that speech- motivation seems quite clear.
So you think there was no truth in his statements . . . all politically motivated?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
and no evidence of "genocide" was ever found in Serbia, either by the FBI or UN investigators, ...
um... What the hell man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_war_crimes_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide


 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
General Clark was not the first one to do so . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler


Butler was also the one who blew the whistle to Congress on the JPMorgan and associates plot for a fascist coup against Roosevelt in 1934. They made the mistake of approaching Butler to be the leader of the coup and a 500,000 man march on Washington. Good old Smedley saw the light eventually, G. As we all must!

Cheers
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
So you think there was no truth in his statements . . . all politically motivated?
The 2 (truth and political motivation) are not mutually exclusive.

But politicians and their "truthiness" are highly suspect in my opinion- especially when running for office....and Clark's reputation is not without issues such that his words- in context- should not be accepted as "truth" per se

Again- the quote in question is actually his re-telling of another person's words...further down the "truth" chain.

Indeed, considering the US already invaded Iraq at the time- the accuracy of the quote is not without its problems.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The 2 (truth and political motivation) are not mutually exclusive.

But politicians and their "truthiness" are highly suspect in my opinion- especially when running for office....and Clark's reputation is not without issues such that his words- in context- should not be accepted as "truth" per se

Again- the quote in question is actually his re-telling of another person's words...further down the "truth" chain.

Indeed, considering the US already invaded Iraq at the time- the accuracy of the quote is not without its problems.
I cannot argue your logic . . . however, I greatly distrust the motivations of all powerful groups . . . absolute power corrupts absolutely . . . as they say . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Yes, it is hard to determine Clark's motivation for loose lips . . . partly ego, partly honesty, partly political, maybe a bit of pathology . . . however, in many ways believable . . . especially to us conspiracy wamps . . .
Smells like the usual mix of truth and lies to me, G. There's a lot of it about.

Let's see where ole Wes ends up 'earning' his crust. Then we'll know. Think we do already, though.
 

Titus Dafoe

New Member
Is it really a shock to you that General Clark says wars are planned (and things don't always go according to plan)? You don't think they are?

If you understand anything about geo-politics and the imperialism of the USukisnato criminal syndicate - then you can see what's going on. Can't you? The US wants domination - nothing less - and controlling resources is vital to achieving that aim; and through that, also controlling the destiny of your rivals.

Iraq? Job done? Only about 1 million dead (since the invasion in 2003 - and about another million due to prior 'sanctions'); 4 million displaced; an epidemic of mental illness; an epidemic of birth defects due to poisoned environment (uranium and other heavy metals); an epidemic of cancers due to the same; nearly one million widows; 2 million directly physically affected by weaponry. A real success. And it continues. They got operation 'Enduring Freedom', but we got a fair bit of the oil, though.

Libya - a country without a central bank system linked in to the rest, ie. independent - and Gaddaffi was doing all kind of neat things, launching a Telecoms satellite and all - that would rob US companies of their african telecoms business, just for one. Don't even mention the oil the Chinese were buying there, and the 30,000 Chinese workers forced out by the er, 'no-fly-zone' aka - USuk turkey shoot. He's out the way now, old Muammar, after being sodomized and strung up - and how Hillary laughed, remember? Freedom and democracy - that's what it's all about. And civilization, mustn't forget that.

Now Syria - arming jihadists to do the dirty work - they have to do Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah) in order to pave the way for Iran - another independent country - and lots of oil too - bonus! The Iranians are currently having their economy ruined by specious 'sanctions' relating to US bullshit about their nuclear situation. A lot of Iranians are hungry right now. It's called 'strategy'.

As for Somalia and Sudan - we'll see. But I'm sure it's part of the plan. What'll also be part of the plan will be the question: At what point do China and/or Russia (+ Brazil, India and South Africa) say - that's it? Do you think they've planned for it?

I see this video posted many times in the comments of news sites which tow the CT line. Whilst Iraq and Afghanistan may be true, this plan came to light during the Bush years. Since then, Obama happened and also the Arab Spring. America was ill prepared and caught off guard by the revolts in the Middle East and were out of their depth. They have struggled to keep hold of whats going on. They have managed to get Egypt and Tunisia in their pocket but not without difficulty for Libya. As for Syria, America had no instigative hand in the revolt and have kept their distance despite opposing state television claiming that they have been arming the jihadi's. The term Jihadi is often used when describing the majority of rebels when that is not the case. There is talk of another conflict starting as soon as Assad is gone between the Islamists and the secular FSA. America's influence in Syria is small and are not supplying weapons to the Islamists. Saudi Arabia no doubt.

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home...rge-in-foreign-weapons-for-the-insurgent.html

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home...arms-for-insurgents-the-case-of-the-croa.html

http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/foreign-smuggled-weapons-spread.html

So Syria is off the cards, I cannot see a war against Lebanon in the near future. They have sealed their fate with the FSA and Iran have been running their economy into the ground for years and by giving a lot of public money away to Hezbollah which has stirred up public opinion. Iran is not about invasion but rather regime change. After the fraudulent election and the after mass which followed, America has kept it distance rather trying diplomatic methods whereas Bush would have gone in by now plus also popular former president Hashemi Rafsanjani is running for presidency again a lot of people see him being able to close the hostility between the two countries.

But in a short nutshell like that above, Wesley Clarke's theory not happen, Bush is out of office and the Arab Spring happened. Connecting the dots is easy to do especially among CT's but if they are after world domination its not going to happen anytime soon. Maybe Wesley should rewrite his plan especially now that he is on reality tv.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
um... What the hell man?
The Serbian police and the Yugoslav Army were in spring 1999 "in an organized manner, with significant use of state resources" conducted a broad campaign of violence against Albanian civilians
Some of those mass graves relating to the Kosovo conflcit were found in Serbia itself. The largest mass grave was found in a Police training ground near Belgrade containing over 700 bodies.


http://www.ic-mp.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/icmp-fsd-16-04-2-doc.pdf


Some 74 bodies were recovered in a mass grave in Petrovo Selo, Serbia. 84 were recovered from Perućac lake, Serbia.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1414735.stm


Serbian MUP general Vlastimir Djordjevic admitted he was responsible for burying the bodies of Kosovo Albanians in Batajnica. Djordjevic also admitted he knew the bodies had been found in the Perucac lake..... As Djordjevic said, ‘I admit I was involved in the effort to bury the bodies in Batajnica and I am sorry’. Djordjevic added, ‘I admit that I knew’ that some of the bodies had been hidden in the Perucac lake. The bodies of 744 Albanian civilians, including women and children, were exhumed in Batajnica; 84 bodies were discovered in the Perucac lake.

http://www.sense-agency.com/icty.29.html?news_id=14449
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
um... What the hell man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_war_crimes_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide


There are much better, more reliable sources than wikipedia.

There was no more a genocide by the Serbs in Bosnia than there was by the Croatians. Just so happens that giving it that name enabled (through the ever compliant lamestream western media) NATO to step up its attack on Serbia - a Russian ally.

The 'ethnic cleansing' of 250,000 Serbs in the Krajina region of Croatia took place just one month after the Srebenica massacre. But no calls of 'genocide' there. Serbia was the 'official enemy'. The atrocities listed on wiki do not amount to genocide, they amount to the usual crimes that take place in any war, by all sides. It's another false meme created to manipulate opinion against the Serbs and for further realpolitikally motivated geo-political 'intervention'.

And as far as the International Court goes? When they start applying the same principles to the really serious war criminals, like Blair, Bush, Cheney, Obama etc etc etc, then I'll take notice. Until then - it's a bad joke. Whatever you do, don't mention Guantanamo - or all the other kidnap and torture destinations of the US Gulag archipelago.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I see this video posted many times in the comments of news sites which tow the CT line. Whilst Iraq and Afghanistan may be true, this plan came to light during the Bush years. Since then, Obama happened and also the Arab Spring. America was ill prepared and caught off guard by the revolts in the Middle East and were out of their depth. They have struggled to keep hold of whats going on. They have managed to get Egypt and Tunisia in their pocket but not without difficulty for Libya. As for Syria, America had no instigative hand in the revolt and have kept their distance despite opposing state television claiming that they have been arming the jihadi's. The term Jihadi is often used when describing the majority of rebels when that is not the case. There is talk of another conflict starting as soon as Assad is gone between the Islamists and the secular FSA. America's influence in Syria is small and are not supplying weapons to the Islamists. Saudi Arabia no doubt. http://www.enduringamerica.com/home...rge-in-foreign-weapons-for-the-insurgent.html http://www.enduringamerica.com/home...arms-for-insurgents-the-case-of-the-croa.html http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/foreign-smuggled-weapons-spread.html So Syria is off the cards, I cannot see a war against Lebanon in the near future. They have sealed their fate with the FSA and Iran have been running their economy into the ground for years and by giving a lot of public money away to Hezbollah which has stirred up public opinion. Iran is not about invasion but rather regime change. After the fraudulent election and the after mass which followed, America has kept it distance rather trying diplomatic methods whereas Bush would have gone in by now plus also popular former president Hashemi Rafsanjani is running for presidency again a lot of people see him being able to close the hostility between the two countries. But in a short nutshell like that above, Wesley Clarke's theory not happen, Bush is out of office and the Arab Spring happened. Connecting the dots is easy to do especially among CT's but if they are after world domination its not going to happen anytime soon. Maybe Wesley should rewrite his plan especially now that he is on reality tv.
'Whilst Iraq and Afghanistan may be true...' May be? I think you're just interested in using the meaning-free boo phrase 'CT' or 'conspiracy theorist' as much as you can. And without a grasp of the real world situation. Iran's 'fraudulent election'? Lol! Show me an election in the UK since 1931 that hasn't been fraudulent. And they've ruined their economy handing out money to Hezbollah? Lol! 'Regime change', eh? That old chestnut. Is that alright? I don't know where you're getting your 'facts', but it sounds like it could be The FCO - and/or The Daily Mail.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
'Whilst Iraq and Afghanistan may be true...' May be? I think you're just interested in using the meaning-free boo phrase 'CT' or 'conspiracy theorist' as much as you can. And without a grasp of the real world situation. Iran's 'fraudulent election'? Lol! Show me an election in the UK since 1931 that hasn't been fraudulent. And they've ruined their economy handing out money to Hezbollah? Lol! 'Regime change', eh? That old chestnut. Is that alright? I don't know where you're getting your 'facts', but it sounds like it could be The FCO - and/or The Daily Mail.
Can you please demonstrate your claim that Uk elections are fraudulent?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Can you please demonstrate your claim that Uk elections are fraudulent?
Sure. But don't expect me to do all the work. What do you know of the 1931 election? National Government? Baldwin? Election 1935? Ten Year rule? What did it mean for 'democracy'? Which books/authors have you read?

Here's a few links to books etc - but then you need to look beneath the surface - http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...780,d.bGE&fp=ba64e33975863f3&biw=1024&bih=616


So you can find the answer to your own question in reading history - and if you recall, before that, I asked to be shown a UK election since 1931 which wasn't fraudulent. It's not like there wasn't a clue.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Sure. But don't expect me to do all the work. What do you know of the 1931 election? National Government? Baldwin? Election 1935? Ten Year rule? What did it mean for 'democracy'? Which books/authors have you read?

Here's a few links to books etc - but then you need to look beneath the surface - http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...780,d.bGE&fp=ba64e33975863f3&biw=1024&bih=616


So you can find the answer to your own question in reading history - and if you recall, before that, I asked to be shown a UK election since 1931 which wasn't fraudulent. It's not like there wasn't a clue.
Well if you are asking me to prove a negative, I guess I can't also prove that there was not an election since 1931 in which all the candidates were not spoken to by Angels. But seeing as I have not heard anyone in opposition complain about corrupt elections in the UK ever, Ill take your assertion as slightly misplaced.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Well if you are asking me to prove a negative, I guess I can't also prove that there was not an election since 1931 in which all the candidates were not spoken to by Angels. But seeing as I have not heard anyone in opposition complain about corrupt elections in the UK ever, Ill take your assertion as slightly misplaced.
I'm asking you to prove a negative? Where? Rhetorical questions don't require answers - especially ones with no question mark following them. Even more especially ones that weren't addressed to you in the first place.
And the rhetorical question was a request to show an election, since 1931, in the UK that wasn't 'fraudulent' - where you say 'corrupt'. That's not 'proving a negative' - showing an election in the UK since 1931 that is fair and free and giving your reasons why. That would be a positive. But yes, 'seeing as you have not heard anyone in opposition complain'...then it - whatever it is - can't be true, can it? I presume you mean Her Majesty's Opposition? (Note the proper noun status).

Apparently you know nothing of the context, and can't be bothered to learn for yourself. A genuinely interested person might make an effort to familiarise themselves with the facts - 1931.

'Ill take your assertion as slightly misplaced' - Take it how you want it, but how would you know? (no need to answer - it's rhetorical)

BombDr, eh? Do you specialise in oxymorons?
 

lotek

Active Member
and Gaddaffi was doing all kind of neat things
Ahahaha i love reading that. Like clockwork someone will point out these things, or hey watch this youtube video of him and his people... buy into propaganda often? flagrant, oozing, criminal profit driven propaganda..? Guy was a thug. Glorify from your first world computer chair all you want.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Ahahaha i love reading that. Like clockwork someone will point out these things, or hey watch this youtube video of him and his people... buy into propaganda often? flagrant, oozing, criminal profit driven propaganda..? Guy was a thug. Glorify from your first world computer chair all you want.
Didn't you ever learn about context?

Thug, eh? Small beer compared to USukisnato criminal syndicate. Not so long ago, presumably he was your kind of thug when the US was sending kidnapped people to Libya for a spot of torture? Yes?
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I'm asking you to prove a negative? Where? Rhetorical questions don't require answers - especially ones with no question mark following them. Even more especially ones that weren't addressed to you in the first place.
And the rhetorical question was a request to show an election, since 1931, in the UK that wasn't 'fraudulent' - where you say 'corrupt'. That's not 'proving a negative' - showing an election in the UK since 1931 that is fair and free and giving your reasons why. That would be a positive. But yes, 'seeing as you have not heard anyone in opposition complain'...then it - whatever it is - can't be true, can it? I presume you mean Her Majesty's Opposition? (Note the proper noun status).

Apparently you know nothing of the context, and can't be bothered to learn for yourself. A genuinely interested person might make an effort to familiarise themselves with the facts - 1931.

'Ill take your assertion as slightly misplaced' - Take it how you want it, but how would you know? (no need to answer - it's rhetorical)

BombDr, eh? Do you specialise in oxymorons?

I am an EOD Operator, which are known as Bomb-Doctors. Slang is not always grammatically correct.
 

Lost World

New Member
Why is it so unbelievable that the US would plan a large scale military campaign up front? The dynamics of the wars and of economics could mean the timelines and priorities change over time, but a simliar schedule was clearly laid out in the PNAC document, which listed most of those countries. It would be impossible to say with any certainty that a specific number of countries could be dealt with within a specific time frame, but the concept and principle of multiple successive conflicts is there, published for all to see.

Not much of a conspiracy theory really.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why is it so unbelievable that the US would plan a large scale military campaign up front? The dynamics of the wars and of economics could mean the timelines and priorities change over time, but a simliar schedule was clearly laid out in the PNAC document, which listed most of those countries. It would be impossible to say with any certainty that a specific number of countries could be dealt with within a specific time frame, but the concept and principle of multiple successive conflicts is there, published for all to see.

Not much of a conspiracy theory really.
Conspiracy or a logical progression of political, economic and military realities?
 

Lost World

New Member
Conspiracy or a logical progression of political, economic and military realities?
Well, I would say that there was an element of conspiracy in it, in that a group of people got together and 'conspired' to do it. It may not have been splashed across the NY Times front page, but then I doubt the complexities of any military operation would be published with such a fanfare ahead of them being executed. That said, the plans were available to download and read for yourself back in 2000 - 2001. Of course the PNAC was just a neo-con think tank, and their proposal was just that, a proposal. It wasn't 'policy' So, you could argue that what happened in the years after was just a coincidence. You could also argue that once Bush had left office the continuation of the program with Libya, and the probable forthcoming intervention in Syria are examples of Obama continuing the agenda. Of course Obama, as a democrat needs to work hard to preserve the illusion of difference between the two parties. Where a republican whitehouse may go in guns blazing and dropping bombs, democrats sneak in the back door paying terrorist groups to bring down regimes from within. The endgame is arguably the same though; change to a relatively western friendly regime (a strategy that has broadly failed in Afghanistan) and to create chaos in the region that justifies a long term western military presence in the area, or at least western contractors, so it can appear that the administration is bringing the boys home after somekind of vague victory.

All ties into 'military and economic realities' as you say. I don't regard any of this as conspiracy theory in the sense that a shadowy cabal of freemasons got round the table, drank virgins blood and plotted to take over the world. It looks to me like a strategy no more sinister than some of the plans that I'm sure were doing the rounds during the cold war.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, I would say that there was an element of conspiracy in it, in that a group of people got together and 'conspired' to do it. It may not have been splashed across the NY Times front page, but then I doubt the complexities of any military operation would be published with such a fanfare ahead of them being executed. That said, the plans were available to download and read for yourself back in 2000 - 2001. Of course the PNAC was just a neo-con think tank, and their proposal was just that, a proposal. It wasn't 'policy' So, you could argue that what happened in the years after was just a coincidence. You could also argue that once Bush had left office the continuation of the program with Libya, and the probable forthcoming intervention in Syria are examples of Obama continuing the agenda. Of course Obama, as a democrat needs to work hard to preserve the illusion of difference between the two parties. Where a republican whitehouse may go in guns blazing and dropping bombs, democrats sneak in the back door paying terrorist groups to bring down regimes from within. The endgame is arguably the same though; change to a relatively western friendly regime (a strategy that has broadly failed in Afghanistan) and to create chaos in the region that justifies a long term western military presence in the area, or at least western contractors, so it can appear that the administration is bringing the boys home after somekind of vague victory.

All ties into 'military and economic realities' as you say. I don't regard any of this as conspiracy theory in the sense that a shadowy cabal of freemasons got round the table, drank virgins blood and plotted to take over the world. It looks to me like a strategy no more sinister than some of the plans that I'm sure were doing the rounds during the cold war.
Well stated. . . .
 

Grieves

Senior Member
On the subject of Syria, if anyone had any illusions about it stopping there...

But with the British, French and American governments considering providing arms to the Syrian opposition on a scale not yet seen in the civil war, the U.S. official’s allegation was a tacit acknowledgment that the two-year-old Syrian conflict has become a regional war and a de facto U.S. proxy fight with Iran.
How long till we can come right out and call it world war 3? 5 more years of continuous conflict, maybe?
 

Lost World

New Member
On the subject of Syria, if anyone had any illusions about it stopping there...


How long till we can come right out and call it world war 3? 5 more years of continuous conflict, maybe?
The risk of serious escalation is real, although not inevitable in my opinion. The ultimate prize may well be Iran here. It appears their biggest ally in the region is currently being dealt with through various, and quite dubious means. I'm no fan of Assad, but the complex and radical make up of some of the opposition could spell trouble for the west, as did the establishment of Al Queada on the back of the Soviet/Afghan war.

I guess a world war would be defined by a number of simultaneous multi-regional conflicts, with some political and ideological links, but of course we can call these things what we like. Some of the more alarmist commentators say it has already begun. I understand their reasoning, although don't really share the view. Yet. The one thing that bothers me the most is not Iran getting the bomb, but the possibility of a proxy war with Russia getting out of control. Russia routinely supplies Assad with weapons. At the start of this the idea of the west supplying weapons to the rebels was completely dismissed, but now the idea is gathering some momentum, and I don't doubt will lead to the arming of Islamic militants to do the wests bidding. Bearing in mind the alliance between Russia and Syria and Iran, for how long will Moscow sit back and watch this play out, before Putin decides enough is enough. Israel is another wild card in this. If they choose to attack Iran, that could be sufficient motivation for Russia to intervene.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
The risk of serious escalation is real, although not inevitable in my opinion.
I'm afraid I'm a bit more cynical than you Lost, as not only am I convinced open conflict with Iran is an inevitability, but I believe conflict with Russia is already on the table. The rhetoric coming out of American media and especially politicians in regard to Russia is frighteningly hostile. I think it was Hillary Clinton herself who suggested Russia and China were going to 'pay' for their position on Syria.
 

Lost World

New Member
I'm afraid I'm a bit more cynical than you Lost, as not only am I convinced open conflict with Iran is an inevitability, but I believe conflict with Russia is already on the table. The rhetoric coming out of American media and especially politicians in regard to Russia is frighteningly hostile. I think it was Hillary Clinton herself who suggested Russia and China were going to 'pay' for their position on Syria.
I hope you're wrong!

It's worth bearing in mind though that the rhetoric coming out of the western media and politicians with regard to Russia has always been frighteningly hostile. They are still very much a potential adversary, and the declaration of the end of the cold war was more symbolic than anything else. Russia may have have embraced elements of capitalism and opened its doors to the world, but they still don't trust the west, and still have thousands of nuclear warheads trained on us, and vice versa of course.
 

Related Articles

Top