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

Grieves

Senior Member
Lets also not forget this....

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and other “dictators” may be “nervous” after the death of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, U.S. Senator John McCain said.
“I think dictators all over the world, including Bashar al-Assad, maybe even Mr. Putin, maybe some Chinese, maybe all of them, may be a little bit more nervous,” McCain said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. late yesterday. “It’s the spring, not just the Arab spring.”
Qaddafi was killed yesterday after an eight-month armed conflict that left thousands dead.

Considering America's heavy role in Qaddafi's death, that's a pretty fucked up thing for an American senator to be saying about two supposed partner nations.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Lets also not forget this....


Sure you could spin that as McCain saying "Putin gonna get killed", but really it's "the geopolitical status quo is changing, and the position of the old order of dictators and oligarchs is no longer as stable as it was a few years ago"
 

moderateGOP

Active 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]

OMG I was just talking about this video with a CTer on Facebook! If you are interested I have debunked this on my site. What Wesley Clark's ambitions are. Where he came from. What he has done, and why he said what he said. Basically assertions of his political ambitions are the primary reason for the stated comments. Which was done at a political event, when he was considering running for President! He was also promoting a book at the time. When he endorsed Hillary Clinton, the book was published at the same time!

What you should take away from this is, that Clark was not talking about the future. He was talking about the past!!! He was talking in past tense, about a conversation he had with some nameless official back in 2001. That guy said we would destroy 7 countries in five years. So if you do the math, that means Bush's Global Domination plan should have been completed in 2006 right???
 

Sausalito

Active Member
I was introduced to Gen. Clark 2007 or 2008 in Chicago. Shook his hand. Exchanged small talk. All I can say is, I'm pretty sure that he's not one of those inter-dimensional reptile people.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
I was introduced to Gen. Clark 2007 or 2008 in Chicago. Shook his hand. Exchanged small talk. All I can say is, I'm pretty sure that he's not one of those inter-dimensional reptile people.

You must show me proof that he is NOT a reptillian, for all we know he is!!! /sarcasm. Yet, they still believe what he says because of his anti-war rhetoric.
 

xenon

Active Member
... but really it's "the geopolitical status quo is changing, and the position of the old order of dictators and oligarchs is no longer as stable as it was a few years ago"

Eerily similar:

“The affirmative task we have now,” Biden said, “is to create a new world order, because the global order is changing again, and the institutions of the world worked so well in the post-World War II era for decades, they need to be strengthened, and some need to be changed.”
--Vice President Joe Biden April 2013 at the Export-Import Bank Conference in Washington, D.C.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Eerily similar:

“The affirmative task we have now,” Biden said, “is to create a new world order, because the global order is changing again, and the institutions of the world worked so well in the post-World War II era for decades, they need to be strengthened, and some need to be changed.”
--Vice President Joe Biden April 2013 at the Export-Import Bank Conference in Washington, D.C.


Of course, there's no reason anyone would say "new world order" other than to refer to the nefarious one-world-government plot to subjugate all of mankind. It's kind of funny that the CT community thinks they've figured out that such a plot has a name, the "New World Order", and that public figureheads refer to it by that in public speeches going back 20+ years. Why they've waited(or, continue to wait) before executing this grand scheme escapes me.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Of course, there's no reason anyone would say "new world order" other than to refer to the nefarious one-world-government plot to subjugate all of mankind. It's kind of funny that the CT community thinks they've figured out that such a plot has a name, the "New World Order", and that public figureheads refer to it by that in public speeches going back 20+ years. Why they've waited(or, continue to wait) before executing this grand scheme escapes me.
Perhaps because it is not nefarious to everyone... which would account for certain politicians and elite executives, referring to, planning, executing and adapting it. Another name is Globalisation.

Do you deny that the E.U, U.N, Tri Lateral agreement, Globalisation, Bilderbergers etc are all working toward a world government, world economy, world banking and commerce and world police force?

Do you expect it to be created overnight or even in a few years... there is vast opposition which is gradually being overcome, some by negotiation, some by economic wars and some by military campaigns and subversion toppling governments which are opposed to it. Noticed anything going on in the M.E lately?

There is no doubt it has many advantages, (which is how it is being sold), however there is also no doubt it has many disadvantages as is self evident by the wars, rampant surveillance of citizens, (I mean consumers), a kleptocracy where the 'haves' have unassailable wealth and power, (the 1%) and the have nots have are used and abused, (80%) and then the 19% or so who are reasonably ok and happy to go along.

Nefarious is in the eye of the beholder as are many other things.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Perhaps because it is not nefarious to everyone... which would account for certain politicians and elite executives, referring to, planning, executing and adapting it. Another name is Globalisation.

Do you deny that the E.U, U.N, Tri Lateral agreement, Globalisation, Bilderbergers etc are all working toward a world government, world economy, world banking and commerce and world police force?

Do you expect it to be created overnight or even in a few years... there is vast opposition which is gradually being overcome, some by negotiation, some by economic wars and some by military campaigns and subversion toppling governments which are opposed to it. Noticed anything going on in the M.E lately?

There is no doubt it has many advantages, (which is how it is being sold), however there is also no doubt it has many disadvantages as is self evident by the wars, rampant surveillance of citizens, (I mean consumers), a kleptocracy where the 'haves' have unassailable wealth and power, (the 1%) and the have nots have are used and abused, (80%) and then the 19% or so who are reasonably ok and happy to go along.

Nefarious is in the eye of the beholder as are many other things.

Moving the goalposts. The core tenants of the NWO conspiracy theory are martial law, concentration camps, population control and other scary things for us supposedly worthless common folk.

"E.U, U.N, Tri Lateral agreement, Globalisation, Bilderbergers"(one of which is not even a group) are by your definition very powerful organizations. According to the conspiracies, they already control the entirety of the world's militaries and can pull off staged events without a hitch in order to shift public opinion. Surely the NWO would have already crippled the growth of the Internet to prevent the dissemination of information regarding their plot, to prevent this very sort of discussion from happening. Before you say such a thing would have been impossible, it's been possible for decades.

It's hard to believe an argument that every government in the world is in on it and making a concerted effort towards this goal but they didn't take such measures long ago.

If these organizations are making such a direct effort to disenfranchise the common man because it directly benefits them, then they're not doing a very good job:

Wars, including those that occurred during the 20th century, are arguably a result of the lack of globalization. As evidenced by the absence of conflict in the 1900s and 2000s compared to the rest of the history of mankind, a connected world has far more to gain from cooperation than from war. In fact, there's a pretty solid case to be made that we're living in the most peaceful period in human history:


An ideal world does involve the breaking down of national borders and everything they currently prevent, there's no arguing that. We are one species, one ecosystem, one planet. If we're going to offset the natural disasters that are going to keep getting worse as a result of our destruction of the environment, then we're going to need to work cohesively as one world. Same goes for addressing the problems of inequality and injustice.

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Moving the goalposts. The core tenants of the NWO conspiracy theory are martial law, concentration camps, population control and other scary things for us supposedly worthless common folk.

"E.U, U.N, Tri Lateral agreement, Globalisation, Bilderbergers"(one of which is not even a group) are by your definition very powerful organizations. According to the conspiracies, they already control the entirety of the world's militaries and can pull off staged events without a hitch in order to shift public opinion. Surely the NWO would have already crippled the growth of the Internet to prevent the dissemination of information regarding their plot, to prevent this very sort of discussion from happening. Before you say such a thing would have been impossible, it's been possible for decades.

It's hard to believe an argument that every government in the world is in on it and making a concerted effort towards this goal but they didn't take such measures long ago.

If these organizations are making such a direct effort to disenfranchise the common man because it directly benefits them, then they're not doing a very good job:
I fear we are digressing from the thread here, and I accept that I may have inadvertently contributed to that. Perhaps it would be better to move these posts to a more appropriate thread. If it is ok to proceed on this thread, i will respond later.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
So the CTers are now saying that since they know the timeline is all messed up on Clark's speech and that we really didn't invade seven countries from 2001 to 2006. They are saying that because Clark mentioned several countries that we have invaded thirteen years later. He is still right. How do you combat this twisted logic???

Simply put we didn't invade seven countries from 2001-2006. Why he would then say this in 2007 is beyond me and pretty idiotic. I think that's good enough.
 

Boodles

Banned
Banned
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'.
The Srebrenica massacre has taken on both symbolic and mythical properties, all in the service of political agendas. The symbol is of Serb evil, manifested in an alleged cold-blooded and unprovoked massacre of innocents reminiscent of Nazi behavior during World War II. The myth is that 8000 Bosnian Muslim “men and boys” were executed in the vicinity of Srebrenica in July 1995, and that any executions there were unprovoked and carried out in accord with a genocidal plan. Both facts and language have had to be aggressively massaged to support these claims. The political agendas served by the massacre claims were those of the Bosnian Muslims, striving to get NATO to enter the Bosnian struggle more actively, the Croats, who needed a demonization of Serbs to carry out their own ethnic cleansing plans (most notably, removing 250,000 Serbs from Croatian Krajina in the very next month, August 1995), and the Clinton administration, under attack for a failure to intervene more actively on behalf of the Croats and Muslims and searching for an excuse to do so.

gen·o·cide
n.
The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
[Greek genos, race; see gen - in Indo-European roots + -cide.]

Yes, literally speaking, this very emotive word only applies (within modern history) to the Ashkenazim within German occupied Europe, the Tutsis within Rwanda and the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire, as far as I know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So the CTers are now saying that since they know the timeline is all messed up on Clark's speech and that we really didn't invade seven countries from 2001 to 2006. They are saying that because Clark mentioned several countries that we have invaded thirteen years later. He is still right. How do you combat this twisted logic???

Simply put we didn't invade seven countries from 2001-2006. Why he would then say this in 2007 is beyond me and pretty idiotic. I think that's good enough.
I would have thought it obvious. The intent was there. Ever heard the phrase “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.”

So it didn't go to plan in the time frame and is still ongoing. It negates the plan not one jot. How many buildings go overtime and overbudget? Does that mean the original plans did not exist or that they did not eventually come to fruition? Some plans fail due to counterplans, unforeseen complications,

Why do you think there are charges on the statutes such as 'attempted', murder, robbery, blackmail etc. It is patently clear that the plan existed, was partially carried out and is still being actively and aggressively pursued.

But perhaps you would like to attempt to debunk that concept and show that the plan never existed, wasn't partially carried out and is NOT still actively and aggressively being pursued?
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
1. Do you deny that the E.U, U.N, Tri Lateral agreement, Globalisation, Bilderbergers etc are all working toward a world government, world economy, world banking and commerce and world police force?

2. Do you expect it to be created overnight or even in a few years...

1. It sure is taking them a heck of a long time to get this thing accomplished. Whatever that is... I don't expect them to create a One World Government.

2. I don't expect it to be created at all...

Have I answered your questions?
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
I would have thought it obvious. The intent was there. Ever heard the phrase “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.”

So it didn't go to plan in the time frame and is still ongoing. It negates the plan not one jot. How many buildings go overtime and overbudget? Does that mean the original plans did not exist or that they did not eventually come to fruition? Some plans fail due to counterplans, unforeseen complications,

Why do you think there are charges on the statutes such as 'attempted', murder, robbery, blackmail etc. It is patently clear that the plan existed, was partially carried out and is still being actively and aggressively pursued.

But perhaps you would like to attempt to debunk that concept and show that the plan never existed, wasn't partially carried out and is NOT still actively and aggressively being pursued?

So is the NWO all-powerful or not? If they can pull off false flags in full public view in order to to drag the country into a decade-long war, what can't they do? If they control the world's governments, militaries, businesses, and media, who exactly is putting such a large wrench in their plans that we've still seen leaps and bounds of progress with regards to human rights over the last century?

Seems like moving the goal posts to me. They are either demonstrably not all-powerful given the above, or they're not actually evil, or it's not actually real. Either way, it doesn't seem like something to worry about, considering that they control every institution in society and yet still don't seem to be enjoying the sort of success you describe as being their end goal.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So is the NWO all-powerful or not?
Of course it isn't but the intent is there and it is gaining power exponentially. What do you think all this spying and tracking the public and all massive wealth siphoning and all these wars are about... "bringing democracy and freedom to the oppressed"? :rolleyes:

If they can pull off false flags in full public view in order to to drag the country into a decade-long war, what can't they do?

They cannot control the world population at the moment because there is still strong resistance and billions of people see them for the scum they are and are fighting back but it is definitely still going their way.

If they control the world's governments, militaries, businesses, and media, who exactly is putting such a large wrench in their plans that we've still seen leaps and bounds of progress with regards to human rights over the last century?

Again, they do not control all the world governments and military... this is why there are so many wars going on at the moment and have been for decades... in order to bring them under their control.

You talk about human rights improvements as if they were benevolently bestowed. They were not. They were fought for and and blood was shed to acquire them and they will need to be fought for and more blood shed to stop them being removed as they rapidly are, along with the wealth grab. Also where are peoples human rights when they are being bombed back to the stone age an millions dying from starvation and toxic chemicals and water rights are being grabbed by huge corporations around the world like Nestle and being sold at 1000's of % mark up?

Seems like moving the goal posts to me.
Does it really? Well you should know. According to you its 'nothing to see here... move along'... how convenient?

They are either demonstrably not all-powerful given the above, or they're not actually evil, or it's not actually real. Either way, it doesn't seem like something to worry about, considering that they control every institution in society and yet still don't seem to be enjoying the sort of success you describe as being their end goal.

"Look into my eyes... sleeeep... sleeep... all is well... we come in peace... we are your friends... ignore the screams... they are the enemy.... join us and we will protect you so long as you obey"
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Of course it isn't but the intent is there and it is gaining power exponentially. What do you think all this spying and tracking the public and all massive wealth siphoning and all these wars are about... "bringing democracy and freedom to the oppressed"? :rolleyes:



They cannot control the world population at the moment because there is still strong resistance and billions of people see them for the scum they are and are fighting back but it is definitely still going their way.



Again, they do not control all the world governments and military... this is why there are so many wars going on at the moment and have been for decades... in order to bring them under their control.

You talk about human rights improvements as if they were benevolently bestowed. They were not. They were fought for and and blood was shed to acquire them and they will need to be fought for and more blood shed to stop them being removed as they rapidly are, along with the wealth grab. Also where are peoples human rights when they are being bombed back to the stone age an millions dying from starvation and toxic chemicals and water rights are being grabbed by huge corporations around the world like Nestle and being sold at 1000's of % mark up?


Does it really? Well you should know. According to you its 'nothing to see here... move along'... how convenient?



"Look into my eyes... sleeeep... sleeep... all is well... we come in peace... we are your friends... ignore the screams... they are the enemy.... join us and we will protect you so long as you obey"

I'm sorry Oxy, but this reads like a lack of understanding of history. The world has already lived through centuries of governance that were much more akin to the kind of totalitarian domination you're describing. In fact, I think a redefinition of the phrase "new world order" is needed - the kind of "resistance" you're describing is the new world order. Old world capitalism and draconian governance are nothing "new" in any sense and are certainly not winning - I think we can agree on that much at least.

Additionally it seems you misunderstood parts of what I said. I never said that the "NWO" benevolently "bestowed" human rights improvements, but instead inquired as to why the would allow them to occur at all under their watch.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I'm sorry Oxy, but this reads like a lack of understanding of history. The world has already lived through centuries of governance that were much more akin to the kind of totalitarian domination you're describing. In fact, I think a redefinition of the phrase "new world order" is needed - the kind of "resistance" you're describing is the new world order. Old world capitalism and draconian governance are nothing "new" in any sense and are certainly not winning - I think we can agree on that much at least.

Additionally it seems you misunderstood parts of what I said. I never said that the "NWO" benevolently "bestowed" human rights improvements, but instead inquired as to why the would allow them to occur at all under their watch.
Worldwide domination is indeed 'nothing new'. It has been attempted many times with varying success by different countries and religions and indeed corporations as instanced by the case with the British Raj:

But now we have a full blown Globalisation campaign which unsurprisingly benefits corporations at the expense of people, apart from the elite and a few million hangers on. Politicians answer to the corporations and not the people. Laws are passed stripping hard fought gains from the people and Corporations and Banksters run rampant all supported by militarised Police States, especially in the U.S but lots of people on here apparently love it and feel protected and do their best to 'debunk' anyone who does not like it.

The fact is Billions of people worldwide do not like it and see it for what it is... illegal warmongering, mass murder and usury.

But still, what's a few million more dead people... no big deal... plenty more where they came from and what a wonderful ordered world we will have when the world governance and banks are totally in control. Well at least for some.
 
Last edited:
Top