Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Challenging U.S. Foreign Policy

515 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

robinrenee

Well it would certainly be a step in that direction, Robin. Good points.

Thanks, Yamato. I find myself not liking what I see with the direction of the globalists. Decades ago, I embraced the value of a global society. In this past decade, I see its being implemented so fast now. And I see the pain it's inflicting. In the beginning, 50 years ago, I didn't think that I would live to see it. Now I'm afraid that we're living through the birth pangs of the "New World Order." It's not what I expected it to be, but I have to believe that someday...

That said, if only we could do what Syrian Girl said.... "Give them a safe homeland to return to."

I'll bet that even the Mexican migrants would rather be able to earn a good living in their own country. Most people like to be able to be close to family.

Edited by robinrenee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Thanks, Yamato. I find myself not liking what I see with the direction of the globalists. Decades ago, I embraced the value of a global society. In this past decade, I see its being implemented so fast now. And I see the pain it's inflicting. In the beginning, 50 years ago, I didn't think that I would live to see it. Now I'm afraid that we're living through the birth pangs of the "New World Order." It's not what I expected it to be, but I have to believe that someday...

That said, if only we could do what Syrian Girl said.... "Give them a safe homeland to return to."

I'll bet that even the Mexican migrants would rather be able to earn a good living in their own country. Most people like to be able to be close to family.

That sounds like the best solution. But how and who can do that? Is Syrian Girl okay with Assad I hope?

I don't understand how Globalists or anyone can suspend all common sense though, like the belief that we can kill large numbers of people and blame their religion when there's hatred and resentment and ultimately retributory terrorist attacks against us. I get it that people want to make money and killing people and creating chaos and failed states are a potential model for that goal. Maybe our foreign policy has globalist rather than regional interests, I don't know. Either way, what baffles me is how they get away with it!

Putting the shoe on the other foot, do we need Islam to hate someone or some foreign country for killing our families? If that bomb wasn't dropped on my house, my family would still be alive. That's all I would care about. Simple as that. Anyone wants to test how patriotic I am, that would be one smooth way to find out. Some foreigner's narrow political interests from thousands of miles away won't mean a thing. We'll despise everything about them, because they're killers. Just as well, we couldn't have cared less why they attacked us on 9/11, only that they did attack us and we were going after them for it. Well if it's okay and natural for us to do that, why's it not okay and natural for them? It's a cycle of violence propped up on fear and lies, is it not?

What do they think every time we kill 500,000 more of them? I know what we think, they're just brown people living in crappy houses. I know what Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright think, they think it's worth it. Even George H. W. Bush who actually used the language of "new world order" is able to criticize his son's big mistake in his books. We know George Sr. is fast friends with the Sauds and this war in Iraq has done the princes no favors. So it's understandable perhaps, that he would be able to criticize what's been done in hindsight and yet also deflect a lot of the blame away from his son and onto the other conspirators like the "iron ass" Dick Cheney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

It's rather selfless to go down and warn the people in the park when it hurts them even more.

Prices will rise based on what people can afford to pay.

If they're making more they're expected to spend more.

The evil capitalists providing products and services to people who demand them will get the added wages back eventually anyway.

Min. wage is fixing prices so the whole market suffers.

Prices going higher go even higher faster.

If you don't think higher prices -

the natural consequences of inflating a money supply- are a problem then what are you afraid of? Lower prices?

Lower prices => higher wages because everyone's wages have more purchasing power.

The free market tends to affordability.

If you can afford it, you might buy it, right?

Controlling things requires a lot of waste and red tape.

There's a better and affordable way.

Let you control yourself.

Legalize freedom. As long as you don't hurt or endanger others you can

do whatever you like! Who is the govt to control you, Ella?

something about their way of avoiding things like being taxed properly , and not investing back into the country, for the sake of it, at least. I sort of feel if it's that way , why be here? what are we as a nation,what makes us so great if we ignore a failed system? I don't know, I guess.I don't know what I thought America was .The system isn't working properly and so because of that, we can't just sweep it away under the rug. There's no real balance , so it's not working . There's too much corruption where financial is taken from service for a better good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

That sounds like the best solution. But how and who can do that? Is Syrian Girl okay with Assad I hope?

I don't understand how Globalists or anyone can suspend all common sense though, like the belief that we can kill large numbers of people and blame their religion when there's hatred and resentment and ultimately retributory terrorist attacks against us. I get it that people want to make money and killing people and creating chaos and failed states are a potential model for that goal. Maybe our foreign policy has globalist rather than regional interests, I don't know. Either way, what baffles me is how they get away with it!

Putting the shoe on the other foot, do we need Islam to hate someone or some foreign country for killing our families? If that bomb wasn't dropped on my house, my family would still be alive. That's all I would care about. Simple as that. Anyone wants to test how patriotic I am, that would be one smooth way to find out. Some foreigner's narrow political interests from thousands of miles away won't mean a thing. We'll despise everything about them, because they're killers. Just as well, we couldn't have cared less why they attacked us on 9/11, only that they did attack us and we were going after them for it. Well if it's okay and natural for us to do that, why's it not okay and natural for them? It's a cycle of violence propped up on fear and lies, is it not?

It's all financial is what it is. We have a very faulty system. everyday people pay pretty much of their fault. something has to change, and it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

That sounds like the best solution. But how and who can do that? Is Syrian Girl okay with Assad I hope?

I don't know. I've only watched 3-4 of her videos. I have subscribed to her youtube channel because she has good information.

I don't understand how Globalists or anyone can suspend all common sense though, like the belief that we can kill large numbers of people and blame their religion when there's hatred and resentment and ultimately retributory terrorist attacks against us. I get it that people want to make money and killing people and creating chaos and failed states are a potential model for that goal. Maybe our foreign policy has globalist rather than regional interests, I don't know. Either way, what baffles me is how they get away with it!

Unlimited money and power in the world is how they get away with it. Most of the ones running the Anglo-American "show" have all the compassion of Lenin and Stalin. They just don't care. I guess that's why they sacrifice the infant Care at the Bohemian Grove gathering.

The globalists are divided on how to create a global society. Some of them are good, compassionate, altruistic folks. Then there's the evil incarnate ones... Cheney, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, etc .... These guys (the politicians) don't have any qualms about just going solo with their plans. And unfortunately they are close to having their global society ... a fait accompli. The bankers, royalty and corporate moguls (Rockefeller, Soros, Rothschild, Windsor) seem to be in agreement now. And they pour unlimited funds into the endeavor.

I got involved with the globalists 50 years ago through the Baha'i religion. Their global society is kindly and just. The Canadian oligarch, Maurice Strong, is a guiding figure with this particular group. Their plan is for a global theocracy. Maurice almost single-handedly wrote the Agenda 21 document for the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. At that point, it appeared that the global theocracy was the one on top.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, do we need Islam to hate someone or some foreign country for killing our families? If that bomb wasn't dropped on my house, my family would still be alive. That's all I would care about. Simple as that. Anyone wants to test how patriotic I am, that would be one smooth way to find out. Some foreigner's narrow political interests from thousands of miles away won't mean a thing. We'll despise everything about them, because they're killers. Just as well, we couldn't have cared less why they attacked us on 9/11, only that they did attack us and we were going after them for it. Well if it's okay and natural for us to do that, why's it not okay and natural for them? It's a cycle of violence propped up on fear and lies, is it not?

The Middle East situation is all about destabilization... Remember how Communist Subversion works? Demoralize, Destabilize, Crisis, Normalize. We're in the 2nd phase - destabilize. It's also part of the 3rd phase - crisis.

What do they think every time we kill 500,000 more of them? I know what we think, they're just brown people living in crappy houses. I know what Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright think, they think it's worth it. Even George H. W. Bush who actually used the language of "new world order" is able to criticize his son's big mistake in his books. We know George Sr. is fast friends with the Sauds and this war in Iraq has done the princes no favors. So it's understandable perhaps, that he would be able to criticize what's been done in hindsight and yet also deflect a lot of the blame away from his son and onto the other conspirators like the "iron ass" Dick Cheney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The foreign policy creates the demand for terrorism, and we profit fighting terrorism. We create the demand and then supply it. Isn't that what heroin pushers do? It's pretty incredible and telling when a President leaving office gives us a warning about a particular industry. I think we're at the mercy of the unwarranted influence that Eisenhower warned us about. The people (regimes and corporations) these foreign policies are serving don't have a warrant. We've let most of our industry fly away but we've got a great core industry that makes profits selling weapons to terrorists and the enemies of terrorists. Republicans and Democrats are completely okay with this (they have mutual funds).

Some people say that "war is a racket." I don't think all war is a racket, but the "war on terror" is about as easy to figure out as wars get. The policy is bad enough but the central financing is too, two tsunamis in cahoots. The Dow Jones goes from 7500 to 18,000 in no time and the economy still needs 0% interest rates. The economy must be of such a harmonious planetary alignment of all the Fed's little economic side quests that they run out of excuses to keep running up the debt. And what do our people think? "Keep running up the debt, so you can go fight the war on terror!" or this fantastic new mission: "We must destroy ISIS!" Usually when children are having a temper tantrum for the Cap'n Crunch in the cereal aisle, the parents eventually learn how to say no.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I don't know. I've only watched 3-4 of her videos. I have subscribed to her youtube channel because she has good information.

Unlimited money and power in the world is how they get away with it. Most of the ones running the Anglo-American "show" have all the compassion of Lenin and Stalin. They just don't care. I guess that's why they sacrifice the infant Care at the Bohemian Grove gathering.

The globalists are divided on how to create a global society. Some of them are good, compassionate, altruistic folks. Then there's the evil incarnate ones... Cheney, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, etc .... These guys (the politicians) don't have any qualms about just going solo with their plans. And unfortunately they are close to having their global society ... a fait accompli. The bankers, royalty and corporate moguls (Rockefeller, Soros, Rothschild, Windsor) seem to be in agreement now. And they pour unlimited funds into the endeavor.

I got involved with the globalists 50 years ago through the Baha'i religion. Their global society is kindly and just. The Canadian oligarch, Maurice Strong, is a guiding figure with this particular group. Their plan is for a global theocracy. Maurice almost single-handedly wrote the Agenda 21 document for the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. At that point, it appeared that the global theocracy was the one on top.

The Middle East situation is all about destabilization... Remember how Communist Subversion works? Demoralize, Destabilize, Crisis, Normalize. We're in the 2nd phase - destabilize. It's also part of the 3rd phase - crisis.

Is the world ready for the globalists' best model yet, no matter how good it is? Maybe in 250 years?

I think all the necessary facts about our policy in the Middle East are exposed enough to reach a conclusion. We want regime change and a battlefield stalemate in Syria because we don't favor Assad over brutal terrorists. We want people to kill other people we want to kill, that's what "moderate" means, and the killing doesn't bother us, it seems we're working that from both ends. Syria is a meatgrinder. Bad guys killing bad guys. Great success!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

The foreign policy creates the demand for terrorism, and we profit fighting terrorism. We create the demand and then supply it. Isn't that what heroin pushers do?

this is where I was confused about proxy wars. A proxy war is when we give military aide to another country/nation , as another country arms the opposite side fighting the side we give military aide to. This is for gain of something, always.

I've heard it said all over UM that proxy wars have been happening all over the M.E. But they haven't , have they ? not really, right or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

this is where I was confused about proxy wars. A proxy war is when we give military aide to another country/nation , as another country arms the opposite side fighting the side we give military aide to. This is for gain of something, always.

I've heard it said all over UM that proxy wars have been happening all over the M.E. But they haven't , have they ? not really, right or not?

A proxy war would be a great way of profiting from policy because we don't have to do the fighting ourselves. This has been been true from Afghanistan in 2001 to Syria today. We take advantage of the conflicts of others by meddling in their internal affairs.

What kind of an American wouldn't mind other countries meddling in our affairs?

The narrative is that there are proxy wars, that's a good point Ella. You're wise to question it, I don't know the answer. I do think a lot of the rhetoric about "proxy wars" serves no other purpose but to justify the wars. (Ravenhawk, andthen, roofgardener, Frank Merton & Co.) "Iran" gets stapled onto the sleeve of every Hezbollah freedom fighter for instance. All this Western hatred and violence boils down to Iran and Syria not allowing Israel to bulldoze Lebanon. I'm sure Israel would have wanted to make Lebanon the next Palestine of Greater Israel but thanks to a tenacious defense that wasn't going to happen, and the parties responsible for that act of self-defense are therefore evil terrorists who we should arm other brutal terrorists to fight. Who benefits from all this bs? Israel, not us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

The foreign policy creates the demand for terrorism, and we profit fighting terrorism. We create the demand and then supply it. Isn't that what heroin pushers do? It's pretty incredible and telling when a President leaving office gives us a warning about a particular industry. I think we're at the mercy of the unwarranted influence that Eisenhower warned us about. The people (regimes and corporations) these foreign policies are serving don't have a warrant. We've let most of our industry fly away but we've got a great core industry that makes profits selling weapons to terrorists and the enemies of terrorists. Republicans and Democrats are completely okay with this (they have mutual funds).

Some people say that "war is a racket." I don't think all war is a racket, but the "war on terror" is about as easy to figure out as wars get. The policy is bad enough but the central financing is too, two tsunamis in cahoots. The Dow Jones goes from 7500 to 18,000 in no time and the economy still needs 0% interest rates. The economy must be of such a harmonious planetary alignment of all the Fed's little economic side quests that they run out of excuses to keep running up the debt. And what do our people think? "Keep running up the debt, so you can go fight the war on terror!" or this fantastic new mission: "We must destroy ISIS!" Usually when children are having a temper tantrum for the Cap'n Crunch in the cereal aisle, the parents eventually learn how to say no.

Oh my gosh! Borat? What was he thinking? The looks on the faces of the rodeo fans were priceless.

I can't think of any war that was not a war of aggression and deception... with terror for the sake of fear porn. "War is a racket." But how do we say "NO!" to the politicians? They are deaf to reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

A proxy war would be a great way of profiting from policy because we don't have to do the fighting ourselves. This has been been true from Afghanistan in 2001 to Syria today. We take advantage of the conflicts of others by meddling in their internal affairs.

What kind of an American wouldn't mind other countries meddling in our affairs?

The narrative is that there are proxy wars, that's a good point Ella. You're wise to question it, I don't know the answer. I do think a lot of the rhetoric about "proxy wars" serves no other purpose but to justify the wars.

to get even more confusing like Saudi and Iran fighting and we have a deal with Saudi Arabia . they need more" military aide" , don't know if we're giving it to them or selling it to them.

http://www.foxnews.c...ss-middle-east/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

Is the world ready for the globalists' best model yet, no matter how good it is? Maybe in 250 years?

Well, I think the world needs it right now. :)

The Rockefeller/Soros brand of globalism is a moderate socialism. The nation-states will function as a federation (similar to the way the United States functions).

Nation-states won't be able to go to war ... like New Hampshire can't go to war with Vermont. That means we have to give up things like nationalism. The nation-states will keep their cultures and appreciate their diversity.

There are other things that will be obstacles to the acceptance of a global society... like Christianity and Islam will be part of the cultural diversity and not something to fight about ... similar to what the Parliament of Religions is already doing.

In order to implement these changes today instead of hundreds of years in the future, it seems that the Rockefeller/Soros group is going to use communism to fast-track the changes in society. By the time people live under communism for 25 years, they will welcome globalism. I think that's the rationale.

I think all the necessary facts about our policy in the Middle East are exposed enough to reach a conclusion. We want regime change and a battlefield stalemate in Syria because we don't favor Assad over brutal terrorists. We want people to kill other people we want to kill, that's what "moderate" means, and the killing doesn't bother us, it seems we're working that from both ends. Syria is a meatgrinder. Bad guys killing bad guys. Great success!

The soldiers that are dying for these wars are thought of as disposable assets to their governments. Or at least that's the way it used to be. It seems that in Syria, the Syrian citizen/soldiers are the only ones in the battle for the right reasons... protecting their loved ones and homes. Seems like the opposition (us) are mostly mercenaries. I am glad that Obama is holding back on sending our young men to die as cannon fodder. I just wish we could get out of there. But the bankers won't go for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

to get even more confusing like Saudi and Iran fighting and we have a deal with Saudi Arabia . they need more" military aide" , don't know if we're giving it to them or selling it to them.

http://www.foxnews.c...ss-middle-east/

This fighting between the sunni and the shiite has been going on since the death of the Prophet Mohammed in the 7th century A.D. Westerners should NEVER participate in this.

The ONLY reason that we are sniffing around them is for the money/oil/Zionists.

Edited by robinrenee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

This fighting between the sunni and the shiite has been going on since the death of the Prophet Mohammed in the 6th century A.D. Westerners should NEVER participate in this.

The ONLY reason that we are sniffing around them is for the money/oil/Zionists.

Saudi Arabia and the Petrodollar is of the United States greatest interest. I think we would get involved if ever it got that big between them and Iran. would you explain where the Zionist involvement is coming from here, I don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

(Ravenhawk, andthen, roofgardener, Frank Merton & Co.) "Iran" gets stapled onto the sleeve of every Hezbollah freedom fighter for instance. All this Western hatred and violence boils down to Iran and Syria not allowing Israel to bulldoze Lebanon.

I'm sure Israel would have wanted to make Lebanon the next Palestine of Greater Israel but thanks to a tenacious defense that wasn't going to happen, and the parties responsible for that act of self-defense are therefore evil terrorists who we should arm other brutal terrorists to fight. Who benefits from all this bs? Israel, not us.

I just really feel that it is better for America to not give aide to Israel or Palestine. Then I read this... http://www.ecomena.o...bles-palestine/

could you imagine if your enemy controlled your electric energy source, that's gotta suck. But the great news is , they're going solar !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I just really feel that it is better for America to not give aide to Israel or Palestine. Then I read this... http://www.ecomena.o...bles-palestine/

could you imagine if your enemy controlled your electric energy source, that's gotta suck. But the great news is , they're going solar !

Israel controls everything that goes in and out of Palestine. The Jordan River Valley is no open border. There's no such thing as a Palestinian open border. Israel controls everything, including the political constipation in the Palestinian territories. Going solar is a great idea! Watch Israel ban "dual purpose" items that a Palestinian could use to remove from a solar panel and I don't know, make a bottle rocket or something. Like a piece of metal or a battery or a circuit board or an on/off switch. Israel doesn't let them fish in their own waters or keep trees and crops on their own land. Gaza's only exports at one point were carnations and strawberries. Not exactly all-year-long exports, how convenient. Even John Kerry could admit how ridiculously stupid their list of banned items was. The US has to get shocked and appalled for Israel not to be shocking and appalling in how it treats people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Saudi Arabia and the Petrodollar is of the United States greatest interest. I think we would get involved if ever it got that big between them and Iran. would you explain where the Zionist involvement is coming from here, I don't see it.

The relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia? I don't know. Add in the Petrodollar and it gets even more muddled and I really, really don't know.

I know a few foreign regimes have way too much influence on our govt due to geopolitical and strategic concerns (including lobbyists, donors, voters, corporate entities). The two worst examples of this are Saudi Arabia and Israel after looking at what they're doing over there. Saudi Arabia is guilty of massacres in Yemen, why's it okay for The House of Saud to do it to Yemen but Assad can't do it in his own country?

As an objective observer, I see no consistency in the rules other than hypocrisy around every corner. And that's what too many people in the Middle East view western-style democracy as. Shoving it down their throats and hoping they like it isn't working. It's time to own up to the catastrophic failure of preemption doctrine and somehow learn how to pick our battles more sensibly.

Alliances keep us bound to antique agreements that should be bound to the will of our people more than the necks of our officials. Thanks to "alliances" our people aren't allowed to negotiate their own relationships with foreigners because our glorious leaders were so brilliant 60 or 70 years ago, we should just be ignorant and complicit with whatever wording they came up with forever? Hoops from people who ruled generations ago that we still have to jump through today. We should drop it with the "alliances" and just be friends with countries the same way people are friends with other people. We judge, I hope, who our friends are by their actions and behavior! Why shouldn't common sense like this apply to countries as well? Saudi Arabia and Israel aren't allies, they're cancerous tumors on our ass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

Saudi Arabia and the Petrodollar is of the United States greatest interest. I think we would get involved if ever it got that big between them and Iran. would you explain where the Zionist involvement is coming from here, I don't see it.

I included Zionist because they hate/fear Iran, and they think of the U.S. as their bodyguards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

The relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia? I don't know. Add in the Petrodollar and it gets even more muddled and I really, really don't know.

I know a few foreign regimes have way too much influence on our govt due to geopolitical and strategic concerns (including lobbyists, donors, voters, corporate entities). The two worst examples of this are Saudi Arabia and Israel after looking at what they're doing over there. Saudi Arabia is guilty of massacres in Yemen, why's it okay for The House of Saud to do it to Yemen but Assad can't do it in his own country?

As an objective observer, I see no consistency in the rules other than hypocrisy around every corner. And that's what too many people in the Middle East view western-style democracy as. Shoving it down their throats and hoping they like it isn't working. It's time to own up to the catastrophic failure of preemption doctrine and somehow learn how to pick our battles more sensibly.

Alliances keep us bound to antique agreements that should be bound to the will of our people more than the necks of our officials. Thanks to "alliances" our people aren't allowed to negotiate their own relationships with foreigners because our glorious leaders were so brilliant 60 or 70 years ago, we should just be ignorant and complicit with whatever wording they came up with forever? Hoops from people who ruled generations ago that we still have to jump through today. We should drop it with the "alliances" and just be friends with countries the same way people are friends with other people. We judge, I hope, who our friends are by their actions and behavior! Why shouldn't common sense like this apply to countries as well? Saudi Arabia and Israel aren't allies, they're cancerous tumors on our ass.

:lol: I love it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Since NATO has thrown in the towel on military strikes in Afghanistan, we should revisit and reassess what we're even doing over there. We've known since the year Obama first took office that Al Qaeda isn't even there.

CNN's John King: "No Al Qaeda in Afghanistan at all, is that an exaggeration General Petraeus or is that true?"

General Petraeus: "No I would agree with that assessment."

"We are fighting a war (in Afghanistan) for empty buildings that Al Qaeda used to occupy." ~ Robert Baer former CIA Middle East "[The war in Afghanistan] is going after the hotel operator who had a very bad guest."

The Taliban are nationalists who have had entirely local concerns with how to control pieces of Afghanistan, they never had ambitions to attack America or had any kind of organization abroad to implement terrorist attacks on US civilians. If the same thing could only be said for people fighting in Afghanistan today after 14 years of war. ISIS are blowing up things in Afghanistan too now. So they have to make it about Afghan women and Afghan schools, while cleverly and deliberately ignoring Saudi Arabia. We've created a dangerous failed state on Russia's border and they're supposed to not be irked about that? We're creating yet another disaster in Syria and they're going to let that fall to chaos too? Russia's not going to let happen to Syria what has happened to Iraq and Afghanistan and if their military was a lot stronger than it is they'd be rolling into Afghanistan too in the not so distant future. I see an increased likelihood of this happening whether we stay there or leave. We're becoming irrelevant dinosaurs over there and it makes less and less difference what we do anymore. We'll either keep a mess or leave a mess. How many more years of nation building do we need until we learn this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

I know a few foreign regimes have way too much influence on our govt due to geopolitical and strategic concerns (including lobbyists, donors, voters, corporate entities). The two worst examples of this are Saudi Arabia and Israel after looking at what they're doing over there. Saudi Arabia is guilty of massacres in Yemen, why's it okay for The House of Saud to do it to Yemen but Assad can't do it in his own country?

As an objective observer, I see no consistency in the rules other than hypocrisy around every corner. And that's what too many people in the Middle East view western-style democracy as. Shoving it down their throats and hoping they like it isn't working. It's time to own up to the catastrophic failure of preemption doctrine and somehow learn how to pick our battles more sensibly.

from the article- the goal is primarily to defend the Saudi territory - the kingdom has demonstrated a clear desire to resist the Houthis;

Consequently, it has effectively increased its efforts in a regional power struggle with Iran, which now extends its influence, not to say its sphere of control, into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen.

Saudi Arabia’s major foreign policy decisions are often based on a general consensus among a number of senior princes, all members of the royal family. The operation in Yemen is no exception, and had the former King Abdullah still been alive, he would have most likely chosen exactly the same response to the current situation.

http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2015/04/21/why-saudi-arabia-is-fighting-in-yemen/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Yamato, would Syria be better off with or without him. his people seem to think they're better off without him. do we get any of our equipment back after we aide people ? I saw some pretty neat stuff they're being trained to use. I think the equipment the Turkish man used to take down the Russian plane was American equipment.

who exactly are the Houthis , cause I don't exactly know but this article says they first were about peace

http://www.aljazeera...2719818986.html

Edited by Ellapennella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Shia rebels began to pick up momentum last August, when thousands of supporters of the movement protested in the streets of the Yemeni capital Sanaa, urging the government to step down.

Among other demands, Houthi leader Abdulmalek al-Houthi requested that fuel subsidies, which had been cut significantly in late July, be reinstated. If the government failed to meet an ultimatum, he said, "other steps" would be taken.

The Houthis were also demanding a more representative form of government that would reflect the seats allocated to political groups and independent activists during Yemen's 10-month National Dialogue Conference, which mapped out the political future of Yemenafter its 2011 uprising.

If these people are saying this about the U.S --- "This government is a puppet in the hands of influential forces, which are indifferent to the rightful and sincere demands of these people," al-Houthi said in his speech, referring to the United States. The rebels subsequently raided key government institutions in the capital.

demands are over the cost of fuel? how is that our fault in the U.S ? (Does Saudi have a real threat) I'm not sure why they're talking about the U.S it's not our fault in their personal costs of fuel subsidies between whoever the legitimate government of Yemen are & Saudi. maybe Iran has the deal they have ,so they can supply others too, maybe they'll discuss that at their conference. I don't see our involvement.

ETA - did he just admit to raiding us ?

Edited by Ellapennella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

I included Zionist because they hate/fear Iran, and they think of the U.S. as their bodyguards.

I don't really know about that. I can't exactly sell out to a thought that fear is what motivates Zionist unless the fear is defined in example of it as being done. If you're referring to the Jewish state as the Zionist ,and all other nations of the world that are in favor of their existence as of Zionist because they want for Israel to exist as it does , in that aspect I can understand. I just don't see where we are the Jewish state of Israel's bodyguards . They're well equipped and capable of fighting their battles alone. We don't fight for them, or do we? if we do, I don't know about it.

I see Israel as a leadership that will always at times will manipulate others for self gain. Actually , I see a lot of the M.E leaderships that way too. The only real bad thing I see is that Bush took us to Iraq to fight a war , he shouldn't have. I think because of the way it happened,the attacks on 9/11- we weren't able to fully attack a specific enemy that declared war on the U.S, as a complete target of interest to eliminate and destroy. It's a complicated war and when people continue to join Isis to get paid for fighting because the M.E is having it's all civil unrest " of their own" which we are not the blame for all of it. I would think, they had these issues going on long before when we arrived in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

Since NATO has thrown in the towel on military strikes in Afghanistan, we should revisit and reassess what we're even doing over there. We've known since the year Obama first took office that Al Qaeda isn't even there.

CNN's John King: "No Al Qaeda in Afghanistan at all, is that an exaggeration General Petraeus or is that true?"

General Petraeus: "No I would agree with that assessment."

"We are fighting a war (in Afghanistan) for empty buildings that Al Qaeda used to occupy." ~ Robert Baer former CIA Middle East "[The war in Afghanistan] is going after the hotel operator who had a very bad guest."

The Taliban are nationalists who have had entirely local concerns with how to control pieces of Afghanistan, they never had ambitions to attack America or had any kind of organization abroad to implement terrorist attacks on US civilians. If the same thing could only be said for people fighting in Afghanistan today after 14 years of war. ISIS are blowing up things in Afghanistan too now. So they have to make it about Afghan women and Afghan schools, while cleverly and deliberately ignoring Saudi Arabia. We've created a dangerous failed state on Russia's border and they're supposed to not be irked about that? We're creating yet another disaster in Syria and they're going to let that fall to chaos too? Russia's not going to let happen to Syria what has happened to Iraq and Afghanistan and if their military was a lot stronger than it is they'd be rolling into Afghanistan too in the not so distant future. I see an increased likelihood of this happening whether we stay there or leave. We're becoming irrelevant dinosaurs over there and it makes less and less difference what we do anymore. We'll either keep a mess or leave a mess. How many more years of nation building do we need until we learn this?

"One of the 'hidden' objectives of the war was precisely to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control over the drug routes."

The spoils of war: Afghanistan's multibillion dollar heroin trade

http://www.globalres...heroin-trade/91

It's always about the money. All wars are bankers' wars.

Edited by robinrenee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.