YouTube - ‪General Wesley Clark explains Libyan invasion planned years in advance‬‏
Systematic war with seven countries, for no reason?
With all due respect... What the Fudge??
I really, REALLY want some feedback on this... I'm hardly able to understand this level of deception/betrayal from our side.
luck/life/kidkboom
Грязные башмаки располагают к осмотрительности в выборе дороги. /*/ Muddy boots choose their roads with wisdom. ;
Interesting. I'd say yes, they did. He's an inside source, not even particularly biased. If Michael Moоre or someone had said it, you might have reason to question the source. But with this man, no. He's telling the truth about what he heard and saw, and there is not a lot of room for misinterpretation.
I had no doubt that Syria and Iran is on the hit list. I think the USA is involved in what's going on in Syria right now. The government there was not unpopular earlier. I have no idea what the US wants in Somalia or Sudan (do they have oil..?) and I would have expected to see North Korea on the list too. Maybe they know that this idea would never roll with China.Originally Posted by Wikipedia
What more proof do Americans need that their country have been taken over by people/organisations that are no longer working in their best interest?
It should be BANNED for a man who is serving in the military, to be running any sort of military related business.Clark set himself three initial goals in civilian life—to earn $40 million in the business world to let him practice philanthropy, to become an adjunct professor, and to become a professional golfer. Clark began a public speaking tour in the summer of 2000 and approached several former government officials for advice on work after life in government, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and Richard Holbrooke. Clark took McLarty's advice to move back to Little Rock, Arkansas, and took a position with the Stephens Group, an investment firm headquartered there. He took several other board positions at defense-related firms, and in March 2003 he amicably left the Stephens Group to found Wesley K. Clark & Associates. Clark began writing, publishing two books—Waging Modern War and Winning Modern Wars.......]
As usual.. I agree with everything you said. =)
I personally don't need any more proof.. but, I don't know what the next step is. If I did, I would head toward it.. Like the man said in Network.. "I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation... All I know is that first, you've got to get mad... You've gotta say, "I'm a human being, <expletive>! My life has value!"
luck/life/kidkboom
Грязные башмаки располагают к осмотрительности в выборе дороги. /*/ Muddy boots choose their roads with wisdom. ;
No proof is possible. You said it's all subjective, remember?
Don't be silly! There is nothing subjective about women and children being killed by raids in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.No proof is possible. You said it's all subjective, remember?
There's nothing subjective about women and children dead from hunger as a result of the Collectivization of the 1930s. Nothing like that ever happened in the evil Capitalism. However, you still find a way to call the Politics a subjective thing and ignore all proofs. Basically, you prefer to ignore anything that does not match your perception of reality. All I want from you at this point is to take your word back and openly declare that the Politics is not subjective and there are proofs and there might be facts that could serve as objective proofs. We'll take it from there.
If you say so. I don't know anything about that. But if they clearly died from starvation as a result of colllectivization, then there is nothing subjective about that either.
Of course it does! Most countries in the world are capitalist and people have died of starvation in such countries ever since capitalism started.
Give me your formula, Crocodile. It's absolutely not only incorrect, but impossible, that ALL OF POLITICS IS OBJECTIVE. Man alive! - thousands of years of human history show that it is a largely subjective field, and the amount of witness testimony to that fact across the face of the earth is GARGANTUAN. From the Sun Tsu to Machiavelli to the 10,000 writers on the subjects of politics and economics that have put pen to paper since... Not one has been able to transmute the subjective into the objective... There is no more way to enumerate the immeasurable than to perpetuate finite motion. Both have been tried, but never succeeded at.
So, you want Hanna to take back her opinion. First, *I* want to see a mathematical formula. I want to see the objective nature of politics. Show me how all elections, all human leadership, is a foregone conclusion that a chess computer could predict. While you're at it, maybe you could use your magical objective formula to calculate for me who the next ten presidents of the us and prime ministers of the uk would be. Then we could all make a mint by placing bets.
I have a feeling your answer will be somewhat less than what I'm expecting. But then, that's my opinion... which is subj-- well, I'd better not say.
And even in your example there IS something subjective. People died: Objective. "As a result of " --> SUBjective. I could create an argument, also subjective, by saying that those people died as a result of their not violently rebelling against those who were in the way of their acquisition of survival. I could say they died as a result of not foreseeing the future adequately and preparing for it. (I won't, because I don't believe those things; they are only examples.) But they are valid arguments in that they are as non-objective as your own, and so impossible to numerically nullify like one would the remainder in a division problem. The interpretation of a human mind, who seeks a responsible cog in the machine, biases and prioritizes his information such that he can fulfilll his own prophesy, and see it as objective. It doesn't make 'x' become '4' just because you will it to be so.
But even in those words it's obvious. If you can SEE it one way, and I can SEE it another, how is it objective? If we both SEE the number 4, neither of us can argue that it's really not 4, but 230,000. We SEE the objective. You, my friend, look at the subjective and you SEE objective. But you're misleading yourself.
And there IS no 'objectively correct' policy. All the objective variables are defined by and dependent upon SUBjective ones.
The future is always subjective, because it is not limited to numerical influence, but also receives direction from emotional, psychological and spiritual human input. Any man who could objectify this into a formula, and calculate the future of politics, would wield a power nigh unto clairvoyance.
luck/life/kidkboom
Грязные башмаки располагают к осмотрительности в выборе дороги. /*/ Muddy boots choose their roads with wisdom. ;
Getting back on the thread topic:
Clark retired from the military in 2000; this video was from 2007. In between 2000 and 2007, Clark sought the Democratic Party's nomination for the Presidency in 2004, but ultimately withdrew from the race and threw his endorsement behind John Kerry, and subsequently endorsed both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
In short, a significant part of Clark's chosen civilian career has been to work as a booster and loyalist of the Democratic Party, which in our two-party system tends to make him an automatic opponent of whatever the Republican Party is doing and a detractor of major GOP politicians, including any Republican President.
Moreover, far from being utterly unlike Michael Moore, Wesley Clark was (at least when this video was made in 2007) doing the same kind of work that Moore did for much of the Bush years -- namely, trying to get the "radical" left-wing base of the Democratic Party interested and motivated in driving the Republicans out of the White House.
I'm not saying that Clark is a bad person to have his political biases, that Republicans are any less biased and more objective, or that political bias makes a person biased in every single aspect of his life. I'm just pointing out that when this video was made, Clark definitely had at least two glaringly obvious sources of bias against the Bush administration -- namely his Democratic Party loyalism, and also his personal desire to make money selling books and giving interviews. Sensationalism sells!
Not only is there room for misinterpretation, but (arguably) Clark himself is the one doing the misinterpreting. For example, it seems very plausible to me that the "seven-country takeover/invasion/destruction" memo that he describes was NOT some sort of definitely settled, long-term plan, but only one out of multiple different "contingency scenarios" that had been dreamt up by officers doing PowerPoint presentations.He's telling the truth about what he heard and saw, and there is not a lot of room for misinterpretation.
Remember the climactic scene of WarGames where "Joshua" the supercomputer runs through hundreds of potential thermonuclear-war models in a few minutes? That was fantasy, but the real-life basis is that military planners actually do looove modeling many different "strategic scenarios" and "contingency plans." That's the full-time job for some in the officer ranks.
So in short, Clark may indeed be telling the truth about seeing the memos (in that there actually were such memos), but he's also putting a "spin" on the interpretation and significance of the memos because he knows exactly what his interviewer (and the disproportionate number of "911 troofers" in the interviewer's target audience!) wanted to hear.
Говорит Бегемот: "Dear citizens of MR -- please correct my Russian mistakes!"
I thought there was something fishy about these supposedly explosive revelations, particularly all the Russian language comments and low view count on youtube, like no one else paid it any mind.
Кому - нары, кому - Канары.
By the way, I was thinking more about my "subjective vs. objective" post. It occurs to me that of the three freedoms I listed (freedom of worship, freedom to have gay sex, freedom of the press), I would consider all three to be secondary-level freedoms -- not in the sense that they are less important, but in the sense that they can be derived as "logical consequences" of other freedoms.
I would suggest that the most important "primary freedoms" might include:
- Freedom of individual conscience
- Freedom to own private property
- Freedom of association among individuals
The number of logically necessary "primary freedoms" might be more than just the three listed, but even if one takes ONLY the above three as "axiomatically given," it seems not-too-difficult to develop arguments in favor of inalienable rights to worship freely, to have Weird And Sinful sex as long as it's consensual, and to publish controversial ideas.
But although such rights might be regarded as "inalienable," they are nonetheless non-primary. (You can derive a right to engage in consensual sodomy based on the assumption of "freedom of conscience" and "freedom of association," but not the other way around.)
Interesting what you say.. I did suspect that Clark would have some sort of affiliation to the left - even if for no other reason than, well, after all, when a person has already been aligned with the largely-right american military, is aware of the level of severity of black-ops and internal cleanup operations that this force is capable of, and then wishes to break away from that force and say something they don't want said.. well, I would want friends on the other team, too. [People laugh at the concept that the CIA might have killed Bob Marley (to control societal incitement), just as an example.. but he died of toe cancer two years after donning a boot with a tack point-up in the sole, and an odd-smelling goo inside the toe of the boot. That toe cancer metzed and he died. It's not my goal to convince people things like this are true.. but I do hope some of us keep an open mind to what COULD be true.]
And everything you're saying makes sense.. but some things stick out as largely suspicious. Namely, in 2007 no one had mentioned plans to go to war with Libya (I didn't think we had such plans), there was no large struggle with Gaddafi (in fact, near that time they were shipping him in to "talk" to American schools and organizations; he was doubted for his past, but not vilified) ... Now we find we ARE in a conflict with Libya, or at least aligned to one (i've not followed so closely whether we've already sent troops there, but I would bet that if we haven't yet, we will).. and if any of this is accurate, we're not done! - there's more countries coming!.. Somalia and Sudan were surprises, but the Iran conflict seems to have been lining up to happen for years, if you follow the clues the media leaves you.
And so it's possible you're right, that this is only spin... but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Throbert, do you think this will prove to be only spin? Or do you think we WILL be heading to these other countries, after Libya?
And to reiterate the point that Hanna made.. if this DID turn out to be true, wouldn't we be guiltier by association for dismissing it, if the US does go into these places next?
luck/life/kidkboom
Грязные башмаки располагают к осмотрительности в выборе дороги. /*/ Muddy boots choose their roads with wisdom. ;
Sudan has oil. North Korea is needed to excuse the creation of the missile defense.
On the "objective vs. subjective" question, I think that this issue should not be confused with "simple objective relationships vs. amazingly complicated objective relationships."
I mean, if there are so many objective variables involved that it's impossible to make reliable predictions before the fact, and difficult to agree about causality after the fact (so that you're forced to throw up your hands and agree that "correlation does not equal causation"), it doesn't automatically mean that the matter under discussion is "subjective." It means that the matter is damn complicated.
To me, "subjectivity" comes into play when we are trying to compare the importance of different valuable things, and arguing about which should rank highest on the scale of value.
For example, which of these three is MOST IMPORTANT:
- The freedom of religious belief?
- The freedom to have gay sex?
- The freedom of the press?
Some people would argue for freedom of religion is of greatest value, because in its absence, the state purports to OWN YOUR CONSCIENCE.
Others retort that freedom to have gay sex must be more valuable than the other two choices, because when such freedom is absent, the state not only owns your CONSCIENCE, but owns your GENITALIA, too!
And still others argue that press freedom is the most valuable of the three, because when the press is free, the freedoms to worship as you want and to make love as you want will be more easily secured and protected from state interference.
(And, finally, still other theorists would say that private ownership of land ranks as more valuable than any of those three freedoms, because it provides a place of untouchable sanctum where individuals can worship, have sex, or publish ideas; and others would say that private property, in turn, can ultimately only be guaranteed by the individual freedom to carry a gun...)
So, in my view, things become subjective when you're talking about "the value of different values" -- there may truly be no objective reasons for saying that a person ought to cherish one thing more highly than another.
As an example of a question that is (by my definition) NOT truly "subjective", but perhaps involves too many objective variables for us to reach a clear answer: Did the 2003 SCOTUS decision Lawrence v. Texas (which decriminalized sodomy in all U.S. states) make life better for American homosexuals?
Some people would say that, logically, the decision must've caused some theoretical improvement. But a counter-argument is that the practical effects of the decision were nearly zero, because:
- the anti-sodomy laws had been so rarely enforced
- "Don't Ask Don't Tell" affected objectively larger numbers of homosexuals
- popular TV shows with well-liked homosexual characters, such as Will and Grace and South Park, may have changed the feelings of the heterosexual majority far more significantly than any government action did
...and so forth. So, there are too many variables to clearly prove "causation," yet the individual variables can be quantified and discussed in objective terms.
Sperk: If my suggestion above was correct (that the memo Clark described was not THE Master Plan, but only one of multiple strategic scenarios that were being considered), then there's not the slightest bit of "explosive revelation" in the linked video.
It's particularly non-explosive given the countries listed; I mean, if Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan had been on the list, THAT would have been a bit more of a shock to me.
Mind you, I assume that somewhere in the Pentagon, there are also documents describing hypothetical invasions of those three countries, too -- but for various reasons, I would expect these to be VERY hypothetical -- much more so than invasions of Iraq, Iran, or Syria, for example. (Saudi Arabia is where Mecca and Medina are located, which makes an invasion of S.A. very high-risk; while there's been a long-term policy of giving Egypt and Jordan tons of aid money in hopes of keeping them relatively friendly towards the U.S. and Israel.)
In contrast, it doesn't surprise me a bit that over the decades, the U.S. Dept. of Defense would've considered and paper-wargamed dozens of different options for invading countries like Iraq, Iran, and Syria, with roots that go back at least to the 1970s.
1) As far as I am concerned, Michael Moore is a trustworthy source, but I don't agree with his exaggerated larger-than-life style. I suppose it helps get the message across to some of his fans though. And "Canadian Bacon" was a very funny film and so was "Sicko".
2) Croc, yes I support private property on a smaller scale. But I do not support globalism, corporatism or the type of capitalism whereby somebody is making a lot of money through hardly no actual work, or exploit people. I know that you will argue about this regardless of what I answer though, so let's see what you make of this response.
What's exploiting people to you?
Eric, if you want, it's your turn. I just gave up and I washed my hands. It seems like running through the tunnel looking for exit when the tunnel is closed in a doughnut-like shape. The best I was able to get out of it was that Hanna supports capitalism with high taxes, lots of social programs, and a very significant involvement of the state into the business with some tariffs, protectionism, and other cool classical features of it. In addition, perhaps some occasional nationalization of an entire industry or two.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote