Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.......]
Sudan has oil. North Korea is needed to excuse the creation of the missile defense.
As usual.. I agree with everything you said. =)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
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!"
No proof is possible. You said it's all subjective, remember? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Don't be silly! There is nothing subjective about women and children being killed by raids in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Of course it does! Most countries in the world are capitalist and people have died of starvation in such countries ever since capitalism started.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
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.
Here's the thing. The first and the most important plank of the Communist Manifesto is the abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. That's an objective think. That's the definition of the communism. There could be no subjectivity whatsoever about that. That was being achieved in the USSR by means of the collectivization process. The people who had the land ownership and the crop ownership were deprived of it by the physical force. The choice the farmers faced was either to join the 'collective farming' in which all crop belonged to the state or being starved to death. There were so many deaths that the various estimates differ in MILLIONS of people! So, I think it's relatively safe to conclude that an implementation of a real communism in any country would result in LOTS of deaths. Do you find that subjective?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
The causes are mostly objective. The effects are mostly objective. The interpretations are mostly subjective. An objective study of the politics includes closer examination of the causes and the effects, not the interpretations. The more the causes and effects have similarities in a defined domain, the more degree of certainty you could have as to the objectivity of the analysis you performed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
I think we could have a fruitful discussion here, but I would prefer not to let myself be distracted by this at this point and keep focused on the objectivity/subjectivity. You see, the strategemas are an excellent example of what in IT is referred to as the 'design patterns' and I think gives more credibility to the scientific approach to politics rather than the artistic/religous one. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
Hey, I guess you expect the formula not only be specific, but also assert the deterministic nature of the world! That would be a way too much and a little bit against the laws of physics. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
I sincerely apologize for that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
Yes and no. People died during the collectivization - objective. People died because they didn't want to join the collective farms - objective. People died because the communism implies collectivization - objective. It was ok to let those people die because they were exploiting other people - subjective. Can you see the switch when it becomes subjective? It's at the point of assigning the priorities. That process is subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
That means that the future is objective, but non-deterministic. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
Not that it's impossible, but it could probably be done to a certain degree of certainty. You see, we have those quantum physicists who have some magic around a similar kind of things. Perhaps, the sociology would at some point apply some of those methods, not sure. That's a speculation point anyways. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
Well, reading back what I wrote earlier, I owe an apology for a tone that I myself don't like, upon re-examination. I apologize for my tone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
I think we can mostly agree, if we can agree that there is subjectivity and objectivity involved in this issue. I feel that is true. And I think we agree on the point at which the subjective becomes the objective - during interpretation of the human mind.
But it breaches a dangerous point, because the model of subj. and obj. in leadership can infer an absolute right/wrong about leadership.. and I'm hard pressed to believe in an absolute right or wrong. I think some people, just to make an arbtitrary example, need a capitalistic society to seek their happiness.. others are barraged by the same environment, and would be better able to pursue happiness in a community-centered or even communist situation.. And when the day comes that someone feels that there's an objective solution to the poliltics problem, to the leadership of mankind, and they ALSO happen to be in a position of influence or power... Well, Hitler thought there was an objective solution, though his mindset was drug-addled and basal and reflective of his childhood prejudices... But the danger was not those things, it was his absolute mindset of an objective solution. If a person like that gains a little control, then a little more.. we may paint our world into a corner we can not escape.
One thing I think we can all agree on, though, is that when a leadership is a Dictatorship, only the Dictator truly benefits; the rest suffer. This is what I was saying when I put up the Clark video, or what I meant to convey anyway, and I think it's what hanna may have meant as well, when she asked how much more proof we all should need.. at least that's how I received it.
I guess my "button" (and i'm ashamed, on re-examination, to find I was so reactionary) was the concept that someone's opinion should be invalid, and that someone should request they take it back. Hell, to make sense of this world, we're all going to need models of obj & subj.
Earlier, I had written a formula for you, it took me two hours to write it and you would have been quite entertained.. variables to explain most of the factors behind political ascension and action.. but it got deleted when I timed out, and I didn't try to re-create it. Castles made of sand.
What I wish I knew (assuming there is any answer to give) is how we should, or even how me might, react to news like this. I am disheartened and vaguely frightened by the "Oh well, what can you do?" response that many of my countrymen have shown in response to this deception topic. See, the deception is appalling to everybody, but it seems I'm the only one, or the only one I've found, who would be willing to put some effort into righting this wrong. And would that we could, there might still be some good to come of it.. Us US, we're in Libya now, but the last couple on the list I don't think we've gotten to yet.. I have some vague hope that, armed with this bit of knowledge, we might offset the societal manipulation required to wag-the-dog on two more countries.. and man, if there's one thing america would benefit from right now, it would be NOT having MORE blood on our hands. None of what could come from this is good: we don't need richer Rumsfelds and such people at the top, fed by oil (acquired Roman-style, by military conquest) with oil-gleam in their eyes, looking towards more third-world countries... and we don't need to pave the path of pretense, that these people at the top of the US want us to help them pave - which leads to them being claimed forever innocent of these crimes, because the history books say so.. An uncontested lie, left alone for long enough, can grandfather itself in as "truth," and then we've crowned the devil himself. This is my fear.
Mr. Crocodile, I should mention that I always find your objectivity enlightening, and I envy your feverless demeanor, quite contrasted to my own.. but as for me, I feel I learn a lot about the world through the subjective. It's an approach that a good scientist would throw tomatoes at me for. I shouldn't blame anyone for doing that. It means things are as they should be.
To Seraphim - My apology should extend to you to, since I believe I was overly vitriolic on the same topic with you a couple days back.. Not my intention.. Your words ring true, and your intentions are good. Far be it from me, when I know what I'm doing, to want to interfere with that. My respects to you.
And to ms. hanna, and anyone else who's interested.. if ever a pathway appears, by which we can begin to right these wrongs, or even if you have any advice.. Call me first. I'm willing, if there is a way. My engine runs best on constructive action, and I'll be glad to work at it, if anyone knows what can be done about things like this.
And they choose death?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
And I am NOT going to be drawn into a long debate about a topic that I have limited knowledge of (communism) and no particular passion for.
But I would say that if anyone was going to implement communism now, they'd have the benefit of being able to avoid repeating the mistakes of Russia and China, like heavy-handed collectivization.
East Germany for example, did not do this. They collectivized, but in a civilised way, and those who didn't like it had plenty of time to readjust, and farm owners where given compensation. After 1990, all the collective farm workers there became unemployed and many are now at the bottom of society, longing for the good old days when they were respected workers with job security. All the while East Germany is importing its wheat and beetroot from the USA or elsewhere in the EU.
That is another way of looking at this matter.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Throbert McGee
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.
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.)
Ok, let's get down to one specific question I was trying to ask you so many times without any meaningful reply: Do you support the notion of private property? Yes or no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Yes, I admit it was a bit extreme. I've only done it for the consistency reasons. I guess I just got sick and tired of some people blaming the US for just about anything without considering the alternatives. As soon as they hear anything negative about the US - voila! - they are caught like a fish on a hook and start crying some blanket statements. You know, it became so fashionable these days to be over-critical of the US that all the positive factors are forgotten. And usually those very people are very vocal, but unfortunately have not that much clue of what's going on...Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
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.]Quote:
Originally Posted by Throbert McGee
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?
I respect this. I should mention that the reason you hear me cry about this, is not because I'm caught on a certain idea, but because I DO love my country. There are plenty of things about capitalism and American freedom that I love dearly.. As a case-in-point, I've been allowed to say and think things about my country that would have had me, if I were a Chinese citizen, whisked away into whatever unknown dungeons their dissidents go to.. (1984-style: Weiwei, an artist, was just freed.. because he "confessed" to his crime of dissidence) .. And I'm very vocal because I'm disheartened by the general US opinion that we should ignore it all, there's nothing we can do, that we should focus on being workers and consumers of functionally-obsolescent electronic goods and trust the leaders to lead.. I'm not really frightened or appalled by the IDEA of corruption - it's part of human nature, in our current iteration - but that corruption can snowball out of control when no one's watching the store.. Sometmies it feels like the curtain has been pulled around our poltical Oz for so long that no one can say what he's been up to. I'm no revolutionist. I like this place. I would just like to encourage people to have a mind for cleaning it up a bit.. And when I have an opportunity to bounce things like this off of people like you all, I feel like I learn more about it, from every angle.. so hopefully one day I WILL know what can be done constructively.. I'm no good at "Oh well, what can you do?" =)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
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.
No harm done. Any landing you walk away from is a good one. CheersQuote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
No, your country did not plan this. This was planned by the Global Elites! Google Aaron Russo and watch the interview with Alex Jones. In this he explains how his ex friend Nick Rockefeller told him that they had already planned the wars in the Middle east. Why do you think that Obama, who said he would end the wars, has now accelerated them and started another? Obama is not in control, and neither was Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ
What's exploiting people to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.