5 ms·

>Why all of this? It's about strategic positioning to control resource routes in anticipation of the coming resource wars that everyone pretends isn't going to

>Why all of this? It's about strategic positioning to control resource routes in anticipation of the coming resource wars that everyone pretends isn't going to happen. This while the Leo Strauss-ians like Kissinger and Brzezinski work hard to initiate cold-war 2.0 because the Middle East destablization program was simply a precursor to bigger more nasty conflicts, (which start economically) and most of this is arising due to the fact that technology has advanced so fast it altered the nation-states threat model and they don't know how to handle a kind of world where any lone-wolf actor could do devestating things. Hence a surveillance state of totalitarian dystopia is the only response they know that might be able to handle it except they don't really care about national security that much or they wouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars on kickbacks to relatives around the beltway instead of fixing problems. Africa is a war ground for precious minerals and metals (and some oil) and because the Chinese have been making big plays there the Americans want to balance out the power so they have a foothold when the minerals that go in that phone in your pocket become more scarce because China suddenly halted exports of theirs or something similar. I spent some time in the Horn of Africa, and I can tell you I'd rather be in Iraq... at least Iraqi's pickup their dead bodies, and I never saw a 12 year old patrolling with an AK in Iraq either. The point is that while you are right that we need to rethink how far we overextend our forces into foreign entanglements, there are other things at play here of which terrorism is only a part of and is often a byproduct of. We also need to consider how often such moves have resulted in blowback worse than the initial problem. I look all over the world and see problems that are blowback from our meddling in the first place. (Iran is a prime example of this. The Mullahs would have never come to power if we hadn't overthrown their gov for oil in the first place.)

nickik 9y ago
Well, what your are arguing is essentially a conspiracy theory. That does not mean its wrong, but it does mean that there is a waste upper class that have a secrete agenda for the world. I don't think that explanation makes any sense. > It's about strategic positioning to control resource routes in anticipation of the coming resource wars that everyone pretends isn't going to happen. I don't know why that should happen. Even if it did, why would you care about the Middle East? Oil will no longer be a important resource and as long as it is the US has its own supply. A middle east that is unable to export Oil would mean LESS resources for china who I assume would be the enemy in that massive war you are predicting. > because the Middle East destablization program If they only want to destabilize the region there would be more effective ways to do it. It also assumes that all the people involved in for example the Iraq invasion were all lairs and all of them seem to be able to keep this secret even once they are retired. It also does not explain why the US send 100'000 people into Iraq to stop the civil war, it would have been far cheaper just to keep out and let things happen. I see no evidence for this theory. > they don't know how to handle a kind of world where any lone-wolf actor could do devestating things Bomb building has not changed that much, Anarchist have killed far more people in the US then Muslim Terrorists. A small group of students started WW1. > Africa is a war ground for precious minerals and metals (and some oil) and because the Chinese have been making big plays there the Americans want to balance out the power so they have a foothold when the minerals that go in that phone in your pocket become more scarce because China suddenly halted exports of theirs or something similar. The US position on Africa has been extremely light touch. They operate with special forces for the most part. They don't attempted massive economic inroads or outright conquests that would be required if resource security was the main goal. I agree about blowback. The main difference between us is that I believe that it is stupidity and internal political intensives. Not some long running prepare for some future war. I don't think any such war will happen, politically, economically and there is the problem of nukes.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  > upper class that have a secrete agenda for the world. I don't think that explanation makes any sense. I don't think people will be able to ever understand whats really going on in the world until they understand it's true, and makes lots of sense. (not sure what you mean by "waste" though.) I have spent the vast majority of my time since I got out of the military tracing the big picture for myself based on the evidence, wanting to find the truth regardless of where it took me. Those who invoke variations of hanlons razor (it's all incompetence) or just say it's perverse results of bad incentives organically corrupting the system, simply haven't carefully examined the evidence. That being said, I do acknowledge two things that hamper my claims somewhat. First, when dealing with such issues I am often restricted to inductive logic due to a lack of hard evidence. Deductive logic is always preferable. Two, I know it's hard for claims such as mine to be taken at face value without better citations, but I do have many contextual citations that I simply haven't made public yet. I also understand such a vast scope means I still have a shitton of things to learn, and don't know everything. > why would you care about the Middle East? Oil will no longer be a important resource This is a line I have heard from the intelligencia that hasn't stood up to actual real-world tests. Like I said most of the oil issue was never about us actually having the oil, it was about us controlling who did get the oil. Likewise, I find it humourous that people have already bought the line about no needing oil hook line and sinker. It's simply not realistic to pretend a lack of potential depedence on oil in 2030-50 is going to cause us to suddenly give up our imperial ambitions. Oil is but a part of a much bigger game. > If they only want to destabilize the region there would be more effective ways to do it. What other than war, and especially civil and secretarian war comes even close to the same amount of destablization? > It also assumes that all the people involved in for example the Iraq invasion were all lairs and all of them seem to be able to keep this secret even once they are retired. First of all, yes, most of them were/are pathological liars. Second, the nature of compartmentalization creates a breeding ground for such abuses to be top down while middle-men ground-pounders (in this case military generals) have no clue about what's really going on. This is a variation of the fallacy I hear too often about "if X conspiracy theory is true, it would take Y number of people to be silent which is impossible/improbable and therefor conspiracy theory is false." Really, all you needed was a core group running the show, the rest tend to just do as told. (Bremer/Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld part of core group) > I see no evidence for this theory. Then I don't think you have examined very much material relating to it. > Bomb building has not changed that much. Anarchist have killed far more people in the US then Muslim Terrorists. Modern threats are cyber, genetic, etc. That's the threat model shift many in the natsec industry are at least pretending to try to shift to, and even the most academic of the natsec group admits technology has rapidly shifted the equation faster than nation-states of been able to adapt. Ignoring this with such a flippant dismissal isn't a serious attempt at conversation on the topic. > A small group of students started WW1. History as written by the instigators. King Edward the 7th was the single man most responsible for WW1. I don't have time to get into this one though. > The US position on Africa has been extremely light touch. It has been, but it's not going to be for much longer. > They don't attempted massive economic inroads or outright conquests The American's haven't, but the history and modern history of Africa and it's current state is inextricably tied to the European colonialism and exploitation of Africa through "economic inroads" and "outright conquests". Rhodesia, Congo, Suez, Morocco, are all examples of this. Not to mention IMF/World bank explotation that creates the corruption and inculcates the extremism being fought. Hell, South Africa apartheid barely ended in 1991! So your comment about the US is mostly true, but I'm also talking about the supranational oligarchy of the west as a whole, not just the US. > The main difference between us is that I believe that it is stupidity and internal political intensives. I dismiss Hanlons razor as an inherent logical fallacy, and the organic incentives angle simply doesn't match the evidence or fill the gaps needed to understand the global geo-economic/political games being played here. Don't get me wrong. I see this response from intelligent people quite often, and I understand it because it's the safe academic viewpoint especially without all the contextual knowledge/evidence required to say otherwise, but I'm telling you now it's not the truth of the matter at all. The pages of history are littered with conspiracy, and until people can stop trying so hard to dismiss it because of the negative modern connotations they won't be able to approach the evidence and follow it to the truth regardless of where it leads. See part 4C. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created...
purple-again 9y ago
Nuclear weapons put a sudden screaching halt to the human nature that has played out for the past 10,000 years. Nations have been scrambling since then to figure out how to handle their force projection ever since. Then the Information Age exploded onto the scene with computing and the internet. This has caused further strain on nations that suddenly have to control informed populations. None of this has changed the fundamental laws of nature that govern the power of nations. War is coming and it will be very bad for almost all Of us. As has been the entire history of humanity before us.

nickik 9y ago

Well, what your are arguing is essentially a conspiracy theory. That does not mean its wrong, but it does mean that there is a waste upper class that have a secrete agenda for the world. I don't think that explanation makes any sense. > It's about strategic positioning to control resource routes in anticipation of the coming resource wars that everyone pretends isn't going to happen. I don't know why that should happen. Even if it did, why would you care about the Middle East? Oil will no longer be a important resource and as long as it is the US has its own supply. A middle east that is unable to export Oil would mean LESS resources for china who I assume would be the enemy in that massive war you are predicting. > because the Middle East destablization program If they only want to destabilize the region there would be more effective ways to do it. It also assumes that all the people involved in for example the Iraq invasion were all lairs and all of them seem to be able to keep this secret even once they are retired. It also does not explain why the US send 100'000 people into Iraq to stop the civil war, it would have been far cheaper just to keep out and let things happen. I see no evidence for this theory. > they don't know how to handle a kind of world where any lone-wolf actor could do devestating things Bomb building has not changed that much, Anarchist have killed far more people in the US then Muslim Terrorists. A small group of students started WW1. > Africa is a war ground for precious minerals and metals (and some oil) and because the Chinese have been making big plays there the Americans want to balance out the power so they have a foothold when the minerals that go in that phone in your pocket become more scarce because China suddenly halted exports of theirs or something similar. The US position on Africa has been extremely light touch. They operate with special forces for the most part. They don't attempted massive economic inroads or outright conquests that would be required if resource security was the main goal. I agree about blowback. The main difference between us is that I believe that it is stupidity and internal political intensives. Not some long running prepare for some future war. I don't think any such war will happen, politically, economically and there is the problem of nukes.

arca_vorago 9y ago
> upper class that have a secrete agenda for the world. I don't think that explanation makes any sense. I don't think people will be able to ever understand whats really going on in the world until they understand it's true, and makes lots of sense. (not sure what you mean by "waste" though.) I have spent the vast majority of my time since I got out of the military tracing the big picture for myself based on the evidence, wanting to find the truth regardless of where it took me. Those who invoke variations of hanlons razor (it's all incompetence) or just say it's perverse results of bad incentives organically corrupting the system, simply haven't carefully examined the evidence. That being said, I do acknowledge two things that hamper my claims somewhat. First, when dealing with such issues I am often restricted to inductive logic due to a lack of hard evidence. Deductive logic is always preferable. Two, I know it's hard for claims such as mine to be taken at face value without better citations, but I do have many contextual citations that I simply haven't made public yet. I also understand such a vast scope means I still have a shitton of things to learn, and don't know everything. > why would you care about the Middle East? Oil will no longer be a important resource This is a line I have heard from the intelligencia that hasn't stood up to actual real-world tests. Like I said most of the oil issue was never about us actually having the oil, it was about us controlling who did get the oil. Likewise, I find it humourous that people have already bought the line about no needing oil hook line and sinker. It's simply not realistic to pretend a lack of potential depedence on oil in 2030-50 is going to cause us to suddenly give up our imperial ambitions. Oil is but a part of a much bigger game. > If they only want to destabilize the region there would be more effective ways to do it. What other than war, and especially civil and secretarian war comes even close to the same amount of destablization? > It also assumes that all the people involved in for example the Iraq invasion were all lairs and all of them seem to be able to keep this secret even once they are retired. First of all, yes, most of them were/are pathological liars. Second, the nature of compartmentalization creates a breeding ground for such abuses to be top down while middle-men ground-pounders (in this case military generals) have no clue about what's really going on. This is a variation of the fallacy I hear too often about "if X conspiracy theory is true, it would take Y number of people to be silent which is impossible/improbable and therefor conspiracy theory is false." Really, all you needed was a core group running the show, the rest tend to just do as told. (Bremer/Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfeld part of core group) > I see no evidence for this theory. Then I don't think you have examined very much material relating to it. > Bomb building has not changed that much. Anarchist have killed far more people in the US then Muslim Terrorists. Modern threats are cyber, genetic, etc. That's the threat model shift many in the natsec industry are at least pretending to try to shift to, and even the most academic of the natsec group admits technology has rapidly shifted the equation faster than nation-states of been able to adapt. Ignoring this with such a flippant dismissal isn't a serious attempt at conversation on the topic. > A small group of students started WW1. History as written by the instigators. King Edward the 7th was the single man most responsible for WW1. I don't have time to get into this one though. > The US position on Africa has been extremely light touch. It has been, but it's not going to be for much longer. > They don't attempted massive economic inroads or outright conquests The American's haven't, but the history and modern history of Africa and it's current state is inextricably tied to the European colonialism and exploitation of Africa through "economic inroads" and "outright conquests". Rhodesia, Congo, Suez, Morocco, are all examples of this. Not to mention IMF/World bank explotation that creates the corruption and inculcates the extremism being fought. Hell, South Africa apartheid barely ended in 1991! So your comment about the US is mostly true, but I'm also talking about the supranational oligarchy of the west as a whole, not just the US. > The main difference between us is that I believe that it is stupidity and internal political intensives. I dismiss Hanlons razor as an inherent logical fallacy, and the organic incentives angle simply doesn't match the evidence or fill the gaps needed to understand the global geo-economic/political games being played here. Don't get me wrong. I see this response from intelligent people quite often, and I understand it because it's the safe academic viewpoint especially without all the contextual knowledge/evidence required to say otherwise, but I'm telling you now it's not the truth of the matter at all. The pages of history are littered with conspiracy, and until people can stop trying so hard to dismiss it because of the negative modern connotations they won't be able to approach the evidence and follow it to the truth regardless of where it leads. See part 4C. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created...

purple-again 9y ago

Nuclear weapons put a sudden screaching halt to the human nature that has played out for the past 10,000 years. Nations have been scrambling since then to figure out how to handle their force projection ever since. Then the Information Age exploded onto the scene with computing and the internet. This has caused further strain on nations that suddenly have to control informed populations. None of this has changed the fundamental laws of nature that govern the power of nations. War is coming and it will be very bad for almost all Of us. As has been the entire history of humanity before us.