Hillary Clinton ADMITS

This is the problem with having a foreign power or powers in control of our foreign policy. By foreign powers I mean the internationalist organizations like the CFR and Tri Laterals.

You may view this differently than I do big D but I'm about sick and tired of these internationalists using our kids as pawns in their grand chess games.

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." Zbigniew Brzeznski

These "entangling alliances" we've formed with the so called "international community" are some we could do a whole lot better without. We should have Americans that are loyal first and foremost to the USA in charge of our foreign policy not a cabal of transnational criminals that are loyal only to their own lust for power and the NWO aka the "international community".

As far as using terrorists as part of our "foreign policy", well we've been doing that for quite some time. We used them to topple the Iranian government in 1953 and a slew of other "unfriendly" governments in countries all around the world since. Some things never seem to change, there's your consistancy in policy. That's why I view this whole "war on terror" thing to be the ultimate hypocrisy on our part.


Care to sum up for us just what we've gained since WW2 by supporting this (dangerous) policy of using terrorists or opposition forces if you prefer to do our bidding one day then fighting against them the next big D?

 

Yeah and just look at what we and everyone else has accomplished.

Actually you may have a point NS. Compared to Switzerland the USA is a police state now. Does Switzerland have an interventionist foreign policy that supports terrorism?

Little sumthin from the past.

Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.

<snip>

However, the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.

SOURCE

Deja vu?

 

The Nazis would likely not posed much of a threat to Europe had it not been for the European and American financiers that helped make AH's rise to power possible. The SOVIET threat? You mean like the "domino effect" and all that? (chuckle) The SOVIET empire burned itself out. It's arrogant on our part to assume we defeated it.

Old Russian proverb. "The fish rots from the head"

Korea? Our first UN intervention. Also our first (official) undeclared war. Worked out so well we never bothered to declare war on another nation since. Now we only declare "war" on ideas and inanimate objects. Example, the failed war on drugs.

Communism? It is still alive and well and is headquartered in NYC. We pay very large dues to be one with it. And we dare not even go off on an intervention of our own without first asking it's permission.

Recall Iran prior to 1953 and how we overthrew the government to replace it with a "friendly government" and how the Iranians loved us after that.

Maybe it's you who "prefer the theocracy that hangs 16 year old girls, and buries women up to their neck to be stoned." You do seem to be a rather ardent supporter of the interventionist policy that helped to make it all possible.

I'm just sayin.

 

Is it even possible to have a discussion without falling into the false left vs right paradigm? We're discussing this in another thread right now. Evidently, you are one of those who prefers the collectivism of the right.

To me collectivism is collectivism. Rightie leftie rightie leftie, blah blah blah. Collectivists all.

Balogna. The USSR over extended itself and collapsed under it's own weight. Much the same as we're doing today.

Uh, this particular conflict never ended. It's a bit too soon to declare a "winner" yet.

Excuse me NS. The way you consistantly defend undeclared global interventions (most under false pretenses) must have confused me.

Sounds like you need more study in this area. What we did was to use a group of Iranians who pretended to be something they were not that went around shooting people and blowing things up. That's called state sponsored false flag terrorism. The fact that it was a such a surprising sucess caused much jubilation among the intell types. Google Kermit Roosevelt.

Why did we use a terror campaign against the Iranians? Because Iran wanted to nationalize it's own resourses. British and American oil interests wouldn't have any of it. So...

History is history. "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."

It's called "blowback" even the CIA admits this. We aren't making any friends by using a policy of state sponsored false flag terrorism. Besides it's being ultra hypocritical on our part it turns the very people we claim to be helping against us. It didn't stop in 1953. Ten years later the Joint Chiefs got together and planned another state sponsored false flag attack this time against the American people themselves called Operation Northwoods. Why would the JC plan such a sick thing? They wanted a war with Cuba and they almost got it. Which proves that our "leaders" have already considered killing innocent Americans to start more wars.

In a word it's insanity. But this is the crux of our foreign policy.

Right, so the question then becomes . . . cui bono? Does the USA as a whole benefit from all this or just the top one or two percent that now controls 90 +/-% of the wealth of the entire nation?