Obama playing checkers while Putin beats him at chess?!

These analogies assume that the two men are competing against each other. Obama wants America to disengage from superpower status, and Putin wants to re-establish the buffer states and borders that the Soviet Union enjoyed. Where is the conflict?

As for Syria, they have a tyrant who is opposed by madmen. What does an American foreign policy win in Syria look like, at this stage? Cause I sure don't know.

 

If all that is true then why does all the evidence tell such a different story?

 

Putin having expansion on his mind is evident by the Russian actions in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. Syria has been an ally to the Soviets and then Russia for a long time. And I doubt that he wants to see a radical Islamic regime take over there.

Obama abandoned Iraq, is barely responding to ISIS, wants to do the same in Afghanistan, trying to pull back the military everywhere and cut troop strength. Does that sound anything like what Putin's goals are? Because I just don't see it.

Feel free to share what you consider evidence to the contrary. Though if it comes from Alex Jones I'm liable to not bother replying. The chess-versus-checkers headline is amusing, just not apt. If anyone thinks that Putin is some grand strategist, they need to find a news source other than RT.com. He's just another in a long line of Russian autocrats. Obama and Putin are both playing checkers, just not against each other.

 

Never mind that the evidence shows Putin was reacting to provocations from the west in those instances.

The only game Obama is playing is golf. He doesn't dream up our foreign policy. The corporate sponsored think tanks do. There is no Democrat or Republican foreign policy. There's only the corporate sponsored think tank foreign policy.

All Obama does is act on the plans drawn up by these think tanks. Turn off the propaganda box and read the think tanks papers for yourself.

They don't hide them. Start with PINAC and the Brookings Institute. The whole idea that the president creates our foreign policy is a fantasy perpetuated by the media.

You want to know who one of these corporate sponsored "chess masters" are? Read the "The Grand Chess Board".

The Grand Chessboard

Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries - almost but not quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential "lesser" nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).

He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf. In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia's currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia. A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1 - March 31, 2001)

An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

Continue . . . http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

Which Path to Persia?

Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran

Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war

I'm sure some people will say Poncho you're a nutcase. Just because Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama have been following the same foreign policy outlined by these corporate sponsored think tanks and we can see (if we open our eyes) that things have been happening according to these plans doesn't mean the corporate sponsored think tanks control our foreign policy.

It's all just a big coincidence that events have been unfolding according to these plans. The corporate sponsored TV talking heads all tell us that the corporate sponsored think tanks are just experts in their field that advise the corporate sponsored government in policy matters. So there! You're wrong!

Yep those who never bother to read the think tanks policy papers, ask questions, investigate the media's sources or check primary sources and compare them to the unfolding events will say . . .

"Poncho, it's all a big conspiracy theory. We know the truth because the corporate owned and controlled media told us what the truth is. It's Putin's fault, it's China's fault, it's Iran's fault, it's Assad's fault . . . it's all someone else's fault. We know because that's what the corporate owned and controlled media all told us. We don't have to read all those policy papers. We're to smart for all that because we're media educated folks here!"

And to that I say, whatever. Believe what you want but the evidence still tells a very different story than what the corporate owned and controlled media has been telling you.

 

Well, if any source I point out is going to be dismissed as corporate owned, while your sources are above repreoach, I guess we're done.

I figured the aims of a president who fondly told us about reading The Post-American World would be apparent enough to not need to be filtered through any media.

 

I'm not dismissing your sources because they are corporate owned and controlled. I'm comparing the hard evidence to what the corporate owned and controlled media has been telling us. The two don't even come close to matching up.

If you want to use the excuse that I'm dismissing your sources because they are corporate owned and controlled that's fine. I understand. It's a great excuse to get out of looking at the hard evidence and doing the research necessary to come to your own conclusions.

I get it. It's so much easier to just turn on the TV and have the prepackaged narratives downloaded directly into your brain while it's in the Alpha state.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

They don't call it programming for nothing.

 

Well, first you say Obama is playing checkers, then you say he has no real influence on foreign policy because its run by think tanks and banksters. So I can't even pin down your position.

Was I wrong when I said that Russia under Putin is trying to expand while Obama has been trying to reduce America's influence abroad?

 

Where is Russia expanding to? NATO has expanded up to Russia's door step. Russia has always had influence in the middle east. The neocons see that as a threat and have been doing everything short of bombing Moscow to undue that influence. They brag about it in their own papers. But you have to actually read them to see that.

I gave you a copy of the "Grand Chess Board" read it.

When you do read it keep in mind the first thing the author does is in this book is try to scare the reader into believing that the world will fall into utter chaos unless the USA rules over every inch of it.

Then go read the PINAC papers and compare them to the book.

Then go to the corporate sponsored think tank's websites and read their papers and compare them to what you've already read. Then compare it to what you have seen happening with your own eyes.

Putin isn't trying to expand Russia's influence he's trying to protect his own national interests in the region from those who are determined to make Russia a compliant vassal state. Does Russia have a right to protect it's own national interests? Does any country besides the USA have a right to protect their own national interests?

Not if you listen to what the TV talking heads have to say.

Turn the TV off put all the biases aside and put all the party talking points away and look at the evidence. Will it take more effort than turning the TV on? Yes most definitely that's why so few people do it.

Where does the smooth easy path lead?

 

Lol. Ok.

We're back to everything I say is wrong because of blah blah blah. Don't refute my opinions, just cry media bias. Forget that buffer states have been an intregal part of Russian or Soviet foreign policy since Operation Barbarossa. Ignore Obama's words to Medvedev.

I guess South Ossetia and Crimea were never annexed, because Russia isn't expanding. That was just biased reports from a biased media. Russia is obviously not interested in expanding borders or influence.

 

United States foreign policy is frequently made with issues of commerce in mind. It's one of the reasons tariffs are in the Constitution. There's nothing evil or shady about businesses trying to influence US foreign policy.

This idea that US foreign policy should take into account the economic success of its citizens has been a constant for 200+ years.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

So you have met Poncho, eh? *laugh*

 

Thanks. I was contemplating firing off an IM to ask for your reasoning.