Idle passing thought conspiracy theory re: President Obama

[manu1959]

he can acomplish his central asia mandate and not be in afganistan......high body count...photo op....a different election result.....he is out of there....

You make an excellent point. If we can maintain control the Afghan government, we can maintain strategic dominance without risking further US lives.

The question then becomes:

"How do we maintain control if we don't have boots on the ground, when the "insurgents" and the "Taliban" are only insurgents and Taliban because they want to remove the puppet government that was placed by the foreign invaders?"

Here's how I would do it if I was a morally unscrupulous and ethically challenged globalist corporation who controls the US government:

I'd betray the leadership that I had placed in Kabul, perhaps by using my mainstream media to associate him directly or indirectly with US intelligence. I'd have my hand-selected replacement waiting in the wings, so that when my existing puppet is removed or assassinated, the Afghan people would believe that THEIR representative is now in charge and ready to represent THEM, rather than representing foreign corporate interests.

I's orchestrate my own coup d'etat, and I'd place my own representative in office. And I'd instruct the US media to place all the blame on the US President (who is on board with the plan), so the US people believe that Obama pulled us out of Afghanistan, and the Afghans believe that they are in control of their own government. Yet I'm the one pulling all of the strings and pushing all of the buttons.

Just like we did when Jimmy Carter helped place Chavez in Venezuela. The corporate globalists get a South American economic merge that never would have happened under the FTAA because the South American nations didn;t trust our corporate controlled leadership. Jimmy Carter helped place a guy in Venezuela who we demonized as an enemy, who then did what the FTAA could not accomplish.

I'd play the same game in Afghanistan. The only people who would have any clue are the ones orchestrating it, and the folks who spend lots of time looking for the connections behind the scenes, and understanding what plays and players were conveniently omitted from the media and the history books.

can you say washington bullets again............

 

[geauxtohell]

I am not going to entertain the conspiracy theory, but I certainly think it is the role of the Commander In Chief to render honors to the fallen.

However, call me old fashioned, but it still annoys me to see the President saluting any soldier. That used to not be done. I think it (ever so slightly) undermines the concept of civilian control of the military.

I believe Reagan started this. I just personally disagree with it.

I wouldn't mind any President saluting a soldier, as long as they had also worn the uniform at some point.

It's a novel concept. Presidents used to not salute the uniform. It's just a personal pet peeve of mine and is not really germane to this thread, I suppose.

 

[Shorebreak]

he can acomplish his central asia mandate and not be in afganistan......high body count...photo op....a different election result.....he is out of there....

You make an excellent point. If we can maintain control the Afghan government, we can maintain strategic dominance without risking further US lives.

The question then becomes:

"How do we maintain control if we don't have boots on the ground, when the "insurgents" and the "Taliban" are only insurgents and Taliban because they want to remove the puppet government that was placed by the foreign invaders?"

Here's how I would do it if I was a morally unscrupulous and ethically challenged globalist corporation who controls the US government:

I'd betray the leadership that I had placed in Kabul, perhaps by using my mainstream media to associate him directly or indirectly with US intelligence. I'd have my hand-selected replacement waiting in the wings, so that when my existing puppet is removed or assassinated, the Afghan people would believe that THEIR representative is now in charge and ready to represent THEM, rather than representing foreign corporate interests.

I's orchestrate my own coup d'etat, and I'd place my own representative in office. And I'd instruct the US media to place all the blame on the US President (who is on board with the plan), so the US people believe that Obama pulled us out of Afghanistan, and the Afghans believe that they are in control of their own government. Yet I'm the one pulling all of the strings and pushing all of the buttons.

Just like we did when Jimmy Carter helped place Chavez in Venezuela. The corporate globalists get a South American economic merge that never would have happened under the FTAA because the South American nations didn;t trust our corporate controlled leadership. Jimmy Carter helped place a guy in Venezuela who we demonized as an enemy, who then did what the FTAA could not accomplish.

I'd play the same game in Afghanistan. The only people who would have any clue are the ones orchestrating it, and the folks who spend lots of time looking for the connections behind the scenes, and understanding what plays and players were conveniently omitted from the media and the history books.

can you say washington bullets again............

I don't know if you realize how much irony is in your statement. Absolutely incredible - and beyond insightful if you're including the coup nuances in your comparison.

 

[Shorebreak]

Is it possible that he is already thinking of just tossing up his hands, making the "tough" decision to walk away from Afghanistan altogether and using his trip to the Air Force Base as the "motivation" for his "decision" to just get out of Afghanistan?

In that vein, what do you think the President is going to decide with regards to sending more troops to Afghanistan ala the McChrystal recommendation?

Absolutely not. During the Presidential campaign, Obama and Biden both committed to finish what Bush started in Central Asia. In addition, the man whom Obama chose as his most senior foreign policy advisor wrote an entire book on US policy that mandates complete US geostrategic domination of Central Asia via military force. That is what Bush started. Obama needs more troops to finish it.

Obama will step up and expand our occupation of Central Asia. It's part of his stated mandate, and it's the policy direction of his most senior corporate globalist advisors.

ahem....

Official: Obama ready to suggest Afghan endgame - Yahoo! News

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I also commend any President who honors our fallen soldiers.

First, I think Obama will delay any announcement till after next weeks elections.
I don't think he will walk away, but will authorize fewer additional troops than requested

do you think authorizing fewer troops then the general commanding the action requests is the correct choice?

Best I can answer is ....How the hell do I know??

I haven't seen an exit strategy, haven't seen achievable milestones and timetables. All I have seen is a vague "we need to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people" BS

At least your honest about not having a clue as to what we should do....kudos man.

 

[Liability]

Is it possible that he is already thinking of just tossing up his hands, making the "tough" decision to walk away from Afghanistan altogether and using his trip to the Air Force Base as the "motivation" for his "decision" to just get out of Afghanistan?

In that vein, what do you think the President is going to decide with regards to sending more troops to Afghanistan ala the McChrystal recommendation?

Absolutely not. During the Presidential campaign, Obama and Biden both committed to finish what Bush started in Central Asia. In addition, the man whom Obama chose as his most senior foreign policy advisor wrote an entire book on US policy that mandates complete US geostrategic domination of Central Asia via military force. That is what Bush started. Obama needs more troops to finish it.

Obama will step up and expand our occupation of Central Asia. It's part of his stated mandate, and it's the policy direction of his most senior corporate globalist advisors.

ahem....

Official: Obama ready to suggest Afghan endgame - Yahoo! News

Your little "ahem" moment does not really fully answer the question.

Let us assume that the President DOES say that his decision has been made and that it is to send in 30K to 34K troops.

So far, so good. Wise decision or poor one, at least it is a decision.

On the other hand, how wise is it to signal IN ADVANCE what our proposed "end game" is? By telling the enemy even before the surge is mounted how long they will have to wait in order to just "wait us out," isn't he telegraphing all they need to know?

Whoever started the popular talking point of "exit strategy" should probably have kept his mouth shut. And our so-called "leaders" should distinguish between political talking points like discussions about "exit strategies" and practical reality like discussing actual strategy in public.

It appears to me that President Obama has made a huge mistake (regardless of the merits of getting deeply involved in Afghanistan). If he has decided to make a larger commitment, why would he simultaneously be alerting the enemy to our "exit strategy?"

 

[Shorebreak]

Absolutely not. During the Presidential campaign, Obama and Biden both committed to finish what Bush started in Central Asia. In addition, the man whom Obama chose as his most senior foreign policy advisor wrote an entire book on US policy that mandates complete US geostrategic domination of Central Asia via military force. That is what Bush started. Obama needs more troops to finish it.

Obama will step up and expand our occupation of Central Asia. It's part of his stated mandate, and it's the policy direction of his most senior corporate globalist advisors.

ahem....

Official: Obama ready to suggest Afghan endgame - Yahoo! News

Your little "ahem" moment does not really fully answer the question.

Let us assume that the President DOES say that his decision has been made and that it is to send in 30K to 34K troops.

So far, so good. Wise decision or poor one, at least it is a decision.

On the other hand, how wise is it to signal IN ADVANCE what our proposed "end game" is? By telling the enemy even before the surge is mounted how long they will have to wait in order to just "wait us out," isn't he telegraphing all they need to know?

Whoever started the popular talking point of "exit strategy" should probably have kept his mouth shut. And our so-called "leaders" should distinguish between political talking points like discussions about "exit strategies" and practical reality like discussing actual strategy in public.

It appears to me that President Obama has made a huge mistake (regardless of the merits of getting deeply involved in Afghanistan). If he has decided to make a larger commitment, why would he simultaneously be alerting the enemy to our "exit strategy?"

The announcement of 30k troops is PR for the Afghan audience. The 2012 exit strategy is PR for the US audience.

In reality, both are propaganda bullshit. There will be no US exit from Afghanistan and the deployment will exceed 30k by several factors.

We will be there in force until a UN aligned regional government is in full economic control of central asia. Like NAFTA or the EU.

This is much bigger than the US Presidency or the decisons of Congress. The global finance industry has cast it's die into the region and we will be used as their trigger man until there are either no bullets remaining or until the entire region has been brought into economic submission to the banks (via regime change with governments who are loyal to the corporate conglomerate that runs the UN and the World Bank).

 

[Liability]

ahem....

Official: Obama ready to suggest Afghan endgame - Yahoo! News

Your little "ahem" moment does not really fully answer the question.

Let us assume that the President DOES say that his decision has been made and that it is to send in 30K to 34K troops.

So far, so good. Wise decision or poor one, at least it is a decision.

On the other hand, how wise is it to signal IN ADVANCE what our proposed "end game" is? By telling the enemy even before the surge is mounted how long they will have to wait in order to just "wait us out," isn't he telegraphing all they need to know?

Whoever started the popular talking point of "exit strategy" should probably have kept his mouth shut. And our so-called "leaders" should distinguish between political talking points like discussions about "exit strategies" and practical reality like discussing actual strategy in public.

It appears to me that President Obama has made a huge mistake (regardless of the merits of getting deeply involved in Afghanistan). If he has decided to make a larger commitment, why would he simultaneously be alerting the enemy to our "exit strategy?"

The announcement of 30k troops is PR for the Afghan audience. The 2012 exit strategy is PR for the US audience.

In reality, both are propaganda bullshit. There will be no US exit from Afghanistan and the deployment will exceed 30k by several factors.

We will be there in force until a UN aligned regional government is in full economic control of central asia. Like NAFTA or the EU.

This is much bigger than the US Presidency or the decisons of Congress. The global finance industry has cast it's die into the region and we will be used as their trigger man until there are either no bullets remaining or until the entire region has been brought into economic submission to the banks (via regime change with governments who are loyal to the corporate conglomerate that runs the UN and the World Bank).

The announcement of the Afghan troop "surge" (but never call it a "surge" for fear that it might sound too much like what President Bush did) is more than just PR, but I doubt it is PR for the Afghanis. It is (in all likelihood) a bit of political posturing designed to appease those HERE in America who see President Obama as too much akin to Neville Chamberlain.

The "exit strategy" component of his expected announcement is a sop directed to the uber-left wing (including the monied interests) of his own Party, the ones who steer the direction of their political decisions. I suspect that the President and his political advisors are hoping to be able to "sell" the reluctant warrior image to the Soros contingent.