This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Neoconservatives Planned Regime Change Throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 Years Ago
I've repeatedly documented that the Neocons planned regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria and a host of other countries right after 9/11 ... if not before.
And that Obama is implementing these same plans - just with a "kindler, gentler" face.
Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11:
General Wesley Clark ... said the aim of this plot [to "destroy the governments in ... Iraq, ... Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran”] was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”
[I]n the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya ... with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active and escalating proxy fighting in Somalia, with a modest military deployment to South Sudan, and the active use of drones in six — count ‘em: six — different Muslim countries, it is worth asking whether the neocon dream as laid out by Clark is dead or is being actively pursued and fulfilled, albeit with means more subtle and multilateral than full-on military invasions (it’s worth remembering that neocons specialized in dressing up their wars in humanitarian packaging: Saddam’s rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz ... put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:
As far as I can tell, there’s barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the [Democrats] just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.
***
The neocon end as Clark reported them — regime change in those seven countries — seems as vibrant as ever. It’s just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.
Note: The so-called "war on terror" has also weakened our national security and created many more terrorists than it has killed, imprisoned or otherwise stopped. It is also destroying our economy.
»
- advertisements -
And "War is a Racket" (among many other gems, including Coleman) here...
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/smedleywarisracket.shtml
Nonsense, the regimes were put IN place by the US.
Now, that wars were planned, sure, THAT I believe, cause it makes money, and regime change - agian, and again, and again - is part of starting wars. So, it's not about removing regimes, as that implies that we're doing something good here, as the media wants us to believe. It's about destabilizing over and over again, creating conflict.
The US does NOT need an army to protect itself. NO ARMY AT ALL.
The US only needs a missile shield, that's it.
The only reason the US sends its kids to the killing fields is for profit. Period.
Yes, profit is a big reason. But there is an ENDGAME for these planners....it's called world government ruled by the Western elites! There is too much evidence and too many quotes to ignore this very real factor.
once you control the central bank, you control the entire country. profit is guaranteed. how much effort does it now take to create digital money? As much as prospecting for gold and silver? I did not think so. Hofjuden are lazy, usurious, parasitic fuckers and find it easier to fund wars and enslaving entire countries by issuing paper confetti rather than letting people create value and wealth with their enterprise.
Who let Clark out of the kitchen?
Talking about Wolfowitz, now that is one of the sickest motherfuckers this earth has ever seen.
I suspect they are all in league with militant Zionists. They have betrayed not just fellow jews, but everyone. Evil.
The chickenhawk's chickenhawk.
If they are so powerful, why did it take 20 years?
Not only they are powerful, but also quite smart to take on all opponents at the same time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_in_detail
Because they needed to convince you to support their evil plan without opposition. It takes time to brainwash a generation. About 20 years.
pesky little fuckers
A 20-year plan takes 20 years! Sometimes a 20-year plan can take 30 years, if unforseen circumstances arise. These fuckers actually work to much longer timescales, with their long-range ideology and copious writings.
Much of what has been happening in recent years (particularly the breakup of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the EU) was planned back in the mid-1950's. The current collapse of the EZ is an example of one of their "unforseen circumstances" ... LOL!
I doubt the collapse of the Eurozone was "unforseen." My guess is that it is all intentional to usher in some sort of new central banking device with more scope and power than the world has ever seen and all the while make the people beg for it.
I agree that is their longer term plan ... but first they wanted to bring down the mighty dollar [next year] and extend the EuroZone to even more countries than those who are already "obliged" to join in the near future (Poland, Sweden, Czech Repub, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia).
Now, they have fuck-all chance of even getting those states to join, let alone more from Eastern Europe and North Africa (part of the reason for their overthrow of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya).
Don't get me wrong ... I love Europe and Europeans ... but I am really enjoying seeing the central planners fail with their EZ!! It's our only hope of stopping them in their tracks and setting their globalisation plans back about 40 years.
The EZ is not a good thing for any cultural group that takes pride in their national produce, national culture, and national community spirit.
The unintended consequence of these takeovers is World War III. The Muslims unite, take on Israel, and everyone else gets involved. Before, the Muslims couldn't take on Israel because they were divided. They all fell. Now that they will become united, they will be able to stand against Israel. It's just a matter of time.
I've often wondered about a hypothetical leader who could unite the Muslim world.
It's a formula known as maximizing profits. War is big business and there are some who think they can beat the plan, or in financial parlance; take the other side of the neocon trade.
Always bet on neocon.
Soon they will be making HUGE profits.
I'm all in. Take me to your leader.
They have enough lapdogs Carlyle. It's off to the pound for you. Invitation only to "join" asshole.
this is so disingenuos
"Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”"
Sure. A staff officer in Vietnam and now a general asking this kind of questions? Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
Or, as so many in ZH prefer: "he is talking his book" - best euphemism ever for lying...
"Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”"
Sad because this the the same asshole that literally tried to start WWIII over Serbia/Kosovo by ordering troops to fire on the Russians occupying an airport.
+1
I saw the "neo-con" post this morning trying to represent Clark as something more than he is...I was wondering if someone else had a decent memory around here ;-)
OTOH--
This is the way military personnel of a certain grade permit the airing of dirty linen. The "fake" or "disingenuous" tone is (from their point of view) a necessary camouflage.
They have done evil, and they know it, and they don't always rest easy in the aftermath.
Besides, the neo-cons may not maintain forever the death-grip they have enjoyed on US foreign policy for decades. Clark's attitude in this interview may be leaving tokens to be picked up under a different regime, if such ever emerges.
From my point of view, it is interesting to note that it really makes no difference which party was in power. During the early 'nineties, I used to tell my friends that the only difference between the parties that I could discern was that, when the Democrats were in power, the focus was on what the Tribe desired to pursue on the domestic front. When the Republicans were in power, the emphasis was on what the Tribe wanted on the international front. If this was ever correct, it seems less so now. The Tribe has been the driving ideological force and funding source for the Democrats since the "thirties. What is ominous is that, since the 'seventies, it has become dominant among the Republicans as well. Consider the fate of such stalwarts as Joe Sobran and Sam Francis. Consider the degeneration represented in the history of National Review. Read Murray Rothbard and Justin Raimondo for more details.
Our politics is a Kabuki theatre in which one faction of the Tribe engages in mostly-mock conflict with the other. What never changes is the craven support for the criminal Israeli regime.
Care about nukes in the Middle East? Oh, give us a break.
Care about "outside interference"? Ditto.
It gets old...
As in so many other ways, the system seems to exist largely on "flywheel effect", with mostly-sincere middle managers and company-grade officers maintaining whatever healthy continuity remains, while the true elites become more and more brazen about their looting, pillaging, warmongering, treason, and lies of rationalization.
Thanks GW for taking on this most important and dangerous topic.
That corresponds to the "Neocons" jumping ship from the Dems to the Repubs in 1968 (also the same year that David Rockefeller formed the Club of Rome at his estate in Bellagio, Italy).
In 1968, a group of Neocons jumped ship from Dem VP Hubert Humphrey's camp (under Henry 'Scoop' Jackson's wing) to Repub Nixon's presidential campaign - when they saw (or knew) that Humphrey would not be elected to replace LBJ. The group comprised Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, Irving Kristol (father of William Kristol) and Donald Rumsfeld, among others.
It's actually even more exotic a tale than you tell here Dawg....the lineage of most of those on your list is Trotskyite{for the unitiatiated to 60s style factionalism...that's hard core Ultra-leftist}...after Khrushchev's defeat and 11/22/63, the imposition of the crypto-Sephardic\Hebraic LBJ started the wheels in motion for a stunning takeover of the Amerikan right by their most(formerly) despised enemies.
Truly bizarre, Amerikan politics. JFK was the last 'popularly elected' American Presidential candidate with the potential for real CHANGE,(not CHAINS) but Barry Goldwater was the last American Presidential candidate with the real potential for HOPE(not HYPE)...change that around to read in reverse it still works. They were the last American heroes, men who rose above their political stations.
Obummer is the TROTSKYITE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE MADE REAL...what a long, strange road it's been to this sad moment.
well-stated, i-dog and joyful!
I hadn't heard the Trotskyite explanation before -- it's almost a panacea that brings everything together. The question though: How have these hypocrites been able to infiltrate and disguise themselves so well? It seems almost TOO coordinated to be true (that war hawk "neocons" and revolutionary "community organizers" would seek the same end game).
Clearly, the neocons are neither "new" nor "conservative" and their lineage is important for peolple who call themselves conservative (I would argue that these "conservatives" are actually just capitalists that don't have a party that shares their free-market, self-reliant views because "conservatism" no longer promotes either virtue).
Nevertheless, the Trotskyite argument definitely explains why these worldwide revolutions are reaching a fever pitch -- and all the revolutionaries are blaming the West and Capitalism even though Progressive policies undermined the capitalist system and concentrated power into an identifiable oligarchy which the Proletariat could rise against.
You nailed it there, squire.
As to the question, how could this smooth an operation even exist, well, you have to compare timelines for ordinary folks versus certain minority subgroups with extraordinarly long framed(multi-generational) missions to conquer and subdue those they view as enemies and inferiors. History(and now also current events) is indeed written/scripted by the victors, and the group in question is 90 per cent or better on the way to total victory. Stalin, for example, quelled the Russian wing of this hegemonist undertaking via a bloody rain of terror over his Trotskyite(read Hebraic) opponents. He fought a running battle for survival against them his whole career-and eventually succumbed to them in the "Doctors' Plot"....as JFK did when he opposed their nuclear ambitions. Their lust is power, politics is just the dirty rag that they wipe their blood stained hands on.
Exactly Neocons=Progressive by another name. There's also plenty of evidence that they are on both sides of these "revolutions", much like Soros with OWS there to create the right moment.
There is a striking historical parallel between Poland in the XVII Century and today's US. Like the US today, back in the day Poland was the Paradisus Judaeorum. And like the US soon, Poland went down in a popular revolt against the naked oppression perpetrated by the Jews as tax-collectors and "arendars" on the one hand, and the self-indulgent nobility on the other. For Poland, the downfall was called the Deluge. I wonder what the Americans will call it, and who will be the American Bohdan Khmelnytsky.
It is not without irony as well that the overwhelming majority of American Zionistas are, you guessed it, Polish Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Khmelnytsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28history%29
Don't stop typing on my account. I was enjoying your aria.