This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gateway Policies: ISIS, Obama And US Financial Boots-On-The-Ground
Submitted by Nomi Prins, author of All The Presidents' Bankers, via NomiPrins.com,
President Obama’s neo-Cold War is not about ideology or respect for borders. It is about money and global power. The current battle over control of gateway nations - strategic locations in which private firms can establish the equivalent of financial boots-on-the-ground - is being waged in the Middle East and Ukraine under the auspices of freedom and western capitalism (er, “democracy”). In these global gateways, private banks can infiltrate resource-rich locales fortified by political will, public aid and military support to garner lucrative market advantages. ISIS poses a threat to global gateway control that transcends any human casualties. That’s why Congress decided to authorize funds to fight ISIS despite the risk.
The common thread of today’s global gateway nations appears to be oil. But even more valuable are the multitude of financing deals that would accompany building new pipelines, arming allies, and reconstructing civil-war-torn countries. Indeed, hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake in America’s wars of “principle.”
Middle-East Gateways: ISIS and Money
Obama’s recent public address on fighting ISIS had a dash of economy sprinkled in. For him, US economic policy is foreign policy. It is also a product of an American political-financial expansionary land-and-resource grab that has been going on for decades. Obama’s execution may be far less authoritative than President Eisenhower’s. But his neo-financial Cold War has similar elements to those initiated by Eisenhower and the American banking elite in the 1950s when they collaborated to project American power into more countries, using the military and a combination of public and private capital, as tools.
The second World Bank President and 1950s Chairman of Chase Bank, John McCloy, and ascending and later Chase Chairman David Rockefeller both had aspirations to financially penetrate the Middle East. So did other major bankers. The US government and its banks first focused on Beirut as a gateway to the Middle East. Eisenhower dispatched military personnel to Beirut in 1958 not because he cared about the Lebanese, but because of the attractiveness of the country’s potential as a gateway to the region. By the 1970s, oil and money relationships between Chase and Saudi Arabia and Egypt grew, as they did with Iran and the Shah. Rockefeller's relationship with the Shah, who kept his family money with Chase, ignited the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. Before that, the US government and its military contractors made billions of dollars from arms deals with Iran.
Citigroup opened its first Iraq branch in September 2013, ten years after George W. Bush began his Iraq War while facing a recessed American economy. A decade ago, the Bush administration selected JPM Chase to manage billions of dollars of financing for Iraq imports and exports. JPM Chase also opened a branch in Iraq last year to compete with Citigroup for current gains. Billions of dollars in new pipeline funding and other projects are now up for grabs in Iraq. If the US supports the Iraqi government (against ISIS), these banks, as well as oil and infrastructure-building companies are poised to get more of a chunk of that money. Citigroup is already a forerunner for arranging a $2 billion loan for Boeing Jets to Iraq. As Iraq's Deputy Transport Minister Bangen Rekani said in April, “We need a lot of funds...we’re in a race to complete the maximum number of projects in a short time.”
Regarding Syria, Obama’s plea for showing strength worked. Congress voted in rare bipartisan fashion to fund the moderate Syrian rebels or “free Syrian army rebels.” According to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, initial assistance would be “small arms, vehicles and basic equipment like communications, as well as tactical and strategic training.” That could just be the beginning. He also said, “as these forces prove their effectiveness on the battlefield, we would be prepared to provide increasingly sophisticated types of assistance." We’ve been down this road before, positioning the military to gain financial access to an area relative to our competition. It’s lasted for years and killed thousands of people, while not accomplishing the stated goal of curtailing terrorist threats or activities.
It gets complicated from there. Moderate Syrian rebels have been fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom the US would support against ISIS. The US thinks these forces would cease fighting against al-Assad to fight ISIS instead, though the US claims it is not directly cooperating with al-Assad.
Despite this, the US financial hope is that once the dust clears from all these regime changes we support militarily, there will be demand for massive reconstruction and resource extraction projects that our private banks can take care of alongside the IMF and World Bank. At a press conference in Beirut in June, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim told the international community that the World Bank would help to rebuild Syria (at a cost of $150 billion after an “internationally recognized government” was put in place) as well as Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq during their 'recovery' from years of war. Mega reconstruction profits are at stake for private firms in symbiotic partnerships with these international entities. So too, are the requirements for austerity and loosely regulated financial markets as the Western “reform” bargains that accompany them.
“Wars on terror” serve as a distraction in public and media discourse from a bipolar economy. The September releases of the US Census Report and the Federal Reserve Consumer Finance Survey revealed an ongoing trend toward greater income and wealth inequality. We remain 8 million jobs below pre-crisis levels, adjusted for population growth. Real wages have stagnated or declined. Employers have no incentive to provide well-paying jobs amidst ample desperation in the ranks of the unemployed. We are a mess at home.
Rather than deal with this, the US is trying to prevent terrorism from blocking private bank and corporate expansions and profit elsewhere. ISIS has already caused Iraq to delay its first mega project-finance deal. The $18 billion Basra-Aqaba oil pipeline would extend through Jordan to the Red Sea, pumping a million barrels of crude oil per day, as well as 258 million cubic feet of gas. That’s a hefty financial incentive for which to use public funds.
Truth be told, the game of global gateway finance is a closed one. And there’s still Russia (and China) playing at the same table. In August 2014, Russia’s biggest oil company, Lukoil, estimated construction of the first branch of a pipeline to Iraq’s West Qurna-2 field at a cost of up to $1 billion. Lukoil holds a 75% stake in West Qurna-2 and has invested over $4 billion in the project, which is already producing more than 200,000 barrels of oil per day.
Cold-War Gateways: From Cuba to the Ukraine
The narrative of Russia's aggression vs. America’s fight for freedom dovetails with the turmoil going on in the Middle East. Both situations deflect attention from our country, which has greater inequality today than before Obama took office, despite a soaring stock market buoyed by the Fed's stimulus policy of pumping zero-interest rate money into banks providing them capital for all of these international adventures.
After Ukrainian President Poroshenko, a former banker and chocolate mogul, proclaimed the situation with Russia was much improved following his truce with Vladimir Putin, President Obama ratcheted up sanctions against Russia and corralled the rest of the Euro-squad to join him. This action was not about saving Kiev from pro-Russian rebels, but to reinforce the notion that the US is in financial control of the country. Poroshenko is no financial dummy, which is why he threw Putin and any potential Russian economic support under the bus, and high-tailed it to Washington for photo-ops and handouts.
These will come in the form of US government aid, more loans from the IMF and World Bank, plus complex transactions with US banks seeking more areas in which to funnel foreign capital, finance projects, and down the line, maybe securitize the resources of a new corner of the world and sell them to a fresh bunch of hungry speculators. The US has already provided $60 million in aid including food, body armor and communications equipment to the Ukraine to secure its place at this gateway table later.
Stepping back in time, my book, All the Presidents' Bankers illustrates how President Eisenhower's 1950s doctrine promoted a combination of US military and economic support to its non-communist allies. Aid from the then-new World Bank and IMF was provided in return for their commitment to provide open trade relationships and adapt policies advantageous to private western banks and corporations. The US government could thus achieve a dual military and financial stronghold. One such country was Cuba, which under Fulgencio Batista became a favorite spot from which to access Latin and South America. National City Bank (now Citigroup) established 11 branches in Havana alone, becoming Cuba’s principle US depository for American companies involved in the sugar industry and other businesses there. That changed with the Cuban revolution and Fidel Castro, who, in 1960, nationalized foreign bank assets. Bankers looked elsewhere to expand, as did the US government.
In Obama’s political-financial strategy, similar gateway strategies are in play. Obama, like all US presidents since Castro came into power, did the communist-bravado thing and extended sanctions. US bankers will reenter Cuba when US policy changes after Castro is truly gone, as they have during several periods before, notably when National City Bank sent an entourage of bankers led by Chairman Charles Mitchell in the 1920s to explore sugar, nickel, and other deals that eventually soured in the 1929 Crash.
The Ukraine is a modern Cuba with more lucrative resources. As with other US financial gateways, Obama supported the Ukraine faction amenable to financial relationships with the US and Europe relative to Russia. Ten years ago, the Bush administration supported Ukrainian leaders sympathizing with the US vs. Russia as well. None of this was because of any purported interest in dispersing democracy, but because the right leadership offers more capital market, foreign investment and resource control opportunities to private US firms.
The Ukraine signed a $10 billion shale gas deal with US oil giant Chevron to explore its Olesky gas deposit around the time it expressed a desire for closer partnerships with the EU. Its ousted ex-President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to subsequently shun an EU trade agreement in favor of Putin's offer of cheaper gas and a $15 billion aid package provoked internal unrest, as did its weak economy. The US denounced Russian-backed President Yanukovych, until he left his post, for he represented a potential loss of money, power and more financial access. Ukraine stands between Russian oil producers and European and Asian consumers, and is poised to profit from any growing energy demands from Western Europe, as could Western private firms. It also serves as a potential financial out-post for US banks hunting for the next hot resource-saturated capital market.
Ironically, on September 17, 2014, the National Bank of Ukraine did a 180 spin on its economic forecasts and promised positive growth of 1% next year. The government said this economic expansion would come through more favorable corporate and income tax laws that would attract outside investors along the lines of what the US and IMF and World Bank has wanted. (More private relationships of bankers with these entities are in All the Presidents’ Bankers.) The Ukraine received two parts of a $17 billion IMF bailout this year with the IMF saying it may need $19 billion more. This means a greater call on Ukraine’s future revenues in return for austerity measures and deregulated financial markets to private foreign interests.
The real battle between the US and Russia is over the gateway countries in political flux. The real winners will be the private banks and oil companies that will reap the strategic benefits from gateway control over related markets and resources, supported by military and political might, and augmented with speculative capital for years to come. American and global citizens, oblivious to all this, will be the losers in this global shell game.
»
- 5932 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Just make gold go up, OK?
No,I want it to go down so I can buy moar with my fiat.
See America...we're not all malcontents around here.
If energy supplies are at risk why are oil prices falling?
Sign of a debt bubble collapse?
http://www.planbeconomics.com/2014/09/gail-tverberg-on-collapsing-oil-pr...
Yessireebob. You got ythe point exactly. As a matter of fact, when I was a kid, 25 cents, one slim Silver Quarter bought a gallon of gas. Guess what a Silver (melt value) Quarter buys today? A gallon of gas.
The whole premise of oil getting to peak levels is a myth. It is not yet reflected in price, period, end of conversation.
Real money stops folks from political nambypamby bull shit, too.
So you're saying that the oil market is the one unrigged market on the planet?
The spice must flow. And the key players must be blowed.
Read this one carefully:
COLLATERAL (OIL)
BANK (MONETIZATION)
You can't monetize .....NOTHING. You need collateral to monetize. Hence, the one who controls oil, controls the bank, not vice versa.
And how control oil? The ones who has a LOYAL military
Bankers are useless and powerless, unless military is loyal to them. And military is not loyal to them, because military has..........THE COLLATERAL, OIL.
Hence Buffett, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPM etc into COMMODITIES OWNERSHIP as of 2003 when Fed allowed them.
Reminder: Armies needed to defend commodities and military is not loyal to bankers, and practically not loyal to anybody right now, but to itself.
We might have a Junta soon, like in the 60s
Learn some economics
gee. i gotta think this one over.
This one starting tonight pm were going up but slam down again. Stupid citizens just keep burying thier head and again war in the middle east again
That's an odd use for the word monetize. It took me a couple reads before I realized you were talking about turning a commodity into money (not talking about 'monetizing' debt, which is completely different).
But I get your point. Not sure I agree with it, but we've been down that road before. I just don't believe the military and banks are as at-odds with eachother as you think. If you're of a mind that the military is out for itself and ready to do more than just write a strongly worded letter to somebody, you'll be more than happy with what Chuck Hagel is doing to get rid of everyone in the military who shows any tendency to be more than a willing puppet for the administration. All capacity for independent thought is being drained from the military.
Just remember there's a 3rd leg to the stool. Government. And right now, the Obama administration is more afraid of the military than the bankers are. Because you don't have a junta without overriding the civvie government first.
Obama = Bank lobby
They are one thing.
Obama lives and breathes for Bank lobby and Warren Buffett and he doesn't even hide it.
Monetizing Collateral = Control of the Economy
Monetizing Debt = Bailout
Everybody wants to control the economy. Bailouts eventually stop
Oh, now I get it. OK, I see how you think about this stuff. You draw the break primarily between military and civilian worlds. Banks and governments being civilian, military being military.
Fair enough. It's an interesting perspective and one I haven't run into in a while, certainly never expecting to on ZH. Probably why I was drawn to read your posts in the first place. It was so out of place here.
Can I short cut this for you? I have to because I don't have all night, but here's where this line of discussion will end up (because I've had this discussion many times before): you and I will agree to disagree on some major points but both walk away with a refresher in why the real world is much more complicated than simple statements like Obama = Bank Lobby.
The interconnections are complex and NO relationship between the major power player regimes can be "averaged" or judged "overall". They aren't friends, they aren't enemies, they are different organs of the same body. They might disagree but all know their survival depends on the others. The balance of power between them shifts constantly, though rarely on a day-to-day basis.
Yes. When the shit hits the fan, then alliances break up instantly. We're not there yet, very close though,
My view anyway
Yeah, yeah. When the shit REALLY hits the fan, mostly you're left with just the military in charge. They have the discipline and the firepower to IMPOSE order by force. Maybe with a crash much worse than 2008, when "supply lines break" and true chaos starts brewing in the streets. But short of that, the US is still much too stable a country to be expecting that's right around the corner.
I think you were most accurate when you said that the military is trying to regain some of what it gave up when the Soviet Union fell. Gulf War I and II were nice appetizers, but now with Ukraine and ISIS entering the frame, they're plenty pissed they haven't been let off their leash by Obama to do what they do. And they're grumbling about it louder every day. They want to do war ELSEWHERE in the world still, not at home just yet.
He's arguing the wrong timeline which is why he looks...and in fact is..."exploding like a puff ball." What this article and the President (and his team of connivers) are arguing for (themselves) died in 1973.
Once you have fiat monies...well, "you can just gt the oil in ye old USA."
By not these dipshits. They're buying into an already bankrupt Kingdom while at the same time throwing under the bus the biggest...and ironically enough 100 percent American...energy boom in human history.
"The only thing missing are the tanks surrounding the White Hkuse and the Capitol." My guess those folks are all betting on the "at what point will they simply flee for fear of their own drone strike."
My money is on "they'll be getting their mail and then the entire apartment block will be taken out."
Probably was ISIS...or ISA...then again...maybe it was just some algo that they themselves created in an incongruous "play to pay" scheme.
It is not Chuck Hagel, it's Obama firing left right and centre, mostly for officers revolting against LGBT policies, but few big guns like Mattis, McCrystal literally REVOLTED in private and fired amid humiliation.
General James Mattis is back in demand now, even Feinstein mentioned it on Sunday, which is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.
Obama and Mattis are literally enemies
Note that, nobody is getting fired now, because all generals have revolted, all of them. He can't fire all.
And the open military revolt is being followed by the media now. Impossible for Obama to punish anybody
regretably, 98% are oblivious.
The Rockefeller Foundation is chucking all its oil investments and the kids are headed for the hills. That has me worried.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/rockefellers-to-sell-oil-assets-as-part-...
Rockefellers are dead
Buffett, Koch Bros, Gates, Adelson rule now, but not for long I'd say.
Military doesn't seem to trust anybody now. Back stabbed too often recently
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/13/warren-buffet-donates-12-billi...
Here's Buffett. That is how he owns Democrats. He funnels 'dark money' as charity money to Dems
$1.2 billion thus far. Nobody can come even close, nobody, and there's more DARK MONEY from Buffett to congress, both Dems and REpubs. But he owns Dems 100%
Not to even mention George Soros. More multiple billions. As well as Bill Gates and that guy did Facebook....
There was a news article some weeks ago (didn't keep it) showing the list of "massive" donors. 3/4 of it were dems, as was the money. The Kochs are just a small piece of the pie, but of course are vilified by the MSM as rigging the whole shebang.
You know the Progressive truth... win at any cost, principles be damned
1) Commodity control
2) Control of the Fed
Both can be controlled if White House and Senate Banking Committee and House Finance Committee are controlled.
...........Which they are right now by bank lobby, LEFTISTS.
Not for long, not for long. Pentagon will come back, in my view.
Ahhhh.... The Rockefeller Foundation these days is run by a buncha Nancy Boy namby pamby leftist feminized metrosexual pussified touchy feelie Progressive Do the Next Right Thing that Makes You Feel Good and Gets You Invited to the Next Cocktail Party at the Krugster's along with Tom Freidman and Maureen Dowd. So they would be getting rid of oil investments just when they, the very same fucking thinkers say that it's Peak Oil time and thus, the Prices Should Be Wowie Zowie Beneficial for the Oil Companies big ass profits.
Social Investing.
They're probably gonna redirect their investment into pork free meals on wheels deals
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09/mn-muslims-demand-pork-free-food...
Correction, a highly visible 860 million dollar charitable trust is dropping its fossil fuel investments for the politically correct alternative energies. We don't know what's happening with the real wealth.
Hi, Doc? It's me Paul. Yeah, the Krugster. You remember me dontcha? We got drunk on the flight from LA to New York a year or so ago. That's right! You wouldn't stop ordering the drinks. Man, I had a hangover for a week! Whewie! Say, I'm having a cocktail party. Maureen Dowd, Tommie Freidman, RFKJr, Chelsea, Lloyd and a whole bunch of other great folks will be there. Wonder if you'd like to join us? No, she doesn't do that anymore, says her dentures fall out of her head. Yeah, those really were the good old days. Great! Glad you could make it. We'll be chatting about alternative energy. No silly, not her dentures. OK, see you then!
.....wars OF terror distract from the {insert political/economic agenda item here} and serve as a distraction in public and media discourse from a bipolar economy.....
Ruppert covered this in 2001 but ...... Fuck It I give up....
......dammit i think I turned into pot girl....
Great theory, but what resources does Syria have?
Strategic position.
Same as Turkey. Not much resources, but extremely strategic, for pipeline routing and ports
Ah, location, location...
Breaking news items coming up about Ebola has been drastically underestinmated, spreading rapidly and New Contaiment Policies to Be Introduced.....
Gosh....
Surprise surprise
Funny how many sci-fi movies depict the aliens coming to earth to strip the planet of its resources. I know i always walk out satisfied when we manage somehow to kill them all. Just a thought experiment.
ROTFLMAO
Do you guys speak English? You do! Wow! You learned at Ru C Rel Ray? Fantastic! Listen I know y'all came a long way and you're probably tired and would like a bite to eat and all.... LOL... No, let go my arm. Stop it! Listen, yeah, you can have all the resources you want. Nope, we won't try to stop you at all. Nah, we've all seen the movies. You guys loose in the end anyway so why go through the bother. So here's the deal. You all just go over to this place West Africa. Yeah, that's it... Uh huh. Yeah, right there on the map. Good. Yup, they got all the stuff you want. OH yeah, plenty. Right guys? Uh huh. All you want. Yes, they are a little scary. Kinda creepy folks. What? No, actually not much more worse than the South Bronx. Right. Just be nice, hold hands, kiss a little and you're good. What me kid you? Nah, not a chance. Yeah, have a great day.
Battlefield Earth was a good movie.
The Book was a Damn site better than the Movie
in which private firms can establish the equivalent of financial boots-on-the-ground
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_%28Hobson%29
"ISIS poses a threat to global gateway control that transcends any human casualties. That’s why Congress decided to authorize funds to fight ISIS despite the risk."
That's funny since the elites via the CIA created ISIS as the new boogeyman and excuse to take over Syria for Greater Israel and Israel's pipeline to Europe.
ISIS is the new and improved Al Qaeda.
An American, not US subject.
bombs falling in syria tonight, mr nobel peace president what a farce what a hypocrit, the left gave us this shit.
"bombs falling in syria tonight, mr nobel peace president what a farce what a hypocrit, the left gave us this shit."
With respect, but if you were to go back and look at his background, rapid rise, and actions while in office, especially the constructed lies about his actions, anti-Israel, etc., you will see that he is actually a tool of the right--neo-cons.
An American, not US subject.
American and global citizens, oblivious to all this, will be the losers in this global shell game.
bANKSTER'S game
Blow-up people's and places to make money's rebuilding what they just blowup
yep
O BANKSTER'S MULE-FOR-MOAR-WARS
bla, bla, bla ... and endless stream of pseudointellectual conspiracy theory garbage ... islamic cult worshipers are an outrage to all living things and must be eradicted by any and all means, regardless of any other issues this is a worthy cause - we should use biological & chemical weapons and wipe them all out
During the decade of the 50's (1951-59?) Iraq was in the same situation as it is today. They realized as their British keepers (soon to turn Iraq over to the USSA) after WWII, the only way for Iraq to survive once the oil and natgas was exhausted was to be self sufficient. That meant it was to build out its infrastructure. As difficult as it sounds... it truly is/was an impossible task with the geography basically dessert. Knowing quite well that their only true source of revenue would be oil/natgas.
But, with the government trying as it was, embarked on a courageous endeavor. Northern Iraq is prime territory for lumber Oil/Natgas, Domesticated Animals, grain, etc..
The List: Agronomy, Industry, Trade, Communication, State Finance, Cost-of-Living (controlling Inflation/deflation regarding market turmoil?), and Oil.
Note: Iraq's King Faisal II came of age in 1953 at 18 years young, and caused a political {[assasinated in 1958][King Faisal I was killed in a auto accident in Bern, Switzerland?1933]}vacuum? The great flood of 1954 devasted the country. Also the Baghdad Pact brought Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran together with the UK, as what was called 'America's Nothern Tier' (sound familiar?), but, the USSA wasn't signatory?[again?]
In 1949/50? Iraq disconnected its southern pipeline to the Mediterranean at the [Trans]Jordan-Palestine frontier on, and well after the outbreak of the Israel War of 1948,... and has remained out of use![?] Israel and Iraq are forever enemies (whether Saddam/ Assad, Ba'athist of Syria or Iraq agree or disagree) with Jordan annexing eastern Palestine not helping King Abdullah I of Jordan?!? [assainated/ murdered]
Iraq and Egypt (no resources, but plenty of unemployed males? forever?) were rivals for the partnership of Syria, (Note: Egypt regarded the treaties with Iraq and Jordan ratified with Turkey [Ottoman pursuasion?] in the late 40's as further provocation) whilst, Jordan and Iraq were sister Hashimite Monarchy's towards Syria and Arab Palestine pre-1948 [its always been about Israel?, yet the Iraqi/ Iranian jews [sarrafs] lived in Iraq and Iran with never any hostilities until after the War? STRANGE] which led to tensions with Egypt (Nasserism and United Arab [UAR--1950's] Front/ Syria and Egypt). Important, The USSA Baghdad Pact royally pissed off Syria and Egypt who were semi-allied to Russia and wanted Nationalism (the no-no-word for Imperialistic Democracy!) and Saudi Arabia was on the side of Egypt at the tyme being owned by Standard Oil and the USSA outright. This led to closer relations throughout the 50's decade.
Then comes the Nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956, and the?soon to follow Iraqi revolution in 1958-59 after FaisalII assasination. But, it gets better when Iraq and Jordan unite in the Arab Foundation. So in conclusion nothing has changed for the ME accept a bigger-and-better, 'Beggard-thy-Neighbor' to financial death! Ironically, to this very day, the only country to beat the USSA at its own game are the Saudi''s!
Ps. Before the USSA it was the British and to some extent the French but Napoliantonically?, moar so in Northern Africa [Algeria, Libya, Sudan, etel]. Today its all USSA, but, as the British learned with their Sterling & Gold a valuable lesson post WWII [they to froze Iraqi assets] ,... this Nixon [Commi-caracature?] busted the bubbled along tyme ago with the Nixon Shock that will eventually someday, totally deflate once the rigging of the faux USSA Freer/Market gets, Yuan/Ruble'lized-PetroDollar with a Putin Hammer'd 'Headbanger!!!
Conclusion: Nothing's changed! Absolutely nothing, since Bush #41 and Bush #43 bombed the shit out of Iraq's infrastructure leaving the Kurd's basically untouched! This should raise some eyebrows,...[?], and the continuum of "Syraq"! {as Pepe Escobar calls it!] Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuri_al-Said
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Others/Escobar.html
jmo
the only real risk on the supposedly 'cia/uk/israel'' created fiction of 'isis'. is that whoever this small band of fighters are-----that they already know they have been setup by the cia and everyone else who has been giving them weapons and they have taken this route out of sheer expediency, like all other rebels BUT they are different because they are also already secretly making deals with PUTIN to keep the military base in latakia after they conquer assad.
putin might be willing to give up assad if he can guarantee himself the next rebels who take charge will owe him allegiance rather than qatar, in so far as his naval base is concerneed.
this seems like a REALLY FAR STRETCH OF A RISK. IT REALLY DOES. WHY THE FUCK WOULD REBELS NOT WANT TO PUT QUATAR'S PIPELINES THROUGH ? WHY WOULD THEY LET PUTIN KEEP LATAKIA IF THEY ARE PUTTING PIPELINES THROUGH FROM QATAR.
MAYBE---PUTIN KNOWS HE'S LOSING THIS PIPELINEISTAN BATTLE, AND IS TRYING TO SALVAGE WHAT'S LEFT OF HIS PRESENCE INTHE MEDITERRANEAN.
other than that minute possibility, this all seems like a giant charade to one way or another oust assad.
While exploiting resources and markets are in our rulers favor as you maintain, the primary reason we're in Ukraine is to disrupt the non-dollar RU Gaszprom from entering the EU market and reducing Petrodollar income to the US. Same goes for Syria. ISIS is still on the CIA payroll.
Their mission is to scare Americans with threats like "We will drown you in blood" and further beheading threats to drive a fearful public into the arms of fascist Big Government. Their primary mission is to bring the ruckus upstream in Iraq and block the construction of the RU Iran gas pepeline scheduled to run through Irag and Syria onto EU markets.
This has all the signs of a Jesuit false flag operation conducted through their Zionist and Masonic agents to control minds and maintain the Petrodollar that supports the Fed domination of world economies.