Posted on 04/16/2013 7:55:17 PM PDT by RC one
bunkerhill, the sources you referenced are Federation of American Scientists and Harvard, both are in new world order up to their eyeballs. The President of FAS, Charles Ferguson, is a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow.
The quoted texts, prima facie, are true, but the legitimacy and wisdom of US military involvement in selective yet undeclared wars must be examined in terms of the root cause of the actions.
The popular myth that new world order has inculcated American society with in this regard is perhaps best summed up in the phrase “national security”, implying that if such things as these drone strikes were not embarked upon, there would be relatively immediate and grave consequences for American sovereignty and the safety of a significant portion of the American population.
But does this longstanding, low-level, undeclared warmaking forestall imminent harm to Americans ? If there is no imminent harm, then the action’s legitimacy is highly questionable at best, let alone the path of endless attacks inside the sovereign territory of other nations being one that is very unwise since it would open up the possibility of the statesmen of other nations having the option of making accusations diplomatically for decades.
Now we know the American citizenry as a whole is not a warmongering people. We even know that they have “tired” of war in the past.
Which leads us to where we need to go: the so-called “tiring” of war was largely due to ceaseless propoganda generated by the so-called liberal intelligentsia and left-leaning news and entertainment media.
So if there are efforts at brainwashing the public into abandoning a war, the next logical and obvious question is whether there is also propaganda directed at the American public aimed at starting and continuing war ?
We therefore must get back to the examination of the root cause of these military actions.
The first place it makes sense to look is the close advisors to American Presidents, in this case GW Bush and Obama. We might also look at foreign policy development and diplomacy, and we must recognize that intelligence is key in this regard, so we must examine the American intelligence (espionage) community at the Federal level.
Where did GW Bush and Obama get their information from ? Who are the experts ? Which experts are those who do the final analysis of information and then pass along their summaries and recommendations directly to the President ? After all, those are the key positions, since if those advisors are nefarious, information can be filtered out, minimized in importance or highlighted by them. Such advisors are also well aware of the domestic political scene and could, if they desired, couch their advice in terms that a President would be inclined to follow - or even inclined to disregard - because of political dynamics.
The most powerful common thread in American foreign policy and diplomacy since the WWI era has been the Council on Foreign Relations, making it the de facto foreign policy and diplomatic agency of America for almost a century. CFR members have been the majority, far and away, of Presidential advisors and State Department leadership all that time. A most curious situation, given that the public education system in America goes out of its way to never discuss CFR with students, and the wider American news media goes out of its way to never report on CFR to the general public. Most “average Joes” have no idea who or what CFR is or that it even exists, yet CFR is accepted as the hand that guides US foreign policy in Washington circles.
So did CFR simply spring into existence by a group of “foreign policy wonks” who liked to chat about international diplomacy over a few beers after work forming a club of sorts ? Did the founders of CFR just randomly come together ? Doubtful, of course. So someone organized it. Why ? Why would someone go to the expense and effort to create an organization that would guide US foreign policy and fill most of its key diplomatic leadership positions, and have its members even continue to “consult” for the government on foreign policy for decades after they left government service ?
After all, if CFR was organized at the behest of certain individuals and groups - given the “insider” power of CFR in American foreign policy - we won’t understand the American government’s involvement in geopolitical events until we identify those “behind” CFR and their motivations, since CFR would, in essence, be simply a front organization for such “real founders”.
And what are the odds that the “left-leaning” news and entertainment media - and public schools - would coincidentally all decide that CFR was an organization that they should never highlight in news coverage, mention in entertainment intended for general audiences or include in the teaching of US history ?
stirring the hornet’s nest .. not for the timid.. or the defenseless.
Sorry about that.
For the same reason someone went to the expense of creating an organization which guides US domestic policy toward special interest groups, to become "experts" on who is a dangerous radical and who isn't (the SPLC).
GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out) as programmers used to say, and it fits with government policy as well, be that policy foreign or domestic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.