It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President of the Council on Foreign Relations on Afghanistan: 'It's not worth it'

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   

President of the Council on Foreign Relations on Afghanistan: 'It's not worth it'


rawstory.com

The president of the Council of Foreign Relations is telling President Barack Obama that he needs to drastically scale down his ambitions in Afghanistan.

In an article published in the most recent edition of Newsweek, Richard Haass called Afghanistan "very much Barack Obama's war of choice." Haass seemed to be echoing the words of RNC Chairman Michael Steele when he said Afghanistan was a "war of Obama's choosing."


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   

GOP chairman Michael Steele was blasted by fellow Republicans recently for describing Afghanistan as “a war of Obama’s choosing,” and suggesting that the United States would fail there as had many other outside powers. Some critics berated Steele for his pessimism, others for getting his facts wrong, given that President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan soon after 9/11. But Steele’s critics are the ones who are wrong: the RNC chair was more correct than not on the substance of his statement, if not the politics.


Now they are saying it's not worth it? After many of my personal friends have either lost their lives, health or sanity over their war. Now, they are saying that it isn't worth it. They got what they wanted out of it while as usual, we are left to pick up the pieces.

The CFR needs to be disbanded immediately and their members tried for treason. How much longer is the American public going to allow them to rape our way of life, while mocking the whole process?

I am not against the message here, rather I'm against the messenger. The CFR is the reason why we are there in the first place and they are the ones who had been championing the war from the get-go, according to my own research and now that they have gotten what they want, they want out even while ignoring the original supposed goal.

Again, how much longer is the American public going to allow groups like this to subvert our way of life? How much longer are we going to allow them to profit at our expense?

--airspoon


rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Obama is a CFR man all the way, and I thing they're trying to get his back here. I don't disagree with you that this subfaction of the globalist elite needs to be challenged and disbanded, but I think that's what's happening here is that he is in way over his head and getting some insane and intense pressure from another subfaction, one that is more aligned with Israel, if you get my drift. Simplistically, the CFR is the subfaction that believes in globalism with national sovereignty, as opposed to the other subfaction that does not, so this makes some sense.

A very interesting and important development for sure, but not a surprise or an unusual stance from the CFR if you read their entire body of work on the ME situation in general. I'm still working some of this out in my head, and it's not entirely crystallized, but how it looks to me is CFR globalists = Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton, Obama and PNAC/neocon globalists = Bush-43 and company. They are in essence warring subfactions with a similar end goal but some very fundamental differences as to how to get to the goal. Pick the lesser of your two evils, I guess.

[edit on 7/20/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I have no doubt that Obama bows to the CFR, but I don't think the Zionist subfaction is all that different from the CFR, if different at all.

--airspoon



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I find it interesting that Hillary Clinton just took the opposite position in a speech over there.

Doesn't she refer to the CFR in Washington as "The Mothership?"



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Hopefully this might signal a beginning to an end to this disgusting war that should never have started in the first place.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


There seem to be some differences. Isn't/wasn't Michelle Obama actually a member of the CFR? She may have even worked for them. Same for Hillary Clinton. I have no doubt it was the CFR who made the decision to run Obama over Clinton. Gut feel from lots of observation...nothing else.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Hillary yes, Michelle I don't know.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Hmm...good point. But that radical thinking could be why they didn't run her



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Michelle Obama



The Chicago Council FAQ Number 7
On September 1, 2006, The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations was renamed The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The world has undergone tremendous change since The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1922. Today, more than ever before, our world is shaped by forces far beyond capital cities. Chicago and the Midwest are affected by events and decisions that reach across national borders. Our new name, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, respects our heritage while it signals our understanding of these changes and reflects our expanding efforts to contribute to the global discourse on the critical issues of the day. What has not changed is our commitment to nonpartisanship and public education.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


In all honesty, there is a great deal of Kabuki in their particular microcosm. I can only be marginally surprised at the contradictions in their behavior, policy, and true nature.

As a matter of fact, I have written them all off as camouflage for the actors we never see or hear.


CFR in Chitown "rebranded"
.... they are such marketing fools.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I do hope that Obama reads and understands this.

We've wasted far too much lives, resources and money in the Mideast. I don't know if we have much to show for it.

If we had spent the same about of money on alternative energy would we be in a better position today?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
You beat me to this thread. Nice work. Anyway, I watched the video and
really liked what Mr. Haass had to say. Instead of reading too much into
it like you guys though, I'm taking it at face value for what is said. Which is
to reduce our presence in Afghanistan. Here you have The President of the
CFR on MSM saying just that no less. Which appears to be a different strategy
than what is being pursued currently. I can only hope that our leaders take
this intelligent mans advice, and the sooner the better.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 

Well, like I said, I think they're getting Obama's back because he's getting a LOT of pressure to do just the opposite and probably even get into it with Iran.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Way to watch. Pressure to be more antagonistic towards Iran? Agreed.

Biggest players completely unseen? Without question...

This is the one factor to watch, imo. The relationship between the CFR and the White House is always crucial to keep an eye on.

In chess, one examines all possible moves and motives, the ones seen and executed and the ones surely lurking as options in the mind of the opponent.

Only by giving thought to the rationally extrapolated unseen, unexecuted moves can one gain superior understanding of and finally master one's opponents.




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
If the CFR openly and publicly says the war isn't worth it, that is very interesting because they are one of organizations that calls the shots.
The message is clear, don't increase the troops anymore and start winding that war down. But why would they say it? Did they change their minds, or has intel from the front lines told them that it is truly a hopeless endeavor, and American control and imperialism would be better used in other areas in the world.

You can be sure the reasons the CFR wants out of Afghanistan is not moral or a concern about American lives, it is about American foreign policy that keeps America on top.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Here's a related breaking story. Maybe the tide is turning?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Publicly saying that it's not worth it?


No, they just don't want to admit that they simply cannot handle central asia anymore because of the strong chinese influence, hence they want to concentrate their efforts toward the middle east theatre and looking at the far east for opportunity.

U.S. Stealth Jets, Carrier Tell Norks: Back The Hell Up

And they're also starting to "reach out" to South East Asia to boost their position, since the chinese is already doing precisely that a lot earlier.

I see this as a start of the decline of the european elites. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, that all depends on what kind of person you are.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Why would you say that the CFR is not concerned with American lives?
This organization is Pro American and is concerned with the status of
American interests in the global setting. What Mr. Haass is saying is that
our attempts in Afghanistan amounts to fighting "The Hydra".
Savvy?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Time for a history lesson in early 2001 Colin Powell gave the taliban 50 million dollars in consideration for oil and gas pipeline networks to go through the country at the time current president Mohammed Karzai was a Unocal oil and gas representative then later that year the deal as we know went sour.Afghanistan is a vital trade route for the areas future oil and gas expansion,now recently they've discovered an estimated $1 trillion dollars of precious minerals for the mining magnates to exploit,then of course theres the CIA trade of 50 billion in opium on top of all this,its all about the money and to the powers that be the high risk is worth it due to the potential future reward.Its an empire resource war.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join