UK planned war on Syria before unrest began: French ex-foreign minister

Originally posted by Freeborn
Sure, the US has made some truly awful policy decisions......but who else could realistically do it?

Including deciding to police the world.

..... it's not our job and it was never meant to be our job......

Nor should it be.

No it was certainly never meant to be but it sort of came with the position of world superpower No1 - rightly or wrongly that's the way it is. [And what have we gotten out of it?]...a remarkable amount of power and influence

By supporting and/or installing puppet regimes, supporting/arming/funding minority groups who persistently upset the majority they control, often by force, and labeling anyone who doesn't agree with them as an enemy and fair game.

Despite the many mistakes the US has made I can honestly say that I for one have a certain amount of admiration and appreciation for the role the US has taken on the world stage, it is a thankless and unenviable task - and look at the alternative candidates for the role?

So you admire the fact they often collude with both sides of a conflict specifically to create a win/win situation for themselves? You admire the manipulation, corruption, lies, murder and outright theft committed in the name of "righteousness"? All these things you seem to admire are exactly the reason the US is hated. It's two faced backstabbing hypocrisy is simply too much for some to stomach. Yet you admire it?

At least Islamic Extremists are up front about their views and goals, they have conviction., rightly or wrongly. More than can be said for the kleptomania and habitual lying we get from our governments.

Pretty sure the UK isn't planning a War on anyone, only plans for the possibility of Wars which every other country on the planet does, perhaps the only grain of truth in this is that fact turned into a conspiracy and blame game

I would like to know what the MOTIVE of going to war with Syria would be, for what purpose would the MOD plan a war in Syria many years ago?

I can tell you that I read a rapport, about the future ambitions of the European Union for 2020.
I think it was trustworthy, as the people that got together to discuss these ambitions and the date it was published.
They were the political people i remember from back then.

The EU will also need a budget of 160 billion Euro, for European defense and security, and Humanitarian missions.
These "humanitarian" missions will get a military edge, and are only organized in places of the world, where there are resources and they are attainable for EU. They will use them for future purpose and they are already a number of them in taking place. Without telling anybody.

Part of that budget will be invested into a EU strike force, with the ability to do a preemptive strike. Without needing to include security, defense and humanitarian forces.
If the shtf they can count on the support of Nato forces, as they are allies and are created by the same people, in different package.

An possible war with North Korea and Iran is mentioned in this rapport.

The money flows needed to make sure Southern EU members stay that way, for a more stable region, has also been known as it's happening like I read.

From what I've read, they pretty much on schedual even, if I see what's going on in the world.

Sources :

EU operations

Link to a PDF about EU common defense and security & foreign policy

Treaty of Lisbon article on European Union

Lisbon treaty

SECTION 2
PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY
Article 42
(ex Article 17 TEU)

That's what you will find in the article on the treaty on the EU.

It proves member states need to increase budgets for military capacity, and a European defense Agency will control everything.

A secure Europe in a better world. Europen security strategy.
It's dated December 12 2003

Page 8 will show you they already knew back then that Southern members would need extra attenion and support.
Page 11 will show that 160 billion budget
Page 12 will show why Europe wants to influence other regions outside the EU

They don't actually say they would attack Syria, but they do intend to add Arabian partners and have special interests for the Southern Caucasus. But if the French ex minister says they planned an attack, this consilium makes me believe him.

Security and defense agenda.

Belin plus agreement on agreements made between EU and NATO

The Lisbon decade ( the militaisation of Europe)

Last but not least !

What ambitions for European defence in 2020?


PS
The speculative character of some issues, are not my personal ideas, but I do believe they are plausible. Since I've read the links I posted here as sources.

Credit goes to Zapruder Inc. and Donkerdoorn that gathered the information.

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
Pretty sure the UK isn't planning a War on anyone, only plans for the possibility of Wars which every other country on the planet does, perhaps the only grain of truth in this is that fact turned into a conspiracy and blame game

I would like to know what the MOTIVE of going to war with Syria would be, for what purpose would the MOD plan a war in Syria many years ago?

The only conspiracy is that the US uses the UK and their NATO allies to wage proxy wars that suit their own agenda. That agenda is democracy and freedom. Only thing is it's not democracy and it's not freedom.

It's like how they get around spying laws. They get someone else to do it for them then share this information with said parties who are doing exactly the same thing in contravention of their own laws only on an outside party where those laws are not applicable. If it's illegal for me to spy on a fellow countryman, but not illegal for me to hire a foreigner to do the spying for me as they are extrajurisdictional, what do you thing I'm going to do?

Stupid people.

This isn't news. Most super powers draw up plans for war with any and all threats. I'm sure we (America) have plans in place for war with numerous countries....probably even Canada.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


A Frenchman that doesn't like the UK HOLD THE FRONT PAGE ! They never got over London getting the Olympics

reply to post by threewisemonkeys

By supporting and/or installing puppet regimes, supporting/arming/funding minority groups who persistently upset the majority they control, often by force, and labeling anyone who doesn't agree with them as an enemy and fair game.

Nothing new there then really is there, it's what superpowers do.
We did it when we had the chance.
And I don't doubt for one minute that Russia or China or anyone else for that matter would do exactly the same if given the opportunity.

Not saying it's right, because it's not, but it's the way of the world I'm afraid.

So you admire the fact they often collude with both sides of a conflict specifically to create a win/win situation for themselves? You admire the manipulation, corruption, lies, murder and outright theft committed in the name of "righteousness"? All these things you seem to admire are exactly the reason the US is hated. It's two faced backstabbing hypocrisy is simply too much for some to stomach. Yet you admire it?

Perhaps 'admire' was the wrong choice of word.
I understand and reluctantly accept.
You make some valid points and on the one hand I agree entirely with those sentiments - but we live in a harsh world, much of it not of the US's making.
In an ideal world there would be no need for any nation to get involved in the internal doings of any other nation - but we don't live in an ideal world, something many of us, including myself at times, tend to forget.

But do you honestly think if the USA 'retired' from the world stage and turned inwards solely looking after their own domestic concerns then the world would be a better place?
Possibly, but I doubt it because sure as night follows day somebody else would jump straight into ther shoes and take up the mantle.....and who's agenda would they be pushing?
Certainly not that of the ordinary person in wherever it maybe, they'd be persuing their interests at the expense of anyone else.

At least Islamic Extremists are up front about their views and goals, they have conviction., rightly or wrongly. More than can be said for the kleptomania and habitual lying we get from our governments.

The conviction of a bigotted, barbaric zealot - but I get the point.

I have no time for our government and the system it represents or the amoral, corrupt, nefarious and incestuous relationship it has with industrialists, bankers, MSM and the upper levels of our judiciary, police, armed services etc and I firmly believe we need a full system re-boot - but it's not going to happen tomorrow, or the next day or at anytime in the near future.
So what do we do?
I've never professed to have all, if any, of the answers, but we need to sometimes accept the brutal realities of today and make the best of it whilst working for real change.

Is that contradictory?
Yes it is.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well - I know what I want to say but for some reason seem unable to express it very well.

Originally posted by Freeborn
And I don't doubt for one minute that Russia or China or anyone else for that matter would do exactly the same if given the opportunity.Not saying it's right, because it's not, but it's the way of the world I'm afraid.

At least we agree it's not right. That is a starting point to fix things, to stop it from being "the way of the world", because it is an untenable and unsustainable position to be in.

In an ideal world there would be no need for any nation to get involved in the internal doings of any other nation - but we don't live in an ideal world, something many of us, including myself at times, tend to forget.

Need? Who decides whether there is a need or not? If it is your soul decision, and you stand to benefit in some fashion, that is what we call a conflict of interest. The position should be that NO country should interfere with the affairs of another, sovereign, nation. End of story. That does not mean you cannot help, but being judge, jury and executioner should be no nations self appointed responsibility.

But do you honestly think if the USA 'retired' from the world stage and turned inwards solely looking after their own domestic concerns then the world would be a better place?

Yes. And the American people would be better off for it, economically and socially.

Possibly, but I doubt it because sure as night follows day somebody else would jump straight into ther shoes and take up the mantle.....and who's agenda would they be pushing?Certainly not that of the ordinary person in wherever it maybe, they'd be persuing their interests at the expense of anyone else.

But at least you can say it is not your agenda, nor that of your country. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

I have no time for our government and the system it represents or the amoral, corrupt, nefarious and incestuous relationship it has with industrialists, bankers, MSM and the upper levels of our judiciary, police, armed services etc and I firmly believe we need a full system re-boot - but it's not going to happen tomorrow, or the next day or at anytime in the near future.

When you put it like that, a bigoted zealot seems preferable. It's a system designed around the concept of material worth, that what you have is a direct reflection on who you are, and dictates your "place" in society. It is a very superficial way of life and it damages the soul. People know this on a subconscious level. That their way of life is actually detrimental to their health. It is why so many people have mild to severe psychological problems. They are unhappy, and they spend their entire lives lying to themselves.

So what do we do?

First we need to fix ourselves, because ultimately, we are the problem. We have let things get this way. Everybody always wants to blame everyone else. As long as you're making it someone elses problem, you're in denial. If it's been proven once, its been proven a million times, treating the symptoms of a disease doesn't cure the disease.