I can't speak on most of the things you said there, I just do not know, nor do i have the interest to learn. Some scabs you just don't pick!
I do believe that a system is in place to make sure one guy doesn't get into office and fck up 50 years of work to keep his job for another 4 years.
It has to be there to ensure longterm things - like food, energy, medicine, education, agriculture, etc, are able to grow according to plan without some nutjob getting into office and creating problems that we cannot undo.
But that's what I'm saying, these people you're referring to, the ones who make long term decisions as far as energy or foreign policy per se are concerned are well known: US Department of Energy and Council of Foreign Relations. Education and other matters are taken care of at the state level and hence play little role, if any, in the federal decision-making process.
I say this because it seems as though there is an intent, by some, to obfuscate or difuse a process that is well known, by institutions that are well known. There is little secrecy in their directives. When the Department of Energy produces a report for the
presidente it does so because its main information gatherers, the private energy companies, are "harassing" them to the point that they have to act on their requisites.
The President gets the report, finds out that we're running out of
CHEAP oil and the order is given to all pertinent parties to got out and "get" oil, be it via bombs or straight up stealing.
This is an entirely corporate/profit-driven process. These people act not on the necesities of the country 50 years down the line but on their business needs at a particular point in time. They are not selected but rather appointed (hence out of reach for the American public) by the likes of Bush or Clinton and (they) come with the nice incredibly huge donations each candidate gets from the (really) big corporations.
What am I trying to say with all of this? That the real thugs are not the ones we do not see, but the ones we vote for.
Sounds like JFK (threatening to disassemble the CIA and stop entry into vietnam) butted heads with this group. We know how that ended, and we know that every president since has done what has been asked of him.
And think about JFK... if he HAD ended the CIA, I bet we would be in WAY worse shape, resource wise, in the world TODAY. All the quiet ops in the 70s, 80s, and 90s which gave the US advantages - we would have NONE of that. And without the good work they do - would USSR have won the Colr War? Probably.
"Quiet ops"? Are you kidding me? The CIA operations have created more hate towards Americans than any other group I know of. And the USSR would've never won any "war" because there was no "war". The USSR had its days numbered since Stalin killed 6 million souls and this "war" Reagan pulled from his underpants gave the subsequent Soviet Premieres
carte blanche to do as they please for 40 years. The press had a field day making it seem as though we won the "war," when all the did was wear the Soviets out, forcing them into effective economic bankruptcy before we did (something the CIA had little to do with).
This quiet group just "does its thing" and keeps the place running without us ever knowing.
Well... We do know. I bet you noticed a difference when the price of gasoline shot up, when we decided to re-invade Iraq, when we built clandestine jails in Guantánamo or Tristán DaCunha or when a bunch of kamikazes put two planes in the WTC.
I retract, we do not see the action, but we sure as hell see the re-action.
Sveet.
