Is History Repeating Itself Again? (August 24, 2021)
It appears history is about to repeat itself, again. This time in Afghanistan. I have to ask: Is there an inventory list of the weapons and type of weapons we are leaving behind as we pull out of Afghan?
Is America’s covert Foreign Policy at work, again?
We have to keep in mind it is not a President that makes these types of decisions; It’s not a person. It’s a policy– a flawed system of government.
Today, It’s Afghanistan, old news with a new twist: Yesterday it was the Syrian Rebels, stinger missiles, The CIA Annex, and Ambassador Stevens.
It appears we;
1. Start a conflict.
2. Escalate the conflict.
3. Engage in the conflict. (20 years in this case)
4. Furnish weapons to both sides of the conflict.
That is, and has been America’s Foreign Policy. It has been that way from 1954-Arbenz, Castro’s Cuba, Nam, and a host of other countries. And now we have Afghanistan.
The following eleven Benghazi questions were previously posted in April and May of 2014 but were quickly covered over by America’s mainstream media because of political preferences and special interests. It looks like history is again about to repeat itself once again:
NOTE: The eleven Benghazi questions, link below, were posted in a Canadian news outlet on May 03, 2014, but were not addressed in America’s MSM news outlets.
The Blue Lantern program “monitors the end-use of defense articles, technical data, defense services, and brokering activities exported through commercial channels and subject to [DOS] licenses or other approvals.” On July 6, the Department of State (DOS), Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) published a Congressional report on End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services for FY 2020.
The program’s focus is to verify the legitimacy of foreign consignees, end-users, and their proposed transactions. The program also seeks to provide “reasonable assurance” that the recipient is complying with U.S. requirements and the articles and services are being used appropriately, as required under Section 40A(a)(2)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act.
Blue Lantern checks of foreign parties are risk-based and focus primarily on licenses and applications with any unfamiliar foreign parties, sensitive technology, and unusual shipping patterns. A number of the entities subject to closer scrutiny under these checks correlate with their membership on the DDTC Watch List, an internal screening tool used by the DOS and Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Congress and Senate refuse to look into these reports or investigate why FMS-DCS reporting back to proper government agencies at the time of transfers is not being done. It appears to be a backdoor CIA (cut-out) operation that has been ongoing for decades and is controlled by the CIA/ U.S. State Department’s assigned committees. It appears there is a “slush fund” set up by a few selected U.S. Defense contractors and government agencies. Perhaps a kind of ‘kick-back type operation where monies are being filtered (washed) as campaign contributions to various political parties. (See also “The Direct Commercial Sales Program”, DCSP. (note; Pakistan and Turkey FMS for last ten years- (note: “Nuclear weapons transferred to Pakistan in 2001)
Background DCS and BL-FMS report:
FMS vs. DCS”… U.S. Defense companies have two main avenues for selling on the international market: Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS).
This chart explains the main differences between Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). Both are viable options for the U.S. defense companies seeking to do business overseas.
Reports in full have not been sent recently. to Congress. The U.S. Treasury has not received any monies sent by foreign countries in reference to this program. Where did the money go? .. or was any money ever sent? was there a cut-out system to intercept any monies from foreign countries? If so by whom? The Congressional rules (summarized below) related to sales or gifts of military equipment valued at $14 million or more require that Congress be promptly notified of the transfer. Do they think that in leaving billions of dollars of bombs (conventional and nuclear), airplanes, trucks, aircraft, helicopters, guns, ammunition, missiles etc. should be considered as exceptions to the rule, thus ignoring their own rules?
|Congress notification||Any required notifications to Congress are jointly sponsored by the US DOD and the State Department.||Congress must be notified by the State Department of a decision to issue an export license if the sale includes significant defense equipment valued at $14 million or more. (Basically, both DCS and FMS require the same type of notification)|
|Contract Issues||US DOD procures the defense articles under the same contractual provisions used for all DOD procurement. The customer pays an additional 3.5% of the total price to cover the contracting and administrative services provided by US DOD.||The Vendor negotiates with the Customer. The Customer assumes management responsibility. These activities represent overhead management costs to the Customer. The size and skill of the Customer contracting staff may be a limiting factor during procurement.|
Note: The 11 Benghazi questions were featured in a May 03 2014 Canada Free Press article [click title to link] but never picked up by any U.S. newspaper.
Also see this link for further information: “Is the United States little known Direct Commercial Sales Program, also known as ‘The Blue Lantern Report”, being used as a ‘cutout’ to secretly aid both sides of a Middle Eastern civil war?