Political Crossfire Forums

[Silkheat]

Quote: The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski – More Quotes

"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power...” (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

Zbigniew Brzezinski's Background

According to his resume, Zbigniew Brzezinski lists the following achievements:

Harvard Ph.D. in 1953

Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University

National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission

International advisor of several major US/Global corporations

Associate of Henry Kissinger

Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy

Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations

1988 - Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group - a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465027261/qid=1098564728/sr=2-2/ref= pd_ka_b_2_2/102-1077657-9100966?n=283155




This is a lead strategist talking about America's geopolitical strategy in the late 1990's. PNAC seems right in line with these policies.

So if the government wasn't involved why are we following this strategy to the tea? At the very least can you at least admit that Iraq was a strategic point for control of the middle east, and nothing to do with a united external threat.

[Straudos]

Well I don't think it had nothing to do with Iraq being a threat. But I agree Iraq was a strategic point. So is Iran, but that one is a bit tougher. Have you read Henry Kissinger's book Diplomacy? Its a fantastic read and really sheds light on the behind-the-scenes workings of all this.

[Silkheat]

Straudos wrote: Well I don't think it had nothing to do with Iraq being a threat. But I agree Iraq was a strategic point. So is Iran, but that one is a bit tougher. Have you read Henry Kissinger's book Diplomacy? Its a fantastic read and really sheds light on the behind-the-scenes workings of all this.

No I haven't, but I will. Is it similar to this?

[Straudos]

It focuses more on history. Everything from the beginning of the Renaissance up through the Cold War. It's a very long book though, around 800 pages. But any chapter of it alone is worth a read. I recommend the chapter on Bismark and realpolitik in particular.

[Silkheat]

Straudos wrote: It focuses more on history. Everything from the beginning of the Renaissance up through the Cold War. It's a very long book though, around 800 pages. But any chapter of it alone is worth a read. I recommend the chapter on Bismark and realpolitik in particular.

I'll give it a read, but now back on topic; this pretty much somes up what we are fighting for. We got the external enemy factor to unite us for this geopolitical strategy. Everything that has happened is exactly in line with this policy. Is it really that big of a jump in faith for most of you to see that this plan is being executed, and that 9/11 was part of this?

[Straudos]

We didn't need 9/11 to get Iraq. The whole "Iraq is linked to Al-Qaeda" was the icing on the cake and no intelligent person took it seriously. The real argument was the WMD's.

[Silkheat]

Straudos wrote: We didn't need 9/11 to get Iraq. The whole "Iraq is linked to Al-Qaeda" was the icing on the cake and no intelligent person took it seriously. The real argument was the WMD's.


There are many, many, many people who supported the ties. Is was classic propoganda. We did need to have 9/11 to go into Iraq. As Brezinski points out the nature of democracy isn't firendly with war for geopolitcal control. Thus it needed an external enemy to be coerced into supporting this global goal. That is exactly what they have made with the word "Terrorist" and then used that to follow the geopolitical goal.

[cap'n queasy]

I think he is correct. Eurasian regions have to be pacified because they are a threat to the US. Groups like AQ represent a challenge in Eurasia. They what to create a new superpower based in the Middle East. We want to prevent that highly likely course of events because of many reasons.

But I don't see how this links the USG to 911.

The USG had adopted this global strategy prior to that date and no one even paid attention. No one cared. It's the right strategy to adopt. This dates back to the 60's and 70's.

There was no need to to fly planes into World Trade Center to get the US public to accept this strategy, it has been what we have been doing since the late 60's without protest. You see, prior to WW2 the American public was isolationist, afterward this was no longer true because it is obvious this is not a favorable circumstance for US interests.

BTW Pearl Harbor wasn't a conspiracy either, it was an event that worked in our favor because we took advantage of an attack and turned into our favor. Notice that we won WW2. Your conclusions are formed an a superficial understanding the information this book conveys. You might try actually reading it, instead of reading conspiracy driven websites that make these types of ridiculous claims and try to misrepresent this to back them up.

We survived using this geopolitical strategy and others like it, and if we want to continue to survive we better continue to protect US interests in the global arena.

Nowhere does it say we istigated Pearl Harbor, or even allowed it to happen, or that we should instigate a modern "Reichstag burning" type of event to increase acceptance. Most people did not even care what the US did to protect it's interests in the region. This was not needed.

In fact, Brzezinski points out that there is already much opposition in the region and that Europe, Russia, and China are conducting their own strategic operations there, and that it is a foregone conclusion that sooner or later someone would attempt to attack us. This strategy was formulated in the 70's, if it was an actual plan to create such an event, as you say, rather than take advantage of one when it inevitably happened, ala Pearl Harbor, why didn't they do it back then and get the jump on everyone else?

No, this doesn't support your supposition that 911 was a conspiracy at all. You are taking a passage out of context and misrepresenting what it's meaning is.

[Silkheat]

cap'n queasy wrote: I think he is correct. Eurasian regions have to be pacified because they are a threat to the US. Groups like AQ represent a challenge in Eurasia. They what to create a new superpower based in the Middle East. We want to prevent that highly likely course of events because of many reasons.

WHy are they a threat? If we weren't pursuing a geopoltical control campaign then they wouldn't be enemies. We are out for domination, and of course that will generate us enemies. The fact that you support this, murder for profit, shows your "CHristian nature". Remember what I told you about morality?


Quote:

But I don't see how this links the USG to 911.

Of course not, because you never can or will be able to put two and two together. The USG called for a new pearl harbor or and external enemy threat to be able to wage war. That is exactly what Bzenzski and PNAC were saying was needed. Whether or not the USG actually did it is irrelevent; moreso the fact they knew of it is the point we should focus on.

Quote:
The USG had adopted this global strategy prior to that date and no one even paid attention. No one cared. It's the right strategy to adopt. This dates back to the 60's and 70's.

Yes it has been going on for years. Many wars waged in secrecy with whistle blowers bringing it to the public attention. However instead of adding to our safety we have been creating enemies and manipulating other countries like an imperialist. It is like we are two nations; one that is a supposed democratic free nation and the other an imperialistic murder machine bent on domination.

Quote:
There was no need to to fly planes into World Trade Center to get the US public to accept this strategy, it has been what we have been doing since the late 60's without protest. You see, prior to WW2 the American public was isolationist, afterward this was no longer true because it is obvious this is not a favorable circumstance for US interests.

Yes, there was. To sell us on a continual expensive war requiring human sacrifice and financial sacrifice we would need to fabricate a real external threat. That is exactly what happend. I would also like to see you justify how policy shift after WWII was in our best interest.


Quote:
BTW Pearl Harbor wasn't a conspiracy either, it was an event that worked in our favor because we took advantage of an attack and turned into our favor. Notice that we won WW2. Your conclusions are formed an a superficial understanding the information this book conveys. You might try actually reading it, instead of reading conspiracy driven websites that make these types of ridiculous claims and try to misrepresent this to back them up.

Wether or not you believe that the government didn't know about it, one thing is for certain they antagonized the Japanese government to attack with embargoes to propel us into war. You can at least agree with that can't you? As far as a superficial understanding, please.. You are the least person to be speaking of having a superficial understanding as you believe the events of the bible are coming true. :lol:

Quote:
We survived using this geopolitical strategy and others like it, and if we want to continue to survive we better continue to protect US interests in the global arena.

We wouldn't have enemies if we didn't interfere with everyone. Nothing good has come out of supporting globalist policies.

Quote:

Nowhere does it say we istigated Pearl Harbor, or even allowed it to happen, or that we should instigate a modern "Reichstag burning" type of event to increase acceptance. Most people did not even care what the US did to protect it's interests in the region. This was not needed.


See above. Again it will never happen, untill the government releases classified materials; which will never happen.

Quote:
In fact, Brzezinski points out that there is already much opposition in the region and that Europe, Russia, and China are conducting their own strategic operations there, and that it is a foregone conclusion that sooner or later someone would attempt to attack us. This strategy was formulated in the 70's, if it was an actual plan to create such an event, as you say, rather than take advantage of one when it inevitably happened, ala Pearl Harbor, why didn't they do it back then and get the jump on everyone else?

The reason we would be attacked is we were all fighting for the same resources in countries that don't belong to us. Did you even read the quotes above? Pearl Harbor would have been the event that caused public attention to swing towards a warranted war.

Quote:
No, this doesn't support your supposition that 911 was a conspiracy at all. You are taking a passage out of context and misrepresenting what it's meaning is.


No, you can clearly see what he is describing, you are just being incredibly ignorant. Not suprising....

[Straudos]

Quote: WHy are they a threat? If we weren't pursuing a geopoltical control campaign then they wouldn't be enemies. We are out for domination, and of course that will generate us enemies. I disagree that they, by themselves, are a threat. The threat is China or some other rising superpower from gaining too strong a foothold in the region. The goal is to spread pro-US sentiment in the region. Admittedly we're doing a bad job of it.

Anyway, the fact is isolation isn't the way the world works anymore. With the inevitable rise of globalization (and this is not a conspiracy, but a natural result of the information age and other advancements), we cannot afford to stick to our small part of the world.

Quote: To sell us on a continual expensive war requiring human sacrifice and financial sacrifice we would need to fabricate a real external threat. That is exactly what happend. Yes, that is exactly what happened when we said there were WMD's in Iraq. It may just be a regional thing, but nobody around where I am from justified the war with the Al-Qaeda link. The issue was always WMD's. If they are developing WMD's, they are a threat to our interests. We must do what is necessary to protect ourselves, and while we're at it, we should give them the joys of democracy, etc, etc. AQ wasn't really an issue.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The USG called for a new pearl harbor or and external enemy threat to be able to wage war.

This is incorrect. I have read the PNAC document and it does not call for a new Pearl Harbor. It merely points out history that is relevent to the cause of retooling our military for the next period of a hundred years or so.

In other words, it asks us not to wait for an attack to begin retooling out military, but rather take the lessons of the past and learn from them.

This is common sense. Not a smoking gun for your theories.

Quote: WHy are they a threat? If we weren't pursuing a geopoltical control campaign then they wouldn't be enemies.

They and the rest of the world be our competition no matter what we did. This is a fact of life that cannot be altered. The only effect of not acting there is they and others would gain the upper hand and the next world war might not end up like the last one did. We might not survive, it's not a playground we are talking about here.

This is realpolitik at it's very essence. It's a sad fact of human existence but that doesn't mean we should take a imbecilic approach to geopolitics, but rather pursue one that is congruent with our national interests, and our national ethics.

The US is not stealing from those people. We are helping them build their industry so we can be economic partners with them. Their oil does them no good if they can't get it out of the ground and process it, and we cannot buy it from them if this is the case.

This is what the deal is we made with these countries. They are our economic and military allies. The fact is that these leaders we do business with steal from their people and blame it on us. When we attempt to correct this, as in Iraq, then we get jumped on for that too.

The enemy are folks who want to oust the current goverments and create a sort of EU type Islamic union based on Radical Islam. A sort of Taliban style superpower, if you will. This is the stated goal of AQ. You can see what they created in Afghanistan, which was their first stepping stone to making this goal come to fruition.

Would you like to see the Taliban running a Nation of the size and scope of the US, China, Russia or the EU?

I certainly wouldn't.

[Gremlin]

Wiki, PNAC wrote: A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

[Silkheat]

Straudos wrote: I disagree that they, by themselves, are a threat. The threat is China or some other rising superpower from gaining too strong a foothold in the region. The goal is to spread pro-US sentiment in the region. Admittedly we're doing a bad job of it.

THis will be a stand still with us as this is a basic ideological difference. I understand the theories and why it is happening. I may be naive, or just moral, but I disagree with war and murder as a tool of coersion to force pro-american policy. I believe trade is exceptable, and if we lose the buisiness then we lose it. We shouldn't be supplying military arms to nations, or financing wars.

Quote:
Anyway, the fact is isolation isn't the way the world works anymore. With the inevitable rise of globalization (and this is not a conspiracy, but a natural result of the information age and other advancements), we cannot afford to stick to our small part of the world.

Difference of ideologies here. I am not suggesting isolation on an ecomic platform, I just don't believe our military should be used to enforce it or force it.

Quote: Yes, that is exactly what happened when we said there were WMD's in Iraq. It may just be a regional thing, but nobody around where I am from justified the war with the Al-Qaeda link. The issue was always WMD's. If they are developing WMD's, they are a threat to our interests. We must do what is necessary to protect ourselves, and while we're at it, we should give them the joys of democracy, etc, etc. AQ wasn't really an issue.

It didn't work out that way. We focused our intentions on Osama because he supposedly caused 9/11, which is arguable, and then did the bait and switch while we were there. It was a beutiful display of political misinformation. Polls still show that most of the military think Iraq had ties to 9/11. Since this Iraq was a conerstone strategic objective of control over the middle east any reasons given where just given to lull the public. THis is policy, and the intel was used to back policy. They made it fit. Now you can argue it was necessary, but again I cannot justify murder and war for geopoliticol goals.

[cap'n queasy]

Gremlin wrote: Wiki, PNAC wrote: A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

As I said, this is obviously not a call for any type of action, merely an observation of the facts.

You see the false assumption that these conspiracy theories are based on is that the USG is inherently evil and stealing from the rest of the world and so needed to perpetrate some "Reichstag burning" type of event to trick the American public into going along with the plot.

This is obvious Marxist spin. The only thing we do is do business and to Marxists, business is evil.

Only a Marxist would maintain such a claim. No one else would have that type of motivation.

[Silkheat]

cap'n queasy wrote:

This is incorrect. I have read the PNAC document and it does not call for a new Pearl Harbor. It merely points out history that is relevent to the cause of retooling our military for the next period of a hundred years or so.

Gremlin gave you the quote. It was saying that the retooling of the military would be a long process without a catastrophic event like pearl harbor. That is a call for an event to speed policy.

Quote:

In other words, it asks us not to wait for an attack to begin retooling out military, but rather take the lessons of the past and learn from them.

That is one way to look at it, and I look at it another way.

Quote:

This is common sense. Not a smoking gun for your theories.

It isn't common sense. You suppose that there call for American Hegemony is common sense? As their call for a retooling of the military is common sense? WHy is hegemonic power common sense in your views?

Quote:
They and the rest of the world be our competition no matter what we did. This is a fact of life that cannot be altered. The only effect of not acting there is they and others would gain the upper hand and the next world war might not end up like the last one did. We might not survive, it's not a playground we are talking about here.

Yes, so compete, but compete economicaly and capatilist style. Not with military might. War, murder, and coersion shouldn't be policies of our government.

Quote:
This is realpolitik at it's very essence. It's a sad fact of human existence but that doesn't mean we should take a imbecilic approach to geopolitics, but rather pursue one that is congruent with our national interests, and our national ethics.

What, IYO, is our national ethics? So you are saying war is inevitably a part of human nature do to economics and we must use our might to enforce our interest? Humanity comes second to money and power. Wonderful.

Quote:
The US is not stealing from those people. We are helping them build their industry so we can be economic partners with them. Their oil does them no good if they can't get it out of the ground and process it, and we cannot buy it from them if this is the case.

Don't know, I have been looking into who is profiting off the oil and haven't been able to find a trail as of yet. Furthermore Rumsfiels in selling this plan said the oil would offset some of the costs of the war and as of yet it has not.

Quote:
This is what the deal is we made with these countries. They are our economic and military allies. The fact is that these leaders we do business with steal from their people and blame it on us. When we attempt to correct this, as in Iraq, then we get jumped on for that too.

That isn't true. Cap'n you really think the USG is always the good guy don't you? I think we have a vastly different paradigm on that.

Quote:
The enemy are folks who want to oust the current goverments and create a sort of EU type Islamic union based on Radical Islam. A sort of Taliban style superpower, if you will. This is the stated goal of AQ. You can see what they created in Afghanistan, which was their first stepping stone to making this goal come to fruition.

The petro dollar? Gold dinar? WHy are we in their region to begin with? We set up soft governments that benefit us. We have been responsible for many dirty deeds over their. You are right we do what is in the interest of some people and corporations.

Quote:
Would you like to see the Taliban running a Nation of the size and scope of the US, China, Russia or the EU?

I certainly wouldn't.


How about Iran? DO you think all muslims are evil?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: It was saying that the retooling of the military would be a long process without a catastrophic event like pearl harbor. That is a call for an event to speed policy.



Why would they make such a call to attack an America target public?

That is idiotic. It's an observation of the facts. Not a call for 911.

That is simply vapid anti-American rhetoric based on the flimsiest of foundations.

[Gremlin]

cap'n queasy wrote: Gremlin wrote: Wiki, PNAC wrote: A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

As I said, this is obviously not a call for any type of action, merely an observation of the facts.

You see the false assumption that these conspiracy theories are based on is that the USG is inherently evil and stealing from the rest of the world and so needed to perpetrate some "Reichstag burning" type of event to trick the American public.


Government in general is inherently evil.
The lust for power draws criminal people/entities as history has shown time after time after time. Its not debatable, I dont know why you deny it is possible with the USG. We are not trying to trick anyone, we are only asking for the truth.


Quote:
This is obvious Marxist spin. The only thing we do is do business and to Marxists, business is evil.

Only a Marxist would maintain such a claim. No one else would have that type of motivation.


What ever floats your boat, but i think your just trying to justify it in your own way. Not that its remotly relavent.

[Silkheat]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: It was saying that the retooling of the military would be a long process without a catastrophic event like pearl harbor. That is a call for an event to speed policy.



Why would they make such a call to attack an America target public?

That is idiotic. It's an observation of the facts. Not a call for 911.

That is simply vapid anti-American rhetoric based on the flimsiest of foundations.


Because it is a well known fact that most American don't read, and furthermore the ones that do are typically like you; can't make a decision for themselves as you need to believe the official story. Despite what you know of politics, despite what you know of history, despit the past corruption charges, you just can't bring yourself to believe because you can't accept it. It is scary to think the government did it I know.

[Straudos]

Quote: THis will be a stand still with us as this is a basic ideological difference. I understand the theories and why it is happening. I may be naive, or just moral, but I disagree with war and murder as a tool of coersion to force pro-american policy. I believe trade is exceptable, and if we lose the buisiness then we lose it. We shouldn't be supplying military arms to nations, or financing wars. The vast majority of our influence comes through economics. Our military is used as an enforcer in rare circumstances. This stems from the fact that we are a democracy. In an ideal world we would stick to just economics, but history has repeatedly shown that the nation which does the "right thing" is the first to get gobbled up.

But as far as superpowers go, we're pretty damn nice. The nations that fall into our camp have it pretty good. In fact, history shows it is better for a nation to lose to America than to win. Take a look at Japan and (what was) West Germany. Japan has one of the strongest economies in the world now. They are doing pretty good. West Germany, too, was an economic powerhouse. Compare that to the Russians on the other end, and you can see how much of a difference there is by looking at East Germany. With Korea, too, you can see that as far as superpowers go, we're the nicest of the bunch. South Korea grows from a little nothing country into an economic success, and North Korea remains a little nothing. A nation that beats America ends up like how Vietnam is today.

Quote: It didn't work out that way. We focused our intentions on Osama because he supposedly caused 9/11, which is arguable, and then did the bait and switch while we were there. It was a beutiful display of political misinformation. Polls still show that most of the military think Iraq had ties to 9/11. Since this Iraq was a conerstone strategic objective of control over the middle east any reasons given where just given to lull the public. THis is policy, and the intel was used to back policy. They made it fit. I disagree. I think 9/11 definitely made it easier to fit in an Iraq invasion, but I think the US could have pulled it off with just the WMD route.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: We are not trying to trick anyone, we are only asking for the truth.


You are contructing an extremely flawed analysis of the facts. You are not asking you are telling. And what you are telling is wrong and it is damaging to our national interests. Why? This is the question that people who are listening to you should ask themselves.

Only in America would you be allowed to use your right to speech in such a way, and yet it is America that you would like to tear down. Why?

Quote: Government in general is inherently evil.
No, it's not. It is merely a tool.

That is exactly like saying a shovel is evil. Sure you can whack someone on the head with it, but that does mean it is evil and that doesn't mean that everyone who has a shovel will use it to whack someone on the head.

This is simply a nihilistic statement. All of this conspiracy drivel is laden through and through with marxist, anarchist, anti-semitic and nihilist concepts.

It's the product of disturbed minds.