Slashdot Mirror

This item, relating to the US control of cyberspace, is a long-standing item on PNAC's agenda, as stated in Sept. 2000 (PDF). See pp 50-57 of the document (62-69 of the PDF). The fulfillment of this agenda has already witnessed: a) the invasion of Iraq b) increasing the DoD budget to Reagan-era levels (as a % of GDP), which necessitated the scaring-sh!tless of the American populace via a Pearl Harbor-type of 'catalyzing event' c) moving on projects to weaponize space. One needs only to remember that the people behind this agenda are true Straussians, believing that the public is stupid, is to be held in great contempt, and must be shown the way forward, regardless of its incongruence with their best interest. That such a notion is incompatible with a democratic system of govenment should be obvious to a child.

This item, relating to the US control of cyberspace, is a long-standing item on PNAC's agenda, as stated in Sept. 2000 (PDF). See pp 50-57 of the document (62-69 of the PDF). The fulfillment of this agenda has already witnessed: a) the invasion of Iraq b) increasing the DoD budget to Reagan-era levels (as a % of GDP), which necessitated the scaring-sh!tless of the American populace via a Pearl Harbor-type of 'catalyzing event' c) moving on projects to weaponize space. One needs only to remember that the people behind this agenda are true Straussians, believing that the public is stupid, is to be held in great contempt, and must be shown the way forward, regardless of its incongruence with their best interest. That such a notion is incompatible with a democratic system of govenment should be obvious to a child.

Although many concepts of "cyber-war"
have elements of science fiction about them,
and the role of the Defense Department in
establishing "control," or even what
"security" on the Internet means, requires a
consideration of a host of legal, moral and
political issues, there nonetheless will
remain an imperative to be able to deny
America and its allies' enemies the ability to
disrupt or paralyze either the military's or
the commercial sector's computer networks.
Conversely, an offensive capability could
offer America's military and political leaders
an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary
in a decisive manner.

Maybe you've heard of the Project for the New American Century? You can call it a "conspiracy" to make it sound wacky and paranoid, but in truth it's right out there for all to see.

These people (for the most part) aren't doing this with sinister, secret motives. They want the grand America of yesteryear -- the mythical world power that leads the world by its perfect example. And while this motive may seem noble to them, it is the same motive that has driven dictatorships throughout history.

Mod parent "Funny"

No one "tries" to remove freedoms, just like rain doesn't "try" to smooth the mountains. It's just a series of small trade-offs and trade-ons we make on a daily basis in government and society.

Today, we have more trade-offs than ons, because the country is a shade more conservative right now. But in November that may change, and new policies akin to the Freedom of Information Act might be implemented. Few countries permit as much legal freedom as the United States does. France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, India, let alone Russia or China - all the major powers are more restrictive than the US in law and in society. That doesn't excuse us from our role of setting new trends toward a greater freedom, but it doesn't happen overnight, or over one decade.

Conspiracies are very difficult to maintain or operate. Information is very easy to leak, and any organization has office politics and failures that prompt retaliation and leaks. The White House always has leaks to reporters, as does the military, and these are some tightly controlled institutions.

Also, when "conspiracies" don't actually do anything illegal in influencing government, they're called "political movements." PNAC is certainly not the most admired political group, but it even has a website, so it's no conspiracy secret. I don't like them, and I think they tarnish the Republican Party, and American Politics, but I have respect for their right to exist.

That being said, if anyone has any evidence of any illegal activity by any politically active group, for the love of God, bring them to justice.

I have all but lost my patience with you Americans. The intent to invade Iraq was published BEFORE 2000 by The Project for A New American century, to which most of the current administration are members. They only got into politics to achieve this goal after appeals to existing politicians for an Iraqi war (e.g. Clinton) fell on deaf ears. There isn't "so much evidence", it's a cold hard documented FACT. And no one is complaining about this? The invasion of Iraq was one of the principle goals of the current administration. If I had lost friends/family in 9-11, I would screaming from the rooftops about how their death has been abused to cause more unjust death.

Do you guys get lobotomised early on in school, or is your news media really so corrupt that you have no idea what's going on? How can you people not know this stuff? It's all out in the open; the link above is their offical website for fecks sake!! I really have no hope for the future of the world now, so long as you guys have the big guns.

Godwin be dammed; at least now I understand a lot more about how the Germans allowed some of the WW2 nastiness to happen. They were completely oblivious the truth and frankly don't care enough to find out. It's the same story here.

does anyone think this http://www.newamericancentury.org/ is an obscenity that ought to be quashed?

first google result for convervative = resistant to change;

guess what? many of the thigns did not change, we still had a government, and such. were things different? absolutly, was a lot the same? absolutly.

Cool, random redefinition of terms in the middle of the discussion making your point entirely irrelevant to what we were talking about.

OK then, please show me where bush has intentltionly lied, cite a few half way decent sites.

Uhhh geee. How about the State of the union where he swore up and down that Saddam has massive quantities of WMDs and all that nonsense when the CIA told him not to because it was half ass at best.
How about "You're doing a heck of a job".

Dude, the list goes on and on from the merely stupid to the entriely malicious. How about you do your duty as a citizen and inform yourself.

once again, british and other said they had WMDs or are you saying something else.

Actually most countries said he didn't anymore. That's what the inspectors said.
Keep playing that tired old myth that there was massive support for that belief. The support was minimal and largely cooerced.
Of course, the simple fact that the invasion of Iraq was the number one priority of this administration since before they were even "elected"couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
No, they even stated that they couldn't pull it off unless some "Pearl Harbor" type event happened.
So you have people who stated flat out that they wanted to invade, but they needed justification. 9/11 happens and Bam! it's all about Iraq.
No, that actually makes sense. You must be right. Magically he became a massive threat all of a sudden. Damn people like you who treat political parties like sports teams and root for theirs no matter what are a deep sickness in a society.

I mean if you can't even be bothered to to the most cursory research into what you're feebly attempting to defend, then why make yourself look ignorant. Just admit that you neither know nor care what your government does in your name with your money and be done.

I don't see how disallowing gay people from being married is against the constitution.

Nor do you see how I said that, but you'll pretend like you do anyhow.

The wire taps might be illegal but the government is fully capable and allowed to spy on us according to the constitution.

4th amendment asshat. It's a fundamental violation.

FOIA i don't see how that's doing anything you would be against

Because you can't have a free society without a transparent government. Damn dude, these arguments are so old that they were made in the drawing of the constitution. Hot tip. your side lost. That's why we're even able to discuss this right now.

torture hmm i'm not sure how that's a violation of the constitution, is it wrong, but then i think the use of the word torture is in teh cases i've heard about hardly even applicable.

What a cowardly little prick you are. Ohhh ok it's bad, but it isn't really torture well... as long as your side is doing it.
Another hot tip: That's a key indicator to moral people that they're on the wrong side. No telling about you sociopaths though.

If you honestly believe that, no words in all the world will sway you.

Granted, it is one of the few things that They have directly stated That I actually do believe.
Seriously, how fucking pathetic are you to support something without even researching who and what it is that you are supporting?!?

There doesn't seem to be a cure for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Hell, put a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger and you'll get over it :-)

It was a blatantly political hit piece, painting Rumsfeld and the administration in Gestapo-like terms.

Dude, have you been asleep for the past 6 years?!?!

They put themselves forward as Gestapo like from the very start.

Are you seriously that out of touch with reality!?!?

Seriously, wake the fuck up. If you support this administration then you are a traitor and you despise the principles upon which this country was founded. Cause it's for damn sure that the administration does.

Their entire platform is that the founding principle of this country, Liberalism, is a great evil that must be stamped out. They are not talking about new fangled American liberalism. They are talking about "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal".

Seriously, dude, try actually learning sometihng about the situation rather than whining like a little bitch about how poor little Rummie is being treated exactly as he asked to be.

Well if it isn't Darby, the guy with the nutty sig.

At least it's not spam ;-)

I've heard your Euro argument from a number of people, it must be all over the liberal blogs, eh?

I wouldn't know. It's been written up a number of times in a number of places over the last several years. You quite obviously haven't heard the argument based on the rest of your response since it isn't a simple question of the rise and fall of the dollar versus other currencies. It's the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency. This gives a tremendous advantage since we are able to float a lot of dollars since we don't expect to ever have to buy them back. If the Euro were to become the reserve currency, then people would be selling dollars to buy euros. Were it just a question of the dollar falling a bit, then it could be good, bad, or indifferent. It's a lot more than that though. The dollar's status is what allows us to run such a high trade deficit. It's also what allows us to borrow such huge amounts of money to finance our economy.

If the euro was to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency, then we would suffer a tremendous economic hit. Basically, we'd have to pay back the tremendous deficit we've racked up with dollars that would be worth far less than they are now and with nobody wanting them anymore. Heck, China could collapse our currency at will given the amount they own. Obviously, it would hurt them as well, but that's how entangled we are and how reliant we are on the status of the dollar as the world's reserve.

Is this crash inevitable? Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly far more likely than that we can just keep borrowing and spending and it will all magically work out forever as has been our policy for a long time now.

Maybe you should actually read the arguments rather than just setting up strawmen.

Where the hell do you get these so-called FACTS, that's just stupid.

Wow, you are really and truly a deeply ignorant person, aren't you?
I got that *fact* from their website where they stated back in 2000 exactly that as their motivation for invading Iraq if only there were some major attack on the US they could use as justification.
So, the fact that you're trying to defend people even though you can't be bothered to read their own website demonstrates that you don't know crap about the situation and have no interest in learning. Don't let that stop you from calling anybody who actually does their research "stupid" though.

Seriously, it's people like you who treat our government like a sports event where you root for your favorite team for purely emotional reasons without taking even the most basic steps to educate yourself on the issues that prevent any sort of rational public discourse.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Let's look at this from GWB's Administration's point of view (not getting sidetracked by who is in office- bear with me): you (as in current administration) are in charge of and responsible for the security/well being of the nation....suddenly there are FREAKIN' airliners (full of your people no less) being used as "guided missles" against your cities and especially the Pentagon!

You're leaving out a lot of the administration's perspective though.
It's critical to keep in mind at all times when thinking about these people that their number one priority since even before the 2000 election was to find an excuse to invade Iraq no matter the consequences. They knew full well that they wouldn't be able to convince the American people to do it. In fact they stated flat out *in their own words* that they needed for some sort of "Pearl harbor" event to happen for them to get away with manipulating America into invading Iraq.
They still have it all up on their website

So while there is no reason to believe they were involved in the attacks, it is an absolute fact that they were overjoyed when it happened and that they went into overdrive to spin it as a cause to invade Iraq, who was uninvolved, as they had planned for years.
So, while they probably were surprised the day it happened, they already had a contingency plan whose sole requirement to put into affect was the attacks.

You really do need to read up on the people running your country if you really want to have any sort of rational perspective on them.

Anyone who's tracked the neocons currently in power know that this has been their goal for years. Their manifesto through the Project for the New American Century stated explicitly the internet and media as one of the theaters of engagement for asserting American dominance around the globe and at home. Sounds like something explicitly out of their document Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenational security.htm).

Finally, a website that succeeded in influencing US politics!

Of course being a NeoCon makes you a moron... I must be one, because I can't even figure out who is a neocon... no one actually says they are. They have no party...

These people usually self-identify as being neocons. Chances are you are not a neocon, because chances are you are too poor to join the club.

He was, and is, furious that they weren't allowed to actually do anything meaningful about the intelligence they were coming across.

Yes, which if you had actually bothered to look at the reasons for this, they were expressed quite clearly by O'Neill:
"The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it,"

In fact he resigned from the FBI because he believed that the Bush administration had stymied the intelligence agency's investigations on terrorism.

So call Clinton incompetent all you want, but doing so in order to defend Bush who was actively involved with *interfering* with the terrorist investigations in order to protect his friends who are tied deeply into it is such an insanely amoral and utterly disgusting action as to defy rationality.

What makes you think I'm extreme, or right wing?

You're clearly both.
You have at every opportunity I've seen leapt to the defense of Bush's actions and reasoning even though you have been proven wrong time and time again.
When Iraq was all about WMds you were there defending nonsense lies.
Once the lies were demonstrated, you were there leaping to the defense of the "liberation" hogwash.
Hell, I knew for a fact since the day Bush was elected that we were going to war with Iraq. The members of the administration stated flat out while Clinton was still in office that they wanted to invade Iraq in order to ensure future US world domination and only needed a pearl harbor type situation to allow them to manipulate the American people into buying it. It's still up on their website for Christ's sake.

So, yes. Given the fact that you have continually spread misinformation in order to deceive your fellow Americans and to advance flat out treasonous actions, I think extremist nutjob is hardly a starting point for an accurate description.

When the administration committed treason by revealing the identity of a CIA operative, there you were claiming insider knowledge and stating that all the reporters already knew the identity and that nobody from the administration would have done such a thing.

When the first news of torture came out, there you were whitewashing it. Now we have the AG promoting torture and Bush claiming that he will veto anti torture legislation and a string of torture camps throughout Europe. So again you were wrong. Again, you were on the side fighting tooth and nail against basic human decency.

Damn dude.

I'm a patriot because I find that our country is, on balance, a better and more liberty-minded place than any that history has ever produced or sustained, and I support those that seek to preserve its place in the world

I'll have to disagree.
You're not a patriot because you actively work to hide the truth.
You actively seek to spread disinformation.
You are an active supporter of the torture of people without even any regard as to their guilt or innocence.
You also demonstrate a serious ignorance of US foreign policy if you can state that nonsense with a straight face.
Torture schools in Central America? Assassination and overthrow of democratically elected leaders in order to establish brutal right wing dictatorships who proceeded to murder massive amounts of their own population with our smiling support since they were favorable to US corporate interests? Damn dude. You either haven't the faintest clue about the USs actions in the last century, or you do and again support torture and murder as long as it boosts profits.
Seriously, dude, how is that not an extremist right wing terrorist supporting nutjob?

But that doesn't make clamping down on suicidal, murderous retro-medieval Islamo-fascism any less important, and at least he's stepping up.

Were that happening, you'd have a point, but he is actively working to promote islamo fascism.
As long as he steps up it's good?!? Heaven forbid he actua

Taken together, the prospects for space war or "cyberspace war" represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the U.S. armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance.

Touched a nerve there, have I?

Based on several years' experience I've concluded that it's pointless to try to argue with Randians. As another poster in this thread has pointed out, it's like trying to have meaningful discussions with Scientologists. It's impossible, because there ain't no such thing. Both lock themselves into closed loops that have little to do with reality and which by definition prevent them from coming out to play in the yard of free exchange of ideas.

So I don't bother anymore.

I don't confuse genuine conservatives (some of whom I respect and even admire) with Fascists, nor has my opposition to the PNAC crowd - who make their views and goals quite evident - any basis in anti-Semitism. And I don't require some arbitrary ideological scorecard to tell me that I care very little for George Bush or his policies.

(FYI, when I still lived in the US, I was a registered Democrat who sincerely regretted that the Republicans didn't go with John McCain. We might possibly have elected a President rather than the imposter we've got now, had that been the case.)

And I don't need anybody putting up straw men in an attempt to discredit me, thanks very much.

The links in the GP have excerpts downloadable, if you just want to get an idea (warning: high wacko quotient on those sites, and dubious copyright). It really is creepy, once you see it... especially given Chris Carter's (x-files writer/producer) ongoing theme of using conspiracy theorists to spread disinformation. Not a huge x-files & spinoff fan myself, but it is just too weird... The reasoning given in the pilot is that this event [spoiler alert!] is a pearl harbor-style trigger coordinated by a faction of the US gub'mint dedicated to boosting military production and global influence, mirroring both PNAC and real world conspiracy theorists.

but like much of the world, your charicatures of U.S. behavior show a recently rising anti-American bias.

A side-effect of your actions, sorry.

But you dismiss Iraq as "unwise" and make allusions to oil, without even considering the fact that what we're doing there - toppling a brutal dictator in order to install a democratic system

No, if that were the case, I'd agree with the intention but not the method. Assuming democracy was the intent, you've still killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam did. The country is now going to fall apart, and we get to watch it from our armchairs. Capturing Saddam was actually bad, it turns out. Many in Iraq were fearful that you'd pull out*, and Saddam would return to power. With him out of the way, the more agressive groups that he surpressed were free to start attacking collatition troops. Whatever happens, Saddam is gone. Removing him ironically is going to be the thing that destroyes the country.

* in the first Gulf War, we dropped leaflets that said rise up against Saddam and we'll support you. Many did, however we stopped once we restored the Kuwait dictators to power. Those who stood up were massacred. Many were fearful this would happen again.

The intent to attack Iraq predates 9-11. It has NOTHING to do with defending yourselfs in any way. Nor was it done for the Iraqi people. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. The USA economy is 100% reliant on this oil, changes to the price affect everything. Now, peak oil dictates that the "easy" oil is running out, and the price will rise as more adventurous oil reserves are tapped. This price rise would topple an already faltering economy.

With Saddam in power, Iraq's oil was off the map, unavailable to US markets. With him gone, it's flowing freely. Billions upon billions of dollars have been made. Companies with representation in The Project For a New American Century (official website) (e.g. Harliburton/Cheeny) have gotten wholely rich from this. The US is in a far stronger strategic position WRT to access to oil. Don't forget, much of the worlds oil belongs to Saudi (9-11) and Venesuala (socialist). Your "enemies". The US now has direct influnce on the price of oil, as well as having private access to vast quantities.

It WAS NOT done for the Iraqi people, and it saddens me that people believe that. It proves that propaganda and nationalistic tendencies are not a thing of the past.

What do you think of Afghanistan? Should we have left the Taliban in charge there?

Well, you were quite happy to deal with them for many years. For example, in 1997 a Taleban delegation visited Texas for talks on a huge deal to build a pipeline through the country. It was only after that deal went to an Argentinian group that we suddenly started hearing about the evil Taleban. We have always been at war with the Taleban.

Is toppling an oligarchy that made women wear sacks and prevented them from getting an education just another indicator of our aggression?

Only when it happens after big business says so. By the way, the people involved in that 1997 deal have moved on. They are in the Whitehouse now. The pipeline's coming along nicely.

The Project For A New American Century is an organization dedicated "...to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." Among the members are VP Dick Cheney and his currently embattled Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, SecDef Don Rumsfled, Jeb Bush (brother of President Bush), etc. See their Statement of Principals and a list of the signers of this founding document. If you don't recognize some of the names, Google them and see where they have worked in the last five years. Paul Wolfowits, Dov Zakheim and Zalmay Khalilzad are good ones to start with. Here's a nice place to start with Zakheim. And it only gets more interesting from there ;)

In September, 2000 PNAC released a controversial document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which they argued that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to speed up their planned re-militarization of America (see pg. 68). Earlier in this document they itemized their core principals, including 'CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.'(see pg. 11) On page 57 they go into more detail about how and why America must retain control of cyberspace. Controlling ICAAN is critical to this goal.

Scared yet? Remember, these are the folks that brought us the Patriot Act, forcing a vote on it after 9/11 without allowing anyone to read it, and enabling such great things as holding potential "terrorists" indefinitely without access to family or legal representation, sneak-and-peek searches, warrantless monitoring of e-mail, monitoring dissent groups without any suspicion of criminal activity by them, etc., etc.

As for Iraq, PNAC has been calling for the overthrow of Saddam since 1997 as a way to retain control of world energy supplies, critical to ensuring America's control over the world. But I think they bit off more than they could chew over there.

This group is truly scary, and they have been running our government for five years now.

The Project For A New American Century is an organization dedicated "...to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." Among the members are VP Dick Cheney and his currently embattled Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, SecDef Don Rumsfled, Jeb Bush (brother of President Bush), etc. See their Statement of Principals and a list of the signers of this founding document. If you don't recognize some of the names, Google them and see where they have worked in the last five years. Paul Wolfowits, Dov Zakheim and Zalmay Khalilzad are good ones to start with. Here's a nice place to start with Zakheim. And it only gets more interesting from there ;)

In September, 2000 PNAC released a controversial document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which they argued that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to speed up their planned re-militarization of America (see pg. 68). Earlier in this document they itemized their core principals, including 'CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.'(see pg. 11) On page 57 they go into more detail about how and why America must retain control of cyberspace. Controlling ICAAN is critical to this goal.

Scared yet? Remember, these are the folks that brought us the Patriot Act, forcing a vote on it after 9/11 without allowing anyone to read it, and enabling such great things as holding potential "terrorists" indefinitely without access to family or legal representation, sneak-and-peek searches, warrantless monitoring of e-mail, monitoring dissent groups without any suspicion of criminal activity by them, etc., etc.

As for Iraq, PNAC has been calling for the overthrow of Saddam since 1997 as a way to retain control of world energy supplies, critical to ensuring America's control over the world. But I think they bit off more than they could chew over there.

This group is truly scary, and they have been running our government for five years now.

The Project For A New American Century is an organization dedicated "...to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." Among the members are VP Dick Cheney and his currently embattled Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, SecDef Don Rumsfled, Jeb Bush (brother of President Bush), etc. See their Statement of Principals and a list of the signers of this founding document. If you don't recognize some of the names, Google them and see where they have worked in the last five years. Paul Wolfowits, Dov Zakheim and Zalmay Khalilzad are good ones to start with. Here's a nice place to start with Zakheim. And it only gets more interesting from there ;)

In September, 2000 PNAC released a controversial document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which they argued that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to speed up their planned re-militarization of America (see pg. 68). Earlier in this document they itemized their core principals, including 'CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.'(see pg. 11) On page 57 they go into more detail about how and why America must retain control of cyberspace. Controlling ICAAN is critical to this goal.

Scared yet? Remember, these are the folks that brought us the Patriot Act, forcing a vote on it after 9/11 without allowing anyone to read it, and enabling such great things as holding potential "terrorists" indefinitely without access to family or legal representation, sneak-and-peek searches, warrantless monitoring of e-mail, monitoring dissent groups without any suspicion of criminal activity by them, etc., etc.

As for Iraq, PNAC has been calling for the overthrow of Saddam since 1997 as a way to retain control of world energy supplies, critical to ensuring America's control over the world. But I think they bit off more than they could chew over there.

This group is truly scary, and they have been running our government for five years now.

Come on, get a little bit real please. It wasn't a good idea in the least and I'd be crazy to deny that but it was hardly a move to create a "Greater America" that would last a thousand years.

In fact, that is exactly what it was.

Who should we believe?

You who has demonstrated such complete ignorance of the issue that you can't even be bothered to read the manifesto of this current administration?

Or should we believe the people who started this war when they stated exactly why they planned on invading Iraq long before 9/11?

Sorry, but since you are clearly an ingorant tool I'm going with the second one.

Please pull your head out of your ass and try to learn a little about the world around you before you spout idiotic nonsense that directly contradicts the stated reasoning of the people who started this war in the first place.

It's cowardly scumbag morons like yourself who are afraid to even attempt to deal with reality that are fucking up this country. Please kill yourself now. It's the only way you could possibly do any good in the world if you are truly as ignorant as you are trying to demonstrate.
The alternative is that you already knew that you were lying and are shilling anyhow.
Either way, you're scum. Go die now.

9/11 was preventable. We got pwned by leaving the cockpit doors open even though it was "common" knowledge that the most effective way to thwart hijackings was to NEVER let the bad guys take control of the airplane. If they can manage to crash it, or kill every passenger, so be it. El Al figured this out in the 70's, yet the FAA was too fucking stupid to pay attention.

Similarly, the Bush administration ignored the valuable information it received from Richard Clarke and even their own Condoleezza Rice. Their motives are unknown, but it's worth considering that maybe they wanted a war from the beginning. The cost can be measured in the trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

Hurricane Katrina was an act of nature. Maybe it was a side effect of intelligent design, but that doesn't matter. The lesson is that valuable information was ignored. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that category 3 levees won't hold a category 5 storm. A stomping wonder horse could have saved more lives than the horse judge BushCo put in charge of FEMA.

Cybersecurity is nothing to joke about, yet the one company which has been responsible for the most damage has already been given a walk for other serious crimes. This government will do nothing to make them act responsibly. MS isn't the only one, but they are the prime example. Banks are another obvious concern, but I don't think the Feds will keep them in control now any more than they did during the S&L scandal of the 80's. We shouldn't be surprised. Bush is a family man, and his family has historically put their own interests above those of the USA.

It's not the Republicans to blame for this crap, it's the neo-cons masquerading as Republicans. Check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/ . That should give people some idea as to why things are happening the way they are.

Well, the current administration really formalised their plans to build a world-wide empire in 1997, when they founded the Project for a New American Century. Here's their policy statement:

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

          we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
        responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

          we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

          we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

          we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.


If it sounds like a bunch of nutbars running the organisation, take a look at their founders and board of directors. I'm sure you'll find some familiar names.

These are not choice political plums to be given to big contributers or supporters but to qualified hard working capable individuals with credentials for the job. Especially when the lives of our mother and fathers and sons and brothers and daughters and uncles and neices are involved.

You make it sound like the Bush cabinet has no ideology where these hires are concerned. I disagree. It makes perfect sense when viewed from the neo-con ideology of government being inherently broken and the need to privatize all its functions. The bush cabinet's main goal is to replace the american government by private enterprises. Their hires are simply logical choices to that end. The people they hire must be willing to destroy whatever they are responsible for to such a point that it makes sense to privatize it. They either hire the loyal, who will destroy the very organization they head up out of sheer blind loyalty to the cause, or the incompetent, who will just screw things up badly. When you mess up bad enough, you get rewarded (those medals, remember?). When you make some part of government more efficient or stronger, you get replaced.

What you've witnessed with the head of FEMA is this process in action. FEMA has become so incapable that most of the relief work has gone through private donations and private aid organizations, instead of through the government. This is just the way they like it. It's why you didn't see Bush scramble to do anything, because private enterprise was on the beat. Only when there was a massive public outcry did they have to backtrack a bit and actually use the power government in a useful capacity. But what they really want to do now is say "FEMA can't do its job anymore", and shut it down, moving its responsibilities into a governmental sink hole. Whether or not they will do this depends on public perception. I suspect them to at least send up trial balloons to see whether people could accept the idea.

Anyway, if you really want to understand the underlying set of ideologies of the bush cabinet, I strongly recommend reading through the Project for a New American Century documents. They're enlightening reading to understand how the whole cabinet can be so seemingly incompetent (hint: they're not, they're just completely crazy).

As far as Iran, yes they are despotic. Do they have a right to be pissed with Israel? Perhaps seeing the way the Palestinians have been treated. Does either excuse our meddling in their internal affairs beforehand? No.

Regarding Mecca, this link
"Saudi Arabia has Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Many Muslims oppose the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. They say non-Muslims should not be welcome in land that is holy to Muslims."

And yes, Empire

Some choice reading

"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence"

"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"

"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas"

read the thing yourself.

I'd say when the chief strategists go around saying "Pax Americana" (mentioned four times in the document above) yeah thats playing empire

Sadly that won't work. The center of gravity for the earth+jumpers will remain the same.

On the other hand, flinging people off the earth at a reasonable fraction of the speed of light will do it. We will advertise it as "a trip to the stars", with the added benefit of increasing democracy.

This will open up a new way for humanity to improve nature. Tired of the short days of winter? We will just lengthen the rotational period of earth by flinging people off into space in the direction of rotation! Nevermind the desertification of the rest of the planet. They don't like water anyway.

This message brought to you by the good people of http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The US is not appointed as ruler (self or otherwise), but that does not mean the US is not allowed to put up equipment to disable others in the case of war.


I beg to differ.
Current government *does* think of the US as world police. Take a look at this manifesto, and more importantly who signed it. Why yes, it is pretty much the entire Shrub club!

Choice quote: We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

If you believe this is limited to national security only, and does not extend to forceful consolidation and expansion of economic and corporate US interests, I think you might want to take a look back at history for a bit.

From your post I assume you don't want the US to play this role, which would be commendable, but you can't deny these very same people are doing precisely what they so bluntly stated -- and they do so in your name, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world.

Finally, I guess your main point was that violence is sometimes necessary. Probably you'll think I'm very naive, and that's all right, but it just seems to me that most instances of "defense" turn out not to be completely unrelated to earlier actions on the defendant's part. Like Gandhi said, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Sooner or later, someone is just going to have to not strike back. Preemptive peace, or some such.

You mean, like in the end, UK residents and europeans all the same still got screwed when the US wanted to get some oil?
And dont go modding me troll because im stating a fact that everyone knows.
He who still thinks that Iraq oil was about something else than american economic supremacy and oil control should learn about "media brainwashing".
It was all being drafted for years. 2001-09-11 only made it all too easy for wierdly ellected bush to get internal support, not so funny laws aproved and external simpaty.

Doubts? Check some links e.g.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm
to start with...
then just follow the money...

Zbigniew Brzezinski is one the few warhawks on the left side of things in America. If you want to read more on what the neocons are thinking, you should go to the Project for the New American Century, where they're quite open about their desires.

Brzezinski wrote in 2004 a book that heavily criticizes the approach of the current administration called, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. If you liked reading The Grand Chessboard, pick this one up too.

Please tell me you did not just link to FoxNews as a legitimate news source. I know that lots of them aren't exactly perfect, but dear god man... FoxNews??!! Words cannot express....

Why not just link directly to the source??
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

My 2c.

How about this story from the Washington Post (posted in February/March 2002)?

Or, is that all part of the conspiracy, too? Open your eyes a little, and start questioning authority! Was a "shadow government"-like system manipulating the strings for 9/11 to occur? Who knows? One has to wonder though:

• How (and better, WHY?) the USA PATRIOT Act was "just waiting in the wings" all prepared nicely to stomp on our freedoms?
• Why Bush took so damn long to respond and act after knowing about the attacks on that day?
• Why an investigation into the matter after the fact was whitewashed and swept under the carpet so fast?
• Why was the wreckage was carted away so quickly and without investigation or accident reconstruction or forensic work?
• How Bush managed to see video of the first plane hitting (which he noted at least 2 or 3 times in speeches on 9/11) when that video wasn't released to the news and public until the FOLLOWING day?
• Why all the events that have happenned since Bush came to power have seemed to follow the plan set forth on this website?
• What about the membership roster of the people of that website - why does it read like a list of who's who in our federal government?

There are so many unanswered questions, so many things being kept buried, and some days it seems the entire American populace (though I know that is a broad brush to paint with, and is most certainly untrue) are burying their heads in the sand, hiding and cowering in fear and uncertainty, shamelessly obeying their leaders.

FEAR! OBEY! FEAR! OBEY!

These are the seeming rallying crys of today's American society. It is sickening. It is reprehensible. IT IS A DAMN LIE.

Well, see, you're going to sound like much less of a kook if you don't just make stuff up. You can go right here and read their 'manifesto' all you want. You'll notice the complete lack of anything even vaguely like what you're talking about, either philosophically, stragecially, or tactically.

Touche. I made an honest mistake there -- the "Pearl Harbour" quote is not from the manifesto but from p51 of the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (2000) as you can see here.

That said, I never meant to insult anyone, too bad you took it that way (which you make clear in the rest of your post.) I want to discuss the facts -- but not to limit myself only to "their" evil. It goes both ways.

... in fact, the manifesto of the Project for the New American Century ... states they would need "a new Pearl Harbour

Well, see, you're going to sound like much less of a kook if you don't just make stuff up. You can go right here and read their 'manifesto' all you want. You'll notice the complete lack of anything even vaguely like what you're talking about, either philosophically, stragecially, or tactically. I find particulary ironic that even as you describe another party as lying "to the people" for their own good, you're the one fabricating things to try to score a rhetorical point, hoping that your audience doesn't know how to use Google. Pretty insulting, and indicative of your condescending posture (which includes willingness to use nearly childish deceit in a transparent attempt to pursuade the intellectually lazy). If you want to talk about who is dependent on who, I'd suggest that we bring up the issue of which parties will seem completely irrelevent unless they can manufacture and nurse along the myth of some evil conspiracy against which they can bravely rebel. Or, we can focus on that actual evil acts of people who blow up civilians on trains, and think about what they represent.

A key document is called Rebuilding America's Defenses, available here: http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDe fenses.pdf From page 12: 'CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.'

The scariest part is that the folks who wrote all this crap are controlling our government right now.

Just out of curiosity, if the prevailing conspiracy theorist opinion (to which it is obvious you readily subscribe) is now that it was a con by the Bush administration--to what gain? What could they possibly have gained?

Are you serious? It's right there on their* website.

They wanted a foothold in the Middle East so they could eventually control the whole area. They've wanted this ever since Reagan was president, because he wasn't aggressive enough for the PNAC.

* "Their" in this case referring to the Project for a New American Century, which Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfowitz, etc., belong to.

karma bonus omitted for being offtopic.

> Those who don't think we even NEED a military, much less respect those that serve

Of course I think we need a military. We're losing the one we have thanks to the lies told to prop the megalomaniacal ambitions of these people. This is not a bunch of idle crackpots -- these are people from past administrations and the present. These people, not Saudi and Egyptian terrorists, are the reason you and your friends are dying over there.

I agree with you--I think #1 and #4 are our most likely outcomes. Hell, we've been working on the hardened, remote, permanent bases since the get-go.

This war is about many things--freedom, spreading democracy, oil, security, terrorism, removing despotic regimes, finishing old business, even petty revenge. They're all secondary and postfact, though, to the real motivator behind this war--power. At root, the war in Iraq is and has always been about America establishing and exercising power in a strategically and economically valuable region of the world. Go read The Project for the New American Century's September 2000 report on Rebuilding America's Defenses. Pay close attention to section III: Repositioning Today's Force. Notice anything eerily prescient?

It's a shame our leaders didn't feel confident enough in the merits of their plans to level with us in the first place. I bet they could have had far more success in their venture without all the smoke, mirrors and bullshit they used in lieu of being frank about what they were going about doing.

I agree with you--I think #1 and #4 are our most likely outcomes. Hell, we've been working on the hardened, remote, permanent bases since the get-go.

This war is about many things--freedom, spreading democracy, oil, security, terrorism, removing despotic regimes, finishing old business, even petty revenge. They're all secondary and postfact, though, to the real motivator behind this war--power. At root, the war in Iraq is and has always been about America establishing and exercising power in a strategically and economically valuable region of the world. Go read The Project for the New American Century's September 2000 report on Rebuilding America's Defenses. Pay close attention to section III: Repositioning Today's Force. Notice anything eerily prescient?

It's a shame our leaders didn't feel confident enough in the merits of their plans to level with us in the first place. I bet they could have had far more success in their venture without all the smoke, mirrors and bullshit they used in lieu of being frank about what they were going about doing.

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. (p.51)

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century".
A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000.

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. (p.51)

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century".
A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000.

You are correct.
See http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for evidence.

First order of business, Anonymous idiot Coward, is for me to read the PNAC document for you. I'd staple it to your draft card, but you're going to have to wait a few more months for those to bet to the printer.

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Just one example demonstrating the usefulness of Saddam Hussein in justifying the invasion to provide a greater, permanent US military base in Iraq. The rest of the document, if you can read it without my babysitting, details that base. This particular bogeyman is not fictional, shamelessly publishes its plans while lying to America about WMD, Saddam/Osama collaboration, and any other "immediate justification" for their wars and other tyrannies. You fall right in line with them: posting insults anonymously, attacking the messenger rather than the facts, creating strawman lies like "my good guys, the Taliban" - when it's your guys, the Republicans, who created the Taliban Afghanistan, and allow them to revive after the photo op, while we're bogged down in Iraq. It's your boys in DC busy kissing Saudi ass while they jack up oil prices together.

Who voted for Bush because "they wanted a democratic and free Afghanistan"? Practically no Americans ever thought once about Afghanistan when voting in 2000, and we were already committed 3 years after our invasion when voting in 2004. At least as many people voting for Kerry in 2004 want a democratic and free Afghanistan as those who voted for Bush - and all we know for sure is that Afghanistan today, after 3 years of American occupation, is hardly democratic or free, even free from the Taliban - except in the bubble around the capital, where the American cameras are installed. You're insane to hand the Taliban to me, when it's your Afghanistan, the "free and democratic" one, where the stoning is going on. Even if you're not going to read the PNAC documents which define your world, or my posts that upset your denial so badly, try to read your own posts before sliming them at me, Anonymous self-parody Coward.

Well the public neocon agenda isn't a secret, and the unspoken agenda isn't difficult to miss. (Although one could argue that the not-so-secret agenda is due to the overlapping interests of the neocons and certain business interests.)

Anyway, checck out that link, and look for stuff from before Bush was elected. It's more or less all laid out, and it becomes clear (as if it wasn't before) that the neocons were looking for any sort of pretext to invade Iraq; 9/11 was a godsend for them.

If the US isn't run by feckless meglomaniac nutters, then pleases explain what this is all about. Read their "statement of principles".

When Saddam slaughtering Iranians, Shiites and Kurds with poison gas, the US was happy to be his friend, so long as he obeyed orders. Here's a picture of Rumsfeld bravely standing up to the butcher, the day after the UN released its report on how Iraq had used mustard gas and nerve gas against Iranian troops.

Yes Saddam would have been happy to keep on selling us oil, in dollars. In fact if he had, he'd still be our Ally In The War On Terror(tm), just like Uzbekistan and Saudi, two other vile dictatorships you're still supporting.

Saddam's unpardonable crime was to switch from US dollars to Euros in 2000 for payment. This meant that not only did Europe not need dollars anymore, but also that which imports over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would have to convert much of its dollar assets to Euro assets. The US on the other hand, being the world's largest oil importer would have to acquire Euro reserves, i.e. it would have to run a trade surplus. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to be done at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its own oil supplies were contracting. It would have been a very painful conversion; potentially disastrous.

Iraq is also an essential base fom which to attack the really big prize, Iran. Iran has also been threatening for a few years to switch to Euros for its oil payments.

For more information on why the US is invading so many countries, I suggest you read this report by the PNAC.