Slashdot Mirror

When even with the info lower level agents get ignored because "terrorist" actions are merely part of the plan? something like a "new pearl harbor" like event And which is it again, when you are "following orders", do you investigate, or shine it on because some "superior" individual has connections with those you are supposedly investigating, so vital information gets ignored on purpose? Why is it, when someone with the legal and law enforcement cred of David Schippers, successful impeacher of a freekin president, successful chicago area mob prosecutor, can't even get word to ashcroft (I'm sure you heard of that gent) about upcoming bad news scenarios despite repeated and exhaustive attempts? Why is that, an "unfortunate intelligence failure"? Or was it because it was ON PURPOSE. Ignored, avoided on purpose?

Sorry, I'll be way way WAY more impressed when some white guys in suits and uniforms get indicted by a grand jury for some charges up to and including murder and treason. You can talk about "additional powers" then, once you effectively use the ones you already have, and a LOT more of you come forward like the small handful of TRULY brave and honest agents have,and stop being chicken for your careers over the nations safety. Follow your oath, not your paycheck in other words. Use your brain for something more than to absorb "commands". You're an agent, they are supposed to QUESTION things, not just blindly follow orders, they are supposed to deal in data, not be part of a massive coverup that's destroying a nation and imperiling the entire planet.

Nuhremberg established the precedent, "following orders" is no excuse for helping along high crimes and misdemeanors, and being as it's the internet age and some decent info is available, there's no excuse for remaining so uninformed other than laziness and an uncaring attitude and blind obedience and brainwashing.

Oh, the links? There's hundreds more, THOUSANDS more,just use google, 9-11, government prior knowledge is a good start. I'm not going to do your work for you, and if you had been paying attention even just on slashdot you would have already seen quite a few of them dropped, in many articles and in many comments.

Educate thyself before wanting to make all the US people some "enemy" to "investigate". We have had enough of the surveil/command/CONTROL aspect of this and the recent past US "regimes" and their (mostly) *mercenaries*. Stop being a stooge for them killers and thieves.

Here, I'll give you an easy one. How did WTC building 7 manage to fall down? Here's another easy one, bush and company, including rice, swore to the 9-11 "investigative commission" that they had "no idea that planes could be used for hijacking and then used as weapons" and etc.. uh huh. How do you explain terrorist hijacking scenario drills, one being run the same day as the attacks then? A COINCIDENCE? You smelling a rat yet? I hope so, I really do.. we need more honest cops, less blind order followers. I hope you are one of the former.

I'll take you up.

Hellooooo, 9/11, non-compliance with UN resolutions, etc. This guy is basically saying that since Bush didn't want to invade before he had a good reason, he should not have wanted to after he got a good reason (9/11 and Saddam's non-compliance giving us sufficient reason to believe he was a threat being the good reasons).

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Attacking Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as the United States invading Brazil after Pearl Harbor. The two were not related at all, as numerous bipartisan investigations have confirmed. That lie, more than anything else, is why Bush adminstration is despised. We can not trust this administration with the power of war.

On September 12, 2001, the administration was already drawing up invasion plans for Iraq; even though we were attacked from Afghanistan. It just doesn't make any sense. Their initial reaction wasn't to strike back at those who attacked us, but rather carry out their wet dream of converting the middle east to democracy at the barrel of a gun. As their report said, they would need "a cataclysmic event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" in order to carry this out.

Now with the non-complience with resolutions:

The truth is, as Wolfowitz admitted, Iraq's WMD was just a convient excuse. An excuse that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Saddam's economy was in the tank. His infrastructure to reconsititue any weapons program was evicerated and atrophied to the point of being worthless. The bogus "intellegence" we were being fed about Iraq was coming from dubious sources. Furthermore, during the rush to war, the intellegence was not vetted. Instead it shoved directly to Doug Feith and the ominously named "Office of Special Plans". But it wasn't simply all the intellegence about Iraq. It was sifted first. Anything that supported a reason to invade, was good. Anything that didn't was disregarded.

I can hear you now. "But EVERYONE thought he had WMD!". Not exactly. As subsequent investigations have determined, the western world's intellegence apparatus is an echo chamber. Chalabi had been telling the US whatever he thought would get the US to invade Iraq, so he could be setup as the new strongman. His reports were considered by many in the CIA to range from interesting to fanciful.

However there was one group that bought everything Chalabi said. The neocons. This group was still upset that Bush I didn't "finish the job" by invading Iraq back in 1991. (Bush I said in his memoirs that he didn't because the coallition of 100+ nations would fall apart if he did, and he was afraid of what would happen in Iraq after the invasion.) Chalabi enjoyed his new patrons. They gave him money, and he in return told them exactly what they wanted to hear. He hoped that one day they would take control of the White House, and the invasion would be on. He was right.

The neocons would ask the CIA what they knew about Chalabi's claims. Not having many sources in Iraq, the CIA would ask the countries we formerly considered allies (i.e. Europe), if they could check in to it. The allies, not having sources in Iraq either, would ask each other what they knew. The allies would then tell each other that they too had heard these reports from secret sources too. Of course, their secret source was us. The nations-formerly-known-as-allies would then say "Yeah, we've heard these reports from secret sources too." Q.E.D.

The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.

As far as "etc." I have no idea what your "etc." could refer to, and I suspect you don't either.

"If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and w

Read this, and tell me how you think they're going to pull it off without massive conscription.

How could they expect to enforce this in other states, let alone other nations?

How are they going to nail people in Russia and China?

How are they going to enforce it when a large portion of those registrants are actually non-US?

Did you check which country he was from? Not all countries have stupid IP laws you know...

And that's exactly what we're doing. No one wants to loose their jobs overseas, so we begin attacking the Indian's who get them. Don't blame them. Blame your lifestyle.
The current conservative movement in America is making it popular to hate everything except flag-waving Americans who unquestioningly do our Supreme Leaders bidding. Members of the senate who want to protect our freedom (Russ Feingold) is the object of scorn here in his home state of Wisconsin by Joe six-pack.
Don't blame George Bush. He's just following the plan. If you're not white, married, and live in suburbia with your SUV, you're the enemy.
Consume, consume, consume!

Is this a new form of colonialism? Do we all 6.3 billion have to abide to the law of a mere 300 million?

Sadly, Yes. If you ever read anything from the Project for a New American Century, they talk a lot about world domination. I'll probably be labeled a commie for this (why I seriously never understood), but Chomsky's book Hegemony Or Survival talks a lot about the new foreign policy of the US.

Huh, calling someone who disagrees with you a commie. Real original.

It is more shortsighted not to realize that the sand niggers are waging global Jihad than to mearly state the truth.

No one reasonable disagrees that bin Laden called a "jihad" and these people want to rule the world. There are also Americans who want to do this. So why are all Muslims sand niggers, but Americans are A-OK?

Oh but, we can't attack anyone on the basis of the ethnicity! That is RACIST AND HORRIBLE. Even though that is what is being done to us.

Actually, they're not nearly as racist as you. They've accepted (white) Americans, Austrailians, any Muslims into Al-Qaeda. They want to kill us because of our country, not our race. There's a difference. Doesn't make them right, but how are we any better? We've killed a hell of a lot more of them than they have of us.

Yeah, we Americans have it so hard, some rednecks from accross the world have declared they want to anihalate us... meanwhile we have the world's largest army, while they have old Kalishnakovs and Korans. I'm sure they'll get really far. I find it a little hard to play the victem in this case.

Go ahead and call me a pinko if that makes you feel better, but your idea of "the truth" has no substance.

If I had to call it something novel, it would probably be: "Conservation of a False Dichotomy".
Unfortunately it already has a name: "Project for the New American Century"
Pro: newamericancentury.org
Con: www.pnac.info
You might find this interesting. Of particular interest is the comment on page 51 that a new Pearl Harbor to catalyze support for their agenda. BTW, this was published in September of 2000.

If I had to call it something novel, it would probably be: "Conservation of a False Dichotomy".
Unfortunately it already has a name: "Project for the New American Century"
Pro: newamericancentury.org
Con: www.pnac.info
You might find this interesting. Of particular interest is the comment on page 51 that a new Pearl Harbor to catalyze support for their agenda. BTW, this was published in September of 2000.

Hey, that was a good post. Thanks for taking the time out.

Yes I criticize a lot - I know. But the 'head of the class' should be the head because he is the wisest, not because he is the biggest. The bully mentality alienates your friends and enrage your enemies. This is already happening big time.

I haven't heard about the election-fraud accusations in Germany, but we've had them in my country (Denmark). There is no doubt nor dispute about who got the votes in neither Germany nor my country though and you cannot imagine a society that has no corrupted individuals. You are right, Italy seems a farce under Berlosconi, and I really do NOT wanna turn this into a 'XX is better than YY' type thing, EU is far from any paradise, and we've certainly got our shit to work out.

However since you do the comparison, neither Germany nor Italy engages in preemptive warfare (thnx in big part to the US), but the US does. At least that is the impression you are left with if you first read PNAC and then consider who the prominent PNAC members are (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz...).

Oh, I don't believe for one second that these guys are stupid. Bonkers they may be - but stupid they're not. They know very well what they're doing. I am not sure they quite realise what their actions might entail (nor do I for that matter), but I am also not sure that they care too much.

No - what I meant when I said bonkers was you guys - the ones who lives in US, the real US. The ones whose votes will determine life and death matters all over the world. The ones whose votes will shape the international climate, the ones who won't vote because they 'it does not matter, nothing can be done anyways, I am not willing to waste my time trying'. That really seems odd.

US is so big, and you're probably right, we don't have diversity in the face the way you do. I am posting this from rather comfortable little DK (best place in the world, then our right wing took over), I am not in Romania or Albania or on the Balkans, I am not even in Italy. It's easy for me to sit here and be high-strung. That however, does not alter the fact that you guys really need to DO something. I just hope that this one time your apathy will be left at home when you go voting and that your election will end with the only reasonable outcome.

US is NOT the moral leader of the world, it's just the biggest military force in existence. A lot of US folks may not realise that, but that's how everybody else sees it. You can change that...

Here's a video for you

I am sorry if I come off staunch, I am just soo fucking amazed by the beast that is the US. The whole Swift-boat-liars-for-whatever affair, FOX news, Bush in general, Fahrenheit 9/11 etc...

Thnx for your post, it was a good read and I'd mod u up if I could.

So because 'anyone in power' does it, it doesn't matter whether US goes with Bush or Kerry - it'll end up the same. Therefore you might as well go with Bush. Is that your reasoning ?

Fine, how about his - the director of the CIA was George Tenet, a Clinton appointee. He was definitely not a GWB loyalist or anything like that. So do you really see Bush walking up to this guy and pressuring him to do *anything* that could come back to haunt him?

You should do a little research on Mr Tenet before assuming that he is a Democratic party water-boy. He worked for the late Senator John Heinz -- a republican -- until 1985 when he became staff director for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, under the wing of Senator Boren (democrat, but big-time connected to the CIA - the CIA that George Bush Sr. had been director of).

The point is that he has ample reason to be friendly to Bush - after all, if he were loyal to the democrats you can bet Bush would not have left him in such a senior position in the first place -- he's as much a Bush appointee as he is a Clinton appointee.

But to make that work, you also have to believe it of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. Not one of them has ever been accused of being stupid,

Well, they sure have now. The first two were probably just blinded by a false world-view (not so uncommon among the rich and isolated). Rice, I haven't thought about too much, she may just not have a big enough swinging dick to win the internal debate, or she may have enough financial interest in the outcome not care -- when Chevron names an oil tanker after you, that means you're pretty well hooked up. I suspect that Powell was convinced that he was going to lose the internal debate about the invasion and so decided to cut his losses and support the hawks, probably in exchange for concessions like more involvement of the state department in the post-war, rebuilding and relations stuff, the kind of thing that the state department is good at. If so, he got suckered on that one, because Rumsfeld certainly tried to pull as much state-department category work into the pentagon as could, and of course fucked it up in the process since that's not what the pentagon knows how to do. Powell probably ended up throwing away any future he might have had as en elected politician by doing that. For what it's worth, I bet that if Bush gets re-elected, Powell will resign before the end of March 2005. He'll stick out the current term to avoid hurting Bush at the polls because he's the type to be loyal to his boss, even if he's not happy about it.

Even assuming that everyone listed above is pure evil, do you really believe any of them is stupid enought to have lied without a plan to make the lie come true?

So, at what point does self-delusional arrogance begin to qualify as evil?

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle were clearly just looking for any excuse to invade Iraq, since it had been on their agenda for many years already as their 1998 Letter to Clinton illustrates. They were so deluded with the righteousness of their cause that they, "found it hard to conceive that it would be harder to occupy Iraq than it had been to conquer it." That despite some serious disagreement from the Army - so serious that General Shinseki, the number one guy at the army, end up "retiring" not too long afterwards.

You bet your ass it's our fault! Since the late 1800s America (or at least Americans) has (have) been behind every humanitarian crisis or revolution on the planet. Whether it's IBM, Henry Ford, and Prescott Bush giving Hitler money and technology; Lt. Col. Ollie North ordering a young G.I. (my dad) to not re-install the sand filters after refueling a helicopter on its way to rescue the Teheran Embassy hostages (the helicopter later crashed and the blame laid against Carter); decade after decade of our CIA and Pentagon playing chess with nearly every country in the Islamic world; wealthy GOP'ers and active-duty CIA ops still providing funds and training in a continued attempt to overthrow the elected President of Venezuala; or a whole fukkin' synagogue under the cover name Project for a New American Century getting itself appointed to the Administration and Pentagon in order to start wars that directly (and positively) impact its bottom line; you can bet our infidel dollars are behind it!

Now proving this would unfortunately be difficult. There's not a police force large enough or fast enough to immediately close down every financial institution long enough to track the flow of filthy greenbacks into the hands of the genocidal warlords. That's Allah's job.

By the way, your troll attempt was very transparent--I only replied 'cuz I'm bored.

I love America. I really do. I also really wish that we would cut the bullshite and start treating the Kenneth Lays and Prescott Bushes the same way we treat the Timothy McVeighs and the John Walker Lindhs. Violence is violence.

<Bush>Now watch this drive!</Bush>

he could have gone about patenting his inventions and...

Except he would then have to deal with attorneys--likely Jews--who would steal his inventions by claiming them as their own. After all, he's a semi-literate Afghani--who the fuck is gonna believe he is capable of anything more beneficial than killing for Allah? I mean, damn--we save their asses from the Nazi holocaust and how do they repay us? They send us to jail for making backups of our own CDs. That and they keep tricking us into starting wars to make them feel safer from the consequences of their own Nazi-style genocide project.

France had major interests in Iraq. ELF, the state-owned French petro-chemical giant, and Total[1], had major interests in Iraq, see eg:
http://www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/html/ 19 97/msg01212.html or just google for "elf iraq". There are pictures of Jacques Chirac with Saddam from the 1970s. Of course, there are more recent pictures of Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam.

The Mujahideen (NB: there are a variety of english spellings for the arabic word, as with most arabic words.) btw does not equal the taliban. See the wikipedia entry for Mujahideen. It's a general word. In the afghani case, the taliban were but one faction of the collective resistance movement known as the mujahideen. After the war with the Russians, there was civil war between the Taliban and the other factions, the taliban gaining control of most, but not all, of Afghanistan.

As for motives. Let's be honest, every major power which takes an interest in the middle-east does so because of oil. Additionally, the US has a strong political affiliation with Israel, and has long been very involved in assuring Israeli security. The current administration in particular is quite interested in Israel. See Project for a New American Century (PNAC), there are papers there dating to before the present administration gained power making the case for taking out Iraq, reasoned by way of taking out a potential threat of WMD proliferation and stabilising the middle-east and gaining security for Israel. So taking out Iraq is something the the people behind the Bush administration have had as a goal since long before 20010911.

1. Elf, Total and the belgian PetroFina have all since merged together into TotalFinaElf. Total bought Petrofina at some point and then TotalFina merged with Elf in 2000.

I'm sure, almost POSITIVE that Echelon reads SMS messages in the US. They don't censor them, but I'm sure if you're up to something they notify authorities. How else will they achieve the New American Century?
I'm sure they have tons of backup plans. Including ... yes you know.

Sharks with freakin ... yes we know.

This is typical US imperialist oppression and hegemony. Ya know, bomb some country back into the stone age and then forbid them from using any technology deemed dangerous. SEE: The Project for the New American Century

No one has mentioned the PNAC in any of this. Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. Read their manifesto, it states in plain english that in order for a one world government (read the US) to happen the American people would have to be shocked into it, with someling like a 'new Pearl Harbor'. Look at some of the names of people belonging to this organization(terrorist group).

This is real.

Is this a penis boast ("I've got the biggest bridge!")

It's called grandeur and it's the psychological hideout where the French still pretend they're a nation that makes the its enemies tremble in a world where French is the world language. As a (former) neighbour of France, I can say this is the attitude that generally mostly pisses off the rest of Europe. Luckily most Frenchmen are alright persons, but the fact that chauvinism* comes from a certain Chauvin should indicate that the French culture has a long line of nutty patriotic crap to digest.

an environment issue ("No automobiles in this valley!")

Hardly... this bridge is among the ugliest I've ever seen, I think it's enough to trigger a heart attack in any environmentalist's chest. It reminds me of a bridge I had seen in Abruzzo, Italy, in a very similar situation; not as high I guess, but definitely equally ugly. In that case, the most likely reason was to start an expensive series of public works, so that a lot of money would have been sent from Rome, so that politicians could "shave off" their fat share. Wonder what was the drive in France.

* Chauvinism is the exhaltation of the Motherland beyond any reason. The project for a new American century is, for example, chauvinistic. It has nothing to do with discrimination of women, even though some hundred millions English speakers got it totally wrong.

Not theft, but more like a permanent military presence (for threat. coercion, rapid deployment, etc...)
This document is the PNAC blue print. A quote:

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.

'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has...

I would submit that we shold devote our tax resources to fix our house (education, health, socsec to name just 3) before we throw money at Halliburton to "fix" Iraq/Iran/China (oh, yes, China is mentioned as another future "project".)

What is truely sad is that in the 60's we used to protest the Commies in the USSR for sending their citizenry to the gulag for disagreeing with the Kremlin. Today, I post anonimously from the US 'cos I don't fancy a oneway ticket to Guantanimo. {/tinfoilhat}

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

One can enumerate the reasons for Iraq's invasion as follows:

• Establishing a precedence for preepmtive war. Now America has bybassed the UN, and global opposition to this unilateral action. If the will to build an empire arises, then it will be done without any regard to what the rest of the world think or say. You can read the following articles too:

  • The True Rationale? It's a Decade Old by James Mann, March 7, 2004

  • PBS had a good program before Iraq was invaded called the War Behind Closed Doors. You can watch the entire program in 30-60 minutes intervals:

  • Specially interesting is this page in the Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles where you can see who signed this document. Interesting to note that all of them are either now in the Pentagon (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, ...etc.), or are aids to Cheney (Libby, Abrams, ...etc.)

  • An overview of who is who in the neocons circle of power.

• Securing cheap oil. That is obvious. Bush's family history in oil makes that an easy one to figure.

• Complete Dad's job. The personal desire of G.W. Bush to continue where his father has left, to finish the job, and do better.

• The Israel Factor. Read the Israel connection, and how Zionism influences US foreign policy. If you take a look at the players in the PNAC above, and you will find them all staunch Zionists, whether Jews or Christians.

• Construction Contracts. The Infrastructure contracts for US corporations to rebuild Iraq is a lucrative business. Of course the Halliburton link has been reported several times (Cheney used to be its manager or director). The defence spending, plus the contracts should fuel the US economy for a while, or that is what they thought would happen.

The planning to invade Iraq was done before September 11, 2001 attacks, as ex-secretary Paul O'Neill has revealed

As many would notice, Bush is not running the show. Bush is the ideal front for such an operation. He thinks he is doing the right thing, and that God has to do something with it. You can see this PBS program The Jesus Factor.

There are two factions grappling for Bush's attention. The moderate pragmatics (Powell, Armitage), and the extremist ideologue (Cheney, his subordinates, Rumsfeld, his subordinates). Powell's position is almost identical to Shimon Peres when he was the Foreign Minister in the Sharon government, a rational pragmatic dove amid the ideologue extremist hawks.

What is funny and sad at the same time, is that the US Foreign policy is now crafted by the Pentagon and the Vice President in accordance with neocon think tanks like the PNAC. No role whatsover is given to the Department of State (where it should really belong), and Powell is merely a messenger (go tell the UN we are doing so and so, try to sell it diplomatically, ...etc.). No wonder Powell has said that he will not seek a second term even if Bush gets reelected (and repeated it a few weeks ago). Not nice thing being in his shoes I guess.

I would not go as far as to say that they intentionally planned and executed the September 11 thing. But the neocons sure did exp

" We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power."

From the PNAC document 'Rebuilding Americas Defenses' dated September 2000 :

" 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."

The document also :

• Refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
• Describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
• Reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
• Says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';
• Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

For those that are interested (and that should be every free-thinking person) I've collected a lot more associated evidence which I published in an article on my website.

" We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power."

From the PNAC document 'Rebuilding Americas Defenses' dated September 2000 :

" 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."

The document also :

• Refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
• Describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
• Reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
• Says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';
• Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

For those that are interested (and that should be every free-thinking person) I've collected a lot more associated evidence which I published in an article on my website.

" We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power."

From the PNAC document 'Rebuilding Americas Defenses' dated September 2000 :

" 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."

The document also :

• Refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
• Describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
• Reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
• Says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';
• Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

For those that are interested (and that should be every free-thinking person) I've collected a lot more associated evidence which I published in an article on my website.

First paragraph on page 63:

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. Domestic politics and industrual policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current misstions.

from wikipedia.org:

"Critics, mostly from the far-left and the far-right, frequently quote out of context a line from Rebuilding America's Defenses which refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" (p. 51), citing this as being suspiciously prescient of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and suggesting that the PNAC or its associates wanted, knew about, or even were involved in the attacks. This quote is considered by some to be part of the evidence of a plot to use the attacks as a pretext for the implementation of their policies. Many even incorrectly claim that the report directly states that this "new Pearl Harbor" is needed to justify war on Iraq. However, a full reading of the text shows it says nothing of the sort. The line is in the middle of a discussion about the military's employment of emerging information technologies, and the report guesses that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process, absent some "catalyzing" event which would presumably cause the military to upgrade much more quickly."

They also said they needed a "pearl harbor" like event in advance to justify the invasion

Please oh please somone MOD ZOGGER'S COMMENT UP!!! I can't believe how many people are unaware of PNACs goals, let alone their call for the "Pearl Harbor" like attack on American soil, which IIRC was written in their first public document. I've shown their site to I don't know how many people, most of which dismiss it as a hoax (even the true Bush-haters). Believe me, IT IS NOT A HOAX. They very clearly spelled out their plans in 1997 (even earlier if you look into Wolfowitz's documents from the first Bush administration). All they needed was a puppet whose ass they could all shove their hands up, and boom - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Seriously, please look into it, read it, digest it, and think about it when it comes time to vote again...

On the contrary, the Project for A New American Century group, a coupla dozen high ranking neocons, CLEARLY outlined what they were going to do once they got in power. It's all on their publically available website. Some of it is in PDF downloads, but it's there. They planned to invade basically the oil producing nations of the middle east, and some others. They got in power, in charge,and wow, they invaded. They also said they needed a "pearl harbor" like event in advance to justify the invasion, and get the US people all enthused around it, and golly gee mother of all coincidences, that event occurred..

I mean, it's real, it's there, you can see the names, the documents, it's written clearly, and the mass controlled media won't hardly ever mention it. I've seen very brief mentions at the best. I have yet to meet anyone in meatspace who has ever heard of them or their documents though. Wonder why that is? And I know it's been posted on slashdot several times, by various people, as well as on literally thousands of other forums and blogs. Radio talk show hosts all over have been clued in, but only a small handful even bother to acknowledge it, let alone come to the obvious conclusions looking at it. Journalists by the thousands have been clued in, yet there's a severe lack of coverage by most of the big names out there.

No I don't blame democrats, or republicans, I blame the US people in general for being so unbelievably stupid and naieve and un-caring for this disaster. We are a nation of sports and entertainment addicts more than anything else. No one gives a crap. They are taught from the time they are toddlers to NOT give a crap. They are taught to parrot one of two party lines that are always essentially complete lies, and to be happy with that, and to never go further than to keep corralled into one of those two parties and to swallow down the 6 o clock news pablum. So they do it, brainwashing since being able to understand human speech is quite effective apparently. They simply refuse to learn from history,and they refuse to acknowledge reality, and that's why we generation after generation keep getting hosed. You are force fed you are either a liberal-democrat, or a conservative-republican and that is SUCH A LOAD OF CRAP. I am so amazed people keep falling into that trap.

oh well...

Since +/- 1999, there is a new and very important difference between the Republicans and the Democrats: global imperialism. (Probably) never before has a swing to either side (Rs or Ds) had such potentially profound implications for the future of not only the US, but the planet as a whole. Every American really should at least have an opinion on the imperialism issue when they go to the polls this year - either decide if you're for it, or against it.

For once, it really does matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats take power.

Our politicians still don't think we have a terrorist problem. Our politicians think the Americans are the cause of all their terrorist problems. Our politicians think that if the Americans would just be nice to everyone all the time, everything would be just fine.

We actually dont have a terrorist problem. There is *no* "Terrorist Problem". The Forces of Emmanual Goldstein are *NOT* out to get you.

Turn off your TV pal. Canadaians (and USofAians really) shouldnt be afraid of fascist criminals. Here in reality, people have more to fear from their daily commutes or dying from a fall in the bathtub. While flaming airplanes make good propaganda, I am more concerned by the menace that is my toilet.

While the Terrorists make a very good Enemy in order to stir up fear, they arent actually a concern for every-day Westerners. You, I and the rest of the /. crowd would do well to get some perspective about this "threat" and what a correct response is -- and is not.

What is NOT the correct response is invading foreign nations in reaction for what is really a criminal matter. What is NOT the correct response is for chicken-shit paranoids like yourself to buy the Fox News Rhetoric hook, line and sinker. What is NOT a correct response is to give these simple criminals credibility and prestige amoungst would-be suicide-bombers by making them Enemy #1 and declaring War on Terror(!) Spare me. Exacly the tactic you do NOT want if you are really trying to protect yourself from them... unless, of course, you are interested in the APPEARANCE of threat... hmmmm..?)

The Americans should be reasonablly concerned that 100years of exporting misery and death has a few advocates of said fitlh coming home to roost. Does CANADA (remember, we are NOT the USA -- even the barbarian hordes read a little you know...) have anything to be concerned about? Id say no, there is little chance of anything of real concern happening here. Could it? Sure. Am i going to seek out the first Federal Government who promises me a little temporary Security in Exchange for a little liberty? I fucking think not.

Keep your paranoia worry about Emmanual Goldstein to yourself -- your only encouraging the Real Fascists .

It's all here : Rebuilding American's Defenses.

I'd like to see regime change in the US.

BUSH KNEW.

Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen, and, aided by his israeli buddies used it as a pretext for carrying out his plans for world domination, which they've conveniently placed here - hidden under plain view.

And please use the proper terminology. This isn't a part of the conservative playbook. Its part of the playbook of the neo-conservatives or, if you actually look at their policies and match it up to traditional political parties, the fascists.

No, the neo-conservative movement is about foreign policy. It's about things like PNAC (spoof) and the David Brooks humor column. Some of these people also support the Cheney-style "starve the beast" strategy, but that's a strategy that belongs to traditional small-government, cheap-labor conservatives. The neocons are the ones obsessed with "Middle East reform" and the like--reshaping governments, but chiefly foreign ones.

Bush's capabilities mean that he can only be blamed for his own bog not being flushed down the toilet. Anyone who tries to blame him for the rest of the mess he's associated with have no idea who is running the show.

The Project For A New American Century are the ones running the show, and have such terrorists as Paul Wolfowitz deciding war policy and lame excuses for said war.

But that's not to say that people should vote Bush in again. At the least, he is an evil yet stupid man. He knew all along that there were no WMD, and instead of chasing down the 'nasty terrorists' that were responsible for 9/11 when he knew about them up to a year before the event he instead followed his oil buddy's wishes and invaded Iraq.

And the opposition isn't exactly opposing anything. Instead of being criticial of the war crimes that have been committed, they are arguing over the fine print of the occupation! Swinging voters and those who haven't made up their mind: the only solution is to vote WAY left of the centre: greens or socialist. Everything else will continue the US on the warpath. And we all know how much you hate ( US-foreign-policy-inspired ) terrorism. Look at the types of people at anti-war demonstrations. These are the people arguing for fundamental human rights for all; not the typical pro-corporate, pro-globalisation politicians that you can't distinguish from each other because they're falling over themselves to dish out more tax cuts for the rich.

Some more info on Bush's ideals and vision for 'world leadership': http://www.newamericancentury.org/.

I'm well aware that the EU has plans of a GPS type system, however it does seem a bit unfair that the United States foots the bill for virtually the entire world's navigation system.

The Romans also understood this: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/us_rome.htm: 'The Empire lasted as long as it did because the Romans weren't idiots. When the governor of Egypt sent Tiberius more taxes than he was supposed to, Tiberius reminded him: "I want my sheep shorn, not shaven."'

Reading up on Bush's plans/vision, it would seem they understand this too (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).

... doesn't this basically lead directly to the US military dropping off Robo-Tanks in foreign countries as they please? We know that a steady diet of wars figure heavily in the plan for the forseeable future. The Robo-Tank cuts down on friendly casualties, thus making conflicts more palatable to the public.

Now I find this as cool as anyone else, from a technological standpoint. And it definitely has civilian applicability. But let's face it, this contest isn't about finding cheaper ways to haul cargo or reach remote locations.

Blah!

That's like saying "Have a read of this page if you will be voting in the upcoming US election."

As a counter to your suggestion, may I suggest to everyone who reads gnu.org material that they compare the writing style and tricks of gnu.org with your favorite religous scripture? GNU.org is *highly* manipulative.

Because we apparently are entering into the New Roman Times. Surely any other font would fail to capture the feel of the new empire in the same way. For more information about the new empire, please see New American Century, which uses Times New Roman extensively.

Uh... care to explain how?

It's all part of the plan...

None of the electronic voting systems that have been approved for use by the federal government are secure. Doesn't that tell you anything? Can't you take the hint?

Government doesn't want security, reliability, or verifiability from voting machines. It wants the ability to control the results. Everyone involved wants to control the results, because it's the only way to guarantee that everyone involved gets to keep their job!

A voting machine that the government can (whether directly or indirectly) control is one that will remove from the people what little power they have left over the government. To the government, this is a good thing -- it desires power above all else. Most people in power do. And there's no form of government with more power over the people than fascism.

Make no mistake, a fascist form of government is what the current government wants. With controllable voting machines, the government can achieve this while simultaneously making itself appear to be subject to the will of the people. In fact, I doubt there's really any other good way to achieve that.

(also: google "PNAC pearl harbor")

Or just read the paper in question (first column, Acrobat page 63, page number 51: "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.").

This kind of argument - that technology of war is being developed for our own good and protection - is always given by right-wing apoligists when they don't have anything else to fall back on.

The simple fact is that most of the world's people are quite content withouth space being militarized, and the only people who long for weapons can be divided into 2 categories:

1) The agressors, and
2) Those who feel a need to defend themselves from (1)

As recent world history has shown us, despite all the scare-mongering over 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', the real agressors come from the country that makes and sells more weapons of mass destruction than all the rest of the countries combined. And for those interested in the competitors, Israel and the UK come a distant 2nd and 3rd.

I'm not implying by this that Americans are inherintly evil or backward ( as they imply of their enemies ). The US is simply the pinnacle of the world's capitalist empire, and as such, is the most glarying obvious example of what capitalism is really about: profit at any cost.

And that's why the US targets societies with different value systems to it's own for conquering and assimilation: as examples of alternatives to capitalism, they are the biggest threat to the US goal of total global military domination. Don't think that's what the plan is? Check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf, which was prepared by such war criminals as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz. While you're at it, check out the web site it comes from: http://newamericancentury.org. It will shock you into becoming a socialist!