Slashdot Mirror

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!

That bunch over at PNAC are a fine collection of Mad Hatters. Founding members include: William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, I. Lewis Libby, and Norman Podhoretz.

Everybody should read this paper (Warning: It's a large PDF -- 90 pages).

You don't want to read it? Ask yourself, "why not"? Because it's frightening that's why. terrifying in fact. But force yourself to read it anyway.

American citizens truly need to understand that it is these people who are now running the country.

Try and find a mention of renewable energy or solar power in any of their documents. These folks need to take a refresher course in highschool physics. One square meter (square yard+) of sunshine equals 1 kilowatt. Enough solar energy falls on Earth in less than three hours to power all of humanities needs for a year.

For that matter try and find a reference or footnote in any of their documents. Any one of these "papers" would receive a failing grade in an undergraduate course.

There is no energy crisis. Remember the first law of thermodynamics: energy is neither created or no destroyed. Say it again: energy is neither created or destroyed.

Oil is big deal because it can be controlled. A million solar roofs cannot be controlled, hence why Al Gore is now balding and looks like shit.

Oil is just pretext for war.

Oil is just pretext for world domination.

Oil is the pretext for the New American Empire.

There is no energy crisis. There never will be an energy crisis. Just a crisis of power, money and sense.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
--Einstein

I agree with BlackParrot but I think it's deeper than just the Canopy Group. I think it's an all out war between the current Bush Administration and control of the Internet and OSS.

Time to try and dig up a link between the principals at Canopy Group and the thugs over at PNAC

For what it's worth, here's my standard rant. The conjecture is pure conjecture, the facts are _facts_.

Cheers!

Americans are no longer living in a Democratic Republic. They're now living in a oligarchy controlled by super-right wing neoconservatives and big oil, and fueled by scaring the living daylights out of the populace. The constitution has all but been thrown out.

In yesterday's SCO discussion I speculated that, to my mind anyhow, it's more likely that Darl and friends are being funded and directed by Cheney and friends rather than Microsoft.

Have you noticed some of the phrasing of SCO's letters? "the GPL is unconstitutional" (they use the constitution when it fits their needs), "have you shipped to Syria, Iran, North Korea" (read: any axis-of-evil countries)?

Within the next couple of months expect them to start making noises about Linux and OSS being a security threat. I certainly have noticed an undercurrent, a sub-text if you will, of this administration to gain more effective control of the Internet and OSS. What was up with the clandestine use of RFID tags at the Internet Summit?

Ask yourself, who is pulling Darl McBride's strings? Is it Bill? Is it Scott? Or is it, just maybe, Cheney? Kellogg, Brown & Root have been up to far more nefarious activities than this. It's a cakewalk for them.

I'll tell you a little secret. Oil is, and always has been the _top_ national security concern of the United States of America.

This little spaceship Earth of ours is rapidly heading for a major crisis. The United States consumes 20 billion barrels of oil a year. The world consumes 76 billion barrels (2001 numbers).
In 2001 only 8 billion barrels of new oil was discovered, and that was spread out over 300 relatively small and economicaly challenging fields.

Did you catch that? We burned 80 billion barrels of oil this year but discovered less than 10 billion. This has been going on for many years now. A few years ago the rule of thumb was we burned 4 barrels for every barrel discovered. Now it's 8:1. And China and India or only just getting started.

It's January 7th, and you're putting 4 logs a day on the fire, you look out the window and you see only 120 pieces of wood left in your wood pile. Oh well! We'll figure something out before March!

At any rate, the point is, Bush and all is oil patch buddies are painfully aware of this little dilemma and they know just what to do about it. Secure the oil, and batten down the hatches on the populace.

Go to the CIA World Factbook and look up the country you live in, say Norway for example, scroll down to the "Economy" section and check out the "oil produced" and "oil consumed" figures. Interesting, eh? Norway is one of the few exceptions, a country that actually produces more oil than it consumes. In fact, Norway is the _only_ country that produces more than 10 times the amount of oil than it consumes. Anyway, that's not the point. Now click on the little graph icon next to "oil produced". Examine the top 20 oil producing countries. Ask yourself, which of these countries does the US control through one of these means: trade agreement, corruption, bullying, family ties :) ?

Which ones does the US not yet fully control? Now you know who's next on the hit list.

Do you think things are bad now? You ain't seen nothin' yet. How are you going to live when a barrel of oil costs $60? When a gallon of gas costs 4 bucks? 5 bucks? How about propane to heat your house at $3/gal? $4/gal? When the price of food doubles

To give up our principles is to give in to the terrorists. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Blunkett are the most serious menace facing western democracy at the moment. I don't know the mind of Bin Laden and his evil helpers, but it is entirely possible that the World Trade Center would not have been attacked if signatories to the project for the new american century were not in control of the world's most powerful military and commercial machine.

"that's just it...there IS no other side of the story as far as The Media is concerned. If there was, they would report it."

I'm really sorry you've been so let down by your society, but I have some news for you, and it's not all good.

The media are beholdent to their advertisers. Ignore what the money men say and you go broke. No matter how many ethics a media outlet has, they're still there soley to make money and biting the hand that feeds just doesn't work

Do you suppose the media would have kicked up a fuss at any time in the past thirty years if they found out that Bush's grandfather was Hitler's banker? They havn't mentioned it.

How about if the current administration, before they were "elected" in 2000, published their plan to militarise the new century to make sure US financial interests were protected. They spoke of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as problems because they wanted to dominate in their own regions. They also said that the change they were after would be a slow one unless some kind of "Perl Harbour" event galvanised everyone.

I also noticed how no one in the media was able to connect the events immediately post 9-11 with the spookily similar Operation Northwoods plan that was rejected by Kennedy.

Once again - my condolences.

What will be the 21st century's analogue of the atom bomb?

A genetically engineered virus, designed to kill anybody with a specific genotype. Say, everybody with red hair, or all midgets, or oh, I don't know, everybody who is Chinese, Irish, German, Arab, whatever you want. Or maybe just one specific person, or maybe his extended family, too. Sounds pretty bad, no? Who would dream of such a thing? Here is a quote from a group, who outlined JUST such a bioligical super weapon. .

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

Perhaps you should look at what Howard Dean has really said and done rather that what the left-wing thinks he's said and done. He's had very good ratings from the NRA, and he's certainly a fiscal conservative, in the traditional sense (i.e., deficits are bad).

And he has said he supported the 1991 Gulf War, just not the Iraq War. His reason to not support the Iraq was its unilateralism.

Just think about how GWB and his PNAC puppeteers have treated the military and veterans these past years (e.g. concealing VA medical benefits, reducing payments for disabilities) vs. what they are asking the military to do.

Do you want this to continue?

Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems - combatants and noncombatants - will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. 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.

This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be profound.[emphasis added]

What if a crazy biologists decides to take loads of folks out

If you read the PNAC group's papers, they REALLY want viruses that can target specific groups. They believe they could be a useful political tool. They want this to kill certain ethnic groups within the US. And also, if the weapons can be tuned fine enough, they want to be able to kill a certain person's family, but nobody else. In small towns who have had little immagration, most of the population will have some genes in common. They want to be able to wipe the town off the map if need be.

I wish I was making this up, but I'm not.
"... advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." - Rebuilding Americas Defenses, PNAC white paper
You can confirm this by reading it online from their website. And who wrote this whitepaper? Wolfowitz and Libby, amongst others. (Assistants to Rumsfeld and Powel)
And who is a member of PNAC, besides them?
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Dan Quayle
Jeb Bush
Steve Forbes
Vin Weber

Those are just the ones I found interesting, they have a complete list on their website. The people running the US think that bio-weapons designed to kill everybody with blue eyes, or brown skin, or curly hair, are "politically useful tools." Remember that. They also have said other interesting things...

Yeah, someone run over to google and ask them to burn a copy to a CD... :-) I did that with this site some time ago. I'm quite sure someone is going to pretend that site never existed. I'll remind them...

>> the US wants to keep space peaceful

Keeping space peaceful may be one general's dream, but further militarisation of space is certainly in the plans of others. Creation of "US Space Forces" to ensure American hegemony is one recommendation of the Project for the New American Century (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, et al.) in their pre-Bush (Sept 2000) document Rebuilding America's Defenses.

It's a long document, but a must-read if you want to understand their mid-90's planning for Gulf War II and their plans for the future of US foreign policy.

>> the US wants to keep space peaceful

Keeping space peaceful may be one general's dream, but further militarisation of space is certainly in the plans of others. Creation of "US Space Forces" to ensure American hegemony is one recommendation of the Project for the New American Century (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, et al.) in their pre-Bush (Sept 2000) document Rebuilding America's Defenses.

It's a long document, but a must-read if you want to understand their mid-90's planning for Gulf War II and their plans for the future of US foreign policy.

This is no different from American supremacist views. Everyone always has to think they're just so fucking special and that therefore they should be in charge.

That being said, congrats to the Chinese. I've always said I'd like to sleep by the light of a Communist moon. That way maybe I'll get to see us get to Mars in my lifetime.

Now this report, penned for Cheeney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. in 2000 reads like a modern day Mein Kamph.

Look for the bits where they talk about deploying biological weapons to attack certain genetic types, the part where they claim North Korea, Iran & Iraq are seeking to dominate their own regions - against the US's interests - and the part where they say that ramping up their ability to attack anyone at will will be a slow process, short of some sort of Pearl Harbor type event.

They have their own rapidly growing technology sector, including china developed chips and Red Flag linux and they are building their own space agency. Investmenting in technology is crucial to challenging the US lead economically, politically and militarily.

They have little or no foreign debt and growing economic power...

This rather than being the New American Century is likely to be Chinese!

Hmm.

Bush jr.
Rumsfeld
Cheney
Ashcroft

And the rest of the administration involved with or supported by the Project for a New American Century.

Yeah, that's a good list to start with.

Their leadership has in the past stated that Saudi Arabia is far too volatile to be a major oil source for America and we should look for or "install" alternative leadership in the area (cite: the policy paper Rebuilding America's Defenses [PDF]). Who fits that bill? Hmm, a despot who we can tie via vauge rumors to Sept. 11, who is hated by a good deal of the world and is militarialy fairly weak? Saddam, your number's up!

Of course, Sept. 11 itself was something of a wet dream for these boys: check out page 51 (page 63 of the PDF), which states that the transformation of America from its current state into a superpower willing to smash anyone in the way of her mighty Corporations will be gradual, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." A reason for massive military spending? Check! A way to tie massive military buildups to patriotism? Check! A way to declare liberals dirty traitorous bastards! Check and mate!

Their leadership has in the past stated that Saudi Arabia is far too volatile to be a major oil source for America and we should look for or "install" alternative leadership in the area (cite: the policy paper Rebuilding America's Defenses [PDF]). Who fits that bill? Hmm, a despot who we can tie via vauge rumors to Sept. 11, who is hated by a good deal of the world and is militarialy fairly weak? Saddam, your number's up!

Of course, Sept. 11 itself was something of a wet dream for these boys: check out page 51 (page 63 of the PDF), which states that the transformation of America from its current state into a superpower willing to smash anyone in the way of her mighty Corporations will be gradual, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." A reason for massive military spending? Check! A way to tie massive military buildups to patriotism? Check! A way to declare liberals dirty traitorous bastards! Check and mate!

If you don't know what that is or what its aims are then you don't know squat about the current cabinet. It's also not a secret; in this 1998 document signed by, for example, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, you can see the whole sorry plan for the current mess in Iraq: the ludicrous overstatement of Saddam's threat, the insistance that the UN need not be heeded if it gives the wrong answer, and the ever-present concern about oil. Total bullshit from start to end but it's bullshit written by the people now running your country.

Cheney is just a stooge, he has no ability or area of intrest beyond geting contracts for the people that put him in place.

Rumsfeld is slightly different in that he really is just an evil bastard. After shaking hands with Saddam he then helped arm him with various biological and chemical weapons. There is a copy of Saddam's shopping list at the end of this Congressional transcript but the original Senate Banking Committee report used to be available on line, but seems to have become buried beneath Google results to references to it. Rumsfeld lied in the above transcript when he said he had no knowledge of all this. In fact, he arranged the loans from the US to Iraq to pay for the bioweapons (which is where the Senate Banking Committee comes into it). The reason this was done was to help Saddam kill Iranian soldiers in the Iraq-Iran war, it was not even pretended that this would be a deterent: this was for actual use in the current conflict. The CIA later sent over specialists in biological warfare to help "calibrate" the weapons.

This is the real reason they were so sure Saddam had WMD: Rumsfeld had seen the receipts. The assumtion was that he would never have got rid of them, whereas the reality was that he had, probably because he knew the inspectors would one day have to be let back in and he thought that the US would have to listen to those UN inspectors even if it didn't believe what it was hearing. He was wrong!

Before you vote next time, perhaps you should find out about the people involved. Its not that hard if you are actually interested in looking.

TWW

Has anyone ever considered that the Patriot Act(s) might just be a defense mechanism for PNAC (Project for a New American Century)? The PNAC needed some large reason to forge the plan for Pax Americana - global leadership by the USA. The warning flags for the 9/11/01 attacks were ignored/squelched and with the attacks Bush had a reason for PNAC planning to be brought to fruition.

Now the Patriot Act(s) were developed for three purposes - Placate the press and public by showing the administration is 'getting tough on terrorists', FUD for the populace and crushing dissent/sedition. Seen any massive riots lately? Maybe it is apathy, maybe it is not wanted to be labeled a seditious terrorist. Want proof that the administration doesn't care about international terrorists getting into the US? How about Bush putting a one-year delay on the new 'secure' passport, how about the fact that anything can still enter the country covertly (drug prices gone up lately; must be the supply/distribution is safe). Bush is more worried about homegrown dissent than any international terrorist. Hell, with these closed-system voting machines he won't have any trouble winning a re-election and after that Jeb will be ready for eight years.

Welcome to the new American Century. Please check rights, freedoms, education, employment, pay, pension, food, water, air and life-as-you-knew-it at the door...

Here are some links you might want to follow...
PNAC article
PNAC homepage

you've already got one, m'lad. they're called the project for a new american century - the think tank that came up with the whole notion of making u.s. foreign and domestic policy more "pc" (patriotically correct). it's all on record here:

official pnac site:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

analysis site 1:
http://www.pnac.info/

analysis site 2:
http://pnacrevealed.com/

read 'em and vote.

Good God, please don't tell me you're serious.

Please don't tell me you don't know that amongst their senior membership are Cheney, Wolfowitz, Dick Perle, Jeb Bush. Umm, I know that and I'm not even an American.

Take a look at their website if you don't believe me: It's here

#1 is just a rewrite of something signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and those other guys. The Project for a New American Century isn't some kind of secret. It's the platform Bush's foreign policy and military policies are based on. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld wrote letters to both Clinton and Newt Gengrich in '98 demanding that they invade Iraq. So, once they're both in charge of the army, they do it. It's not paranoia, it's just what they did.

The part most people would dismiss as paranoid would be Rebuilding America's Defenses (also available in ridiculously huge pdf from their site) where Wolfie and Rummy outline their plans for taking advantage of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor", missile defense, increasing independence from the international community, a more mobile, flexible army, robot exoskeletons, tactics for use of robot exoskeletons culled from that 08th MS Team anime, ultrasonic guns designed to induce the brain to release chemicals to produce intense panic, rage, or anything else, drugs that would allow soldiers to deaden their consiences, and chemical and biological weapons tied to certain gene types that would allow them to carry out undetectable assasinations by spraying around genetically engineered ebola viruses.

#1 is just a rewrite of something signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and those other guys. The Project for a New American Century isn't some kind of secret. It's the platform Bush's foreign policy and military policies are based on. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld wrote letters to both Clinton and Newt Gengrich in '98 demanding that they invade Iraq. So, once they're both in charge of the army, they do it. It's not paranoia, it's just what they did.

The part most people would dismiss as paranoid would be Rebuilding America's Defenses (also available in ridiculously huge pdf from their site) where Wolfie and Rummy outline their plans for taking advantage of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor", missile defense, increasing independence from the international community, a more mobile, flexible army, robot exoskeletons, tactics for use of robot exoskeletons culled from that 08th MS Team anime, ultrasonic guns designed to induce the brain to release chemicals to produce intense panic, rage, or anything else, drugs that would allow soldiers to deaden their consiences, and chemical and biological weapons tied to certain gene types that would allow them to carry out undetectable assasinations by spraying around genetically engineered ebola viruses.

So far you've dropped the charge that it's exclusively liberal propaganda that's the story here, which is what I was answering. Moving on:

So you have a few articles from some nutball conservatives who wants America to take over the world.

Not quite there yet, but you seem to have read a little bit of it this time, so I'll give you another bite: We have a few articles from some "nutball conservatives" -- your words -- who want America to take over the world who are presently in positions within Bush's cabinet where they weild enormous influence, and who urged Bush's current Iraq policies on Clinton back in 1998.

Ever hear of Paul Wolfowitz, and Don Rumsfeld's, and Dick Cheney's, roles as founding members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)? PNAC is what Pat Buchanan is writing about, here -- they've enunciated the 'strategic vision' Buchanan's quoting from at length, and did so back in the late 90s in various papers on the subject.

Why does this register as a story that should be covered more? Because they laid out their plan for attacking Iraq well before Sept 11th, 2001 -- placing it squarely within the context of their "creative destabilization" ideas about the middle east. They urged Clinton to go to war against Iraq and remove Saddam because he was a "hazard" to "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil". They also called for America to go to war alone, attacked the United Nations and said the US should not be "crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council". In 1998.

Here's the letter on the PNAC's Web site.

Other members of PNAC: Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs. The letter was also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative.

Well, as others have said, it's not about censorship, but about underreported stories. And when you see how the US press does it's "reporting" these days, it's no wonder why they are underreported. But don't take my word for it, Greg Palast is an american reporter (living in the UK), and he wrote the following in a recent book:

"I freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, brother of the republican presidential candidate, had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls - real felons who had served time but obtained clemency, with the legal right to vote under Florida law. [...] The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up." And how do you think the multibillion-dollar CBS network determined this? Answer: "We called Jeb Bush's office." Oh."

What it boils down to is that reporters generally don't bother to actually investigate and report anything anymore, they mostly just cut and paste from official press releases (there are exceptions, thank god, such as BBC news).

Anyways, what bothers me is that it is true - the neoconservatives want world domination. And they're not even trying to hide it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many other friends of Bush are part of a neo-conservative think-tank called the Project for a New American Century. To quote from the PNACs official website: "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

There is an excellent, well-researched article on GNN by a former british member of parliament, Michael Meacher, on how Afghanistan and Iraq both are part of an PNAC plan on establishing a US presence in the middle-east to secure future oil-supplies. This plan was first described in a document, called Rebuilding America's Defences, which was published by PNAC in september 2000.

I want you to just please read the article (it won't take more than 10 minutes of your time), and then tell me something's not going on here...

Well, as others have said, it's not about censorship, but about underreported stories. And when you see how the US press does it's "reporting" these days, it's no wonder why they are underreported. But don't take my word for it, Greg Palast is an american reporter (living in the UK), and he wrote the following in a recent book:

"I freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, brother of the republican presidential candidate, had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls - real felons who had served time but obtained clemency, with the legal right to vote under Florida law. [...] The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up." And how do you think the multibillion-dollar CBS network determined this? Answer: "We called Jeb Bush's office." Oh."

What it boils down to is that reporters generally don't bother to actually investigate and report anything anymore, they mostly just cut and paste from official press releases (there are exceptions, thank god, such as BBC news).

Anyways, what bothers me is that it is true - the neoconservatives want world domination. And they're not even trying to hide it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many other friends of Bush are part of a neo-conservative think-tank called the Project for a New American Century. To quote from the PNACs official website: "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

There is an excellent, well-researched article on GNN by a former british member of parliament, Michael Meacher, on how Afghanistan and Iraq both are part of an PNAC plan on establishing a US presence in the middle-east to secure future oil-supplies. This plan was first described in a document, called Rebuilding America's Defences, which was published by PNAC in september 2000.

I want you to just please read the article (it won't take more than 10 minutes of your time), and then tell me something's not going on here...

I've got a couple of links for you... Perhaps not excactly what you want, but they should help clear up some misunderstandings.

Please read these, and then tell me that iraq, or even afghanistan, had anything to do with 9/11 and the war on terror at all (except being used as a smoke-screen).

Check out: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf

This has been quite disturbing to everyone I've talked to about it... My wife flat out refuses to talk to be about it because it makes so much sense and is so upsetting... This has gotten a lot of press lately. Check out:

911 and the Bush Administration
The Guardian

Those with Weblogs should contribute to the weblog project mentioned on Metafilter about this:
WHO were you?

Unfortunately, it just makes more sense that we provoked these arabic countries to either let us build a pipeline to feed China with Oil, or we would do it by force. "A carpet of Gold, or a carpet of Bombs..."

Take a look at Project for the New American Century. Read some of the reports, especially the ones while Clinton was still in charge. Signed by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. The real foreign relations policy of the US is there.

As to why, the truth - and I say this is as an American - is because we're fat (statistically speaking we are becoming grossly obese), greedy (statistically the hardest workers the world while in a nation with one of the highest incomes - yes I know about Luxembourg) swine (check out our popular media sometime) so drunk on our own stupid swill (see that popular media again, or how about Britney's absolutely perfect perfect quote below her picture) that we no longer care (elections typically drawing in 30-40% of voters).

It isn't as if any other humans would do any better though, so foreigners shouldn't think themselves superior - we're all born with pleasure centers, and predictable outcomes to them, and this results in addictions, etc. It isn't our fault as Americans because humans are penultimately mere deterministic ongoing molecular processes, or parsed down to English - we're all just ongoing (complicated) chemical reactions. Chemical reactions don't have faults - they just execute like computer programs. Yes Mr. Smarty-pants in the front row, I just denied the existence of free will.

So 'how could we allow this to happen'? I'll describe the process, if you wish. The corporations, macro-human entities that exist only to acquire resource regardless of all other matters, catered to us in exchange for resource. They catered so well we stopped caring. Now that we've stopped caring the corporations have learned that they can modify the rules of the environment they exist in - that is, change the government in their favor - and they have so that the environment now allows them to gather yet MORE resource free of traditional limitations.

As for rights being stripped away (the Patriot Act - and yes, they actively are being stripped away, ask a certain former employee of Intel or webmaster of raisethefist.org) the framers of the Constitution, being good legal engineers, built a defense in depth to prevent the system from completely running out of control. Over a long enough timeline, the probability of just about anything approaches one, including multiple simultaneous failures. 9/11 was but one breach. Another was an attorney general (who lost his senatorial race to a corpse, technically) with little understanding (or at least concern if he did understand) of the Constitution. Another element was a conservative administration headed by the members of the thinktank Project for a New American Century, who back in the Clinton administration openly advocated the US taking down Iraq to use as a base from which to topple many various Middle Eastern nations in succession like so many dominos. That there would be collusion between their oil-centric corporate interests here, as well, is simply gravy on top for them. You might have heard of some of the members of PNAC - they include Dick Cheney our Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld our Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz his righthand man, formerly Richard Perle, his much nastier lefthand man, Steve Forbes, Jeb Bush - the list goes on. I encourage you to at least read that last link so as to ascertain that I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist of any kind.

There's your why and how. Shouldn't this be changed? Yes if you choose to believe in the sanctity of individuals, which as a strict Cartesian I do. Will it? I doubt it. I encourage you to vote for Howard Dean, as he's a step in the not-wrong direction regardless of your view of things like gun-control/abortion/gay marriage/healthcare.

Any other questions? It's 3AM here in the west coast of the US and I'd like to go to bed.

Interesting!

While I agree with the facts and the implications, I don't think that was the primary reason the US invaded Iraq. Or rather, the real reason was a broader one that includes that particular bit of action.

The people calling the shots--Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al., have been planning this since before Iraq announced its intention of switching to the Euro. The "Project for a New American Century" stated in 1997(!), that one of their goals was regime change as a means of extending the US sphere of influence. They intended the US to be the global benevolent dictator, and started by selecting George W. Bush as the Republican presidential candidate.

Think this is conspiracy? Check out the PNAC website to find out just how proud they are of their plans and execution so far. Also read this CBC article on the PNAC.

Oil? Currency trading? These are all part of what the current administration really wants: Complete military and economic control over the planet. Unfortunately, the only people in any position to stop them now are the American people.

Oh come on, this project has no saving graces. The Bush administration is full of nutcase ideologues, ever read the PNAC site?, and this just the high priests of the religion of the market trying to have mass.

It's absolutely necessary to know how to prefix everything with "Ãoeber". We couldn't just have supervillans prefixing any old word with Ãoeber - that just wouldn't do.

Also Germany has the leading group of supervillans when it comes to taking over the world.

Have a quick look over at:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

and as a follow up:

http://pnac.info

The US wants a "Pax Americana".... (hmmm, heard that one from the Romans and the Britons before).

I just wish the American people would look around and see that their government wants world domination. I'm Canadian and there is no way in hell I am living under a "Pax Americana" with Bushy calling the shots.

I like the fact that my country respects the poor and trys not to leave them for dead. I respect the fact that I get my health care for free. I respect the fact that my government is realistic about the war on drugs... if you can't win, make money at it. I would have thought the US, such a strong economic power, would have realized this first. I respect my government and I WILL NOT LIVE UNDER AMERICAN WORLD RULE!

America has a great deal of good to offer the world, but please, you are no the end-all and be-all of human civilization. That's what the Nazis thought and you are starting to sound the same.

Well that is a very subtle issue.

I agree with you that many theories completely over-do it: and they are then called conspiracy theory.

*However* you have to be careful not to underestimate the influence of governments perpetual lies, helped by sheepish (or interested!) media. A lie, if told often enough, becomes the accepted truth.

"Thinking for yourself" is difficult when all you know is doctrine--how do I know I am not just repeating something I have been taught?

Can you tell me why on earth Kissinger got a nobel *peace* prize? This may seem unrelated, but it is quite clear that in this case, there were a lot of lies, practically a system of thought. Come on the guy is light-eons away from peace.

Something in the work of the crazy team that is currently in the white house is very scary, in that they seem to want to create hysteria, and endoctrination; and they seem to act in a concerted manner, with a world-view of their own (the "new american century", does that ring a bell to you?)

So is what I had said conspiracy theory? No, it is trying to state the facts: governments like to make things acceptable to public opinion, and to do that they will lie about actions, and motives of actions; the current US government lies a lot, with a particular weird scary edge.

Now to SARS: the justifiably scary thing about SARS is that it is very contagious, and it is airborne. The death rate is between 10 and 20%, and medical personnel is suffering a lot from it. Now if you saw how densely populated SE Asia is, you'd realise this is scary for governments, they have to do somthing about it. Yes, there is also hysteria, and they take tough measures, which I believe partly fuel this hysteria. But it isn't the same.

'this post long enough?
Sorry for being boring.

Well said. I'm no fan of US foreign policy, but I would have said you were insane even a couple weeks ago. That was until I saw this site, New American Century. It's from the neo-conservatives currently running the country. (I mean really running it, I think Bush is somewhat of a figurehead.) That site is seriously disturbing. Have a look. They don't try and hide the fact that their intention is to dominate the world.

no... not anymore. it has become: "by the money for the money." but we need to protect our funds so maybe: "by the military for the military in the name of peace" would be more appropriate.

The simplest explanation is the best one - US was attacked, thousands were murdered and the US decided it had to eliminate its most aggressive of enemies - namely old mad Sadd himself.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Incidentally, according to this comspiracy-oriented web site, plans were under way to invade Ahghanistan well before 9/11 - in fact, even the Clinton administration was considering it seriously, and plans were so complete that when needed, they were just taken off the shelf (which is why the war was organized so quickly):

US PREPARING FOR A WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11...

instantly not been able to control prices domestically (since industry relies on oil, you move your dollar based on your desire to control your economy - this ability is undermined by this shift)

You currency INSTANTLY devalues because people no longer require US$ in order to buy oil from Iraq... sending the dollar lower on currency markets

your debt becomes more expensive to finance

etcetcetc

I personally believe that the "War" has more to do with maintaining American Dollar Hegemony in the Middle East Oil Market (OPEC). Sure, the Oil is good to get to market (drives down prices, allows USAutomakers to continue with the SUV idiocy keeping kyoto(etc) at bay..) but the thought of the collapse of the US dollar, caused by nations who dispise you (rightfully so frankly) is what Bush Co. are up to ..

This "US Dollar" Hegemony allows America to get ALOT of 'free ride benefits' (that I wont go into here) for your economy that OTHER big players are very aware of...The Euro is going to destroy that... watch for it.

So, knowing that, and knowing the self-serving greed America is renowned for, JUST how far do you think it is willing to go? A little war on Iraq is by NO MEANS the beginning. Do some searching on people's opinion of this website look at who wrote it, and what they are (not too subtly) saying... your right in saying Things Are Not As They Seem... but the marks and traits of what is happening; Nationalism, Totalitarianism, Militarism, Ismism :) cannot be defied - even a passing student of history sees what is Going Down... and only Americans can stop it...

Don't kid yourself, if September 11 2001 didn't happen, then the current government would have no collective trauma to exploit and introduce all these restrictions of freedom and a total violation of privacy. Only in Nazi, Communist countries do laws say, "well if you got nothing to hide then we can walse into your house uninvited".

Ever since September 11 2001, the hawks and zionists have been laughing in these joyous times. We've seen a complete restriction in our own freedoms, yet they preach to have brought freedom and liberation to Iraq although the place is in total anarchy. Who takes out the garbage, makes the trains run on time, runs the police, fire service, runs the hospitals? Currently nobody and it will be this way for a while.

In case you're wondering if Syria _is next, it is, and then it's the Palestinians and last of all the Osama Bin Laden. This should all have occured in time for the next election, sometime next year. This was expressed in a letter to the president on September 20 2001 by 25 hawks and zionists that have hijacked the whitehouse.


Letter to President Bush

Of course the saddest thing about this letter is that the people who are supposed to be protecting the american people and going after the perpetrators of September 11 seized it as an opportunity to fulfill their personal agendas. This is indeed a slap in the face to the victims and their families and to humanity.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. ...

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. ...

We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett,

Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky,

Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad,

William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman,

Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber,

Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick.

Watch enough FOX News and you'll believe anything. I don't think anyone supports Saddam except his henchmen. What antiwar folk are supporting, or rather not supporting, is Americans killing Iraqi citizens, and American aggressive imperialism which will, in all likelihood, result in more 9/11 like attacks on America. Our enlightened leaders feel this is an acceptable risk for cheaper oil, extending defense contracts and empire-building.

A few choice quotes from "REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (PDF)" published in Sept 2000 (9/11 happend) by the New American Century ***:

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.

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.

Or like a 9/11? Makes you wonder if maybe we knew and chose not to prevent it...

*** a group containing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and other luminaries of the Cheney, err, Bush administration

Watch enough FOX News and you'll believe anything. I don't think anyone supports Saddam except his henchmen. What antiwar folk are supporting, or rather not supporting, is Americans killing Iraqi citizens, and American aggressive imperialism which will, in all likelihood, result in more 9/11 like attacks on America. Our enlightened leaders feel this is an acceptable risk for cheaper oil, extending defense contracts and empire-building.

A few choice quotes from "REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (PDF)" published in Sept 2000 (9/11 happend) by the New American Century ***:

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.

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.

Or like a 9/11? Makes you wonder if maybe we knew and chose not to prevent it...

*** a group containing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and other luminaries of the Cheney, err, Bush administration

You're right their plan all along has been to DOMINATE the WORLD!

That's provably false.

Then, if the U.S. cares so much about human rights is it not attacking Saudi Arabia? Terrible human rights abuses go on every day, yet the U.S. is not only condoning it, it actively funds Saudi Arabia heavily, and uses it as an ally regularly.

Same goes for Pakistan, used as an ally in the Afghanistan conflict.

Where were they in Rwanda? Why didnt they go straight in?

Somalia has a huge hotbed of US hatred. It was basically an attack to put down the anti US sentiment. (Not sure how effective it was going to be to be honest)

In Serbia, democracy only came about due to UN involvement. Not the U.S. bombing, whatever you may think.

In Columbia, the U.S. funds terrorist groups to go around bullying and attacking farmers.

If you seriously believe that the U.S. has a good record when it comes to human rights and supporting human rights worldwide, I suggest you read this. (and that was published before the Iraqi invasion)

If you want to know what the U.S.'s moves are all really about, I would suggest you read a little bit more on this site.

Democracy isn't overnight.

Is that what you're still saying about Somalia?

I was merely pointing out that if Iraq had a democracy, the majority would benefit from the removal of Hussein and therefore the majority would want Hussein out.

The majority of the American public didn't vote for Bush... does that mean it's OK if the EU invades your country and puts a democracy in place? Yes, I'm being a little silly, but you get my point I hope. We have no way of knowing whether or not the Iraqi people would have preferred an aggressive invasion of their country by the US, or the arming and training of contra groups (the USA's preferred method), or a UN-controlled army going in on the mandate of unseating a man tried and sentenced at the International Criminal Court, etc. All of this is pure speculation and so utterly worthless.

What will be interesting is the reaction in Iraq over the next 6 months or so while the US set-up their little military junta, secure oil fields for the Iraqi people so they can sell the oil to the US oil companies (how else do you think their oil reaches you car?), and put as much effort into establishing a meaningful democracy and stable country as they did in Afghanistan. Will it even be in America's interests to create a democracy in a country where 1/3rd of the people (Kurds) are fighting repression by one of America's biggest regional allies (Turkey), and where another 1/3rd of the people are Islamic Fundamentalists who would quite like to return to being part of Iran. To America, Democracy is a dangerous thing because it cannot be controlled. The illusion of democracy, however, is their greatest weapon.

As for Palestine... well I'm sure we'll see a veyr progressive "roadmap" coming from an administration chock-full of people who have voiced their forthright support for the Israeli state, and who have supported Israel in its illegal settlements in Palestinian terroritory. Then again, he did promise to Blair, who is definitely committed to a decent solution, that he would, so I suppose we'll see. The best way to tackle terrorism, as we've seen in Northern Ireland, is to undermine any popular support for the terrorists, which means showing they are wrong. As it is, the terrorists who are attacking us are right about one thing - that the USA has military bases in something like 2/3rds of the nations in the world, and it has a track record, which it continues today, in intefering in other nation's affairs illegally without regard for human rights, democracy or liberty (the values it so cherishes yet likes to trash at home). Not that there's any justification, therefore, for terrorism, but you're not going to stop terrorism by putting fuel on the fire.

What will also be scary is what this will do for the hawks in Washington, who in case you didn't know, wanted to invade Iraq purely as an economic and political strategy, to futher US interests and keep their oil industry afloat. They say it themselves, I'm not making it up. And what will this to do the stll-active terrorists intent on destroying secular states, western civilisations, and most prominently America?

Seeing Iraq as an isolated liberation of a country is hopelessly naive, and however much truth there may be in your signature, it says little about whether or not this war was a good idea, or just.

Exactly what threats have Canada and Sweden faced that gives you the basis for saying that they have "been given a bit of a free ride where defense is concerned" by their big brother the US. The only nation Canada has ever really been threatened by has been the United States, and that was in 1812, when they (well, really the British, but they controlled Canada at the time) kicked America's sorry butts all the way back to Washington, DC before agreeing to end the conflict.

Iraq is not about delivering democracy to the Iraqi people (which is something the US definately doesn't want since the majority of Iraqis are Shiite and would very likely elect a government that looks a lot like Iran's), and it is not about WMD's (which they are not finding now - "But a senior US official familiar with initial testing said the white powder found at Latifya was believed to be explosives, AP reported.")

It is about hegemony, or in simpler terms, unquestioned US supremacy and control of the region. See this white paper (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeri casDefenses.pdf), written in part by Paul Wolfowitz, current US Deputy Secretary of Defense, and endorsed by other Project for the New American Century participants, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad (US Special Envoy to the Mid-East), and several other members of the Bush administration (see http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm and http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm for complete lists of supporters).

The alternative plan that antiwar protesters (and most members of the UN Security Council, and most nations outside of the 47 "coalition of the willing" countries) have is to let the inspections continue to work. The Bush administration presented no evidence that the inspections were not working, or that Iraq posed a credible threat to its own neighbors, much less the United States or Britain.

The supposed links between Iraq and terrorists are specious at best. If Sadaam were to give WMD's to terrorists they would most likely be used against him, since radical Islamic terrorist groups have hated and wanted to get rid of his secular government ever since it came to power. The groups "linked" to terrorism in northern Iraq that Powell tried to use as his examples are in Kurdish controlled territory under the protection of US and British war planes in the northern "No Fly Zone".

This war is wrong. The inspections were working. Support our the coalition troops; bring them home.

Exactly what threats have Canada and Sweden faced that gives you the basis for saying that they have "been given a bit of a free ride where defense is concerned" by their big brother the US. The only nation Canada has ever really been threatened by has been the United States, and that was in 1812, when they (well, really the British, but they controlled Canada at the time) kicked America's sorry butts all the way back to Washington, DC before agreeing to end the conflict.

Iraq is not about delivering democracy to the Iraqi people (which is something the US definately doesn't want since the majority of Iraqis are Shiite and would very likely elect a government that looks a lot like Iran's), and it is not about WMD's (which they are not finding now - "But a senior US official familiar with initial testing said the white powder found at Latifya was believed to be explosives, AP reported.")

It is about hegemony, or in simpler terms, unquestioned US supremacy and control of the region. See this white paper (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeri casDefenses.pdf), written in part by Paul Wolfowitz, current US Deputy Secretary of Defense, and endorsed by other Project for the New American Century participants, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad (US Special Envoy to the Mid-East), and several other members of the Bush administration (see http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm and http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm for complete lists of supporters).

The alternative plan that antiwar protesters (and most members of the UN Security Council, and most nations outside of the 47 "coalition of the willing" countries) have is to let the inspections continue to work. The Bush administration presented no evidence that the inspections were not working, or that Iraq posed a credible threat to its own neighbors, much less the United States or Britain.

The supposed links between Iraq and terrorists are specious at best. If Sadaam were to give WMD's to terrorists they would most likely be used against him, since radical Islamic terrorist groups have hated and wanted to get rid of his secular government ever since it came to power. The groups "linked" to terrorism in northern Iraq that Powell tried to use as his examples are in Kurdish controlled territory under the protection of US and British war planes in the northern "No Fly Zone".

This war is wrong. The inspections were working. Support our the coalition troops; bring them home.

Exactly what threats have Canada and Sweden faced that gives you the basis for saying that they have "been given a bit of a free ride where defense is concerned" by their big brother the US. The only nation Canada has ever really been threatened by has been the United States, and that was in 1812, when they (well, really the British, but they controlled Canada at the time) kicked America's sorry butts all the way back to Washington, DC before agreeing to end the conflict.

Iraq is not about delivering democracy to the Iraqi people (which is something the US definately doesn't want since the majority of Iraqis are Shiite and would very likely elect a government that looks a lot like Iran's), and it is not about WMD's (which they are not finding now - "But a senior US official familiar with initial testing said the white powder found at Latifya was believed to be explosives, AP reported.")

It is about hegemony, or in simpler terms, unquestioned US supremacy and control of the region. See this white paper (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeri casDefenses.pdf), written in part by Paul Wolfowitz, current US Deputy Secretary of Defense, and endorsed by other Project for the New American Century participants, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad (US Special Envoy to the Mid-East), and several other members of the Bush administration (see http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm and http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm for complete lists of supporters).

The alternative plan that antiwar protesters (and most members of the UN Security Council, and most nations outside of the 47 "coalition of the willing" countries) have is to let the inspections continue to work. The Bush administration presented no evidence that the inspections were not working, or that Iraq posed a credible threat to its own neighbors, much less the United States or Britain.

The supposed links between Iraq and terrorists are specious at best. If Sadaam were to give WMD's to terrorists they would most likely be used against him, since radical Islamic terrorist groups have hated and wanted to get rid of his secular government ever since it came to power. The groups "linked" to terrorism in northern Iraq that Powell tried to use as his examples are in Kurdish controlled territory under the protection of US and British war planes in the northern "No Fly Zone".

This war is wrong. The inspections were working. Support our the coalition troops; bring them home.