by MonteQuest » Mon 04 Jan 2016, 11:08:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', 'Y')ou have no supernatural knowledge of US "intent".
One doesn't need supernatural knowledge. You just need to read what they say is their "intent."
Before the 2000 presidential election, we know that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld commissioned a “blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence” along with his future deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and future-Vice President Cheney, as well as President Bush’s brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush. The report, titled, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, written by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century spelled out the genuine rationale for a war on Iraq.
The document declared that the U.S. would have to assume military control of the Persian Gulf region, whether or not the Iraqi regime posed a threat. (
http://www.newamericancentury.org)
It stated: “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.”
Control of the Gulf and its oil resources, the document added, was necessary “for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”
The report advocated “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran. The report also complained that the changes it recommended were likely to take a long time, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” Can you say 911? Who needs conspiracy theories when elite machinations are clearly described in public documents like these?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."