by MonteQuest » Sat 24 Mar 2007, 01:41:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('128shot', ' ')
lack of substantial evidence? The problem I have with all these theories, is that. There is absolutely no back story given. If you want to actually reach the masses, give them something to chew on. Its hard for me to believe it when its simply thrown out there.
No back story? Try reading my book
Madmen at the Helm.Here's an excerpt:
Conspiracy Aside; the Current Situation$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')For the moment, let’s lay our Illuminati-Fabian Society-CFR conspiracy aside, and look at the current situation and the underlying facts as we see them today. First, we know that our government has a strategic plan for the Middle East. By the end of the 1990s, crucial elements of that plan had been adopted by our Republican Congress, and passively accepted by the American people. Containment (sanctions, fly-overs, UN inspectors) a defensive strategy, had given way to a breathtakingly ambitious offensive strategy—to “establish and protect a new world order.”
Even before the 2000 presidential election, we know that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (CFR) commissioned a “blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence” along with his future deputy, Paul Wolfowitz (CFR), and future-Vice President Cheney (CFR), 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.” An unnamed British member of Parliament was quoted as saying of the report: “This is a blueprint for U.S. domination--a new world order of their making.”
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.”
Who needs conspiracy theories when elite machinations are clearly described in public documents like these?