Our Plan to Control the World
It amazes me that anyone has doubts about this administration's intentions, or doubt regarding their involvement in Sept 11. I mean for christ sake's these people set up a website(newamericancentury.org)outlining their agenda, just like any individual would do. It's a simple agenda too: Pax Americana, a world peace on American terms. Every high ranking member of the Bush Administration is a part of this group except for the President.
These people even explain how such a plan must be carried. First - transformation of the military. Second - preserve oil interests. Third - The only way it can be carried out is through a "new pearl harbor-a catalyzing and catastrophic event." This is from the newamericancentury.org website in a paper called http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
ITS RIGHT IN OUR FACES!
These people even explain how such a plan must be carried. First - transformation of the military. Second - preserve oil interests. Third - The only way it can be carried out is through a "new pearl harbor-a catalyzing and catastrophic event." This is from the newamericancentury.org website in a paper called http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
ITS RIGHT IN OUR FACES!
posted by John Liberty at 9:59 AM
7 Comments:
To follow in the footsteps of some of our Euston Manifesto readers, I come to defend hawkish intellectuals.
Truth be told, the members of the New American Century deserve about as much defense as a WWE wrestler who strangles his children. Kristol, "Scooter," Rumsfeld, Kagan ... they've proven themselves to be as radical and bloodthirsty as any American group of intellectuals in our history, and may their ideas be thrown into the wastebin of history where they belong.
Nonetheless, it seems to me incredibly important to understand their philosophy, insofar as it helps us understand American foreign policy, the current war in Iraq, etc.
You're absolutely right that their goal was the preservation of American hegemony in the world so as to secure American interests and world peace, and you're right that they see this outcome being a result chiefly of a transformation of the military. As for your second and third point, though, I think you're quite off the mark.
Reading the Projects' documents makes one thing clear: that these are highly ideological men. Their vision of a New American Century is about something far bigger than just oil interests. (Indeed, in the document you linked to, the word "oil" doesn't appear once.) Rather, it's a world where markets are opened up, or remain open; where violence and the eternal threat of it forces states to act in ways commensurate with neo-liberal principles while becoming too weak to upset the status quo; and where European influence in world affairs is kept as limited as possible.
This business about a "catastrophic event" being "the only way" to carry this out is also a rather extremely exaggerated reading of the piece. I've seen this same bit quoted elsewhere by "9/11 Truth" movements and whatnot, and I find it to be absolutely nonsense. Nowhere do they say it's the only way it will happen. Endless chaos in the Middle East is their goal, not attacks at home. Their American Reich is to last another century, anyway. They seemed prepared for a long-haul transformation.
Mr. Liberty,
I, like you, believe that the public has not learned the full and entire truth about 9/11, whatever that might mean.
However, the major problem with overarching 9/11 we-did-it-to-ourselves! conspiracy theories is that most people who believe these theories refuse to take bold stands and concretely state what they believe actually happened on that day. It’s easy to tell people that “IT’S RIGHT IN OUR FACES,” but it’s much more difficult to put together even a vague logical process of how they pulled it off.
Jonathan, please tell me what you think happened on that day.
Robot - They want endless chaos in the middle east so they can secure oil. Secondly, your right that oil security was not a primary objective of this group, and that their aims were much larger. But nonetheless it was an objective. Paul Wolowitz once offered a reason for the invasion of Iraq: "its swimming in a sea of oil." Look it up.
As for the quote - it says plainly in the document that "the process of transformation is not likely to happen absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - a new pearl harbor." So now we have a bunch of guys who signed this document which outlines their plan for government, who are now in the government. We actually have more than a "bunch", we have 95% of presidential posts filled with people who signed a document that says it would be very difficult to carry out their government agenda without a "new pearl harbor." Then, these people got in government and there was a new pearl habor. Then they took it upon themselves to take out Iraq. Then they began transformation of the military. In fact on Sept 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld said that the military beauracracy was the biggest threat to national security(he could not transform the military). But volia! then the attack came.
These people, the people in government in the first bush administration, would be more than willing to do such a thing. They would do anything, we can plainly see that - whether its lying about wmd to drum up support for war, advocating the use of force against iran, taking out iraq when the whole country says no, reducing taxes for the wealthy, claiming the vice president's office is not part of the executive branch <---look at that example for crying out loud, they will do anything to get what they want and they have done it and they are fucking lunatics.
hippie 'killer' - i have no idea how it happened. all i know is that a group of men in the most powerful positions of the united states government said everything they wanted to do depended on this attack occuring.
look its also worth nothing that our government has tried this whole thing before and failed because the people protested. it was the same crew actually - rumsfeld and cheney,but people were protesting in the 60s and 70s and that prevented Pax Americana. Look at one of JFK's Graduation Speeches at Harvard:
" have, therefore, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is to rarely perceived - - yet it is the most important topic on earth : world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace - - the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living -- the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - - not merely peace for Americans by peace for all men and women - - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."
OR BOBBY KENNEDY:
"I WILL NOT LET WHAT HAPPENED TO ROME HAPPEN TO US."
The "New American Century" was advocated by Henry Luce and Dean Acheson, or McNamara. It is an old idea, and it was attempted before, but to no avail. This time however, the people are letting it happen.
This is a bunch of crap. For one thing, it requires attributing great competency to a group that has proven itself nothing if not incompetent. If this crew really was able to pull of 9/11, how come they weren't able to prove that Iraq was involved? Seriously, they could have made it look like it wsa anyone: why Bin Laden? Afghanistan is the wost place in the world to fight a war, it has zero resources and is ideal guerilla territory (see Charlie Wilson's War).
Moreover, there is a 0.0% chance of any "pax americana" succeeding. WE ARE LOSING IN IRAQ. Permanent destabilization of Iraq is not the best way to get its oil. We could have just as easily made peace with Saddam and helped him sell us his oil with the assistance of Halliburton and friends.
As for this NAC document, Pearl Harbor is invoked twice: once in the way that you mentiong it, and once in describing potential changes in naval warfare. Both times the possibility is offered up but rejected as unlikely. Pearl Harbor has been invoked a million fucking times in the last 50 years becuase it was a significant event and it's the one time hawks were proven right.
Your ideas require an incredulous amount of credulity to believe. Do you really suppose we should believe your whole theory because of a few lines out of one think tank? Do you have any idea how much text these places pump out each year? Give me a fucking break.
If you say that the administration exploited the events of 9/11, I (and most of the Huffy Crew) would not argue with you.
If you say that the administration had an active hand in the events of 9/11, I would ask you to present some proof. So far, the minuscule amount of proof that you have provided can, at very best, be classified as coincidence and hearsay.
Post a Comment
<< Home