A War in the Planning for Four Years?
November 15, 2001 11:47 AM   Subscribe

A War in the Planning for Four Years? An alternative (or addendum?) to the DSSi scenario, even worse. More Inside.
posted by ferris (13 comments total)
This comes from The Wilderness Publications via Guerilla News. Mike Ruppert talks about how Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book, "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD – American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives,” fits the Current Situation. Pretty wild stuff - or is it?
posted by ferris at 11:55 AM on November 15, 2001

Yeah, getting all your info out of newspapers - secondary sources (footnoted, no less, as if academic) - and then making a selective, conspiratorial pattern out of the info gleaned from same is really wild.
posted by raysmj at 12:00 PM on November 15, 2001

Anything that mentions the Trilateral commission has to be taken with an enormous grain of salt...
posted by andrewraff at 12:23 PM on November 15, 2001

Well this sure looks like maximum paranoia, but andrewraff, the Trilateral Commission does actually exist.
posted by cps at 12:38 PM on November 15, 2001

Not content with only the Trilateral Commission, the article also pulls in references to the assassination of JFK and KAL flight 007. Nice job.
posted by CRS at 12:40 PM on November 15, 2001

Lurid paranoia. As Andrewraff notes, it mentions the Trilateral Commission which is always a red flag for crazy rantings. Additionally, the veracity of the article is in question since it leaves out the usual suspects: the Jesuits, the Masons, the Illuminati and floridated water.
posted by O Boingo at 12:52 PM on November 15, 2001

I think that people in the Pentagon spend a lot of time dreaming up scenarios. The scenarios precede from their perception of what the interests of the US are: in the long and short terms. When a crisis occurs, they discuss which scenario applies best. Then the whole is built around a pre-fab structure of accomplishing US objectives long and short term. I think knowing that there are military experts who spent the last five years thinking about the Taliban in a geopolitical context makes one think conspiracies are always afoot.

Of course to believe that, you'd also have to believe that the US is following a strategy.
posted by rschram at 1:12 PM on November 15, 2001

the Trilateral Commission does actually exist

Yes, and so does the Council on Foreign Relations. But unlike what the dark conspiracy theory lovers believe, the CFR and Trilateral commission are not the evil one world government forces who are gong to swoop down in the black helicopters.

We all know that the one-world government uses white helicopters. duh. :)
posted by andrewraff at 2:15 PM on November 15, 2001

Are you talking about this Trilateral Commission?
posted by acridrabbit at 2:16 PM on November 15, 2001


But I *am* a believer that, you know, "everybody wants to rule the world," and that people who have power by and large want to keep and expand it.

There's nothing lurid about the concept of conspiracy per se, it's totally natural human behaviour that goes on all the time -- from clicques in school and surprise birthday parties, to tobacco companies and governments. The phrase "conspiracy theory" has gotten extremely negative connotations attached to it, I think far more so than deserved.

To paint organizations such as the Trilateral Commission in a completely innocuous light is imnsho just as naive as painting them as pure evil.

Don't get me wrong, the article is shite. Just devil's advocating.
posted by cps at 4:34 PM on November 15, 2001

Things that are certainly true:

* The US has a strategic interest in cultivating the Central Asian nations.
* There's oil there to be had. (Though Afghanistan is hardly the only way to get it out.)
* The US has been working to shore up heavily Islamic nations against Islamism (what's been called in America, erroneously, Islamic fundamentalism). The 'stans fit this profile.
* The US has been concerned about al Qaeda's operations inside of Afghanistan for a very long time. Previously we used Pakistan as a base, planning special operations such as commando raids on training camps -- but the Musharraf coup -- which vaulted the ISI to stronger influence -- botched that plan. After that Uzbekistan became a logical candidate.
* Brzezkinski believes that international organizations will ultimately supplant sovereignty, although he sees the route through the WTO more than through the UN.

Oh, I could go on. But Occam's Razor applies. Most of this is simply obvious expressions of US national itnerests, not Eyes Only Conspiracy Plans.
posted by dhartung at 5:34 PM on November 15, 2001

First, an article that starts by saying that Uzbekistan is the key to Eurasian power loses some credibility, heh. We all know how Eurasian conquerers like Alexander the Great, Caeser, Khan, Huang-Ti and Stalin rose up out of Uzbekistan to take on the world.

The 'stans are *not* heavily Islamist whatsoever. Uzbekistan is heavily secular, Kyrgyzstan is constantly putting down minor Islamic rebellions

And finally, THE WTO DOES NOT SUPPLANT SOVEREIGNTY! No nation is forced to join or remain in the WTO! Bejeezus. Extremists at either end of the political spectrum act as if the WTO is being forced on countries.
It's not. Countries join the WTO because it is beneficial for them to do so. If it wasn't, they wouldn't remain members.

Finally, Afghanistan is quite unimportant as far as oil is concerned, so I don't understand why the US could be accused there.

Oh, and finally again, why do the conspiracy theorists think the US is only attacking Afghanistan because of our "economic interests"? Gimme a break. We have *a ton* more economic interests in stopping Islamists in China or IRA Bombers in Britain than we do of stopping the Islamists in Afghanistan. The US has a long tradition of supporting wars when they are *against* our economic interests. For example, the oil embargo against Japan in the 1930's to support China, even though we had little investment in China. Another is our support of the Muslims in the Balkans.

posted by Kevs at 5:50 PM on November 15, 2001

The 2002 U.S. Military Spending budget is almost $1 billion / day (!). If we don't attack somewhere, all that money will go right down the drain.
posted by LeLiLo at 10:12 PM on November 15, 2001

« Older   |   McGovern was right, says right-winger Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments