Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (16719)	5/7/2005 12:52:41 PM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I was interested in their core argument: It is one of history’s exquisite ironies that the presumable architects of 9/11 were trying to preserve the very empire they are so efficiently destroying. The US empire, and especially its Israeli outpost, were doomed in the medium-term anyway, with or without 9/11. Inexorable demographic and economic trends were working against them. The European Union was already bigger, both in population and GNP, than the United States, and Israel was losing its demographic race with the Palestinians it had always needed to ethnic-cleanse as a precondition for being an apartheid “Jewish state.” Peak oil was coming soon, and with it the empowerment of whoever controlled the remaining oil reserves—meaning the Arabs and Muslims, absent a US invasion and occupation of the oil-producing regions. Meanwhile, China was shaping up as the superpower of the second half of the 21st century. The neocons, through their think-tank PNAC, stated the obvious: The US had a limited window of opportunity to shape the international environment, and it had better take advantage of its unmatched military power, the only card in its hand, while it still could. But US military might would only be fully unleashed, the PNAC neocons wrote, after “some galvanizing event like a new Pearl Harbor.” Without this New Pearl Harbor, Americans would not make the necessary sacrifices—like accepting widespread poverty, unemployment, the destruction of Social Security and the limitation or even end of their Constitutional civil liberties—that would be necessary for the US to put all its eggs in the military basket, and then lob those eggs at every imaginable potential adversary. Unfortunately for the US empire, these neocon strategists had not understood the point Charles Kupchan makes so forcefully in The Vulnerability of Empire: Empires fall when they make stupid, rash decisions, and those bad decisions are almost always driven by the same psychological factor: A fear of homeland vulnerability. By killing 3000 Americans as they staged what was intended to be the inaugurating myth of the New American Century, the neocons spurred the US into a frenzy of pathological overextension, uniting the whole world (especially Muslims) against America. Instead of preserving US power, they virtually assured their own empire of a much earlier, more violent and complete demise than would have been the case had it merely faded slowly and wisely from its position as world hegemon. mujca.com They make good points. I am open to more factual information being posted here on this topic, and encourage you to do so. I hope their are reporters digging into the facts on this, sort of a new Pentagon Papers. The truth must come out.