Let me ask you this: If all you can give me is "possible chinks", do you think you should be propagating this theory so ardently?
I'll listen to anything you have to say, but if you had a good reason to believe this theory was true, you would've shared it by now I think.
So that still leaves me with the question: if you don't have a good reason to believe that it is true, why do you believe it?
I'm being too generous by saying "possible chinks." If I'd said "hard evidence" you'd have jumped on that too. I know you don't even see evidence, period, so I shouldn't cater to what I think are your sensibilities. The abundance of evidence adds up to conspiracy IMO. Feel free to pick up any book with all the evidence in it and read that instead of asking us (or...well...me) to keep doling it out.
Why would these upstanding people do it? It's all right there in the PNAC document. Hegemony, control of resources, control of the region, privatization of infrastructure, and add to it the fact that Hussein was going to switch to the Euro.
That is my reasoning as it was theirs.
"My stance is that they took an oath. Don't read anything else into it."
Really? Then why did you mention it? You're implying that the oath means something to these people. Regardless of the possible 9/11 conspiracy, these are monsters who eat the constitution for lunch. They care not for you or me or anyone outside of their psychotic clique. I owe them nothing.
Like I said before, you read the Operation Northwoods document and you realize one thing: There are people who swear oaths who would actually do this. Hell, the Joint Chiefs signed off on Northwoods. That was the straw that broke my back with this. I needed to be able to see that U.S. officials would do something like that to us not as paranoia but as a fact. That document illustrates the fact. Of course that doesn't mean all politicans/military people would kill us to start a war--I know that.
But these people in the White House right now would. No question in my mind. They flirted with the notion in PNAC. It was spelled out in Zbigniew Brzezinski's
The Grand Chessboard:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...the+grand+chessboard&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
-------------------
Does that prove they did it? No. It proves they do, in fact, think that way--Operation Northwoods, Grand Chessboard, PNAC. The reams of evidence, IMO, support the notion that they did it.
That it came to fruition just like they wanted it to must have been divine intervention from the Angel In The Whirlwind, as Bush would say.
I need a walkthrough for a noob I guess.