Neo Con Policy: Idiotic or Evil?

is one of the prime concerns of the Neoconservatives - only problem is, it's not the US who's national scurity they are interested in ... it's Israel's. That is a delicate subject that most in the media choose to ignore, but it's true. However, Israel security is not the only reason the US is meddling in the Middle East - there's the oil, and other factors.

Everyone knows about the oil, although most assume the US wants to steal it - actually, the prime concern is to control production to keep the price up. Either way, it's all getting privatized as we speak. The "other factors" are not so widely discussed. Iran just stopped accepting dollars for it's oil. Saddam Hussein tried to do the same thing and got clobbered. (One of the things that keeps the dollar, un-backed by anything, high, is that the whole world uses it to purchase oil, as per policy that was set up by OPEC in the early 70's.) Then there's the matter of central banking - you know, the Federal Reserve "type". Economies the world over are manipulated in the same ways, as the owners of these banks collect interest on the currency they print - except in certain "rogue" states which have resisted this trend. Afghanistan and Iraq now have western controlled central banks. Iran, which does not, is next on the list.

Essentially, there several reasons why these counties have been targeted, the big three are oil, Israeli security, and central banking, which semi-coincidentally converge on a specific geographical area - sort of like a perfect storm.

It becomes easy to see why the neocons would spearhead the push to wage these wars, when you notice that all of their prominent leaders are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Heck, Cheney was a director for a time. The CFR was set up by the same men that set up the Federal Reserve system, and the Rockefeller family, who lead the the CFR, made their fortunes in OIL. Once you connect the Fed and the CFR to their actual roots, the Rothschild family and the Bank of England, you can begin to connect more of the dots ... even to Israel.

My little analysis is simplistic, I will admit, but there is a plan. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea ... one by one. This "long war" will destroy America's economy, but I suspect that is part of the plan as well. On a side note, there won't be enough US troops or political will to take on North Korea, I suspect this is why there currently is a campaign in Japan to change the constitution to allow the offensive use of their military.

wrong on this. It has come to light with me in the past 4 years that the neoCons do not want to close the borders of this country. The plan is to merge the USA with Mexico and Canada. This most likely will happen when the dollar is about to tank.( already at 47c ) Americans will be screaming for a currency that will hold its value with competing world currencies. ( people will be starving ) It will be a currency that can be used in all three countries. It would be easier to acomplish this with open borders. ( 20 million illegals ) what better way to introduce the NAU? We will have to fight to save this country from these treason leeches who infect our high offices. Any elected official takes an oath. This oath is to uphold the Constitution, anything short of that and its TREASON. Remember that.

Assuming that one must take seriously mere imaginary lines slammed down on the ground by armed force, with the consent of no one living then or ever since: why not just annex Canada and Mexico? Then the northern borders vanish and the southern one shrinks by 80%.

What's not to like?

Or best of all: just abolish them globally, as United Europe is doing locally. They're all in our heads, essentially as a shared mass delusion that one square foot of ground is somehow different from the one right next to it. Who needs them anyway?

Rush Limbaugh often talks about how the left is "invested" in defeat in Iraq. His reasoning is that if they are wrong and we are "successful" in Iraq, then they will lose elections. They are invested in defeat.

However, the neo-cons are invested in "success" (I'll explain my scare quotes in a minute). They won't admit it, but if we pull out of Iraq, it means they were wrong, and they won't be able to get elected with this policy in the future. As much as politicians flip-flop, they hate looking inconsistent. That, and some of them are really convinced of the threat of "Islamo-fascism", and others are war-profiteers.

However, neither side, except ours (the "old right", the libertarians, etc.), understands that there is nothing to win OR lose in Iraq. We already "won" - we toppled Saddam. We should have brought our troops home when Bush flew in and said "Mission Accomplished". This is how Republicans USED to be pre-2000.

I even remember and use Rush's quote from the 90's, when he was arguing against Clinton's "missions" in Somalia and Bosnia. He said, (paraphrasing) "The US military are not peacekeepers. They are not police. Their job is to kill people and break things - that's what they are trained to do."

The cognitive dissonance that has resulted with the right astounds me. It's like everyone is having collective amnesia. And as a result, we are LESS SAFE, and at an expense so great it will ruin us. Just like EVERY other empire in history.

Freedom is not FREE!!

It's always about the MONEY!!!!!!

When in doubt, it's all about the Money!!!

I agree totally with your point. What we must remember is the Bush and Cheney would be delighted if there were a real terrorist attack in the States because it would allow them more power.

Besides, they will tell us they can't afford to defend our borders because all our troops are overseas, defending the rest of the world.

And where are the Democrats on this issue? Well, we know where their heads are...

Ron Paul 2008: The most important vote of your life