Conspiracy Facts: The Poll

[Brainache]

In a possibly futile attempt to move mjd1982's Conspiracy Facts thread past a substantial stumbling block, I have decided to ask the forum to vote.

So: Has mjd demonstrated that 911 was propitious to the PNAC policy as set out in the RAD document?


If you don't know what I'm talking about then maybe you could read the 9/11 conspiracy facts thread, or not. The choice is yours, but I warn you if words like propitious and extended chains of acronyms offend you perhaps you should do something more constructive, like bog snorkeling.


ETA: This is a public poll.

[RedIbis]

Do people actually debate whether or not 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan was exactly what PNAC prescribed in their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses"?

Oh boy, the level of sycophancy to try and spin blame away from the neo cons must be something to behold.

For the sake of debate, 9/11 was pulled off by OBL and AQ. It's still absolutely clear that this was a neo con dream come true that gave Bush a blank check so that the defense industry and assorted contractors could cash in on the extraordinary business of war and occupation.

[Brainache]

But the actual plan as set out in the document which famously mentions a new Pearl Harbor is (as far as I can tell) nothing like what has happened since 9/11.

The plan calls for a particular course of action to reach the neo-con goals. 9/11 caused the USG to throw that plan away and start acting like a bunch of gangsters out for revenge. By doing this they have actually lessened their prestige and made much of the world more hostile to the US than they might have otherwise been.

So 9/11 was a complete disaster for US foreign policy and the neo-con authors of the PNAC document (amongst others).

[Sabrina]

That's a huge no from me.

[Zep]

*gurgle gurgle*

[Brainache]

*gurgle gurgle*

Quick, someone get Zep a snorkel!

[nicepants]

In a possibly futile attempt to move mjd1982's Conspiracy Facts thread past a substantial stumbling block, I have decided to ask the forum to vote.

So: Has mjd demonstrated that 911 was propitious to the PNAC policy as set out in the RAD document?


If you don't know what I'm talking about then maybe you could read the 9/11 conspiracy facts thread, or not. The choice is yours, but I warn you if words like propitious and extended chains of acronyms offend you perhaps you should do something more constructive, like bog snorkeling.


ETA: This is a public poll.

All mjd has demonstrated is that he believes it was propitious.

[SpitfireIX]

"Um, I'll go with 'no,' Regis."

[Unsecured Coins]

Final Answer?

[mjd1982]

But the actual plan as set out in the document which famously mentions a new Pearl Harbor is (as far as I can tell) nothing like what has happened since 9/11.

The plan calls for a particular course of action to reach the neo-con goals. 9/11 caused the USG to throw that plan away and start acting like a bunch of gangsters out for revenge. By doing this they have actually lessened their prestige and made much of the world more hostile to the US than they might have otherwise been.

So 9/11 was a complete disaster for US foreign policy and the neo-con authors of the PNAC document (amongst others).
Wel, impressed though I am that you have managed to spot and even understand the oft repeated "propitious" in my thread, you have neither spotted, nor understood the equally oft repeated refrain of "Learn to differentiate between design and execution".

This should not have been hard to understand, but never mind.

[Rahne Everson]

"Um, I'll go with 'no,' Regis."

Not "a jar of almonds"?

[CHF]

Do people actually debate whether or not 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan was exactly what PNAC prescribed in their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses"?

I'll believe it if you can show me the PNAC quote that says "we gotta invade Afghanistan and Iraq."

Can you?

[RedIbis]

I'll believe it if you can show me the PNAC quote that says "we gotta invade Afghanistan and Iraq."

Can you?

I'm not very much interested in what is required for your belief. You might read the document and decide for yourself what it says.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[Brainache]

Wel, impressed though I am that you have managed to spot and even understand the oft repeated "propitious" in my thread, you have neither spotted, nor understood the equally oft repeated refrain of "Learn to differentiate between design and execution".

This should not have been hard to understand, but never mind.

So the "design" that they devoted the entire document to was just trivial to them? The important part was the single sentence about the new Pearl Harbor? They spent all this time trying to push a plan that they didn't really think was all that important?

What you don't seem to understand is that because of 9/11 the PNAC "design" was not "executed". 9/11 rendered the whole typefest moot.

How can 9/11 be "propitious" to a policy which it destroyed?

[defaultdotxbe]

Not "a jar of almonds"?
ill go with "there are 138 almonds in that jar, do i with the blender?"

[Par]

I suspect that if the “New Pearl Harbour” that was 9/11 had been directly comparable with its ancestor (in other words, if it had been a straightforward attack from an easily defined foreign military power) as opposed to comparable in more of a metaphorical sense, then it would have been “propitious” for the Project for the New American Century.

[Civilized Worm]

I don't doubt that 9/11 benefitted certain political types in some ways, that doesn't mean they were behind it though.

[RedIbis]

I don't doubt that 9/11 benefitted certain political types in some ways, that doesn't mean they were behind it though.

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

[CHF]

I'm not very much interested in what is required for your belief. You might read the document and decide for yourself what it says.

I read it and didn't see the part where it says "invade Afghanistan and Iraq."

You've obviously found the incriminating words. Quote it for me.

[Par]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.



Isn’t the idea “who benefits?” as opposed to “who benefits the most?” Further, doesn’t that stage come after evaluating the evidence?

[leftysergeant]

Their letter to Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam says it all. They were just waiting for an excuse. Rummy didn't even think anything could be accomplished militarily in Afghanistan. He was whining about "no good targets."

It would have been quite propitious to their plans, had any of them the slightewst idea how to fight and win a war and to secure peace in the aftermath. The few people who actually tried to guide them through the process, such as Erik Shinseki, got booted out of the way in favor of lap-dog generals looking to suck up to the chief.

I think that what was most propitious, from the neo-con point of view was the opportunity to re-shape a country in the neo-con image of a utopia. No unions, privatized infrastructure, laissez-faire investment by foreign corporations and all that. They wanted to prove that Europe recovered from WWII in spite of, rather than because of the Marshall plan.

They were wrong.

Had these people a lick of common sense, they could have assured their hold on power for the next century just on the basis of their response to 9/11. As it is, they have to rely on hackable voting machines.

[RedIbis]

Their letter to Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam says it all. They were just waiting for an excuse. Rummy didn't even think anything could be accomplished militarily in Afghanistan. He was whining about "no good targets."

It would have been quite propitious to their plans, had any of them the slightewst idea how to fight and win a war and to secure peace in the aftermath. The few people who actually tried to guide them through the process, such as Erik Shinseki, got booted out of the way in favor of lap-dog generals looking to suck up to the chief.

I think that what was most propitious, from the neo-con point of view was the opportunity to re-shape a country in the neo-con image of a utopia. No unions, privatized infrastructure, laissez-faire investment by foreign corporations and all that. They wanted to prove that Europe recovered from WWII in spite of, rather than because of the Marshall plan.

They were wrong.

Had these people a lick of common sense, they could have assured their hold on power for the next century just on the basis of their response to 9/11. As it is, they have to rely on hackable voting machines.

You're advocating an incompetence theory. This is an effective cover for intended incompetence, intended chaos. The goal is not peace, war is profit.

Long term occupation translates to long term profits. This is not achieved by democracy and an independent Iraq.

[WildCat]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.
And that trumps all that stuff, whatchamcallit, that tell-tale stuff, the uhhh, ahhh, ah yes! The EVIDENCE! You know, the stuff you have completely ignored?

[RedIbis]

And that trumps all that stuff, whatchamcallit, that tell-tale stuff, the uhhh, ahhh, ah yes! The EVIDENCE! You know, the stuff you have completely ignored?

The FBI has no evidence linking OBL to 9/11. PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

You do the math.

[Horatius]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.



So if someone breaks into my house and steals a $500 TV set, and I then go out and buy a $2000 security system, by your logic, the security company was the most likely perpetrator?

[WildCat]

The FBI has no evidence linking OBL to 9/11.
False.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."
No, it does not.

You do the math.
2 lies in 2 sentences, is this a numerology thing?

[leftysergeant]

The FBI has no evidence linking OBL to 9/11. PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

You do the math.

That we are being led by belligerent morons does not mean that there are not belligerent morons outside our borders who want to destroy us militarily, culturally and financially.

The election of GWB was propitious to al Qaeda.

[PhantomWolf]

You know I have to wonder if RedIbis read the same document I did. It doesn't describe the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event" at all. It says that the transformation of the military to new technology they think needs to occur will take a long time, unless there is a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

This is a bit like someone writting a report saying that the civil dence systems are run down and need to be upgraded, but that such an upgrade will likely be slow happening unless there is a volcanic eruption. They aren't calling for one to jhappen, just pointing out that the speed will be different if one occurs than if it doesn't.

Not only that, but the paper describes the middle east as currently stable, pointing out that the areas of concern that need to be looked at are Southest Asia and Southeast Europe. It talks about watching out for Countries that are going to become a threat (China, Iran, North Korea) not terrorist groups, infact it seems to discount terrorist groups as a major threat.

The whole basis of the paper is 'maintaining our current peace through having a big stick' not 'let's make money through war.' It talks about strengthening and having non-weary forces that are capable of fighting tomorrow's wars so as to make sure that those that would threaten the peace and security that had been won through the past efforts would think twice knowing the US was ready, not weaking the US's forces by sending them into battle and wearing out already damaged and worn hardware in battles that the paper claims they aren't ready or equipped to fight.

Either RedIbis and mjd1982 were reading a different paper, or they just didn't read more then one line of it.

[Civilized Worm]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.


Yes that's a good idea when you're drawing up a list of suspects, but then you've got to look at the evidence.

[PhantomWolf]

The FBI has no evidence linking OBL to 9/11

Wrong. They have no evidence that they present in front of a court due to chain of custody issues. That is different to not having any evidence.

[PhantomWolf]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

So if a guy gets shot during a mugging and the mugger stole his wallet with a grand total $100 in it, whereas his wife gets an insurance payout of half a million dollars, we suspect the wife?

[CHF]

RedIbis, have you found that quote yet?

What's the delay?

You say PNAC describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

Show me the full quote.

[stateofgrace]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

Who benefits the most?

Well you’ve got some guy saying this.

1995
The urgent thing was communism, but the next target was America... This is an open war up to the end, until victory
1996
What happened in Riyadh and [Dhahran] when 24 Americans were killed in two bombings is clear evidence of the huge anger of Saudi people against America. The Saudis now know their real enemy is America."

As for their accusations of terrorizing the innocent, the children, and the women, these are in the category of 'accusing others with their own affliction in order to fool the masses.' The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere.

1997

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation."

1998

We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."


"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/edicts.html

The same guy who as repeatedly claimed responsibility for an attack on the US which cost this...


The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion.


And much more , feel free to read the link here (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp).

And then there is the cost of the war on terror itself.


The 'war on terror' is costing Americans approximately $7 billion US every month. According to a new Congressional report, the bill could exceed half a trillion dollars by 2010


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051007/USwaronterror_congresserport_cost_20051007/20051007


This is not including the cost in human live which is in the thousands.

So who do you actually, really think benefited from the 911 attacks? The US who is spending billions, as lost billions and is in the middle of an extremely unpopular war. Or some guy who wants to destroy America and kill her citizens?

[RedIbis]

Who benefits the most?



So who do you actually, really think benefited from the 911 attacks? The US who is spending billions, as lost billions and is in the middle of an extremely unpopular war. Or some guy who wants to destroy America and kill her citizens?


[/SIZE][/FONT]

Let me help you out here. You mean who benefited more? A guy who is either dead of kidney failure, bombing, or assassination, or an administration who has mismanaged a trillion dollars and fed it through no bid contracts to their cronies.

Try again.

[Par]

RedIbis, have you found that quote yet?

What's the delay?

You say PNAC describes the need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

Show me the full quote.



Further, if the PNAC really were advocating either carrying out or facilitating an act of mass-murder and high-treason, does it really seem likely that they’d document these ambitions and then release them onto the internet?

[Civilized Worm]

Let me help you out here. You mean who benefited more? A guy who is either dead of kidney failure, bombing, or assassination, or an administration who has mismanaged a trillion dollars and fed it through no bid contracts to their cronies.

Try again.


That's an impressive false dilemma, in fact it's a false dilemma within a false dilemma as the person who benefits the most isn't automatically guilty.

[stateofgrace]

Let me help you out here. You mean who benefited more? A guy who is either dead of kidney failure, bombing, or assassination, or an administration who has mismanaged a trillion dollars and fed it through no bid contracts to their cronies.

Try again.

No you try again, Are you claiming that Al Qaeda did not carry out this attack?

Offer your proof.

Are you claiming UBL is dead?

Offer you proof

if you are claiming that the US has benefited from 911 offer your proof and offer the reason why they would cause billions of dollars worth of damage to their own infrastructure an then decide to spend billions more on a war against an enemy that you appear to be claiming does not exist.

[CHF]

RedIbis, I take it from your silence that you can't find the PNAC quote where the plotters express the desire or need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

Don't feel bad. No one else in the twoof movement can find it either.

[Corsair 115]

The goal is not peace, war is profit.

Long term occupation translates to long term profits.That depends greatly on which company you're talking about, doesn't it? It's rather hard to argue 9/11 and its aftermath and the rise in oil prices in recent years has been a boon to the profits of airlines, for example.

So, really, your comment invites the following questions:

Long-term profits for which company or companies? And how exactly do they generate this profit? That is, what line of business are they in?

[Peephole]

9/11 wasn't the kind of threat they described in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document. But they were able to (ab)use 9/11 to try and achieve their goals.

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, I take it from your silence that you can't find the PNAC quote where the plotters express the desire or need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

Don't feel bad. No one else in the twoof movement can find it either.

Are you serious? In all of your time here you have not come across that now infamous quote?

I suppose there's some spin that will allow the sycophants to look past it, but here it is for the millionth time:

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Gee, now what might constitue a New Pearl Harbor?

[beachnut]

Are you serious? In all of your time here you have not come across that now infamous quote?

I suppose there's some spin that will allow the sycophants to look past it, but here it is for the millionth time:

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Gee, now what might constitue a New Pearl Harbor?
There is no "need" in that statement. You have messed up again. Plus PNAC has no army to do anything. How do truthers take talk and mess it up? Why not make up more stuff on 9/11? Oops, that is all you do.

When will you have some substantive stuff on 9/11? today? Never?

[Corsair 115]

Gee, now what might constitue a New Pearl Harbor?That depends on how strictly one defines what the original Pearl Harbor was.

[mjd1982]

That depends on how strictly one defines what the original Pearl Harbor was.
Oh boy.... what a dank hellhole the OT mind is.

The need isnt strictly for a new PH, but for a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 was both.

duh!!!

[mjd1982]

There is no "need" in that statement. You have messed up again. Plus PNAC has no army to do anything. How do truthers take talk and mess it up? Why not make up more stuff on 9/11? Oops, that is all you do.

When will you have some substantive stuff on 9/11? today? Never?
Read the rest of the para, and all will become clear to you. Actually, it probably wont, but I feel the need to try with you anyway.

[Corsair 115]

So, mjd1982 really does post outside that other thread!

[Hokulele]

So, mjd1982 really does post outside that other thread!


And he uses the exact same posts!

[Par]

Read the rest of the para, and all will become clear to you. Actually, it probably wont, but I feel the need to try with you anyway.



It expresses neither a need nor a desire for a “New Pearl Harbour”/”catastrophic and catalyzing event.” In fact, it assumes such an event will not occur and goes on to discuss how to bring about the “process of transformation”.

[PhantomWolf]

Read the rest of the para, and all will become clear to you. Actually, it probably wont, but I feel the need to try with you anyway.

How about you read the rest of the paper?

Nowhere does it say that there is a need for such an event. It says that the defence forces need to be transformed and it is likely to be a slow programme that does it. It then outlines how that slow programme should be done. It doesn't rely on, nor need an event to cause rapid change, it merely states that without such occuring the change will be slow. The entire paper is based on the premise that the US has fought hard to have the peace it had in the 90's and that as such they needed to prepare and transform the military so they were ready for future comflict as a deterant to such occuring, that the current (late 90's) policies of cutting defence budgets and standing down units was bad because it weakened the US defences to the point where other countries might see them as weak and take advantage and destroy the hard earned peace. The result of 9/11 is exactly the opposite of what the PNAC report was wanting. It wanted a fully equipped, fully trained force that was able to engage in and desisively win multiple theatres of combat standing by as a deterrent to war. What the US has now is exactly the opposite, a poorly equipped, poorly trained force split in two and bogged down in a running war they aren't winning. The PNAC wanted the focus of the US forces to be on South East Asia, they considered the Middle East to currently (late 90's) be stable and secure. Now the Middle east is a mess and Southeast Asia is totally forgotten. Everything the paper said would be bad for the country has happened. How about focusing less on one paragraph that doesn't say what you claim it does, and read the other 90 pages!

[RedIbis]

That depends on how strictly one defines what the original Pearl Harbor was.

Apparently, PNAC used that analogy to describe a terrible attack that would galvanize the American people and support a protracted battle against a threatening enemy.

There's a truly inspiring story that will stir your heart to great patriotism, that on the evening of 9/11 as Bush was finally settling in to bed, he wrote in his diary that a new Pearl Harbor had happened today.

This analogy has been used excessively to justify the occupation of Iraq.

Do you have some other way to spin what PNAC meant?

[PhantomWolf]

Apparently, PNAC used that analogy to describe a terrible attack that would galvanize the American people and support a protracted battle against a threatening enemy.

Would you go and read the [rule8]ing paper!

The Last thing the PNAC wanted was a protracted battle against a threatening enemy. The entire [rule8]ing paper is based on strengthening the flagging US forces so they DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR AGAINST A THREATENING ENEMY BEACUSE WITH THE PROPER DEFENCE NO ONE WILL BE WILLING TO ATTACK THEM!

Get a fact man and stop making stuff up.

[RedIbis]

Would you go and read the [rule8]ing paper!

The Last thing the PNAC wanted was a protracted battle against a threatening enemy. The entire [rule8]ing paper is based on strengthening the flagging US forces so they DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR AGAINST A THREATENING ENEMY BEACUSE WITH THE PROPER DEFENCE NO ONE WILL BE WILLING TO ATTACK THEM!

Get a fact man and stop making stuff up.

Instead of losing your head and making no sense, why don't you quote them to illustrate your point, like I did.

[PhantomWolf]

Instead of losing your head and making no sense, why don't you quote them to illustrate your point, like I did.

Why don't you just read the paper? You obviously haven't because you keep claiming it says things it doesn't.

From the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH!

The Project for the New American Century was established in the spring of 1997. From its inception, the Project has been concerned with the decline in the strength of America’s defenses, and in the problems this would create for the exercise of American leadership around the globe and, ultimately, for the preservation of peace.

Although the QDR and the report of the NDP proposed different policies, they shared one underlying feature: the gap between resources and strategy should be resolved not by increasing resources but by shortchanging strategy. America’s armed forces, it seemed, could either prepare for the future by retreating from its role as the essential defender of today’s global security order, or it could take care of current business but be unprepared for tomorrow’s threats and tomorrow’s battlefields.

Either alternative seemed to us shortsighted. The United States is the world’s only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global
technological leadership, and the world’s largest economy. Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world’s other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined.

And so on for 70+ pages!

Concluding with

We have argued that this transformation mission is yet another new mission, as compelling as the need to maintain European stability in the Balkans, prepare for large, theater wars or any other of today’s missions. This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.


It is also a wise program. Only such a force posture, service structure and level of defense spending will provide America and its leaders with a variety of forces to meet the strategic demands of the world’s sole superpower. Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures. This is the choice we face. It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.

The entire document from start to finish talks about how to maintain peace by having a military that can quickly and decisively win any war. Claiming that they wanted the US embroiled in a protracted war is utter and total horse manure and anyone that has read the document knows it, so either you haven't read it, or you are lying about what is in it.

[RedIbis]

Why don't you just read the paper? You obviously haven't because you keep claiming it says things it doesn't.

From the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH!





And so on for 70+ pages!

Conduding with



The entire document from start to finish talks about how to maintain peace by having a military that can quickly and decisively win any war. Claiming that they wanted the US embroiled in a protracted war is utter and total horse manure and anyone that has read the document knows it, so either you haven't read it, or you are lying about what is in it.

You're Orwell's worst nightmare, suggesting as PNAC does that peace is war and war is peace. Orwell warned about those who cannot read inference, but swallow the euphemisms of double speak.

PNAC prescribes exactly what is necessary to increase funding to a variety of programs, including the weaponization of space.

"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes
vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles
and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself."

Doesn't sound like an attempt to avoid war and preserve peace.

Just look at the signatories of the document. They are the architects of the Iraq war. And we all know there would be no occupation of Iraq without the tangential and pathetic association with 9/11.

[Hokulele]

You're Orwell's worst nightmare, suggesting as PNAC does that peace is war and war is peace. Orwell warned about those who cannot read inference, but swallow the euphemisms of double speak.


Stundied!

[PhantomWolf]

You're Orwell's worst nightmare, suggesting as PNAC does that peace is war and war is peace. Orwell warned about those who cannot read inference, but swallow the euphemisms of double speak.

And you are Alex Jones favourite type of cash cow, one that makes things up to conform to their own world rather than actually reading what is there. Read the entire paper, I bet you still haven't done so. If you did bother to then you'd see that their answer to such states is make sure that the US Military is so far advanced of them that not only can they win a single war with a firm and single action, but that they can win two simultaneously. That is not a reflection of the US military today, in fact the very situation that the PNAC was warning the US about in that paper is what has happened under Bush. Instead of doing what the PNAC said they should do, because of 9/11 they have done exactly the opposite. How does that help your argument that this paper had anything to do with 9/11? Oh, hang on, that's right, you believe that everything that this paper means is exactly the opposite of what it says... wow, it's starting to make sense now, I guess you are from Bizaro world. I guess then I should tell you how delightful it is to be discussing this and how happy you make me with your obviously superior intellect and reading ability.

[jberryhill]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

How much is William Rodriguez charging for appearances these days? (On edit: it only stands to reason... Rodriguez had full access to the building, and he somehow missed out on all those dudes planting explosives, UNLESS...)

During the 1992 election cycle, it was believed that continued recession would benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans.

This was encapsulated in the phrase "It's the economy, stupid":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

The economic indicators in question continued to decline, and it is believed that the election of Bill Clinton was a result of the perceived economic decline.

From this, do you conclude that the Democrats actively worked to sabotage the economy in order to win the White House in 1992?

The Islamist radicals of the type which carried out 9/11 have succeeded fantastically at provoking counterproductive behavior by the United States.

It is widely believed that the downfall of the Soviet Union was precipitated in large measure by its adventure in Afghanistan, and President Bush's decision to open a second theatre in Iraq is a "bonus".

[PhantomWolf]

It is widely believed that the downfall of the Soviet Union was precipitated in large measure by its adventure in Afghanistan, and President Bush's decision to open a second theatre in Iraq is a "bonus".

The irony is that Bush doesn't understand that. OBL believes that they defeated and brought about the destruction of the Soviet Union by their work in Afghanistan. He believed that if he could get the US into a similar battle he could produce similar results. Bush hasn't learned a thing from Vietnam and Soviet held Afghanistan.

[RedIbis]

How much is William Rodriguez charging for appearances these days?


Not a fraction of what Giuliani has pocketed on his post 9/11, inspirational speaking tours.

But that's not the benefit I'm talking about. I'm talking about the trillions spent on maintaining long term occupation of Iraq. That's where the real money is. Do you have any idea what the laundry contracts are worth? And that's a very small example. Long term occupation is very profitable.

[MIKILLINI]

No...I say again..No. But if you go from Mjds perceived view, it's more in the "design"..The PNAC doc is the "design" that needed a catastrophic and catalyzing event to cause implementation of transformations to be made more easily. The "execution" had to take place before the 2001 QDR came out. How would this be known? Why the smoking gun of the French intelligence warning, is how they knew. Mjd has determined that this has not been addressed to his satisfaction. :rolleyes:

ETA: Of course Mjd, you should read here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070416-1211-france-9-11.html

and here: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/04/french_hijack_w.html

[beachnut]

You're Orwell's worst nightmare, suggesting as PNAC does that peace is war and war is peace. Orwell warned about those who cannot read inference, but swallow the euphemisms of double speak.
You failed to heed that warning. Believing ideas from the 9/11 truth movement is the proof you do not recognize double speak, and mislabel it when it is not around. You have serious problems, you are in a cult and you are happy as a pot calling the kettle black. Good job on being so far gone, you label those who are not, what you are.

[CHF]

Are you serious? In all of your time here you have not come across that now infamous quote?

I suppose there's some spin that will allow the sycophants to look past it, but here it is for the millionth time:

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Gee, now what might constitue a New Pearl Harbor?

The process of upgrading the military will be slow unless there's a new Pearl Harbor...and the document proceeds on the assumption that there will not be such an event!

Let me guess...you haven't read a damn word of PNAC except for the above quote, correct?

[RedIbis]

The process of upgrading the military will be slow unless there's a new Pearl Harbor...and the document proceeds on the assumption that there will not be such an event!

Let me guess...you haven't read a damn word of PNAC except for the above quote, correct?


That's your response? Do you think they will just come out and say, "well if the attack doesn't come we could always just cook one up ourselves?"

If you don't think this "catalyzing" "New Pearl Harbor" fits exactly what the document has been requiring then it is you who has not read the document.

[Gravy]

The process of upgrading the military will be slow unless there's a new Pearl Harbor...and the document proceeds on the assumption that there will not be such an event!

Let me guess...you haven't read a damn word of PNAC except for the above quote, correct?
Ding! You've won a kewpie doll! Would you like this ugly, ratty great big one, or this cute, cuddly little one?

[MIKILLINI]

That's your response? Do you think they will just come out and say, "well if the attack doesn't come we could always just cook one up ourselves?"

If you don't think this "catalyzing" "New Pearl Harbor" fits exactly what the document has been requiring then it is you who has not read the document.

Where in this document does it imply a catastrophic and catalyzing event is a desired intention? Please show the intent, if you can.

[CHF]

If you don't think this "catalyzing" "New Pearl Harbor" fits exactly what the document has been requiring then it is you who has not read the document.

Alrighty then...

Show me the PNAC quote that calls for an invasion of Afghanistan.

Show me the PNAC quote that calls for an invasion of Iraq.

Show me the PNAC quote that calls for the Apache chopper replacement to be canceled.

[RedIbis]

Where in this document does it imply a catastrophic and catalyzing event is a desired intention? Please show the intent, if you can.

Post #41 for the millionth and one time. Now read it slow. We agree the document is about transforming the military from the underfunded Clinton administration.

But gee, transformation will take a long time, unless...

[CHF]

Post #41 for the millionth and one time. Now read it slow. We agree the document is about transforming the military from the underfunded Clinton administration.

But gee, transformation will take a long time, unless...

If by "transformation" you mean "fighting a costly house-to-house ground war in the Middle East" then yes, I suppose 9/11 was the event they needed.

But I don't think that's what PNAC had in mind.

I'm sure you have quotes that prove otherwise. Right?

[PhantomWolf]

Where in this document does it imply a catastrophic and catalyzing event is a desired intention? Please show the intent, if you can.

But you have to read between the lines man, see what isn't there. That they say a new Pearl Habor would cause the transformation to occur faster (funnily enough 9/11 hasn't, it's had exactly the opposite effect) really meant that they had to have one to get any transformation. When they said that in the effect to preserve peace by having a militray strong enough to decisively win two wars simultaneously, they really meant that they wanted to have two wars that would drag on indefinately. When they say that they wanted to make sure that the forses in the middle east were presevred to maintain a stable Middle East, they really meant they wanted to start a war there to destablize the heck out of it. When they said that they wanted to have a large enough force that was in top shape, replacing the old worn out equipment that the US military currently relied on, they really meant that they wanted to throw that tired equipment into battle and make it more tired and worn out. Went they said that they needed to increase the numbers in service so that they would have enough people to deal with policing and peace keepings missions as well as having enough reserves to fight a war and replace those on the field from the troops still stationed at home, they really meant that they wanted to drain their resourses dry, force those enlisted to serve beyond their tours, increase the drop out and desertion rates, decrease the recruitment numbers and overall cause major manpower issues all around.

As such while virtually none of the things they suggested doing in their paper has happened they way they susggested, since that wasn't what they actually ment, what happened is a perfect match to their intent.

[PhantomWolf]

Post #41 for the millionth and one time. Now read it slow. We agree the document is about transforming the military from the underfunded Clinton administration.

But gee, transformation will take a long time, unless...

And getting safety equipment installed on railway crossings over here takes a long time unless someone gets killed on them. Does that mean that each time someone gets killed on the crossings that it's really a Black Op to get them to upgrade the crossing safety barriers? The paper didn't even look at how such a transformation could be done in the event of a possible attack, it only looked at how it should be done on the assumption that such didn't happen. And the really funny thing? Even though 9/11 happened, virtually none of the papers recommendations has been taken up, in fact if anything, the result has been exactly the opposite of what the paper was wanting. How do you explain that is they set 9/11 in motion to achieve the paper's goals?

[Hokulele]

Since it appears that RedIbis will not read the quote he selected in context, here is the last sentence from that very same paragraph.

Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.


So in effect, they are advocating taking time in this process. In other words, a catacalysmic change would be the last thing they want.

[jaydeehess]

They have the much larger military budget and they have extended the USA's military might in the middle east. however that budget has been eaten up by the continuing war in Iraq and the military is stretched just to maintian what it has in Afghanistan and Iraq due to enormous blunders preside over by prominent members of the administration, Cheney, and Rumsfeld specifically with a lot of incompetance illustrated by GWB as well.

Although the PNAC plan in general would have made anti-USA sentiment increase in the short term, had it been carried out in a thoughtful manner with an eye to bettering the life of the populace of the coutries involved, it just might have worked. It was an incredibly arrogant and selfish plan but carried out properly, yeah, it might have worked out.

However in practice Cheney thought that the simple act of ousting Saddam would garner great popular sentiment amoung the Iraqi civilians that would by itself create peace in that country. He was wrong, in fact he was so very wrong it boggles the mind.

In practice, Rumsfeld thought that all that mattered was ousting the former regime and since that could be done with relatively few troops and a good amount of technology that's all he sent in. When confronted with the fact of the looting of hospitals and museums and the widespread anarchy his response was, "stuff happens". His failure to even have a plan to secure the country after the initial war with the administration of Hussein illustrates his utter incompetance and results in a failure to advance the goals of PNAC.In fact he was so very incompetant it again boggles the mind.

In Afghanistan much of the world backed the USA at least morally. It had been attacked in a horrible fashion and those in charge of the attacks should be brought to justice. In fact , originally the USA demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden (even though they knew full well that the Taliban neither had the will or the power to do so). The better part of a deacde later the USA seems to have launched a war against that country on those grounds only to abandon that goal of capturing bin Laden and left the securing of that country largely to others thus squandering that great world support.

So, yes, the attacks were pretty much what PNAC stated could be used to fast track their goals BUT the administration was incompetant ( at pretty much everything) in using it and acheiving those goals.

[CHF]

Rev 91, I'm still waiting for those PNAC quotes.

[mjd1982]

It expresses neither a need nor a desire for a “New Pearl Harbour”/”catastrophic and catalyzing event.” In fact, it assumes such an event will not occur and goes on to discuss how to bring about the “process of transformation”.
This would only be the interpretation from a catastrophically slack reading og the document. Let's have a closer look.

The quote refers to the technological and operational transformations that have been outlined in the doc


The United
States cannot
simply declare a
“strategic pause”
while
experimenting
with new
technologies and
operational
concepts....

A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American
allies.


(Note here also the stress on the need for this transformation to be pursued under one global umbrella, a la the WOT)

It then goes onto the famous quote


Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.


The question is a simple one. Which transformation do they deem more propitious? One that takes many decades, or rather one that happens sooner and faster? Whether a group of ideologues would want their peace love and happiness bringing transformation to happen in yrs, or in decades, is clearly not a question that any rational person would need ask, but on this forum I am happy to make it clear for you all. We can get our answer, quite simply, from the rest of the paragraph (I have outlined this many times, to no sensible reponse, on the CF thread.)


A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft
carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction
of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. Likewise, systems entering
production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for
decades to come. Wise management of this
process will consist in large measure of
figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs. The
expense associated with some programs can
make them roadblocks to the larger process
of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter
program, at a total of approximately $200
billion, seems an unwise investment.


The segments I have bolded show the reason for the length of transformation- difficulties. Roadblocks, barriers, obstructions etc, all of which a new PH would help bypass. Thus, to state that they did not deem a new PH propitious, is to say that they wanted a difficult and long transformation process, rather than a faster and easier one. Given that this is nonsense, we conclude quite easily that a new PH is deemed propitious to policy.

Just to pre empt some of the sillier, and categorically refuted responses to this, the doc does state that:


this report advocates a two-stage process of
change – transition and transformation –
over the coming decades.


This is not a problem, if one is honest to ask oneself a simple question- what is the alternative here? The doc has to advocate one course or the other, else it would be highly deficient. So either the doc can state openly "We advocate the ocurrence of a new PH"; or they can state what they did. It is obvious, again to all sensible minds, that the former is not really an option, hence the latter. And in any case, this does not, logically preclude the conclusion that a new PH was considered propitious to policy.

[DGM]

This is not a problem, if one is honest to ask oneself a simple question- what is the alternative here? The doc has to advocate one course or the other, else it would be highly deficient. So either the doc can state openly "We advocate the ocurrence of a new PH"; or they can state what they did. It is obvious, again to all sensible minds, that the former is not really an option, hence the latter. And in any case, this does not, logically preclude the conclusion that a new PH was considered propitious to policy.

So anyone that disagrees with you is dishonest and illogical.

[mjd1982]

ETA I should state that this deals with most of the posters who feel the doc states that a new PH would be bad for policy.

How about you read the rest of the paper?

Nowhere does it say that there is a need for such an event. It says that the defence forces need to be transformed and it is likely to be a slow programme that does it. It then outlines how that slow programme should be done. It doesn't rely on, nor need an event to cause rapid change, it merely states that without such occuring the change will be slow. The entire paper is based on the premise that the US has fought hard to have the peace it had in the 90's and that as such they needed to prepare and transform the military so they were ready for future comflict as a deterant to such occuring, that the current (late 90's) policies of cutting defence budgets and standing down units was bad because it weakened the US defences to the point where other countries might see them as weak and take advantage and destroy the hard earned peace. The result of 9/11 is exactly the opposite of what the PNAC report was wanting. It wanted a fully equipped, fully trained force that was able to engage in and desisively win multiple theatres of combat standing by as a deterrent to war. What the US has now is exactly the opposite, a poorly equipped, poorly trained force split in two and bogged down in a running war they aren't winning. The PNAC wanted the focus of the US forces to be on South East Asia, they considered the Middle East to currently (late 90's) be stable and secure. Now the Middle east is a mess and Southeast Asia is totally forgotten. Everything the paper said would be bad for the country has happened. How about focusing less on one paragraph that doesn't say what you claim it does, and read the other 90 pages!
I think I have dealt with the first part of yur post above, but just to be clear about the 2nd- the point behind the doc is, strictly speaking, the preservation and entrenchment of US global hegemony throughout the 21st century.


In sum, the 1990s have been a “decade
of defense neglect.” This leaves the next
president of the United States with an
enormous challenge: he must increase
military spending to preserve American
geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back
from the security commitments that are the
measure of America’s position as the
world’s sole superpower and the final
guarantee of security, democratic freedoms
and individual political rights. This choice
will be among the first to confront the
president: new legislation requires the
incoming administration to fashion a
national security strategy within six months
of assuming office, as opposed to waiting a
full year, and to complete another
quadrennial defense review three months
after that. In a larger sense, the new
president will choose whether today’s
“unipolar moment,” to use columnist
Charles Krauthammer’s phrase for
America’s current geopolitical preeminence,
will be extended along with the peace and
prosperity that it provides.


This is congruent with PNAC's stated goal that


American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.


(A quick note about that statement- of the 3 characteristics they list, 1 is subjective, and the 2nd depends on the 1st)

I dont think it needs to be outlined that neo cons are not interested in peace, rather power, and the doc is based on that outline. In this regard, RAD should be seen more accurately as neo con parlance for "Furthering and Entrenching US hegemony", since "defense/national security", in political, not just neo con parlance, means hegemony.

Now, this touches on the WOT. I would like to know, and maybe I will start another thread on this, what you OTers believe the WOT to be? Do you think it is

a) a war on Terror?
b) a war on Terrorism?
c) a war on Jihadism?
d) something else?

If you go to p3 of my CF thread, there is a post ("http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=3) where I dismantle Gravy's LC guide, PNAC section, and I show how each of these is ridiculous. I also show what the WOT truly constitutes- programs designed at further US hegemony, through radical expressions of military strength.

It should be thus realised, that this is the goal of the WOT, regardless of the difficulties they have had in executing it, due largely to their incompetence in Iraq, as it was the goal of RAD. The 2 are so similar it is astonishing.

[mjd1982]

How much is William Rodriguez charging for appearances these days? (On edit: it only stands to reason... Rodriguez had full access to the building, and he somehow missed out on all those dudes planting explosives, UNLESS...)

During the 1992 election cycle, it was believed that continued recession would benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans.

This was encapsulated in the phrase "It's the economy, stupid":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

The economic indicators in question continued to decline, and it is believed that the election of Bill Clinton was a result of the perceived economic decline.

From this, do you conclude that the Democrats actively worked to sabotage the economy in order to win the White House in 1992?

The Islamist radicals of the type which carried out 9/11 have succeeded fantastically at provoking counterproductive behavior by the United States.

It is widely believed that the downfall of the Soviet Union was precipitated in large measure by its adventure in Afghanistan, and President Bush's decision to open a second theatre in Iraq is a "bonus".
Rodirguez charged nothing for his talk in London, and I dont believe he charges anyone. He was staying with members of the Truth Movement while in London, as he had no money to live in a hotel down here.

Why do you cast an aspersion like that, when its totally unsupported?

[mjd1982]

No...I say again..No. But if you go from Mjds perceived view, it's more in the "design"..The PNAC doc is the "design" that needed a catastrophic and catalyzing event to cause implementation of transformations to be made more easily. The "execution" had to take place before the 2001 QDR came out. How would this be known? Why the smoking gun of the French intelligence warning, is how they knew. Mjd has determined that this has not been addressed to his satisfaction. :rolleyes:

ETA: Of course Mjd, you should read here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070416-1211-france-9-11.html

and here: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/04/french_hijack_w.html
I have no idea what your talking about. Would you explain?

[mjd1982]

But you have to read between the lines man, see what isn't there. That they say a new Pearl Habor would cause the transformation to occur faster (funnily enough 9/11 hasn't, it's had exactly the opposite effect) really meant that they had to have one to get any transformation. When they said that in the effect to preserve peace by having a militray strong enough to decisively win two wars simultaneously, they really meant that they wanted to have two wars that would drag on indefinately. When they say that they wanted to make sure that the forses in the middle east were presevred to maintain a stable Middle East, they really meant they wanted to start a war there to destablize the heck out of it. When they said that they wanted to have a large enough force that was in top shape, replacing the old worn out equipment that the US military currently relied on, they really meant that they wanted to throw that tired equipment into battle and make it more tired and worn out. Went they said that they needed to increase the numbers in service so that they would have enough people to deal with policing and peace keepings missions as well as having enough reserves to fight a war and replace those on the field from the troops still stationed at home, they really meant that they wanted to drain their resourses dry, force those enlisted to serve beyond their tours, increase the drop out and desertion rates, decrease the recruitment numbers and overall cause major manpower issues all around.

As such while virtually none of the things they suggested doing in their paper has happened they way they susggested, since that wasn't what they actually ment, what happened is a perfect match to their intent.
Just to deal with this post quickly- I have addressed this toooooo many times now, but will do so again. If I'm honest I dont think that these sorts of assertions would be made by the relatively intelligent people I believe you to be, were you able to look at 911 without complete self deception.

To take one example from this post, they did indeed call for the abiltiy to fight and win 2 theatre wars. Yet, they have failed to do so. This is because they have screwed up. It is because they are incompetent. It is, in short, a failure of execution. It is not because they did not see this as a aim to be pursued. It is not because this was not part of their design. On the contrary, it was almost certainly part of their design to be able to fight and win 2 major wars at the same time, hence why they engaged in such. (I think I'm right in saying its the 1st time in US history that 2 unconnected major foreign wars have been waged simultaneously?)

It is this distinction between design and execution, a very simple one in truth, that gets missed so egregiously by so many on this board, but one that is so very important.

ETA incidentally I dont know what Jaydeehess's ideological bent is, but he is pretty close to the mark in his post

[Sabrina]

In other words, the OP was right; it was a futile attempt to move beyond this ridiculous point and onto separate points in the debate.

Nice try though.

[Brainache]

In other words, the OP was right; it was a futile attempt to move beyond this ridiculous point and onto separate points in the debate.

Nice try though.

Thanks.
I was probably being too optimistic when I thought mjd might let it go and move on to his next point. His OP on that thread had a whole list of points he wanted to demonstrate to all of us misinformed or deluded JREFers. He doesn't even have to concede that he was wrong, just that we were not convinced.

Come on mjd, tell us all about WTC7! Inquiring minds want to know...

[MIKILLINI]

The doc has to advocate one course or the other, else it would be highly deficient. So either the doc can state openly "We advocate the ocurrence of a new PH"; or they can state what they did. It is obvious, again to all sensible minds, that the former is not really an option, hence the latter. And in any case, this does not, logically preclude the conclusion that a new PH was considered propitious to policy.

Now this is prime example of circular reasoning. I can take any document with this logic and come to the same conclusion you do Mjd, but first, I must have a suspicious semi-conscience propitious to conspiracy.

So either the doc can state openly "We advocate the ocurrence of a new PH"; or they can state what they did.

There is a consensus in this document and that consensus is a strategy session which came to the conclusion that these changes will take time to implement. You have admitted as much to that Mjd. BUT, you and whoever else takes this noted exception (absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event section) and apply it as design for an easier transformation. As you say; Propitious to policy. :faint:. You have not proven this document was intentionally written and it's authors intentions favorable toward a conspiracy to commit or allow a catastrophic or catalyzing event in order for transformations to occur more easily.

[MIKILLINI]

Post #41 for the millionth and one time. Now read it slow. We agree the document is about transforming the military from the underfunded Clinton administration.

But gee, transformation will take a long time, unless...

Unless....just how long you think? Do you see us getting out of Iraq or Afghanistan in the near future?

ETA; Read this part real slowly,RedI... Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.

[mjd1982]

Now this is prime example of circular reasoning. I can take any document with this logic and come to the same conclusion you do Mjd, but first, I must have a suspicious semi-conscience propitious to conspiracy.



There is a consensus in this document and that consensus is a strategy session which came to the conclusion that these changes will take time to implement. You have admitted as much to that Mjd. BUT, you and whoever else takes this noted exception (absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event section) and apply it as design for an easier transformation. As you say; Propitious to policy. :faint:. You have not proven this document was intentionally written and it's authors intentions favorable toward a conspiracy to commit or allow a catastrophic or catalyzing event in order for transformations to occur more easily.
1. It illustrates that there is only one possible outcome for that scenario, and it is not an outcome that affects the proposition in any way- that a new ph was deemed propitious to policy. Not in any way.

2. a) You are twisting my words. Why would you do this? I am saying that the transformation will take years- it takes years to, e.g. militarise space. This is nto something that is precluded in tje doc. My, and PNACs point, is that with a new PH, it will be quicker
b) That "the doc was intentionally written"? Your confused. Not just there; the point of the doc is clear- the transformations will not happen overnight in any scenario; there are difficulties to getting it to happen , these will be overcome with a new PH. Yet we are not going to openly advoate such. This does not mean that such was not deemed propitious to policy, and coming to that conclusion rests on the premise that an easy transformation is preferable to a hard one, all else being equal. If you are a sensible person, you will realise that the opposie position is utterly untenable.

[Unsecured Coins]

for a guy still touts the zogby poll that says "84% say it's an inside job" you're having a hard time accepting the numbers displayed about you.

[PhantomWolf]

Just to deal with this post quickly- I have addressed this toooooo many times now, but will do so again. If I'm honest I dont think that these sorts of assertions would be made by the relatively intelligent people I believe you to be, were you able to look at 911 without complete self deception.

To take one example from this post, they did indeed call for the abiltiy to fight and win 2 theatre wars. Yet, they have failed to do so. This is because they have screwed up. It is because they are incompetent. It is, in short, a failure of execution. It is not because they did not see this as a aim to be pursued. It is not because this was not part of their design. On the contrary, it was almost certainly part of their design to be able to fight and win 2 major wars at the same time, hence why they engaged in such. (I think I'm right in saying its the 1st time in US history that 2 unconnected major foreign wars have been waged simultaneously?)

It is this distinction between design and execution, a very simple one in truth, that gets missed so egregiously by so many on this board, but one that is so very important.

ETA incidentally I dont know what Jaydeehess's ideological bent is, but he is pretty close to the mark in his post


No, you're busy making assumptions. The document calls for several things. The a bigger budget to have increased technology and manpower to fight and decisively win two wars, and time for the resources and reseach that will be required to get those things. A new Pearl habor was the last thing that would have been wanted and going into two wars under prepared, under equiped and having them go so wrong is completely the opposite of what they wanted. The plan they listed says nothing about having to go to war to get it done, in fact they wanted less resources spent on such things, not more. If you read it you'll see that they were all for pulling out of the Middle East and Korea, except they they felt that would cause problems there. Getting dragged into two wars in the Middle East was not the plan, they wanted decades of peace over which they could rebuild and strengthen the military to a point where no one would dare challenge them. The position that they are in now is totally the opposite of that. It is the exact thing that the writtersof the paper were warning about, the fact that the military was under equipped and under prepared to face this sort of challenge and needed to be strengthened and restored in case it had to do it.

Your reading of it is totally mereged with your bias that they wanted war at any cost. Stop running your own interreptation over it and just read the words themselves. You'll see that they advised a slow pace during which there was time to experiment with reseach and development and make mistakes in they occured. They suggested getting rid of projects that weren't really going anywhere, and replacing them with more targeted programmes. Going to war sinks that altoghter because at that point you have to get what you have out into service asap, you don't cancel it and start experimenting with new stuff.

Your claims do not make sense. If you stopped, threw away your political bias and looked at what happened, vs what the document says should happen, you'd see that they are two totally different things and only by your warpping the message it gives, taking parts out of contect, and applying your own interpretation to it can it even get close to what you claim.


And BTW, on the two non-connected war theatre thing, try looking in a book for 1939-1945. The Europe and Pacfic Wars were as connected as Afghanistan and Iraq are.

[RedIbis]

Unless....just how long you think? Do you see us getting out of Iraq or Afghanistan in the near future?

.

Nope.

[MIKILLINI]

1. It illustrates that there is only one possible outcome for that scenario, and it is not an outcome that affects the proposition in any way- that a new ph was deemed propitious to policy. Not in any way.

Unless someone makes an argument (well who could that be?), and in the context of their argument, determines that taking this angle is propitious for their argument.

2. a) You are twisting my words. Why would you do this? I am saying that the transformation will take years- it takes years to, e.g. militarise space. This is nto something that is precluded in tje doc. My, and PNACs point, is that with a new PH, it will be quicker

Clear case of you not comprehending or missing what I wrote, Mjd. Look again;

There is a consensus in this document and that consensus is a strategy session which came to the conclusion that these changes will take time to implement. You have admitted as much to that Mjd.

No twisting of words there.

And learn to read the whole sentence I wrote, correctly;

You have not proven this document was intentionally written and it's authors intentions favorable toward a conspiracy to commit or allow a catastrophic or catalyzing event in order for transformations to occur more easily.

It seems you stopped after intentionally written. :con2:

[Foolmewunz]

I'm sure glad my customers aren't Truthers. Here's something I wrote to a client a few hours ago. They're trying to out-guess the freight rate market to make their 2008 budgets. It's a real tricky proposition because freight is more a commodity now than in the past, and you can't simply apply inflationary logic, but have to go with supply/demand..... But I digress.... Here's what I wrote.


Pat/John,
The increases from Asia to Europe are going to be fairly large. The rates at the beginning of 2007 (which we locked in) are about $500/teu below what the carriers can get in the current market. They are planning another increase in October and then another on Jan. 1. All told, the rates as of Jan/08 when we have to "go to the mattresses" again, are going to be 650/20 and 1400/40 higher than last year. Absent some major crisis which slows down Asian sourcing - like an oil embargo, a war that blocks The Suez, or a global recession - I think you guys are going to take about a two million hit on transportation next season. Wish I had better news, but....(snip)

(bolding added for this forum)

Can you imagine what a Truther would do with that statement if some such disaster does occur. Why, I'm blatantly planning something to avoid them losing two million bucks. It couldn't be clearer! :spjimlad: :spjimlad:

[MIKILLINI]

I'm sure glad my customers aren't Truthers. Here's something I wrote to a client a few hours ago. They're trying to out-guess the freight rate market to make their 2008 budgets. It's a real tricky proposition because freight is more a commodity now than in the past, and you can't simply apply inflationary logic, but have to go with supply/demand..... But I digress.... Here's what I wrote.



(bolding added for this forum)

Can you imagine what a Truther would do with that statement if some such disaster does occur. Why, I'm blatantly planning something to avoid them losing two million bucks. It couldn't be clearer! :spjimlad: :spjimlad:

Certainly a parallel example, FMZ; Exceptions that would disrupt otherwise normal planning and procedure. Good example.
Unfortunately, there are those who believe exceptions are more of the design and the possible disrupting events as a matter of execution.

[Foolmewunz]

Certainly a parallel example, FMZ; Exceptions that would disrupt otherwise normal planning and procedure. Good example.
Unfortunately, there are those who believe exceptions are more of the design and the possible disrupting events as a matter of execution.

Well, I just hope nothing similar to those events happen, 'cuz now that I published the statement here, I'm either going into a FEMA death camp or I might be forced to take a radio show in Austin! "Hey, I predicted this would happen!"

Of course I also predicted the Thai Baht would crash (it's gone up), that the HK government would peg its dollar to the Chinese Yuan(Rinminbi)... which it hasn't done, and that Bears would win the Superbowl, but in the spirit of PrisonPlanet, we'll just ignore those.

[mjd1982]

No, you're busy making assumptions. The document calls for several things. The a bigger budget to have increased technology and manpower to fight and decisively win two wars, and time for the resources and reseach that will be required to get those things.


Time which will be a lot shorter with the occurence of a new PH.

Btw- where do they ask for lots of time for this to happen?


A new Pearl habor was the last thing that would have been wanted and going into two wars under prepared, under equiped and having them go so wrong is completely the opposite of what they wanted.



No, you're busy making assumptions. No, you're busy making assumptions.



The plan they listed says nothing about having to go to war to get it done, in fact they wanted less resources spent on such things, not more.


Other than the line that states one of the 4 key missions should be to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars". Never mind!


If you read it you'll see that they were all for pulling out of the Middle East


Yes, like the line


Likewise, the Clinton Administration has
continued the fiction that the operations of
American forces in the Persian Gulf are
merely temporary duties. Nearly a decade
after the Gulf War, U.S. air, ground and
naval forces continue to protect enduring
American interests in the region.


Please read the doc before you challenge me on this


and Korea, except they they felt that would cause problems there. Getting dragged into two wars in the Middle East was not the plan, they wanted decades of peace over which they could rebuild and strengthen the military to a point where no one would dare challenge them.


LMAO, yeh, those peace loving neo cons. Again you miss the line:


ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:...
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;



The position that they are in now is totally the opposite of that. It is the exact thing that the writtersof the paper were warning about, the fact that the military was under equipped and under prepared to face this sort of challenge and needed to be strengthened and restored in case it had to do it.


Which would be catalysed by what again? And what happened to military budgets after 911? Do you know what % of GDP it rose to? And do you know what % of GDP they called for it to rise to?


Your reading of it is totally mereged with your bias that they wanted war at any cost.



No, you're busy making assumptions.



Stop running your own interreptation over it and just read the words themselves. You'll see that they advised a slow pace during which there was time to experiment with reseach and development and make mistakes in they occured.


quote?


They suggested getting rid of projects that weren't really going anywhere, and replacing them with more targeted programmes.


Yes! Which would be facilitated by what again?


Going to war sinks that altoghter because at that point you have to get what you have out into service asap, you don't cancel it and start experimenting with new stuff.


Errr... then why did they go to war in Iraq again? And why was one of the stated goals of the US military fight to major wars simultaneously? You think the neo cons want peace?

[mjd1982]

for a guy still touts the zogby poll that says "84% say it's an inside job" you're having a hard time accepting the numbers displayed about you.
where have I said that?

[Unsecured Coins]

where have I said that?

This is a pretty well known poll. Only 16% of US believe the Gov is telling the truh on what it knew prior to 911, i.e. part of the OT

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1686&view=findpost&p=19145

[mjd1982]

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1686&view=findpost&p=19145
which is completely different to what u have claimed.

[PhantomWolf]

Time which will be a lot shorter with the occurence of a new PH.

Btw- where do they ask for lots of time for this to happen?

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

Other than the line that states one of the 4 key missions should be to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars". Never mind!

Errr... then why did they go to war in Iraq again? And why was one of the stated goals of the US military fight to major wars simultaneously? You think the neo cons want peace?

No, the mission goal they stated is to be ABLE to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars. Having a military able to do something does not mean you want it to go and do that thing. If I say that our (NZ's) military should have as a Mission goal that they can fight and decisively win a war against any of our neighbouring countries, am I advocating that they should be able to win a war if one occurs, or that they should go out and start one? Saying that you should make it a goal to be able to do something does not mean that you are going out to to it, just that you are in the position to do it if it's required.

Which would be catalysed by what again? And what happened to military budgets after 911? Do you know what % of GDP it rose to? And do you know what % of GDP they called for it to rise to?

Yes! Which would be facilitated by what again?

It doesn't have to be "catalysed" or "facilitated" by anything. If I say that "I need to refurbish my house and that it is going to take years to do this, short of a relative dying and leaving me all their money" am I suggesting that I am planning to go and kill a relative to get their money to refurbish my house, or am I pointing out that since that event is unlikely I'm going to have to be prepared for the plan to refurbish my home to take a long time? In the same way the plan outlined was set up to take a long time, the writters of the report realised that and wrote it as such making it clear that to do it properly was going to take a long time and that those dealing with the situation should realise that and plan accordingly. Under your interpretation why bother outlining the long haul if it was never intended to be used. Why plan for a long term plan and then totally subvert and ruin it?

quote?

Sure here you go, a prefect example...

LMAO, yeh, those peace loving neo cons.

[mjd1982]

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.


Good. So precisely what I have said previously. The change will not be able to happen, under any circumstances, overnight. But for it to take too long is something that is not viewed favourably. We can see this here with the use of the "yet" clause. The length of transformation is not viewed favourably, but is unavoidable. What a new PH will do, is reduce that length, thus creating a more favourable timespan for the transformation. So as has been demonstrated time and again, the slowest possible transformation (i.e. absent a new PH) is not deemed as propitious to policy, as a quicker one.


No, the mission goal they stated is to be ABLE to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars. Having a military able to do something does not mean you want it to go and do that thing. If I say that our (NZ's) military should have as a Mission goal that they can fight and decisively win a war against any of our neighbouring countries, am I advocating that they should be able to win a war if one occurs, or that they should go out and start one? Saying that you should make it a goal to be able to do something does not mean that you are going out to to it, just that you are in the position to do it if it's required.


Now you are just lying.


ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:...
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;



It doesn't have to be "catalysed" or "facilitated" by anything. If I say that "I need to refurbish my house and that it is going to take years to do this, short of a relative dying and leaving me all their money" am I suggesting that I am planning to go and kill a relative to get their money to refurbish my house, or am I pointing out that since that event is unlikely I'm going to have to be prepared for the plan to refurbish my home to take a long time? In the same way the plan outlined was set up to take a long time, the writters of the report realised that and wrote it as such making it clear that to do it properly was going to take a long time and that those dealing with the situation should realise that and plan accordingly. Under your interpretation why bother outlining the long haul if it was never intended to be used. Why plan for a long term plan and then totally subvert and ruin it?


This has been dealt with time and again. 1stly, its not a matter of outlining it "for the long haul", since as I have said, the complete transformation will be a long haul in any case. You are arguiing taht they want it to be done in the longest haul. If you are going to make that contention, you will have to support it. I have shown, in the very same paragraph as the PH comment, why a new PH would make things quicker- it would obviate difficulties. You have to show my why they want these difficulties to be part of their transformation. Yes, your task is that difficult.

[Brainache]

Good. So precisely what I have said previously. The change will not be able to happen, under any circumstances, overnight. But for it to take too long is something that is not viewed favourably. We can see this here with the use of the "yet" clause. The length of transformation is not viewed favourably, but is unavoidable. What a new PH will do, is reduce that length, thus creating a more favourable timespan for the transformation. So as has been demonstrated time and again, the slowest possible transformation (i.e. absent a new PH) is not deemed as propitious to policy, as a quicker one.

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.



Now you are just lying.


This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.




This has been dealt with time and again. 1stly, its not a matter of outlining it "for the long haul", since as I have said, the complete transformation will be a long haul in any case. You are arguiing taht they want it to be done in the longest haul. If you are going to make that contention, you will have to support it. I have shown, in the very same paragraph as the PH comment, why a new PH would make things quicker- it would obviate difficulties. You have to show my why they want these difficulties to be part of their transformation. Yes, your task is that difficult.

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

[PhantomWolf]

Now you are just lying.

You know I really don't appreciate being called a air by someone who then cherry picks his quotes from a short one line summary rather than looking at the expanded full text.

LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

You sir are the Liar.

For those interested in the real story, read pages 8-10 (pdf 20-22) for the real story which states that the Two-War scenario was an accepted Pentagon Benchmark that "the Joint Chiefs have admitted they lack the forces necessary to meet." The Goal listed in the paper is to restore the Military forces to the "two War bench mark" not to go and fight two wars. mdj is a lair and a fraud and is now the very first person to meet my ignore feature.

[mjd1982]

This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.



This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.





This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.
youve repeated yourself 3 times. I have already dealt with your repetition.

[mjd1982]

You know I really don't appreciate being called a air by someone who then cherry picks his quotes from a short one line summary rather than looking at the expanded full text.

LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

You sir are the Liar.

For those interested in the real story, read pages 8-10 (pdf 20-22) for the real story which states that the Two-War scenario was an accepted Pentagon Benchmark that "the Joint Chiefs have admitted they lack the forces necessary to meet." The Goal listed in the paper is to restore the Military forces to the "two War bench mark" not to go and fight two wars. mdj is a lair and a fraud and is now the very first person to meet my ignore feature.
I may well be a lair, I'm not sure.

The quote I have taken is from the key findings section. It states what are the key needs for the transformation. "Fight and win multiple, simultaneous theatre wars". Fight and win. End.

[Gravy]

If this is just a repetition of mjd's PNAC thread, I will ask that the two threads be merged.

Opinions from those participating? I see only identical arguments, as if that monster thread didn't exist.

[mjd1982]

If this is just a repetition of mjd's PNAC thread, I will ask that the two threads be merged.

Opinions from those participating? I see only identical arguments, as if that monster thread didn't exist.
go ahead

[Sabrina]

I'm not participating (I honestly find mjd's posting style to be arrogant and ignorant, but that's just his posting style as I've seen here and elsewhere, not necessarily a reflection on him personally) but I agree with Gravy. I think any posts with a connection to PNAC should be merged with the other thread and should stay there.

[Cuddles]

I think any posts with a connection to PNAC should be merged with the other thread and should stay there.

But would that be propitious to JREF policy?

[Brainache]

If this is just a repetition of mjd's PNAC thread, I will ask that the two threads be merged.

Opinions from those participating? I see only identical arguments, as if that monster thread didn't exist.

I'm not sure I agree. I started this thread with the intention of showing mjd that his arguments were not persuasive to anyone but himself. As I write, the overwhelming majority of responses to the poll demonstrate this (even bog snorkelling is more popular).

I was also hoping to push the other thread past this ridiculous PNAC bottleneck. This may or may not have been successful, but I see signs that the original thread is now moving on and I don't think that merging in a whole lot of PNAC arguments would be propitious to that purpose.(:duck:)

Based on the poll results I think the argument has failed and I'm happy to let this thread die. I'm keen to see mjd's next attempt at arguing his case. Call it morbid curiosity.

[BillyRayValentine]

Other than the line that states one of the 4 key missions should be to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars". Never mind!

The line you quote obviously refers to a desired level of preparedness, not a desire to actually engage in multiple wars. What a positively retarded interpretation.

You probably confused yourself by cherrypicking a one-line summary from the preface, while ignoring the more detailed explanation that followed only a few short pages later:

LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.

You'll also notice that the two-war (multiple theatre) standard is/was nothing new. They basically said it needs to be updated. Stop pretending that the ability to fight multiple wars is some new standard created by PNAC.

You have very little regard for honesty, junior.

[BillyRayValentine]

And what happened to military budgets after 911? Do you know what % of GDP it rose to? And do you know what % of GDP they called for it to rise to?

Hey genius, here's a newsflash - wars are expensive. The increased military spending relates to the costs of war, not increased financing to fuel some sort of PNAC military transformation. Reality intercedes, you lose again.

[mjd1982]

I'm not sure I agree. I started this thread with the intention of showing mjd that his arguments were not persuasive to anyone but himself. As I write, the overwhelming majority of responses to the poll demonstrate this (even bog snorkelling is more popular).

I was also hoping to push the other thread past this ridiculous PNAC bottleneck. This may or may not have been successful, but I see signs that the original thread is now moving on and I don't think that merging in a whole lot of PNAC arguments would be propitious to that purpose.(:duck:)

Based on the poll results I think the argument has failed and I'm happy to let this thread die. I'm keen to see mjd's next attempt at arguing his case. Call it morbid curiosity.
Of the respondents, 19% agree with me. As a proportion of CTers who have posted on this thread, which is roughly 5%, this is a quite startling balance of opinion. Given that CTers will probably agree with me, and OTers will probably disagree, that the % who have indicated their agreement is so overwhelmingly over the proportions of the CTers who have posted on the CF thread, is highly telling, and supportive of the conclusion of the thread, I'm afraid.

[Brainache]

Of the respondents, 19% agree with me. As a proportion of CTers who have posted on this thread, which is roughly 5%, this is a quite startling balance of opinion. Given that CTers will probably agree with me, and OTers will probably disagree, that the % who have indicated their agreement is so overwhelmingly over the proportions of the CTers who have posted on the CF thread, is highly telling, and supportive of the conclusion of the thread, I'm afraid.

Here are the people who voted yes:

A-Train, bsw2009, Childlike Empress, Civilized Worm, cmcaulif, FatesWebb, fitzgibbon, godless dave, jaydeehess, leftysergeant, mjd1982, Peephole, Revolutionary91, slugmancs, Tippit, wooooody64

One or two surprises for me, but not what I would call overwhelming.

[Sabrina]

Shouldn't Rev's vote be disqualified, since he's no longer a member of the forum?

[Billdave2]

Here are the people who voted yes:

A-Train, bsw2009, Childlike Empress, Civilized Worm, cmcaulif, FatesWebb, fitzgibbon, godless dave, jaydeehess, leftysergeant, mjd1982, Peephole, Revolutionary91, slugmancs, Tippit, wooooody64

One or two surprises for me, but not what I would call overwhelming.

The thing is, you could believe that 9/11 was propitious to policy without believing in a conspiracy to bring it about. I wonder if some of the people voting yes are in that camp. As most of us have tried to point out, if your grandmother dies and leaves you a million dollars it could be considered propitious to you, but that doesn't mean you killed her.

Perhaps a better question would have been is this evidence that 9/11 was caused by the writers of PNAC

[mjd1982]

The thing is, you could believe that 9/11 was propitious to policy without believing in a conspiracy to bring it about. I wonder if some of the people voting yes are in that camp. As most of us have tried to point out, if your grandmother dies and leaves you a million dollars it could be considered propitious to you, but that doesn't mean you killed her.

Perhaps a better question would have been is this evidence that 9/11 was caused by the writers of PNAC
That is not the point of thee section, as I stressed for 60 pages. How interesting that you never succeeded in understanding this. How unsurprising too.

Your question, is currently being debated/evaded, on the thread now. Run along.

[Cuddles]

Here are the people who voted yes:

A-Train, bsw2009, Childlike Empress, Civilized Worm, cmcaulif, FatesWebb, fitzgibbon, godless dave, jaydeehess, leftysergeant, mjd1982, Peephole, Revolutionary91, slugmancs, Tippit, wooooody64

One or two surprises for me, but not what I would call overwhelming.

Hmm, out of 16 votes I make that 8 hardcore truthers, 2 that I'm not sure of but I suspect are thinking as Billdave2 says and 6 that I've never seen post. I especially like mjd's conclusion that there since 5% of posters are truthers this means he has won, despite that fact that at least 10% of the votes are from truthers and even at best this still means that less than 1/5 people agree with his claim of propitiousness, while saying nothing at all about the likelihood of conspiracy. So, not 84% then.

I probably shouldn't bother pointing out, yet again, that "the thread" != mjd and his conclusions are not the same as everyone else's.

[Billdave2]

That is not the point of thee section, as I stressed for 60 pages. How interesting that you never succeeded in understanding this. How unsurprising too.

Your question, is currently being debated/evaded, on the thread now. Run along.

Yes, I know it is unsurprising to you because I don't agree with you. That doesn't make what I am saying wrong. It has been pointed out to you countless times the errors in your assertions.

[mjd1982]

Hmm, out of 16 votes I make that 8 hardcore truthers, 2 that I'm not sure of but I suspect are thinking as Billdave2 says and 6 that I've never seen post. I especially like mjd's conclusion that there since 5% of posters are truthers this means he has won, despite that fact that at least 10% of the votes are from truthers and even at best this still means that less than 1/5 people agree with his claim of propitiousness, while saying nothing at all about the likelihood of conspiracy. So, not 84% then.

I probably shouldn't bother pointing out, yet again, that "the thread" != mjd and his conclusions are not the same as everyone else's.
I'm not saying "I won". I am saying that the stuctural make up of the thread was 5% CTers, 95% OTers. And I got 20% of the vote; more if you include abstentions, or whatever the 3rd category was. This illustrates a conclusion that is highly propitious...to me.

[Billdave2]

I'm not saying "I won". I am saying that the stuctural make up of the thread was 5% CTers, 95% OTers. And I got 20% of the vote; more if you include abstentions, or whatever the 3rd category was. This illustrates a conclusion that is highly propitious...to me.

Just because it is propitous to you, does not make it correct. In this case the two are actually mutally exclusive.

[BillyRayValentine]

I'm not saying "I won". I am saying that the stuctural make up of the thread was 5% CTers, 95% OTers. And I got 20% of the vote; more if you include abstentions, or whatever the 3rd category was. This illustrates a conclusion that is highly propitious...to me.

The conclusion you reach is moronic. Whether a voter actively posted on this thread is completely irrelevant. You are very, very lost.

P.S. I'm guessing that the 3rd category was more or less meant to mock you, along with your gross over-use of the word proptious. You'll notice that the folks who voted that way tend to regard CT's as whackos. Hardly "abstentions", genius.