Originally posted by Zipdot
Good points. I really want to have faith in the information generation, though. The people of today are empowered with communication abilities
basically unprecedented in history and with all of that, if we can't prevent despotism, then maybe human beings really do have sociological limits to
their success and prosperity.
Believe me, I want to have faith in everyone too, but I think the odds are against it. I mean, unless this hits CNN and the other major stations with
a bang, most people are going to discredit it. As much as I love ATS, even as credible as this site is most people would take one look at it and say
"there's a bunch of loons." That's just the image that most websites and independant news media that would cover this have: uncredible
Chicken-Little-The-Sky-Is-Falling wannabe journalists just trying to get their 15 minutes. Gotta hand it to the big dogs, they know how to cover
their tails by discrediting the truth.
Aside from that, contrary to popular belief these guys aren't idiots. Even if Bush or Blair didn't have the common sense to walk across the street,
they do have some bright people wagging the dog for them. I'm sure just about any decision they make will have a good enough spin on it to get
enough popular support to make it happen. Before coming to ATS I would've laughed at the idea of someone doing a mass attack to generate popular
support, but I've seen enough posts about it to where I'm not so sure anymore. An attack is always good PR if you're wanting to start a fight.
Crakeur, there's a couple of possibilities as to the reasonings behind Saudi or Pakistan. Even prior to 9/11, either of them could've been eventual
targets, somewhere the powers that be had their eyes on for one reason or another. There's the old adage: keep your friends close, your enemies
My hypothetical scenario for Saudi is this. Keeping the image of Bush as an oil-hungry war monger in mind (because we all know he is
), Saudi is a
great target. 9/11 happens, however it did and whomever was behind it, and we treat the Saudi's as royalty, do whatever it takes to make us look
good to them.
We handle Afghanistan and Iraq, and all of a sudden, the Saudi's (supposedly) throw a sucker punch at us for one reason or another--terrorist attack,
oil embargo, whatever you want to put in here. Now we have a good case for righteous indignation: "We treated you so great, and you do this? Nah,
ain't playing that game..." Send in the carriers for a now-justified war, with tremendous public backing. Depending on whatever that punch was, it
may even be bigger than the post-9/11 public support, because we always knew Osama was after us, and we didn't do much to help him out.
Pakistan might be a little more difficult to spin, and for the life of me I can't see much motivation other than them becoming a nuclear power
recently (albeit not much of one.) Perhaps their war with India has some people irked, although again I can't see why. Maybe there's some
strategic value in the location or their resources, and I could see that if someone is wanting to move in on China or N. Korea in the future.
Although Pakistan is supporting us quite nicely at the moment, they may have their own political boundaries they aren't letting us cross in those
Either way, a similar PR strategy could be applied: they're helping us, we think they're on our side, they sucker punch us, we go after them. It
doesn't even have to be on US or GB soil--a well placed tactical nuke in Calcutta makes Pakistan look like evil incarnate, we go in to save the
I think that having such a short amount of time left in office for Bush can be a really bad thing, as I've stated above. He has nothing left to
loose by going after whomever he wants. He can bring this country down to it's international-political knees if he wants, and leave the next guy (or
girl) to pick up the pieces. No skin off his back.
But, as Rasputin sez, best thing to do is to see what happens next.