Follow on Feedspot






Visit The New Store

Post New Topic

Most recent Posts

• Mobile Responsive Theme

• Occasion2b Main Page

• General Discussion

• Disease Outbreak News

YoNews.org

YoNews Portal

• All Things Prepper

• Game Area

• Archives







The sun Today



Right click and view
for larger image



  • Home
  • Search
    •  
  • Login
    • Username: Password:
      Did you miss your activation email?
                          
www.occasion-to-be.com

Author Topic: Syria, Iran and N. Korea: Has Trump signed on to complete the neocon hitlist? -- Puppet Masters -- S  (Read 76 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Axis of Evil

  • Guest
In Donald Trump's short time in office, he has already shown his propensity to use military force. From dropping the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used on Afghanistan, to launching 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraq (oh wait, Syria), there is no doubt that the Trump administration has a prominent militaristic streak.

But is this just for starters? If Trump stays in power for the duration of his term, is there a major war, or even multiple wars, on the horizon? Judging by the rhetoric and actions already taken by the Trump administration, it will be a miracle if the US does not start a major war in the near future. Coincidentally, the main countries in the sights of the Trump administration just happen to be the three countries that the neoconservatives pinpointed for regime change 17 years ago, but have not yet been dealt with.

1997 marked the birth of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank of catastrophic proportions. It was founded by William Kristol, the longtime editor of the Weekly Standard, who also served as the chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, and Robert Kagan, a former State Department official who is now a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute. A long list of neocons belonged to the group, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

PNAC's stated objectives included the desire to "shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests," "increase defense spending significantly," and challenge "regimes hostile to US interests and values." In September 2000, the PNAC group released a report titled: 'Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.' The introduction to the report clearly expressed PNAC's desire to maintain US supremacy in the world:

    "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...Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future."

    In order to maintain this supremacy, the report called for the Defense Department to be at the forefront of experimenting with transformative technologies, a move that would require a dramatic increase in defense spending.

Curiously, the report - published one year prior to 9/11 - argued that this transformation would likely be a "long one" unless an event on the scale of "Pearl Harbor" occurred:

    "To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs... The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence...

    The Pentagon [however], constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade... Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets... 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" (p.50-p.51).

Under the guise of missile capability, the report then pinpointed five countries that the neocons, in conjunction with the CIA, considered "deeply hostile" to the US:

    "Ever since the Persian Gulf War of 1991... the value of the ballistic missile has been clear to America's adversaries. When their missiles are tipped with warheads carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, even weak regional powers have a credible deterrent, regardless of the balance of conventional forces. That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America - North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria - 'already have or are developing ballistic missiles' that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad. And one, North Korea, is on the verge of deploying missiles that can hit the American homeland. Such capabilities pose a grave challenge to the American peace and the military power that preserves that peace" (p.51-p.52).

This report was published approximately three years prior to the invasion of Iraq, and approximately 11 years prior to both the war in Libya and the start of the proxy war in Syria. The central point I am getting at here is that the wars we have seen unfold, and the wars to come, are not just short-term actions taken by the administration who happens to be in power at that particular time. They are planned years and sometimes decades prior to the first shot being fired. Regardless of which party the President belongs to - George Bush invaded Iraq with a blue tie on, whilst Barack Obama bombed Libya with a red one on - the same regime-change-agenda continues.

Two Down, Three to Go


Source:  https://www.sott.net/article/353996-Syria-Iran-and-N-Korea-Has-Trump-signed-on-to-complete-the-neocon-hitlist