Friday, June 23, 2006
Conspiracy - R - Us
It is kind of a hobby of mine to come up with the most paranoid fantasy possible and then wait around for a week or so and watch the Bush administration prove that fact is stranger than fiction. Just the other day I introduced a "theory" to a co-worker knowing that his response would be a rolling of the eyes and a mental note to file me away under "Confirmed Loony" in his brain.
Knowing what his reaction was likely to be in advance, owing to my keen perception, I felt the need to poke fun at my own theory to save face. I used qualifiers before describing the theory such as, "Understand that I am suggesting that it is interesting to think about" and "It's not like I am arguing that this is reality but consider ..."
The theory is based on my instinct, gut feeling if you will, that very few certifiably bat-shit crazy individuals are able to command the sort of long term loyalty and devotion needed to run any organization for very long. Generally the dangerously insane flame out in a big way rather quickly. They may attract followers for a time. Some of their followers are even willing to lay their lives down for their psychotic leader given the right frame of mind (think David Koresh). But I have always been leery of the notion that people such as Saddam Hussein, Col. Khaddafi, Kim Jung Il etc are "completely insane". Yet this is how we are encouraged to think of them. My feeling is that one of the characteristics of complete insanity is the inability to conform ones actions to the basic rational instinct for survival.
"I believe that I will take a big bite of this fast moving locomotive for it is made of Twinkies." Would be an example of the last words of a profoundly insane person. Unleashing a gas attack on your political enemies in order to demonstrate a ruthless desire to remain in charge after having procured the weapons from the world's most powerful nations is horribly immoral behavior but is it evidence of insanity? I postulate that because this act demonstrates a well planned, complex, and coordinated effort, aimed at survival, it is not insane. Though to say that it is extraordinarily nasty behavior would be an understatement.
I'm taking a very long time to get to the point so here goes: I do not believe that Kim Jung Il, the leader of North Korea, is insane.
There, I said it. Or, rather, I wrote it. Start throwing garbage at me if you must.
So what am I to make of the latest threat by the kooky leader to demonstrate North Korea's ability to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile?
Many would say, "He's flippin' crazy, there's no point whatsoever in trying to understand his actions since he is nuts!" This reaction, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion, "Kill the mad dog before he kills us."
And now for the controversial part of my theory. Kim Jung Il is not only not crazy but he is a well paid actor whose roll is to play the Penquin to Bush's Batman. His acting is first rate.
The reason? To make saleable to the American public the idea that our nation should spend upwards of $100 billion on a missile defense system. Clearly a Missile Defense Shield must be built to protect us from this suicidal devil.
I first became suspicious of Kim Jung Il's supposed insanity when George W. Bush rejected a visit by the leader of South Korea at the beginning of his first term. This sent a strong signal that he would not put a priority on continuing US involvement in brokering peace on the Korean Peninsula. This seemed very odd considering that after 50 years of cold war between North and South Korea there was finally enough of a thaw during the Clinton administration for the two sides to begin allowing cross DMZ visits by families separated by the Korean Conflict. There seemed to be real hope that peace would finally break out. But for some the hope for peace represents a more than offsetting fear of loss of extremely lucrative defense work.
In Bush's first State of the Union address following 9/11 he announced that North Korea was part of the axis of evil and declared,
"We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."
With the Bush gang's long term devotion to selling a missile defense shield to the American public, even after the fall of the Soviet Union (the presumed enemy during the Reagan administration that the shield was needed for) an enemy, real or presumed was needed. They needed a boogeyman and North Korea fit the bill. After reading horrifying excerpts of the Project for a New American Century's (PNAC) own manifesto on its website this seemed to make sense to me. From page 9 (of 90 in the PDF file) of the September 2000 report that is the blueprint for all Bush administration decision making from the moment he took office:
"As will be argued more fully below, effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection ofU.S. United States homeland itself, America
And from page 19 ..
"Over the next several decades, the United States must field a global system of missile defenses, divine ways to control the new “international commons” of space and cyberspace, and build new kinds of conventional forces for different strategic challenges and a new technological environment."
So torpedo the peace talks, isolate North Korea, build up the threat that they will develop further nuclear capabilities and the payoff is the delivery of $100 billion of defense work to the folks who put these nuts in power.
So I argued to my co-worker that it was more comprehensible that these powerful money interests would be able to buy a foreign leader and have him play the enemy of our nightmares than to believe that Kim Jung Il is so crazy that he'd risk nuking Tokyo and starting a worldwide nuclear conflagration that would result in the end of human life on the planet.
The very evening I exposed my lunatic theory to the light of day at work I flipped on the idiot box and on the network news (ABC) the top stories included a piece discussing the possibility that if North Korea were to go ahead with the test launch of its intercontinental ballistic missile that the US' fledgling missile defense shield would be able to shoot it down.
Those sneaky bastards! Could I be on to something?
In previous tests of our missile defense shield we have failed to hit the target. Even when the Pentagon was caught rigging the test existing systems under development failed with one exception that I am aware of.
"The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged."
Has the state of the art advanced enough that the PNAC gang could be guaranteed to hit the target this time? With the help of an accomplice coordinating the launch of his missile, again with a homing beacon on it so the US can shoot it down, could we do it this time?
Should this scenario play out Kim Jung Il would angrily claim that we violated the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, that we are evil cheaters and he will be forced to build more missiles as fast as possible.
If relatively small fry defense contractors can buy a US Congressman from San Diego for a paltry 2 million dollars is it so cynical and crazy to believe that the largest defense firms, with the help of top administration officials could not buy the loyalty of a tin pot dictator ruling a dirt poor, ruined nation of starving peasants?
Would there not be a huge public demand for immediate massive investment in perfecting the shield at any price (so long as it is financed in the traditional manner of putting it on our childrens' credit cards)? Afterall, the shield will have proven its usefulness and apparent necessity to protect us from the little mad man in Pyonyang. Defense stocks will soar and the massive theft from the American taxpayer will go on and on.
Combine the timing of this spectacle with the upcoming mid-elections and you have a recipe for a delightful October surprise. Americans would be reminded once again that only Republicans have the testosterone to protect the homeland from the evil surrounding us.
Or, I could be a loony.
PLEASE TELL ME I AM A LOONY.
Follow Up: Looks like I have company.
It is kind of a hobby of mine to come up with the most paranoid fantasy possible and then wait around for a week or so and watch the Bush administration prove that fact is stranger than fiction. Just the other day I introduced a "theory" to a co-worker knowing that his response would be a rolling of the eyes and a mental note to file me away under "Confirmed Loony" in his brain.
Knowing what his reaction was likely to be in advance, owing to my keen perception, I felt the need to poke fun at my own theory to save face. I used qualifiers before describing the theory such as, "Understand that I am suggesting that it is interesting to think about" and "It's not like I am arguing that this is reality but consider ..."
The theory is based on my instinct, gut feeling if you will, that very few certifiably bat-shit crazy individuals are able to command the sort of long term loyalty and devotion needed to run any organization for very long. Generally the dangerously insane flame out in a big way rather quickly. They may attract followers for a time. Some of their followers are even willing to lay their lives down for their psychotic leader given the right frame of mind (think David Koresh). But I have always been leery of the notion that people such as Saddam Hussein, Col. Khaddafi, Kim Jung Il etc are "completely insane". Yet this is how we are encouraged to think of them. My feeling is that one of the characteristics of complete insanity is the inability to conform ones actions to the basic rational instinct for survival.
"I believe that I will take a big bite of this fast moving locomotive for it is made of Twinkies." Would be an example of the last words of a profoundly insane person. Unleashing a gas attack on your political enemies in order to demonstrate a ruthless desire to remain in charge after having procured the weapons from the world's most powerful nations is horribly immoral behavior but is it evidence of insanity? I postulate that because this act demonstrates a well planned, complex, and coordinated effort, aimed at survival, it is not insane. Though to say that it is extraordinarily nasty behavior would be an understatement.
I'm taking a very long time to get to the point so here goes: I do not believe that Kim Jung Il, the leader of North Korea, is insane.
There, I said it. Or, rather, I wrote it. Start throwing garbage at me if you must.
So what am I to make of the latest threat by the kooky leader to demonstrate North Korea's ability to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile?
Many would say, "He's flippin' crazy, there's no point whatsoever in trying to understand his actions since he is nuts!" This reaction, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion, "Kill the mad dog before he kills us."
And now for the controversial part of my theory. Kim Jung Il is not only not crazy but he is a well paid actor whose roll is to play the Penquin to Bush's Batman. His acting is first rate.
The reason? To make saleable to the American public the idea that our nation should spend upwards of $100 billion on a missile defense system. Clearly a Missile Defense Shield must be built to protect us from this suicidal devil.
I first became suspicious of Kim Jung Il's supposed insanity when George W. Bush rejected a visit by the leader of South Korea at the beginning of his first term. This sent a strong signal that he would not put a priority on continuing US involvement in brokering peace on the Korean Peninsula. This seemed very odd considering that after 50 years of cold war between North and South Korea there was finally enough of a thaw during the Clinton administration for the two sides to begin allowing cross DMZ visits by families separated by the Korean Conflict. There seemed to be real hope that peace would finally break out. But for some the hope for peace represents a more than offsetting fear of loss of extremely lucrative defense work.
In Bush's first State of the Union address following 9/11 he announced that North Korea was part of the axis of evil and declared,
"We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."
With the Bush gang's long term devotion to selling a missile defense shield to the American public, even after the fall of the Soviet Union (the presumed enemy during the Reagan administration that the shield was needed for) an enemy, real or presumed was needed. They needed a boogeyman and North Korea fit the bill. After reading horrifying excerpts of the Project for a New American Century's (PNAC) own manifesto on its website this seemed to make sense to me. From page 9 (of 90 in the PDF file) of the September 2000 report that is the blueprint for all Bush administration decision making from the moment he took office:
"As will be argued more fully below, effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of
And from page 19 ..
"Over the next several decades, the United States must field a global system of missile defenses, divine ways to control the new “international commons” of space and cyberspace, and build new kinds of conventional forces for different strategic challenges and a new technological environment."
So torpedo the peace talks, isolate North Korea, build up the threat that they will develop further nuclear capabilities and the payoff is the delivery of $100 billion of defense work to the folks who put these nuts in power.
So I argued to my co-worker that it was more comprehensible that these powerful money interests would be able to buy a foreign leader and have him play the enemy of our nightmares than to believe that Kim Jung Il is so crazy that he'd risk nuking Tokyo and starting a worldwide nuclear conflagration that would result in the end of human life on the planet.
The very evening I exposed my lunatic theory to the light of day at work I flipped on the idiot box and on the network news (ABC) the top stories included a piece discussing the possibility that if North Korea were to go ahead with the test launch of its intercontinental ballistic missile that the US' fledgling missile defense shield would be able to shoot it down.
Those sneaky bastards! Could I be on to something?
In previous tests of our missile defense shield we have failed to hit the target. Even when the Pentagon was caught rigging the test existing systems under development failed with one exception that I am aware of.
"The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged."
Has the state of the art advanced enough that the PNAC gang could be guaranteed to hit the target this time? With the help of an accomplice coordinating the launch of his missile, again with a homing beacon on it so the US can shoot it down, could we do it this time?
Should this scenario play out Kim Jung Il would angrily claim that we violated the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, that we are evil cheaters and he will be forced to build more missiles as fast as possible.
If relatively small fry defense contractors can buy a US Congressman from San Diego for a paltry 2 million dollars is it so cynical and crazy to believe that the largest defense firms, with the help of top administration officials could not buy the loyalty of a tin pot dictator ruling a dirt poor, ruined nation of starving peasants?
Would there not be a huge public demand for immediate massive investment in perfecting the shield at any price (so long as it is financed in the traditional manner of putting it on our childrens' credit cards)? Afterall, the shield will have proven its usefulness and apparent necessity to protect us from the little mad man in Pyonyang. Defense stocks will soar and the massive theft from the American taxpayer will go on and on.
Combine the timing of this spectacle with the upcoming mid-elections and you have a recipe for a delightful October surprise. Americans would be reminded once again that only Republicans have the testosterone to protect the homeland from the evil surrounding us.
Or, I could be a loony.
PLEASE TELL ME I AM A LOONY.
Follow Up: Looks like I have company.
Comments:
Post a Comment
