| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"World War Three 2003" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2003 04:43:11 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What happened before the attacks in Washington ? |
very good and very well researched.....
thank-u very much !
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TonyXL" <tonyxl@southpole.net> wrote in message news:<3efb5575$0$45371$1b62eedf@news.wanadoo.nl>...
Senator Warner is warning for terrorist attacks on American cities (June
2001)
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010628-secdef3.html
Rumsfeld announces new strategy based on homeland defense and pre-emptive
strikes (June 2001)
http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2001/010621rumsfeld.pdf
Wolfowitz gives briefing on new strategy: regime change & deterrence (August
2001)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2001/t08162001_t0816dsd.html
Henry Shelton talks about new threats to place homeland security in a
broader context (August 2001)
http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/htmlinks/Press_Releases/2001/Aug/20010828-1.ht
m
Rumsfeld predicting the increasing importance of Homeland Defense (September
5th, 2001)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09062001_200109064.html
NDU - US Wars and the CNN Factor (April 2001)
http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/writing/AY01/5605/SeminarB5605BestPaper.pdf
NDU - Deterrence in the National Security of a Middle-Sized Country (April
2001)
http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/writing/AY01/5605/SeminarN5605BestPaper.pdf
NDU - Shocked Based Operations (May 2001)
http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/writing/AY01/AA/NominatedPaper-01-Shanahan.pdf
Harvard - Preventing Future Shock: A Case for Addressing Future Threats to
America's National Security (April 2001)
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/student/ay2001/affp/hooten.pdf
CRS Report for Congress - Terrorism and the Military's Role in Domestic
Crisis Management
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/student/ay2001/affp/Brake.pdf
Airforce Magazine - Hard Rudman Commission calls for Homeland Defense (April
2001)
http://www.afa.org/magazine/April2001/0401hart.html
Air University: Homeland Defense, Are we there yet ? (April 2001)
https://research.au.af.mil/papers/special_collection/cpc/ward.pdf
Beyond the QDR: The Emerging Strategic Framework
http://www.capitolsource.net/files/beyond_qdr.pdf
The RMA Debate (RMA = Revolution in Military Affairs)
http://www.comw.org/rma/index.html
The Paradoxes of post-Cold War US Defense Policy :
An Agenda for the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review
http://www.comw.org/pda/0102bmemo18.html
Joint Staff QDR 2001 Preparations (March 2001)
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/logistics/eltringham.pdf
A New US Military Strategy: Issues and Options (May 2001)
http://www.comw.org/pda/0105bm20.html
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR): Background, Processm, and Issues (June
2001)
http://www.iraqresearch.com/RS20771_1/rs20771_1.html
More QDR Related links :
http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2001ad.html
Reforging the Sword - Forces for a 21st Century Security Strategy (September
2001)
http://www.cdi.org/mrp/reforging-Full.pdf
WHY WE NEED A REAL DEFENSE REVIEW IN 2001
http://www.cdi.org/issues/qdr/whyneed2001.html
.
|
|
| User: ".sSweetMarie" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened before the attacks in Washington ? |
27 Jun 2003 10:24:33 PM |
|
|
America is almost beautiful, don't you think?
..sSweetMarie
On 27 Jun 2003 02:43:11 -0700,
(World War Three 2003) wrote:
very good and very well researched.....
thank-u very much !
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TonyXL" <tonyxl@southpole.net> wrote in message news:<3efb5575$0$45371$1b62eedf@news.wanadoo.nl>...
Senator Warner is warning for terrorist attacks on American cities (June
2001)
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010628-secdef3.html
Rumsfeld announces new strategy based on homeland defense and pre-emptive
strikes (June 2001)
http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2001/010621rumsfeld.pdf
Wolfowitz gives briefing on new strategy: regime change & deterrence (August
2001)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2001/t08162001_t0816dsd.html
Henry Shelton talks about new threats to place homeland security in a
broader context (August 2001)
http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/htmlinks/Press_Releases/2001/Aug/20010828-1.ht
m
Rumsfeld predicting the increasing importance of Homeland Defense (September
5th, 2001)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09062001_200109064.html
NDU - US Wars and the CNN Factor (April 2001)
http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/writing/AY01/5605/SeminarB5605BestPaper.pdf
NDU - Deterrence in the National Security of a Middle-Sized Country (April
2001)
http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/writing/AY01/5605/SeminarN5605BestPaper.pdf
NDU - Shocked Based Operations (May 2001)
http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/writing/AY01/AA/NominatedPaper-01-Shanahan.pdf
Harvard - Preventing Future Shock: A Case for Addressing Future Threats to
America's National Security (April 2001)
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/student/ay2001/affp/hooten.pdf
CRS Report for Congress - Terrorism and the Military's Role in Domestic
Crisis Management
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/student/ay2001/affp/Brake.pdf
Airforce Magazine - Hard Rudman Commission calls for Homeland Defense (April
2001)
http://www.afa.org/magazine/April2001/0401hart.html
Air University: Homeland Defense, Are we there yet ? (April 2001)
https://research.au.af.mil/papers/special_collection/cpc/ward.pdf
Beyond the QDR: The Emerging Strategic Framework
http://www.capitolsource.net/files/beyond_qdr.pdf
The RMA Debate (RMA = Revolution in Military Affairs)
http://www.comw.org/rma/index.html
The Paradoxes of post-Cold War US Defense Policy :
An Agenda for the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review
http://www.comw.org/pda/0102bmemo18.html
Joint Staff QDR 2001 Preparations (March 2001)
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/logistics/eltringham.pdf
A New US Military Strategy: Issues and Options (May 2001)
http://www.comw.org/pda/0105bm20.html
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR): Background, Processm, and Issues (June
2001)
http://www.iraqresearch.com/RS20771_1/rs20771_1.html
More QDR Related links :
http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2001ad.html
Reforging the Sword - Forces for a 21st Century Security Strategy (September
2001)
http://www.cdi.org/mrp/reforging-Full.pdf
WHY WE NEED A REAL DEFENSE REVIEW IN 2001
http://www.cdi.org/issues/qdr/whyneed2001.html
mailto:samsarah@subdimension.com for e-mail (single ss's)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyXL" |
|
| Title: Re: What happened before the attacks in Washington ? |
28 Jun 2003 07:02:34 AM |
|
|
Council for Foreign Relations Magazine: Foreign Affairs
Issue: September/October 2000 (Volume 79, Number 5)
Title: The New Apathy: How an Uninterested Public Is Reshaping Foreign
Policy
Author: James M. Lindsay
http://www.foreignpolicy2000.org/library/issuebriefs/readingnotes/fa_lindsay.html
What explains this gap between what Americans want and what Washington does?
The common answer -- that politicians are misreading the public -- is as
mistaken as it is popular. It rests on the flawed premise that in politics,
majority preferences trump all. But politicians worry less about what the
public thinks about an issue than about how intensely it cares. And therein
lies the great irony of the post-Cold War era: at the very moment that the
United States has more influence than ever on international affairs,
Americans have lost much of their interest in the world around them.
This apathetic internationalism is reshaping the politics of American
foreign policy -- encouraging the neglect of foreign affairs, distorting
policy choices to favor the noisy few over the quiet many, and making it
harder for presidents to lead. Left unchecked, these impulses will prevent
the United States from capitalizing on its great power. So the most
important foreign policy challenge facing the next president is not
encouraging democracy in Russia, coping with a rising China, or advancing a
liberal economic order. Instead, it is persuading the American people to pay
more than lip service to their internationalist beliefs.
KEEPING THE FAITH
The key to fighting apathetic internationalism is persuading the public to
act on its internationalist preferences. If politicians believe they will be
rewarded for defending broad interests and penalized for tending to narrow
ones, they will pay more heed to foreign policy, and squeaky wheels will
lose out to a not-so-silent majority.
But how to raise the political stakes in foreign policy? A *RENEWED THREAT*
to American security would clearly do the trick. So might a *RECESSION*.
Just as people appreciate the wonders of indoor plumbing only when it breaks
down, tough economic times will drive home to many Americans just how much
their prosperity depends on an internationalist foreign policy.
With Clinton's term all but over, the responsibility for persuading
Americans to abandon their apathetic internationalism will lie with the next
president. Both Al Gore and George W. Bush are internationalists by
inclination, but their predilections are beside the point; Clinton's
leanings were internationalist as well. Rather, the issue is whether the
next president will devote time and political capital to persuade Congress
and the public of engagement's importance. Even then, there will be no quick
fix. Absent a clear and present danger, the temptation to dismiss foreign
policy as a trifle will remain powerful. But the malign neglect of America's
world standing will worsen badly if the next president turns out to be an
apathetic internationalist.
September 23, 1999
Governor Bush addresses the military of present and future
http://web.archive.org/web/19991012180137/georgewbush.com/News/September/nr82399_def.htm
As President, Gov. Bush would direct an immediate review of our overseas
deployments in order to replace diffuse commitments with focused ones and
uncertain missions with well-defined objectives. "We must be selective in
the use of our military, precisely because America has other great
responsibilities that cannot be slighted or compromised. And nothing would
be better for morale than clarity and focus from the commander-in-chief,"
said Gov. Bush.
Gov. Bush also prioritized the defense of our homeland, specifically "on the
troubled frontiers of technology and terror," saying, "The protection of
America itself will assume a high priority in a new century. Once a
strategic afterthought, homeland defense has become an urgent duty."
He noted biological, chemical, and nuclear terrorism, information warfare,
and North Korea's missile capability as examples of the serious threats
currently facing our country. As a first line of defense, Gov. Bush offered
a simple message. "Every group or nation must know if they sponsor such
attacks, our response will be devastating."
The Green Peril - Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
Leon Hadar, Cato Institute, Summer 1992
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
The Making of a "Peril"
The Islamic threat argument is becoming increasingly popular with some
segments of the American foreign policy establishment. They are encouraged
by foreign governments who, for reasons of self-interest, want to see
Washington embroiled in the coming West vs. Islam confrontation. The result
is the construction of the new peril, a process that does not reflect any
grand conspiracy but that nevertheless has its own logic, rules and
timetables.
THE HART-RUDMAN COMMISSION AND THE HOMELAND DEFENSE
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usassi/ssipubs/pubs2001/hartrud/hartrud.pdf
Ian Roxborough
September 2001
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the
Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
SUMMARY
With the exception of attacks by ballistic missiles, the continental United
States was long held to be virtually immune from attack. For Americans, wars
were something that took place in other countries. In the future, that may
not hold. But while strategic thinkers agree that homeland defense needs
greater attention, there is less consensus on the precise nature of the
threat. The author disagrees with the commonly-held assumption that the main
threat to the American homeland will come from terrorism inspired by U.S.
leadership of globalization. He contends that the architects of the American
strategy for homeland defense need a broader perspective that includes a
wide range of existing or potential threats.
This page last updated on 7 Sep 2001
Senate Hearing, September 5th 2001 (Esp. Sam Nunn / Joseph Nye parts)
Politicians say that even the best President cannot prepare the public for
catastrophic terrorism just with words, they discuss "Pearl Harbour" alike
events and so on. Just 6 days before September 11th.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:75040.wais
UK Ministry of Defense, Royal College for Defense Studies, August 9th 2001
Afghanistan and the "New Great Game"
http://www.mod.uk/rcds/bashir.htm
Document published by the UK a month before the September 11th attacks,
describing the intent to start a campaign against fundamentalism and
terrorism
in order to invade Afghanistan and secure energy interests in the Caspian
area.
"The efforts for stabilisation of Afghanistan and restoration of peace
cannot succeed in isolation. A sustained and institutionalised process of
addressing concerns about terrorism or fundamentalism may produce positive
results."
US Equivalent: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2001/jihadi/jihadi.htm
Foreign Suppliers to Iraq's Biological Weapons Program
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm
Cablesplice - A Program to Counter the Disrupter's Movement (1993)
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/417.html
Just a handful out of countless articles from official sources which
contradict the official story of the UK and US governments.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
