You throw the term 'conspiracy buff' around a lot, Q, but it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. You certainly have no evidence that what Perkins is saying has anything to do with conspiracy theories. You have not provided any evidence that he is telling anything less than the truth.

Ad hominem attacks are not valid argumentation. They're merely an attempt to avoid serious discussion. Most probably because you do not really have anything of substance to offer in support of your position.


You can't dominate the world if your military in the mullah's gunsites, or bottled up in Afghanistan with no clear mission.

Depends on what your strategy is. If you're trying to draw the countries in the area into a regional conflict, you might just want to do that. You can use it as an excuse to ratchet things up until you get what you want. It's also useful if what you want is to have an excuse to build and maintain permanent military bases in those areas, because you can say that as long as they're shooting at us, we are needed to try to bring peace. If your goal is to take control of the oil in the region (and in the case of Afghanistan, to build and maintain oil pipelines), you will want to maintain a permanent presence there.

If your goal is to dominate the region, you will want to maintain a permanent military presence there. If your goal is to wage war against Iran, you will want some nearby countries with your forces and bases in them, from which you stage attacks on Iran. Similarly if your goal is to attack Syria.

The whole idea is to create an excuse for keeping your military forces and equipment in other peoples' countries, where legally you have no legitimate business. Strategically, it all makes perfect sense.

In the case of Kenya, you assert dominance by making sure that the government of that country will do your bidding, and if they won't, you arrange for that country to have a new government.