That's a great line. It's totally wrong - even amusingly wrong, but it's still a great line.

Foreign policy and conspiracy are not interchangeable terms. One can have a foreign policy which is pre-emptive or which is anti-Castro, anti-communist or anti-Saddam and even plan courses of events which might realistically occur and trigger subsequent actions in line with said foreign policy and never cross into some sort of "conspiracy".

Conspiracy requires a secret plotting for unlawful or harmful purpose. If the 2025 paper was part of a conspiracy - why in heck would it be posted on the web? Foreign policy is a very public forum. If I say that in seventy years the population of America will be indiscernible from that living in Mexico - that's a projection, not a conspiracy. If I illustrate a series of events which can be extrapolated from such a projection I am still not involved in a conspiracy. If I suggest changes to immigration policy or citizenship laws - I am not trying to screw others so much as to amend and uphold the laws currently being broken.

If I predict a nuclear attack on the mainland USA and said attack comes to fruition - I am not part of a conspiracy. If I project what our response to that nuclear attack would be - and indeed such a response also comes to fruition - I am still not part of a conspiracy. If some government or military official reads my paper and uses it as a guide for action - still no conspiracy.

It is the ill-informed, whose interpretation of certain facts is cock-eyed that creates a paranoid personality.

Yes, some people are out to "screw people" - but more often than not the majority of folks are just trying to keep from "being screwed".

SDAI-Tech1