I generally don’t fall for conspiracy theories. Mainly because I don’t believe that men are (a) smart enough and (b) committed enough to enact large conspiracies. It occurs to me that most conspiracies that are worth researching would require a large group of people to all in common have something to gain and something to lose on a roughly equal basis.
Firstly, I just don’t think that people are smart enough to be able to pull that off. Secondly, if any of the equality of what is to be gained changes then greed will break the equilibrium and conspiracy will be broken. Thirdly, if the equality of what can be or is perceived to be lost by any one of those involved in conspiracy changes then fear comes into play. True enough fear can keep people silent, but it also brings with it large amounts of unpredictability and again the equilibrium required to keep a conspiracy alive is broken.
The more likely scenario of what is perceived to be a conspiracy is actually incompetence mixed with dishonesty. From such mixtures come things like Enron, Vietnam and well weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Interestingly it seems to me that the one ingredient required for a conspiracy theory to grow to any great significance is the ability to trade on the good name of someone or something that the general public have some sort of trust in. (For example Colin Powell).
One last point in this topic is I definitely believe that good (and well meaning) people can be on the right as well as the wrong side of any debate or topic. With that said given the dictionary definition of a conspiracy “1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.” do I think they can exist – yes – but not likely in the forms that we almost seem to want them to exist in…