The iraq war, the first stage

  • News
  • Thread starter oldunion
  • Start date
  • #1
oldunion
182
0
I was thinking the other day how everyone is waiting for the iraw war to end and for everyone to come home etc etc. I also recall bush saying that "you're either with us or you're against us," referring to other countries.

Well it is unreasonable to assume that 9/11 (which i believe was an intelligence success) was orchestrated just to allow bush to declare war on iraq; his mission must have been on a much larger scale.

I dont think bush is going to pack up and come home and give iraq back to its people, if it is given back it will be to people who are 100% loyal to bush/his regime under any circumstance.

Thus, i believe that bush's plan is to subdue the world.

speaking in generalities, a few terrorists attacked the usa, bush attacks the nation of afghanistan, bush attacks the nation of iraq, patriot acts are set in place to ensure the submission of the us people is made legal as possible.

London attacks take place, although no fowl play has been propogated as yet, they have brought the people back into the mindset of "the world is dangerous and we must listen to the people who know."

These are my thoughts, the usa plans to conquer the world over a long period of time.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
kat
39
0
oh my lord, more fruitcake....or is this the same one being passed around?
 
  • #3
The Smoking Man
47
0
kat said:
oh my lord, more fruitcake....or is this the same one being passed around?
Here, have a slice it won't hurt you (much).
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
oldunion said:
I was thinking the other day how everyone is waiting for the iraw war to end and for everyone to come home etc etc. I also recall bush saying that "you're either with us or you're against us," referring to other countries.

Well it is unreasonable to assume that 9/11 (which i believe was an intelligence success) was orchestrated just to allow bush to declare war on iraq; his mission must have been on a much larger scale.

I dont think bush is going to pack up and come home and give iraq back to its people, if it is given back it will be to people who are 100% loyal to bush/his regime under any circumstance.

Thus, i believe that bush's plan is to subdue the world.

speaking in generalities, a few terrorists attacked the usa, bush attacks the nation of afghanistan, bush attacks the nation of iraq, patriot acts are set in place to ensure the submission of the us people is made legal as possible.

London attacks take place, although no fowl play has been propogated as yet, they have brought the people back into the mindset of "the world is dangerous and we must listen to the people who know."

These are my thoughts, the usa plans to conquer the world over a long period of time.

Wait wait wait... this is a complete waste of time to argue and I'm sure no sensible person will come on here to either disagree with you or agree with you but I just HAVE to point out one thing. How exactly is it unreasonable to assume Bush was responsible for 9/11 yet it is your theory that the USA is going to take over the world? I mean if you honestly believe its the intentions of the US to take over the world, how can a 9/11 conspiracy be "unreasonable". Its like saying the US uses alien technology from another world but the theory on Roswell is completely unreasonable.
 
  • #5
Pengwuino said:
Wait wait wait... this is a complete waste of time to argue and I'm sure no sensible person will come on here to either disagree with you or agree with you but I just HAVE to point out one thing. How exactly is it unreasonable to assume Bush was responsible for 9/11 yet it is your theory that the USA is going to take over the world? I mean if you honestly believe its the intentions of the US to take over the world, how can a 9/11 conspiracy be "unreasonable". Its like saying the US uses alien technology from another world but the theory on Roswell is completely unreasonable.
I think this was a typo. But anyway, it's unreasonable to assume anything of this importance and unlikelihood. It has to be supported by facts (which, in this case, don't really exist).
 
  • #6
I'm just interested in whether or not anyone is aware of the Washington-based thinktank, "The Project for the New American Century" - http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Here's how this group describes itself:
Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.
Reference: http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

What is the 'New Citizenship Project'? Is it connected in any way to the US government?

The PNAC published a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (2000), and some political analysts claimed this to be a sort of 'blueprint' that the US administration is following. The paper is available online at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf . I am just wondering whether anyone knows to what extent the contents of this report play a role in US foreign policy decisions.

alex
 
  • #7
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
I believe the jobs of "think-tanks" are basically just that, to think. They publish reports, government officials review them, and if anyone sees something they like and are associated with, they use the ideas in their own publications or whatever there job is in the government. I think alone, they are pretty much negligable on public policy but im not really sure.
 
  • #8
Pengwuino said:
I believe the jobs of "think-tanks" are basically just that, to think. They publish reports, government officials review them, and if anyone sees something they like and are associated with, they use the ideas in their own publications or whatever there job is in the government. I think alone, they are pretty much negligable on public policy but im not really sure.
Thanks, Pengwuino. So the question remains - to what extent have the contents of this particular report played a role in the development of US foreign policy? Does anyone know? I'll do a google search and see what I can come up with in the meantime (and report back if I unearth any interesting findings).
 
  • #9
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
I have my doubts about what can be seen today that might have come from this report. It is pre-9/11 so things are probably fairly different. Plus we're also closing a lot of bases... so i doubt the report is very in-line with current policies. Whats the gist of the report anyhow, im too tired to read :(
 
  • #10
Pengwuino said:
Whats the gist of the report anyhow, im too tired to read :(
Tut-tut, Pengwuino - no way am I going to encourage laziness :smile: If you're curious about the report and don't want to read all 90 pages of it (yep, it is rather long!) you could read the 'Key Findings' (only 2pp. long) - this will give you some idea what it's about.
 
  • #11
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
alexandra said:
you could read the 'Key Findings' (only 2pp. long) - this will give you some idea what it's about.

Better sweaten the deal a bit more.... :tongue2:

Ok I took a gander.

Some of it is pretty general things (do things better!). Some have come to be and some haven't.

The F-22 is in production

The CVNX Aircraft Carrier has not been canceled

The Crusader has been canceled

The NMD is still in development (although its capabilities are in question)

I've never heard anything official about a US space divison.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Still screwing around with the V-22

The Comanche was canceled

The Joint Strike Fighter program is still going
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
DM
161
0
oldunion said:
These are my thoughts, the usa plans to conquer the world over a long period of time.

Considering that China will be the next superpower, and that Condoleezza Rice has chastised the Chinese economy, one does ponder about it.
 
  • #13
oldunion
182
0
It must have been a conflagration of words on my part, but i meant to say that bush was behind the 9/11 attacks and this was the first stage in a multi-stage plan that has been executed and continues to operate.

Nothing blatently obvious has happened yet to suggest that the usa is in fact trying to conquer the world; however, the evidence behind 9/11 is very very suspicious, and i dont see how conquering two countries (who were not in accord with us policy) is related.

I read in the news yesterday how there is a bill that is ordering the closing of several state bases mostly air national gaurd. The bill was against a federal ruling that stated, in the case of PA, that the base was allowed. This could be a move against the strength of the state which would inevitably be an obstacle in the progress of a unified American dominating world power.

If i had more facts id post them
 
  • #14
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
oldunion said:
Nothing blatently obvious has happened yet to suggest that the usa is in fact trying to conquer the world; however, the evidence behind 9/11 is very very suspicious, and i dont see how conquering two countries (who were not in accord with us policy) is related.
The US is and has been the leading world superpower for a while now. As already mentioned China may be coming close to challenging the US for that position, or maybe it already is able to do so. The US may very well be jockying to retain it's position as the leading world super power but I seriously doubt that they want to take over the world. The closest I could see to something like that happening would be a reform of the UN more to the US's liking, which considering the current state of afairs I doubt they have the leverage anymore, or atempting to replace the UN with another organization more to the liking of the US. I don't see either happening any time soon really.

Also, be careful about bringing up 9/11 conspiracies. The subject has already been closed in the Skepticism & Debunking forum. I don't know if Evo would be very happy if it were to migrate here.
 
  • #15
oldunion
182
0
TheStatutoryApe said:
The US is and has been the leading world superpower for a while now. As already mentioned China may be coming close to challenging the US for that position, or maybe it already is able to do so. The US may very well be jockying to retain it's position as the leading world super power but I seriously doubt that they want to take over the world. The closest I could see to something like that happening would be a reform of the UN more to the US's liking, which considering the current state of afairs I doubt they have the leverage anymore, or atempting to replace the UN with another organization more to the liking of the US. I don't see either happening any time soon really.

Also, be careful about bringing up 9/11 conspiracies. The subject has already been closed in the Skepticism & Debunking forum. I don't know if Evo would be very happy if it were to migrate here.

im not trying to peel back a scab, but 9/11 is an intrinsic part of the usa's current position in the world; whether it was a conspiracy, intelligence failure, etc.

Lets define "taking over the world." I dont mean that american troops will start passing out laws to random countries or threaten to bulldoze foreign capitals. As far as i can see, the usa has nearly conquered the world. The middle east is not "officially" a threat anymore, and by officially i mean that the countries are not going to declare war, but terrorists may.

Any country that stands to harm the financial gains of the usa has been targeted or conquered through some form of the definition "to conquer." Europe is allied, and further bound by the EU. Canada would lose if it turned to foe, its a symbiotic relationship-same for Mexico although they stand to gain more from us than we from them.

Siberia does not have the organization to defeat the usa with military or economic warfare.

Which more or less leaves China as a threat, which would be a very interesting turn of events if one has an imagination and knowledge of politics, which i do
:confused:
 
  • #16
The Smoking Man
47
0
oldunion said:
Which more or less leaves China as a threat, which would be a very interesting turn of events if one has an imagination and knowledge of politics, which i do
:confused:
Which brings us back to this debate.
 
  • #17
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
oldunion said:
im not trying to peel back a scab, but 9/11 is an intrinsic part of the usa's current position in the world; whether it was a conspiracy, intelligence failure, etc.
The subject has been beaten to death on these forums and considering how high tensions get with the discussions some of the Mentors would rather the theories just not be discussed any longer. Refering to 9/11 shouldn't be a problem but refering to a 9/11 conspiracy may result in a debate on the subject which may get the thread locked, or at least side tracked.

oldunion said:
Lets define "taking over the world." I dont mean that american troops will start passing out laws to random countries or threaten to bulldoze foreign capitals. As far as i can see, the usa has nearly conquered the world. The middle east is not "officially" a threat anymore, and by officially i mean that the countries are not going to declare war, but terrorists may.

Any country that stands to harm the financial gains of the usa has been targeted or conquered through some form of the definition "to conquer." Europe is allied, and further bound by the EU. Canada would lose if it turned to foe, its a symbiotic relationship-same for Mexico although they stand to gain more from us than we from them.

Siberia does not have the organization to defeat the usa with military or economic warfare.
I think the situation is similar to MAD. All countries capable of doing so are going to influence other countries to protect and facilitate their interests. If any country doesn't they will find themselves in a world where they have an itch but everyone is scratching everyone else's backs. I don't though condone the manner in which some countries, including the US, accomplish this. There is nothing wrong with protecting your interests, until you start engaging in unethical practices to those ends, and it isn't about taking over the world.

oldunion said:
Which more or less leaves China as a threat, which would be a very interesting turn of events if one has an imagination and knowledge of politics, which i do
:confused:
Yes, this will defintely be interesting.
 
  • #18
oldunion
182
0
TheStatutoryApe said:
There is nothing wrong with protecting your interests, until you start engaging in unethical practices to those ends, and it isn't about taking over the world.


But where is the line drawn between protecting interests, and insuring interests with military force?

If its not about taking over the world, what is Bush's plan. I have to say that i dont really have an answer to this, maybe he really is evil?
 
  • #19
The Smoking Man
47
0
oldunion said:
If its not about taking over the world, what is Bush's plan. I have to say that i dont really have an answer to this, maybe he really is evil?
I assess him with the same eyes as I do a terrorist ... he's just 'better funded' and armed.
 
  • #20
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
oldunion said:
If its not about taking over the world, what is Bush's plan. I have to say that i dont really have an answer to this, maybe he really is evil?

Maybe hes doing what every leader of every nation does? This is such a waste of time to argue. Some people are just brainwashed into thinken there some world domination plan when all logic says... no.... no there isnt. I mean if this is world domination, I suppose the UN was trying to take over the world in the first gulf war... and clinton tried to take over the world... reagen.. carter... *insert presidential last name here*... Too much brainwashing going on with people. If Bush is supposedly going to take over the world, he needs to hurry up. This 1 country every 3 years thing is too slow.
 
  • #21
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
The Smoking Man said:
I assess him with the same eyes as I do a terrorist ... he's just 'better funded' and armed.

and he intentionally ran airplanes into civilian filled buildings.

Oh wait.... :grumpy:
 
  • #22
The Smoking Man
47
0
Pengwuino said:
and he intentionally ran airplanes into civilian filled buildings.

Oh wait.... :grumpy:
No, that is what you keep saying.

Most of the other people (except the crackpost conspiracy theorists) accept what happened as terrorism.

What I said is that his actions so far have been the same but on a different scale and better funded.
 
  • #23
kat
39
0
Pengwuino said:
Maybe hes doing what every leader of every nation does? This is such a waste of time to argue. Some people are just brainwashed into thinken there some world domination plan when all logic says... no.... no there isnt. I mean if this is world domination, I suppose the UN was trying to take over the world in the first gulf war... and clinton tried to take over the world... reagen.. carter... *insert presidential last name here*... Too much brainwashing going on with people. If Bush is supposedly going to take over the world, he needs to hurry up. This 1 country every 3 years thing is too slow.
Pengwuino..hon, you should know by now you can't talk sensibly with fanatics.
 
  • #24
edward
119
166
oldunion said:
But where is the line drawn between protecting interests, and insuring interests with military force?

If its not about taking over the world, what is Bush's plan. I have to say that i dont really have an answer to this, maybe he really is evil?

I don't think Bush ever devised a plan for anything. He was handed a plan developed by others and has only been the official "spokes person".

The plan itself has gone from: WMD in Iraq, to freedom for Iraq, to we are fighting a war on global terrorism.

The plan may eventually evolve into, WMD in Iran, freedom for Iran, still fighting a war on global terrorism.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
kat said:
Pengwuino..hon, you should know by now you can't talk sensibly with fanatics.
You just made my day. This is the funniest thing I've read for a long time.
 
  • #26
The Smoking Man
47
0
kat said:
Pengwuino..hon, you should know by now you can't talk sensibly with fanatics.
You just made the first mistake in assuming he was talking sensibly.

His first assumption when talking to me was to assume that all people who condemn the United States for their handling of the Iraq affair subscribe to the theory that it was Bush who engineered the WTC event.

Is that what YOU define as a sensible argument? :confused:
 
  • #27
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
The Smoking Man said:
You just made the first mistake in assuming he was talking sensibly.

His first assumption when talking to me was to assume that all people who condemn the United States for their handling of the Iraq affair subscribe to the theory that it was Bush who engineered the WTC event.

Is that what YOU define as a sensible argument? :confused:

You said you view President Bush as a any other "terrorist". Sensibility at its finest? Or crackpot lunicy.

And of course, if you turn off your rhetoric, you MAY have noticed that I specifically thought it was either you or Burnsys who thought the WTC event was a conspiracy (now I know it was Burnsys). I suppose that with your brainwashing, you must extrapolate that to mean it was an attack on everyone who doesnt agree with the policy in Iraq. Great logic there.
 
  • #28
kat
39
0
The Smoking Man said:
You just made the first mistake in assuming he was talking sensibly.

His first assumption when talking to me was to assume that all people who condemn the United States for their handling of the Iraq affair subscribe to the theory that it was Bush who engineered the WTC event.

Is that what YOU define as a sensible argument? :confused:
mmmm, sorry...there was a delay in when I responded and when my post appeared.. had it been immediate..this would have been ...post 21 I think....
 
  • #29
edward
119
166
Pengwuino said:
I suppose that with your brainwashing, you must extrapolate that to mean it was an attack on everyone who doesnt agree with the policy in Iraq. Great logic there.

I have grown weary of seeing the term "brainwashed" being used to describe anyone who is against the war in Iraq. It was those who eagerly sat and watched all of the "grave and gathering danger", speeches on television who are most likely to to be the brainwashed ones.

In fact, I look at the number of people who still think that there were WMD in Iraq and wonder, just who brainwashed whom.

The panel also determined the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

"This was a major intelligence failure," said a letter from the commission to President Bush.

The panel -- called the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- formally presented its report to Bush on Thursday morning.

Bush praised the commission for presenting an "unvarnished look at our intelligence community."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/
 
Last edited:
  • #30
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
oldunion said:
But where is the line drawn between protecting interests, and insuring interests with military force?
This is a bit vague a question. I'm not going to argue that invading Iraq was an ethical way of protecting American interests if that's what you are getting at. I would say though that it is possible to use military force in an ethical fashion to protect your interests, if the intention of your question is general. Ways that I would support would include protecting a country that is your ally or potential ally, protecting land that belongs to you, and protecting convoy routes that you use. Things that are more of a stretch and would really need alot of strong reasons to back them up would include assisting rebels or assisting assasinations. Even more of a stretch would be executing an assasination or inciting an insurgence. The most difficult to justify is actual invasion. These are just my opinions ofcourse.

oldunion said:
If its not about taking over the world, what is Bush's plan. I have to say that i dont really have an answer to this, maybe he really is evil?
I don't think Bush himself has a plan. All of the best and likely reasons to have invaded Iraq, though not necessarily adding up to an ethical reasoning for said action, are too long term for the plan to be his baby. I'm sure all of these things have been gone over and weighed long before he entered office.
Reasons I imagine were part of the plan; A stronger military presence in a strategic location in the middle east. One more country in the area that will hopefully be friendly in regard to American interests. Freeing up an oil economy that was being restricted by UN sanctions. Making a show of military power to the benefit of the other countries in the region (by benefit I do not mean to help them but impress/scare them). Ect
 
  • #31
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
edward said:
I have grown weary of seeing the term "brainwashed" being used to describe anyone who is against the war in Iraq.

In fact, I look at the number of people who still think that there were WMD in Iraq and wonder, just who brainwashed whom.

Well you have to be pretty brainwashed to think implicating 1 or 2 people in an argument means that im implicating an entire view on a certain subject. I hear thats how Hitler came about. One jewish person showed him up in a gym and he thought all jews were evil arrogant people.

Wait that was family guy.... :rolleyes:
 
  • #32
The Smoking Man
47
0
Pengwuino said:
You said you view President Bush as a any other "terrorist". Sensibility at its finest? Or crackpot lunicy.
With a preponderance of additional evidence like the Downing Street Memo, I have evidence on my side that things are not as 'cut and dried' as you project.

Wasn't it you who made the claim that they were there to 'free Iraq' while none of this is mentioned in the memo.

Pengwuino said:
And of course, if you turn off your rhetoric, you MAY have noticed that I specifically thought it was either you or Burnsys who thought the WTC event was a conspiracy (now I know it was Burnsys). I suppose that with your brainwashing, you must extrapolate that to mean it was an attack on everyone who doesnt agree with the policy in Iraq. Great logic there.
Sorry, Rhetoric is when one follows the party line and fails to acknowledge multiple points of view in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I think with the litany of excuses offered by the Bush Government and the deliberate contradiction and condemnation of the US's own intelligence sources when differences were pointed out to that government show an agenda beyond what would be considered legal.

Acts of retribution as in the case of the Palme/Rove affair for example. The Intel Leutenant in California at the beginning of the whole affair and was summarily court martialled and discharged for whistle blowing.

These are things freequently 'glossed over' by your news.

Do you even remember the Liutenant's name?
 
  • #33
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
edward said:
The plan itself has gone from: WMD in Iraq, to freedom for Iraq, to we are fighting a war on global terrorism.
I really don't get why people continually confuse this propaganda with an actual plan. I seriously doubt the plan has changed much and I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this forum has seen the actual plan.
 
  • #34
kat
39
0
The Smoking Man said:
With a preponderance of additional evidence like the Downing Street Memo, I have evidence on my side that things are not as 'cut and dried' as you project.
I'm sorry...but maybe I missed something during my overly hectic summer..but weren't the downing street memo's... copies of supposed real documents...intentionally made to look...like origionals? but that no origionals exist? or did I miss the findings of a REAL document to provide a preponderanceo evidence?? If so..do you have a link to an official news source..cause I'm sure it must be plastered all over the mainstream news?
Thanks in advance!
 
  • #35
The Smoking Man
47
0
Pengwuino said:
And of course, if you turn off your rhetoric, you MAY have noticed that I specifically thought it was either you or Burnsys who thought the WTC event was a conspiracy (now I know it was Burnsys).
And what is this crap about attributing the thoughts of others to different people.

Simple respect states that if you are not sure, you don't accuse.

I treat you with what I see posted as I treat Kat.

I do not expect Kat to defend your position but I am sure on many occasions that she does but I will now put your words into her mouth.

Perhaps this is your major fault.

When presented with an argument, you do not see an individual attempting to prove his or her logic, you see a mass moving against you.

This you mistake for Brainwashing.

In reality, it is your own failure to recognize the differing opinions of others and examine what it is that makes them say what they do.

I'm living in China for Crissake ... advising corporations how to deal with a fascist state ... You have me lumped in with the 'Liberals'.

You couldn't be further from the truth. :rolleyes:
 

Suggested for: The iraq war, the first stage

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
196
Replies
4
Views
393
Replies
1
Views
376
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
622
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
880
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
213
Replies
1
Views
215
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
378
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
286
Top