Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The iraq war, the first stage

  1. Aug 27, 2005 #1
    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 28, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    oh my lord, more fruitcake....or is this the same one being passed around?
  4. Aug 28, 2005 #3
    Here, have a slice it won't hurt you (much).
  5. Aug 28, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  6. Aug 28, 2005 #5
    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).
  7. Aug 28, 2005 #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:
    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.

  8. Aug 28, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  9. Aug 28, 2005 #8
    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).
  10. Aug 28, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 :(
  11. Aug 28, 2005 #10
    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.
  12. Aug 28, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.


    Still screwing around with the V-22

    The Comanche was canceled

    The Joint Strike Fighter program is still going
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  13. Aug 28, 2005 #12


    User Avatar

    Considering that China will be the next superpower, and that Condoleezza Rice has chastised the Chinese economy, one does ponder about it.
  14. Aug 28, 2005 #13
    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
  15. Aug 28, 2005 #14
    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.
  16. Aug 28, 2005 #15
    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
  17. Aug 28, 2005 #16
    Which brings us back to this debate.
  18. Aug 28, 2005 #17
    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.

    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.

    Yes, this will defintely be interesting.
  19. Aug 29, 2005 #18

    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?
  20. Aug 29, 2005 #19
    I assess him with the same eyes as I do a terrorist ... he's just 'better funded' and armed.
  21. Aug 29, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook