News What was the true motive behind the Iraq War?

[oldunion]

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 don't 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.

 

[kat]

oh my lord, more fruitcake...or is this the same one being passed around?

 

[The Smoking Man]

oh my lord, more fruitcake...or is this the same one being passed around?

Here, have a slice it won't hurt you (much).

 

[Pengwuino]

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 don't 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.

 

[Archon]

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).

 

[alexandra]

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

 

[Pengwuino]

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 I am not really sure.

 

[alexandra]

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 I am 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).

 

[Pengwuino]

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, I am too tired to read :(

 

[alexandra]

Whats the gist of the report anyhow, I am too tired to read :(

Tut-tut, Pengwuino - no way am I going to encourage laziness 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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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...

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

 

[DM]

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.

 

[oldunion]

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 don't 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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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 don't 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.

 

[oldunion]

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 don't 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

 

[The Smoking Man]

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

Which brings us back to this debate.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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 referring to a 9/11 conspiracy may result in a debate on the subject which may get the thread locked, or at least side tracked.

Lets define "taking over the world." I don't 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.

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

Yes, this will defintely be interesting.

 

[oldunion]

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 don't really have an answer to this, maybe he really is evil?

 

[The Smoking Man]

If its not about taking over the world, what is Bush's plan. I have to say that i don't 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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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

Maybe he's 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]

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...

 

[The Smoking Man]

and he intentionally ran airplanes into civilian filled buildings.

Oh wait...

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.

 

[kat]

Maybe he's 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.

 

[edward]

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 don't 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.

 

[Archon]

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.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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?

 

[Pengwuino]

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?

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 doesn't agree with the policy in Iraq. Great logic there.

 

[kat]

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?

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...

 

[edward]

I suppose that with your brainwashing, you must extrapolate that to mean it was an attack on everyone who doesn't 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/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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 a lot 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.

If its not about taking over the world, what is Bush's plan. I have to say that i don't 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

 

[Pengwuino]

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 I am implicating an entire view on a certain subject. I hear that's 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...

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

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 doesn't 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?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

 

[kat]

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!

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

 

[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.

Forewarning...if you try to put anything into my mouth..I will bite your hand and give you a good swift kick in the shins.

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.

oooh supporting corporates and capitolism...one of the bad guys, I see. Shh..don't let the commie lovin pinkos here know that.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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!

No, In fact you can go to the site devoted to the momos here and view the documents and related material themselves.

You can also see the resignation letter of the a person in the Attorney General's offices (censored and Uncensored) regarding the question of the legality of the war in general.

So, if it is tampering of official documents that you are looking for, the alteration of a letter of resignation as to the reason for quitting after a 20 year career would fit the bill as I am sure as you will agree.

That was done BY the government and not TO the government.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Shh..don't let the commie lovin pinkos here know that.

If I find any here, I'll let you know.

Im still looking and have my Mao hat and little red book in reserve should the eventuality arrise.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Maybe I just wasn't seeing it before but it seems like everyone around here lately has been getting rather personal. Maybe we can all relax and take it down a notch. The discussion seems to really be suffering.
I'm not blaming or pointing fingers. Just making a suggestion to everyone.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

 

[alexandra]

Maybe I just wasn't seeing it before but it seems like everyone around here lately has been getting rather personal. Maybe we can all relax and take it down a notch. The discussion seems to really be suffering.
I'm not blaming or pointing fingers. Just making a suggestion to everyone.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Too late, I think, TSA - anyone know what's happened to TSM? I am guessing what the line through a name means, but don't know for sure... Where can I read about it?

 

[oldunion]

Maybe I just wasn't seeing it before but it seems like everyone around here lately has been getting rather personal. Maybe we can all relax and take it down a notch. The discussion seems to really be suffering.
I'm not blaming or pointing fingers. Just making a suggestion to everyone.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Agreed.

It seems to me anymore that there is no point in arguing for a point. Facts are usually garbled and always have two sides, a left and right. so where would this leave a society? It leaves it in the midst of chaos where everyone is groping in the dark for something truthful to hold onto.

Perhaps it is a success of Bush that right wingers distrust and write off left wingers as crackpots. If there was one truth, a concrete and obviouscourse of events, people could learn to get along better and would be separated only by their interpretation of the event-not by different versions of the event which may have been engineered a certain way to provoke a certain response.

Sometimes i think about how much is kept from the people, and then i realize that the mistakes the citizens do catch could be the tip of a metaphorical iceberg, the base of which is much more sophisticated and misunderstood. I am quick to believe a conspiracy, where some people get annoyed and devise a tirade on liberals for even thinking someone could believe some of these things floating around. But I am wondering why that gap exists, is it possible that it is more than just a difference of personality and perhaps a great success of social engineering?

 

[russ_watters]

Facts are usually garbled and always have two sides, a left and right...

Perhaps it is a success of Bush that right wingers distrust and write off left wingers as crackpots. If there was one truth, a concrete and obviouscourse of events, people could learn to get along better and would be separated only by their interpretation of the event-not by different versions of the event which may have been engineered a certain way to provoke a certain response.

I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.

 

[oldunion]

I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.

Thas an interesting facet of human progression.

My theory is that if people imagine something, say laser weapons in a movie, there eventually will be laser weapons because imagination is powerful and when coupled with experimentation and scientific progression, it is only a matter of time. This is due to free thinking.

In our example though, there may be no evidence that bush stole the election (or there may be i don't know), but assuming there is none, it is up to the free thinking people who detest him to discover the evidence. If people only ever made decisions on hard facts, humanity would be very boring and progression very very slow.

Fact, the Earth is flat-up to the free thinkers to find a way to say "no it isnt."
geocentricity, 9/11, aliens, whatever. you never have hard facts, never. its always someone observes, records, and then tells. or worse yet, someone is not regulated in their observations so you get a whisper down the lane effect, or even worse they don't want you to know things so you are working with a partial truth.

 

[edward]

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.

You are right. No one has seen the actual plan except for an elite inner circle. Only the methods of proceeding with the plan have changed.

Bush has, however, frequently refereed to the situation in Iraq as though he has a plan. But like I described, his posture keeps changing.

A global war on terrorism conducted primarily in Iraq, is not a global war.

The whole thing reminds me of the old "street Lamp" theory. If you walk home in the dark and upon arriving at your house you realize that you have dropped your keys along the way, the first place you will tend to look is under the street lamp. Is Iraq now our global street lamp?

What is waiting for us out there in the dark where no one is looking?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Too late, I think, TSA - anyone know what's happened to TSM? I am guessing what the line through a name means, but don't know for sure... Where can I read about it?

I'm pretty sure it means he was kicked. That wasn't my intention though ofcourse. I think quite a few people have been getting rather personal around here. We didn't get along very well to begin with but I'm sorry to see him go.

 

[Burnsys]

he can't be kicked like that... who kicked him? why? i saw his last posts and he didn't brake any forums policies...

 

[vanesch]

he can't be kicked like that... who kicked him? why? i saw his last posts and he didn't brake any forums policies...

I agree, if it is true that TSM was kicked, I'd find this sad, because his contributions here were often well-informed, and especially witty. (remember his 99 dead baboons, and the suicide bomber song "Allah Me, Why don't you take Allah Me ?" :-)

 

[alexandra]

I was just wondering, though, where we can read to find out the rules about how being kicked off works? What must one do to get kicked off? I searched the PF site yesterday and read some general guidelines for posting in the PF and MKaku forums, but are there specific rules for this section of the boards? What is the 'law' and where can I read its specifics?

EDIT: And perhaps if one voluntarily 'deregisters', the name gets crossed out? Perhaps TSM had enough and just withdrew? I hope it was his decision rather than anything else, in any case (as you say, vanesch).

So my other question is: if someone deregisters from this site, is that what happens to that person's name? I imagine this may be the case.

 

[Daminc]

I just thought he had just given up smoking ?

 

[BobG]

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 don't 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.

I agree that the invasion of Iraq is an early stage of something that will be a recurring theme, even if I disagree with most of your details (not quite the first stage, since wars have been started for oil, before - Japan vs. the US, for example).

Oil is as essential as food and water for an industrial nation. With the industrial expansion in China, India, and other Asian nations, the competition for oil is increasing. Whether right or wrong, countries can be expected to do what they have to do in order to secure a reliable supply of oil (in other words, it's not just profits for Halliburton that motivate a war for oil).

Bush assembled the 'Dream Team' of national security right off the bat - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. A more aggressive US could be expected before 9/11 ever occurred.

The no-fly zone the US imposed on Iraq gave Northern Kurds and Southern Shiites over 10 years to strengthen their political structure and made them more ready to step into a void left by Hussein (even if not quite as ready as we would have liked?)

9/11 wasn't necessary for an Iraq invasion and it's almost silly to think Bush would fly jet airliners into the World Trade Center. I think the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether 9/11 occurred. In fact, it wasn't hard to prove that there wasn't a link between Hussein and 9/11. The fact that 9/11 occurred just presented an opportunity where political sentiment for an invasion was as high as it ever would be. Without 9/11, the UN sanctions and the threat of WMD would have been enough justification to invade. In fact, 9/11 probably pushed the Iraq invasion up sooner than was really prudent.

The WMD intel was a search to find justification for an invasion - not a search to decide whether an invasion was required or not. The CIA assessment was the only one to support invasion and it was pathetically wrong. There were enough other sources providing opposing assessments that the administration had to intentionally pick the one that supported what they already wanted to do. The level of incompetence required to believe the CIA assessment was the only correct report is just too much for a 'Dream Team'. Granted, the way the invasion has progressed doesn't show much prowess either.

I think your idea of the US trying to subdue the world is overstated, as well. I don't think that's even a capability of the US. But, the Bush administration could believe that one crucial move at the right time could change the future course of history. One democratic Middle East oil supplier, friendly to Western culture, could tip the scales in the favor of both the US and Europe. It would give the West an advantage over Asian countries in the competition for oil.

I don't think this is the first stage of 'US wars for oil'. It's the beginning of several wars for oil that will be initiated by various countries that have to have a reliable oil supply for their economy to survive. The US was just the first to jump into the pond.