Printable View
Taking over the world, are we? Hmmm?
I guess no one wonders why if we are wanting to take over Iraq and not care about the people we don't just wipe the towns off the face of the earth instead of trying to miss areas where civilians are located. It would be easier and certainly a lot cheaper and we could do it. But we aren't Hitler or Saddam Insane, or trying to take over the world like some think. But thanks for the suggestion. It's something to think about. BRAHAWHAWHAW!
:eek:
You can call it taking over the world if you want to be ineffective and down play the whole thing. But it doesn't negate the fact that this is a very real plan. It's not about taking over the world as much as taking over the middle east.
Oh Soledad, I respect your intelligence, surely you don't believe that we want to take over the Middle East, that is ridiculous.
You can't seem to get it that we are not an invading country, we are liberators, we could have occupied Japan during the second world war if we wanted to but didn't. The people of Iraq cannot cheer yet, their sons, husbands and fathers have guns to their heads to fight to the death. Think about it.
Jackie
Jackie, you are a wise woman!!
You believe this? If that's truly our plan, then why didn't we do it 12 years ago, when we had so much more support from all our allies? We were already there, in full power. The man in charge was our current President's father. If that was the intention of the USA, it would have been attempted long ago.Quote:
Originally posted by Soledad
You can call it taking over the world if you want to be ineffective and down play the whole thing. But it doesn't negate the fact that this is a very real plan. It's not about taking over the world as much as taking over the middle east.
Do you think we're going to conquer Saddam's forces and call it New North America/Britain? C'mon, first of all, the rest of the world would destroy us. No one would stand aside and let that happen. Our leaders aren't stupid, or they wouldn't be running a country that you're so afraid of.
I think you underestimate the deftness and cleverness of this administration. The difference between 41 and 43 is that 41 was a diplomat and EXTREMELY concerned about diplomacy. He absolutely was against regime change, and based on a recent speech he gave, he still is. This is why the hawks in his admin didn't get anywhere with this plan. Karl Rove was also not a part of Sr's clan.
JackieDaisy, I do think about this. A LOT. I also read about this and study this for work and leisure. The government is doing an EXCELLENT job selling this war as a humanitarian effort, as Pet Talk can attest to.
This government knows that your average Yank is repelled by the idea of colonialism, so they do it discreetly. Like getting people "elected" who have strong US ties. If you think that I think that they will go in and name it New Britain, then you have missed my point entirely. These guys are WAY smarter than that.
It's already been stated that when the war if over that the only flag that will fly over Iraq is the Iraqi flag.
And I don't doubt that, Mugsy. But when the U.S. installs a leader and has it's military bases and oil bases under ownership, you can't really think that Iraq will be truly "free."
Wow, Soledad. I'm actually more afraid of you than I am Saddam right now. No joke, that's not sarcasm. You really believe that and THAT frightens me to my core.
Tell me what you think the US plan for the Middle East is. I'm curious to know your information. Please don't give me web links. Anyone can set up a website and say it's so and so. I want your viewpoint, your reasons for believing that this is really possible. I want to know how this could happen. Please, I'm not being sarcastic or making fun of you. I'm truly interested in how you've come to believe this so strongly.
I guess I don't see how they wouldn't be free. If we put military installations there it will stimulate the economy and give them needed protection from invasion from hostiles who would threaten their new found freedom.
Perhaps instead of picking my words, you should have read the first addition to this thread in its entirety.
"As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States.
PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defence spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
He then gives you a weblink to this organisation's site. If, after reading these, you need more info...I'd be happy to oblige.
PNAC
And seeing as this site is run by William Kristol, I think it's pretty legit.
Well, I was hoping to get your insight, your input rather than someone elses.
I think I've given you my insight. But my insight isn't really relevant. What is is Richard Perle's, William Kristol's and Donal Rumsfeld's. That's the stuff you need to read.
I guess if you don't care to share, then I won't bother you about this anymore, but it makes it more difficult to take you seriously, Soledad. If you can't even explain it yourself without referring me to a website, well... :confused: :confused: :confused:
Like I said, I prefer not to read "something" on a website, simply because I know how the internet is, I could say I'm anyone and say anything I chose, but that doesn't make it true.
All I've seen of your insight is that you're against this war and you think we're taking over the Middle East. I just wanted to know how you came to these conclusions. That's all. Was it from reading info on this website you're referring me to? Sorry to bother you, I just thought you'd welcome the chance make your argument.
You clearly do not want to read what I've supplied you with. Why is that?
I would supply you with more references, but I don't think you will actually read them.
I've stated my opinions. You wanted to know where I'd gotten this stuff from, I supplied a reference, and you say that's not enough? Wow, you sure read fast.
I find it hard to take someone seriously who refuses to read a few things.