If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You didn't say in economic control, you said in control. Please, do try to say what you mean next time
For a plan that's spanned 20 years, what good is being in control of the worlds oil in the long term anyway? How long is that gonna last?
YOU SAID THEY PLANNED TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE WORLD, TO BE IN COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE WORLD YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY CONTROL IT ALL OR ELSE YOU'RE GONNA BE LEFT WITH COUNTRIES FULL OF TERRORISTS WHO REAAALLY DON'T LIKE THE SHIT YOU'RE DOING.
Jesus Christ, Sun Tzu you ain't
answer my question from above.
No, you're mad for thinking up such plans. I seriously find it hard to believe that top US advisors have failed to come up with a better plan in 20 years when even I am able to pick fault with it in 20 seconds.
*sigh*
A new, improved American nation within their currently owned territories.
Say all of what you said was true, and they have all these crazy plans to take over the world, why would they a) tell everyone about it and b) drop subtle hints like "the new American century" to fuel the already rampant paranoia held by the likes of you?
Just as the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) helped set the stage for the Reagan revolution and its concomitant agenda of massive military buildup and confrontational Cold War policies, the Project for the New American Century's vision of increased military spending, a preemptive defense posture, and go-it-alone interventionist policies (all of which were laid out in PNAC's June 3, 1997, founding statement of principals) prefigured the course of action adopted by the Bush administration after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Also like the CPD, many of PNAC's original members took over powerful policy posts with the election of a Republican administration. Signatories to its statement of principles included future Bush administration officials Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, I. Lewis Libby, Peter Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other signatories included Gary Bauer, William Bennett, Jeb Bush, Midge Decter, Frank Gaffney, Norman Podhoretz, Steve Forbes, Eliot Cohen, Fred Ikle, and Dan Quayle.
PNAC followed up its statement of principles with a number of studies and sign-on letters, most of which were aimed at pressuring the Clinton administration and Congress into pursuing hawkish and interventionist policies regarding overseas conflicts, arms budgets, and relations with rogue regimes. A January 1998 letter to Clinton, for example, argued that the only "acceptable policy" vis-à-vis Iraq was "one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
//////With the election of George W. Bush, PNAC was well placed to implement its agenda. All that was required was a dramatic jolt to the nation's psyche--like a devastating terrorist strike inside the country's borders. //////
Nine days after the terrorist attacks, PNAC released an open-letter to President Bush applauding his newly declared war on terrorism and urging the president to take action against Osama Bin Laden as well as a number of other "perpetrators," including Saddam Hussein and Hezbollah. It was a recipe for broad intervention in the Middle East. Regarding Saddam, the letter opined: "It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
The letter also pointed out that to undertake this new war, it would be necessary to inject more money into the nation's defense budget: "A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war."
The rest is now history. Well, almost. Despite a campaign by PNAC allies like Michael Ledeen to extend the war on terrorism, the Bush administration, busy fending off criticism regarding the Iraq war and the intelligence that it used to justify the invasion, had (as of late 2003) not yet taken direct action against Syria, Iran, or any other potential targets in the region. Stay tune
It's from such a reputable source you even managed to provide a link to the site you got it from, I see.
Who, really, gives a flying fuck about those "poor defencless Iraqis"? We sure as hell don't. We didn't care when we sold the gas to Saddam, we didn't care when we sold the tanks to Saddam, we don't care now.
Saddam didn't do as he was told, so we kicked him out on his ear.
There were plenty of alternatives. We just went to war to make money for ourselves, that's the only reason. We could have left them alone to die, like we did in Cambodia, in most of sub-Saharan Africa, in Pakistan, in Indonesia, in Sri Lanka. And we would have done if Saddam had kept the dollar standard like a good little boy.
Either we "save" everyone, or we "save" noone. We felt the lives in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Niacaragua, in East Timor, in the Balkans were all expendable, we allowed saddam to gas the Iranians, why suddenly are Iraqis the ones who should be "saved from a madman"? We weren't anywhere for the Khmers Rouges.
Maybe you don't, but I do.
Captain Obvious = yuo.
What have I said every fucking time this has came up? I know the war was only about oil. I don't care. What I do care about is that Saddam is out.
We could have, but IMO we shoulda bombed the shit outta all those countries too.
Captain Obvious comes back for more ;[
I'm all for saving everyone's lives, but doing it in Iraq is better than doing it in none.
Again, what do you hope to acheive by stating the obvious? I know all this already, but the point is Saddam is out, regardless of whatever our reasons were for going to war in the first place.
Mmmkay?
If you cared about the Iraqis, you'd have been calling for the UN sanctions to be lifted five years ago. You're old enough.
Saddam's gone, yippee, etc. Go and tell that to the Iraqis who'll either be killed by gun-toting Yanks or gun-toting terrorists.
Your link doesn't work. I think I can see 'Pearl Harbour' in the URL though.
I do hope it isn't the "the US knew Pearl Harbour was going to get bombed" theory.
I was your average 12/13 year old. Worrying about fitting in and making new friends as I moved to high school, which girl I fancied and calling for UN sanctions on Iraq to be lifted :yeees:
Aah right. The terrorists were our fault. The terrorists were fucked up in the head to start with, we just gave them a reason and a venue to start their shit. The sooner we kill every last one of them the better.
A weblog. That's a reliable source of information if ever I saw one. Move over BBC!
kiezo ...your a dick.
i'll actualy enjoy seeing people like you reduced to fear and poverty ...remember i said those words please.
I'm a dick, why? Because I don't buy into the first shit I hear like you do? Because I can think for myself on the matter instead of falling into one of the two OMG BUSH SI EVIL!!!1 or OMG BUSH IS A GRAET MAN!!!1 camps?
I like your reasoning. It's a wodner Bush and Blair went to war in the first place with people like you against them.
No, really.
Like I said earlier, for every site like that you find I could find ten that disagree with it. The truth is, we'll never know for sure.