Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TimeTraveler

  1. It seems that N. Korea wants to have direct talks with the US. N. Korea demands direct talks with US
  2. Well as I said in the sentence before the one you quoted I implied I don't claim to know an answer but since you ask I will give it a go. It seems to me that the countries who 'threaten' other countries to dismantle WMDs are countries who themselves have WMDs. I think the biggest problem in the world today is no one trusts each other, I can't blame them. Maybe a conference should be held where all the leaders (leaders won't happen though, but would be good for trust) get together and write a global mission for peace, something that gives all countries a goal to strive for. In the contents, plans for removing all WMDs from the face of the Earth, ending poverty and world hunger, putting a stop to corporate exploitations, plans to conquer challenges in space together, ideas and efforts to eliminate terrorism, setting regulations that everyone can agree on in terms of the more trivial issues and so on...
  3. The world needs to deal with the world together. If every country put together a document of the 50 top problems of the world that their country thinks needs to be addressed, I am willing to bet that 90% or more would list the US's new preemptive policy and percieved hostility. I don't think threats and show of power is a way to gain the confidence of the world. It is no question that America has the strongest military. I don't claim to know an answer. But with so many politicians in America who debate trivial issues (in comparison) day in and day out you would think that somebody could devise a peaceful solution to the worlds problems.
  4. I have compiled this research to the best of my ability to not only try to help myself to understand what is going on but to also share with others. This is more of an informative post than a discussion post but feel free to share your opinions or challenge this information. If you do respond please read all of the material and links contained so you understand the point of view this research is coming from. This is not an attempt to bash Bush, or start a debate between left and right point of views, rather it is an attempt to inform people of the complicity of US democracy and to try to enlist help in striving to reach peaceful solutions to complicated circumstances. The foundations of America's principles are in jeopardy. History of our current course. It’s no secret that a great number of the Bush administrations key figures have been advocating for new plans for the American future long before September 11th. In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz, now US Deputy Secretary of Defense, wrote a document (by request of Bush sr.) called Defense Planning Guidance (now known as the Wolfowitz doctrine). In this document he called for the US to take a position of global power now that the cold war was over. He suggested America move to increase its military defense spending and be willing to act pre-emptive in situations where U.S. interests were concerned. This document was shelved as many at the time thought it was far too radical a stance for America to take. It would be later revised by Dick Cheney. 5 Years later, when this particular group of Neo-cons were out of power during the Clinton administration, they joined a think tank called Project for a New American Century, (PNAC) where many of aspects of the Wolfowitz’s doctrine can be found in their mission statement. In 1998 they wrote an open letter to Bill Clinton suggesting he make a move on Saddam’s regime. The thing I find funny is that most of these guys (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) have been advocating for war in Iraq for awhile now, and their only suggestions have been to topple Iraq and Saddam's regime. No diplomatic solutions or peaceful solutions have been considered. In all fairness, I understand many sanctions were put on Iraq, many diplomatic solutions were considered by the U.N. and most of them did not have picture perfect results. But also we must remember there are many many brutal dictators in the world, much worse than Saddam, why such an interest in getting rid of Saddam? It seems that the history of America's involvement in Iran-Iraq WMD programs goes way back. And the level of secrecy about our interests in the mid-east is nothing new as seen in the Iran-Contra affair. This still does not answer the question of why Iraq? I think its fair to say that The Project for a New American century's 90 pg. Document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses can provide some of the answers. A basic summary of the document calls for America to build up its military power to basically take control of the globe so no threats to America and it's allies can have a chance to rise to power. To support this it calls to "fight and decisivly win multiple; simaltaneous theatre wars." Two reasons for these theatre wars comes to mind, show the world our strength and military power, and gain control of vital areas of the world to shape situations on that side of the world. It's alot easier to threaten a nation to stand down when you have missles a couple borders away directed at them. Other goals mentioned in this document are to "Develop and deploy global missle defenses" and "Control the new international 'commons' of space and cyber space." They later go on to say that all that is lacking is some "catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." That event happened on Sept. 11th. Still why Iraq? The key word here is interests. In order to build up our military power we need the resources to make this realistic. Iraq holds the second largest oil reserves in the world. Iraq also holds the vital position needed to make a strong military presence on that side of the world. Iraq is also between Syria and Iran, both countries which coincidently are marked as countries needing to be eliminated in the Wolfowitz doctrine of 92'. Many members involved in PNAC are now in the Bush administration. Rumsfeld and Cheney are co-founders of the organization. Is the war in Iraq about WMDs, Saddam's regime, terrorists links to Al-Qaeda? Or is this war about America's domination of Earth and space? Now that we know the threat of WMDs was exaggerated , and no major connections have really been made towards Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda or Sept. 11th, and there are many other regimes worse than Saddam's... Whats your opinion?
  5. I'm not attributing all the worlds woes to Bush, just pointing out how his administration has failed in foreign policy. Remember I am pretty much nuetral when it comes to politics, I don't know the difference between left and right, republican and democrat, nor do I care to. I call it how I see it. When you label countries in an "Axis of Evil" and clearly show your intentions of toppling those countries unless they conform to the way you want them to be, you are instigating more terrorism then there was to begin with. Also a thing to note is there is a difference between Bush and the Bush administration. In both my posts I say Bush administration, there is no direct hatred towards Bush from me, he is just a puppet on a string for several key members in his administration. While I don't know the validity of this I trust your knowledge of politics so I will assume this is the case, however you have also got to see N. Korea's point of veiw towards the Bush administrations foreign policy. It does seem very hostile, and very publicly so. Is it necessary to make threats on countries repeatedly using the media as your tool to get the world to back you? Is that diplomacy?
  6. In politics fragile situations tend to explode in your face when you do not handle with care. The Bush administrations foreign policies and use of the media to intimidate the rest of the world is working... But they are too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions. N. Korea has nukes, and will not disarm them because they are intimidated by the U.S. foreign policies Can anyone honestly say they feel safer since the Bush administration began "making the world safer"?
  7. Interesting group of folks over there. Thanks for the link, I think I will pop in and make a post, see what they think. Not many here who seem to interested in discussing it.
  8. I was trying to be funny, guess it missed... But technically Afgahnastan was dominated by the Taliban which was a supporter of Al-Queda.
  9. Oh yeah your right. Every time I hear the word liberate I think conquer for some strange reason.
  10. As a human being, my motto is to hurt less and care more. I am pretty sure that helps.
  11. Like with anything it differs from location to location and situation to situation, while in some countries, or some corporations may provide beneficial results to the economy and to the workers they employ. And in other situations it is exploitation and criminal. I just think that the standard needs to be raised and when major violation occur they need to be dealt with harshly... for example in a fairly recent lawsuit against wal-mart it was fined 10,000 for each person it made violations against. For a company that brings in the profits wal-mart does a $1 million fine for each may have been more appropriate. When infractions like these take place they need to made very public and the companies need to be punished. I can find many more examples but am working on another project at the moment. But, if you set examples by harsh punishments on these major companies other companies will begin to realize they are not untouchable and make their standards higher. Better pay and treatment is all that is wanted.
  12. I want to reply to your post Phi, but I have to run, So I will later. Just want to say I understand where your coming from but I disagree in some ways.
  13. And so it begins, round 2. Syria and Iran respond to Bush Bush's crystal ball, err I mean intelligence committee can prove these claims Bush makes I hope? Edit: This just in... The Bush admin. pumping info into the media to claim Iran poses a threat, picture perfect. Whoever is writing this script must have also wrote the one for Iraq, its identical. US intelligence claims Iran is making nukes EDIT #2: The propaganda is taking off sooner than I had anticipated. Rice says it, so it must be true! To sum it up she said: C'mon guys lets bomb them! It's funny to look back and think this is the same damn script we fell for the first time.
  14. Knocking on Syria's doors and Iran's has already happened, this whole thing is unfolding in such a predictable way. N. Korea does not play a major role in the overall goal, so for now they will be left alone. Just watch over the next few weeks and months, demands to Syria and Iran will become a key issue in the media, the issues about fixing social security will be drowned out by the trumpets of war. The plan is a slow process they have to wait for things to settle in Iraq, so they can use the turn around in Iraq as a bargaining chip in the manipulation of the people to gain support.
  15. Bush's state of the union speech last night: He seems to really believe that war will prevent hatred... is he serious? In the last line he says "The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom." I would contend that the main force powerful enough to give rise to tyranny and terror, and replace hope with hatred, is the force of global domination through war. "The united states has no right, no intention and no desire to impose our form of government on other people". Again, is this guy for real? What the hell did we just do in Afgahnastan and Iraq? He says that they wish to expand an empire of oppression. Are we not trying to expand an empire of control by force, is that not oppression too? Step 3.... It's important to mention, and he must have forgotten to, (silly Mr. president) that Iraq is also a vital front in any global domination effort, and is a vital front in protecting oil for our way of life. It is vital in the first objective outlined in the wolfowitz doctrine: If he cannot get the people to back him up on the real underlying motives of his campaign then he has to manipulate them into backing him. Seriously, my fellow citizens of America.... wake the hell up!!!!
  16. I would bet you are right. Did you know, that in a 1996 study it the average American was exposed to 3600 advertisements per day. You should check out the documentary Advertising and the end of the world, it describes how advertising has led to massive over consumption and it outlines the serious effect it is having on resource depletion.
  17. Well it seems alot more people are asking alot of questions lately, which is a start. I really hope none of this is true, but we need to find out and not 'just let it go'. It's like a puzzle, and alot of pieces are starting to fit together in a way to make me start to believe this scenerio, however there are alot of pieces still missing. If anyone comes across any information to discredit or add to this thread please do, I don't have alot of time to research but I want to stay on top of all this.
  18. No, if there is a case made that Bush (and co.) intentionaly lied to the american people, and had any connection in letting 9-11 happen, to further their agenda, he would be fried. Although I think it is something that will be very difficult to establish even if an investigation were to take place. Its one thing to talk about deception, misleading people ect... but now some of these allegations are pointing to involvment in and with al qae'da and 9-11, that seriously changes things dramatically. Im just home for lunch, I will elaborate on my post later tonight.
  19. I thought Einstein said that? Edit - nm, I looked it up your right.
  20. No, but we could make a conscious effort to at least try and help the world. We need to control our corporations, there needs to be standards set and met, pay wages in foriegn countries needs to be reasonable. And when a corporation commits inhumane acts they need to pay, and pay hard, as to be made a major example. Its a double edged sword, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the problem is in third world countries most all are already very poor, so while a select few gain a little money the over-all economy is getting hammered, and more people are starving and dying. And our aid policies are not helping either, we give countries food, their agricultural economy goes down putting many farmers out of business. Sounds silly but we are making people starve by giving them food. What we need to start doing is instead of giving these people food and letting our corporations exploit their populous we need to give these countries machinary, tools, supplies, equipment, ect... the tools to help them build their own agriculture and economy.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.