Bush planned Iraq attack before becoming president

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

deadly

WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
Feb 6, 2002
10,380
0
Here below is the article, copied from Sunday Herald's website. The original article can be found here.

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'
 
Nothing new there, its been like that since 1970.I saw somewhere it may have been the present american regimes written statement of intent, its was Bush jr anyway.It stated that the US will use preemtive force against any1 that stand in their way of global economic domination.

I wont waste any energy backing up what i think on this matter as it gets kinda boring. its been said by so many others more educated and linguisticaly endowed then me.

USA is a dangerous rouge state which is the single biggest threat to world peace and the enviroment.Theses ppl only care about themselves make no mistake about it, just by looking at who they make allies with over the years past and present shows how far they will go to achieve their goals.Even being a US citizen doesnt mean shit when it comes to a point.

On a more personal note im a optimist though, over the years ive come to undestand that i get my "way" 1 way or the other.Either they start cooperating and behave, something i seriously doubt.Or they will continue down this foolish path ending up ruining themselves as all these regimes tend to do 1 time or the other.9\11 is only the start of the global awakening, ppl have had it.

Its intersting that Bush regime uses words like (inthe past) crusade and now pax americana after Julius caesar`s pax romana. meaning roman peace.Guess he does c himself as the rules of the free world or sumat.
 
Originally posted by Gen76
Nothing new there, its been like that since 1970.I saw somewhere it may have been the present american regimes written statement of intent, its was Bush jr anyway.It stated that the US will use preemtive force against any1 that stand in their way of global economic domination.

I wont waste any energy backing up what i think on this matter as it gets kinda boring. its been said by so many others more educated and linguisticaly endowed then me.

USA is a dangerous rouge state which is the single biggest threat to world peace and the enviroment.Theses ppl(certain powerfull gov.ppl,past and present.prez. change assholes stay the same) only care about themselves make no mistake about it, just by looking at who they make allies with over the years past and present shows how far they will go to achieve their goals.Even being a US citizen doesnt mean shit when it comes to a point.

On a more personal note im a optimist though, over the years ive come to undestand that i get my "way" 1 way or the other.Either they start cooperating and behave, something i seriously doubt.Or they will continue down this foolish path ending up ruining themselves as all these regimes tend to do 1 time or the other.9\11 is only the start of the global awakening, ppl have had it.

Its intersting that Bush regime uses words like (inthe past) crusade and now pax americana after Julius caesar`s pax romana. meaning roman peace.Guess he does c himself as the rules of the free world or sumat.
 
does mean he kinda is an optimist.
if he was planning this even before he got elected.


Anyways the USA has many many enemies in the middle east.
I personally would rather station troops there so you can monitor the situation then sitting on my own hands hoping they won't do anything nasty

Since a lot of enemies of the USA are european enemies aswell I am not amazed that europe backs them up a lot.
Don't forget a lot of people are not only anti-USA but also anti-west anti-europe and anti-capatilist
Not even starting on the regilious tensions between middle east and europe and USA

You can call the USA whatever you like but it is the duty of a government to protect citizens, it's land and it's interests.
I hope you are not so stupid to think that if the USA pulls out their troops in the middle east that all their enemies will disappear?

Without american and european supervision a lot of dictators would still be ruling their countries, starving the masses and building weapon arsenals that are rather illegal.

What do you expect the americans to do. do nothing while terrotists attacks slaughter innocents? Do nothing when terrorist attacks threaten embassies all over the world. Sit idly by as countries like iraq threaten oil supplies? close your eyes to all the USA planes iraq shot down.

I think not.

maybe you should check out israel and see if they are so cute.
 
Well the reason y ppl h8 USA should be obveus for any1 whos check out their history in foreighn afairs since 1970.
I would meantion israel if i thought it pertinent to in this thread.ISrael is even worse than the US,but im sure that answer didnt surprise any1.They do mass punishment,assasinations without trial and teh murder of inocent children as part of rutine.They also couldnt care less about any un or geneva rules and have never done so.Funny init that a ppl whos been so fucked over in ww2 didnt learn anything from it.

I know someone wholives there and trust me we harly see eye to eye on this,but were still friends so idont c any reason that they donw there shoulnt also agree. but its not about commming to a greement for the israelis.

My countrey got invaded by the germans in ww2 so axcuse me if i dont c any problems with using whatever means there is to fight opression.Israel is hitler german light ie without genocide on the same scale, but still genocide.They ll do anythign to get the palestineans off palestinean lands
and they do.


Conservative paries dont do optimism, they plan with realistic goals in mind.

Ive had a few beers now so i prolly shouldnt write anymore, ive said more than enufff
 
The problem for the USA is also partly that they are victims of their own success. The average standard of living is much higher than in most other countries around the world I would imagine.

Now, just think how easy it is for some middle eastern tinpot theocracy to blame the poverty of its people and country on "evil yankee capitalists" rather than the fact that the religious leaders of said tinpot theocracy have been wasting the country's money on acquiring weapons they can't afford to maintain, and on feathering their own nests.

America is big, rich, has a large well-equipped modern army, a thriving industrial base and lots of people. It also has a (even if only nominally) democratic government which can ultimately be removed by the ordinary people.

If I were some little shit religious leader in the middle east who'd been oppressing his own people for years, I would be afraid of / hate America.

Wee misquote from Eowyn - "People who have not their own swords can still die upon those of their enemies".

Much as we would like it to be otherwise, the world is still a dangerous place. Showing weakness before those who hate you and having no weapons when everyone else does simply presents you as an easy target.

Subscribers to this forum, and posts like I have made, would see you getting midnight visits for "questioning" by secret police in large parts of the globe. The UK may not be perfect, but that is one thing at least I don't have to be worried about - jailed/tortured for being critical of the leadership.
 
This is the political forum propain, i think u were looking for chitchat yes?


Thur?
 
Aye. Gen76 and Propain, I don't mind you guys having a go at each other - but unless you make the posts intellectually interesting, I'm going to ban both your asses! :D

</tinpot dictator mode>
 
Originally posted by Thuringwethil
America is big, rich, has a large well-equipped modern army, a thriving industrial base and lots of people. It also has a (even if only nominally) democratic government which can ultimately be removed by the ordinary people.

:confused:
Explain:
A. How the government is only democratic in name
or
B. What you're implying otherwise.
 
the electorial college was initially effective i believe (tbh i can't remember the exact purpose, i learned it bout 2 years ago, maybe i'll look it up), but obviously its outdated. and anyways, the thin line between the 2 is pointless-- either way, i feel the US got screwed (both shit candidates)
 
I know steve, but bush pretty much bought the election. I've been reading a book recently, ill find links later if i cant be arsed, but its basically saying that bush got as many black and jewish (ie those who would probably vote democrat) votes nullified as possible, and also counted unsigned/dodgy votes from the military (ie ones who would tend to vote republican).

altho tbh, most democratic elections are bought anyway, since the more you spend on your compaign trail, the more likely you are to pick up votes, but bush took that a little too far imo ;)
 
the problem with USA ist that its a two party state.(although this is more receptive to manipulation imo)But the ppl in the background who never leave, like kissinger now heres 1 evil mutha!

it also suffers from isoltaion from the rest of the world , simply due to disinterest in what happens "outside"

We could gain so much from comunicating better, something which would be easy with a more democratic role by the US, instead of using military and economic threats to force its way.
 
i could definitely agree with the point of the kissinger sort-- but the two party system vs. what? a bunch of whimpering parties that never get ANYTHING done? no thank you :D or a system where everyone says: yeah! lets do that? no thank you :D

not saying its perfect, but i dont' believe any government in the history of civilization has done much better on such a large scale (geographically and population-wise)
 
Originally posted by Uzi-Suicide
I know steve, but bush pretty much bought the election. I've been reading a book recently, ill find links later if i cant be arsed, but its basically saying that bush got as many black and jewish (ie those who would probably vote democrat) votes nullified as possible, and also counted unsigned/dodgy votes from the military (ie ones who would tend to vote republican).

altho tbh, most democratic elections are bought anyway, since the more you spend on your compaign trail, the more likely you are to pick up votes, but bush took that a little too far imo ;)

Stupid White Men by Michael Moore?
Interesting read an American version of Mark Thomas, he is obviously biased, and has some rather impractical solutions to things he has not really researched (like Northern Ireland :nono: where he says, convert everyone to Catholism and that will solve it) but the areas he seems to know about do include American Politics and if even half of what he says is true and only exaggerated a lot, its scary and Bush bought the election. According to Moore, Florida ruled out all votes from people in prison, fine, but also removed from teh electoral register those people with a similar name, or born on the same day, or who lived in teh same block. Also, imported from Texas (anyone see the Bush family link there .... ) a list of thier criminals and added those people to the list, and those with similar names, and so on.
Bush isnt the only one he slates, he also has a lot to say about Clinton and his ethics.

One thing about party systems, here certainly, I dont know enough about the US or any other system to comment. I dont know how it would work in practice, but I feel that the member of parliament elected in an area is there to represent the people of that area. If their constituents agree or disagree with something, then the MP should vote for or against a bill to reflect that. Not just what they are told to vote by the party whip.
There are not a huge number of people who are actually interested in the way the country is run, who are happy to vote and then lay all responsibility on the politician to think for them, that is, after all their job. But when someone does take an interest, even if it is just for a single bill every now and again, the politicians should take note and respond accordingly.
We have a particularly bad MP, Helen Liddel. We have written to her in the past expressing concerns about bills that are being voted on. Each time, like the RIP Bill, where we have expressed concern about the powers being given to the police and how we think it is a *BAD THING* and that we are opposed to it, we have had a response from her explaining what the bill actually is. We get a reply, which is a positive thing, but the reply is only vaguely related to the question. We know the contents of the bill, else we wouldnt be concerned about it, a new copy of it does not fill us with happiness that our MP is going to vote against it.
Maybe its just me being ideological, but I do feel the elected representative of an area has a responsibility to reflect the feelings of the people in that area, and that will never happen while a party whip is there telling your MP what to think.
 
Originally posted by LoneRanger
:confused:
Explain:
A. How the government is only democratic in name
or
B. What you're implying otherwise.


What I was meaning was that the USA, like the UK, is a "2 party democracy" - in other words, there are only 2 large parties which have any hope of actually forming a government without resort to a coalition. This "2 party system" is not truly democractic - it is merely one step up from the "1 party system" of communism. The "first part the post" nature of the voting rules in the UK also exacerbates the problem, in that it is possible to get into power with the support of less than half the voting population, as long as you have more votes than your nearest rival.

From what I've read, there are about 35 million people eligible to vote in the UK. Labour came to power in 1997 with about 14 million votes, which was even less than the number who voted Conservative in 1992.

So, while Labour has far and away more MPs than the next nearest rival, the conservatives, they actually received the endorsement of less than half of those eligible to vote. Which is hardly a "landslide" victory, or much to be proud of.

In the UK, the main source of funding for the Labour Party is the labour unions. For the conservatives, it is rich businessmen. Now, tell me that influence is not being bought there, and that it is not perverting the democractic process.

In the USA, things are the same. Big companies, especially the tobacco and gun companies are always donating to the political parties. Now excuse me when I laugh if you seriously try to tell me that is out of the sheer goodness of their hearts! :)

Now, back to the democractic theme. Look at what Labour have done since coming to power: Abolished the House of Lords (Manifesto Commitment: to reform it), drastic curtailment of prime minister's question time, smearing of political opponents or those perceived as a political threat, abolition of jury trial for almost all types of crime, abolition of the right to silence (non self incrimination), wish to take Britain into the Single Currency without so much as a by-your-leave from the electorate. I mean, even Thatcher in her wildest wet dreams wouldn't have tried half of these things. And you know what is really odd? No-one says a thing about it.

I could go on. Point is, they are doing things they were not elected to do, and all of which seem designed to entrench their own power and cut off any possibility of dissent. I don't call that democracy, and you can't tell me that the voters actually voted for this.

Same in America - drastic curtailment of civil liberties in the name of "preventing terrorism".

We do have democracy of a kind in the industrialised west, but it is the kind of democracy where you can vote for either Butch Cassidy, or the Sundance Kid as your leader.

"Elected Dictatorship" is a better description of what we have I think...

Mughi's point about party whips, and what happens when writing to your MP is typical of politicians in this country. Most have grown so used to rooting around with their snout in the trough that they have forgotten who put them in power, and who they are ultimately answerable to.
 
Last edited:
thats the one jen ;)

good read, funny n interesting, altho yea i agree he has missed out research in some places
 
bah the subject off the moment well it's so damm easy..


usa attacks iraq gets control of the OIL in the area meaning direct opponents in the oil business will be only the russians and in a smmall part china ..

plus they get right in the middle of turkey which in case you dont now all oil bussiness coming from down there crosses turkey means usa gets his hand on the oil market UPs and LOW


just please dont tell me it's beause they are terrorist lmao

OH and dont forget golf war was frustating for the usa saddam just setted on fire all the oil pits by then making them useless for
~Bush the father bit frustrating well is young dumb kid wants to revenge and once and for all get control off on the most importants oil streams :) in midlle east .