Is global domination or democracy our goal here? If were gonna dominate I don't know what we're pussyfootin around for. At this point no-one likes us anyway.
Bush's Reign
Democracy, otherwise we would have just designated Afganistan and Iraq the 51st and 52nd states. One continent is plenty enough.
| perfucorp wrote: |
| Is global domination or democracy our goal here? If were gonna dominate I don't know what we're pussyfootin around for. At this point no-one likes us anyway. |
How ignorant. No, really. That was ignorant.
If the USA wanted world domination, the USA would have world domination. Period. The USA has had the ability to completely destroy every other country on the face of the earth for decades.
Seriously. That was ignorant.
One movie and you change thinking about world. Look: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2357448098911229950&pl=true
now I don't like US, it's government. Satanistic polytics
now I don't like US, it's government. Satanistic polytics
well democracy is a relative term. it depend's on whose definition we are going with. if its dubya's then it is not quite domination, but basically having people you like or you can influence in power all over the world. a perfect example of what i mean is shown by palestine. the u.s. goes on and on about democracy in the mid-east, free and fair election and all that cosy stuff. as soon as Hamas wins in free and fair elections the u.s. doesn't consider that democracy. it something else. they don't know what to call it, but its not democracy. they can't control hamas, so that's democracy taking place in palestine.
to me it is, because people have elected the government of their choice. take it or leave it! Besides, the U.S. can forget about world domination. Has anyone ever heard of China? Yeah, watch out for those guys!!
to me it is, because people have elected the government of their choice. take it or leave it! Besides, the U.S. can forget about world domination. Has anyone ever heard of China? Yeah, watch out for those guys!!
| lyndonray wrote: |
| Has anyone ever heard of China? Yeah, watch out for those guys!! |
yeah, china will try to rule the earth. First they will defeat russia, then try to take europe... soon.
Hey, speak for yourself <wink>
Bush has made some errors. I think he got his bell rung with 9-11 and he reacted badly, but who of us would not have?
America is off its balance point. We are violating our own system. Our system says all accused are innocent until proven guilty. It you have no evidence then you have no proof, and we admit we have none so it is our job to call off the dogs.
You cannot fight terrorism from the wrong side of the law. If you don't like a law you can call your congressmen and ask that it be changed, but you cannot just violate it and claim you are "doing the right thing for America".
The right thing is the true thing and we must get back to basics if we want the world to like us. I am an American and I believe the world likes me just fine <wink>
Rich
Bush has made some errors. I think he got his bell rung with 9-11 and he reacted badly, but who of us would not have?
America is off its balance point. We are violating our own system. Our system says all accused are innocent until proven guilty. It you have no evidence then you have no proof, and we admit we have none so it is our job to call off the dogs.
You cannot fight terrorism from the wrong side of the law. If you don't like a law you can call your congressmen and ask that it be changed, but you cannot just violate it and claim you are "doing the right thing for America".
The right thing is the true thing and we must get back to basics if we want the world to like us. I am an American and I believe the world likes me just fine <wink>
Rich
| Quote: |
| You cannot fight terrorism from the wrong side of the law. If you don't like a law you can call your congressmen and ask that it be changed, but you cannot just violate it and claim you are "doing the right thing for America". |
Is that not what Presidents do by declaring "executive orders" rather than passing laws through congress as required by our constitution?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/LM2.cfm here is some insight on executive orders written before 9-11
| perfucorp wrote: |
| Is global domination or democracy our goal here? If were gonna dominate I don't know what we're pussyfootin around for. At this point no-one likes us anyway. |
I can see where your going with that. It just wasn't worded correctly.
I don't think we want global dominization, we just want control of everyone.
And it's very true that hardly anyone likes the United States...and that is partly because of Bush but also partly because of other things we have done under other presidental administrations.
But I do think that Bush is escalating the problem. He is making us look worse by the day. His decision making skills are nada. I think he is a complete moron, frankly. He is just digging us into a hole that is going to be terrible to get us out of.
| CrookedBlaze wrote: |
|
But I do think that Bush is escalating the problem. He is making us look worse by the day. His decision making skills are nada. I think he is a complete moron, frankly. He is just digging us into a hole that is going to be terrible to get us out of. |
What hole is that?
Is that the hole where our very freedom is being threatened by radical islam?
Or the hole where our economy is still strong while it should, by all rights, be in a recession or depression??
The Heritage foundation is a conservative "Think Tank" based in Washington D.C. They study the effect of pending legislation. The following was copied from a recent Heritage Foundation publication. It makes interesting reading and provides "food for thought".
| THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION wrote: |
|
March 2006 Employment Growth Shows Effect of Bush Tax Cuts Since they went into effect in June 2003, the Bush tax cuts have put more money in Americans' pockets and also sparked lively economic growth. We can see a snapshot of the results in the Department of labor's report for March 2006. The American economy created 211,000 jobs that month. This makes more than 5 million new jobs since the tax cut legislation was signed, including 2.1 million in the past year. New jobs were created throughout the economy, with the largest number in professional and business services. Many new jobs were also created in education, health, retail, construction, and leisure. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, down from 6.3 percent in June 2003. Those out of work are able to find jobs more quickly - an average of 8.5 weeks. The long-term unemployed are more able to find work. Conclusion: The tax cuts of 2003 have led to stunning economic gains. The tax cuts should not be allowed to expire, as they will do automatically unless action is taken. How Failing to Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent Will Make Americans Poorer If the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are not made permanent, ¥ 104 million Americans will receive tax increases. ¥ The average tax increase will be $1,040. ¥ 44 million married couples will receive tax increases as the Marriage Penalty is reinstated. ¥ The average Marriage Penalty tax increase will be $1,480. ¥ The Death Tax will be fully reinstated, leading to the forced sale of small businesses and farms. ¥ Low-income taxpayers will see their tax rate rise from the 10 percent bracket to the I5 percent bracket. ¥ 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average, will not be created that otherwise would be added to the economy. ¥ After-tax household income will be $274 billion less each year, on average, than the income Americans would otherwise have if the tax cuts were made permanent. ¥ Increased capital gains and dividend taxes will slow down investment and reduce the income of retired people. ¥ Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits. |
To date, Bush has
-Led the country through the difficult period following 9/11.
-Successfully rid the world of the oppressive Taliban.
-Successfully rid the world of the murderous thug Saddam Hussein.
-Killed or captured hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives.
-No terrorist attacks on US soil after 9/11.
-Passed an across the board tax cuts which reduced the taxes paid for the vast majority of Americans who pay taxes.
-Used tax cuts to shorten the recession which he inherited from Clinton.
-Foreign policy led directly to Libya giving up the WMDs we didn't even know it had.
-Makes decision based upon what's right, not upon what is politically expedient (may be viewed as a minus by some)
Well, the hole is he's putting is in major debt. It's great the he got all of the dictators out of the middle east, but what about the cost of that? He's already put is a few billion in debt.
Democracy...
If the US did actually want world domination wouldnt they already have it,i mean they can wipe just about every country, no sweat.
If the US did actually want world domination wouldnt they already have it,i mean they can wipe just about every country, no sweat.
| Rmgk wrote: |
| Democracy...
If the US did actually want world domination wouldnt they already have it,i mean they can wipe just about every country, no sweat. |
Yup. I agree with that.
I don't understand how conveniently some people are saying "If it wanted world dominance, it could have it easily because it can wipe out any country off the face of the earth"... have you all forgotten to think of a real-world scenario. Surely, the US is technologically more advanced than any other country, and probably is better armed than any other country. Arguably, it is strong enough to wipe out any other country. What makes you think it will even risk trying to do that, though?
Any step they take to establish a clear world domination would start a chain reaction. China would join the opposing alliance, and now that China is a strong nuclear power, all hell would break loose. The UK would probably ally with US as its faithfull little dog, N.Korea, probably with a nuclear weapon built using the intelligence from Pakistan (US NATO ally, by the way), would jump in... this would lead to a world war 3. Good fun? Definitely.
However, the US is establishing dominance by diplomacy and these wars fought under the banner of "the war against terror" or "the war for democracy". Puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan already... we're now readying for a war against Iran as both the US and Iran continue playing mind-games with Iran's president saying shit like "Isreal must be wiped off the map", and the US president also clearly stating that the US doesn't mind using military force... a diplomatic euphamism for "give up soon or we'll attack you with force". It's not like the US is afraid of the internation community anyway. The UN has already been disregarded by most war-enthusiasts, and the internation community's significance has also greatly reduced in the minds of the common American.
And by the way, has any of you ever heard of the PNAC
Let's take a few points from wikipedia, and some from the PNAC website too, and later, let's see why the PNAC is so relevant in this discussion.
from PNAC's Website,,
I can quote a lot more, but you probably have a pretty good idea now about the PNAC and what it stands for. Now, here's the relevance of the PNAC in this discussion:
source
These are just some of the high profile names. You can view the complete list right here.
So basically, the country's administration is in the hands of people who think that America should better its position as a global leader by increasing its defense budget and "challenging" hostile nations, and who think that the new century should be one that's favourable to America and it's assets... perfect.
Any step they take to establish a clear world domination would start a chain reaction. China would join the opposing alliance, and now that China is a strong nuclear power, all hell would break loose. The UK would probably ally with US as its faithfull little dog, N.Korea, probably with a nuclear weapon built using the intelligence from Pakistan (US NATO ally, by the way), would jump in... this would lead to a world war 3. Good fun? Definitely.
However, the US is establishing dominance by diplomacy and these wars fought under the banner of "the war against terror" or "the war for democracy". Puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan already... we're now readying for a war against Iran as both the US and Iran continue playing mind-games with Iran's president saying shit like "Isreal must be wiped off the map", and the US president also clearly stating that the US doesn't mind using military force... a diplomatic euphamism for "give up soon or we'll attack you with force". It's not like the US is afraid of the internation community anyway. The UN has already been disregarded by most war-enthusiasts, and the internation community's significance has also greatly reduced in the minds of the common American.
And by the way, has any of you ever heard of the PNAC
Let's take a few points from wikipedia, and some from the PNAC website too, and later, let's see why the PNAC is so relevant in this discussion.
| wikipedia wrote: |
| The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative American think tank, based in Washington, DC. The controversial group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership." The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular contributor to the Fox News Channel. |
from PNAC's Website,,
| Statement Of Principles wrote: |
| June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. . . . . Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;* • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. |
I can quote a lot more, but you probably have a pretty good idea now about the PNAC and what it stands for. Now, here's the relevance of the PNAC in this discussion:
source
| Quote: |
After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:
|
These are just some of the high profile names. You can view the complete list right here.
So basically, the country's administration is in the hands of people who think that America should better its position as a global leader by increasing its defense budget and "challenging" hostile nations, and who think that the new century should be one that's favourable to America and it's assets... perfect.
| lib wrote: | ||||||
| I don't understand how conveniently some people are saying "If it wanted world dominance, it could have it easily because it can wipe out any country off the face of the earth"... have you all forgotten to think of a real-world scenario. Surely, the US is technologically more advanced than any other country, and probably is better armed than any other country. Arguably, it is strong enough to wipe out any other country. What makes you think it will even risk trying to do that, though?
Any step they take to establish a clear world domination would start a chain reaction. China would join the opposing alliance, and now that China is a strong nuclear power, all hell would break loose. The UK would probably ally with US as its faithfull little dog, N.Korea, probably with a nuclear weapon built using the intelligence from Pakistan (US NATO ally, by the way), would jump in... this would lead to a world war 3. Good fun? Definitely. However, the US is establishing dominance by diplomacy and these wars fought under the banner of "the war against terror" or "the war for democracy". Puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan already... we're now readying for a war against Iran as both the US and Iran continue playing mind-games with Iran's president saying **** like "Isreal must be wiped off the map", and the US president also clearly stating that the US doesn't mind using military force... a diplomatic euphamism for "give up soon or we'll attack you with force". It's not like the US is afraid of the internation community anyway. The UN has already been disregarded by most war-enthusiasts, and the internation community's significance has also greatly reduced in the minds of the common American. And by the way, has any of you ever heard of the PNAC Let's take a few points from wikipedia, and some from the PNAC website too, and later, let's see why the PNAC is so relevant in this discussion.
from PNAC's Website,,
I can quote a lot more, but you probably have a pretty good idea now about the PNAC and what it stands for. Now, here's the relevance of the PNAC in this discussion: source
These are just some of the high profile names. You can view the complete list right here. So basically, the country's administration is in the hands of people who think that America should better its position as a global leader by increasing its defense budget and "challenging" hostile nations, and who think that the new century should be one that's favourable to America and it's assets... perfect. |
Thanks for the lengthy post, but you seem to have missed the point.
| the first post in this thread wrote: |
| Is global domination or democracy our goal here? |
My post has everything to do with this topic, in case you haven't noticed...
Your previous post, however, had neither anything to do with the what Bush's plan appears to be... democracy everywhere or world domination. I can see you stepped in to save your saviour after the previous post was a Bush-basher, but that doesn't mean your post had anything to do with the real subject of this thread. It simply means that you went off-topic as the poster before you went slightly off-topic himself.
But then again, what exactly is your point in quoting my whole post and saying I seem to have missed the point? Maybe I touched a nerve by quoting the facts about the PNAC and how some of its members (who want American world domination) seem to be integral members of the Bush Administration?
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| To date, Bush has
-Led the country through the difficult period following 9/11. -Successfully rid the world of the oppressive Taliban. -Successfully rid the world of the murderous thug Saddam Hussein. -Killed or captured hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives. -No terrorist attacks on US soil after 9/11. -Passed an across the board tax cuts which reduced the taxes paid for the vast majority of Americans who pay taxes. -Used tax cuts to shorten the recession which he inherited from Clinton. -Foreign policy led directly to Libya giving up the WMDs we didn't even know it had. -Makes decision based upon what's right, not upon what is politically expedient (may be viewed as a minus by some) |
I'm not sure what world you decide to live in...but it definitely is not the world of reality.
Bush has not rid the world of the Taliban. The man who was the cause of 9/11 is still alive and free somewhere. Sure there haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. But we've lost over 2000 troops in the war in Iraq and there is no end in sight. We invaded a country on the grounds that they were linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11 and they possesed weapons of mass distruction, none of which have been shown to be true. Instead of focusing on what was important (the capture of Osama) Bush chose to use 9/11 as an excuse to oust Saddam and try and fix the middle east. He has led us into a war we cannot win.
There have been over 1800 casualties in combat since bush declared "mission accomplished." (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)
Bush has racked up an extraordinary amount of debt because of this war. Sure he may have cut some taxes...but what good will it do if we continue to pump so much money into this endless war? By invading Iraq, Bush has only created an unstable, unsustainable, uncontrollable bog of death and destruction.
Don't get me wrong, Saddam was and is an Evil man...but Bush is hardly any better. He continues to lie and decieve the American people he claims to be protecting. He uses fear to controll us and he distorts the truth to justify his actions.
I for one will be glad when he is out of office...though he sure will leave a huge mess for the next president to try and clean up
| Satori wrote: |
|
I'm not sure what world you decide to live in...but it definitely is not the world of reality. |
So you're an expert and will decide what is reality and what is not?
| Quote: |
| Bush has not rid the world of the Taliban. The man who was the cause of 9/11 is still alive and free somewhere. |
Um, sorry to smack you upside the head with facts, but the Taliban has been all but completely removed.
As for OBL, let me give you an example.... if your whole family dies except you, does your family still exist??
| Quote: |
| Sure there haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. But we've lost over 2000 troops in the war in Iraq and there is no end in sight. |
We've lost more troops to maritime accidents than we've lost there. Get the facts before you make yourself look foolish.
| Quote: |
| Don't get me wrong, Saddam was and is an Evil man...but Bush is hardly any better.
|
| Quote: |
| I for one will be glad when he is out of office...though he sure will leave a huge mess for the next president to try and clean up |
The president has his hands full still from cleaning up the mess left by Clinton.
Just because the USA doesnt take the oppurunity to expand the borders of their country, doesnt mean they don't want global control. Just because another country still is just that, another country, doesnt mean the US doesnt have power over it.
The USA does want global control, they just want to inforce it through terror rather than attcking and claiming all countries their own.
The USA does want global control, they just want to inforce it through terror rather than attcking and claiming all countries their own.
| Quote: |
| As for OBL, let me give you an example.... if your whole family dies except you, does your family still exist?? |
What kind of logic is this? If your whole family dies, but if you were the sole mastermind behind something, is it not possible to re-marry, have a lot of sex, have children, build a new family and plan and execute another crime, or at least pass on your criminal genius (or whatever you want to call it) to your next of kin?
| Quote: |
| The president has his hands full still from cleaning up the mess left by Clinton. |
That must make Mister George Bush a highly inefficient man... he's taking a term and a half to clean up the mess made by the former president?
We're trying to give people the freedoms that we all have, and take for granted here at home. But you know, I'm starting to think - maybe we should let them be. Let them live under tyrannical, murderer dictators. Let Iran develop nuclear weapons and use them at their discretion. Let the terrorists go scott-free with no punishment, heck, they only killed several thousand U.S. citizens.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| We're trying to give people the freedoms that we all have, and take for granted here at home. But you know, I'm starting to think - maybe we should let them be. Let them live under tyrannical, murderer dictators. Let Iran develop nuclear weapons and use them at their discretion. Let the terrorists go scott-free with no punishment, heck, they only killed several thousand U.S. citizens. |
Oh, your sick, sad, much-used, much-abused reverse psychology... give me a break. Do you honestly think you're going to let Iran's oil go free?
Taking action against terrorists is a good thing, but not under hypocrisy. Freeing countries from evil dictators is a good thing, but not if you have ulterior motives. It took 9/11 for the "sole world super-power" to wake its conscience and start a mission to rid the world of terrorism when countries like India have been screaming about cross-border infiltration and terrorism for years before?
What happened to a job half-done in Afghanistan?
What happened to the search for the man who planned and executed 9/11?
Why suddenly drop these and go to Iraq?
Related topics
 |