It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America's Agenda for Global Military Domination

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
globalresearch.ca...

And people wonder why America is so feared & hated around the world
Do you guys really want to go this way







"The Pentagon has released the summary of a top secret Pentagon document, which sketches America's agenda for global military domination.

This redirection of America's military strategy seems to have passed virtually unnoticed. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal (see below in annex), not a word has been mentioned in the US media.

There has been no press coverage concerning this mysterious military blueprint. The latter outlines, according to the Wall Street Journal, America's global military design which consists in "enhancing U.S. influence around the world", through increased troop deployments and a massive buildup of America's advanced weapons systems...... "





posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
hasnt this sort of been the agenda since WW2???



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sturod84
hasnt this sort of been the agenda since WW2???


No Since Pres. Wilson


Interesting article on Empires, overseas bases and their role in spreading the Empire's values. US had bases in 60 overseas countries before Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, etc were added

www.monthlyreview.org...

Military Domination=Wars=Bases=Oil=Cheap Gas=Subsidised US industry=Economic Domination=WTO

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Hey, you can not have NWO without the necessary equipment and good grip of resources around the world.

I guess military domination is about having the latest technologies and large stock piles of nuclear weapons. I guess...............



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Having bases overseas don't qualify automatic military domination.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
i would have to guess, like marg, that these bases are not even intended as a domineering presence over the country they are built in, but as a watch-dog on nearby countries.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
It is now clear to me that only one of three things can happen to the majority of the race:

a) People will realise, before it is too late, what is going on, start popular uprising and overthrow the NWO/corrupt goverments.
b) People will realise, but far too late to do anything, and become enslaved by the NWO.
c) NWO takes place, but not all countires abide to it (namley russia/china), and nuclear war takes place, and we all die.

Personally I think C is the most likley.

Good day, good sirs!



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

hasnt this sort of been the agenda since WW2???


hasn't this sort of been the agenda for every powerful nation since the dawn of history??? i.e. Spain, France, England, etc. Why else do you think you can still find current/former colonies of these countries in South America and Africa, or Asia?



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I think the answer here is aircraft carriers.

US Navy has plenty.

Others dont.

After all 3/4 of our Planet Earth is covered with Water.

Rule the Oceans and your the Man.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
rule the oceans and yer still not the man.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
rule the oceans and yer still not the man.

Acutually its quite true....at sea its verysafe...only the airforce and the navy can get you there...



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
tell the sailors of USS Cole.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
tell the sailors of USS Cole.

Where they attacked by people in a boat?
Yes , what is the navies PRIMARY vehicle?
A ship....now this would equate to a naval attack...



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
tell the sailors of USS Cole.

The USS Cole situation is diffrent.
The destroyer was in PORT. A port means that the ship was anchored and basicly apart of land.

I was refering to all the Oceans of the World that are easily controlled by a fleet of aircraft-carriers of the US Navy. Not to mention the constant threat of nuclear ballistic missile submarines that are as we speak undistrubed roaming the underseas.

The US has the biggest fleet of aircraft carriers.

The US has the biggest fleet of nuclear ballistic-missile submarines.

Therefore the US Navy controls almost all of the 3/4 of World Oceans.

When at sea US Navy has no threat at all!



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah


When at sea US Navy has no threat at all!



aahhhh what about the USS Shefield? I seem to remember a FRENCH exorcet missle thingy................



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by Souljah


When at sea US Navy has no threat at all!



aahhhh what about the USS Shefield? I seem to remember a FRENCH exorcet missle thingy................

What USS Shefield?

Did the FRENCH Exocet missile HIT a destroyer?

Would you be happier if AMERICAN missile hit USS Shefield?

After all USA sold Iraqi weapons, so it could happen.

But thats not the issue. What I wanted to say was that there is no threat for the US Navy anywhere in the Oceans. They can come everywhere, and nobody can stop them. A single destroyer hit is not going to stop a Carrier Task Force to turn around. Is there any REAL submarine threat? From the Russians that dont even have money to maintain and operate their fleet? Maybe from Chinese, or Koreans. But that is nothing compared to US Navy:

Aircraft carriers: 12 + 1 in construction
Submarines: 73 + 7 in construction
Cruisers: 25
Destroyers: 48
Frigates: 30
Amphibious assault ships: 12
Battleships: 2 inactive reserve

Who can really do ANYTHING against such a naval force?



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
can you tell us what weapons we sold to Iraq?



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
can you tell us what weapons we sold to Iraq?

I believe it cluster bombs....I may be wrong...
As for the US navy not being at threat at sea then your very wrong....its only "safer" than being tied up at the dock or anchored off shore...

Ask the guys in falklands how they feel about exorcets



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Boohoo, America is so big and bad, they keep making their military stronger




Deal with it.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I don't mind if USA stays on carriers they are relatively harmless. Its the follow up ground power that would do the lasting damage....its also prohibativly expensive to use. Thus the strategy to pervent further USA excursions into any region is to keep its economy on edge and thus not able to afford such expensive vacations. It then is forced to network with other world powers before acting thus moderating the use of force.

Forward basing is alot cheaper to stock pile the needed weapons personel and supplies and thus carry out attacks from....mind you they do need host nation approval, so undermining that host nation is a given.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join