Opinions about N. Korea, Lybia, Syria, Iran, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 23-9-2003 @ 12:22 PM by Seekerof
Also........found this in one of my files in 'favorites':

Link:
www.sundayherald.com...
(Link may or may not work..didn't check it)

Article:
"Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President"
By Neil Mackay
The Sunday Herald - UK
9-15-2002

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

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

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

* 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';

* 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';

* 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;

* 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';

* 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."


regards
seekerof



reply posted on 23-9-2003 @ 02:55 PM by Jakomo
Browha: Here's a good article on Afghanistan:

www.counterpunch.org...

"Of the 87 billion dollars that President Bush just requested from Congress, only 800 million is allocated to Afghan reconstruction. This, even with the yet unfulfilled summer pledge of one billion dollars, is nothing compared to the need, the amount spent to bomb it, and the amount currently being spent in Iraq.

In an eerie repeat of the late 1980s / early 1990s, when the first Gulf War followed on the heels of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and marked the West's shift of attention from Afghanistan to Iraq and elsewhere, our attention has again largely swung from Afghanistan to Iraq, Iran, North Korea & Liberia. Like impatient TV viewers, we are a nation channel surfing through foreign policy, not pausing to see one program to its end before we start another. ...

Everything I saw mirrors the Human Right Watch report: crime is on the rise and criminal warlords are terrorizing people countrywide; voices in favor of freedom, democracy and human rights, such as RAWA and nascent democratic political parties, are being kept underground through threats, arrest, and violence; harassment, intimidation, kidnapping, and rape make many girls and women fearful to leave their homes, thus rendering them unable to take advantage of the ostensible freedom to attend work or school; governmental office workers and teachers haven't been paid for months; rebuilding is first and foremost benefiting warlords, elites, foreign firms and NGOs; the newly drafted constitution has yet to be released to the public thus making the promised public comment period a fraud; and armed factional fighting between warlords continues to undermine security as well as any hope for free and fair elections. The handover of ISAF command to NATO will change little if, despite the repeated requests of Afghans themselves, US resistance continues to keep the 5000 person force insufficiently small and limited to Kabul alone. "

Even better news, they're talking with the Taliban now! Sounds like capitulation to me.

www.atimes.com...

As for N Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran, no effin way. The US is NOT getting out of Iraq, they have troops spread all over the Middle East, and are vulnerable.

North Korea would kick American ass (hey who won the Korean War anyway?). Libya, Syria and Iran would totally roll over and then once the occupiers were entrenched, they'd start using guerrilla tactics to kill the occupiers.

Sound familiar?


jakomo

.


reply posted on 24-9-2003 @ 05:15 PM by browha
To be fair, I wouldnt be TOO surprised if Lybia/Syria/Iran/N. Korea launched a first strike attack against US bases in their immediately surrounding areas, such as in Iraq, S. Korea, etc...
this way at least they percieve that they are being given a chance to cause damage before being attacked...
The element of surprise is very formidible, and I'm sure if they tried, US interests in Iraq could be severely diminished resulting in a general public of America demanding full withdrawal (assuming enough casualties are inflicted... See Vietnam), and S. Korea could most likely be easily invaded with the divisions in the UN at the moment..
As we have seen in the past, anyone with nuclear deterrants can influence US actions (Like Cuba, american missiles in turkey were withdrawn), so N. Korea could probably pull an 'under the table' deal which gave them S Korea on the promise of a non-nuclear weapons development theme or something...

If the US continue to openly invade countries whether or not the UN allows them, it will undoubtably screw up the UN royally and probably lead to their disbanding... or just becoming a puppet/useless body ( like the DUMA in russian pre-bolshevik-times).

The UN should take action against America and should do it decisively (No sanctions crud, perhaps forcing US military bases in Iraq to close down, or banning exports/imports to USA to a much larger degree than sanctions)...

This would show the US why there is nothing bigger than the planet.

However, the main flaw would be that the US is the biggest financial supplier to the UN......

Thoughts?


reply posted on 24-9-2003 @ 05:15 PM by browha
To be fair, I wouldnt be TOO surprised if Lybia/Syria/Iran/N. Korea launched a first strike attack against US bases in their immediately surrounding areas, such as in Iraq, S. Korea, etc...
this way at least they percieve that they are being given a chance to cause damage before being attacked...
The element of surprise is very formidible, and I'm sure if they tried, US interests in Iraq could be severely diminished resulting in a general public of America demanding full withdrawal (assuming enough casualties are inflicted... See Vietnam), and S. Korea could most likely be easily invaded with the divisions in the UN at the moment..
As we have seen in the past, anyone with nuclear deterrants can influence US actions (Like Cuba, american missiles in turkey were withdrawn), so N. Korea could probably pull an 'under the table' deal which gave them S Korea on the promise of a non-nuclear weapons development theme or something...

If the US continue to openly invade countries whether or not the UN allows them, it will undoubtably screw up the UN royally and probably lead to their disbanding... or just becoming a puppet/useless body ( like the DUMA in russian pre-bolshevik-times).

The UN should take action against America and should do it decisively (No sanctions crud, perhaps forcing US military bases in Iraq to close down, or banning exports/imports to USA to a much larger degree than sanctions)...

This would show the US why there is nothing bigger than the planet.

However, the main flaw would be that the US is the biggest financial supplier to the UN......

Thoughts?


reply posted on 25-9-2003 @ 01:06 PM by Jakomo
Seeker: Yes, North Korea WOULD kick the US army's sorry butt.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Check it out yourself.

How many troops does the US now have AVAILABLE (discounting all those in Afghanistan and Iraq). Let's say 80,000 (if they called up every last reservist left in the US not currently deployed).

North Korea has 2 million reservists (not counting the regulars in the Armed Forces). They would be fighting IN DEFENSE OF THEIR COUNTRY. They would KNOW THE TERRITORY.

The US would lose, no doubt at all. I mean, what was the last war that the US fought against a country WITH AN AIR FORCE?





jakomo
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 4 days ago with 10 member flags
CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 8 days ago with 7 member flags
Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags