So there really is a New World Order...

wow sounds like a book i just read, the illuminati

NWO, Illluminati... same idea, both conspiracy theories.  New American Century, same basic idea, and not a theory at all.  They say it in their own words on their own webpage.

There is no way 1 organization can take over the world, couldn't in 1942 and definantly can't now.

oh shit, that sounds sorta sketchy, but I think our country has too many checks to allow this to happen. even if bush flipped out and did it, we still have congress and the courts to check on them, but maybe they would find a way past it. Sketchy that our VP is signed on that.

it sounds impossible, but still scary.

Hmm, this is from 1997, I can definantly see how they want to 'it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.', so when something like 9|11 happends they suddenly get on the whole anti-terrorist thing.. and also they mention global leadership, not ownership, so I can see how the US accepts some responsibility for trying to make the world a better place as we are the leading global power at the moment. Look at 'Global Issues', I mean they were talking about the need to stop the Darfur crisis in 2004, and how they said something needs to be done. If you click in the link they say 'After the election President Bush or President Kerry will not sit by and permit the second genocide in Africa in a decade.', too bad Pres. Bush hasn't been able to accomplish anything with Darfur yet.

PNAC has been discussed on this site before but now because a mod posted a thread on maybe finally people will wake the fuck up

there will never be one country to rule globaly

1997...........

I think you mis-interpret them when you say they want to take over the world. They didn't say 'We want America to rule the world and control everything', it's just saying they want to be leaders. And it isn't like they're doing anything ruthless like killing all jews or anything, they're trying to solve global issues.

was when they wrote the statement of purpose... when PNAC was started...They have not gone anywhere or disbanded as far as I know.

By solving them in the way that is in the best intrest to the United States... which personally I feel is wrong in all sorts of ways for more reasons then I feel the need to discuss.  They speak of building military power and becoming the global leadership.  "the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."

I think it would be horrible for the US to become Global leaders, the world is far to diverse and our values are so much different then many (if not most) of the world.  This is the exact reason so much of the world hates the US right now, because we are trying to shove our values down everyone's throats.  What's sad is the people who believe and feel this is what is best for everyone, because it is probably one of the worst things that could happen to the world.  Do people actually think that the US being a global leader BEYOND what it is today would do anything but piss everyone off?  Because having traveled around Europe a bit in the past few years, as well as knowing people who have traveled in the middle east and Asia, that seems to be the EXACT thing no one in the world wants in any way shape or form and as I said before, it is what has most people pissed off at us right now.  WE as the US are NOT correct with everything we do.  We make mistakes.  We make decisions based on our ideologies that go directly against other cultures, and ANYONE who thinks the homoginizing the world is a good thing should, in my opinion, be shot.  The US needs to stop being the world police (america, fuck ya), step back, and stop trying to americanize the world.  Embrace differences in cultures and learn from other cultures.  Fuck, I can't understand how people don't get this...

just face it u guys usa is gonna take over the whole world eventualy nomatter what. its a power thing and we want it. better just let it happen now instead of war later

you should check out digital fortress by Dan Brown, its same author but like a gazillion times better

ugh...enough of these real conversations about real stuff and shit. i wanna hear more about rotting dear legs and less about politics.

go back to myspace and be ignorant the rest of your life.  people like you are the reason shitheads get away with the bullshit they do (IE Bush Admin).

(yes, I do realize you were joking, and I am not attacking you, just people who actually feel the way you do).

Germany being broke is one of the reasons the people of Germany let their leaders kill over 2 million jews that were completely innocent, they were desperate, and Hitler thought he had the answer.

And to what Melvs said, of course we can't "Americanize" everything, shit, America is known for peoples freedoms. In America, we can speak out against the government and not worry about being killed, we can openly deminstrate against things we don't approve of, like abortion. America is known for the freedoms we have, we're not just copys of eachother. And it's damn hard to get the population of other countrys to support our country when our own country doesnt support our own decisions, but thats what great about America, we as the people have the power to change. '08 is going to be the year for dem's, I'm a republican but I'd be damn happy to see Obama win the presidency and hopefully increase the image of the US as a whole. I'm not going to blame Bush, yes he hasn't been the greatest president by any means, and he CERTAINLY hasn't been the worst. He's a politician, so of course he's going to try to play it so he gets alot of support from the rich people, it's what he thinks is best for him (and so do alot of politicians, I might add). If Obama gets in to office in '08 hopefully the American people can rally behind him so maybe our image to other countrys will improve. And with his guidance, the US may LEAD the world to eliminate problems like the genecide in Darfur, and the huge terror conflict in the middle east, but we certainly can't call the shots, no country could. The world has proven that you can't control everybody and everything, look how bad Communism is, look at the fall of Rome and Germany, its almost a proven fact.

*end of long ass speach*

That is my exact worry, that these people think that they can lead america to be that 'leading' force... for the exact reason you said, it scares me (although there are many other reasons it scares me as well).

I think we're agreeing while disagreeing... how does that happen?

I think, well, I hope they mean lead like hopefully we can be the starting force and then other countrys world-wide can contribute to resolving our global dilemmas.

omg  lol right, not like how they can become the richest and most powerful men in history. you probably believe everything fox news says right? my god, how can you have so much faith in these people? even if all you watch is fox news i dont see how you could think the worlds leaders are not crooked corrupt fucks

first the war started in 1939 or earlyer if you are from austria or former checkloslovakia and germany came preety damn close, and the only reason they did not was that hitler was not useing 100% of his brain 100% of the time.
    first big mistake: invade russia. Had hitler not done this he would have almost surly defeated the rest of the world.  By doing this he gave himself another  front spreading out his  army.  and taking on russia during the winter, no one has ever done that and won. unless they are also russians.  Also Stalin would not have invaded Germany, he knew that germany was a more powerfull country then russia, interms of millitary might, and would have known he would lose if he did not have an ally to attack another front at the same time.  Athough he might have gotten away with this if America and Britian did not invade africa. and the meditarainean.  
    Next big mistake: let japan attack the United States, and then also declair war on the United States. while the FDR personal did not like germany and wanted to support Briten 100%, the american people would not have goon in to the war as enthusiasctily as they did if they were not attacked. also the unitedstates was trading with both sides up to that point.  by declairing war on the united states Hitler did two things, he gave himself a new powerfull enemy, and also took away a huge supply source.
    Next slightly smaller mistake: be obsesed with attacking: overall hitler was not someone who liked to defend, he wanted to attack. when Germany was getting killed in the air, and german industry was getting the shit bombed out of it. his engeneirs came up with  the first jet plain, first plan they proposed was a fighter that would have distroyed anything we could put up against it. germany would then control the skys and thus the war. instead hitler told them to make it into a bomber becuase he wanted to bomb britian, not defend germany.  constaintly making mistakes like this preety much lost him the war.
   Overall biggest mistake: want compleat control. Hitler did not trust anyone, had alot of his top generals shot. and also made a law that no large body's of troops could move unless he had given a personal order for them to attack.  When D-day happened the alies attacked at one of the weekest points in the atlantic wall.  Along with droping 10's of thusands of airborn behind it. while this happed right next to them sat one of the largest armies germany had. they sat there while they could have moved in and crushed the entire british army and a good chunk of the americans and canadians as well. the war would have preety much been over from then on had they done this... but Hitler was sleaping and could not be woken up for hours after the airborn was droped. the result was that the Alies had a hold in Europe, along with one of the biggest army's ever pouring in behind it.

So the point is that one country could take over the world. and if a group of like mined people who had compeat control over the US millitary could easily do it, even though we have been disarming our military supply from when we could compleatly distroy the world almost 30 times over.  we could still easily take out any country in the world in about 30 minutes.

I think it would be great if the US was able to promote peace and somehow lead the way in ending problems in the world, but I just don't think that's possible.  We've tried to do it in Iraq and look how well thats worked out.  We've tried with Isreal and Pakistan, and that's not worked either.  I also don't think more war will bring peace, and it sure seems like that's the way these people plan to 'lead'.

Hmm, I'm almost positive we weren't trading with germany in the beginning of WWII, afterall why would we help our allies enemy??? 2nd, we would have made the atom bomb if Germany, Russia, etc. had proceeded to take over and eventually force them to surrender, which is irrelevent because he did attack Russia and he did loose the war. 3rd, if they did make a jet plane we would make a jet plane, you have to understand how involved in this war we really were. If we heard of any weapon that was better then ours, you better believe we were going to try to top it. 4th, Germany tried everything they had to stop D-day, they weren't going to go marching out into the beach which was being rained on with gunfire and bombs, and D-day was such a massive attack. Don't give me shit that Hitler couldnt be woken up, thats a load of bull right there. "Hitler, we have a huge fucking invasion coming in on a beach in Normandy"-Germans "5 more minutes *snooze*" -Hitler, whatever. Yeah, we could destroy the world, but pretty much anybody with the capabilitys of nuclear weaponry could. The problem is if any country attacks another country with nukes, 100's of millions of people will be dead by the end of the hour. There are US planes in the air 24/7 loaded with nuclear bombs incase of emergency, just so you know.

yeah,... then thers the brandnberg group.. they run all the other ones

Well unfortunatly war is one of the main ways we get shit done in this world. But I can definantly see how we can all help Darfur by sending a huge U.N. relief in that nation, supplying the medicines, shelter, food and protection they need desperatly. Israel was a hard situation and a choice was made so now we can only stand by our desicions, and I'm wondering if you meant Israel and Palestine.

ya, excuse my error, you knew what I meant though.

i havent looked at eithe rof those links and just judging my the replies in this thread i would be totally lost

so yeah

one is a new report... you can folow it, trsut me.

Ok, I think I know a lot about this, because, I am an internationl studies major at the University of Washington, and I have taken several courses on this subject.  So here goes:

I dont know if anyone remembers Bush's speech at West Point on June 1st 2002.  If you don't, look it up and watch it.  This is THE speech where Bush gives himself away as having "converted" to the PNAC point of view.  His speech is clearly written along the same lines as the PNAC point of view.

Once you have listened to this speech, look up the The National Security Strategy of the United States of America on google.

This is THE official government document that our government follows to the T.  This is a REWRITE of the PNAC's document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For A New Century, which exposes their point of view. 

Basically, our Security Strategy is the PNAC Security Strategy.

Now, who are these PNAC people?  They are what we commonly refer to as neoconservatives. I wont go into the details, but instead give an example of how their point of view differs.

Take the 1991 Gulf War.  President Bush senior, a true realist, invades Iraq, frees Kuwait, but DOES NOT go on to Baghdad because his advisors warned him of the culture fragmentation of the country.  Bush senior was cautious.

The new Bush, influenced by neocon teachings, does not believe that culture can have an impact on power distribution or balance of power.  Instead, he believed that by toppeling Saddam, the other Middle Eastern dicatators would fall  as well.  This is the traditional neocon point of view.

I highly recomment that everyone read the PNAC's "REbuilding America's Defences" as well as read The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, it is OUR security strategy after all!  And ask yourself if you agree with what our government is basing its decisions off of!

Oh, and to everyone that says this is from 1997.  The PNAC is stronger than ever in todays government, neoconservatives have permiated the US gov at all levels, from Dick Cheney to Donald Rumsfeld all the way down the list.  Those people believe in those same principles listed on the PNAC website.  They are signatories!

Check out this graph (from a right-wing website no less) and see how many people you recognize as having signed and or contributed the Project for a New American Century writings!

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php

Holy Shit there are some HEAVY hitters on that list of signatures

nope, preety much everything I said is true. We were not direct allies with the british in the few years before we entered the war. I don't see why people allways think we have allways been the allies of England. we have fought just as many major wars against them as with them. and they burned our capital. Also had quaite a bit too do with the caus of the great deppresion as well. The point is we were trading with both sidesup untill 1942, and the american people were generaly anti involvement at the time untill pearl Harbour.  And they did make a jet plain it was made by Messerschmitt and was called the ME 262 however  they were not able to produce as many as they could have becuase Hitler wanted them adapted to cary bombs.  they were better then anything we had in the air for a year, and certainly better then anything we had squadrens of, the problem was that for every one of our p-51's and p-38's (main US fighter plains in the war) we would make 3 more, and Germany was running out of resorces. And the order given to work on the Atomic bomb was given affter we had entered the war. It took us 5 years to make, Germany would have had theirs done in less then a year affter ours. So if germany waited another year or so untill Great Britain was gone, they could have had theirs out before ours, and fucked us or the Soviets over does not matter which. The point is both countries (US, and USSR) would have surrendered in a few months.  (the Soviets had little or no nuclier program going on durring WWII.  And yes Germany was doing all in their power to stop the D-day (they did not know when or where)  but they were 90% confident that it would be at Calais, since the English broke the German code and uncovered every spy in Britian, and was telling those spys what to tell the German High Comand.  So most of the anti invasion forces in France were up around Calais, North of where the Attacks happend, and it is unkonw weather hitler was 'sleaping or not' but the fact is that none of the forces up around Calais were ordered or allowed to move south into the invasion area untill it was to late. If they had moved south a few hours earlyer then chances are we would have never gotten off the beaches.


Don't ever try and tell me I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to WWII

It took me a while to get back to this thread so here I go:

We were allies with England, you ARE aware that they were our allies during WWI, right? And when WWII started for Europe, the U.S. stopped trading with the Axis powers. And yeah, Britain burned our capital but that was hundreds of years prior to WWII that had nothing to do with it. England didn't have an effect on our great depression, but WWII definantly got us out of it. Next, how would they make a atomic bomb quicker then us? Germany's research was also far behind ours in the process of making an atomic bomb and regardless if they were loosing the war their scientists couldn't make it fast enough. And how did Great Britain effect their process of making a bomb? Great Britain wasn't a threat it was just a base close enough to Germany to put loads of troops.

read it, it was good. dan brown is an okay ive read most his stuff