# Will the Unites States try to Dominate the World?!?!



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

The only reason they went after Iraq is for the damn oil. The US has a HUGE oil reserve, it can hold something like 12 million barrels of crude oil or something crazy like that. Enough to last thier nation about 10-12 years going strong when everyone else runs out. They released some of that oil in the first war with Iraq to the populace of the US to lower gas prices. That's how much they have! Supposidly it takes them years to fill it.

I think there is still going to be a major world war of some sorts in the future. I really, REALLY hope not! But, I think there's no way around it. The US is technically the last "Super power" and they are militaristic. It's human nature to dominate, we're preditors! I don't know whether they'd turn on us or not, they really don't need to since we give them everything they want except water! I couldn't guess whether they'd try and take on a coalition of the world or just a few nations either. I do believe the planet does need to join together as a huge one-nation to be able to pool resources and get off the planet without war. But how we'll get to that point is the scary part! The US keeps pissing everyone off, the middle east is a MESS, and most countries would rather be NUKED than join the US...

On that matter, apparrently in a decade or more, the US will need fresh water so badly analysts expect they will take it by force if necessary or seize territory to get at it. Who knows for sure. They'll have thier reasons one way or another!

So, do you folks think they'd eventually try and take the world? Either by force or diplomacy or a mix of both. Or, form a coalition of willing nations to join them, and whoever doesn't get taken by force?

It's interesting to see what people's thoughts are on this. But before you judge, educate yourself. Look at what they've done over the last decade alone even!

I'll be on the front lines against oppression if that time ever comes! I am for   heart+soul!

PS> If you believe a coaltion of sorts was formed, would you be for Canada joining it and the US or against?

 :evil:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jun 2004)

hahahhahhehehehbwahhhhhahahahehehebwaaaaaaahhhhhhaha...I know someone would make my day. I told you, Slim :


----------



## Slim (12 Jun 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> hahahhahhehehehbwahhhhhahahahehehebwaaaaaaahhhhhhaha...I know someone would make my day. I told you, Slim :



What in heavens name ARE they TEACHING these kids in university these days??!!


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

???

Quoi?

What is funny?

If your thinking, "This guys all for Canada but he doesn't realize we can't live without the Unites States!", then you guess too much! I'm not saying we should revolt against the US and not be thier allies and not trade with them. Praytell we should trade more and increase our economy. I'm just not for being taken over. Unless it's most of the world in one basket! I'm not for an American style takeover World War 4. Lots of major nations over history have had thier chance, when they're the most powerful or close to, they always try to take on the world. Like I said, human nature. France, England, Germany, Spain, and others have all taken thier shot at the world!

BTW, I realized I probably opened this thread in the wrong spot! I apologize if I did BTW!!! If moderators want and can move it to the Political section have a blast! Sorry


----------



## Slim (12 Jun 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Quoi?
> 
> ...



 :blotto:


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

If Bush was just looking for Oil, why didn't he let his friends drill in Alaska? I also find it hard to believe that Bush had some sort of Machiavellian plan to control Iraqi oil, but if he did, why not wait to go to war with Iraq until Spring of 2005 (second term), well maintaining his record high approval rating (Pre Iraq war)? It's like he thought that there was some other reason(s) that must be addressed even well risking his job.......wonder what those are.


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

Very good points to consider DJL. Drilling has been approved in Alaska, although limited. I believe he wasn't too worried about voters at that point because the Bush Administration thought the populace was still egging for revenge of 9/11. Remember, the initial invasion is now more than a year old. 

Another note, some of the first things to be taken over/attacked in Iraq were oil wells+facilities. US Special Forces and the like were air dropped in etc. well ahead of any FEBAs and took control/captured most oil in Iraq right at the start.They said this was so Saddam couldn't use them to burn+destroy the environment. I believe that they didn't want him to destroy the environment and burn off the oil. But they also wanted the oil too, that was the main objective. I mean, there isn't much environment out there but sand and if they were really that concerned about the environment of Iraq, why start a war?!?


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

Very good points to consider DJL. Drilling has been approved in Alaska, although limited. I believe he wasn't too worried about voters at that point because the Bush Administration thought the populace was still egging for revenge of 9/11. Remember, the initial invasion is now more than a year old. 

Another note, some of the first things to be taken over/attacked in Iraq were oil wells+facilities. US Special Forces and the like were air dropped in etc. well ahead of any FEBAs and took control/captured most oil in Iraq right at the start.They said this was so Saddam couldn't use them to burn+destroy the environment. I believe that they didn't want him to destroy the environment and burn off the oil. But they also wanted the oil too, that was the main objective. I mean, there isn't much environment out there but sand and if they were really that concerned about the environment of Iraq, why start a war?!?


----------



## mattoigta (12 Jun 2004)

:threat:


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

> Very good points to consider DJL. Drilling has been approved in Alaska, although limited. I believe he wasn't too worried about voters at that point because the Bush Administration thought the populace was still egging for revenge of 9/11. Remember, the initial invasion is now more than a year old.
> 
> Another note, some of the first things to be taken over/attacked in Iraq were oil wells+facilities. US Special Forces and the like were air dropped in etc. well ahead of any FEBAs and took control/captured most oil in Iraq right at the start.They said this was so Saddam couldn't use them to burn+destroy the environment. I believe that they didn't want him to destroy the environment and burn off the oil. But they also wanted the oil too, that was the main objective. I mean, there isn't much environment out there but sand and if they were really that concerned about the environment of Iraq, why start a war?!?



Well Saddam _did_ destroy Kuwait's oil fields after the first gulf war, and he did try and destroy some of his own in the recent gulf war..........maybe, just maybe there was a precedent to defend them. You know, I'm sure if the Iraqi Camel milk industry was as important to their future economy, I'm sure the Americans would have sent special forces to defend it also or instead of the oil field.....


----------



## Marauder (12 Jun 2004)

Hey joey, skip on down to the QM and ask for the tinfoil hat you're entitled to. It will make the bad voice telling you to do the bad things stop.

Besides, EVERYONE knows that Doctor Evil is going to acheive global domination before Dubya. Yeesh, boy, pay attention.


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

Hmm.. Good point too. You'd be a good negotiator DJL! 

So yes, strategically they were very important for more than one reason. You can put the strangle-hold on any country if you crush it's economy and ability to trade and generate income. But I still think the Americans were being sneakly little buggers. I don't trust them, I just can't find it in myself to.

Call me paranoid but at least you know you'll have 1 Super Rebel Canuck if we get annexed and become the next US state!

 :akimbo:


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

Hey joe......go have a look at this site:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Jun 2004)

Oh, no! 

Not another one of these!

I am not even going to 'bite' here. Recruit Joe, I dont know who you are, but its a lot deeper than that, a lot deeper. Do a search and read some other threads.

Meanwhile unleaded fuel here in Sydney has reached $1.07/litre at some stations this long weekend, and our dollar is 69c US.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## rdschultz (12 Jun 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> The only reason they went after Iraq is for the damn oil. The US has a HUGE oil reserve, it can hold something like 12 million barrels of crude oil or something crazy like that. Enough to last thier nation about 10-12 years going strong when everyone else runs out. They released some of that oil in the first war with Iraq to the populace of the US to lower gas prices. That's how much they have! Supposidly it takes them years to fill it.



Against my better judgement, I'm going to bite.  Although right here is about where I quit taking you seriously.  Well, at your first sentence, really, but this was too much.

I assume you're talking about the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR)?  If so, you'd better find a new fact checker for your retarded ramblings.

12 million barrels would not last 12 years.  They'd last about a day.  The U.S. imports about 10 million barrels of oil per day.  Nevertheless, the SPR's volume is much higher than 12 million barrels.  Its more like 700 million barrels.

The Department of Energy has some nice information on this subject, so I'll refer you to it.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.shtml

If you'll notice, it offers 53 days of import protection.  Now correct me if I'm wrong, but there are more than 53 days in 10-12 years, are there not?


----------



## tabernac (12 Jun 2004)

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html"


Looks like someone had too much time on their hands.


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

Well it appears that I didn't have very good information on the SPR or didn't remember the info correctly. I was convinced that thier supplies would last about 10 yrs. Seeing a statement from the website of 53 days is shocking. Altough that's only import protection. I have no idea how much oil the US would use in a day, but "import protection" would imply it lasts 53 days if it was drained at the rate the US imports petrolium. In other words, they could draw it out slowly, which it shows on that link you gave us, about 1 year, which still isn't very long...

You have shot my theory about that out of the water completely!  :'(

Although this information relaxes me more in regards to the idea of them having a fully fueled war machine well the rest of us rot away, I still don't trust the US. I suppose I'll have to wait and see what they're like if I ever get to train with them. It is my opinion that the US isn't as innocent as you all seem to think. I refuse to let a sheet be pulled over my eyes in regards to the US. A saying, never let your guard down. I'll keep following although one of my theories have been busted completely. I'll have to do some research and thinking!

One question, what convinces you all so much that there is no chance the US would turn against us, or, a large section of the world in the future?


----------



## DJL (12 Jun 2004)

> All I need to say is,
> YOU KNOW YOUR A FAG WHEN!



Not sure that was called for.......regardless who you were addressing.

I fail to see were ones sexuality enters into "play" during an  discussion on US foreign policy......I'd ask you to clarify, but I doubt the responce is worth anybodies time.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (12 Jun 2004)

...except when it was Wild Bill's sexual promiscuity...     ;D


Thank you, I'm here a week


----------



## JBP (12 Jun 2004)

In response to "Cheeky_Monkey's" comment about my sexuality, I'm not obviously some little 14 yr old immature punk. And for your information I am not gay. I would like to say more, but there isn't a point.  I was trying to have a civilized conversation and trying to attain information and viewpoints from fellow Canadians. 

Grow up or shut up is really what I have to say to you. I won't post about this again because I don't need to lower myself to your level, as above posted, your comment was not called for...


----------



## Military Brat (13 Jun 2004)

Canada being annexed?  ???

The US has already invaded Canada culturally, they influence every part of our society in some way. 

The US isn't going to invade Canada by force anytime soon, they get everything they want from the current Liberal government anyways. Just look at the softwood lumber issue, Canada can really do nothing but go to international bodies governing trade and launch a legal case. It would be a similar situation, and the end result would be the Liberals making sure not the piss off our neighbors to the South, and they would sell out on Canadians.


----------



## Goober (13 Jun 2004)

DJL said:
			
		

> If Bush was just looking for Oil, why didn't he let his friends drill in Alaska? ....



Funny you mention that, they are applying to expand drilling to cover about 96% of 2 million square miles of protected eco system.


----------



## Goober (13 Jun 2004)

Sorry, my numbers were wrong, its 4.6 million acres, not 2 million square miles.

http://www.enn.com/news/2004-06-11/s_24807.asp


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jun 2004)

> Although this information relaxes me more in regards to the idea of them having a fully fueled war machine well the rest of us rot away, I still don't trust the US. I suppose I'll have to wait and see what they're like if I ever get to train with them. It is my opinion that the US isn't as innocent as you all seem to think. I refuse to let a sheet be pulled over my eyes in regards to the US. A saying, never let your guard down. I'll keep following although one of my theories have been busted completely. I'll have to do some research and thinking!



At least this line of thinking has been blasted enough on this thread to not be taken seriously anymore.

Hey Recruit, put your theories away and put the radio on recieve.  I'll ask my American sister when they plan on invading us and give you an advance warning, ok....


----------



## Smoothbore (13 Jun 2004)

Military Brat said:
			
		

> Canada being annexed?  ???
> 
> The US has already invaded Canada culturally, they influence every part of our society in some way.




What culture?


----------



## Korus (14 Jun 2004)

> What in heavens name ARE they TEACHING these kids in university these days??!!



Not THAT... well, at least not in Engineering...


----------



## Smoothbore (14 Jun 2004)

He's probably in somekind of arts program like finger painting...


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jun 2004)

> All I need to say is,
> YOU KNOW YOUR A FAG WHEN!



"Cheeky-Monkey" if you can't even attempt to act like an adult piss off and get off this site.

Smoothbore your not too far ahead in the intelligent post department either.


----------



## Smoothbore (14 Jun 2004)

I'm aware of that, thank you. Thats why I joined the military.


----------



## JBP (14 Jun 2004)

I won't comment on Smoothbore, in anycase, this thread is basically dead. I wanted to see what kind of response I'd attain and what people thought of it. I've gotten my response from people and information.

Thanks for those who involved themselves respectfully and honestly. I do accept constructive critisizem well.  

It's very different than most civilians or people from my area anyway.

Again, thanks for the input folks! I have no hard feelings or ill will toward anyone!

Joe
Deep hearted Canadian
I love


----------



## Pieman (14 Jun 2004)

meh! Guys. don't even bother coming down on this guy.

It is clearly like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## Andyd513 (14 Jun 2004)

I think the underlying, all defeating question here is.. do you TRULY think Americans are much different then Canadians? Have you, or do you KNOW any Americans?

Seriously, if you think they're "suspicious" or whatever drive however long it takes you to get to the US on a weekend, go do whatever you like to do to meet people and come back and tell me the people you meet are any less kind then your Canadian friends. Several Americans make up some of my best friends.. my best friend who lives here has a girlfriend in Michigan. Shall I ask them when they plan to take over the rest of the worlds oil reserves and dominate us?


----------



## jrhume (15 Jun 2004)

We don't have a plan to take over the Earth.  Though we could use some more oil reserves.  And fresh water -- yeah, we need fresh water, too.  Preferably big lakes with decent trout fishing.  Good beer, too.  It would have to be a place with good beer.  

Okay, so that sort of describes Canada -- or parts of it.  But, honest, we don't have any invasion plans.  Really.

As for submission and/or domination, well, that's sort of a private affair, isn't it?


----------



## JBP (16 Jun 2004)

Yes I have known Americans.

It's not the civilians and everday people who are the problem, they are the same as is in almost every aspect of life. It's the administration of the government and the different military agencies and security agencies that are the problem. CIA, FBI, NSA, Republican Government in power at this time...

I had a married-in grandmother who lived in Buffalo, NY state. She was one of the nicest people I've ever known and she wasn't even a blood relative! I had two friends who lived in Brooklyn, NY and one of them was witness to the 09/11 attacks. They came and visited shortly after that all happened. Here is one MAJOR difference in the mindset of the people North of the border compare to the South.

When my friends first arrived, they said they just could NOT believe how expensive the gas prices were. They are expensive as we all know that. I commented that they had to keep in mind they were pumped Litres not Gallons. She understood, made the conversion and still realized she paid ALOT less in the US for gas. So she said, and I quote, "Man you Canadians gotta get some F-16's over to some sandbox shithole and bomb some of those rag-head motherfuckers if they keep jackin' up your gas like that!"... Mind you, again, this was shortly after 9/11 which could have an obvious influence over her reactions. In anycase, I wouldn't doubt there are Canadians who wouldn't mind blowing some country to pieces to lower the gas prices. But for the most part, I do not believe most Canadians would KILL people over gas.

To make a long story shorter, it's not the civilians for the most part. It's the high-ranking military+administration+corporations. All the posts I've made in this thread were from my own personal thought and opinions and were expressed in such fashion. If you take offence to it, that's your choice or if you don't agree, that's your choice. Simple. That's why I created the thread, to see what people thought. I enjoy good constructive conversation about almost any topic. I will never belittle someone else for thier own opinion. We live in a free society with free speech. 

So in short, yes, I do believe that the US will be the catalyst to the true World War 3. That's my opinion and since it's clearly stated in several posts and I've attained much feedback from many people here, I won't post to this thread again as it won't be of much use. Anyone want to slander me or talk more, send me a personal message or email me at JBP@Cogeco.ca

Joe
PS> I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe in  

 :threat:


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jun 2004)

I think radical extreme Islam is already the catalyst and when this war intensifies, and we are all closer to the beginning than the end of this war.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but Joe, take a second and think about if this happened in Canada, then maybe you would think different if thousands of innocent Canadians were murdered in such a cowardly fashion as our American friends were on 11 Sep 01.

Here in Australia we already know the loss with teh Kuta Beach bombings of 2002. We know what has to be done.

It wouldnt be over oil would it. It would be to ensure that this bent side of a religion and all who follow it are indeed stopped in their tracks to prevent any further action against your country.

Lets just get it overwith now, so our kids wont have to do what we are. All's I want is a secure future for our culture and our way of life, and there are people out there (yes right in your own country now) who want things different, and value DEATH as much as you and I cherish our own lives,a nd the lives of people we love.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jun 2004)

Nearly forgot, our petrol prices both here in Australia and Canada have always been higher than the USA, and this is because of the taxing structure is different.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## ags281 (16 Jun 2004)

Wanna see expensive gas? Go to Europe. There's a reason scooters are popular there...


----------



## karpovage (17 Jun 2004)

Joe, I'll bite. You've got some good bait. If Britain didn't have ambitions to dominate the world Canada and the U.S. would never have come about. During the colonization age of history many countries sought expansion for natural resources. Some did it for perceived riches, some for economic and trade purposes, ie pure profit taking. In fact a European fashion demand for fur drove alot of the colonization of Canada and the U.S. in our early inception. So were the Brits evil people for being a militaristic society by defending the fur trade? keep in mind also that coal was a fossil fuel that was considered the blood that drove economies. So, do not consider oil evil in of itself. Oil is the blood that fuels our modern world. Oil IS a National Security Interest of the U.S. as is it of Canada. This is not based on a Republican or Democratic agenda, nor U.S. actions of the last decade. This is based on capitalism and industry and reality. In fact former President Jimmy Carter, a pacifist Democratic declared oil a National Security interest and risked sending U.S. Naval Warships to the Persian Gulf to escort oil tankers from the threat of Iranian interference. So, yes oil does drive America but Joe, oil drives every modern civilized country. And those third world countries that are trying to modernize rely on oil too.

Persian Gulf War I was not a U.S. endeavor. It was a United Nations war. Yes, it was to liberate an invaded country but it too was about the FREE capitalistic trade of a natural resource - oil. I don't have a problem going to war for oil. It drives our society. If the U.S. wanted to dominate the middle east oil supply then why did we pull out of Iraq then? Why didn't we confiscate the Iraq oil reserves then? Instead we, under the UN umbrella set up a humanitarian Oil for Foodd program to help the citizens of Iraq. ANd what has become of this program under the UN? An utterfailure with $10 billion dollars embezzelled!

Persian Gulf War II (The Battle of Iraq) is still considered a UN sanctioned military intervention. There was a cease-fire from 1991. The cease-fire was broken on over700 occasions (ie, no-fly zone). Plus UN inspectors were booted in 1998. In 2002 a unanimous decision 15-0 by the Security Council threatened "serious consequences" of a material breach. There was a breach and thus invasion occurred. The U.S. and Great Britain took the leadership role to drive this battle, thus questioning the UN resolve to add bite to its words. Could you imagine if the League of Nations did the same while Hitler was grabbing land in the late '30s? But you know what, oil wasn't a problem for the U.S. then. Oil prices were low. The U.S. didn't need to attack for oil purposes. Security of our citizens was a greater concern. We really couldn't afford another 9-11 from occurring. An Iraq was ripe for promoting this. Iraq oil is important to U.S. - don't get me wrong. But the new government of Iraq needs it as a source of revenue. We need Iraq to succeed because a democratic Arab state in the middle east is much more important than lower gas prices.

In closing why has the U.S. embarked on a major research initiative to replace oil with hydrogen-powered technologies, corn-fuel, battery-power among other forms of energy, if we are poised on world domination to supply our oil demand?


----------



## Military Brat (17 Jun 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> (yes right in your own country now) who want things different, and value DEATH as much as you and I cherish our own lives,a nd the lives of people we love.



Sounds good to me, I have no problem killing every last one of these religious extremists who value death and giving them their wish so the civilized world can live in peace, freedom and relative security.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (18 Jun 2004)

I have to disagree, the US and UN went to war to help out and liberate Kuwait? I wish I could believe that, there was a secondary agenda. Not to mention that the UN is 90% supported by America.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the US went to Somalia under "Operation Restore Hope," weren't they going with the UN to lend a helping hand? There was a alternate agenda there too.

Then again, that's just my thoughts and opinion. If anyone disagrees or has questions, then please private message me, so that this forum doesn't turn into a 50 page argument.

I just think that when a super power country, regardless who it is, that behaves so aggressively, goes to help someone; it is not genuine, there is a real reason as to why they went to â Å“help.â ?


----------



## Bert (18 Jun 2004)

To balance it a bit, every country in the world has its own agenda.  The UN is not so much US 
dominated as each country wheels and deals to get a suitable place or result.  The US and 
many other countries figure prominantly in the back rooms of the UN.  Yes the US watches 
and manipulates the world.  Does not Russia, Germany, China, and other countries in their 
respective regions also control and manipulate events?  

Heres a classic example.  Remember a few years back when the US Orion surveillance aircraft 
struck a chinese fighter and was forced to land on a chinese air force base?

I worked for a company employing many chinese and they were furious at the US for challenging
chinese airspace, spying from "international waters", acquiring intelligence on chinese military
responsiveness, being agressive, and no business being out there so close to chinese territory.
Listening to their point of view from their point of view made sense given their history over
6,000 years.  The chinese have always either been raided and abused by outside forces
or by themselves.

The USA has memories of the Civil War, WW1, and particularily WW2.  Remember Pearl Harbour
and how the Japanese silently devastated the American Pacific Fleet?  The German aggression
in WW2 and the Americans knew it wouldn't stop in just Europe.  Note the recent attack on the
twin towers. The USA has history too that affects their outlook on the world.  From the 
American perspective, taking surveillance of China is understandable.

Both the USA and China spy on eachother.  Dispite any point of view, they both do it and thats a
fact.  Another fact is Germany sells armaments to Israel and Eqypt as well as a host of countries
who are at odds with one another.  Not to pick on Germany, yet often the US is critized for selling 
armaments but other countries escape the same "deserving" critizism.

There are many opinions yet the bigger picuture suggests there are few countries that can take the
moral high ground.


----------



## karpovage (18 Jun 2004)

Bert, good post. I agree. Pte. NoMercy - you are correct. There are always hidden agendas and behind the door deals struck. I think I said clearly that one of the agendas for going into Kuwait as well as Iraq is to secure the free-flow of oil for sale on the market. This benefits all countries so one main dictator does not dominate this precious resource. However, this is just one agenda for a multi-pronged purpose in waging war. The balance of regional power is another, freeing a population from brutal  rape, torture, murder is another purpose. Controlling the spread of WMDs is another agenda. And establishing a democratic governement is another. 

But back to the main question. No, the U.S. cannot even AFFORD to pursue World Domination in the name of Exxon/Mobil/BP. We don't even have enough troops/security forces to stabilize small cities in Iraq! Now, I for one honestly believe that there is a bit of a conspiracy out there by the global oil companies (not just in the U.S as Recruit Joe suggests) where they have deliberately suppressed technology that would render dependency on oil useless. By buying up patents, strong-arming indivuals and controlling research funds alternative forms of energy have been squashed. One example is the Tesla Reactor that could supposedly supply and entire city. But then again I'm not any type of expert on any of this black ops conspiray theory. I just find it very hard to believe that in the age of nuclear and atomic energy as well as the explosion of computer technology  ALL in the last 100 years that we as humans cannot solve the internal combustible engine problem. I do believe we are right around the corner though and when that happens there will be some major paradigm shifts - can you imagine if western industrialized nations simply stopped knocking on the door of Arab oil? 

So, Recruit Joe, don't get yourparanoid panties all in a knot. There won't be any Delta Force members slitting your throat as you sleep any time soon.


----------



## Andyd513 (18 Jun 2004)

Remember, virtually all positions in the US gov't are elected, they don't have any appointed senate such as us. So if your gripe is with the leadership, administration etc then your gripe is still with the people. They elected them.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that taking Iraq may cause some short term pain, but long term gain. A potential terrorist training area has been defeated. A vacuum has been created, many foreign fighters have migrated to fight against US forces in Iraq. Had these fighters not gone there, they may have directed their angst against civilians in other middle eastern or not so middle eastern countries. As unfortunate as it is for the American soldiers being shot at, they are doing a service.. every radical shooting at them is a radical not shooting at or plotting to kill civilians.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jun 2004)

To make some of the conspiracy theory people happy here, I will concede probably the only one I have, and thats if you were to announce a news conference for tommorrow that you had discovered something that would take the place of oil virtually overnight AND the world thought that it was credible, you would never make it through the night.  Think of the monetary vacuums that such a discovery would create.


----------



## Noyon (18 Jun 2004)

I dont think its even possible for any one country to "Take over the world". UN wouldn't allow it, and if United States even considered going against the world they would be crushed by every country in UN. No country can win a world war alone. 

This post reminds me however of a program I watched a week or so ago on TLC about prophecies. Someone had predicted that the 3rd World War would last 27 years and the 3rd "anti christ" would be from the Middle East or Africa. Mind you his prophecies were written LONG LONG LONG ago, but they have been correct so far believe it or not. 1st anti christ was Napoleon 2nd was Hitler


----------



## Andyd513 (18 Jun 2004)

You are speaking of Nostradamus, one of the more famous prophets of the last couple thousand years.

In my opinion the jury is still out on a lot of what he said, though some quatrains are eerily accurate. A Nostradamus debate would require a thread of its own.


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (18 Jun 2004)

The UN PREVENTING the US taking over the world? 

Noyon, 

No, I'm sorry, people have to realize that the UN is 90% funded and equipped by the United States. Therefore, there really would be no United Nations if America wasn't in it. Also, if you look at the history of the UN, you'll notice a pattern of the US manipulating the UN extensively so they can do whatever they want in the world...while having the UN making it look legal.

  An example I alluded to earlier was Somalia, "Operation Restore Hope"  was NOT a UN humanitarian mission! Do the research and you'll see how all the coalition countries that did go to Somalia had their mandate changed within 10 days of deployment. So what happened was the US went into Somalia and killed an estimated 10,000 people, at least, during a â Å“Humanitarian Missionâ ? that didn't exist. Somalia is just a small example, by the way, as to what the US has done in other weak countries around the world.

Now you ask yourself; â Å“Why Somalia? What's this guy taking about?â ? Somalia is damned to be one of the most strategically valuable places in the world. Why? Because Somalia has access to the Suez Cannel which leads to the Persian Gulf where there is...you guessed it; oil. So if you control the Cannel, you control access to the Gulf.

The Soviets knew this, that's why they funded both Somalia and Ethiopia with so much military equipment that in Ethiopia, the largest European styled black military was formed. Then the US started funding Somalia, and the super power war was fought by both Somalia and Ethiopia, who did their dirty work.

So when the Soviet Union, collapsed...what did the US do? Run along to Kuwait and â Å“liberateâ ? them by 1991. Then in 1992-1993, the US â Å“helpedâ ? Somalia, thereby gaining access to the cannel. So they secured the oil in Kuwait and rebuilt the industry in time for the Cannel to be controlled.

Afghanistan is the same deal. Why did the Soviets launched a costly and 12 year campaign there? Simple there's uranium, oil and not to mention opium- which is now guarded by US Special Forces. I have spoken to people who lived there and they told me that people from a geologist to a basic goat farmer knows that there are huge amounts of oil and uranium because of the perfect conditions in the mountains.

So when the â Å“War on Terrorismâ ? was launched, guess who went to Afghanistan? Halliburton; which is the only company that has oil mountain drilling technology in the world. They were also appointed to work in Iraq by Cheney even before the war started! There is a pipe line being built, and it will probably go through Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and even maybe Uzbekistan. By the way, the CEO's in Halliburton are all former 3 to 4 star generals who were former chiefs of staff...makes you think!

I haven't given ANY conspiracy theories here, if you do the research that I have and connect the dots, you begin to see too many â Å“co-incidentsâ ? take shape.

I think I've given good enough examples and proof of how the US is a shady character. Remember, invading a country does NOT have to be militarily, it can be through economics utilizing the â Å“Johnsonianâ ? method of Manifest Destiny in which a take over is launched quietly and patiently through such non military means.

If anyone disagrees, or thinks I'm full of it, then private message me so that this forum doens't turn into a rampantargument all over again.


----------



## clasper (18 Jun 2004)

Pte.Nomercy said:
			
		

> Halliburton; which is the only company that has oil mountain drilling technology in the world. They were also appointed to work in Iraq by Cheney even before the war started!



Yes, Halliburton has close ties to the US government, and some of their business dealings look a little shady, but some conspiracy theorists give them too much credit.   They are not some large behemoth that is pulling the strings of US foreign policy.   (I know that's not exactly what you implied, Pte. Nomercy, but some people take it that far.)   In fact, they aren't even the world's largest oilfield service company.   As to this monopoly on mountain drilling technology, there are several thousand people working in Alberta and northeastern BC, drilling for oil in the rockies without the benefit of Halliburton's drilling technology.   Drilling in the mountains isn't all that different from drilling in the prairies (although interpreting the geology is quite the challenge!)


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (18 Jun 2004)

clasper,

Those are some good points!  

The difference between Halliburton and the guys drilling oil in Alberta and the Rockies is that they don't have the technology to establish a mountain pipe line. 

Halliburton is, I'm dead sure, the only company that can drill through mountains to obtain oil the way it does, and it is the only company that knows how to establish a pipeline through mountainous regions, meaning that they either drill through mountains or build pipelines along or within them.

Allot of people know how to drill for oil, getting it where you want through mountains is another story.


----------



## clasper (19 Jun 2004)

Pte. Nomercy-

You are still overstating Halliburton's capabilities.  The 800 miles of pipeline across Alaska (which includes a mountain pass or two) were not constructed by Halliburton.  Closer to home, the Alliance pipeline constructed recently also goes through the mountains in northeastern BC.  I'm sure there are dozens of other examples of oilfields in the mountains being brought to production without the benefit of Halliburton's technology, but those are two with which I have first hand experience.

Cheers


----------



## karpovage (19 Jun 2004)

This post is making for some interesting brainstorming for my next novel, the sequel to _Flashpoint Quebec_. Here's my jigglin bait (reminds me of ice-fiching on Lake Nippising). I'm interested in what someone said earlier about Canada supplying the U.S. with fresh water. Please elaborate. Could someone lay out a future scenario where the U.S. becomes dependent on fresh water supplies in Canada and thus precipitating a possible invasion plan to secure these resources - such as the originator (Recruit Joe) of this topic proposed? 

Let me also ask this since my current book involves Quebec seceeding and forming their own country and thus controlling a vast amount of resources in their landmass. What resources in Quebec would be so valuable to the U.S. and for that matter, Canada, that a U.S./Canada (NATO) alliance would need to go into Quebec to retake/occupy territory? Is it freshwater? Is it untapped oil reserves? Hydropower electricity? Is it some other source of fuel like the tar-sands in Alberta that have yet to be exploited? This scenario fascinates me because the U.S. has tried twice to invade Quebec in our history and as a fiction combat thriller writer I'd love to tie in some factual history to a fictional yet possible scenario. 

Mind you, my fictional Quebec Defense Force would be made up of French weaponry/tanks/troop presence. So, how's this for adversaries, U.S./Canada vs. Quebec/France? I just need something that would ignite the conflict, such as a coveted resource. Then as my country is so fond of doing I can make an excuse that we are going into Quebec to "free" the oppressed Native American tribes who voted against secession.


----------



## Noyon (19 Jun 2004)

Good post Pte. Nomercy, you showed me a thing or 2


----------

