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

[Bert]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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