The New World Order

With apologies to JOTW, Rob E. Dangerously, NoCalMike, teke184, snuffbox, Vyce, Verne Gagne, and any other regular I missed. Im just tired, and its hard enough trying to pigeon hole everyone. Feel free to pick up where I left off though!

2GOLD · October 8, 2004

The Eagle Scout....me?

I hardly ever post links. Right?

Styles · October 8, 2004

The Eagle Scout....me?
I hardly ever post links. Right?

I don't know, it's really late, and I was trying to match everyone up, but probably did a piss poor job. I didn't read it through I guess, I was thinking you're pretty non partisan and don't really get into flame wars...

snuffbox · October 8, 2004

*Yawn*, wake me up when Bush and Cheney reveal the third man.

"Bah Gawd! Teddy Kennedy just hit Kerry with a steel chair! What the hell is going on here?!"

Hogan Made Wrestling · October 8, 2004

What would be the equivalent of Hogan turning? Clinton maybe?

AndrewTS · October 8, 2004

You missed one Powerplay:

AMikeSC and GreatOne - http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame3.html

Somebody do me.

snuffbox · October 8, 2004

What would be the equivalent of Hogan turning? Clinton maybe?

Theres a "joke" in the post right above yours.

cbacon · October 8, 2004

There are dumbfucks in this forum, but you're not one of them (heh, you don't even come close to some we've had in the past)

But, seriously, this is some silly stuff. There is a group of neo-cons, therefore they must have some sort of insidious conspiratorial plan to trap us in some sort of deformed facist state? Come on, that has nothing to do with Bush, its just idiocy of the Illuminati or Mason level.

Now if you talk about REAL conspiracies to circumvent election laws with 527s you might get some more credit. But if you want to talk about sinister facist cabals, just do us all a favor and post it at Democratic Underground.

I can see where your coming from, to anyone who reads the first paragraph or watches the video would see it as ludicrous. However i'd like to point out:

1. This isn't just a group of regular neo-cons. As outlined in the first post, all of the members of PNAC are among the upper echelon of the White House and State Departments.

2. It does indeed have to do with the Bush Admnistration. Heck, many of it's members are part of it. Notwithstanding the fact Jeb Bush is part of the group, but they also personally sent messages to Bush and advocated his decisions while pushing for his post 9/11 foriegn policy actions. It only took a day after 9/11 for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to pitch the idea of going after Saddam.

3. The findings in the site are not very subtle. They explicitly endorse on waging war and bestoying American values on other nations.

These aren't theories. They're all on the ACTUAL site. It's not a conspiracy site, there's no reading between the lines, it's a legitimate group of the aforementioned members.

Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.

Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they call "total war" — the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends. Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Members of PNAC are so self-assured they are advancing America's best interests that they publish policy papers specifically outlining their plans, plans that many fear may be laying the groundwork for a third world war. Their ideas are peculiarly atavistic, considering the friendly ties that have been forged between most of the major nations during the past ten years.

Their central policy document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)," published on their website at http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. It outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years, pinpointing "problem areas" of the world and suggesting regime change of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world will be unified under the banner of American democracy.

Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement.

Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?

http://gvtc.com/~mpingo/pnac.html

Hogan Made Wrestling · October 8, 2004

What would be the equivalent of Hogan turning? Clinton maybe?

Theres a "joke" in the post right above yours.

Ahh, beaten to the punch. Yeah, that one's fairly appropriate.

Can Al Sharpton be Vincent?

EDIT: No wait, Clarence Thomas!

snuffbox · October 8, 2004

There are dumbfucks in this forum, but you're not one of them (heh, you don't even come close to some we've had in the past)

But, seriously, this is some silly stuff. There is a group of neo-cons, therefore they must have some sort of insidious conspiratorial plan to trap us in some sort of deformed facist state? Come on, that has nothing to do with Bush, its just idiocy of the Illuminati or Mason level.

Now if you talk about REAL conspiracies to circumvent election laws with 527s you might get some more credit. But if you want to talk about sinister facist cabals, just do us all a favor and post it at Democratic Underground.

I can see where your coming from, to anyone who reads the first paragraph or watches the video would see it as ludicrous. However i'd like to point out:

1. This isn't just a group of regular neo-cons. As outlined in the first post, all of the members of PNAC are among the upper echelon of the White House and State Departments.

2. It does indeed have to do with the Bush Admnistration. Heck, many of it's members are part of it. Notwithstanding the fact Jeb Bush is part of the group, but they also personally sent messages to Bush and advocated his decisions while pushing for his post 9/11 foriegn policy actions. It only took a day after 9/11 for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to pitch the idea of going after Saddam.

3. The findings in the site are not very subtle. They explicitly endorse on waging war and bestoying American values on other nations.

These aren't theories. They're all on the site. It's not a conspiracy site, it's a legitimate group of the aforementioned members.

I dont think anyone is actually discussing this thread's actual topic anymore...

NoCalMike · October 8, 2004

I am hurt that I didn't get one assigned to me

Hogan Made Wrestling · October 8, 2004

People are going to have to help me fill this one out:

George W. Bush - Scott Hall

Dick Cheney – Kevin Nash

Elliot Abrams -

Gary Bauer – Dusty Rhodes

William Bennett –

Jeb Bush – Syxx

Eliot Cohen -

Midge Decter–

Paula Dobriansky –

Steve Forbes - Ted Dibiase

Aaron Friedberg -

Francis Fukuyama - Masahiro Chono

Frank Gaffney -

Fred Ikle -

Donald Kagan -

Zalmay Khalilzad –

I. Lewis Libby -

Richard Perle - Eric Bischoff

Norman Podhoretz -

Dan Quayle - The Disco InfenWo

Peter Rodman -

Stephen Rosen -

Henry Rowen -

Donald Rumsfeld - Scott Steiner

Vin Weber -

George Weigel -

Paul Wolfowitz - Lex Luger

October 8, 2004

Olympic Slam: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame89.html

Yikes that was accurate!

cbacon · October 8, 2004

*shakes head*

Oi vey.

October 8, 2004

Hmmm, standard routine here at the old CE folder. As predicted when something remotely questionable it's the knee jerk reaction: "OH NO, HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT AMERICA/BUSH~!".

So far we've seen:

- Personal attacks, check.

- Conspiracy claims even when the information is presented, check.

- Essentially ignoring the issue, check.

Now granted, the whole universal vote thread may have been a tad to colorful for this forum, at least most of the responses were rational (even if the context of the article was a tad skewed, but i can see why it would have been interpreted that way). This thread is the standard same old, but a tad more immature. Kudos.

Actually, you're getting mocked because not only is your conspiracy theory incredibly cliched, weakly thought out, inane, and ridiculous --- it's something even Kamui would have been too humiliated to post.

Why isn't this being taken seriously by people with an IQ above room temperature? Because Santa Claus being real is a more plausible theory.

Don't post moronic bullshit and people might actually take you seriously.

-=Mike

snuffbox · October 8, 2004

Hmmm, standard routine here at the old CE folder. As predicted when something remotely questionable it's the knee jerk reaction: "OH NO, HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT AMERICA/BUSH~!".

So far we've seen:

- Personal attacks, check.

- Conspiracy claims even when the information is presented, check.

- Essentially ignoring the issue, check.

Now granted, the whole universal vote thread may have been a tad to colorful for this forum, at least most of the responses were rational (even if the context of the article was a tad skewed, but i can see why it would have been interpreted that way). This thread is the standard same old, but a tad more immature. Kudos.

Actually, you're getting mocked because not only is your conspiracy theory incredibly cliched, weakly thought out, inane, and ridiculous --- it's something even Kamui would have been too humiliated to post.

Why isn't this being taken seriously by people with an IQ above room temperature? Because Santa Claus being real is a more plausible theory.

Don't post moronic bullshit and people might actually take you seriously.

-=Mike

Dont bother Tireless Rebutter, this thread is all about the cartoons now

NoCalMike · October 8, 2004

Hmmm, standard routine here at the old CE folder. As predicted when something remotely questionable it's the knee jerk reaction: "OH NO, HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT AMERICA/BUSH~!".

So far we've seen:

- Personal attacks, check.

- Conspiracy claims even when the information is presented, check.

- Essentially ignoring the issue, check.

Now granted, the whole universal vote thread may have been a tad to colorful for this forum, at least most of the responses were rational (even if the context of the article was a tad skewed, but i can see why it would have been interpreted that way). This thread is the standard same old, but a tad more immature. Kudos.

Actually, you're getting mocked because not only is your conspiracy theory incredibly cliched, weakly thought out, inane, and ridiculous --- it's something even Kamui would have been too humiliated to post.

Why isn't this being taken seriously by people with an IQ above room temperature? Because Santa Claus being real is a more plausible theory.

Don't post moronic bullshit and people might actually take you seriously.

-=Mike

C-Bacon's added in commentary and opinions about PNAC could be viewed as conspiracy theory-run amok, but PNAC itself is absolutely 100% legit.

October 8, 2004

It is irrelevant bullshit.

However, watching the left wet itself over them is always fun.

-=Mike

October 8, 2004

There are dumbfucks in this forum, but you're not one of them (heh, you don't even come close to some we've had in the past)

But, seriously, this is some silly stuff. There is a group of neo-cons, therefore they must have some sort of insidious conspiratorial plan to trap us in some sort of deformed facist state? Come on, that has nothing to do with Bush, its just idiocy of the Illuminati or Mason level.

Now if you talk about REAL conspiracies to circumvent election laws with 527s you might get some more credit. But if you want to talk about sinister facist cabals, just do us all a favor and post it at Democratic Underground.

I can see where your coming from, to anyone who reads the first paragraph or watches the video would see it as ludicrous. However i'd like to point out:

1. This isn't just a group of regular neo-cons. As outlined in the first post, all of the members of PNAC are among the upper echelon of the White House and State Departments.

2. It does indeed have to do with the Bush Admnistration. Heck, many of it's members are part of it. Notwithstanding the fact Jeb Bush is part of the group, but they also personally sent messages to Bush and advocated his decisions while pushing for his post 9/11 foriegn policy actions. It only took a day after 9/11 for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to pitch the idea of going after Saddam.

3. The findings in the site are not very subtle. They explicitly endorse on waging war and bestoying American values on other nations.

These aren't theories. They're all on the ACTUAL site. It's not a conspiracy site, there's no reading between the lines, it's a legitimate group of the aforementioned members.

Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.

Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they call "total war" — the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends. Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Members of PNAC are so self-assured they are advancing America's best interests that they publish policy papers specifically outlining their plans, plans that many fear may be laying the groundwork for a third world war. Their ideas are peculiarly atavistic, considering the friendly ties that have been forged between most of the major nations during the past ten years.

Their central policy document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)," published on their website at http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. It outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years, pinpointing "problem areas" of the world and suggesting regime change of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world will be unified under the banner of American democracy.

Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement.

Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?

http://gvtc.com/~mpingo/pnac.html

So am I supposed to be afraid of the Project for the New American Century and the Neo-Con agenda? This is all innuendo and wink wink conspiracy that MoveOn.org just creams their panties over. This is all very swell and laid out nicely but WHY AM I SUPPOSED TO START SHITTING MYSELF IN TERROR?

Better to be a pawn to Western Democracy and American capitalism than a slave to a new global USSR or global Muslim tyranny.

NoCalMike · October 8, 2004

It is irrelevant bullshit.

irrelevant? Well that is your opinion.

bullshit? That is one thing it certainly isn't.

NoCalMike · October 8, 2004

http://gvtc.com/~mpingo/pnac.html

So am I supposed to be afraid of the Project for the New American Century and the Neo-Con agenda? This is all innuendo and wink wink conspiracy that MoveOn.org just creams their panties over. This is all very swell and laid out nicely but WHY AM I SUPPOSED TO START SHITTING MYSELF IN TERROR?

Better to be a pawn to Western Democracy and American capitalism than a slave to a new global USSR or global Muslim tyranny.

This was around before MoveOn.org. 1997, I believe. And I never said to start "shitting yourself" over anything. I am just pointing out that it isn't "bullshit" as MikeSC claimed. Plus it basically demonstrates the simple fact that the strike against Iraq was planned out well in advance of Bush getting into the whitehouse.

October 8, 2004

It is irrelevant bullshit.

irrelevant? Well that is your opinion.

bullshit? That is one thing it certainly isn't.

Fear over PNAC is the single most moronic thing you can feel.

But, it is your decision to feel it.

-=Mike

cbacon · October 8, 2004

Actually, you're getting mocked because anything controversial I claim as a conspiracy theory, and it has bad words and icky stuff that I can't or don't dare defend. In my defence I will throw at as many synonyms for ridiculous as I can when I can't defend something, due to my selective reading and seemingly uncontrollable bias.

Why isn't this being taken seriously by people with an IQ above room temperature? Because that seems to be the general concensus of this forum, where everyone would rather post funny pictures and stuff. Cause opposing arguments are scary.

Don't post anything that may skew our collective, agglomerate way of thinking cause we'll just ignore it since it's very easy for me to deem something moronic bullshit, even it were being told to me by God himself. Cause he'd probably be a dirty French anyway. God Bless America!

Edited for accuracy

Ignorance is bliss.

snuffbox · October 8, 2004

Speaking of wonderfully terrifying conspiracies...

A special fellow at my workplace informed me that I 'best not vote for Kerry, cuz if he wins then the queers and Russians will take over!"

I love conspiracy theories

The New World Order

Recommended Posts

Justice 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Justice 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Slayer 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Justice 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hogan Made Wrestling 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hogan Made Wrestling 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Styles 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

2GOLD 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Styles 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

snuffbox 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hogan Made Wrestling 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AndrewTS 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

snuffbox 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

cbacon 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hogan Made Wrestling 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

snuffbox 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

NoCalMike 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hogan Made Wrestling 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Olympic Slam

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

cbacon 0

Share this post