The Bush Doctrine

[DrChinese]

This is the Bush Doctrine, and it defines American foreign policy at this time:

1. President Bush has populated his cabinet with ideologues bent on establishing an American hegemony over the next hundred years. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz are the top 3 in this conspiracy.

P.S. Think I am nuts? A tad paranoid maybe? Actually, they are self-admitted believers in the Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) (PNAC), having signed its inaugural statement. Also signed by Bush's brother Jeb (and Florida governor, and likely 2008 candidate for the presidency). Sample extract (emphasis added):

"We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. ...We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values." - Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bush/Quayle/Bennett et al, June 1997.

2. After 9/11, they told President Bush "I told you so" and convinced him that their warped vision of the future made sense. Bush has accepted their vision, and identifed 3 countries as belonging to the "axis of evil" - Iraq (currently being invaded), North Korea (practically begging to be next), and Iran (there are starting to be noises made about them too).

3. Expect Bush to continue the "new" war of American ideology vs. other countries, to escalate defense spending substantially in coming years, and to use his sword again. As if twice in two years isn't enough.

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the ..." -President George W. Bush, Sept. 20, 2001, setting the stage for US vs. "Them" battles of the future.

The Bush Doctrine, coming soon to a third world nation near you!

[DrBenway]

Could you define what "American hegemony" means?

[corplinx]

borb

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Could you define what "American hegemony" means?

American domination, or the predominance of America over other nations. (Assuming we have not achieved that already.)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by corplinx
borb Corplinx, why this comment?

If you think the PNAC is a fake, please say so, but if it is not, it certainly deserves mentioning? :confused:

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese
...We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values." - Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Bush/Quayle/Bennett et al, June 1997.


Do you have a better way of dealing with regimes that are hostile to our interests? Challange does not necessarily mean to invade and bomb them.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


American domination, or the predominance of America over other nations. (Assuming we have not achieved that already.)

Doesn't every nation want this for themselves?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese

1. President Bush has populated his cabinet with ideologues bent on establishing an American hegemony over the next hundred years. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz are the top 3 in this conspiracy.


You should form a neo-John Birch society of people who believe this so that it will be easier to identify who the post-communist era kooks are.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


Doesn't every nation want this for themselves?

No.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DrChinese
American domination, or the predominance of America over other nations. (Assuming we have not achieved that already.)
Forgive me, I don't mean to be thick, but I'm not sure I understand what that means.

You mean McDonald's in the third world? Microsoft Windows on 3rd world computers? Or do you mean the "Bill of Rights" or something similar in 3rd world governments? Or some sort of expanding free trade organization, like NAFTA?

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No.

Oh? well then, by all means, feel free to let us know what nations want dominated as opposed to having dominance.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Troll


Oh? well then, by all means, feel free to let us know what nations want dominated as opposed to having dominance.

My thoughts exactly.....

[iain]

Originally posted by Troll


Oh? well then, by all means, feel free to let us know what nations want dominated as opposed to having dominance. Interesting that you only see two possibilities.

Let me ask another question : does every US State want dominance over all the other States? If not, I guess they must want to be dominated.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Troll


Oh? well then, by all means, feel free to let us know what nations want dominated as opposed to having dominance.

OMG you are a genius. We better take over those canadians and mexicans, because they either:

1) Want to dominate us. (hehhehe)
2) Want us to dominate them.

It can't be one because we are america the beautifal god-empowered rulerz, so they must wants us to take over.

No wonder your name is Troll!

[ssibal]

Originally posted by iain
Interesting that you only see two possibilities.

Let me ask another question : does every US State want dominance over all the other States? If not, I guess they must want to be dominated.

How could the states dominate each other if they are treated as equals under the Constitution?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


OMG you are a genius. We better take over those canadians and mexicans, because they either:

1) Want to dominate us. (hehhehe)
2) Want us to dominate them.

It can't be one because we are america the beautifal god-empowered rulerz, so they must wants us to take over.


Dominance is not equivalent to taking them over.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll

Oh? well then, by all means, feel free to let us know what nations want dominated as opposed to having dominance.

Dr. Chinese said quite clearly.
"American domination, or the predominance of America over other nations."

I don't know how you managed to interpret this as "countries that don't want to dominate other nations also do not want sovereignty in their own nation."

I shudder to think that we Americans now think that if we don't dominate other countries then we are somehow under control of them. This sounds very much like wanting to be the dictator of the world.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by ssibal


Dominance is not equivalent to taking them over.

I'd like some dominance. Maybe a little S&M while we're at it.

You've got enough ego for the entire forum as well.

Will you be my friend?

How could the states dominate each other if they are treated as equals under the Constitution?

OMG? Are you saying we should treat inferior mexican's, canadian's, british, aussie's, arab's, jew's, nazi's, german's, french, spaniards, and all those other non-american's as equals?

You liberal nazi communist propaganda spewing pinko fag. Go back to whatever unamerican country you were raised in.

Obviously only American's should be treated as equals, all others should be dominated by our god-given right to rule.

[iain]

Originally posted by ssibal


How could the states dominate each other if they are treated as equals under the Constitution?
Well done for spotting a third possibility.

Most countries don't particularly want to dominate or be dominant. They just want to be treated equally on the world stage and have a fair crack at things.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


How could the states dominate each other if they are treated as equals under the Constitution?

Or nations, under the UN Charter?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


Dominance is not equivalent to taking them over.

What do you call it when we tell other countries to do as we say?

Oh, and back up our statements not only with the threat of force, but having used that force irrationally and unilaterally in the recent past?

I would say "dominance" is a very fair characterization. We are taking about military and political dominance. It does not have to include actual annexation to be inappropriate. We are but one country with only 5% of the world's population. Should our voices speak louder than others?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by iain

Well done for spotting a third possibility.

Most countries don't particularly want to dominate or be dominant. They just want to be treated equally on the world stage and have a fair crack at things.

Comparing the 50 states/Consititution to the nations of the world/international law is a bad analogy. And to be treated equally, you must have some entity treating you. In the case of the U.S. it is the Federal government. On the world stage, there is no equivalent entity. The will of the UN is essentially the will of Russia, France, U.S., U.K., and China. The very structure of the UN gives these five nations disproportionate power in the world stage. So to say that nations want to be treated equally is ridiculous since that is not an achievable goal (at least not under the UN).

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Or nations, under the UN Charter?

See my response. The UN is stuctured in an unequal manner.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


What do you call it when we tell other countries to do as we say?

Diplomacy.

Oh, and back up our statements not only with the threat of force, but having used that force irrationally and unilaterally in the recent past?

We do not always back up our statements with threat of force. The perfect example of this is Cuba. And what recent event are you speaking of that our force was used unilaterally? I hope you are not referring to Iraq.

I would say "dominance" is a very fair characterization. We are taking about military and political dominance. It does not have to include actual annexation to be inappropriate. We are but one country with only 5% of the world's population. Should our voices speak louder than others?

And I am saying that there is nothing abnormal or wrong with seeking dominance. If it was not the U.S. doing this, it would be some other nation.

[hammegk]

And just think, after the 2004 GOP victories and majorities, it will be the perfect time to tend to domestic issues.

A good start would be an amendment of all voting laws that would allow only US citizens born in the US to vote. Oh, OK, you can be born outside the country if both parents were born in the US.

[iain]

Originally posted by hammegk
A good start would be an amendment of all voting laws that would allow only US citizens born in the US to vote. Oh, OK, you can be born outside the country if both parents were born in the US. Out of interest , what would the justification for this be?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk
A good start would be an amendment of all voting laws that would allow only US citizens born in the US to vote. Oh, OK, you can be born outside the country if both parents were born in the US.
Then there would be no point in becoming a naturalized citizen.

"Congratulations, you're an American now, except you don't have the rights of an American.":rolleyes:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

Then there would be no point in becoming a naturalized citizen.

"Congratulations, you're an American now, except you don't have the rights of an American.":rolleyes:

Seems to me you are working toward a better life for your (future)family. And the "right" to legally live & work in the US is by itself of very high value judging by the number of folks wanting in.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk


Seems to me you are working toward a better life for your (future)family. And the "right" to legally live & work in the US is by itself of very high value judging by the number of folks wanting in.
Yes, and they can do that with a green card. Why would they want to become citizens if they can't vote?

No, I don't think "partial" citizenship will fly.

[Dymanic]

A good start would be an amendment of all voting laws that would allow only US citizens born in the US to vote.
Maybe what we need is an amendment that would compell all US citizens to vote?

Here's another quote from the above-mentioned 'statement of principles':

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

That doesn't seem like such a bad idea. But I don't get it; our current enterprise doesn't seem likely to win us any new friends...

...oh, I see, we're going to wipe out anyone who doesn't like us.
So basically that's just a syllable-rich way of saying we should take over the world? Once we've achieved that, will we let everybody in the world vote in our elections?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


We do not always back up our statements with threat of force. The perfect example of this is Cuba. And what recent event are you speaking of that our force was used unilaterally? I hope you are not referring to Iraq.

And I am saying that there is nothing abnormal or wrong with seeking dominance. If it was not the U.S. doing this, it would be some other nation.

We have applied economic sanctions on Cuba for years, try and figure that one out. And Kennedy did use threat of force to prevent them from doing things against our interests (1962).

As to unilateralism, of course I am referring to Iraq. I would also add Vietnam, Afghanistan and Panama to that list. We have made it clear - more often than any other country I can think of - that we will cross borders to achieve our ends.

So I would agree that we do not make specific threats to back up every demand we make. We don't need to. We are the playground bully, and are recognized as such.

As to your excusing/justifying/supporting our attempts to dominate the world by saying "if it wasn't us, it would be someone else"... you and I have different concepts of civilized behavior.

[Troll]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DrBenway
Could you define what "American hegemony" means?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



American domination, or the predominance of America over other nations. (Assuming we have not achieved that already.)


__________________


American domination, or the predominance of America over other nations. (Assuming we have not achieved that already.) [/QUOTE]

To which the question was asked:

Originally posted by ssibal


Doesn't every nation want this for themselves?

To which AUP replied with:


Originally posted by a_unique_person


No. .

So I asked AUP what nation wouldn't want dominance or a predominance of themselves over others and asked if he could show examples of countries that would rather be dominated, not ruled, by other nations. Sure I could have worded it a little bit better, but that's what I'm doing now.

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


OMG you are a genius. We better take over those canadians and mexicans, because they either:

1) Want to dominate us. (hehhehe)
2) Want us to dominate them.

It can't be one because we are america the beautifal god-empowered rulerz, so they must wants us to take over.

No wonder your name is Troll!

You may be on to the answer to the real question I asked. Mexico doesn't seem to care about their place in the world. You never really hear them screaming their opinions or views or trying to fix their economy to where they become a major economic player in the world.

As for your comments about taking the countries over? Well I'll let that slide as you didn't have the full content of what I was asking at the time.

Originally posted by Tricky


Dr. Chinese said quite clearly.
"American domination, or the predominance of America over other nations."

I don't know how you managed to interpret this as "countries that don't want to dominate other nations also do not want sovereignty in their own nation."

I shudder to think that we Americans now think that if we don't dominate other countries then we are somehow under control of them. This sounds very much like wanting to be the dictator of the world.

I don't know why you didn't ask me if that was what I meant, as I have stated it's not, it was just poor word choice on my part. Dominance can mean more than being ruled or controlled.

[Supercharts]

[interrupt=on]
Flat out funny!!!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mil.millington/things.html
[interrupt=off]

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Supercharts
[interrupt=on]
Flat out funny!!!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mil.millington/things.html
[interrupt=off]

This is so much typical left-wing whining from the leftist European media (it ran in the Guardian for a long while)! Edited to addThat was "not aimed at anyone in particular" sarcasm. The site is really funny.

Interesting that in the FAQs (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mil.millington/indexfaq.html) he has a separate "FAQs for Americans"... :confused:

Anyway, back to the topic; seems like concerns over US coca-colonisation (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,929576,00.html) aren't new...

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


We have applied economic sanctions on Cuba for years, try and figure that one out. And Kennedy did use threat of force to prevent them from doing things against our interests (1962).

Was it not the Soviet Union that we threatened with force rather than Cuba? Economic sanctions is by no means a threat of force.

As to unilateralism, of course I am referring to Iraq. I would also add Vietnam, Afghanistan and Panama to that list. We have made it clear - more often than any other country I can think of - that we will cross borders to achieve our ends.

You must have a different idea of unilateralism than the rest of the world because we did not act unilaterally in Afghanistan, or Iraq.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
I don't know why you didn't ask me if that was what I meant, as I have stated it's not, it was just poor word choice on my part. Dominance can mean more than being ruled or controlled.
Okay, sorry.
What do you mean by dominant?
Is is one of these (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dominant) from Merriam-Webster?
1 : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others
2 : overlooking and commanding from a superior position
3 : of, relating to, or exerting ecological or genetic dominance
4 : being the one of a pair of bodily structures that is the more effective or predominant in action <dominant eye>

If you're using non-standard definitions, then you certainly will have to explain what you mean when you use a word improperly.

I'm guessing what you meant was
preeminent. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=preeminent)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Okay, sorry.
What do you mean by dominant?
Is is one of these (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dominant) from Merriam-Webster?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others
2 : overlooking and commanding from a superior position
3 : of, relating to, or exerting ecological or genetic dominance
4 : being the one of a pair of bodily structures that is the more effective or predominant in action <dominant eye>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you're using non-standard definitions, then you certainly will have to explain what you mean when you use a word improperly.

I'm guessing what you meant was
preeminent. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=preeminent)

I'd go for the following peaceful choices of dominance or pre-dominance:

1) Prevailing over others

One entry found for prevail.


Main Entry: pre·vail
Pronunciation: pri-'vA(&)l
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin praevalEre, from prae- pre- + valEre to be strong -- more at WIELD
Date: 15th century
1 : to gain ascendancy through strength or superiority : TRIUMPH
2 : to be or become effective or effectual
3 : to use persuasion successfully <prevailed on him to sing>
4 : to be frequent : PREDOMINATE <the west winds that prevail in the mountains>
5 : to be or continue in use or fashion : PERSIST <a custom that still prevails>


and in this definition I focus my comments on 2) 3) 4) and 5)

2) I'm not too keen on unless the choice is dominate or be dominated, then I'd opt for it. But it wasn't my intent in my initial posting.

3)I'd add economic dominance and opt for that one. Not big on the whole "genetic dominance " theories when it comes to humans.

4) I think we're sorta showing that to the UN and others at the moment. I beleive most would rather lead than follow.

Using these as a basis for dominance, I repeat my question to AUP and would like to know what countries wouldn't want to be the dominant country as opposed to one that is dominated by others either economically, militarily ( better armed, not use of force), or a more heard voice among the collective?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


Was it not the Soviet Union that we threatened with force rather than Cuba? Economic sanctions is by no means a threat of force.

[B]

You must have a different idea of unilateralism than the rest of the world because we did not act unilaterally in Afghanistan, or Iraq.

1. We did threaten the USSR, as you correctly state. But we were blockading Cuba. Sanctions are considered very serious, but they do fall short of military force. A very strange holdover from the Cold War, wouldn't you agree?

2. Unilateral = one-sided. There was only one side involved in the decision to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, and that was Bush.

We may have partners in the invasion force, but Tony Blair was not going in without us. On the other hand, Rumsfeld himself said we were going into Iraq with or without Britain. So you are welcome to hold onto your view, I don't agree with it in form or substance.