PNAC

[Kess]

I'm uncertain whether to ask about the following, as it could provoke strong reactions, but this matter is troubling me so here goes...

A politician (Michael Meacher) in the UK is being pilloried for suggesting that the current US administration exploited 9/11 to launch a quest for global domination along the lines laid down by a neo-conservative think-tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) several years ago. Some are just dismissing Meacher as a nutty conspiracy theorist, but I looked up the PNAC and he may have a point...

The PNAC did indeed propose using military force to extend US influence worldwide, starting with Iraq and the Gulf and then China/Korea. They even raised the extraordinary idea of using genetically-targeted biological weapons "as a political tool". And the PNAC also suggested in 2000 that a "catastropic and catalysing event" - like 9/11 - could provide the spur to get things moving.

I find the PNAC stuff pretty scary, not least because the people behind PNAC are big players like Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. who are now in the Whitehouse.

Perhaps you all already know about the PNAC, but it's new to me - hence this post. The questions I have are:

- What is the opinion of PNAC in the US? Is it taken seriously or all considered a big joke? Do people in the street know or even care about it?

- If prominent UK politicians expressed the extreme views of PNAC the press and political opposition would be all over them. Have PNAC aims/views been publicised or questioned in the US?

- Have I misunderstood something somewhere?

Can anyone enlighten me?

[Malachi151]

You need to visit my website, I discuss all of this in detail.

www.rationalrevolution.net

[shemp]

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html

[Earthborn]

Read their own Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). Browse that website, read what they think about China, Europe, the ICC, 'tactical' nuclear weapons.

Please try to find something on there that would indicate that it may be a big joke. Please post a link here if you can find it, because I can't. I think they are deadly serious.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Read their own Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). Browse that website, read what they think about China, Europe, the ICC, 'tactical' nuclear weapons.

Please try to find something on there that would indicate that it may be a big joke. Please post a link here if you can find it, because I can't. I think they are deadly serious.

It's no joke. Their vision is that the U.S. should rule the world, by economics where possible, by force where necessary. They would love to see a world where we rule and others work for slave wages to serve us.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Read their own Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). Browse that website, read what they think about China, Europe, the ICC, 'tactical' nuclear weapons.

Please try to find something on there that would indicate that it may be a big joke. Please post a link here if you can find it, because I can't. I think they are deadly serious.

Well more than the fact they they are not joking, look who "they" are:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/lies.htm

In 1998 the Project for a New American Century wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton urging the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. That letter was signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and Robert B. Zoellick.

10 of these 18 signers hold positions in the Bush cabinet today.

In addition, the Statement of Principles for the PNAC is endorsed by Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, and Paul Wolfowitz.

[Earthborn]

Well more than the fact they they are not joking, look who "they" areOr what the Bush administration has been saying about, for example, the ICC (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths_admin.html). Compare that to what PNAC (http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=2557452&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=icc&t=s) is saying about it. See any similarities?

These extreme leftwing sites such as USA for ICC are undoubtedly making me worry too much, and I'm sure the Bush Administration will do a fine job ruling the world. I will just have to trust America. (I added that last sentence in case the NSA is reading this with that Echelon thingy. But I'm am sure I worry too much: nothing in this world ever went according to plan.)

[shanek]

According to the book, The Right Man - the surprise presidency of George W Bush, written by former Bush speechwriter David Frum (who coined the phrase "axis of hatred," which was changed to "axis of evil"), Bush had been looking for a reason to take on Iraq and other adversaries from the moment September 11th happened. IOW, he wasn't concerned with catching the real criminals; he was looking for "evidence" that indicted whom he wanted to go after.

And this wasn't some whistleblower; he was writing about why he genuinely feels George III is a great guy.

[Kess]

Thanks for all the responses so far. I had already looked at a number of the suggested sites, and it's good to know that there are a number of people out there (and here) who are alarmed by PNAC's ideas.

However, does this just represent an enlightened minority? I'd guess a lot of anti-PNAC sites and articles might be dismissed by Joe Public as unpatriotic anti-American propaganda. To paraphrase my original questions:

- Are the general public in the US aware of or concerned about PNAC's ideas or the fact that the people behind it are now in power there?

- Why don't the opposition draw attention to this stuff (or do they - we don't see it in the UK)? Surely it would make good material for the Democrats to attack the current administration.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Read their own Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). Browse that website, read what they think about China, Europe, the ICC, 'tactical' nuclear weapons.

Please try to find something on there that would indicate that it may be a big joke. Please post a link here if you can find it, because I can't. I think they are deadly serious.

Took a look at the link you posted. I haven't read everything, but here's their main stated goals:

"• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• 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."

Are you opposed to any of these four primary objectives? Or is it just the details you don't like?

And this organization is not dictating policy. With only about a minute of scanning the site I was able to find a subject where they disagree completely with the administration, so I don't exactly consider these folks to be some sort of power behind the throne, even if they are influential.

[corplinx]

I amazed to see all the undercover woo-woos on this board show their true colors. Didn't we have a thread about the Bilderberg (sp?) conspiracy crap a while back?

PNAC is quickly becoming the boogeyman for the anti-bush woo-woo; much like the NWO was the boogeyman for the anti-Bush Sr. woo-woo or how our own atf/fbi became the boogeyman of the anti-Clinton woo-woo.

Here's your sign.

[DrChinese]

PNAC is the sickest side of America: it caters to those who want to see America's place as the sole superpower converted into the sole dictators of world policy.

They want, for instance, to return to the days in which our defense spending was a greater % of the national budget a la Reagan - EVEN THOUGH THE USSR IS NO MORE.

What do you think they planned to do with a larger army? Play tiddly winks? They want to stick our noses in other peoples' affair, scare the daylights out of anyone who might have the courage to stand up for their principles against America's might.

What do you think they have been doing the past two years? They said it, then then did it. Don't call me paranoid... it's their words.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese
PNAC is the sickest side of America: it caters to those who want to see America's place as the sole superpower converted into the sole dictators of world policy.

What do you think they planned to do with a larger army? Play tiddly winks? They want to stick our noses in other peoples' affair, scare the daylights out of anyone who might have the courage to stand up for their principles against America's might.


I suppose you'd rather China or the UN have that coveted role?

[Frank Newgent]

http://wso.williams.edu/~mhacker/Strangelove/kongdrop.jpg


"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."

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tony


I suppose you'd rather China or the UN have that coveted role?

Straw man; we already had the #1 role and needed to do nothing to retain it;

Red herring; I mentioned nothing about wanting other countries to become more powerful.

Next...

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Straw man; we already had the #1 role and needed to do nothing to retain it;

Red herring; I mentioned nothing about wanting other countries to become more powerful.

Next...


I'm asking a legitimate question.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
PNAC is the sickest side of America: it caters to those who want to see America's place as the sole superpower converted into the sole dictators of world policy.


Funny, I see it rather differently. I see it as a US that is willing to stick up for its own interests, who is willing to use force to stop the spread of dangerous ideologies and fascist dictatorships. I see it as a US that thinks an organization like NATO, which consists of only democratic nations, has a lot more moral legitimacy than the dictator's club you like to call the UN. And I see most of the interpretations of PNAC as the fevered delusions of those who can't accept the fact that the American public hasn't bought into their ideology which excuses terrorists and dictators as people just standing up for their "principles" (see below).


They want, for instance, to return to the days in which our defense spending was a greater % of the national budget a la Reagan - EVEN THOUGH THE USSR IS NO MORE.


What, you think that's our only threat? We could use nuclear deterence against Russia. But urban warfare and peacekeeping operations require a lot of soldiers, and we can't deter terrorists with nukes. A large army requires a lot of money. I'm not surprised a lot of people don't want that, but the only rational objections are going to come from those who think it's not worth the dollar cost. Your complaints are mostly paranoid rantings.


What do you think they planned to do with a larger army? Play tiddly winks? They want to stick our noses in other peoples' affair, scare the daylights out of anyone who might have the courage to stand up for their principles against America's might.


Oh yeah, I'm sure France is really worried that we'll attack them because of their obstructionism. Please, you're pathetic. What "principle", exactly, was Saddam sticking up for? What about Kim Sung Il? The principle to starve their own people?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tony



I'm asking a legitimate question.

No, I would not want China or any other entity to be stronger than the US. I do not want the US to be stronger than the US is now, either.

(Your question has little or nothing to do with the PNAC discussion, however, and that was what I was addressing in my prior post.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese

(Your question has little or nothing to do with the PNAC discussion, however, and that was what I was addressing in my prior post.)

Yes it does, PNAC is about securing and maintaining America’s dominance. China (and to a lesser extent, the UN) is a potential threat to that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

I do not want the US to be stronger than the US is now, either.


Therein lies the seeds of your irrational fear.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Funny, I see it rather differently. I see it as a US that is willing to stick up for its own interests, who is willing to use force to stop the spread of dangerous ideologies and fascist dictatorships.

Funny, you mix completely different ideas as if they are related. Clearly, there is no demonstrated relationship between fascist dictatorships and US interests. Clearly, there is no demonstrated relationship between "dangerous ideologies" and US interests.

Sticking up for our interests is an argument for isolationism, not picking on weak countries on the other side of the world. Why is Bush asking for $87 billion for additional work in Iraq? Is that going to pay off for the US? If so, how? On what date can we expect to see a profit on this investment? Please note the complete absence of WMDs in Saddam's hands, so it's not like we're safer today than we were 6 months ago.

Face it, Bush went to Iraq to pick on a weak enemy that couldn't fight back. He did it for essentially NO reason, which is the same reason LBJ took us into Vietnam: to DEMONSTRATE OUR MILITARY MIGHT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.

...Which is what PNAC wants us to do every 3 or 4 years for the next century. They'll have us in France if they have their way- eventually.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Therein lies the seeds of your irrational fear.

Ha! MY irrational fear? That I am afraid of the might of the US military?

While you, oh wise one, quake in fear over the (NON-EXISTENT) WMDs in Saddam's arsenal, and probably wet in your pants at the thought that Santa (ALSO NON-EXISTENT) won't bring you any presents this year. You see boogiemen under every rock!

...As do the PNAC crew. You fear the possibility that another country might rise to challenge the US for global supremacy. Since we have a fundamental belief in self-determination of all peoples, the US shouldn't need to play the role of world ruler.

Basically, now that the USSR is gone and the cold war is over: YOU AND THE PNAC CREW NEED A NEW ENEMY, EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO INVENT ONE. Not my irrational fear, grasshopper.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tony


Yes it does, PNAC is about securing and maintaining America’s dominance. China (and to a lesser extent, the UN) is a potential threat to that.

Why pick China? What about France? Haven't they been a bit snippy lately? Besides, I thought it was Saddam that kept you up at night.

Face it, PNAC needs a new enemy. Since we don't have any actual enemies with much power, they have to go and invent a few for us to worry about.

[Earthborn]

Ziggurat, in the Rumsfeld 'led Bush to war'? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25410&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) thread I have said that I worry about the people 'who think it is a good idea to develop smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons scare the bejesus out of me'. You have fully agreed with me.

Please, I urge you to go back to that PNAC site and consider for a moment what kind of people you might be defending here.

I'm not paranoid, because the people I fear are saying exactly the things I fear most. I don't think they are evil, as I don't believe in that concept, and I am sure that these people do the things they do with the best of intentions.

All I am saying is that they have an ideology that could very easily get horribly out of hand.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Ziggurat, in the Rumsfeld 'led Bush to war'? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25410&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) thread I have said that I worry about the people 'who think it is a good idea to develop smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons scare the bejesus out of me'. You have fully agreed with me.

Please, I urge you to go back to that PNAC site and consider for a moment what kind of people you might be defending here.


That's a particular issue, where they think they can achieve something with small nukes and I don't think they can. You seem to be implying something's fundamentally wrong even with their basic goals, and I'm not convinced of that at this point. For example, I really don't see the UN security council as contributing much at all to global security anymore. And I agree with their conclusion that the US needs to maintain its military might, the eclipse of the soviet union has not brought world safety, it's merely opened up the field for countless regional conflicts. And the US can do a lot with its military power to make the world a better and safer place - I would have loved to see us jump into Liberia earlier than we did, for example.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

You fear the possibility that another country might rise to challenge the US for global supremacy.


Nope. Wrong as usual. I fear the spread of chaos, of fascist ideologies like radical islam wich threaten world peace. I fear the possibility that one day terrorists might aquire a nuclear weapon, because if they ever do they will use it on a civilian target. No country is going to challenge us directly any time soon, I'm not worried about that, any country that wants to challenge us for actual supremacy is going to need to be a functioning democracy to be able to surpass us. So I'm not worried about that at all. I'm worried about something else, something rather real. I'm worried about more 9/11's, and worse. What are YOU worried about? The idea that a democratic nation can topple dictatorships at will? Is that YOUR nightmare scenario?


Since we have a fundamental belief in self-determination of all peoples, the US shouldn't need to play the role of world ruler.


You suggest I believe in Santa Claus, then turn around and claim that Iraq was really excercising self-determination? What kind of fantasy world are YOU living in? But I see that again you couldn't help but fall back on arguments in defense of the sovereignty of oppressive dictators.


Basically, now that the USSR is gone and the cold war is over: YOU AND THE PNAC CREW NEED A NEW ENEMY, EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO INVENT ONE. Not my irrational fear, grasshopper.

You've got it completely backward, as usual. We didn't need a new enemy, we already HAD enemies (Saddam, Kim, Osama, etc.), which were already at war with us. We're just finally getting serious about confronting them.

[Earthborn]

That's a particular issue, where they think they can achieve something with small nukes and I don't think they can.No, I don't think they can achieve anything either, but that isn't relevant. What is relevant is that they are willing to try!You seem to be implying something's fundamentally wrong even with their basic goals, and I'm not convinced of that at this point.There doesn't have to be anything wrong with their basic goals. What is relevant is what the methods are by which they think they can achieve them.

Sure, if they manage to use them and their plans work out, then we will probably have a better world then we do now. What worries me however is the transition towards it, and what the result will be if they can't achieve what they want.

And they won't achieve wat they want, that's for sure. No grand political plan was ever successully imposed on the world and actually made to work. Every real improvement came from slowly ammending to what was already there. If you disagree, please give an example in which this approach actually worked.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Earthborn

Sure, if they manage to use them and their plans work out, then we will probably have a better world then we do now. What worries me however is the transition towards it, and what the result will be if they can't achieve what they want.


Developing smaller nukes does not mean we will use smaller nukes. We developed the hydrogen bomb but nobody has ever used that, and hopefully nobody ever will.


And they won't achieve wat they want, that's for sure. No grand political plan was ever successully imposed on the world and actually made to work. Every real improvement came from slowly ammending to what was already there. If you disagree, please give an example in which this approach actually worked.

Again with the whole precendent thing. We do not need precedent for everything we do. Our very position in the world is unprecedented. Our power, as well as our responsibility, exceed that of any nation that has ever existed. And I think you overestimate how different their approach really is from what we've done in the past. We successfully imposed democracies in Germany and Japan, that worked out pretty damned well. I for one am hoping we can do the same in Iraq, but many people would rather we not even try, but rather let Iraq wallow in the pit that Saddam dug for them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Developing smaller nukes does not mean we will use smaller nukes. We developed the hydrogen bomb but nobody has ever used that, and hopefully nobody ever will.



the hyrogen bomb was a bigger bomb. the whole point of smaller nukes is that when you use them, you can just say they aren't as bad as a big one, so what's the problem.




Again with the whole precendent thing. We do not need precedent for everything we do. Our very position in the world is unprecedented. Our power, as well as our responsibility, exceed that of any nation that has ever existed. And I think you overestimate how different their approach really is from what we've done in the past. We successfully imposed democracies in Germany and Japan, that worked out pretty damned well. I for one am hoping we can do the same in Iraq, but many people would rather we not even try, but rather let Iraq wallow in the pit that Saddam dug for them.

Japan is not a democracy in the normal sense of the word. It has had an unbroken government by the Liberal Democratic Party, which is neither Liberal, Democratic or a Party.

Germany was restored to a Democracy with the will it's inhabitants, that is, they wanted to return to something they remembered from before Hitler turned up.

Both countries were also subject to a massive dose of 'nation building', that is, a program of subsidy and handouts to get their economies going. As Dubya repeatedly tells us, he is not in the business of nation building. In the case of Iraq, it's own oil was supposed to be the means of funding the rebuilding. That isn't going to be happening for a few years yet.

Imposing a democracy on Iraq, according to many analysts, just isn't going to happen.

As Undercover Elephant pointed out months ago, if you give them the vote, all they'll do is vote for an Islamic Sharia. Not at all what was wanted.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



I'm asking a legitimate question.


My guess is, not he doesn't want China to have that role.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Funny, I see it rather differently. I see it as a US that is willing to stick up for its own interests, who is willing to use force to stop the spread of dangerous ideologies and fascist dictatorships. I see it as a US that thinks an organization like NATO, which consists of only democratic nations, has a lot more moral legitimacy than the dictator's club you like to call the UN. And I see most of the interpretations of PNAC as the fevered delusions of those who can't accept the fact that the American public hasn't bought into their ideology which excuses terrorists and dictators as people just standing up for their "principles" (see below).



Yet it is not NATO the US has turned to for help in Iraq, but the UN.

Sticking up for your interests does not have to mean being the biggest bully. There are other, more humane means of achieving the same end.



What, you think that's our only threat? We could use nuclear deterence against Russia. But urban warfare and peacekeeping operations require a lot of soldiers, and we can't deter terrorists with nukes. A large army requires a lot of money. I'm not surprised a lot of people don't want that, but the only rational objections are going to come from those who think it's not worth the dollar cost. Your complaints are mostly paranoid rantings.



So why are there troops in countries such as Italy? When do you see them attacking the US?



Oh yeah, I'm sure France is really worried that we'll attack them because of their obstructionism. Please, you're pathetic. What "principle", exactly, was Saddam sticking up for? What about Kim Sung Il? The principle to starve their own people?

Once again, no one is defending Saddam, only asking, what did the US actually hope to achieve and how did it intend to achieve it? I pointed out, while the war was in progress, that there were complaints from within the administration that the post war plans were almost non-existent and not at all rooted in reality.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Took a look at the link you posted. I haven't read everything, but here's their main stated goals:

"? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

? 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."

Are you opposed to any of these four primary objectives? Or is it just the details you don't like?

And this organization is not dictating policy. With only about a minute of scanning the site I was able to find a subject where they disagree completely with the administration, so I don't exactly consider these folks to be some sort of power behind the throne, even if they are influential.

Of course, you conveniently fail to mention that the piece was published on June 3, 1997, and that the administration in question was Bill Clinton's.

And you don't consider the fact that one of these signers is now Vice President and 10 others are in the Cabinet to be significant? Do you live on the "Planet of the Pollyannas who Bend Over for Everyone?"

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Took a look at the link you posted. I haven't read everything, but here's their main stated goals:

"• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• 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."

Are you opposed to any of these four primary objectives? Or is it just the details you don't like?

And this organization is not dictating policy. With only about a minute of scanning the site I was able to find a subject where they disagree completely with the administration, so I don't exactly consider these folks to be some sort of power behind the throne, even if they are influential.

Let's look at Hitler's stated goals:

To secure peace and prosperity for Germany.

To oppose the the evil of Communism.

To ensure that future generations go Germans are stronger and more fit as a people.

etc.

How naive can you be? I have no doubt that these people genuinely feel that their agenda is a good one, but so what? Pat Roberson thinks his agenda is a good one, so does Osama bin Laden, so did Hitler, so did the early Americans that slaughtered the Indians, so did Eisenhower when he set the groundwork for the Vietnam War.

People take action because they believe that their motivees are good, all people do. That's the issue, just becuase you believe that what you are doing is the right way to go abotu something does not make it the right way to go about something, that why we have thing thing called DEMOCRACY!

Apologists for the PNAC and the members fo it fail to grasp this concept.

If you want to claim that these ideas and methods laid out by the PNAC, whcih is to say Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz, Libby, etc, i.e. the Bush administration, are good then the very obvious question comes up of why have they never publically discussed this agenda with the American people? They didn't they talk about these issues during teh campaign? Why, which the issue of Iraq came up, did they lie abotu WMDs instead of discussing the ideas they laid out in their PNAC and other agendas?

THAT would be democracy. HOw the hell are you going to protect democracy when you don't even participate in democracy!?

These guys are ideologues, no different than the men that brought us the Vietnam War, whcih did nothing except kill millions of people and make enemies of a country that was asking for our help and deamonism Ho Chi Minh, who had more in common with America and Americnas ideals than he did with the other communists of the world.

The PNAC vision is a Napoleonic one. Its says we are going to bring peace to the world by force through conquering the world and making sure that we remain the supreme overlords of everything. These peoepl may genuinely think that is a good way to go abotu it for all I know, but one thing is for sure, there has been no public debate on this, no one has agreed that this si what should be done, and certinaly none of the other people of the world have been apart of this type fo dicussion. Do you think that every one else in the world wants to say "Yes, let Americna dominate us all, weee." I don't think so.

In addition, given the fact that many of these people have been behind some of the greatest abuses of power in the past 50 years its even more problematic. These are the type of people who brought us Watergate, the Iran/Contra affair, worked wtih Saddam in the 1980s, Star Wars, coverup sof domestic CIA actions that had direct impacts on the lives of American citizens, etc.

They beleive that anything is acceptable for fulfil thier vision for the world, which is a vision that they have never asked anyone else if they share, nor do they care, and in fact they know that other people don't share that same vision because thats why they do all this crap in secret.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shemp


Of course, you conveniently fail to mention that the piece was published on June 3, 1997, and that the administration in question was Bill Clinton's.

And you don't consider the fact that one of these signers is now Vice President and 10 others are in the Cabinet to be significant? Do you live on the "Planet of the Pollyannas who Bend Over for Everyone?"

I think that this is one of the most telling statements of theirs:

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

And when we were pushing for war then why didn't they President come to the American people and make this very same statement? :rolleyes:

Also don't forget that the founder of teh PNAC is a former Reagan cabinet member as well, and more than the Clinton letter look at the signers of the Statement of Principles:

Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, and Paul Wolfowitz.

[CapelDodger]

ziggurat: You mention four goals of the PNAC
we need to increase defense spending significantly ...
Well, that's happening.
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values
France and Germany, among others, might once have been considered as examples of "democratic allies", but now it seems they're "regimes hostile ...". Way to go.
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
Which the US has done where? They could be doing it in Afghanistan, but they're not interested. They could be doing it in Iraq but again, not much real interest was ever shown in the post-Saddam situation. They could be refusing to dump US food on the Third World (thereby promoting economic freedom), but the opposite is happening. They could be doing away with US protectionism, but that's increasing.
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
Which is apparently done by refusing to join any international organisations that are not directly under US control.

Might it be that the last three of these are merely rhetoric to give solace to such as yourself? That the real thrust of the PNAC is that the US should operate only in the preceived interests of the US because it can, not to promote some touchy-feely "help the world" crap? Because, reading it, it's easy to draw that conclusion.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Sticking up for your interests does not have to mean being the biggest bully. There are other, more humane means of achieving the same end.


You got a suggestion for a more humane way to get Saddam out of power? Or do you actually think that leaving Iraq under Saddam's control would be more humane to the Iraqi people? I really don't see your argument as standing up for humanity or human rights at all. And I don't see toppling ruthless and oppressive dictators as being a bully.


Once again, no one is defending Saddam, only asking, what did the US actually hope to achieve and how did it intend to achieve it?


Plenty of people have defended Saddam, on this very board. In fact, Shemp even said we should appologize to that sick bastard. And claims that we violated Iraq's sovereignty amount to defense of Saddam. You yourself suggest we were a bully for toppling Saddam, rather than someone who sticks up to the bully for opressing his own people and threatening his neighbors. What did we hope to accomplish? Well, for starters, we hoped to remove Saddam from power. And guess what? We did it. We hoped to create a situation in which we could lift sanctions on Iraq without worrying about them trying to aquire nuclear weapons. We did that too. We also hope to install a democratic government in Iraq. Oh, the horror of horrors! Or do you concede that those are good things? And if you think those are good things, do you see any way other than invasion to accomplish them? Because there weren't.


I pointed out, while the war was in progress, that there were complaints from within the administration that the post war plans were almost non-existent and not at all rooted in reality.

Well, let's see how it plays out. I don't think we'll get a good feeling of that, independent of the sensationalism of current news coverage, until some time down the line. But screwups in the execution are not the same things as fundamental problems with the goal and the basic approach.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

France and Germany, among others, might once have been considered as examples of "democratic allies", but now it seems they're "regimes hostile ...". Way to go.


They are not hostile regimes. If you can't recognize the difference between a diplomatic spat and an actually hostile regime (like, say, North Korea), then you're completely clueless.


Might it be that the last three of these are merely rhetoric to give solace to such as yourself? That the real thrust of the PNAC is that the US should operate only in the preceived interests of the US because it can, not to promote some touchy-feely "help the world" crap? Because, reading it, it's easy to draw that conclusion.

Might it be that you're LOOKING for a way to interpret their statements this way? A lot of your other complaints are longstanding shortcomings of the US (and hardly unique to us, BTW, just so you don't get any ideas), and don't represent the accomplishments of PNAC-associated policy at all.

[Earthborn]

They are not hostile regimes. If you can't recognize the difference between a diplomatic spat and an actually hostile regime (like, say, North Korea), then you're completely clueless.I'm sure CapelDodger can, you can, I can. But can the Bush Administration? "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'm sure CapelDodger can, you can, I can. But can the Bush Administration? "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

I guess you can't recognize the difference between rhetoric and policy either.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'm sure CapelDodger can, you can, I can. But can the Bush Administration? "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

Bush - and PNAC - are all about false dichotomies. If you don't go with along them, then you are not patriotic, or an ally, or whatever.

Branding anyone and everyone with labels such as "terrorist" is similar to the US McCarthy era. If you spoke against the anti-communist thugs and their abuse of civil rights, then you must be a communist - or at a minimum - a "sympathizer". That era is looked back on in disgust here. I hope the same is true for the Bush/PNAC era at some point in the future.

I keep hoping I will wake up from this bad dream.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese




Branding anyone and everyone with labels such as "terrorist" is similar to the US McCarthy era. If you spoke against the anti-communist thugs and their abuse of civil rights, then you must be a communist - or at a minimum - a "sympathizer". That era is looked back on in disgust here.


No its not, the PC nazis and racial special interest groups use the exact same tactics. That era gave birth to the lefts favorite tactics.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony



No its not, the PC nazis and racial special interest groups use the exact same tactics. That era gave birth to the lefts favorite tactics.

What a whack job, give me a break. Obviusly you've been taken by the propaganda of the extreme right.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


What a whack job, give me a break. Obviusly you've been taken by the propaganda of the extreme right.

This is merely self projection. I have the evidence on my side.

[CapelDodger]

From Ziggurat:
Might it be that you're LOOKING for a way to interpret their statements this way?
It might, but it isn't.
A lot of your other complaints ...
I only made four points (responding to yours), so that would be two out of the other three? Which one's not included?
... longstanding shortcomings of the US (and hardly unique to us, BTW, just so you don't get any ideas)...
The US does not have a moral standing unique to itself from which they can order the world to their liking, so you don't get any ideas.
They are not hostile regimes. If you can't recognize the difference between a diplomatic spat and an actually hostile regime (like, say, North Korea), then you're completely clueless.
Now, is that kind?

What was the last "diplomatic spat" with allies that led to a common US fast-food item being renamed? The point is that the behaviour of the US towards the world community since Bush took over has been deliberately confrontational and often insulting. They won't sign Kyoto because it's a conspiracy against the US, they won't join the ICC because it's a conspiracy against the US, ditto chemical and biological weapons control regimes, ditto labelling of GM products. If "we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies ..." is on the agenda it's very low down, and presumably awaits those allies falling into coma.

Which, of course, is an argument that the PNAC doesn't inform the Bush administration's policies, but given the number of PNAC-linked Bushies that seems wildly unlikely. Another possibility, of course, is that it's rhetoric to cover the true stark meaning of the PNAC.

From Tony:
... the PC nazis ...
First to mention nazis, you're out.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

First to mention nazis, you're out.


I mentioned PC nazis. There's a difference.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



I mentioned PC nazis. There's a difference.

No there's not.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No there's not.


:roll: :roll: You're right, PC nazis are nazis.