NationStates Jolt Archive

Which US foreign policy organisation is more evil? Is it the Council on Foreign Relations or the Project For A New American Century?

We've had threads on both of them. One is an old group of world politics experts with a taste for power, the other is a group of imperialist neo-conservatives. Who gets your vote?

www.cfr.org

www.newamericancentury.org

Without a doubt PNAC!

The CFR, hands down. Read my thread 'Why Nothing Will Change if Kerry is Elected' to see why.

Without a doubt PNAC!

How many wars have they gotten us into? How many of our allies have they betrayed?

How many wars have they gotten us into? How many of our allies have they betrayed?

Well, given they run the current government, you do the math.

I don't see an all of the above choice.

Isn't there evidence of dual membership anyway? Which ruling class power elite do I think is more evil? Would I rather be hit by a train or a bus?

I don't see an all of the above choice.

I think my husband Zeppistan said it best in the thread about nothing will change if Kerry wins..

Council on Foreign Relations = a bunch of politicians no different then lawyers who belong to the bar.

It's not even the same thing as PNAC at all. If you're to believe that "Council on Foreign Relations" is some think tank group, then you would have to also accept that Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter agreed with the same ideology. It's ridiculous.

I think my husband Zeppistan said it best in the thread about nothing will change if Kerry wins..

Council on Foreign Relations = a bunch of politicians no different then lawyers who belong to the bar.

It's not even the same thing as PNAC at all. If you're to believe that "Council on Foreign Relations" is some think tank group, then you would have to also accept that Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter agreed with the same ideology. It's ridiculous.

Hrmn, guess I never really looked at it that way so yeah PNAC is deffiently more firghtening. But still, since politicians = evil and Council on Foreign Relations = a bunch of politicians, that means that Council on Foreign Relations = a bunch of evil :D

Well, given they run the current government, you do the math.

Name some members. I already named many CFR members.

How many wars have they gotten us into? How many of our allies have they betrayed?

Well that would be Iraq for the PNAC. As for the CFR, you've still to offer any conclusive evidence that this shadow government is indeed doing all the things you claim it is.

Go here for an indepth look at PNAC (not a positive one, mind you).
http://www.pnac.info/

If you're looking for shadow conspiracies, PNAC is a horse that will run.

Well that would be Iraq for the PNAC. As for the CFR, you've still to offer any conclusive evidence that this shadow government is indeed doing all the things you claim it is.

Go here for an indepth look at PNAC (not a positive one, mind you).
http://www.pnac.info/

If you're looking for shadow conspiracies, PNAC is a horse that will run.

PNAC is starting to remind me of that group of neo-fascists in the Sum of All Fears.

Well that would be Iraq for the PNAC. As for the CFR, you've still to offer any conclusive evidence that this shadow government is indeed doing all the things you claim it is.

Go here for an indepth look at PNAC (not a positive one, mind you).
http://www.pnac.info/

If you're looking for shadow conspiracies, PNAC is a horse that will run.

Listen to this, though: Dick Cheney is a CFR member, Powell is a CFR member, Rumsfeld is a former member, Wolfowitz, Rice, and hundreds of others are CFR members.

Name some members. I already named many CFR members.

Go Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344425)

Read post #3, those are my thoughts on the subject about PNAC and it includes quite a few member names, you will note that PNAC is made up of people with all the same ideology, as opposed to Council on Foreign Relations.

Listen to this, though: Dick Cheney is a CFR member, Powell is a CFR member, Rumsfeld is a former member, Wolfowitz, Rice, and hundreds of others are CFR members.
which would make sense if it were a Bar like organization which it seems to be.

PNAC is starting to remind me of that group of neo-fascists in the Sum of All Fears.

Were do you think the Neo-cons came from? PNAC!

Without a doubt PNAC!
Seconded.

which would make sense if it were a Bar like organization which it seems to be.

It's far more than that. Its founder, Edward Mandell House, even said his 'political and ethical faith' was 'socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.' Over the years, many CFR members have openly boasted that their goal is world government.

Listen to this, though: Dick Cheney is a CFR member, Powell is a CFR member, Rumsfeld is a former member, Wolfowitz, Rice, and hundreds of others are CFR members.

Okay, Cheney is also a member of PNAC, as are Rumsfeld and Wolfwitz. Most importantly, these are founding members of PNAC.

Steph posted an excellent informative piece in that link she gave you and the link I gave you shows why, if either of them are serious contenders for behind the scenes machinations (which I'm still in doubt over), then PNAC is the winner.

Were do you think the Neo-cons came from? PNAC!
I need to stop reading this stuff about PNAC or I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. This stuff is creepy as hell.

snip

I left you a response on the first page, you may not of seen it.

I need to stop reading this stuff about PNAC or I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. This stuff is creepy as hell.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If the past four years has shown us anything, they are as evil as they are inept.

Here's what the CFR brought us:

Pearl Harbor/World War II
Korean War
Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis
Vietnam War
Gulf War I
Somalia
Kosovo
Our current war

In addition, it has undermined and betrayed many of our allies: Fulgencio Batista of Cuba; Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam; Lon Nol of Cambodia; Boun Oum of Laos; Chiang Kai-shek of China; Stanislaw Mikolajczyk of Poland; Augusto Pinochet of Chile; Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua; Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines; Sygman Rhee of South Korea; Moise Tshombe of Katanga; Ian Smith of Rhodesia; Draza Mihailovich of Yugoslavia; Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran; the Hungarian Freedom Fighters; the Bay of Pigs freedom fighters; the French at Dien Bien Phu; the government of South Africa; and many, many more.

Thanks, Steph! Yeah, they're real bad-@$$es all right...

However, I'm sticking to my guns: The CFR has done far many things, far worse, and is considerably more powerful.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If the past four years has shown us anything, they are as evil as they are inept.

Hrmn, this is true.

Here's what the CFR brought us:

Pearl Harbor/World War II
Korean War
Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis
Vietnam War
Gulf War I
Somalia
Kosovo
Our current war

In addition, it has undermined and betrayed many of our allies: Fulgencio Batista of Cuba; Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam; Lon Nol of Cambodia; Boun Oum of Laos; Chiang Kai-shek of China; Stanislaw Mikolajczyk of Poland; Augusto Pinochet of Chile; Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua; Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines; Sygman Rhee of South Korea; Moise Tshombe of Katanga; Ian Smith of Rhodesia; Draza Mihailovich of Yugoslavia; Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran; the Hungarian Freedom Fighters; the Bay of Pigs freedom fighters; the French at Dien Bien Phu; the government of South Africa; and many, many more.

Damn, you know who else brought you all those wars? CONGRESS! That damn shadow government err oh wait..

dont know much bout either of them sooooo....

Council on Foreign Relations = a bunch of politicians no different then lawyers who belong to the bar.
Their misson statement suggests otherwise, in particular:

"Conducting a wide-ranging studies program where Council fellows produce articles and books that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations"

"Maintaining a diverse membership, including special programs to foster interest and expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders"

"Sponsoring independent task forces whose reports help set the public foreign policy agenda"

(All emphasis mine)

Now I don't believe for a minute RBs view that it's all some part of a Marxist conspiracy. (And if it is I wish my 'comrades' would keep me informed occasionally). But those quotes suggest to me that the CFR plays a more active role in US foreign policy then you seem to be suggesting, and the second quote suggests to me a 'king-making' role. Now if as you say, you believe that:

If you're to believe that "Council on Foreign Relations" is some think tank group, then you would have to also accept that Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter agreed with the same ideology then surely the groups policy influencing role raises interesting questions. Not about secret conspiracys, but about ruling class networking, and how much opposition there actually is between supposedly polarised political viewpoints. Your move. ;)

Their misson statement suggests otherwise, in particular:

"Conducting a wide-ranging studies program where Council fellows produce articles and books that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations"

"Maintaining a diverse membership, including special programs to foster interest and expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders"

"Sponsoring independent task forces whose reports help set the public foreign policy agenda"

(All emphasis mine)

Now I don't believe for a minute RBs view that it's all some part of a Marxist conspiracy. (And if it is I wish my 'comrades' would keep me informed occasionally). But those quotes suggest to me that the CFR plays a more active role in US foreign policy then you seem to be suggesting, and the second quote suggests to me a 'king-making' role. Now if as you say, you believe that:

then surely the groups policy influencing role raises interesting questions. Not about secret conspiracys, but about ruling class networking, and how much opposition there actually is between supposedly polarised political viewpoints. Your move. ;)

Edward Mandell House, a Marxist, founded the CFR. He even said "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx" was his "political and ethical faith."

Damn, you know who else brought you all those wars? CONGRESS! That damn shadow government err oh wait..

Steph, please. I don't mind arguing, but if I may say so myself, that was a weak comeback.

The PNAC got us in, what, one or two wars? The CFR got us in at least five.

So, you point to a group that includes the broad spectrum of political views from left to right, and maybe a few no-one's ever heard of. They do horrible things like .... talk... publish articles and policy opinions.... and you claim that this is inherently evil?


You do, of course, realize that this would mean that they acheive concensus on every issue. So you would have to - by your own listing - assume that the Libertarian and Liberals there, including Carter, all agreed that invading Iraq



The primary diference I would put between the two is that you can run through publications and articles by this group and note that many actually are critical of ongoing administration policies. This tends not to support that they actually have a role in steering the direction of the country.

If you read the PNAC thesis though, you rapidly discover that the current administration are following the manifesto virtually line for line. You, however, have demonstrated nowhere that the CFR has ever produced any series of documents that has been used as a policy blueprint for ongoing policy decisions. All you can point to is membership - but given the changes in policies from administration to administration it seems that membership does not imply strategic agreement on policy.

As Steph said - you could equally blame membership in the Congress or Senate as being indicitive of some evil shadow conspiracy to run the country...

Frankly - thus far you have shown us nothing but conjecture.

So, you point to a group that includes the broad spectrum of political views from left to right, and maybe a few no-one's ever heard of. They do horrible things like .... talk... publish articles and policy opinions.... and you claim that this is inherently evil?


You do, of course, realize that this would mean that they acheive concensus on every issue. So you would have to - by your own listing - assume that the Libertarian and Liberals there, including Carter, all agreed that invading Iraq



The primary diference I would put between the two is that you can run through publications and articles by this group and note that many actually are critical of ongoing administration policies. This tends not to support that they actually have a role in steering the direction of the country.

If you read the PNAC thesis though, you rapidly discover that the current administration are following the manifesto virtually line for line. You, however, have demonstrated nowhere that the CFR has ever produced any series of documents that has been used as a policy blueprint for ongoing policy decisions. All you can point to is membership - but given the changes in policies from administration to administration it seems that membership does not imply strategic agreement on policy.

As Steph said - you could equally blame membership in the Congress or Senate as being indicitive of some evil shadow conspiracy to run the country...

Frankly - thus far you have shown us nothing but conjecture.

And you could blame membership in Congress or the Senate for the Bush Administration's policies.

And yes, I gave a bibliography in the last thread. Why not check out some of the sources before you accusing me of 'showing nothing but conjecture?'

Edward Mandell House, a Marxist, founded the CFR. He even said "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx" was his "political and ethical faith."
Can you provide me the a) source for that and b) the context it was in. If you can also explain how a ruling class policy forum is going to bring about a working class revolution I'd be interested to hear it. I don't mean this offensively, but I do feel that you're letting your politics get in the way of analysis here.

you could equally blame membership in the Congress or Senate as being indicitive of some evil shadow conspiracy to run the countryI agree with you, naturally. ;)

So, you point to a group that includes the broad spectrum of political views from left to right, and maybe a few no-one's ever heard of. They do horrible things like .... talk... publish articles and policy opinions.... and you claim that this is inherently evil?


You do, of course, realize that this would mean that they acheive concensus on every issue. So you would have to - by your own listing - assume that the Libertarian and Liberals there, including Carter, all agreed that invading Iraq



The primary diference I would put between the two is that you can run through publications and articles by this group and note that many actually are critical of ongoing administration policies. This tends not to support that they actually have a role in steering the direction of the country.

If you read the PNAC thesis though, you rapidly discover that the current administration are following the manifesto virtually line for line. You, however, have demonstrated nowhere that the CFR has ever produced any series of documents that has been used as a policy blueprint for ongoing policy decisions. All you can point to is membership - but given the changes in policies from administration to administration it seems that membership does not imply strategic agreement on policy.

As Steph said - you could equally blame membership in the Congress or Senate as being indicitive of some evil shadow conspiracy to run the country...

Frankly - thus far you have shown us nothing but conjecture.

Indeed, and also to add to that, just because the CFR has the membership they do doesn't mean they actually have influence. They have existed for a long time, but I am not convinced that they have actually affected the policy formulation in this country in any substantial way other than a couple recomendations that, if followed, were probably in consensus with other recomendations. But like you said, the PNAC seems to actually have this administration in it's pocket, perhaps because the most powerful members of the bush administration are part of it.

And you could blame membership in Congress or the Senate for the Bush Administration's policies.

But there are much more clear direct connections to strong and very influential players in the Bush administration. You have Powel and Rice, whom are both relatively weak within the powerstructure of the bush administarion. Notice the constant fighting between rummy and powel earlier, policy decisions were being made and acted on without powel's real input.

And no, there have been no foreign policy changes the last fifty or so years. It's been more of the same:

1)Betraying allies:
Truman- Poland, China
Eisenhower- Hungary, Cuba
Kennedy- Laos, Katanga
Johnson- Vietnam
Nixon- Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia
Ford- See under Nixon
Carter- Rhodesia, Iran, Nicaragua
Reagan- Philippines, Chile
Bush- South Africa
Clinton- Indonesia
Bush- Taiwan

2)Undermining sovereignty:
Truman-Bush- UN
Truman- NATO
Eisenhower- SEATO
Clinton- NAFTA, WTO

3)Aiding the enemy (or allying with the enemy):
Truman-Bush- Soviet Union/Russia, and other communist countries
Bush- Libya, Pakistan, China, Russia

4)Entangling us in no-win wars and Third World fiascoes
Truman- Korea
Eisenhower-Ford- Vietnam
Kennedy- Bay of Pigs
Carter- The diastrous hostage rescue attempt
Reagan- Grenada, Lebanon
Bush- Gulf War, Somalia
Clinton- Kosovo
Bush- Afghanistan, Iraq

See any foreign policy changes? I don't.

Can you provide me the a) source for that and b) the context it was in. If you can also explain how a ruling class policy forum is going to bring about a working class revolution I'd be interested to hear it. I don't mean this offensively, but I do feel that you're letting your politics get in the way of analysis here.

I agree with you, naturally. ;)

Philip Dru: Administrator

There is a profound difference in the two groups, I don't believe they can be compared. There is no evidence to suggest that CFR work with each other to form policy or per se a "CFR doctrine" such as PNAC has. Let alone evidence to suggest it is a think tank that has been able to put forth a cumulative policy to the government and it be accepted as a group. In fact this would be quite hard to believe given the make up of the membership of CFR.

I'm going to post this here too, I posted it in the PNAC thread, but it also seems to help draw the difference between the two groups.

More on PNAC (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html)

Although the strategy was secret, details leaked out. Dame Pauline Neville Jones was a senior civil servant in the British Foreign Office at the time.

"It sent a shiver down my back. I just said to myself, no country, however powerful, can operate on the world in this way by itself and hope to have friends and ultimately succeed."

So, you point to a group that includes the broad spectrum of political views from left to right, and maybe a few no-one's ever heard of. They do horrible things like .... talk... publish articles and policy opinions.... and you claim that this is inherently evil?They do more then that though. They "help set the policy agenda" and "make concrete policy recommendations" (not just opinions).


The primary diference I would put between the two is that you can run through publications and articles by this group and note that many actually are critical of ongoing administration policies. This tends not to support that they actually have a role in steering the direction of the country.

If you read the PNAC thesis though, you rapidly discover that the current administration are following the manifesto virtually line for line. You, however, have demonstrated nowhere that the CFR has ever produced any series of documents that has been used as a policy blueprint for ongoing policy decisions. All you can point to is membership - but given the changes in policies from administration to administration it seems that membership does not imply strategic agreement on policy.They've said themselves that they aim to influence policy. I can't see them constantly making recommendations if they've never had any influence. If you're saying that the PNAC has more influence on the current administration I'd concur. But the ruling class is never going to be a monolithic block. There is always going to be competition with different groups falling in and out of favour at any one time. I do think you've shown that the PNAC have more influence at the moment. I don't think that the idea that the CFR are merely a paper tiger, with no influence at all, follows from that.

The CFR does not bother with 'working class revolutions'; they do, however, support communism in our government abroad. I'll give a bibliography of evidence of our government's pro-communism:


1)I Saw Poland Betrayed by Arthur Bliss Lane
2)The Rape of Poland by Stanislaw Mikolajczyk
3)Background to Betrayal by Hilaire du Berrier
4)Cuba Betrayed by Fulgencio Batista
5)The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith
6)Red Star Over Cuba (I don't remember the author)
7)The Shadows of Power by James Perloff
8)The Invisible Government by Dan Smoot
9)Why Not Victory? by Barry Goldwater
10)America's Retreat From Victory by Joseph McCarthy
11)The Actor by Alan Stang
12)The Politician by Robert Welch
13)None Dare Call it Treason by John Stormer
14)None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allan
15)Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent (I don't remember the author)
16)Kissinger on the Couch by Phyllis Schlafley
17)Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask by Gary Allan
18)Web of Subversion (don't remember)
19)Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism in the Cold War (don't remember)
20)The Lattimore Story by John Flynn
21)Who Promoted Peress? by Lionel Likos
22)McCarthy by Roy Cohn
23)The Assassination of Joe McCarthy by Medford Evans
24)McCarthy and his Enemies by Brent Bozell and William F. Buckley (before he joined the CFR and turned liberal)
25)The Ordeal of Otto Otepka (don't remember)
26)Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton
27)Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development by Antony Sutton
28)National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union
29)The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
30)The Insiders by John McManus

And no, there have been no foreign policy changes the last fifty or so years. It's been more of the same:

1)Betraying allies:
Truman- Poland, China
Eisenhower- Hungary, Cuba
Kennedy- Laos, Katanga
Johnson- Vietnam
Nixon- Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia
Ford- See under Nixon
Carter- Rhodesia, Iran, Nicaragua
Reagan- Philippines, Chile
Bush- South Africa
Clinton- Indonesia
Bush- Taiwan

2)Undermining sovereignty:
Truman-Bush- UN
Truman- NATO
Eisenhower- SEATO
Clinton- NAFTA, WTO

3)Aiding the enemy (or allying with the enemy):
Truman-Bush- Soviet Union/Russia, and other communist countries
Bush- Libya, Pakistan, China, Russia

4)Entangling us in no-win wars and Third World fiascoes
Truman- Korea
Eisenhower-Ford- Vietnam
Kennedy- Bay of Pigs
Carter- The diastrous hostage rescue attempt
Reagan- Grenada, Lebanon
Bush- Gulf War, Somalia
Clinton- Kosovo
Bush- Afghanistan, Iraq

See any foreign policy changes? I don't.

This reads more like a history lesson and to be quite frank an indictment of American policy for the last 60 years.. not a shadow government. Listen, think tanks are cottage industry in Washington.. this is nothing new. The difference is that PNAC is actually at this moment also controlling the government. Most think tanks never get the chance. Although they do try.

There is a profound difference in the two groups, I don't believe they can be compared. There is no evidence to suggest that CFR work with each other to form policy or per se a "CFR doctrine" such as PNAC has. Let alone evidence to suggest it is a think tank that has been able to put forth a cumulative policy to the government and it be accepted as a group. In fact this would be quite hard to believe given the make up of the membership of CFR.

I'm going to post this here too, I posted it in the PNAC thread, but it also seems to help draw the difference between the two groups.

More on PNAC (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html)

I provided a bibliography in my other thread, or hasn't anybody noticed?

This reads more like a history lesson and to be quite frank an indictment of American policy for the last 60 years.. not a shadow government. Listen, think tanks are cottage industry in Washington.. this is nothing new. The difference is that PNAC is actually at this moment also controlling the government. Most think tanks never get the chance. Although they do try.

Please check my bibliography in the other thread.

The CFR does not bother with 'working class revolutions'; they do, however, support communism in our government abroad. I'll give a bibliography of evidence of our government's pro-communism:

In which case there not Marxists. Trust me, as one, I can promise you that a class analysis is a central part of our political viewpoint.

On a more general note, you're mixing up geopolitics (the enemy of my enemy is my friend, political pragmatism etc.) with a genuinely Marxist analysis.

In which case there not Marxists. Trust me, as one, I can promise you that a class analysis is a central part of our political viewpoint.

On a more general note, you're mixing up geopolitics (the enemy of my enemy is my friend, political pragmatism etc.) with a genuinely Marxist analysis.

I never said they were Marxists. I simply said the organization was founded by a Marxist and that the organization is pro-communist.

Stating an aim to influence policy is not the same thing as actually succeeding.


And when the person putting forward this theory goes back so far as to blame WWII and Pearl Harbour on this group, I find it laughable.


Incidentally, is there some stated indication anywhere pointing to the fact that they are actually generally active in the group? Or is it just another group that has become customary for people to join - in this case perhaps by politicians to give them a group that provides access to journalists for purposes of leaks and trial balloons.

Take a look down the current list of press releases. It would seem to be a critics group and advocacy group to generate public interest in foreign policy more than anything else. Perhaps sometimes they get enough press going on an issue to impact policy, but I think that this is probably the exception more than the rule.

I never said they were Marxists. I simply said the organization was founded by a Marxist and that the organization is pro-communist.

So, by extension of your indication that this group steers US policy - every Administration since WWII has been pro-communist?

Did anyone tell McCarthy?

So, by extension of your indication that this group steers US policy - every Administration since WWII has been pro-communist?

Did anyone tell McCarthy?

Why not check the bibliography before you resort to sarcasm? That applies to your above post, too.

I never said they were Marxists. I simply said the organization was founded by a Marxist and that the organization is pro-communist.
But that's not logical. By Marxist I take it you mean Stalinist (in my view Leninism and it's variants aren't Marxist but that's a different topic). One of the main tenants of Stalinism was socialism in one country. Hence, it would be counter to that to attempt to run a shadowy 'red conspiracy' that spans the globe.

Why not check the bibliography before you resort to sarcasm? That applies to your above post, too.

I'm sorry, but looking down lists of current article releases alone you can see that the output spans the entire spectrum of political thought. If you want to cherry pick past member's articles that support your theory then others could post a matching set that completly counters it.


Frankly, I think that you are giving entirely too much credit to this group.

they are a vast and varied set of people involved in or interested in foreign policy who have provided themselves a forum for discourse. I see nothing here more than that.


Next you'll be pointing to a subset of the opinions written here and tie it to MAx's nationality and claim that this is a shadow group trying to make the Internet more Australian.....

Sorry - you have provided nothing substantitve that I have found to support your assertions.

I'm sorry, but looking down lists of current article releases alone you can see that the output spans the entire spectrum of political thought. If you want to cherry pick past member's articles that support your theory then others could post a matching set that completly counters it.


Frankly, I think that you are giving entirely too much credit to this group.

they are a vast and varied set of people involved in or interested in foreign policy who have provided themselves a forum for discourse. I see nothing here more than that.


Next you'll be pointing to a subset of the opinions written here and tie it to MAx's nationality and claim that this is a shadow group trying to make the Internet more Australian.....

Sorry - you have provided nothing substantitve that I have found to support your assertions.

Read The Shadows of Power. Most of its information is drawn directly from the CFR itself.

Read The Shadows of Power. Most of its information is drawn directly from the CFR itself.

And how much CFR output was in disagreement to that treatise?

Did you look into that at all?

I thought not.

The volumes and scope of opinions put out by members of this group is staggering. You might as well blame the public library for history.

Anyway - I don't want this to descend into a pissing match.


We disagree.

'nough said.

Stating an aim to influence policy is not the same thing as actually succeeding.But saying you "help set the policy agenda" suggests at least some measure of sucess in this endevour,


And when the person putting forward this theory goes back so far as to blame WWII and Pearl Harbour on this group, I find it laughable. Absolutely. And I don't believe it for a second. But I also feel absolute dismissal groups like this as having influence is as much of a danger as the absolute credulity shown by RB on this subject.


Incidentally, is there some stated indication anywhere pointing to the fact that they are actually generally active in the group? Or is it just another group that has become customary for people to join - in this case perhaps by politicians to give them a group that provides access to journalists for purposes of leaks and trial balloons. That's a reasonable question and one I don't know the answer to. As you can imagine American politics is more of a sideline for me with the exception of stuff (like COINTELPRO) I believe has direct parallels in the UK. Even if that is the case though, I do think that a group that has had so many members that have entered such influential positions, even if the group itself is mainly a 'revolving door', is going to be listened to more then your average group.

Take a look down the current list of press releases. It would seem to be a critics group and advocacy group to generate public interest in foreign policy more than anything else. Perhaps sometimes they get enough press going on an issue to impact policy, but I think that this is probably the exception more than the rule.That would fit with the idea that they're current out of favour with the administration, at least in comparison to the PNAC. However it's too great a leap of logic from there to say they have had no significant influence in the past, or that they will not do so in the future.

Anyway, I don't know what the time is over there, but here it's five in the morning. Night all. See you tommorow. :)

But saying you "help set the policy agenda" suggests at least some measure of sucess in this endevour,


To which I comment that setting the agenda is not the same thing as setting the policy. Not by a long shot.

Clearly the most active members of this group are the journalists and book authors. By putting things into the public realm they certainly may have an impact to bring items up for discussion in the court of public opinion - hence setting the agenda. I just feel that the case has not been made to extend that to actually having an input into policy itself.

Anyway - have a good sleep.

Here's what the CFR brought us:

Pearl Harbor/World War II
Korean War
Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis
Vietnam War
Gulf War I
Somalia
Kosovo
Our current war

In addition, it has undermined and betrayed many of our allies:
Fulgencio Batista of Cuba;
Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam;
Lon Nol of Cambodia;
Boun Oum of Laos;
Chiang Kai-shek of China;
Stanislaw Mikolajczyk of Poland;
Augusto Pinochet of Chile;
Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua;
Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines;
Sygman Rhee of South Korea;
Moise Tshombe of Katanga;
Ian Smith of Rhodesia;
Draza Mihailovich of Yugoslavia;
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran;
the Hungarian Freedom Fighters;
the Bay of Pigs freedom fighters;
the French at Dien Bien Phu;
the government of South Africa; and many, many more.
Funny, I thought the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour.

PNAC is more of a cause for the Iraq war. They have always been pushing for it.

Most of the "allies" you listed were and tyrants. Or just losers (Bay of Pigs mercenaries).

To which I comment that setting the agenda is not the same thing as setting the policy. Not by a long shot.No, but surely it's as important? By setting the parameters of the agenda, you get to choose which options are chosen between, and which are left off.

Clearly the most active members of this group are the journalists and book authors. By putting things into the public realm they certainly may have an impact to bring items up for discussion in the court of public opinion - hence setting the agenda. I just feel that the case has not been made to extend that to actually having an input into policy itself.But surely having this many influential members brings up interesting questions about networking. In other words, members of any group are naturally going to feel a kinship with their fellow members. So, by setting up an "old boys network" like this, this group is harmful to democracy. Not by any conscious conspiring, but merely by playing a part in keeping a self-perpetuating oligarchy in the corridors of power.

Funny, I thought the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour.

PNAC is more of a cause for the Iraq war. They have always been pushing for it.

Most of the "allies" you listed were and tyrants. Or just losers (Bay of Pigs mercenaries).

1)They did. But the CFR members of Roosevelt's administration played an important role in provoking the Japanese to attack it so we would get entangled in World War II.

2)True, but bear in mind many of the culprits you named also hold CFR membership. Also, does the PNAC dominate both political parties?

3)While most of the allies I mentioned were to a certain extent dictatorial, authoritarian, or repressive, I wouldn't classify them as 'tyrants.' Hitler was a tyrant. Stalin was a tyrant. Also, what is worse: a pro-US, authoritarian military dictator? Or an anti-US, totalitarian tyrant? All or most of the allies I mentioned were succeeded by far more dictatorial people.

Mao Tse-tung (Chiang Kai-shek)
Fidel Castro (Fulgencio Batista)
Daniel Ortega (Anastasio Somoza Debayle)
Robert Mugabe (Ian Smith)
The Ayatollah Khomeini (the Shah)
Pol Pot (Lon Nol)
Pham Van Dong (Nguyen Van Thieu)

Others were indeed at times tyrannical, mostly in response to national crises. Marcos, for example, was forced to suspend the constitution and declare martial law in response to communist and radical Muslim terrorist attacks. South Africa retained apartheid because many of the civil rights groups were communistic or at the very least influenced by the communists. Many wanted apartheid dismanted gradually, as soon as the communist threat was dealt with. Also, as odious as apartheid may be, it does have some logic behind it: there are so many different races and tribes in South Africa, many fiercely xenophobic and hostile to one another, that establishing separate homelands for them may not have been such a bad idea after all. Mind you, I am not approving or even condoning apartheid, but instead recognizing that it is in ways logical.

Others offered few political freedoms, but did great things for their country: Pinochet brought Chile from the brink of economic collapse and turned it into the most prosperous nation in Latin America. All three living ex-presidents agreed unanimously that the military had saved Chile from economic disaster when it staged the coup against Salvador Allende. Pinochet also wrote a constitution that the Chilean people overwhelmingly approved and is still in use today. While his regime may or may not have committed the atrocities the left accused him of, I doubt there is any proof that he himself approved of or ordered these atrocities. And many of his 'victims' were terrorists, radical communists, etc.

As for Syngman Rhee, he was soon replaced by Park Chung Hee, who, although pro-US, was extremely repressive and dictatorial.

No, but surely it's as important? By setting the parameters of the agenda, you get to choose which options are chosen between, and which are left off.


Well, if you could show that they had absolute control of the US foreign policy agenda you would have a point, however by their own admission at best they "help" which is a very open statement as to the level of input they have. And let's face it, oftentimes foreign policy reactionary to that of other countries. In order to set the entire agend you would have to assume that these members have similar input into foregin governments - which seems unlikely.

But surely having this many influential members brings up interesting questions about networking. In other words, members of any group are naturally going to feel a kinship with their fellow members. So, by setting up an "old boys network" like this, this group is harmful to democracy. Not by any conscious conspiring, but merely by playing a part in keeping a self-perpetuating oligarchy in the corridors of power.

That I will buy as a possibility. Proximity and access are integral parts to shaping policy. But again, I would need to see some indication as to the level of involvement and activity by the most senior government members in order to have some idea as to how possible this might be.

And at this point, we have certainly reduced the role of this group well below the sort of "evil conspiracy" that it is being portrayed as in this thread.

Which isn't to say that it couldn't have some levels of influence, just that any compelling indication of this has not yet been demonstrated beyond conspiracy theory and hyperbole.

-Z-

Regardless, I still intend to read Foriegn Affairs which I have been reading since I was a debator in high school and college. The fact that this simple action makes me part of some shadow conspiracy is just icing.

Regardless, I still intend to read Foriegn Affairs which I have been reading since I was a debator in high school and college. The fact that this simple action makes me part of some shadow conspiracy is just icing.

Aparently this group has been fighting since about 1960 to get the US to cede the bulk of it's sovereign powers - including the military - to the UN.

So if you're part of a shadow conspiracy - you're part of a pretty damn ineffective one!

:D

Well, if you could show that they had absolute control of the US foreign policy agenda you would have a point, however by their own admission at best they "help" which is a very open statement as to the level of input they have. And let's face it, oftentimes foreign policy reactionary to that of other countries. In order to set the entire agend you would have to assume that these members have similar input into foregin governments - which seems unlikely.I don't think I've argued anywhere that any one ruling class thinktank could have absolute control over US foreign policy. I see it more as a large number of groups, sometimes in agreement, sometimes in opposition. And certainly, at the present time, the PNAC seems to be more influential. And on a global level I'd argue that both the British American Project and the Bilderberg group are likely to have more influence. Not in the overly simplistic "string pulling" way beloved by conspiracy theorists. But simply as groups that seem to have an awful lot of people who are, or become, highly influential on foreign policy coming through their ranks.That I will buy as a possibility. Proximity and access are integral parts to shaping policy. But again, I would need to see some indication as to the level of involvement and activity by the most senior government members in order to have some idea as to how possible this might be.

And at this point, we have certainly reduced the role of this group well below the sort of "evil conspiracy" that it is being portrayed as in this thread.

Which isn't to say that it couldn't have some levels of influence, just that any compelling indication of this has not yet been demonstrated beyond conspiracy theory and hyperbole.
We also have certainly upped this group's role from that of being a simple talking shop, with no real influence. Would you agree that the truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes.

I suspect our difference here lies not in what we see the facts being, we seem pretty much in agreement on that, but on the interpration of those facts.

It probably comes down to the difference between the classical Liberal and the Marxist views of the various elite power structures.

1)They did. But the CFR members of Roosevelt's administration played an important role in provoking the Japanese to attack it so we would get entangled in World War II.

2)True, but bear in mind many of the culprits you named also hold CFR membership. Also, does the PNAC dominate both political parties?

3)While most of the allies I mentioned were to a certain extent dictatorial, authoritarian, or repressive, I wouldn't classify them as 'tyrants.' Hitler was a tyrant. Stalin was a tyrant. Also, what is worse: a pro-US, authoritarian military dictator? Or an anti-US, totalitarian tyrant? All or most of the allies I mentioned were succeeded by far more dictatorial people.

Mao Tse-tung (Chiang Kai-shek)
Fidel Castro (Fulgencio Batista)
Daniel Ortega (Anastasio Somoza Debayle)
Robert Mugabe (Ian Smith)
The Ayatollah Khomeini (the Shah)
Pol Pot (Lon Nol)
Pham Van Dong (Nguyen Van Thieu)

Others were indeed at times tyrannical, mostly in response to national crises. Marcos, for example, was forced to suspend the constitution and declare martial law in response to communist and radical Muslim terrorist attacks. South Africa retained apartheid because many of the civil rights groups were communistic or at the very least influenced by the communists. Many wanted apartheid dismanted gradually, as soon as the communist threat was dealt with. Also, as odious as apartheid may be, it does have some logic behind it: there are so many different races and tribes in South Africa, many fiercely xenophobic and hostile to one another, that establishing separate homelands for them may not have been such a bad idea after all. Mind you, I am not approving or even condoning apartheid, but instead recognizing that it is in ways logical.

Others offered few political freedoms, but did great things for their country: Pinochet brought Chile from the brink of economic collapse and turned it into the most prosperous nation in Latin America. All three living ex-presidents agreed unanimously that the military had saved Chile from economic disaster when it staged the coup against Salvador Allende. Pinochet also wrote a constitution that the Chilean people overwhelmingly approved and is still in use today. While his regime may or may not have committed the atrocities the left accused him of, I doubt there is any proof that he himself approved of or ordered these atrocities. And many of his 'victims' were terrorists, radical communists, etc.

As for Syngman Rhee, he was soon replaced by Park Chung Hee, who, although pro-US, was extremely repressive and dictatorial.
1. That may be true, but it's an extreme stretch to blame the CFR for the Japanese attack on America.

2. Good point. However, PNAC does dominate the close-knit cabinet of the Bush administration more than the CFR.

3. Pro-America and anti-American tyrants are just as bad as each other. It makes no difference to me whether they like or hate America, they're tyrants.
You're mostly right on your list, but I think Batista was much worse than Castro. Cubans are relatively free of the extreme social inequality of the Batista years, and the economy is better under Castro, despite the numerous shocks it has received. I'm not saying that I like Castro, but I would still say Batista was worse.

"National crises" is not a legitimate reason for murderous tyranny; Hitler and Stalin faced them. I wouldn't call their actions justified. Why do you imply that only leftists think Pinochet was a tyrant? Yes, he did improve the economy, but 3,000 people were killed by his government. Why do you say that communists are legitimate targets of state death squads?

Yes, apartheid does work in theory, in the minds of crazed Afrikaaner nationalists. Apartheid which denied the vote to everyone who wasn't white just made everyone angry. This is why South Africa has a communist terrorist problem.

Could you explain to me your fear of small communist minorities? You seem to think that they must be suppressed at all costs.

1. That may be true, but it's an extreme stretch to blame the CFR for the Japanese attack on America.

2. Good point. However, PNAC does dominate the close-knit cabinet of the Bush administration more than the CFR.

3. Pro-America and anti-American tyrants are just as bad as each other. It makes no difference to me whether they like or hate America, they're tyrants.
You're mostly right on your list, but I think Batista was much worse than Castro. Cubans are relatively free of the extreme social inequality of the Batista years, and the economy is better under Castro, despite the numerous shocks it has received. I'm not saying that I like Castro, but I would still say Batista was worse.

"National crises" is not a legitimate reason for murderous tyranny; Hitler and Stalin faced them. I wouldn't call their actions justified. Why do you imply that only leftists think Pinochet was a tyrant? Yes, he did improve the economy, but 3,000 people were killed by his government. Why do you say that communists are legitimate targets of state death squads?

Yes, apartheid does work in theory, in the minds of crazed Afrikaaner nationalists. Apartheid which denied the vote to everyone who wasn't white just made everyone angry. This is why South Africa has a communist terrorist problem.

Could you explain to me your fear of small communist minorities? You seem to think that they must be suppressed at all costs.

3.Are you sure? I heard that once Castro assumed power, Cuba went from being one of the richest Latin American nations to one of the poorest. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that's what I heard.

My point was that in each (or at least most) of these cases, the anti-US dictator was far more repressive, brutal, and ruthless than the pro-US 'dictator'.

Is there any proof that Pinochet himself ordered the executions of these 3,000 people? I find it quite amusing that the left devotes so much time, energy, and resources trying everything they can to destroy Pinochet, who is said to have killed 3,000 people, yet they ignore tyrants who were proven to have killed many times more: Gorbachev, Mandela, Hun Sen, Castro, etc. If Pinochet did indeed order these people killed, I am not condoning it, I just find it curious that the left devotes so much of its attention to this one man. But then, the left has always been hostile to anti-communist leaders who were friendly to America.

Not allowing blacks to vote was wrong, I agree. Separating on the basis of race was wrong, I agree as well. However, the idea of eventually establishing separate black homelands did have some logic behind it.

I am not afraid of small communist minorities. I'm simply saying, Marcos, South Africa, etc. were at least partly justified in their adoption of extreme measures, because the communists in those countries were violent, terroristic, and did indeed pose a serious threat.

Thank you very much for not flaming. I like you. You're fun to debate with. ;)

bump

bump

3.Are you sure? I heard that once Castro assumed power, Cuba went from being one of the richest Latin American nations to one of the poorest. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that's what I heard.


Well, Cuba took power in '59 and the US instituted the embargo as of 1960 - and put in place trade penalties against any other country that traded with Cuba in '62. Do you think that might have impacted their economic potential at all?

Even with the embargo Cuba currently exceeds some Latin countries such as Nicaraguain per-capita GDP, and also has a medical system unrivaled in Latin America.

Well, Cuba took power in '59 and the US instituted the embargo as of 1960 - and put in place trade penalties against any other country that traded with Cuba in '62. Do you think that might have impacted their economic potential at all?

Even with the embargo Cuba currently exceeds some Latin countries such as Nicaraguain per-capita GDP, and also has a medical system unrivaled in Latin America.

Huh. I never knew that. Thanks. Well, you learn somethin' new every day...

Go Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344425)

Read post #3, those are my thoughts on the subject about PNAC and it includes quite a few member names, you will note that PNAC is made up of people with all the same ideology, as opposed to Council on Foreign Relations.
The most amazing thing about the PNAC, is that it is accessible to ANYONE with a computer. The war plans are laid out and directions are given. This kind of media begs for opposition. Anyone who is against US imperialism is surely going to sit up and take notice.

What we have here is a recipe for disaster, far worse than the initial forays into Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is the new "line in the sand", and it has already been crossed.

I see a bad moon rising!!

I just noted the typo... "Cuba took power" when I ment to say Castro! lol.

But yes. Indeed if the first indicator of a health system is life expectancy, then Cuba blows away the rest of the Caribbean and Central America with a current lfe expectancy of 77.04 years.

Compare that to:

Haiti: 51
Bahamas: 65.63
Dominican Republic: 67
Nicaragua: 70
Panama: 72.14
St. Lucia: 73.34
Mexico: 74.9

Hell, it's only a hair behind the US which sits at 77.43.

(all these numbers from the CIA world factbook)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If the past four years has shown us anything, they are as evil as they are inept.
Even the more reason to worry? It is already paying negative dividends with the occupation of Iraq.

Too bad Admiral Chester Ward isn't around. He'd tell you the truth about the CFR himself.