NationStates Jolt Archive

No, it is not yet....but the goal of the Islamic Brotherhood is a muslim world. That they were able to influence the election in Spain has emboldened them to try it again elsewhere. I suspect we will have another attack here in the US around Nov. 2nd.
If you're right, It will be the biggest help Bush can have in his re-elction bid. I can already see the landslide and the conspiracy theory...

No, it is not yet....but the goal of the Islamic Brotherhood is a muslim world. That they were able to influence the election in Spain has emboldened them to try it again elsewhere. I suspect we will have another attack here in the US around Nov. 2nd.
Yet more fear and propaganda spreading. Sir, you are predictable by now. *waits for more propaganda*

Fear spreading and Propaganda... again. Unless you have proof, stop the blabber.

Giving into terrorists is NEVER a good thing. The Phillippines did the same thing. They pulled out of iraq because ONE truck driver was captured and threatened with execution. So now all the terrorists have to do is take a hostage and the Phillippines will more than likely give them what they want. It just emboldens the terrorists and shows weakness.

Giving into terrorists is NEVER a good thing. The Phillippines did the same thing. They pulled out of iraq because ONE truck driver was captured and threatened with execution. So now all the terrorists have to do is take a hostage and the Phillippines will more than likely give them what they want. It just emboldens the terrorists and shows weakness.
Propaganda, assumption, fear indoctrination. You learned well from your teachers.

If you're right, It will be the biggest help Bush can have in his re-elction bid. I can already see the landslide and the conspiracy theory...


I think so....and I think it will happen. I heard on the radio yesterday that Al Qaeda is worried about it's credibility as a terrorist organization and needs to stage a "spectacular" attack in the US between now and inauguration day.

Propaganda, assumption, fear indoctrination. You learned well from your teachers.

Giving into a childs whining encourages more whining.....giving into a terrorist encourages more attacks.

But of course. Show me the precendece, at least in Spain. *waits patiently*
Or how about the Philippines? *waits some more*. None? Thought so.

No, you have a problem with Bush because he is not a liberal. He is anathema to you because he does not share your world view.
Your world view is surely not onservative either? Besides, there are plenty of people far more conservative than Bush who Steph doesn't appear to protest against.

If he wins we will be in some very serious trouble. His wanting to open a dialogue with Al Qaeda is quite telling.
BULLSHIT ALERT

But of course. Show me the precendece, at least in Spain. *waits patiently*
Or how about the Philippines? *waits some more*. None? Thought so.

Already have....terrorists take ONE Phillippine truck driver hostage, demand Phillippines pul out of Iraq or they will kill him. Phillippines does pull out, terrorists release hostage. Now...the terrorists know all they have to do to get the Phillippines to do what they want is to take a hostage. Will it work? Who knows, but it will embolden them to try. It was a bad precedent.

Spain? Terrorists demand that Spain leave Iraq and threaten violence if they don't. Sitting government refused, opposition challenger said if elected would pull troops out. Terrorists blow up train and say will do more if troops not pulled out of Iraq. Opposition wins by a landslide and pulls troops out immediately. Now the terrorists know they can influence public opinion in Spain by blowing up a train...will it work? Who knows, but it will embolden them to try. It was a bad precedent.

Yes and the illuminati and the freemasons have a hand in it too. lets not forget the skull and bones society which both Bush and Kerry are members of. :rolleyes:

http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm
Hey Biff stop being so infantile. Read up a little on this kind of stuff, the guy's right. I'm sure there's more than a few people who've read the declaration as far as the PNAC. Don't do the typical cowardice of the rightwing by bait-and-switching on a topic when someone makes a good point. You usually try harder than that, don't wimp out on this one. It is the core of a good number of heated arguments here and throughout the world regarding Bush/PNAC policy.

Kerry said that was one of the things he wanted to do. To open a dialogue with them and learn why they hate us so. I cannot find a link to it, but I saw him say this on the news a few months ago.
Wow, funny I've never heard anything about this before. It would be great ammo for the anti-Kerry crowd to hurl at him. That is, if he actually said it. Which he didn't. More likely he said something about opening up a dialogue with the Muslim world to understand their problems.

Honestly Biff, I'll bet that in the week before the election day you'll be saying stuff like "Kerry thinks Osama bin Laden is a good guy!"

BULLSHIT ALERT

Is it? He said as much a few months ago in an interview. He said we need to talk to Al Qaeda and learn why they hate us so. Kerry has taken so many different positions on this it is not funny anymore. First he says no to the death penalty for terrorists....now he supports it. :rolleyes:

Hey Biff stop being so infantile. Read up a little on this kind of stuff, the guy's right. I'm sure there's more than a few people who've read the declaration as far as the PNAC. Don't do the typical cowardice of the rightwing by bait-and-switching on a topic when someone makes a good point. You usually try harder than that, don't wimp out on this one. It is the core of a good number of heated arguments here and throughout the world regarding Bush/PNAC policy.

The PNAC is a THINK TANK. It is not some organization set up to rule the world. In the 1960's the RAND CORPORATION (another think tank) was supposed to have engineered the Vietnam war. :rolleyes: That turned out to be false too.

It was a good memo...they told us to start overthrowing governments, open up our slave labor camps, and to disinfranchise as many Black voters as possible.
You got it wrong. Not the masons ... that's PNAC, Rumsfeld, and Rove, respectively.
As far as the masons go, they have more class and sense than the group mentioned above.

Wow, funny I've never heard anything about this before. It would be great ammo for the anti-Kerry crowd to hurl at him. That is, if he actually said it. Which he didn't. More likely he said something about opening up a dialogue with the Muslim world to understand their problems.

Honestly Biff, I'll bet that in the week before the election day you'll be saying stuff like "Kerry thinks Osama bin Laden is a good guy!"

It has been hurled at him....but things move fast in US politics and it was largely forgotten. I remember it because it really struck me and made me take a closer look at the guy. He scares the hell out of me.

"Reasonable terrorists"??? LMAO!!!

Who says we can't kill 'em all? Besides, we just have to kill enough of them to make the rest see the futility of their endeavors. Then the people who harbor and support them will throw them out on their asses, and terrorists cannot operate without that support.
Could you at least make posts that don't contradict themselves. You say terrorists are unreasonable, which is right. Then you say that we can "make the rest see the futility of their endeavors". Surely the ability to see that futility would make them reasonable, and that they are not.

I think that Bush has done a pretty good job indirectly recruiting for al-Qaeda. His actions make Muslims in Africa and Asia very angry. Go figure.

I'm not saying that al-Qaeda should be appeased, but I do think that the average Muslims in the world should be.

Already have....terrorists take ONE Phillippine truck driver hostage, demand Phillippines pul out of Iraq or they will kill him. Phillippines does pull out, terrorists release hostage. Now...the terrorists know all they have to do to get the Phillippines to do what they want is to take a hostage. Will it work? Who knows, but it will embolden them to try. It was a bad precedent.

Spain? Terrorists demand that Spain leave Iraq and threaten violence if they don't. Sitting government refused, opposition challenger said if elected would pull troops out. Terrorists blow up train and say will do more if troops not pulled out of Iraq. Opposition wins by a landslide and pulls troops out immediately. Now the terrorists know they can influence public opinion in Spain by blowing up a train...will it work? Who knows, but it will embolden them to try. It was a bad precedent.
And where is the precence with Al Qaida that backs up your claim that the terrorists will now blackmail Spain and the Philippines because these 2 countries *gasp* did what was right and *gasp* did not get attacked by Al Qaida since? Unless both get attacked again (without reason) then you can say what you want, its propaganda.

I do believe that if Gore had been President that he would have tried to appease them somehow.
Where do you get this idea?

I think that even if Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan had been President, the US would have attacked Afghanistan.

Iraq, on the other hand - well that invasion takes a special Bush.

The PNAC is a THINK TANK. It is not some organization set up to rule the world. In the 1960's the RAND CORPORATION (another think tank) was supposed to have engineered the Vietnam war. :rolleyes: That turned out to be false too.
Have you read their charter, or anything about them? Really?
They're more than a think tank, they have signed and commissioned members who SHAPE our foreign policy, and they are members of high post in this administration WITH THEIR NAMES IN PLAIN SIGHT, and they make the decisions and changes, not just sit around talking about it. Look it up and deal with it. These guys have in their own declarations of intent what has already transpired in Iraq, and they had it in print song and signed over a year before Bush enacted it.

And where is the precence with Al Qaida that backs up your claim that the terrorists will now blackmail Spain and the Philippines because these 2 countries *gasp* did what was right and *gasp* did not get attacked by Al Qaida since? Unless both get attacked again (without reason) then you can say what you want, its propaganda.

You obviously cannot see beyond your anti-US attitude so no matter what I tell you you will discount it as propaganda.

It has been hurled at him....but things move fast in US politics and it was largely forgotten. I remember it because it really struck me and made me take a closer look at the guy. He scares the hell out of me.
So you admit that your fear of a guy you don't actually know is causing you to react vocally/verbally and get into arguments with others from an emotionally irrational perspective? Does Britney Spears scare you too?

And I thought you are talking about the US there for a second.
"They'll always find an excuse to kill and maim their perceived ennemies"

It's a statement that can be applied to all authorities. Not just the US.

This is the way all governments and authoritarian heirarchies (like Al-Qaeda) work.

Have you read their charter, or anything about them? Really?
They're more than a think tank, they have signed and commissioned members who SHAPE our foreign policy, and they are members of high post in this administration WITH THEIR NAMES IN PLAIN SIGHT, and they make the decisions and changes, not just sit around talking about it. Look it up and deal with it. These guys have in their own declarations of intent what has already transpired in Iraq, and they had it in print song and signed over a year before Bush enacted it.

I have read it....so what? Congress has to approve everything they advocate. Do you think that will happen? They are a non-profit organization to promote certain ideals. much like the Rand Corporation was in the 1960's.

So you admit that your fear of a guy you don't actually know is causing you to react vocally/verbally and get into arguments with others from an emotionally irrational perspective? Does Britney Spears scare you too?

No, I am not emotionally irrational, but I do tend to cause others to become so. ;)

There was no way that that Congress, led by Gingrich and Delay, and later by Hastert and DeLay, was ever going to approve military intervention in Afghanistan.
Yeah, that's American politicans for you. Funny how when the Democrat president was waging war (Serbia, 1999) the Republicans become the pacifist party. But when the Republican president is waging war (Iraq, 2003-now), the Democrats become the pacifist party. They have more loyalty to their party than to their country.

Thanks for showing the left's usual conceit that only those whom are liberals are enlightened.
I'm sorry to go off topic here, but why do complaints about the inherent demerits of "the left" have to come into every single fucking debate?

Yeah, that's American politicans for you. Funny how when the Democrat president was waging war (Serbia, 1999) the Republicans become the pacifist party. But when the Republican president is waging war (Iraq, 2003-now), the Democrats become the pacifist party. They have more loyalty to their party than to their country.

Serbia was different. There was no UN resolution. In fact, the US had to DRAG the UN in there to put a stop to the killing. Our going in there was a CLEAR violation of international law but we did it anyway. Iraq is a different matter.

But you are correct....politicians here are only concerned about their own hides and their "careers."

Well...it can be argued that they overthrew the Spanish government by blowing up a train. The former president would have won reelection if that incident had not happened. Europe is very weak when it comes to such things.
They bombed the train because Spain participated in the war against Iraq, which was hugely unpopular in Spain. The Socialists were an anti-war party, so they won. The (neo)conservative government that lost was so disingenous, it tried to blame ETA for the attack even when all the evidence pointed to Al-Qaeda. It was no surprise that Aznar lost the election.

You see it as weakness, we see it as sensible.

[Stephistan #38]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Stephy is very impatient, like all leftists,... like all children.

It's OK,... the grownups will manage things.

Don't fret little one


Hey kid, I'm 35 years old.. I'm realistic and am not a "leftist" I have children of my own.. and do tell.. how old are you?

35..!?

Then you are a little one yet.

Your "chronological" age is not what I was refering to. If you were truly "of age" you'd probably have realized that.

You are a leftist, as my nose is the arbiter of your (or anyone's) "leftistness".

May your children learn from their parents.

As to what they may learn, that we may have a difference of opinion about.

:)
She asked you a pointed question. Now you are being immature about it. Or maybe you are responding in correspondance with your mental age, since you seem to be inferring significance in different measurements of time/age relationships. So how bout not dodging it?

They bombed the train because Spain participated in the war against Iraq, which was hugely unpopular in Spain. The Socialists were an anti-war party, so they won. The (neo)conservative government that lost was so disingenous, it tried to blame ETA for the attack even when all the evidence pointed to Al-Qaeda. It was no surprise that Aznar lost the election.

You see it as weakness, we see it as sensible.

The Aznar government did goof up when blaming ETA for the attack, but to say that the attack did not sway public opinion is to discount the attack and the purpose of the attack. It was clearly aimed at getting Spanish troops out of Iraq and from the terrorists point of view, it worked.

Who would have thought that Europe would become so weak? Such is the way of socialist countries.
Spain is not a socialist country, and neither are France, Germany or Russia.

No, I am not emotionally irrational, but I do tend to cause others to become so. ;)
Well, you might or you might not, but the integrity of your argument and position are obviously sufferable if you have a perogative of emotional lambaste instead of a point of fact. So is there an icon to express that for you?
And of course, are you educating yourself a little on the PNAC now?

I'm sorry to go off topic here, but why do complaints about the inherent demerits of "the left" have to come into every single fucking debate?

Because it is a sharply divided world.

Could you at least make posts that don't contradict themselves. You say terrorists are unreasonable, which is right. Then you say that we can "make the rest see the futility of their endeavors". Surely the ability to see that futility would make them reasonable, and that they are not.

I think that Bush has done a pretty good job indirectly recruiting for al-Qaeda. His actions make Muslims in Africa and Asia very angry. Go figure.

I'm not saying that al-Qaeda should be appeased, but I do think that the average Muslims in the world should be.

By "the rest of them" I meant those who are not terrorists themselves, but tolerate and even support terrorists in their midst. I said as much in my post, so I don't see where the contradiction is.

Spain is not a socialist country, and neither are France, Germany or Russia.

Well...from over here they look very socialist.

Yeah, that's American politicans for you. Funny how when the Democrat president was waging war (Serbia, 1999) the Republicans become the pacifist party. But when the Republican president is waging war (Iraq, 2003-now), the Democrats become the pacifist party. They have more loyalty to their party than to their country.
You sure got that right!

Several observations:

*) Bush is being condemned internationally for deposing a brutal dictator. Saddam Hussein isn't being especially demonised for being a brutal dictator, nor are the Left being faulted for supporting him for decades.

Well, some of us remember the pre-9/11 world. Back then, Saddam was very much demonised. Now he doesn't really matter anymore.

The left didn't support him. The US and UK did. This is a fact. The US gave him weapons and intelligence in the 1980s to help him in his killing Iranians.

Well, you might or you might not, but the integrity of your argument and position are obviously sufferable if you have a perogative of emotional lambaste instead of a point of fact. So is there an icon to express that for you?
And of course, are you educating yourself a little on the PNAC now?

I already knew about the PNAC. There are enough "chicken little" types here who feel the PNAC is more than it really is.

I have read it....so what? Congress has to approve everything they advocate. Do you think that will happen? They are a non-profit organization to promote certain ideals. much like the Rand Corporation was in the 1960's.
Or MoveOn.org. Or democracynow.org.

Well, some of us remember the pre-9/11 world. Back then, Saddam was very much demonised. Now he doesn't really matter anymore.

The left didn't support him. The US and UK did. This is a fact. The US gave him weapons and intelligence in the 1980s to help him in his killing Iranians.

Until VERY recently France and Germany were supporting him. France so much they assured him they would veto any action the US took in the security council.

Or MoveOn.org. Or democracynow.org.

Those "bastions of truth" too. :rolleyes:

Yes, and the Freemasons have been shown to be a shadowy "underground" government just waiting to take control of the world. Those who believe that ANY such organization has the power to "control" the world are deluding themselves. In 1960 a hurricane parked itself over Cuba for 4 days. Castro was convinced that the US had a "weather" machine and was using it to destroy the economy of Cuba!! Such things are routine in the world today....and this is just another example of it.
Many movements, most even, to turn over a government start "underground" or maybe in the sense that the average idiot ;) doesn't notice and instead gives the state diatribe of everything being fine except for those "liberals" (opposites of the sitting party's spectrum in most cases since conservative perogative is to CONSERVE even in face of significant change) and we can deal with them politically. As for Castro, if the guy was too dumb to notice a pattern of weather in his own country (when i say pattern, do the math) that isn't the fault of someone else's government. Also the weather didn't sign any specific charter declaring its intentions just to have some other bunch of idiots completely ignore it and belittle anyone who brings it up as an obvious and enacted manifesto.

I already knew about the PNAC. There are enough "chicken little" types here who feel the PNAC is more than it really is.
Other than saying "think tank" you haven't adequately defined it at all, and this far along, i would venture to guess you neither know what it actually is nor understand it. I don't suppose one could fault you that much for not knowing as much as you like to act that you do, but you can easily take responsibility following all the contradictory posts on this topic for your own lack of integrity on actually finding out what it is. "Chicken little" is brilliant, the kind of thing you can expect from someone whose perogative overall is emotional and not cognizant. How 'bout "Pet Goat" or some other equally titillating comparison?
....?

Other than saying "think tank" you haven't adequately defined it at all, and this far along, i would venture to guess you neither know what it actually is nor understand it. I don't suppose one could fault you that much for not knowing as much as you like to act that you do, but you can easily take responsibility following all the contradictory posts on this topic for your own lack of integrity on actually finding out what it is. "Chicken little" is brilliant, the kind of thing you can expect from someone whose perogative overall is emotional and not cognizant. How 'bout "Pet Goat" or some other equally titillating comparison?....?

I do not ascribe to the views of the PNAC, nor do I care what their position is. I also do not ascribe to moveon.org or democracynow.org either.

I do not feel the need to define such an organization nor do I feel the need to defend my stance on the PNAC. For me, the PNAC is a non-entity and something that some might fear, but I do not.

Ummm... judge the relative level of bias of Stephistan vs. MKULTRA.
;)

I do not ascribe to the views of the PNAC, nor do I care what their position is. I also do not ascribe to moveon.org or democracynow.org either.

I do not feel the need to define such an organization nor do I feel the need to defend my stance on the PNAC. For me, the PNAC is a non-entity and something that some might fear, but I do not.
How can you say that?! What about when they and the CIA had Kennedy assassinated? Or when they faked the moon landings?

How can you say that?! What about when they and the CIA had Kennedy assassinated? Or when they faked the moon landings?

;) That was the Boy Scouts!! I have proof!!

I do not ascribe to the views of the PNAC, nor do I care what their position is. I also do not ascribe to moveon.org or democracynow.org either.

I do not feel the need to define such an organization nor do I feel the need to defend my stance on the PNAC. For me, the PNAC is a non-entity and something that some might fear, but I do not.
A few things here.
I didn't bring up moveon or democracynow, as they weren't/aren't relevant to my point. The point is the PNAC.
That's fine that you don't feel the need to define PNAC, except that you actually did, scroll up the page, you felt necessary to define, erroneously, the PNAC as nothing more than a think tank, and many, many more people here more somewhat or thoroughly educated on that topic responded in contradiction to your statement. You should've just said you didn't feel the need to define it then, instead of now, which at this point means you contradicted yourself. As for the PNAC being a non-entity, you again should refer to the other posts on this thread and the relatively easy access to its entity status, thusly to educate yourself, or just admit you intend to respond emotionally to the idea of it without actually understanding what it is, and therefore you aren't reliable to have a fact-based debate about it. Instead, of course, of attacking individuals who obviously have more at stake regarding the issue than you yourself admit to.
I appreciate, i'll add, that on this response you neglected to attack me in a sophomoric or school-yard oriented manner.

A few things here.
I didn't bring up moveon or democracynow, as they weren't/aren't relevant to my point. The point is the PNAC.
That's fine that you don't feel the need to define PNAC, except that you actually did, scroll up the page, you felt necessary to define, erroneously, the PNAC as nothing more than a think tank, and many, many more people here more somewhat or thoroughly educated on that topic responded in contradiction to your statement. You should've just said you didn't feel the need to define it then, instead of now, which at this point means you contradicted yourself. As for the PNAC being a non-entity, you again should refer to the other posts on this thread and the relatively easy access to its entity status, thusly to educate yourself, or just admit you intend to respond emotionally to the idea of it without actually understanding what it is, and therefore you aren't reliable to have a fact-based debate about it. Instead, of course, of attacking individuals who obviously have more at stake regarding the issue than you yourself admit to.
I appreciate, i'll add, that on this response you neglected to attack me in a sophomoric or school-yard oriented manner.

Some people feel that the PNAC has some sort of power to make policy. I do not happen to agree with them. I know what the PNAC is and isn't. It IS no more than a "think tank." It ISN'T some shadowy underground organization bent on world domination. It IS out in the open and easy to find. It ISN'T the real power in the US. That some would consider my position wrong is their perogitive. I just don't see the great conspiracy in this. What "secret" organization places the names of it's members for everyone to see? Now the Freemasons....there is a "secret" organization.

A few things here.
I didn't bring up moveon or democracynow, as they weren't/aren't relevant to my point. The point is the PNAC.
That's fine that you don't feel the need to define PNAC, except that you actually did, scroll up the page, you felt necessary to define, erroneously, the PNAC as nothing more than a think tank, and many, many more people here more somewhat or thoroughly educated on that topic responded in contradiction to your statement. You should've just said you didn't feel the need to define it then, instead of now, which at this point means you contradicted yourself. As for the PNAC being a non-entity, you again should refer to the other posts on this thread and the relatively easy access to its entity status, thusly to educate yourself, or just admit you intend to respond emotionally to the idea of it without actually understanding what it is, and therefore you aren't reliable to have a fact-based debate about it. Instead, of course, of attacking individuals who obviously have more at stake regarding the issue than you yourself admit to.
I appreciate, i'll add, that on this response you neglected to attack me in a sophomoric or school-yard oriented manner.
The PNAC? Are they the ones with the black helicopters?

The PNAC? Are they the ones with the black helicopters?

Some seem to think so. For the life of me I cannot fathom how ANYONE can think that ANY organization as open as the PNAC is could possibly have some "secret" plan for world domination. It just does not make sense no matter how you look at it. I am still watching the Illuminati though. ;)

Some seem to think so. For the life of me I cannot fathom how ANYONE can think that ANY organization as open as the PNAC is could possibly have some "secret" plan for world domination. It just does not make sense no matter how you look at it. I am still watching the Illuminati though. ;)
You can't watch the Illuminati, they're invisible! That's how they got the alien body out of the crashed mother-ship and into that refrigerator in Roswell!

You can't watch the Illuminati, they're invisible! That's how they got the alien body out of the crashed mother-ship and into that refrigerator in Roswell!

I do love a good conspiracy theory, but the PNAC does not make for one. We know who all the members are and their positions on the world stage.

It is when we don't know that it gets good.

Now the Republicans forging those documents and giving them to that Democrat activist to give to Dan Rather was brilliant!! Now Berkett is suing CBS for defamation.

"Reasonable terrorists"??? LMAO!!!

Who says we can't kill 'em all? Besides, we just have to kill enough of them to make the rest see the futility of their endeavors. Then the people who harbor and support them will throw them out on their asses, and terrorists cannot operate without that support.
For thought ... just what makes you think someone whose end-all be-all justifies suicide/homicide has the capacity to appreciate the theory of "futility"? It goes a little deeper, try the logically flawed assumption of glory technique that Islam extremism ISN'T the only current party to.
They might get thrown out on their asses if it's too hot to keep 'em but you sure as hell aren't going to kill enough of them for them to think it's futile to die for their cause.

For thought ... just what makes you think someone whose end-all be-all justifies suicide/homicide has the capacity to appreciate the theory of "futility"? It goes a little deeper, try the logically flawed assumption of glory technique that Islam extremism ISN'T the only current party to.
They might get thrown out on their asses if it's too hot to keep 'em but you sure as hell aren't going to kill enough of them for them to think it's futile to die for their cause.

Thats true....they already want to die and take others with them. You cannot kill them all. Martyrdom assures a ready supply of volunteers seeking their reward in Paradise.

The PNAC? Are they the ones with the black helicopters?
Nope, the PNAC are the coward word-manipulators that merely sit still other than mouths and wrists while other more devout group-think individuals do the executive part of their policy. Black helicopters have been around quite a bit longer than PNAC (as an official group, anyway).
Did you know there are black F-15's as well? An umarked vehicle has a good purpose but a chopper regardless of its color is still a chopper. What do you want to know about black helicopters?

Thats true....they already want to die and take others with them. You cannot kill them all. Martyrdom assures a ready supply of volunteers seeking their reward in Paradise.
MORE THAN ONE written agreement with you on the SAME THREAD!
Booyaa!
;)

Nope, the PNAC are the coward word-manipulators that merely sit still other than mouths and wrists while other more devout group-think individuals do the executive part of their policy. Black helicopters have been around quite a bit longer than PNAC (as an official group, anyway).
Did you know there are black F-15's as well? An umarked vehicle has a good purpose but a chopper regardless of its color is still a chopper. What do you want to know about black helicopters?

I have it on good authority that the F-117 is black as well.

MORE THAN ONE written agreement with you on the SAME THREAD!
Booyaa!
;)

I am not what you think I am. I agree when someone is right and disagree when I feel they are wrong.

Well, even though you put the smiley on there, no. I'm saying the wingnuts like Ken Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife (the bankroller) and Rush Limbaugh (the mouthpiece) and the Republican led Congress (the enablers) have a lot more responsibility than has ever been laid at their feet. And if I ever have the chance to tell them to their faces, I will.
Yeah! Rock on!

Do you really want all those French Canadians here demanding that we all learn to speak French? ;)

Actually, yes. I'd be a refreshing change from all the Spanish. :->

(Before you jump on me for that, I speak Spanish, German and Czech.)

What do you want to know about black helicopters?
Have you seen any flying over your house lately?

I am not what you think I am. I agree when someone is right and disagree when I feel they are wrong.
M'kay, tell me what you think i think you are.
For posterity, i agreed with your elucidation on my post. If you were dishonest, i still agree with the post and simply disagree with your true intentions. If you were honest, then some part of you is misunderstanding my response to your post.
On the statement in this post alone, i think that's a good attitude and i try my best to pursue it.

Actually, yes. I'd be a refreshing change from all the Spanish. :->

(Before you jump on me for that, I speak Spanish, German and Czech.)

;) I know what you mean....my business partners are Puerto Rican.

Have you seen any flying over your house lately?

I have a black helicopter flying over my car coming and going to work every day.

Honestly...I have never seen a black helicopter. Nor in 20 years in the USAF did I ever see a black F-15. I worked on F-117's so I know they are black.

Today Kofi Annan and GW addressed the UN. It became pretty obvious rather quick that many of Kofi Annan comments about "The rule of law" were pointed right at the USA. I watched it live on the CBC, I wonder if the Americans picked up on this not so subtle message.

The Address In Brief (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/21/kofi040921.html)

I also almost fell off my chair when Bush had the nerve to use the Universal Human Rights charter, us Canadians know a little bit about it, it was a Canadian who wrote it. The Americans don't even live by it. It's against the Universal Human Right Charter to have the death penalty, did any one tell Bush that before he tried to invoke it?

Ya know what, say what you want, I'm still proud to be an American, I'm still proud to be a member of the United States Air Force, and I still think people who are NOT involved (such as Canada) should keep there nose out of OUR business.

If you want to effect the world, stand up and DO something, dont just sit there and cry about the results.

Old news.. Quebec voted in 1995 not to leave. They don't even talk about it any more. If you think Canada will ever join the USA, you better wake yourself up, I think you're dreaming .. ;)

We can bide our time. It comes up once a generation.
(Seriously, I don't expect this to ever really happen.)

Have you seen any flying over your house lately?
Truth is, Galtania, knock one back. I do have them periodically fly overhead, and this is why. I live in Alaska which is arguably the most important military state/property of the union. We have an expensive and insanely military-potent ionospheric heater up here plus lots of rocket ranges. The new bogus military shield interceptors are being put up here as well at Ft. Greely and Kodiak has a good range missile silo or two. Plus there's plenty of land for various military missions and tests. This state has an awful lot put into that so there's a lot at stake and a lot of things that potentially need versatile intervention. So yeah we have a few of them fly over very f*cking regularly. It doesn't mean they are specifically black ops, it just means the people ordering their use and using them don't really want them to be identified as representing any branch of administrative influence by name. Any other questions?

M'kay, tell me what you think i think you are.
For posterity, i agreed with your elucidation on my post. If you were dishonest, i still agree with the post and simply disagree with your true intentions. If you were honest, then some part of you is misunderstanding my response to your post.
On the statement in this post alone, i think that's a good attitude and i try my best to pursue it.

I have agreed at one time or another with everyone I have conversed with. Afterall...right is right. However, I do disagree with a lot of the more liberal posters who see things in ways that I do not. It does not mean that they are wrong, it just means that I do not agree with them. I have been called so many names on here it is not funny. I get telegrams to my "nation" threatening me and inviting me to do things to myself that are physically impossible. Go figure....

I have a black helicopter flying over my car coming and going to work every day.

Honestly...I have never seen a black helicopter. Nor in 20 years in the USAF did I ever see a black F-15. I worked on F-117's so I know they are black.
You might know then some of the EM issues regarding F117's and it wasn't all vector and angle. I saw two experimentals fly up from Elmendorf in '99 or '00, having a certain mesh fuselage/tail envelopment and some black paint over the top of them.
And i'm not particularly afraid of black anythings but there are definitely black choppers, usually used for special ops. Not very interesting however for the X-Files minded or people who insinuate such.

You might know then some of the EM issues regarding F117's and it wasn't all vector and angle. I saw two experimentals fly up from Elmendorf in '99 or '00, having a certain mesh fuselage/tail envelopment and some black paint over the top of them.
And i'm not particularly afraid of black anythings but there are definitely black choppers, usually used for special ops. Not very interesting however for the X-Files minded or people who insinuate such.

Nah....I worked on the ejection seat and the survival equipment of the pilots. When all that X-Files stuff failed was when my system was used. ;)

I have a black helicopter flying over my car coming and going to work every day.

Honestly...I have never seen a black helicopter. Nor in 20 years in the USAF did I ever see a black F-15. I worked on F-117's so I know they are black.

I see Blackhawks all the time! :)
(I live right next to Stratford, CT where they are built. They often fly overhead. They flew in VERY low during the RNC in NYC...)

Seriously, there are black ones, but mostly they are dark green. However, when you look up they appear to be black due to light/you looking up.

Democrats are funny, they allow the military to decline during their terms saying that it is too expensive to maintain such a large force. Then when the Republicans come back they have to spend far more to rebuild the military than it would have cost to maintain.
Now who is juding politicians because of their political affiliation? You accuse Steph of being anti-Bush just because he's not a liberal, yet you quite openly despise Kerry just because he is.

I have agreed at one time or another with everyone I have conversed with. Afterall...right is right. However, I do disagree with a lot of the more liberal posters who see things in ways that I do not. It does not mean that they are wrong, it just means that I do not agree with them. I have been called so many names on here it is not funny. I get telegrams to my "nation" threatening me and inviting me to do things to myself that are physically impossible. Go figure....
Fair enough. My attitude is that the rhetoric-spouters (of either side) merit an attack of the words, since the words mirror attitude more often than sincerity. If i find that someone is being attacked or attacking someone based on something other than a fact that can easily be presented or coroborated, then i tend to intervene. To a liberal, a lot more things seem conservative. To a conservative, a lot more things seem liberal. To me it seems that people's attitudes about things are the swingers and the actual facts of the matter tend to stick around the middle.
So what is it then, that you think i think you are?

I see Blackhawks all the time! :)
(I live right next to Stratford, CT where they are built. They often fly overhead. They flew in VERY low during the RNC in NYC...)

Seriously, there are black ones, but mostly they are dark green. However, when you look up they appear to be black due to light/you looking up.

I guess they would. I have ridden in Blackhawks a few times in the middle east and here in the states. I do not much care for helicopter rides. They shake too much.

Nah....I worked on the ejection seat and the survival equipment of the pilots. When all that X-Files stuff failed was when my system was used. ;)
Heh! ;)

WWIII has already started. It started years ago. And the people who started it don't wear cowboy hats, they wear kaffiyehs and turbans.
WWIII? That's an exaggeration almost to the point of being indecent. It's wrong to compare the "War on Terror" to WWII, in which we fought for our freedom against the most ruthless killing machine that has ever existed.

Al-Qaeda are certainly a threat, but they're nowhere near the Nazis.

Umm, little off... Texas is the most important state to the military. They hold the fuel reserves, and they house some huge number like 30% (not sure) of the military in the us. As for testing, most serious testing is done in Maryland... Aberdeen.

As for black ops? Yall need to stop watching X files. Most state police agencies have a partnership with the local Army National Guard, and MOST army choppers ARE black... Well thats what my father tells me anyway, but I wouldnt trust him, he only flew CH-47's in the army for 30 years, and is currenty working for the Federal Aviation Administration. Oh, and I'm Air Force, living on an Army base, so I wouldnt know anything about that either.
I did say it was arguable, and i stand by it. Nothing from Texas is going to reach anyone on the other side of the pacific in the time it would from here. I'm not talking about personnel, obviously. I'm aware of the reserves, but i mean more of a quick response (obviously, look into the new missile idea or anything else i brought up). Some serious testing is done at Ft. George Meade as well, you should mention that.
I specified it's not as interesting as X-Files, and i don't think anyone questioned what you know, it's good that you add to this thread.
I still stand by the points i have about AK, either that it is or it will be the most important state (arguably, see?)
;)

Now who is juding politicians because of their political affiliation? You accuse Steph of being anti-Bush just because he's not a liberal, yet you quite openly despise Kerry just because he is.

I base that argument on fact....look at history. Carter (Democrat) let the military rot. Reagan (Republican) spent billions rebuilding it. Bush 1 (Republican) built on Reagans programs. Clinton (Democrat) all but declared war on the military. Cutbacks in personnel and equipment were huge. Now we have to rebuild again.....

This "president" doe not give a rats rump about thing except profit. He only listens to business leaders who can put money and power (really the same thing) into the hands of his family and friends. He cares not what the World thinks of him or our Nation. He truly does not care about the American People, only the powerful. The has fooled a large segment of the population into believing he has God's grace. He really believes God picked him to be the "Leader of the World" through the power of the United States. He is a truly sick meglomaniac not too unlike Adolf Hitler, Everything he does is for "homeland security" (The Mother Land, c1930) in the interest of her people. It's OK to do it because God picked him to do what is "right" (Returning Morality to the People of Germany, c1930) and he has turned anyone who disagrees to be "terrorists" or unpatriotic as was started in Germany around 1930 by the Nazi party. Many Americans have the same fears people around the world reguardless of religious leanings.

I am an American Citizen and I feel this way. I also accept that if he, G.W. Bush, wins the comming election I will be imprisioned for some trumped up reasons. I also accept that he will continue to allianate the World against us and lead us into a state of war with the civilized World that cannot be won. Iraq is only the start.

Fair enough. My attitude is that the rhetoric-spouters (of either side) merit an attack of the words, since the words mirror attitude more often than sincerity. If i find that someone is being attacked or attacking someone based on something other than a fact that can easily be presented or coroborated, then i tend to intervene. To a liberal, a lot more things seem conservative. To a conservative, a lot more things seem liberal. To me it seems that people's attitudes about things are the swingers and the actual facts of the matter tend to stick around the middle.
So what is it then, that you think i think you are?

I suspect that you think that I am a hard-core conservative. The biggest issue on this forum is the number of non-US posters who make wild assertions about the US and spout anti-US/pro-UN rhetoric all day with little to no knowledge of the world at large. Plus the vast majority of them have just reached puberty and arguing with teenagers is tiresome.

For the record....I am a Libertarian.

Several observations:

*) Bush is being condemned internationally for deposing a brutal dictator. Saddam Hussein isn't being especially demonised for being a brutal dictator, nor are the Left being faulted for supporting him for decades.

*) Indeed, it appears that most people, especially in Europe, are not only convinced that Iraq was never associated with the Left but that instead he was a puppet of teh US government/CIA that "got out of control". There are people who even insist that all his Warsaw-Pact weapons "came from teh US"...

*) Terrorism is working, at least in Europe, and if that Iraqi woman is released from prison with the Americans as well. Likewise the random murder of civilians has proven to be a very effective tactic, not only in Iraq but in lots of other places, from Madrid to the Phillipines.

I'd summise from this that Bush is making a mistake with tactics, not because he's a brutal tyrant but decidedly because he is not. By calling on support from the international community, instead of ruthlessly crushing his weakest enemies and bullying those he can't crush, he appears to be "weak" inthe eyes of other nations and thus an easy target.

It appears the real, demonstrably brutal tactics of regimes like in mainland China are superior in effectiveness. The PRC has already annexed a sovereign nation, trampled on the rights promised to a former Crown colony and has designs on two others (Taiwan and Nepal, respectively), yet because they are unreasonably bellicose they are deferred to by the UN and world opinion.

Thus my question:

Given this state of affairs, is it inevitable that brutality will trump civil and human rights? Is democracy essentially doomed, in favour of the sort of managerial revolution that Burnham envisioned? Do the creeping powers of the unelected European Union and UN bureaucracy embody the synthesis of such an inevitable development?
Interesting post. Welcome to NS Impunia, if no one else has already welcomed you.

[Phobe the Cat #331]
This "president" doe not give a rats rump about anyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This "president" doe not give a rats rump about thing except profit. He only listens to business leaders who can put money and power (really the same thing) into the hands of his family and friends. He cares not what the World thinks of him or our Nation. He truly does not care about the American People, only the powerful. The has fooled a large segment of the population into believing he has God's grace. He really believes God picked him to be the "Leader of the World" through the power of the United States. He is a truly sick meglomaniac not too unlike Adolf Hitler, Everything he does is for "homeland security" (The Mother Land, c1930) in the interest of her people. It's OK to do it because God picked him to do what is "right" (Returning Morality to the People of Germany, c1930) and he has turned anyone who disagrees to be "terrorists" or unpatriotic as was started in Germany around 1930 by the Nazi party. Many Americans have the same fears people around the world reguardless of religious leanings.

I am an American Citizen and I feel this way. I also accept that if he, G.W. Bush, wins the comming election I will be imprisioned for some trumped up reasons. I also accept that he will continue to allianate the World against us and lead us into a state of war with the civilized World that cannot be won. Iraq is only the start.

You are a paranoid loon.

'Nough said.

:D

I suspect that you think that I am a hard-core conservative. The biggest issue on this forum is the number of non-US posters who make wild assertions about the US and spout anti-US/pro-UN rhetoric all day with little to no knowledge of the world at large. Plus the vast majority of them have just reached puberty and arguing with teenagers is tiresome.

For the record....I am a Libertarian.
Fair enough. No i don't think you're a hard-core conservative, else i would almost never agree with you. As i posted in one of if not my first response to you in this thread, you often can provide enough reasonable arguable material in a thread to make it worthwhile.
For the record, i have tendencies towards Libertarianism (under the theory of conservative fiscal/progressive social) but i also have a few liberal tendencies as well as a few conservative. My best guess puts me at moderate independent.

Terrorists? They should be given life sentences and fed pork sandwiches every day and upon death be buried in the skin of a pig. No going to paradise smelling of pork now is there? ;)
Agreed.

They are just a think tank. They are open about their beliefs and they really have no power.
Remember that "they" include Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Would you say that these guys have no power? Since the US has followed the PNAC recommendations about foreign policy almost to the book since 2001, it would appear to me that PNAC does enjoy some power.

[Straughn #333]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impunia
Several observations:

*) Bush is being condemned internationally for deposing a brutal dictator. Saddam Hussein isn't being especially demonised for being a brutal dictator, nor are the Left being faulted for supporting him for decades.

*) Indeed, it appears that most people, especially in Europe, are not only convinced that Iraq was never associated with the Left but that instead he was a puppet of teh US government/CIA that "got out of control". There are people who even insist that all his Warsaw-Pact weapons "came from teh US"...

*) Terrorism is working, at least in Europe, and if that Iraqi woman is released from prison with the Americans as well. Likewise the random murder of civilians has proven to be a very effective tactic, not only in Iraq but in lots of other places, from Madrid to the Phillipines.

I'd summise from this that Bush is making a mistake with tactics, not because he's a brutal tyrant but decidedly because he is not. By calling on support from the international community, instead of ruthlessly crushing his weakest enemies and bullying those he can't crush, he appears to be "weak" inthe eyes of other nations and thus an easy target.

It appears the real, demonstrably brutal tactics of regimes like in mainland China are superior in effectiveness. The PRC has already annexed a sovereign nation, trampled on the rights promised to a former Crown colony and has designs on two others (Taiwan and Nepal, respectively), yet because they are unreasonably bellicose they are deferred to by the UN and world opinion.

Thus my question:

Given this state of affairs, is it inevitable that brutality will trump civil and human rights? Is democracy essentially doomed, in favour of the sort of managerial revolution that Burnham envisioned? Do the creeping powers of the unelected European Union and UN bureaucracy embody the synthesis of such an inevitable development?


Interesting post. Welcome to NS Impunia, if no one else has already welcomed you.

Yes, brutality is the inevitable best tool to deal with terrorists, who initiated and promote it's use by their tactics.

Representative democracy, as in America, is in no danger of becoming tyrany.

It's not within the people to allow it.

But the brutality against the "terrorist forces" of the world, specifically the (non-)islamists, MUST become more ruthless and effective if we are to lower this infection to low-grade status as opposed to a constant high-grade infection.

Agreed.


Remember that "they" include Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Would you say that these guys have no power? Since the US has followed the PNAC recommendations about foreign policy almost to the book since 2001, it would appear to me that PNAC does enjoy some power.

Yes, those men have power within the scope of their positions, but there is no "conspiracy" when it comes to the PNAC. It is all open.

The USA doesn't need a "resolution" from the UN to defend herself.
The United States doesn't need a "permission slip" to INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES. Defend herself from Iraq? Whatever happened to Bin Laden? How come none of the Iraq invasion supporters talk about Bin Laden at all in the obviously pertinent context this is? Cowardice? Just brush it under the rug?

The United States doesn't need a "permission slip" to INVADE OTHER COUNTRIES. Defend herself from Iraq? Whatever happened to Bin Laden? How come none of the Iraq invasion supporters talk about Bin Laden at all in the obviously pertinent context this is? Cowardice? Just brush it under the rug?

Because OBL and Iraq are seperate issues...not related at all.

Until VERY recently France and Germany were supporting him.
Yeah, this is true. But they guy's point was that "the left supported Saddam" and this is blatantly not true, so I pointed it out.

Don't get me wrong, just because I criticise the US gov't and criticise the decision to go to war, it doesn't mean that I love the French and German governments. I opposed the war because I thought it was immoral and unwise. France and Germany opposed the war too, but I understand that it was for different reasons. They both had their own money-motivations and grubby agendas.

Sound familiar?
Zing! You rock.

Because OBL and Iraq are seperate issues...not related at all.
Exactly they are, and i'll hold you to it. When talking about the issues of defense of the US,
attacking Iraq had nothing to do with defending itself against terrorism. If anything it screwed up the whole f*cking thing.
The US had more support than it had for SOME time to nail OBL who is one of the main motivators/mouthpieces for fundamental islamic radicalism and if Bush had not decided to enact the PNAC thing RIGHT AT THAT TIME than more of the countries of the world who see the threat for what it is would have sided with us on it and we would've got much more accomplished as a "civilized" race, instead of "regime change" and the horrendous bullsh*t Bush has decided to pursue in this mess.
Resulting of course in this thread in the first place, don't say it wasn't. For a person to come on as an idiot mouthpiece about "defending the US" as far as Iraq is concerned, they obviously don't know what they're talking about.
As you said OBL (9/11 for those of you confused in your Fox-oriented thinking) and Iraq are seperate issues.
I won't go so far as to say they aren't related at all. Not anymore.

Some people feel that the PNAC has some sort of power to make policy. I do not happen to agree with them. I know what the PNAC is and isn't. It IS no more than a "think tank." It ISN'T some shadowy underground organization bent on world domination. It IS out in the open and easy to find. It ISN'T the real power in the US. That some would consider my position wrong is their perogitive. I just don't see the great conspiracy in this. What "secret" organization places the names of it's members for everyone to see? Now the Freemasons....there is a "secret" organization.
The Freemasons, depending on which charter you follow, are generally not secretive about anything beneath the 32nd initiate status. I know a few of them and other than rigmarole being a little confusing, it's generally benign. Not being past 32nd, i wouldn't know how much more interesting it gets.
And i stand by the fact that our foreign policy makers are main subscribers to the theory involved in the PNAC, you can't rule the two out once those members have power to enact their publicly (privately?) sworn ideals and beliefs. But i've hashed enough on this, you can believe what you want.

The PNAC is a THINK TANK. It is not some organization set up to rule the world. In the 1960's the RAND CORPORATION (another think tank) was supposed to have engineered the Vietnam war. :rolleyes: That turned out to be false too.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could?

Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.


PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."


PNAC has given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.


The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.

Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.


In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major-theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.


Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.


All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewer ship goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."


There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the U.S.A. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on the Americans. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, American rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.

Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. In America, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.

This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."

"The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail."

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could?

Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.


PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."


PNAC has given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.


The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.

Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.


In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major-theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.


Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.


All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewer ship goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."


There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the U.S.A. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on the Americans. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, American rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.

Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. In America, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.

This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."

"The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail."
There it is!! Game, set and match!! It is all laid out for even the most simple of mind to understand. The first piece of the puzzle is in place...IRAQ. Total dominance over Iraq, with NO exit plan. Why can't people see what is going on, especially since it is too painfully clear?

Personally speaking, I do believe that the plan is doomed to failure, but how many innocent people will have to die, before the ideology comes crashing to the ground. A great way to scuttle this ultimate suicide mission is for the people of the US to dump Bush come Nov. 2!!

For the record....I am a Libertarian.Will you be voting for the Libertarian candidate this year? Just curious.

Yes, there are different ways to respond to a terrorist attack. Spain showed one way, which could VERY WELL be followed by the French should they be attacked. After all, France bent over and took it from the Nazis, didn't they? Same with Spain and the terrorists.

How so?? The spanish people never wished to go to war in the first place. They saw it as an unjust war. They've strenghened their contingents in afghanistan, which is sanctioned. Zapatero (spanish prime minister) has also said they will return to Iraq when the UN allows it.

ALSO, Zapatero said he would remove the troops from iiraq if he was elected. The only reason he go elected in the first place was that Aznar (ex prime minister) blamed the bombing on ETA. had he not jumped the gun, he would have probably remained in power. oh well....

There it is!! Game, set and match!! It is all laid out for even the most simple of mind to understand. The first piece of the puzzle is in place...IRAQ. Total dominance over Iraq, with NO exit plan. Why can't people see what is going on, especially since it is too painfully clear?

Personally speaking, I do believe that the plan is doomed to failure, but how many innocent people will have to die, before the ideology comes crashing to the ground. A great way to scuttle this ultimate suicide mission is for the people of the US to dump Bush come Nov. 2!!

:rolleyes:

Yes....the plan is on schedule. First Iraq, then Canada. So go get your gun, cause we are coming to take your lumber!!

If we were there to "completely dominate" Iraq we would not have allowed them to form their own government nor would they be working toward elections. Why have they done both then?

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.


Yes, and I can cut and paste similar stuff about the Illuminati and the Freemasons since many Presidents have been high ranking members of the Freemasons.

If Kerry was not also a member of the Skull and Bones everyone would see conspiracies there with Bush too. But since he is, there is no mention of it at all. Such is the way with those of a certain bias.

Will you be voting for the Libertarian candidate this year? Just curious.

I always have....but upon looking at Kerry (thanks Steph) he scares the hell out of me. His ideas will further weaken the US and he will raise taxes through the roof to pay for his programs. I do not want to pay any more to the gov't. In fact, I don't want to pay ANYTHING to the gov't. It goes against my beliefs that each should take care of their own and not rely on the gov't for anything.

So in short I will very likely be voting for Bush this year. Not because I support everything he wants to do or stands for, but because Kerry is not a viable candidate. Should Kerry win, I will seriously consider buying a firearm, something I have never done before. Such is the level of my conviction that his election will make me and my family less safe and not more. By less safe I am not referring to outside terrorism, but domestic crime.

How so?? The spanish people never wished to go to war in the first place. They saw it as an unjust war. They've strenghened their contingents in afghanistan, which is sanctioned. Zapatero (spanish prime minister) has also said they will return to Iraq when the UN allows it.

ALSO, Zapatero said he would remove the troops from iiraq if he was elected. The only reason he go elected in the first place was that Aznar (ex prime minister) blamed the bombing on ETA. had he not jumped the gun, he would have probably remained in power. oh well....

Eventually they will be attacked for having troops in Afganistan as well....will they then pull out of there too?

Eventually they will be attacked for having troops in Afganistan as well....will they then pull out of there too?

no.
i know that's not much of an answer. but people know its right to be in afghanistan. they will stick to it.

I always have....but upon looking at Kerry (thanks Steph) he scares the hell out of me. His ideas will further weaken the US and he will raise taxes through the roof to pay for his programs. I do not want to pay any more to the gov't. In fact, I don't want to pay ANYTHING to the gov't. It goes against my beliefs that each should take care of their own and not rely on the gov't for anything.

So in short I will very likely be voting for Bush this year. Not because I support everything he wants to do or stands for, but because Kerry is not a viable candidate. Should Kerry win, I will seriously consider buying a firearm, something I have never done before. Such is the level of my conviction that his election will make me and my family less safe and not more. By less safe I am not referring to outside terrorism, but domestic crime.

It seems more and more often people are voting for Bush or Kerry because they fear the other candidate, not because they particularly like the guy. Just an observation, I may be wrong.

Really though, I'm a bit surprised you'd go out of your way to buy a gun, you are that sure that Kerry being president will unleash the criminals upon your family.

Oh, and I agree with Libertarians for the most part, actually. Definately when it comes to social issues, I've been called a Libertarian. Too bad they don't have a chance of winning.

It seems more and more often people are voting for Bush or Kerry because they fear the other candidate, not because they particularly like the guy. Just an observation, I may be wrong.

Really though, I'm a bit surprised you'd go out of your way to buy a gun, you are that sure that Kerry being president will unleash the criminals upon your family.

Oh, and I agree with Libertarians for the most part, actually. Definately when it comes to social issues, I've been called a Libertarian. Too bad they don't have a chance of winning.

True....and Kerry just never seems to take a "hard" stance on anything...he drifts with the winds of public opinion. A leader he is not. First he supported going into Iraq and taking out Saddam...now he says it was a mistake. Had things gone very well, he would proclaim himself right all along. :rolleyes: The guy cannot be nailed down on anything. Ironically he is losing the womens vote. He is the FIRST Democrat to do so. Bush is actually ahead of Kerry when women are polled....that is striking and a good sign.

Ironically he is losing the womens vote. He is the FIRST Democrat to do so. Bush is actually ahead of Kerry when women are polled....that is striking and a good sign.

I'd like to see your source on that. ;)

A quick google turned this up: http://www.wisinfo.com/elections/gpg/ele_17366602.shtml, albeit a month old.

It puts single women and elderly women as Democrat, and married women as Republican.

As well, it gives Kerry an unspecified single digit lead with women in general.

Historically...Gore beat Bush by 11%, Clinton beat Dole by 16% among women. So the gap has narrowed, true.

I'd like to see your source on that. ;)

A quick google turned this up: http://www.wisinfo.com/elections/gpg/ele_17366602.shtml, albeit a month old.

It puts single women and elderly women as Democrat, and married women as Republican.

As well, it gives Kerry an unspecified single digit lead with women in general.

Historically...Gore beat Bush by 11%, Clinton beat Dole by 16% among women. So the gap has narrowed, true.

I don't have a link, but I just watched an interview of a feminist pollster who stated that the Republicans are actually ahead of Democrats for the first time when it comes to women voters. She attributed it to Laura Bush actually and the much harsher Ms. kerry. The woman actually said that she "hated" to admit it, but that the polls her group (I forget the name) had taken showed conclusively that Bush was favored by more women than Kerry. Is this absolute proof? Hardly...but that a feminist activist would actually admit that her polls showed that struck me.

Did a bit more research, turned this up: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:V2qaBqhAeI4J:www.straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,272908,00.html+kerry+bush+women&hl=en, it's the google cache cause the story is archived otherwise.

Anyways, this one is immediately after the RNC, at the peak of bush's bounce, and it mentions the Gallup poll giving Bush 57 to 42% lead with men, but still a 48 to 49 loss (surprisingly close!) among women. And I'm likely to believe that's as close as Bush ever got to beating Kerry among women, as his bounce has apparently faded (although I completely distrust polls now, after seeing Oregon and Wisconsin fluctuate by 15% in a single day :p).

Did a bit more research, turned this up: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:V2qaBqhAeI4J:www.straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,272908,00.html+kerry+bush+women&hl=en, it's the google cache cause the story is archived otherwise.

Anyways, this one is immediately after the RNC, at the peak of bush's bounce, and it mentions the Gallup poll giving Bush 57 to 42% lead with men, but still a 48 to 49 loss (surprisingly close!) among women. And I'm likely to believe that's as close as Bush ever got to beating Kerry among women, as his bounce has apparently faded (although I completely distrust polls now, after seeing Oregon and Wisconsin fluctuate by 15% in a single day :p).

Polls are funny things. You should have seen this feminist though...I thought she was going to cry.

Polls are funny things. You should have seen this feminist though...I thought she was going to cry.

I would imagine the thought that Bush could be re-elected would cause that reaction in many.

Polls are funny things, as well, telephone polling itself may get outdated as more city (liberal) folk drop their landline and go exclusively to cell phones.

Also, there is an inherent bias in any poll that decides how many Republicans to poll, how many Democrats, and how many independents.

If anyone is actually crazy enough to follow individual polls (as I am :p) it would appear Zogby goes Kerry, while Gallup and Survey USA go Bush, just a factoid for ya.

Anyways, I believe ya about the feminist pollster, I'm sure you could also find groups of blacks that support Bush, or groups of NRA members who support Kerry...overall though, it is true Kerry hasn't capitalized on the Democratic Party's natural advantage with women.

Polls are funny things, as well, telephone polling itself may get outdated as more city (liberal) folk drop their landline and go exclusively to cell phones.

Also, there is an inherent bias in any poll that decides how many Republicans to poll, how many Democrats, and how many independents.

If anyone is actually crazy enough to follow individual polls (as I am :p) it would appear Zogby goes Kerry, while Gallup and Survey USA go Bush, just a factoid for ya.

Anyways, I believe ya about the feminist pollster, I'm sure you could also find groups of blacks that support Bush, or groups of NRA members who support Kerry...overall though, it is true Kerry hasn't capitalized on the Democratic Party's natural advantage with women.

I don't have a landline....I am not liberal....;)

Comparing Germany to Iraq is a fools game. THE GERMANS WANTED US THERE TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE SOVIETS. The Iraqs do NOT in general want us there. No matter what anyone tells them, men and mothers crying over dead people blame the US and they don't want us there. Iraq was and is a watse of men and material. Nobody cares about Iraq or the Iraqi people, including me and most Americans. There were and are much more dangerous nations and much more oppressed people, why do we Americans not rush to aid them as well? Why don't we run to get rid of evil dictators in African nations?

While I agree you can't give up easily and you have to be tough and keep your "chin up" when the going is tough, the way GW Bush talks about Iraq reminds me of the old banter the Soviets used to use. No matter how bad a situation they'd always say "Everything is fine! Things are always getting better and the future promises to be perfect!"

I now live in the Czech Republic, and I still get flak from people because I'm an American...we are regarded as "self-rightous yanks"...and it's not a surprise. Shall we just tell everyone to fuck off? Is that the new American way? "Fuck off and we'll do what we want, cause we're the biggest on the block!"

How can we be so niave? Much of the American public really beleives we are in Iraq because we are so altruistic. I thought the democrats were supposed to be "bleeding hearts".....when did Republicans care so much about a bunch of Arabs living in the sand of Iraq? Am I, an American, safer nowadays?

War on terror? What ever happened to the war on drugs? What was the result of that? Has THAT "war" been won?

To hell with Iraq, it's time to take care of our own problems at home. Beef up security here, and deal with terrorists like we flushed out the extremists in Afganistan. Hin and run and go home.

B. Weasel

[Straughn #343]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
Because OBL and Iraq are seperate issues...not related at all.

Exactly they are, and i'll hold you to it. When talking about the issues of defense of the US,
attacking Iraq had nothing to do with defending itself against terrorism. If anything it screwed up the whole f*cking thing.
The US had more support than it had for SOME time to nail OBL who is one of the main motivators/mouthpieces for fundamental islamic radicalism and if Bush had not decided to enact the PNAC thing RIGHT AT THAT TIME than more of the countries of the world who see the threat for what it is would have sided with us on it and we would've got much more accomplished as a "civilized" race, instead of "regime change" and the horrendous bullsh*t Bush has decided to pursue in this mess.
Resulting of course in this thread in the first place, don't say it wasn't. For a person to come on as an idiot mouthpiece about "defending the US" as far as Iraq is concerned, they obviously don't know what they're talking about.
As you said OBL (9/11 for those of you confused in your Fox-oriented thinking) and Iraq are seperate issues.
I won't go so far as to say they aren't related at all. Not anymore.

Bin Laden is one issue. Iraq is another issue.

Both issues are matters of US natoinal security.

They are not "contingent" on one and other.

The reason that "more countries of the world" don't overtly side with the US against the islamists is because:

*) They are pointing at the US as "the great evil" in hopes of diverting the islamists to attack the US instead of themselves.
*) They are more interested in appeasing their domestic islamists than destroying them.
*) It's cheaper and easier to let the mighty US "handle it".
*) It is the current fashion to be anti-American.

The "rule of law" is nonsense if rules are not enforced.

The UN cannot and will not enforce them.

The US will. The US enforces our rule of law. The only rule that counts, to us.

[Stephistan #345]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
The PNAC is a THINK TANK. It is not some organization set up to rule the world. In the 1960's the RAND CORPORATION (another think tank) was supposed to have engineered the Vietnam war. That turned out to be false too.



The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could?

Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.


PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."


PNAC has given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.


The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.

Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.


In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major-theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.


Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.


All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewer ship goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."


There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the U.S.A. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on the Americans. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, American rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.

Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. In America, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.

This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."

"The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail."







.."Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana."..

America seeks what any nation would desire:

*) To better itself and the world by it's actions.
*) To better the worlds nations by assisting them to become as productive as possible.
*) To rid the world of non-productive conflict.

The "Empire America" meme is an infantile paranoid fantasy.

A country with much power has much responsibility, and we choose to use that power when needed for our own and our friend's benefit.

All else is the fantasy of the jealous and the envious.

May you enjoy your fantasies.

Comparing Germany to Iraq is a fools game. THE GERMANS WANTED US THERE TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE SOVIETS. The Iraqs do NOT in general want us there. No matter what anyone tells them, men and mothers crying over dead people blame the US and they don't want us there. Iraq was and is a watse of men and material. Nobody cares about Iraq or the Iraqi people, including me and most Americans. There were and are much more dangerous nations and much more oppressed people, why do we Americans not rush to aid them as well? Why don't we run to get rid of evil dictators in African nations?
I do care about the Iraqi people. So do a lot more Americans than you think.
Here we go again with the "one-size-fits-all" policy. "If you intervene militarily in one country for a certain reason, you MUST intervene militarily in ALL countries meeting the same criteria. You are allowed no flexibility in your policy."
I now live in the Czech Republic, and I still get flak from people because I'm an American...we are regarded as "self-rightous yanks"...and it's not a surprise.
By whom are you regarded as such? By the "self-righteous Czechs"? Yes, it cuts both ways.
To hell with Iraq, it's time to take care of our own problems at home. Beef up security here, and deal with terrorists like we flushed out the extremists in Afganistan. Hin and run and go home.
This is ambiguous. By "here" and "at home" do you mean USA or Czech Republic?

[Galtania #366]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemia and Moravia II
Comparing Germany to Iraq is a fools game. THE GERMANS WANTED US THERE TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE SOVIETS. The Iraqs do NOT in general want us there. No matter what anyone tells them, men and mothers crying over dead people blame the US and they don't want us there. Iraq was and is a watse of men and material. Nobody cares about Iraq or the Iraqi people, including me and most Americans. There were and are much more dangerous nations and much more oppressed people, why do we Americans not rush to aid them as well? Why don't we run to get rid of evil dictators in African nations?

I do care about the Iraqi people. So do a lot more Americans than you think.
Here we go again with the "one-size-fits-all" policy. "If you intervene militarily in one country for a certain reason, you MUST intervene militarily in ALL countries meeting the same criteria. You are allowed no flexibility in your policy."

Quote:
I now live in the Czech Republic, and I still get flak from people because I'm an American...we are regarded as "self-rightous yanks"...and it's not a surprise.

By whom are you regarded as such? By the "self-righteous Czechs"? Yes, it cuts both ways.

Quote:
To hell with Iraq, it's time to take care of our own problems at home. Beef up security here, and deal with terrorists like we flushed out the extremists in Afganistan. Hin and run and go home.


This is ambiguous. By "here" and "at home" do you mean USA or Czech Republic?




.."I do care about the Iraqi people. So do a lot more Americans than you think. Here we go again with the "one-size-fits-all" policy. "If you intervene militarily in one country for a certain reason, you MUST intervene militarily in ALL countries meeting the same criteria. You are allowed no flexibility in your policy." "..

On both sides of this issue, many MANY Americans care about Iraq,.. perhaps foolishly, but we are a big hearted nation.

The issue is how we act on that "care". My side wants to see Iraq a respectable productive nation by removing first Saddam, then the mostly foreign (non-iraqi) threat to Iraq's internal peace.

The other side would rather have waited for Saddam to "become weaker and wither on the vine".

.."By whom are you regarded as such? By the "self-righteous Czechs"? Yes, it cuts both ways."..

Self righteous non-Americans are trumped by self-righteous Americans by the simple fact that America is the power at the moment.

Non-American self-righteousness looks too much like self-serving jealous annoyance to me to be taken seriously.

:)

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997.

Maybe you missed the very first sentance there.

Enjoy your fantasies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997.

Maybe you missed the very first sentance there.

[B]Enjoy your fantasies.


I DO enjoy my fantasies enormously..! As should we all. :)

But what is the context of your "reply", here..!?

I'm not sure what you're refering to..?

(( Which post [number please] is this a reply to, bythe way..? ))

Thanks Biffster..! :D

:rolleyes:

Yes....the plan is on schedule. First Iraq, then Canada. So go get your gun, cause we are coming to take your lumber!!
Come and get our lumber.....we will personally deliver it....all you have to do is bend over and viola .....American style hot dog on a stick. :D

If we were there to "completely dominate" Iraq we would not have allowed them to form their own government nor would they be working toward elections. Why have they done both then?
You mean Prime Minister Allawi the CIA asset (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0602-05.htm)? You mean a country ruled under Bremer's Orders (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm)? You mean the country where the US continues to bomb the inhabitants (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6021654/)?

You mean the elections now in doubt (http://www.sundayherald.com/44910)?

ummmm no domination there huh? :eek:

ummmm no domination there huh? :eek:

Nope....not at all. We will establish a Pax-Americana that will rule like no empire before it! We will set up puppet governments throuout the middle east and control the worlds oil supply. With that in place we will develop new forms of biological weapons based on recombinent DNA to single out specific genetic traits. Thus ensuring that the Chinese will never become a viable threat. All of this will be done under the guise of enforcing UN resolutions. Once the plan is in motion, the UN will no longer be needed. Mass arrests and executions of UN delegates will ensure that most opposition will be eliminated. World opinion will no longer matter as most countries have become used to the US providing for their defense and will be easily knocked out. Such is the fate of any nation that allows another to provide for it's defense.....

The above is entirely satiricle and should not be taken seriously. Recombinent DNA does exist however as the Soviets did produce biological weapons to use against the Chinese that would leave their soldiers unharmed.