NationStates Jolt Archive

With all this talk lately about how all us outside of the US are "Anti-American" and with the fighting that goes on between Americans and basically the majority of the rest of the world of this site. Not to mention how many times Zeppistan and I have been accused of "hating America" I thought I would re-post some thing Zeppistan wrote right after the Nov 2nd election. I think it shows our disappointment in the result, but also illustrates that we don't hate America!

By; Zeppistan

Well, needless to say those were not the results I had hoped to see. As much as Kerry didn't sell the world on his brilliance, the results of Bush policy have been clear for a while now. What we – the “rest of the world” - were waiting for was the results of the American referendum on those policies. Indeed, over the past four years, the world opinion of the US electorate has vacillated greatly. from amusement over the great Florida fiasco of 2000, immense sympathy and shared anger in September of 2001, to distrust and some anger at the resultant policies ever since. Iraq. Quantanimo. Etc.

But for all of that, as the world opinion diminished, for most there was still a clear separation in our eyes. A separation between what was thought of the American people versus what was thought of the Administration.

The reasons for that were largely our understanding of the fact that Bush had not achieved an outright plurality in the popular vote in 2000, and an understanding that the populace had not had an opportunity to vote on the direction the country had headed. They had voted for a “compassionate conservative uniter” during a time of peace and prosperity. 9-11 changed everything, and this was the opportunity for the American people to embrace or reject the resultant fundamental policy shifts that had transpired.

By achieving a clear majority of the popular vote, the rest of the world wakes up to the understanding that the majority of America chooses to define itself as being in agreement with this Administration. We wake up to the understanding that what we hoped (and thought) was the best of America has been overtaken by what we consider to be some of its less endearing qualities.


America, in the eyes of the world, now willingly stands for the following:

- For the arrogant and unfettered use of military force under circumstances that seem to approach an executive whim.
- For the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.
- For the idea that Bible has supplanted the Constitution as the primary law of the land.
- For intolerance.
- For fiscal recklessness.
- For the doctrine of preemption.
- For never second-guessing a decision and for never learning from mistakes.

That is the face that we see in GW. The face that you have chosen as your public mirror and spokesperson. Not to paint him as the devil incarnate, but to paint him as the spokesperson for self-righteous infliction of a single religious moral code on everything he can. And the biggest lesson learned by this turnout must have been that which was learned by the evangelical right. The lesson being that if they all show up at the polls, they have the numbers to shape the government. This fact is probably the most alarming to me as this moves the US closer towards becoming a true Christian theocracy than any other event since the demise of prohibition.

The exit polls confirmed that in state after state. That the final decision of the voters was not, in fact, predicated on the issues of security, but rather on that amorphous term: "values". The only thing we outsiders can take with that is the idea that most Americans consider John Kerry to be a man of lesser moral fiber than GW, presumably from his assertion that it is his duty to put his personal religious beliefs to the side when making policy in favour of a more open-minded and tolerant viewpoint. The separation of Church and State that has been so hard-won around the Western World seems to be on the decline in the US with the blessing of it’s citizens.

What things do I look to as the most likely lasting impacts of the next four years? The possible stacking of the Supreme Court for decades to come with equally theologically bent judges, and the continued selling off of American debt to the Chinese - thereby providing your most likely future major competitor with fiscal leverage to hold over you. Indeed, it seems entirely conceivable that by the end of 8 years GW will have doubled the national debt, and with the bulk of that increase going to the East.

Those possibilities do not, to us, bode as well for the vision of America's future that we had hoped for. The shining beacon in the world has been tarnished in our eyes in a way that I have never seen before. This is not an expression of anger with America, more one of disappointment. And not expressed with a sense of superiority but rather more akin to that felt when a close friend reveals secrets that are antithetical to our own belief structures. We still care for the friend, but it just puts some distance and strain on the close bonds we had. But where both candidates talked about America's position as the world leader as some sort of mandated position, the path we see you embarking upon is not one that engenders a large cadre of willing followers in us. That probably does not matter to most American’s nor do I expect it to. This was simply stated as fact.

From a Canadian perspective, this means one thing above all to me. It has become ever more crucial that we work diligently to wean ourselves as much as possible from the interdependent teat of the combined Canadian-American economy. Our proximity means that this will always be a factor, however our primary mission to ensure our own stability must be to actively cultivate far more economic ties with the EU and Asia if we are not going to find ourselves inexorably drawn along a path that we might prefer not to go.

good luck Zeppistan with that "weaning yourselfs from the tit of the interdependent economy." let us know how that works out for you. I seem to recall that your nation approved NAFTA just like the US did.

As far as the election goes... what happened is that a relatively small majority in a couple of key states decided the election. It could very easily have gone just like the previous election if Kerry had won in either Florida or Ohio. Once again only about half the electorate voted (although it was better than last time), but most importantly of all, the election showed that in spite of substantial disagreements over a large number of issues, all American voters accepted the result and are willing to try again next time, even the voters whose candidate lost. Once again the rule of law and the democratic process carried through.

Many Americans continue to disagree with the Bush Administrations policies, particularly in foreign affairs and specifically over Iraq. On the other hand, the US can hardly pull out of that country now.

In my view, you (Zeppistan) are taking a position of moral superiority based on a simplistic view of the American election, and the American voter. Americans don't generally comment much on your elections you will notice, and even refrained from commenting much on the Spanish election where a terrorist raid unjustly affected the vote at a critical moment. You are familiar with Munich in 1938, and the unsuccessful policy of Appeasment?

Personally, I voted against Bush, twice. But I live in California, and have seen first hand the results of ineffective Bush policies on energy regulation and the high price California paid for corporate greed on his watch.

In spite of my substantial distaste for my current President, I, like many Americans, have taken an oath to defend and support the constitution of the United States (nearly all civil servants and teachers take that oath, as well as elected officials and military people). That means I will oppose the Presidents poor policies through the democratic process, and support those policies the same way (whenever one turns up).

In short, I view the condemnation of Americans in this thread as simple bigotry. It is a completely generalized view that only looks at the surface, makes no allowances for details, and if a quote like that had come from an American about Canadians you and anyone else would be right to condemn it.

Okay - so Galveston Bay didn't get the post.. *sigh*

Okay - so Galveston Bay didn't get the post.. *sigh*

unless it was meant as Satire, I have serious issues with the assumptions made. I remember the post when it came out though, and I don't remember it being satirical.

so what is the point of the post?

so what is the point of the post?
I think the point Stephistan was trying to make is that even though She and Zeppistan disagree with the policies of the current administration and are disappointed with the outcome of the election, they still consider the United States a friend. At least thats how I interpret it.

That's good for Steph and Zeppistan then. I do not consider the USA a friend anymore. They've shown their true face too often in the last 4 years and with Bush re-elected, the US has in my opinion, achieved the "rogue state" status. They don't follow international law anyway and human rights are being ignored altogether much too often. The governmental system is a plutocratic nightmare and their fiscal disaster is going to lead to a new economic depression, world-wide.

I'm not a friend of the "Pax Americana" thinking that has been established in the US and I am not a friend of the "PNAC" either - an organization that has way too many positions of power among it's ranks. I am not a friend of the used and abused US military, which serves often as a tool for murder and economic dictatorship.

I am in fact, pretty US-hostile now, since there is nothing I can do, other than watch and hope that the US will eventually awaken and return to their former self. I do not want this selfish, arrogant, irresponsible and dangerous giant over in the West.

Ein Deutscher']That's good for Steph and Zeppistan then. I do not consider the USA a friend anymore. They've shown their true face too often in the last 4 years and with Bush re-elected, the US has in my opinion, achieved the "rogue state" status. They don't follow international law anyway and human rights are being ignored altogether much too often. The governmental system is a plutocratic nightmare and their fiscal disaster is going to lead to a new economic depression, world-wide.

I'm not a friend of the "Pax Americana" thinking that has been established in the US and I am not a friend of the "PNAC" either - an organization that has way too many positions of power among it's ranks. I am not a friend of the used and abused US military, which serves often as a tool for murder and economic dictatorship.

I am in fact, pretty US-hostile now, since there is nothing I can do, other than watch and hope that the US will eventually awaken and return to their former self. I do not want this selfish, arrogant, irresponsible and dangerous giant over in the West.

while German leadership in the 20th Century was the epitome of democratic and enlightened thinking? I am sure the world would have prospered under Soviet leadership too, don't you think?

The reality is this. Most Americans have no particular desire to rule a world empire, really aren't very excited about the idea of being "engaged" in dealing with military conflicts whenever one shows up, and the US Military you are so afraid of has had the capability to destroy any nation on the planet (and still does) and has not done so, nor will it under constitutional and democratic controls by the people of the US.

By the way, if Germany hadn't made a bid for world conquest in 1939 the odds are pretty good the US would still be an isolationist nation, at most a concern to its weaker neighbors in Latin America.

The US wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan except for the attack on 9/11 that killed several thousand people, many of whom weren't Americans, but simply people from all over the world who happened to be working in an American city, or traveling aboard an American airliner. 9/11 gave Bush the political cover he needed to invade Iraq too. Now the strategic necessity of that one is pretty clearly lacking (although at the time, it was not so clear cut). Saddam Hussian was (and is) clearly an evil bastard, who has committed or ordered committed war crimes beyond easy measure, killed tens of thousands (maybe more) of his own people, and clearly deserves to be taken out and shot, or more fittingly, handed over to a Kurdish, Iranian or Shiite Iraqi mob for summery justice.

But nevertheless, he will get a reasonably fair trial (for more fair probably than the Nuremburg trials I might add, but thats another thread). The US has not used every weapon in its arsenal in Iraq. Consider what a Roman approach to neutralizing Iraq would have been, and look at the Soviet record of occupation in Afghanistan. Its a matter of degrees, and in that analysis, you can hardly call the US military murderous by that standard.

US policy at times is pretty clearly inept, but it can hardly be considered the same kind of aggressive Empire building that history has seen in previous centuries. Pax Americana has a few problems (notably the lack of Pax for starters in parts of the world). But look at this, Pax Britianica worked out pretty well for much of the world until 1914 (and there is plenty of blame for the Great War to spread around). Pax Romana worked out pretty well for Western Civilization for nearly 300 years.

Sometimes having a superpower around to prevent civilization destroying wars is a good thing by that example.

Or is it that you would simply prefer to see Germany maintaining the Pax?

Perhaps the EU will step into that role one day, although perhaps the world is waiting to see if peace can be brought to the Balkans first.

I'd prefer no Pax and every nation primarily sticking to it's own borders, unless asked by the UN to intervene somewhere. The US definitely are a murderous nation, simply due to the mass of illegal military activity during the last 50 years.

The US have the ability to destroy every nation by using their nuclear weapons. In the same instant, they'd destroy themselves due to the radioactive fallout. Seeing how the US struggle to get Iraq under control, the US military is not as powerful as you think. If the US had to take on countries like China, Russia, India or even Germany, on their own, they'd utterly fail. If the US tried to rule the world with military might, they would be crushed quickly. Other nations are not as defenseless as you aparently think they are. Iraq and Afghanistan were war-torn nations, devoid of any real military. The resistance there is rather unorganized and weak compared to what you'd face in other countries. Basically, the US is not able to militarily overthrow the world and rule with an iron fist, although some groups in the US (PNAC) seem to work towards such a goal.

Regarding Hussein - if he would not be judged fairly, the US would open itself up for a lot of criticism and one of the bastions of democracy would be kicked in the dirt - the rule of law. If Hussein were to be thrown in front of the mob for lynching, I'd expect the same to happen to Bush. Rest assured, Bush is hated all over the world much more than Hussein ever was and he'd be torn to pieces in almost all countries, if not for the extreme security measures everywhere he goes.

The problem with the US is, that this country sets itself above all international standards and laws and thinks it has a god-given mandate to shape the world in it's own image. This will eventually be the downfall of the US empire, since nobody likes being shoved around and that is exactly what the US have been doing the last 50 years - with the UN and NATO as convenient tools.

I think the point Stephistan was trying to make is that even though She and Zeppistan disagree with the policies of the current administration and are disappointed with the outcome of the election, they still consider the United States a friend. At least thats how I interpret it.

Thank you, you got it. :)

Ein Deutscher']I'd prefer no Pax and every nation primarily sticking to it's own borders, unless asked by the UN to intervene somewhere. The US definitely are a murderous nation, simply due to the mass of illegal military activity during the last 50 years.

The US have the ability to destroy every nation by using their nuclear weapons. In the same instant, they'd destroy themselves due to the radioactive fallout. Seeing how the US struggle to get Iraq under control, the US military is not as powerful as you think. If the US had to take on countries like China, Russia, India or even Germany, on their own, they'd utterly fail. If the US tried to rule the world with military might, they would be crushed quickly. Other nations are not as defenseless as you aparently think they are. Iraq and Afghanistan were war-torn nations, devoid of any real military. The resistance there is rather unorganized and weak compared to what you'd face in other countries. Basically, the US is not able to militarily overthrow the world and rule with an iron fist, although some groups in the US (PNAC) seem to work towards such a goal.

Not true. The US has the power to overthrow any nation other than Russia, including nuclear nations like Pakistan, India and North Korea. You're confusing conquest with liberation. We could've destroyed Iraq in a week and occupied it in a month, but we're not trying to destroy Iraq. Setting up a democracy and preventing civil war is not the same as taking over. That's the difficulty we're having.

Not true. The US has the power to overthrow any nation other than Russia, including nuclear nations like Pakistan, India and North Korea. You're confusing conquest with liberation. We could've destroyed Iraq in a week and occupied it in a month, but we're not trying to destroy Iraq. Setting up a democracy and preventing civil war is not the same as taking over. That's the difficulty we're having.
I've read from plenty Americans who do not hide their true opinion behind the flower of political correctness. Those would prefer if the US would simply kill all muslims and get out of Iraq or make it a big parking lot or transform the whole place into glass by throwing a few nukes on it.

Regarding power to overthrow any nation - I seriously doubt it. Your military is way too small for that. Besides that, the rest of the world would not watch in silence.

Ein Deutscher']I've read from plenty Americans who do not hide their true opinion behind the flower of political correctness. Those would prefer if the US would simply kill all muslims and get out of Iraq or make it a big parking lot or transform the whole place into glass by throwing a few nukes on it.

Regarding power to overthrow any nation - I seriously doubt it. Your military is way too small for that. Besides that, the rest of the world would not watch in silence.

Well, I've never heard of anyone here wanting to kill all Muslims, though I'm sure there's a select few jackasses out there that would say that.

Anyway, our military is far too small without a draft to occupy the nations of the earth and install democracies. I'm not saying we have the manpower to do this. We have to power to destroy to extremes, but not the power to bring peace to more than a nation at a time it seems, and only with a good deal of popular cooperation. However, with 13 aircraft carriers and the largest and most advanced airforce on earth, we could bring unlimited horrors.

Not true. The US has the power to overthrow any nation other than Russia.

Oh, I don't know about that, China comes to mind.

Oh, I don't know about that, China comes to mind.
No, no....if we go batshit insane and throw every bloody nuke we have along their eastern coast, I'm sure we'd take them out soon enough.

Oh, I don't know about that, China comes to mind.

Again, I mean destroy, not free/liberate/exploit, etc., as in Iraq.

You really should read this article: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html It goes a long, long way toward explaining the differences in world view.

Again, I mean destroy, not free/liberate/exploit, etc., as in Iraq.

China is a far bigger threat to the United States than Russia, I'll just leave it there.

China is a far bigger threat to the United States than Russia, I'll just leave it there.
http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9711/04/china.dam.reut/china.chongquing.lg.jpg
http://www.siberiagym.com/map%20of%20russia/large-map-russia-plain.jpg

"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..."


What? No comic relief wanted?

China is a far bigger threat to the United States than Russia, I'll just leave it there.

China may have 40,000,000 surplus men, but not nearly the nuclear or military strength as Russia. China today is desperate for resources, and has little means of protecting its infrastructure. The vast majority of its population are subsistence farmers and laborers and although their economy is growing rapidly, it's still comparatively small, with barely half our purchasing power/GDP.

You really should read this article: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html It goes a long, long way toward explaining the differences in world view.


You know something Eutrusca, the worldview of a founding member of PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/robertkaganbio.htm) is pretty well documented.... and has been proven fairly innacurate thus far. After all, they were the people who convinced GW that Iraqis would shower them with flowers upon liberation.

Oh yes, they also have - in the past - tried to convince official Washington that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was winnable back in the Cold War.

Both Clinton and Bush Sr. wrote those guys off as fruitcackes - with good reason to my mind.

You know something Eutrusca, the worldview of a founding member of PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/robertkaganbio.htm) is pretty well documented.... and has been proven fairly innacurate thus far. After all, they were the people who convinced GW that Iraqis would shower them with flowers upon liberation.

Oh yes, they also have - in the past - tried to convince official Washington that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was winnable back in the Cold War.

Both Clinton and Bush Sr. wrote those guys off as fruitcackes - with good reason to my mind.
Robert Kagan doesn't seem to me to be any sort of fruitcake, given his background, but that's probably just my typically American rationality coming to the fore. Anyway, here's a pretty complete biography on Robert Kagan, for those who want to consider things from a more factual basis: http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Robert_Kagan

EDIT: I posted the above link before I realized the site was a wiki style collaborative effort. For verification, here is another brief bio of Robert Kagan: http://www.ceip.org/people/kagan.htm

China may have 40,000,000 surplus men, but not nearly the nuclear or military strength as Russia.

In case you haven't been paying attention, who do you think is buying up all of the US debt? That's right hun, China, Japan to a smaller extent.

As for nukes, how many nukes do you think it takes to create a nuclear winter? China has more than enough, as does many other countries now.

Welcome to the present, get your head out of the past.

Yes, Russia has more nukes than China, but Russia is pretty much out of the game in case you had not noticed. Who is the emerging power? It's not Russia, it's China, therefore making them a far greater threat!

Robert Kagan doesn't seem to me to be any sort of fruitcake, given his background, but that's probably just my typically American rationality coming to the fore. Anyway, here's a pretty complete biography on Robert Kagan, for those who want to consider things from a more factual basis: http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Robert_Kagan


More factual?

So, you're saying he's NOT one of the founding members of PNAC?


HEy. and I also note that your bio carefully excludes the fact that Elliott Abrams had appointed him in 1985 to head the Office of Public Diplomacy, created to push for US support for the Nicaraguan Contras....in other words, he was one of the people caught up in the Iran Contra scandal. You remember Abrams right? He plead guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress before he was pardoned by Reagan?

Robert Kagan doesn't seem to me to be any sort of fruitcake

I'm sorry Eutrusca, any member of PNAC is a fruitcake. Read their doctrine, now known as the Bush doctrine.

As an added bonus, a little background on PNAC by the most respected news program in Canada.

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

As an added bonus, a little background on PNAC by the most respected news program in Canada.

More Info on PNAC (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html)
And this is a problem for you how?

In case you haven't been paying attention, who do you think is buying up all of the US debt? That's right hun, China, Japan to a smaller extent.

As for nukes, how many nukes do you think it takes to create a nuclear winter? China has more than enough, as does many other countries now.

Welcome to the present, get your head out of the past.

Yes, Russia has more nukes than China, but Russia is pretty much out of the game in case you had not noticed. Who is the emerging power? It's not Russia, it's China, therefore making them a far greater threat!

Okay, so you say I should think in the present, but you're talking about China as an emerging power. I don't doubt that China will become our closest military competitor, but I am thinking in the present, and they simply can't challenge us today. Similarly, our debt to China would be nullified in the event of war. You can't exactly collect an IOU from a nation you're bombing at the moment. Our purchasing power is not contingent upon debt sponsorship from any nation, as our military gets a large enough piece of our 11trillion dollar pie, deficit spending notwithstanding. China, Russia, and the U.S. are the only nations with enough nuclear power to affect global ecology, and naturally any war with China would be costly, no doubt.

Edit: Also France, the last western nation to give up nuclear testing.

More factual?

So, you're saying he's NOT one of the founding members of PNAC?


HEy. and I also note that your bio carefully excludes the fact that Elliott Abrams had appointed him in 1985 to head the Office of Public Diplomacy, created to push for US support for the Nicaraguan Contras....in other words, he was one of the people caught up in the Iran Contra scandal. You remember Abrams right? He plead guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress before he was pardoned by Reagan?
I'll have to give you this: you're very adept at making it seem as though I'm somehow inaccurate in my statements ( the bio indicates that he is one of the founding members of PNAC ), or that I'm somehow endorsing a particular course of action other than the one under discussion ( Iran/Contra has been addressed in the media and in court and has nothing to do with the author of this article, since he was never charged with anything ).

Okay, so you say I should think in the present, but you're talking about China as an emerging power. I don't doubt that China will become our closest military competitor, but I am thinking in the present, and they simply can't challenge us today.

Have you checked you national debt lately? It's not pretty, who do you think owns that debt? Or the lions share of it? China. Sorry, no one wishes it wasn't so as much as I. I don't like to cotton the idea of China being the next super power, for the obvious reasons, human rights etc, but that IS what is happening.

Have you checked you national debt lately? It's not pretty, who do you think owns that debt? Or the lions share of it? China. Sorry, no one wishes it wasn't so as much as I. I don't like to cotton the idea of China being the next super power, for the obvious reasons, human rights etc, but that IS what is happening.

All I meant is that in the event of war, we wouldn't be liable for a cent of it that belongs to the Chinese. Anything we owed them would be voided. I'm only considering the present, not whether we'll be superior to China in 2050, 2100, or any other such speculation.

Have you checked you national debt lately? It's not pretty, who do you think owns that debt? Or the lions share of it? China. Sorry, no one wishes it wasn't so as much as I. I don't like to cotton the idea of China being the next super power, for the obvious reasons, human rights etc, but that IS what is happening.
I see this as making it less likely there will ever be a conflict between China and the US, since the Chinese are smart enough to realize that they would stand to lose far more than they would gain. Traditionally, most nations facing a military conflict with another nation will quickly disown any and all debts owed to the other.

Have you checked you national debt lately? It's not pretty, who do you think owns that debt? Or the lions share of it? China. Sorry, no one wishes it wasn't so as much as I. I don't like to cotton the idea of China being the next super power, for the obvious reasons, human rights etc, but that IS what is happening.
Have you checked China's Nat. debt lately? Makes ours look like a drop in a pond by comparison.

I see this as making it less likely there will ever be a conflict between China and the US, since the Chinese are smart enough to realize that they would stand to lose far more than they would gain. Traditionally, most nations facing a military conflict with another nation will quickly disown any and all debts owed to the other.
...So your saying that it would be far more beneficial to the U.S. if we initiated a war with the Chinese in the long run...?

You know something Eutrusca, the worldview of a founding member of PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/robertkaganbio.htm) is pretty well documented.... and has been proven fairly innacurate thus far. After all, they were the people who convinced GW that Iraqis would shower them with flowers upon liberation.

Oh yes, they also have - in the past - tried to convince official Washington that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was winnable back in the Cold War.

Both Clinton and Bush Sr. wrote those guys off as fruitcackes - with good reason to my mind.

BTW ... did you even bother to read the article and consider it on its merits, rather than simply allowing yourself your usual luxury of a knee-jerk response toward those you dislike? Somehow I suspect not.

I'll have to give you this: you're very adept at making it seem as though I'm somehow inaccurate in my statements ( the bio indicates that he is one of the founding members of PNAC ), or that I'm somehow endorsing a particular course of action other than the one under discussion ( Iran/Contra has been addressed in the media and in court and has nothing to do with the author of this article, since he was never charged with anything ).


No, you accused ME of being innacurate when you stated that people should look elsewhere for a "more factual" bio.

However stating that he has nothing to do with Iran Contra when he RAN for a while the the umbrella group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Office_of_Public_Diplomacy) which provided the CIA's cover for Iran Contra is missleading. He has no culpability because he wasn't charged? give me a break - that scandal was a farce in jurisprudence when it came to punishing the offenders and pretty much everyone agrees with that sentiment.


Nor do you point out his ties to the current administration given that his wife Victoria Nuland, was tapped to be Dick Cheney’s deputy national security adviser.


My only point was to remind people that the ideology of a long-term neoconservative who cofounded PNAC and was involved in Iran Contra is not exactly going to reflect the mainstream of most people's idea of American foreign policy.


ADDED:

BTW, see if you can still find a copy of one of his earlier writings with PNAC cofounder Kristal. It is called“Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,” published in 1997 in Foreign Affairs in which the authors argue that the United States should establish a “benevolent hegemony;”

In other words, he is one who has actively campaigned for an American Empire in the past.

...So your saying that it would be far more beneficial to the U.S. if we initiated a war with the Chinese in the long run...?
No, obviously not! How on earth did you read that into what I wrote??? :confused:

No, obviously not! How on earth did you read that into what I wrote??? :confused:
Well no, I was just thinking that if the Chinese were smart enough to prevent a war with a nation that owes a lot of debt to them, that the U.S. would be tactical enough to go to war with a nation they owe a lot to.

I mean, c'mon...if you don't want to pay a guy back, beating the crap out of him and tossing his body into the ocean is the only way out of paying him. I think...

Well no, I was just thinking that if the Chinese were smart enough to prevent a war with a nation that owes a lot of debt to them, that the U.S. would be tactical enough to go to war with a nation they owe a lot to.

I mean, c'mon...if you don't want to pay a guy back, beating the crap out of him and tossing his body into the ocean is the only way out of paying him. I think...

Yes, except Chinese missiles have a range in the neighborhood of L.A. to Albuquerque and perhaps a bit farther. So if beating up the guy you owe costs you your right arm and some fingers, do you do it? ;)

No, you accused ME of being innacurate when you stated that people should look elsewhere for a "more factual" bio.

However stating that he has nothing to do with Iran Contra when he RAN for a while the the umbrella group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Office_of_Public_Diplomacy) which provided the CIA's cover for Iran Contra is missleading. He has no culpability because he wasn't charged? give me a break - that scandal was a farce in jurisprudence when it came to punishing the offenders and pretty much everyone agrees with that sentiment.

Nor do you point out his ties to the current administration given that his wife Victoria Nuland, was tapped to be Dick Cheney’s deputy national security adviser.

My only point was to remind people that the ideology of a long-term neoconservative who cofounded PNAC and was involved in Iran Contra is not exactly going to reflect the mainstream of most people's idea of American foreign policy.
No, your point was to attempt to counter what the article had to say by, in effect killing the messenger, most likely without ever having actually read the article.

So if what I see is correct, you are saying that this article is irrelevant because:

1. The writer belongs to a group of which you disapprove.

2. The writer is connected to the current US administration in some way ( his wife??? ), and since US Government = "bad" so does the writer.

3. The writer was once involved in an organization, some of the leaders of which were once charged with crimes, even though he himself was never charged with anything ... and since "everyone" knows that the incident "was a farce in jurisprudence" ... that makes the article irrelevant. Talk about presuming someone guilty unless proven innocent! :(

Careful, your bias is showing.

Yes, except Chinese missiles have a range in the neighborhood of L.A. to Albuquerque and perhaps a bit farther. So if beating up the guy you owe costs you your right arm and some fingers, do you do it? ;)
Oh yeah, shit...I'd be really screwed over if that happens...living so close to L.A. and everything...

Another link from that site you used for the bio Eutrusca, to illustrate that he was one of the people who was involved in selling the Iraq invasion as being part of the War on Terror. The group was called Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Committee_for_the_Liberation_of_Iraq) and was set up as a supposed independant NGO to sell the Administration's policies to the public - but in fact it really INCLUDED administration members such as Cheney, Rice, Perle, and Rumsfled.


In other words - a propoganda campaign.


And yes I read the article. I read it a while ago. I don't entirely dismiss it but I DO also recognize ideology of the viewpoint that it is written from. Perhaps you should too.

It explains the difference in worldview from the most far right of American Foreign policy to a specific generalization of European politics. As such it represents a very narrow point of view, and one which I assume that Bush's coalition members in Europe probably take great offense to.

Oh yeah, shit...I'd be really screwed over if that happens...living so close to L.A. and everything...

Same here.. although we had a successful missile defense test a few days ago, so there's some encouragement. Although I believe the Chinese could toss a good half dozen ICBMs at us at a time according to some evidence, so we'd need luck. ;)

Well no, I was just thinking that if the Chinese were smart enough to prevent a war with a nation that owes a lot of debt to them, that the U.S. would be tactical enough to go to war with a nation they owe a lot to.

I mean, c'mon...if you don't want to pay a guy back, beating the crap out of him and tossing his body into the ocean is the only way out of paying him. I think...

Of course China isn't stupid, they know full well that buying the lions share of the American debt is going to give them political capital, and there won't be a damn thing America will be able to do about it, short of going to war.

Which will not be in China's best interest because they'll be holding all the cards. So America would have to start the war, a war with China on their own soil is doubtful that an American victory could be possible save of a miracle. Or a nuclear winter in which case we all lose!

That is why Bush has to stop spending like there is no tomorrow. I don't dislike Americans, I dislike the stupid spending and foreign policy their government has adopted since GW came to power. They are not just selling Americans out, they are selling the rest of us out too.

The only thing we outsiders can take with that is the idea that most Americans consider John Kerry to be a man of lesser moral fiber than GW, presumably from his assertion that it is his duty to put his personal religious beliefs to the side when making policy in favour of a more open-minded and tolerant viewpoint.

You seem to equate "values" with "Christian theocracy", which is a logical fallacy.

I've had several ideas on what "values" mean to different people who voted for Bush based on the general concept - and it doesn't required Christian theocracy to arrive at any of them.

Having spoken to quite a few would-be Democrats here in Northern Virginia, a hotbed of Democrats within a fairly Republican State of Virginia, most of them switched over to Bush late in the election. And they all cited "values" - long before the exit polls mentioned it.

Polls what cite vague notions such as "values" and "the nation is going in the wrong direction" don't specify what those "values" are, and do not specify which "direction" people think we should be going in. It does not, for instance, specify that "I voted for Bush because I want a Christian theocracy". That would be hard to believe, because most people in the US are not Christian fundamentalists. And, it does not, for instance, specify that "I believe the country is going in the wrong direction because I oppose the war in Iraq." A voter may very well oppose the war in Iraq - but that may not be the reason that they feel the country is going in the wrong direction. Nor may that person believe that we should now retreat.

To a man and woman, the Democrats I talked to (and that's nearly everyone in my office - I'm a lone Republican in a sea of Democrats) said that they didn't feel that Kerry actually believed in any of the things he said. Not that he was a "flip-flopper" - there was plenty of derision for Karl Rove. Despite his military service, none of them believed he had an resolve in such matters - they believed that he would stop the war on terror - at all levels for good. Most of this sensation they got from conversations on the Democratic Underground forum - not from the Swift Boat Veterans. The Democratic grass roots was spreading the word that Kerry was going to bring all US troops home as soon as he was sworn in - stand down our intel operations overseas - repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety - disband the Department of Homeland Security - in essence, promise to return us to the world pre-911 and somehow say "we're safe" - in essence accepting Michael Moore at face value - that there are no terrorists who plan to attack the US. None of these Democrats could accept that. And since the groundswell of belief was so strong, none of them could believe what was coming out of Kerry's mouth - especially since he had on one hand served in Vietnam and then publicly attacked the military while still in uniform.

Democratic women I talked to expressed that the most strongly. That in what they perceived to be a violent world, violence was sometimes necessary - and that they felt that Kerry was of the opinion that violence wasn't something he could do now - he lacked the value of courage, despite having won medals. Whatever courage that he had, these women felt it had evaporated from him as soon as he got home.

In the same sense that people put words and positions into Bush's mouth, despite that he doesn't say them (he doesn't, for instance, say that "America should become a Christian theocracy"), people put plenty of words into Kerry's mouth. But instead of blaming the Swift Veterans, or Karl Rove, perhaps the Democrats should examine the difference between what Kerry said in public and what the Democratic core was actually hoping for - and see if that secret difference is something that a Democratic swing-voter could stomach.

Just because someone votes for Bush doesn't mean that they are a Christian theocrat.

They just might be someone who believes that Kerry wasn't the right choice.

Just because someone votes for Bush doesn't mean that they are a Christian theocrat.

They just might be someone who believes that Kerry wasn't the right choice.

Yep. Near 35% of atheists polled responded that they voted for Bush. Although the exit polls were off in a few areas, especially early in the day, it surely contradicts the stereotype that Bush voters are a bunch of evangelicals who voted simply because of gay marriage - an issue Bush wanted to avoid altogether which was forced into referenda by Democrats (not smart).

You seem to equate "values" with "Christian theocracy", which is a logical fallacy.

<snip>

Just because someone votes for Bush doesn't mean that they are a Christian theocrat.

They just might be someone who believes that Kerry wasn't the right choice.

Oh I agree that not everyone who voted for Bush did so strictly on religeous grounds, indeed I stated as much in the post where the religious angle was only one of a large group of issues. And I also wrote a pretty damning indictment of Kerry here during the campaign. But while not all those who voted for Bush were Christian Theocrats, certainly the huge majority of Christian theocrats DID vote for Bush as he sold himself on that set of values to them.

So if you are taking that angle as the only one from my initial post then I think you are missing a fair bit.

Besides, the reason my wife reposted this was to counter the "America-bashing" label that gets tossed our way so often. It was to remind the board that you can be anti-Bush without being Anti-american - which, if we lived in your country would put us in a slim minority of your citizens.

Anyway Eutrusca, if you REALLY wanted a specific example of why I find Kagan's writing disengenous - it can be found within that article.

First, he whines about Europe:

In the Gulf War, European help was token; so it has been more recently in Afghanistan, where Europeans are once again "doing the dishes"; and so it would be in an invasion of Iraq to unseat Saddam. Europe has had little to offer the United States in strategic military terms since the end of the Cold War - except, of course, that most valuable of strategic assets, a Europe at peace.


But later notes:


It is true that the Bush administration came into office with a chip on its shoulder. It was hostile to the new Europe - as to a lesser extent was the Clinton administration - seeing it not so much as an ally but as an albatross. Even after September 11, when the Europeans offered their very limited military capabilities in the fight in Afghanistan, the United States resisted, fearing that European cooperation was a ruse to tie America down. The Bush administration viewed nato’s historic decision to aid the United States under Article V less as a boon than as a booby trap. An opportunity to draw Europe into common battle out in the Hobbesian world, even in a minor role, was thereby unnecessarily lost.


Which indicates that it is not that Europe is not able, but that the US oftentimes doesn't want to utilize their offered resources, but then reserves the right to criticize the lack of help that they neither sought nor would have accepted.

And rather than offer anything constructive he is convince that
Europeans have complained about President Bush’s "unilateralism," but they are coming to the deeper realization that the problem is not Bush or any American president. It is systemic. And it is incurable.



In other words - he complains that Europe doesn't help while at the same time stating that the help is neither wanted, nor needed, nor will it ever be. But then he also states in the article that Europe can solve this by expanding their militaries to get more involved.

Huh?

Why should they if you don't want or need their help anyway? Just spending more money would make you happy even if you won't want them to use it?



He also makes comments like:

Americans are idealists, but they have no experience of promoting ideals successfully without power. Certainly, they have no experience of successful supranational governance; little to make them place their faith in international law and international institutions, much as they might wish to; and even less to let them travel, with the Europeans, beyond power. Americans, as good children of the Enlightenment, still believe in the perfectibility of man, and they retain hope for the perfectibility of the world. But they remain realists in the limited sense that they still believe in the necessity of power in a world that remains far from perfection. Such law as there may be to regulate international behavior, they believe, exists because a power like the United States defends it by force of arms. In other words, just as Europeans claim, Americans can still sometimes see themselves in heroic terms - as Gary Cooper at high noon. They will defend the townspeople, whether the townspeople want them to or not.


Which completely ignore the successes in supranational governance in postwar Japan and Germany, seems to berate Americans for having too much faith in other people when, indeed, most of what the rest of the world hears is denigration such as I already noted in his comments above, and while he comments on America's pre-emptive strategies often being directed at people who didn't WANT the intervention, he completely fails to explore this as to whether this strategy is particularly smart or should be reconsidered. Instead he treats it as a simple statement of fact. Of course, he completely fails to note his own complicity in promoting such acts throughout his career.

Anyway, that is just a quick set of a couple of examples that I hope help explain why I do not feel his writings are particularly salient beyond expounding upon the farthest right of American political views. The argument seems to be that the only way the US has ever learned to get anything done is at the point of the gun, and that it should have no interest in learning anything else and that the rest of the world should simply accept this fact and jump aboard the program. Of course, the US doesn't want or need that help - they just want lip-service.


In other words - it comes across as the steriotype of American Arrogance(tm) which is the primary objection of so much of the rest of the world, which is hardly suprising considering his political affiliations.

Which completely ignore the successes in supranational governance in postwar Japan and Germany,
Not much the US did, other than install military bases and give financial aid, so that the people could rebuild it themselves. The politicians back then actually had to get the (new) base law (almost constitution) ratified by the High Commanders of UK, France and the US. We still have this base law btw and no constitution - sucks to be us...

The US however did not much to shape Germany. Much of what we have now, was already present before the Nazi dictatorship, so Germany simply fell back on the governmental structure it had before Hitler, with some fine refinements to the structure to avoid someone like Hitler grabbing total power in the future.

Ein Deutscher']Not much the US did, other than install military bases and give financial aid, so that the people could rebuild it themselves. The politicians back then actually had to get the (new) base law (almost constitution) ratified by the High Commanders of UK, France and the US. We still have this base law btw and no constitution - sucks to be us...

The US however did not much to shape Germany. Much of what we have now, was already present before the Nazi dictatorship, so Germany simply fell back on the governmental structure it had before Hitler, with some fine refinements to the structure to avoid someone like Hitler grabbing total power in the future.


Hey, I'm trying to throw him a bone here....



Besides, the hypocricy of the author in noting that the US has no history of success in that realm while at the same time actively promoting an agenda of pre-emption and interventialism is just another reason to shake your head at Kagan. Why would you keep doing something if you freely admit that you have little success at it?


WHat is that old definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results?

So, Eutrusca? What now? Since your source has been utterly discredited. If you have more brilliant sources for Zeppistan to rip apart, by all means name them.. ;)

Besides, the reason my wife reposted this was to counter the "America-bashing" label that gets tossed our way so often. It was to remind the board that you can be anti-Bush without being Anti-american - which, if we lived in your country would put us in a slim minority of your citizens.

While I wouldn't characterize your posts as anti-American, you are against the exercise of American power overseas.

That, and when you do make criticisms, you do make the attempt to argue in some cogent manner. Most people who are anti-American or anti-Bush here would rather rant and spew arrant nonsense.

Considering that over the previous decade, American foreign policy was to do next to nothing except ask, and resulted in a terror attack on the US, I would consider doing nothing to be an act of insanity - doing the same nothing in the hopes that something would change.

While I wouldn't characterize your posts as anti-American, you are against the exercise of American power overseas.


Not exactly true. I evaluate each instance on it's own merits. I was for the invasion of Afghanistan, and for the intervention in Haiti (although I am still curious what exactly happened that day as I would take a slightly different view if indeed the US DID force Arastide out). I was and still am against the invasion of IRaq, although the Pottery Barn rule DOES apply. You broke it - you bought it, however I remain unconvinced that you will properly put it back together under Bush / Rumsfeld.


That, and when you do make criticisms, you do make the attempt to argue in some cogent manner. Most people who are anti-American or anti-Bush here would rather rant and spew arrant nonsense.


Hey, sometimes I even praise things in a cogent manner. People tend to forget those though.

Considering that over the previous decade, American foreign policy was to do next to nothing except ask, and resulted in a terror attack on the US, I would consider doing nothing to be an act of insanity - doing the same nothing in the hopes that something would change.

I dunno - people through most of that decade also castigated Clinton for some of his unilateral actions (the attempt to kill bin laden, the attack on the supposed Sudanese chemical factory, the intervention in the Balkans, the intervention in Somalia). He failed to invade two countries on the scale that Bush did, however to state that it was "doing nothing" seems facetious. Fact is, Clinto was well aware of the al qaeda threat and tried to nail the bastard - however prior to 9-11, and after Somalia, there was no political will to get involved in a full-scale invasion to oust the Taliban. Clinton could never have sold it to the congress or the people of the US even had he tried, except for maybe getting approval to send in some special forces after the Cole, but the CIA was not able to confirm the al qaeda connection until Bill had only a couple of weeks left in office. And given that most of the 9-11 hijackers were already in the US by then, it is uncertain if even that would have stopped the tragedy.

Ein Deutscher']Not much the US did, other than install military bases and give financial aid, so that the people could rebuild it themselves. The politicians back then actually had to get the (new) base law (almost constitution) ratified by the High Commanders of UK, France and the US. We still have this base law btw and no constitution - sucks to be us...

The US however did not much to shape Germany. Much of what we have now, was already present before the Nazi dictatorship, so Germany simply fell back on the governmental structure it had before Hitler, with some fine refinements to the structure to avoid someone like Hitler grabbing total power in the future.

you are aware I hope that the US military is planning to move much of its base structure out of western Germany to either Poland, the Czech Republic and possibly other parts of eastern Europe? Are you aware that many of the local German communities that will be affected are unhappy about this?

If you look back over the history of NATO, in addition to its primary mission of defending western Europe from the Soviet threat, another reason the Europeans wanted the US in NATO with a permanent peace time presence in Germany was to keep an eye on the Germans. Many of Germany's neighbors remember Prussian militarism and Nazi evil and still remain nervous about Germany, especially an united Germany that is the biggest economy and population in Europe. Its another reason why the EU was created as well.

I wouldn't worry to much about those American troops and basing laws too much, I suspect the US Army and Air Force will be leaving in the next 5 years.

So, Eutrusca? What now? Since your source has been utterly discredited. If you have more brilliant sources for Zeppistan to rip apart, by all means name them.. ;)
I was going to do this in response to the posts by Zepp, but since you chose to inflict your condescending attitude on the rest of us yet again, I've changed my mind. :D

We can nitpick the article forever, going back and forth with "who shot John" type comments. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Nor do I accept the responsibility of validating either all the author has to say, nor every word that drops from the lips of neoconservatives.

However, allow me to restate that I think the article has a valid thesis, to wit:

"Europeans generally believe their objection to American unilateralism is proof of their greater commitment to certain ideals concerning world order. They are less willing to acknowledge that their hostility to unilateralism is also self-interested. Europeans fear American unilateralism. They fear it perpetuates a Hobbesian world in which they may become increasingly vulnerable. The United States may be a relatively benign hegemon, but insofar as its actions delay the arrival of a world order more conducive to the safety of weaker powers, it is objectively dangerous."

So we are back at the starting point. I suggested the article was interesting and may provide some insight, whereupon you attacked the author. When I pointed out the fallicies in such an ad hominem approach, you attempted to point out the alleged "inconsistencies" in the body of the article itself, to which I have now responded with a restatement of the reasons why I think the article is an interesting one with some validity and insight.

Shall we dance some more? :D

I was going to do this in response to the posts by Zepp, but since you chose to inflict your condescending attitude on the rest of us yet again, I've changed my mind. :D

He's right, you're wrong, that's why you address my post and not his. We have been around nationstates a lot longer than you. We know your tactics my dear! Nice try though! ;)

Hey, I'm trying to throw him a bone here....

Besides, the hypocricy of the author in noting that the US has no history of success in that realm while at the same time actively promoting an agenda of pre-emption and interventialism is just another reason to shake your head at Kagan. Why would you keep doing something if you freely admit that you have little success at it?

WHat is that old definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results?
I originally posted this in response to a post by Stephie, but she objected so here it is, back on your doorstep. :D

We can nitpick the article forever, going back and forth with "who shot John" type comments. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Nor do I accept the responsibility of validating either all the author has to say, nor every word that drops from the lips of neoconservatives.

However, allow me to restate that I think the article has a valid thesis, to wit:

"Europeans generally believe their objection to American unilateralism is proof of their greater commitment to certain ideals concerning world order. They are less willing to acknowledge that their hostility to unilateralism is also self-interested. Europeans fear American unilateralism. They fear it perpetuates a Hobbesian world in which they may become increasingly vulnerable. The United States may be a relatively benign hegemon, but insofar as its actions delay the arrival of a world order more conducive to the safety of weaker powers, it is objectively dangerous."

So we are back at the starting point. I suggested the article was interesting and may provide some insight, whereupon you attacked the author. When I pointed out the fallicies in such an ad hominem approach, you attempted to point out the alleged "inconsistencies" in the body of the article itself, to which I have now responded with a restatement of the reasons why I think the article is an interesting one with some validity and insight.

Shall we dance some more?

He'll get back to you Eutrusca, he's playing with the baby. He does have his priorities right. :)

My first ever post in General was about PNAC, maybe it will give you some more insight.. again, this is a repost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 recently 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 viewership 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."

I was going to do this in response to the posts by Zepp, but since you chose to inflict your condescending attitude on the rest of us yet again, I've changed my mind. :D

We can nitpick the article forever, going back and forth with "who shot John" type comments. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Nor do I accept the responsibility of validating either all the author has to say, nor every word that drops from the lips of neoconservatives.

However, allow me to restate that I think the article has a valid thesis, to wit:

"Europeans generally believe their objection to American unilateralism is proof of their greater commitment to certain ideals concerning world order. They are less willing to acknowledge that their hostility to unilateralism is also self-interested. Europeans fear American unilateralism. They fear it perpetuates a Hobbesian world in which they may become increasingly vulnerable. The United States may be a relatively benign hegemon, but insofar as its actions delay the arrival of a world order more conducive to the safety of weaker powers, it is objectively dangerous."

So we are back at the starting point. I suggested the article was interesting and may provide some insight, whereupon you attacked the author. When I pointed out the fallicies in such an ad hominem approach, you attempted to point out the alleged "inconsistencies" in the body of the article itself, to which I have now responded with a restatement of the reasons why I think the article is an interesting one with some validity and insight.

Shall we dance some more? :D


No Forrest, what you said specifically was that this article "goes a long, long way toward explaining the differences in world view. "

You didn't qualify that any further regarding what specifically you felt this article explained, and I felt - and I think correctly - that pointing to the writings of one of the architects of the neo-conservative manifesto was a poor choice to try and detail the worldview of America as a whole.

Now perhaps you think that PNAC IS the mainstream worldview of Americans. I think that most don't subscribe to their views as a whole, and as such this article only has probative value in the context of it's subject matter, that being the differences between the rightmost worldview of the American politcal spectrum matched against some amorphous blob that he tries to pass off as the "European worldview". And if you have spent any time in Europe at all you know that there is no such thing. While there may be some commonalities between a majority of them, there are also very distinct differences - which is why some signed up to join in on the invasion of Iraq and some didn't. So his very premise is, to a great extent, flawed.


Now then, the fact that you object to my "nitpicking" as you put it - which was my taking direct points from his article as being items that - when added together - seemed very contradictory, then what the hell did you bother linking to the article for anyway?


"Here is a good post that I happen to agree with that will explain everything to you, but you aren't allowed to critique it?"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhht.

You tried to dismiss my opinion on this article for supposedly not reading it. Wrong. You tried to dismiss my opinion on it's merits for pointing out the extreme political views of the author. That IS relevant.

I have to come to the conclusion that you don't actually want debate. You just want people to agree with you. Because believe it or not, when you try and pass off an article as being relevant then the credibility and affiliation of the author as well as the actual content of the article do have some bearing on the matter. And I have addressed my viewpoints on both.


Oh yes, and it was nice of you to finally point out what part of the article it was that you felt had merit. Up until now you had just pointed to the link without adding any viewpoint of your own on why you felt it was worthshile reading.

Oh wait - you still haven't done anything besides quote one paragraph.... Some "starting point" :rolleyes:

Dance? I'm not dancing - I'm actually addressing relevant factors to your post. You, on the other hand, are - as always - trying to make ME the central issue of contention.

So, Eutrusca? What now? Since your source has been utterly discredited. If you have more brilliant sources for Zeppistan to rip apart, by all means name them.. ;)

*has back broken by straw*

Stephistan, I've been trying my darndest to stay out of this. I've been this close to responding to posts by You, Zepp, or Eutrusca in this thread and Eutrusca's "why anti-america?" thread. But, I've restrained myself. Though very response-provoking all your posts are, I've realized I actually don't give a "darn" how any of you feel about America, Canada, or any other subject for that matter (with the possibe exception of Ben and Jennifer's break-up).

But I think someone needs to inform you that this post is not helping you.

Having been on the other end of a "debate-godmod" before (which I respond to here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7861457&postcount=30)), I have little tolerance for it. When you say that Eutrusca's argument is "utterly discredited" and that Zeppistan will "rip apart" any future "brilliant" sources Eustrusca will come up with, it only turns people off to you. You're declaring his losses! If your arguments really are so great, they should be able to speak for themselves. Perhaps Eutrusca's sources are discredited in your eyes--a relative measurement--however, you can't speak for all everyone else. You can't just declare yourself the ultimate authority of an argument's validity.

I really have little opinion on the matter at hand, the PNAC, America-bashing, etc. but, partly as a service to you, I think you should know that I, along with at least a few others, look on posts like these as disgusting.

He's right, you're wrong, that's why you address my post and not his. We have been around nationstates a lot longer than you. We know your tactics my dear! Nice try though!

Three things.

1) That you say "He's right, you're wrong" makes me want to believe Eutrusca more as it paints you as a know-it-all.

2) What does your experience at Nationstates have to do with his tactics? Surely the tactics you refer to (whatever they may be) have been around long before Nationstates--which makes the difference between yours and his time in Nationstates irrelevant.

3) I used to have a lot more respect for you. I might have disagreed with you at times, but I tended to respect you as someone who did good research and understood issues. These posts and your inability to practice levity in the "Most [adjective] NSer" competitions has really diminished my respect for you.

3) I used to have a lot more respect for you. I might have disagreed with you at times, but I tended to respect you as someone who did good research and understood issues. These posts and your inability to practice levity in the "Most [adjective] NSer" competitions has really diminished my respect for you.

Truth is fairly simple, we have grown tired of Eutrusca making claims he can never back up. He claims to be this wise old vet with much life experience and deep knowledge of the system. Yet every time my husband tries to engage him he ends up attacking my husband and fails to back up his position. Which my husband points out rather well in this thread as well as about 25 others that I have witnessed.

It gets tiring. When I was a mod a lot of times I had to hold back on my opinion. It's one of the reasons why I quit being a mod, I was allowed to voice my opinion but not as much as I would of liked to. I couldn't call people out like this when they repeat the same tactics over and over and over and over again as Eutrusca does.

If he has a valid argument to make, sheesh, make it. His opinion don't count as facts. As you can see by my husband's posts, while he does include opinion in his posts, he backs it up with more than "You just hate America" "Or insert some thing negative about Canada here that you also can't back up" It's getting old and I suspect my tolerance for his style or lack thereof debating has worn thin on me.

I'm sorry if I have fallen from favour in your eyes, but if the shoe was on the other foot and it was always the same person, you might grow tired of it too.

As for the popularity contests, they were nothing but bull. First you had the girls "nicest" contest. I can already tell you I am far from the nicest girl on this forum, I'm a woman, a mother and a wife and have a little age in my bones too. But the way it was conducted was an outright farce. Blind voting please. I was a mod, I know how puppets work and the mods can't tell who is using a puppet and who is not in a blind poll.

As for the most "respected" poster I couldn't for the life of me believe some one who acts on this forum saying they are 60 years old and flirts with girls on the board who are mostly young enough to be his grandchildren, or the fact that he's had prior warnings by the mods, or the debate tactics he employs would even be considered over people like Bottle, Zeppistan, many, many more I could name. This is the type of person who should have our respect?

So fall out of favour in your respect for me if that is how you truly feel. But I can look in the mirror daily and know I've always stayed true to my beliefs and will not lie to myself or you about how I feel. I don't always say what is popular, but I do always say what I believe. That's about all I can tell you.

too bad this thread got bogged down in personal attacks

Steph and Zepp, I am not a PNAC apologist.

However, some of the points in the White Paper discussed earlier aren't necessarily a bad thing. The US has the largest economy on the planet, is the primary military force on the planet (in power although not numbers), and a prudent nation upgrades its military and prepares to fight the next war instead of the last one. Rebasing US forces that are deployed permanently overseas makes a lot of sense. There is no reason to defend West Germany anymore from the Warsaw Pact, as most of it is now in NATO (except for the former Soviet republics and some of them are seeking entry). Moving forces east to Poland and Southeast Europe is logical, both from a point of few of keeping an eye on the Russians (which is pretty easy now, but the Russians have been down before and came back 20 years later very aggressively).

The primary economic interest of the West is at this time maintaining a supply of relatively cheap energy in order to keep our economies running. As it happens, the primary source of all European and Japanese oil is the Middle East. Instability and warfare in the Middle East threatens both of those economies, and indirectly the US economy. The US and Canada do not get the bulk of their oil from the Middle East but from Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, and internal sources. But a sharp jump in the world price created by instability in the Middle East affects both of those nations just as harshly as it does Europe and Japan. The US has mutual defense treaties with Europe and Japan, and is therefore obligated to defend those interests.

Maintaining strong forces in Japan and Korea are necessary for other reasons, principally to prevent the necessity of Japan arming itself with nuclear weapons and also the same for the ROKs. The Japanese are now viewing China as a threat, and the ROKs already have the NKPLA on the other side of the DMZ. In other words, even though the Cold War ended, the strategic situation remains the same. The US is committed to defending its allies in Asia against a very powerful regional power (China now instead of Russia).

As how this all effects the situation in Iraq and Iran. Well, both nations have a history of pursuing weapons of mass destruction (even the Europeans are starting to get concerned about Iran and the Iraqis used them against their own population as well as Iranian troops during a war Iraq started for territorial gain). The strategic necessity of invading Iraq however is highly questionable, in hindsight. I was against the war because I didn't view Iraq as an imminent danger and viewed the commitment of 150,000 Western (mostly US and British) troops in Iraq in a long term pacification campaign as a highly risky venture, frought with peril and it appears that I was right.

However, my letters to my congressman (a conservative Republican) didn't have much effect (if any) and alas my Presidential candidate lost. Although at that point it was too late anyway since once we entered Iraq we could hardly just pull out without creating extremely serious consequences.

The Neocons have handled the situation badly, but they aren't completely off base. The need for the US to maintain sizeable and powerful military forces remains. Pacification campaigns continue in Europe by the way.... remember Kosovo?

The point remains that the US must have a military force strong enough to fight a major war in extremis (by calling up reserves)... an example would be a clash with China. It must also be able to contribute forces to UN peacekeeping and NATO peacekeeping missions. Right now it also must maintain combat forces in Afghanistan and the strategically unwise but now a policy we are stuck with in Iraq.

Truth is fairly simple,

I disagree. I think if the truth were fairly simple more people would agree on it. There'd be few or no arguments, debates, or communications in general. Regardless of the reasoning behind your distaste for Eutrusca, I still think your actions weren't good.

As far as your husband goes, I'm not interested in how he debates with Eutrusca and which one of them is right. I've never been sincerely interested in comparing which of them is more evidence-based and which of them uses more opinions. My post was meant to address you, Stephistan (I may not have artriculated it very clearly). It was simply my attempt to tell you that you are not helping your case by posting this way. If you're right, give us all the respect to see you for the "right person" you are.


I'm sorry if I have fallen from favour in your eyes, but if the shoe was on the other foot and it was always the same person, you might grow tired of it too.

The shoe has been on the other foot with me. There are several posters in United Nations which tend to bug the heck out of me with their antics--unprofessional and almost entirely opinion-based.

And I won't try to tell you I've batted 1000 in dealing with them. Sometimes I lashed out and tried to "correct" them (I assumed I was in the right at the time, but in hindsight I may have been a total jerk myself). In the end, it never works to confront someone in the forum. If you have a problem with Eutrusca, you two need to work it out on your own. If you don't, just ignore him--the greatest sign of maturity.

As for the popularity contests, they were nothing but bull. First you had the girls "nicest" contest. I can already tell you I am far from the nicest girl on this forum, I'm a woman, a mother and a wife and have a little age in my bones too. But the way it was conducted was an outright farce. Blind voting please. I was a mod, I know how puppets work and the mods can't tell who is using a puppet and who is not in a blind poll.

As for the most "respected" poster I couldn't for the life of me believe some one who acts on this forum saying they are 60 years old and flirts with girls on the board who are mostly young enough to be his grandchildren, or the fact that he's had prior warnings by the mods, or the debate tactics he employs would even be considered over people like Bottle, Zeppistan, many, many more I could name. This is the type of person who should have our respect?

It was fun and games. A blind poll was used because everyone recognized it was a farce--a fun farce. And as far as respect goes, it isn't up to you to decide who others respect. I'm not interested in arguing with you about whether Eutrusca should be respected, but do I know other members of the forum have the right to respect him, regardless of how much you view him as un-respectable.

Which is why I mentioned that it diminished my respect for you. I won't say I don't respect you. I do. But I have to say, I think you were in the wrong in those "Most 'x' NSer" threads. I think you went about it--as well as some of the Eutrusca disagreements--the wrong way. I believe the big problem you say you have with Eutrusca is that he attacks the poster and not the post. Well, often in pointing this out it appeared as if you too were attacking the poster and not the post. That's why I said what I did. You can't "prove" Eutrusca's a horrible debater without hurting others perception of you.


So fall out of favour in your respect for me if that is how you truly feel. But I can look in the mirror daily and know I've always stayed true to my beliefs and will not lie to myself or you about how I feel. I don't always say what is popular, but I do always say what I believe. That's about all I can tell you.

Whoa, I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't say what you believe and what you feel is right. Nor did I mean to suggest that you be a martyr against the establishment. I am saying that those two posts I pointed out, as well as a few previous, are not helping your cause. Passionate and rational thought are difficult to balance. I just thought I'd tell you that I think people would listen to you more if you practiced a little more rational thought.

I guess many Americans "feel" attacked when someone attacks our Government BECAUSE MANY of us ACTUALLY BELIEVE in the phrase "We the People"...

Our Government IS US! I am a Conservative, but believed that I AM part of our "Government" even when a Liberal is in the Oval Office...

I don't get to just "take a flyer" on our Government when the Leadership is not what I voted for. I have to be willing to accept that, my views may, at any given time, either be part of the majority or the minority but I am STILL an American!

So when YOU attack the Government that runs MY Country, you also attack ME! No matter WHO is running the place.

I am just sorry that you obviously don't apply those same Morals to your own Country and the way YOU consider your own Nationality.

Regards,
Gaar

Oh yeah, shit...I'd be really screwed over if that happens...living so close to L.A. and everything...

Just one of the things that confuses me...

Why do people talk about nuclear arms, like they were conventional weapons?

Put it this way... you drop a few dozen fairly high-yield nuclear devices on LA, there wouldn't be anyone alive ANYWHERE in the US... we aren't talking about pieces of rock here...