NationStates Jolt Archive

PNAC, schoolboys with lots of fantasy or...?

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

That’s what is written in the cult paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses from PNAC. It's written BEFORE 9/11.

Source:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Sometimes I’m wondering if there’s no possibility that it all was framed up, from the early start…


Other Links:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/
http://www.yale.edu/strattech/92dpg.html

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Some names of the founding fathers of PNAC:
• Jeb Bush
• Dick Cheney
• Steve Forbes
• Francis Fukuyama
• Donald Kagan
• William Kristol
• Lewis Libby
• Dan Quayle
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Paul Wolfowitz
• Aaron Friedberg

Skeptical views:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

Yes yes, the government isn't competent enough to crush a bunch of Ak-47 toting Jihadists, but they managed to perfectly execute the biggest covert operation in the history of the world without producing a shread of evidence.

Sure.

Yes yes, the government isn't competent enough to crush a bunch of Ak-47 toting Jihadists, but they managed to perfectly execute the biggest covert operation in the history of the world without producing a shread of evidence.

Sure.

Yes you're right. But since Oliver North, Watergate...

Yes you're right. But since Oliver North, Watergate...

Nixon could have gotten away with Watergate if he and his staff had been competent. Yet, they were not.

And I'd have to say that the 9/11 (or 11/9 to you) attacks were just a tad more complex then bugging a hotel room.

Nixon could have gotten away with Watergate if he and his staff had been competent. Yet, they were not.

And I'd have to say that the 9/11 (or 11/9 to you) attacks were just a tad more complex then bugging a hotel room.

Yes, I know.

On the other hand "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."...

You're looking at it with hindsight. That catastrophic events cause large scale opinion changes is hardly an original, complicated, or new idea. If anyone was writing a paper about possible future public opinion regarding security issues etc then they'd pretty much have to mention that possibility and it's probable effects.

PNAC are all former Trotskyists who abandoned socialism and decided that the 'world revolution' should instead be for American-style capitalist 'democracy'.

PNAC are all former Trotskyists who abandoned socialism and decided that the 'world revolution' should instead be for American-style capitalist 'democracy'.

These are some names of the people that raised PNAC:

• Jeb Bush
• Dick Cheney
• Steve Forbes
• Francis Fukuyama
• Donald Kagan
• William Kristol
• Lewis Libby
• Dan Quayle
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Paul Wolfowitz
• Aaron Friedberg

You recognize a name?

These are some names of the people that raised PNAC:

• Jeb Bush
• Dick Cheney
• Steve Forbes
• Francis Fukuyama
• Donald Kagan
• William Kristol
• Lewis Libby
• Dan Quayle
• Donald Rumsfeld
• Paul Wolfowitz
• Aaron Friedberg

You recognize a name?

" I have been a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskist, a neo-socialist, a neo-liberal, and finally a neoconservative. "

" I have been a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskist, a neo-socialist, a neo-liberal, and finally a neoconservative. "

So little Bushy, cute Dick C., awesome Rumsy and lovely Wolfy are all ex-Marxists, ex-Trotskists, ex-socialist and ex-liberals?

Interesting.

So little Bushy, cute Dick C., awesome Rumsy and lovely Wolfy are all ex-Marxists, ex-Trotskists, ex-socialist and ex-liberals?

Interesting.

Wow, you didn't get the quote, it was Kristol.

I think Maddox had the best response to all these 'Teh gubbernmint did 9/11' ideas.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

I think Maddox had the best response to all these 'Teh gubbernmint did 9/11' ideas.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

May I use the link for my initial posting?

It's a nice one.

May I use the link for my initial posting?

It's a nice one.

Meh. It's not my best page in the universe.

Yes, I know.

On the other hand "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."...

Or, maybe they were just stating the obvious. This is a particularly well known fact, that short of a sudden, shocking event, American foreign policy is unlikely to change. Given even a cursory knowledge of this sort of thing one would easily be able to extrapolate this conclusion. In fact, you'd have to be a subhuman rodent not to be able to.

Or, maybe they were just stating the obvious. This is a particularly well known fact, that short of a sudden, shocking event, American foreign policy is unlikely to change. Given even a cursory knowledge of this sort of thing one would easily be able to extrapolate this conclusion. In fact, you'd have to be a subhuman rodent not to be able to.

Well that explains some posters on NSG :D

Well that explains some posters on NSG :D

Well, it's shockingly obvious, ya know?

Some people fail to understand that relevant case studies can give us insights into the future.

Well, it's shockingly obvious, ya know?

Some people fail to understand that relevant case studies can give us insights into the future.

I don't know. I think that they didn't do it, but still there are some doubts.

What is making you sure they didn't?

I don't know. I think that they didn't do it, but still there are some doubts.

What is making you sure they didn't?

There is no evidence to suggest that PNAC are behind 9/11, what more reason does one need?

I don't know. I think that they didn't do it, but still there are some doubts.

What is making you sure they didn't?

The absolute and total lack of direct evidence?

There is no evidence to suggest that PNAC are behind 9/11, what more reason does one need?

Until recently there was no direct evidence that smoking causes cancer.

There is no evidence to suggest that PNAC are behind 9/11, what more reason does one need?

I don't expect that evidence could be found just on the internet.

The document is talking about more than eventual a 911...

Until recently there was no evidence that smoking causes cancer.

That statement has, like, seven different types of fallacies in it.

That statement has, like, seven different types of fallacies in it.

Doesn't make it any less true.

Until recently there was no direct evidence that smoking causes cancer.
And your point is?
I don't expect that evidence could be found just on the internet.
No, but I expect conspiracy theorists would manage to report it on the internet if they could

And your point is?


That lack of evidence has nothing to do with reality.

And your point is?

No, but I expect conspiracy theorists would manage to report it on the internet if they could

Well several serious journalists are writing or making documentaries about it (no, i'm not talking about some Moore)...

Doesn't make it any less true.

Well, two things:

1.) There was substantial information existing regarding the fact that smoking had a close causal link to cancer as early as the late 1950's, this knowledge, though, was not acted on because smoking was such a prevalent part of American society.

2.) Regardless of whether or not it's true, it is entirely irrelevant.

That lack of evidence has nothing to do with reality.

Negative evidence fallacy.

You sound like a Bushevik talking about Iraqi WMD in 2003. :rolleyes:

That lack of evidence has nothing to do with reality.

Congratulations on stating the obvious and informing us all of something we already knew.

Well several serious journalists are writing or making documentaries about it (no, i'm not talking about some Moore)...
Namen bitte!

Well several serious journalists are writing or making documentaries about it (no, i'm not talking about some Moore)...

Oh brother...if they are making docs that the government was responsible then they are nothing more than conspiracy theorists.

Negative evidence fallacy.

You sound like a Bushevik talking about Iraqi WMD in 2003. :rolleyes:

1 Even if a statement can be categorized somewhere in a list of fallacies, that doesn't make it wrong. Evidence is overrated. Besides, your logic is similarly fallit.

2 fallacy ad hominem?

Well, two things:

1.) There was substantial information existing regarding the fact that smoking had a close causal link to cancer as early as the late 1950's, this knowledge, though, was not acted on because smoking was such a prevalent part of American society.

2.) Regardless of whether or not it's true, it is entirely irrelevant.

War on terrorism is a prevalent part of American society today, no?

Evidence is overrated

How so?

1 Even if a statement can be categorized somewhere in a list of fallacies, that doesn't make it wrong.

It gives us insights into the importance and relevance of the statement at hand, though. And your statement is entirely irrelevant.

Evidence is overrated.

Then, might I ask, how do you prove a point? With the aid of the pixies and fairies that whisper the hidden truth into your ear when you sleep?

Besides, your logic is similarly fallit.

You clearly have no concept of how logical fallacies work.

2 fallacy ad hominem?

Incorrect: An ad hominem fallacy would entail that I would seek to discredit your claims based on who you are. Something I have not done. Instead, I am merely offering an example of another incidence when a negative evidence fallacy occurred, and implying the unpleasant nature of the results of the decisions made in the light of that fallacy.

How so?
Evidence does not equal truth, it only indicates truth.

*reads first post*

*falls right to sleep*

*nudged*

Huh, what? Is it Armageddon already?

How so?

Because it destroys the conspiracy theorists. :D

It gives us insights into the importance and relevance of the statement at hand, though. And your statement is entirely irrelevant.



Then, might I ask, how do you prove a point? With the aid of the pixies and fairies that whisper the hidden truth into your ear when you sleep?



You clearly have no concept of how logical fallacies work.



Incorrect: An ad hominem fallacy would entail that I would seek to discredit your claims based on who you are. Something I have not done. Instead, I am merely offering an example of another incidence when a negative evidence fallacy occurred, and implying the unpleasant nature of the results of the decisions made in the light of that fallacy.

You prove a point with evidence, but a point may nevertheless be proven without being true. OJ Simpson?

Ad hominem: you seek to discredit my claim based on who I sound like, implying that because I sound like some people who were (apparently) wrong, I am wrong as well.

As for relevance, I point at the smoking example because it is an example of how lack of evidence does not change facts. Lack of evidence that teh gubbernment did it does not change the facts, whatever those are.

Evidence does not equal truth, it only indicates truth.
So how do you know if something is true without evidence? It is possible to have mountains of evidence to support a given hypothesis and for it to still be wrong, but it is very very unlikely, more so the more evidence there is.
Because it destroys the conspiracy theorists. :D

:D

Lack of evidence that teh gubbernment did it does not change the facts, whatever those are.

Care to point out where someone suggested they did?

War on terrorism is a prevalent part of American society today, no?

There is no relationship between your claims and this at all.

It's like trying to support the argument that the Earth is round by stating that Walruses are mammals.

So how do you know if something is true without evidence? It is possible to have mountains of evidence to support a given hypothesis and for it to still be wrong, but it is very very unlikely, more so the more evidence there is.


:D

You don't know if something is true, whether you have evidence or not. Mountains of evidence make it more likely, of course, or convincing, but the facts remain the same, regardless of evidence. Which is why innocent people sometimes get sentenced to the chair, and criminals sometimes walk away.

Care to point out where someone suggested they did?

No

No

So then why this rant about evidence not affecting facts?

There is no relationship between your claims and this at all.

It's like trying to support the argument that the Earth is round by stating that Walruses are mammals.

Isn't this like saying that history can tell us nothing about what will happen in the future?

You prove a point with evidence, but a point may nevertheless be proven without being true. OJ Simpson?

Legal defense requires a different standard from science.

Ad hominem: you seek to discredit my claim based on who I sound like, implying that because I sound like some people who were (apparently) wrong, I am wrong as well.

Incorrect, it was an illustrative example of the danger of the type of fallacy you're making.

As for relevance, I point at the smoking example because it is an example of how lack of evidence does not change facts. Lack of evidence that teh gubbernment did it does not change the facts, whatever those are.

What are the facts, then?

So then why this rant about evidence not affecting facts?

Posts 18-20. Besides, rants are fun, and I just thought I'd have one. Off topic, you reckon?

Posts 18-20. Besides, rants are fun, and I just thought I'd have one. Off topic, you reckon?

You have too much time on your hands.

Legal defense requires a different standard from science.



Incorrect, it was an illustrative example of the danger of the type of fallacy you're making.



What are the facts, then?

1. Both seek a reasonable level of certainty, the more the merrier. But yes.

2. That too, and a good one, I felt guilty, by association. Your fallacy had the effect of an ad hominem one.

3. I don't know. Which is pretty much the point.

3. I don't know. Which is pretty much the point.

Nice tautology Cpt. Obvious :)

You have too much time on your hands.

Very temporarily, but apparently, yes.

Isn't this like saying that history can tell us nothing about what will happen in the future?

Actually...history can tell us something about the future. "He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."