Project for a New American Century

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by finebead, Jan 11, 2008.

  1. finebead
    Offline

    finebead VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    284
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +59
    The Neo Con Manifesto (or how to take care of defense contractor and big oil company CEOs):

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

    Pretty good propaganda statement by the neocons. Setting the foundation for the war in Iraq.
     
  2. Doug
    Offline

    Doug Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    394
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +52
    And with which part of this excellent statement do you disagree?
     
  3. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Apparently he disagrees with the statements that he made bold above. If the US remains the preeminent world power in the 21st Century, it will be despite people like finebead. I was an American student studying abroad in China and later in Germany during the period 2002 through 2004. And I traveled extensively in Asia and Europe. Let me tell you that people from other countries do look to America for leadership, even the far Left students and professors that I encountered. Finebead has no clue if he thinks otherwise. People abroad may disagree with us. But the geopolitical conversation is all about America and what we'll do next. I heard no talk about EU or Chinese world leadership even from members of those countries.
     
  4. Doug
    Offline

    Doug Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    394
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +52
    Well, the argument is really not one of will the United States remain the pre-eminent world power, but should it remain the pre-eminent world power.

    I take it that Finebead believes that it should not, and for the reason that American pre-eminence brings harm to the world.

    The PNAC statement did not take this pre-eminence for granted, but proposed a whole range of measures that the United States should take, if it wanted to retain its position. It might be interesting to discuss both issues:

    (1) Is the economic and military strength of the United States a good thing, or not?

    (2) If it is a good thing, can we take it for granted over the next century? If not, what should we do to retain our position?
     
  5. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Richard Perle, a founding member of PNAC, who has been quoted as describing America's "war on terrorism" in these words:

    This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq.... [T]his is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and....just wage a total war...our children will sing great songs about us years from now.>31


    http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_wh...ac_quotes.html


    YouTube - PNAC,, You have got to see this! It is WILD!
    I suppose even if it was before the document was issued it ...
    3 min 45 sec -

    [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uT7kcAu4i8[/ame]



    advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool

    ______________this is a quote by a group called the Project For The New American Century, and its 2000 document "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The Project For The New American Century is a think-tank group pursuing exactly genocide right here in the United States of America. Unbelievable? See the think-tank's website at http://www.newamericancentury.org. You can read the entire document at http://newamericancentury.org/Rebuil...asDefenses.pdf



    William Kristol, founding member of the Project for a New American Century (the terrorist organization that engineered 9/11), attempted to speak at the University of Texas in Austin on October 3rd 2006, but was heckled and booed by the audience. Americans are clearly waking up to the truth about 9/11 and who was behind it.

    http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1445/default.aspx


    ____
    gee maybe the rest of the world might want to consider a preemptive strike
    against these neoconofacsist that seem to hate the rest of the worlds Freedumbs and prosperity
     
  6. finebead
    Offline

    finebead VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    284
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +59
    This is about the re-militarization of america, without the existence of a threat that warrants it. Al Qaeda is 2000 thugs hiding in caves, and we were attacked by 20 Saudis with box cutters.

    Do we need to increase defense spending to contend with this threat? No. Delta Force is what is appropriately required to deal with this, and re-acquisition of some CIA field capability.

    That PNAC statement is a cover story for the military industrial complex, to somehow justify wars call them in the national security, when they are to control oil supplies for big oil's CEO bonuses. It will make a lot of money for defense contractor CEO's.

    It's propaganda.

    The rich will get richer, and the poor will die so they can.

    We were told Iraq was ground central in the war on terror. It was not. This administration just lies. If it was, would you take over a large land mass like Iraq to neutralize far less than 1% of its people, if they had been Al Qaeda terrorists, and pay the cost to conquer and occupy them for a long time, to deal with that type threat? No. That's a very poor cost benefit ratio, especially since the 9/11 commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

    We need better education for our kids so we stay competitive in the world economy, we need better and more efficient health care that covers all americans, we need an economic plan that halts off shoring good jobs for middle class americans, we need a strong viable currency so our standard of living doesn't decline due to inflation, and I see none of it. The dollar has dropped like a sinker since Bush came in, contributing to $3 a gal. gasoline, and rapid inflation in health care cost, housing and college tuition (pushing it beyond the means of many).

    Why do we spend as much on defense as the next 15 nations combined, about 45% of the total world spend to protect 300 mil. people out of 6 billion. It doesn't make sense. (unless you are a defense company CEO, or a big oil company CEO, like Exxon, that just signed a 30 year contract to produce oil in Iraq).
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    My problem with the whole NeoCon group, is that like their mentor, Leo Straus (no relations to the jeans guy) they believe that they are the group to lead US. US being the sheep who cannot care or think for ourselves.

    This is the same bullshit that so many other "elite" have made in a hundred different countries at a hundred different times.

    So far based on what they have done in Iraq, they aren't really the brightest bulbs in the pack. Born into money or power, they confuse that with actual talent and skill.
     
  8. Doug
    Offline

    Doug Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    394
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +52
    The neo-cons (the real ones) had very little to do with the detailed implementation of the invasion of Iraq. But they did have terrible illusions about how easy it would be to encourage democracy there, and can be faulted for this.

    The idea that Delta Force and the CIA will allow us to be safe is taken straight from the Rambo mind-set. The CIA is incompetent, and most "Delta Force" type operations have been, and will be, failures. It's Hollywood dreamstuff. Nothing can replace armored divisions.

    Without American military and economic power, either Hitler, or Stalin, would have overrun Europe, and the world would have been a very different place. The growth of prosperity and well-being that the human race is now experiencing is a direct result of our decision to wage war on Hitler and the Japanese, and then to wage the Cold War against the Soviets.

    Don't kid yourself about this.

    If we are lucky, someday the world will be one big peaceful Europe-like set of nations, slowly merging their institutions as their cultures and values converge on the civilized model. Capitalism is leading the world out of poverty and backwardness, but this will not happen soon -- not even within our lifetimes. But it will happen. Then we can stand down our military and all sit around the campfire and sing folk songs.

    Until then, there are some bad actors out there, and we had better be stronger than they are. They include the Russians and the Chinese, both freed from the economic shackles of socialism but retaining the mind-set and much of the political structures of communism.

    We don't know what will result from the stirring into consciousness of Islam. Al Queda is just the first experiment history is making with this growing force, and will probably be forgotten in ten years as more successful models of Islamic resurgence emerge. We must hope that modernizing versions of Islamic consciousness take hold of the Muslim masses, and act on our hopes to help it come true.

    In the meantime, we must remain militarily strong. At the same time, the neo-conservatives are right in their general outlook: it is in our interests to advance the cause of democracy and freedom in the world, and this will not happen peacefully (it has never happened peacefully).
     
  9. finebead
    Offline

    finebead VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    284
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +59
    Roger that.

    Disagree. How do you deploy armored divisions against 4 terrorists in a kitchen somewhere in the world? Answer: You can't. The nature of the threat is such that the biggest challenge is not killing them, its FINDING THEM. All the armor in the world WILL NOT ACHIEVE THIS GOAL. If the CIA is broken, of just atrophied, then fund it and/or fix it. The nature of its intended operation IS what is called for to deal with a terrorist threat. Same with Delta Force and the rest of the special forces. I will guarantee you that conquering large land masses populated with 99.9% of people that are not and never wanted to be a threat to you is a terribly inefficient model, and a fools errand. Fools errand, see neocon. I am not a military man, I'm a business man and successful private investor who has proved adept at strategic planning, and this administration is plumb stupid, numbingly incompetent, or sinister. Although I think Bush is plumb stupid, many of his support team I have concluded is sinister as they are neither stupid nor numbingly incompetent. They appear to be incompetent at the task we think they are executing because they never intended to perform the task they said they were attempting; they are trying to perform a task that they never mention because it is so selfish as to be blatantly immoral.

    I've been a successful investor because I don't buy anyone's BS. I don't believe financial advisors, who seem more adept at maximizing their profit than mine. I don't believe Greenspan, Bernanke or any president, like when they say they don't expect the subprime crisis to trickle down and affect the underlying economy, yea, right. I pay good money and get several private opinions on the economy and investment strategies, and then I don't believe any of them on the face. I think for myself, test their proposals, decide what I think is right at that point in time and I execute. I don't practice asset allocation because at any time certain asset classes are going up and some are going down. Why would you want ANY of your assets parked in a class that is going down? I pick what I think the correct path is, and I go with it for all I have. It's exciting at times. There's an old saying about understanding the world, "Follow the money". It will lead you to the truth, almost always. When it doesn't, look for ignorance or incompetence or sinister aims, but usually its about the money (simple greed).

    I agree the US did a great thing is WWII. My father served in the Pacific for 3 years in the Army infantry, 37th division. He was in front line combat for two years at New Georgia, Bouganville, and the Phillipines. I have his discharge papers and he exited as a "Scout". My father said it was the most important thing he did in his life, and I believed him. He also taught me the difference between wars that were just and HAD to be fought, and what he called "BS political wars", started by pip squeak politicians who had never been under fire. It was his opinion that only a politician who had never been under fire would start a BS political war, and subject good american service men to war for an inadequate reason. He hated Johnson, and he despised Nixon. Stupidity seems not to be the exclusive realm of either party.

    There is nobody out there today, nor any situation in the world today that is analogous to Hitler. This point is irrelevant to the discussion of neocon aims and policies. Sorry. If you wish to attempt to show a threat in the world today that is analogous to Hitler in WWII, PLEASE DO, I haven't had a good laugh this week.

    For my general disgust with our current leadership, you are more optimistic than I am. I don't think human nature will change. I agree we need to stay strong enough to deter any threat, and to participate in international efforts to police the world. To the extent we exceed that objective, we siphon too much of our resources into the military and will leave ourselves less able to compete economically. If that trend continues, we won't be able to fund the military due to our economic weakness. When we offshore our manufacturing and some high tech such as engineering expertise and information technology, we weaken our nation in favor of short term profits for corporate CEO's who can get mega rich in 12 quarters or less of market out performance, while running their company in the ground. See Chuck Prince at Citigroup, and the CEO Merrill Lynch just fired for costing the company BILLIONS in write downs on subprime mortgages. That problem was knowable, see Goldman Sachs is NOT taking any write downs, nor PIMCO bonds.

    The economic position of the US is not a constant. After WWII, we were clearly a superpower, with superior universities, sound businesses, and the only major nation that survived the war with its primary infrastructure intact. That gave us a two decade lead on the rest of the world. Russia, China and India slowly came to their senses, Japan rebuilt, and they have adopted our economic processes. Japan has taken over much of the electronics production and and autos and steel, with some others, like Korea. China and India represent just shy of half the worlds population, and they were excluded from a significant role in the worlds economy until two decades ago, but communications technology and email have connected them. They have a huge labor cost advantage they are exploiting and the economic underpinnings of the world are currently shifting. What you could count on as true 30 years ago cannot be counted on to be true today. And I'm talking about fundamental economic truth here. The gap between the US and the rest of the world is shrinking. We have already exported a lot of democracy and capitalism in places that have not embraced democracy (like China), and it has helped them shrink the gap. As we fall back to the pack, and they gain on us, I don't think we will be able to continue to outspend them on the military as we did in the past. That's not all bad. Ask England, a superpower for 300 years until the start of the 20th century, 40 years as a declining superpower, and after WWII, not a superpower at all. It happens.

    This is NOT fundamentally about Islamic fundamentalism. That's the cover story Bin Laden uses to motivate stupid young people to die for his hidden cause. His real objective is to overthrow the Saudi royal family like the Iranians ousted the Shah. He wants power. For that he needs money, the kind of money that comes from controlling Saudi crude. See the Al Qeada terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. He needs money and he needs people who are motivated and willing to perform the actions necessary to seize power. He motivates them with the fairy tales of Islamic fundamentalism. There is a similar analogy for the neocons. Their objective is not to destroy Al Qaeda (see Bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora, where we had him but sent in the second string locals who lost him, why?), who is actually useful in demonstrating the needed bogey man necessary to motivate poor americans to perform the actions necessary to keep them in power and achieve their economic aims, maximizing big oil and big defense contractors CEO's bonuses and stock option packages.

    Blatant over simplification. We must remain militarily strong enough to defend the US from attack, and to participate in prudent international actions to protect the strategic interests of the US and our strategic partners. This does not mean we need to stockpile obscene offensive capabilities sufficient to conquer, occupy and control the economic resources anywhere in the world necessary to maximize selected CEO's bonus plans. It does not mean that we need to build armaments to the exclusion of all other strategic needs of the United States, and I believe in the 21st century, our primary threats will be economic in nature. I see us poorly positioning ourselves to deal with those threats.

    Need some contraints. This is not true in the ABSOLUTE sense. Would you bankrupt the nation and just build tanks, planes, ships, and M16's? Bad plan. It is in our interests to advance the cause of democracy where it is cost effective. It has happened peacefully, see Poland after its emergence from Soviet rule. We diplomatically and financially supported Walesa and effectively helped birth a successful democracy in Poland. If the only tool you know about is a hammer, then all problems must be viewed as a nail. It is not always that way.
     
  10. Doug
    Offline

    Doug Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    394
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +52
    Finebead: Your long and interesting reply requires an equally thought-out response, which I shall try to make over the next day or two or three, perhaps point by point.

    I have no disagreement with quite a lot of what you have written, which,as generalities, could not be disagreed with by any reasonable person. And in particular I agree that the current administration has been woefully inadequate to the historic tasks which it has faced -- Mr Bush has been a kind of Churchill manque.

    A couple of quick points where we do disagree: True, there is no "Hitler" out there, in the sense of the leader of a powerful modern state, heading a totalitarian political movement, with a deep sense of national grievance and the intention of satisfy it, with interest.

    But note that when Hitler was on the rise, there had never been anything like him and his movement before. Each historical circumstance -- certainly in the last two centuries -- is new, because society is changing so rapidly, driven by the powerful engines of economic and technological change (as foreseen, ironically enough, by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto). His contemporaries -- with almost the sole exception of Churchill -- looked at Hitler, and saw simply a German authoritarian ruler, with limited national grievances who could be appeased. Wrong. (I used to have an acquaintance, now deceased, who was in his early 20s in the late 30s. As Hitler rearmed and made one demand after another, he said that he, and his contemporaries, just could not believe that the Germans were, after the insane carnage of the Great War, going to do it all again. So although they went through the motions of preparing for war, they just did not believe it would happen.)

    There is a strong tendency to believe, after the event, that the way things turned out were the way they had to turn out. But I think that had, for example, the Republicans been in power in 1940, we would not have maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us, would have remained out of the war until it was too late, and possibly would have faced a triumphant German/Japanese coaltion alone. That this did not happen was the result of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's determination to get us into war, although this required a good deal of deception of the American public. Of course American corporations, and their CEOs, did very well out of our military engagements. But this does not invalidate the historically progressive outcome of Roosevelt's success in getting us into war.
     

Share This Page