| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... He's monkeying with the masses, and it worked He's repeating the company line. Most of his heroes are listed at www.newamericancentury.org Check out their admitted agenda. It explains a lot. The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff. It would be too horrible to believe, like being told your whole family had been killed in a car accident. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff.
NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general principles. I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a lot of people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more than a single opinion. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated? John H Dig into the PNAC website a bit, John. The devil is in the specifically outlined details- not the platitudes and general principles. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? That web site is too important to have someone else digest it for you, John. Read it. To do otherwise is lazy, and that has no place in a healthy democracy. There's an election coming up. You need to be sure of what you're voting for. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:26:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? That web site is too important to have someone else digest it for you, John. Read it. To do otherwise is lazy, and that has no place in a healthy democracy. There's an election coming up. You need to be sure of what you're voting for. I have. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? Is that question too difficult to answer? You could just give me a number. If you cannot state the disagreeable principle(s), then one must assume you disagree with none of them, True? If you disagree with none of the principles, then why all the fuss about the New American Century? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated? John H How about the following quote from NOYB, an adherent of the PNAC, agreeing with my analysis of the New American Century's agenda? You're unlikely to accept the opinon of a goddam liberal- but NOYB is certainly one of the conservatives best schooled on the PNAC agenda. You might find him more credible: I wrote: I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a lot of people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq, Iran, Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more than a single opinion. NOYB wrote: Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; [[(oops).accidentally cut the part about promoting econonic and politcal freedom in other countries]] • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz ************************************************ OK, John. Here we go. "We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership." As you would discover elsewhere on the site, "American Global Leadership" even includes extending American religious and moral values to other countries. It is a process of economic and moral colonization. How do I disagree? I believe that until we solve our own problems we have no business assuming the role of the world's military or moral police power. I believe that an Asian, European, African, or South American individual is as entitled to self determination as any US citizen of North America. Aussies too. Who the hell are we to presume that the rest of the world is even interested in having us "lead" them anywhere? Has to be one of the most arrogant public positions ever taken. Who are these couple of dozen people to presume to speak for the entire country? "Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" IOW, "having eliminated a rival philosophy that sought to shape the world in its shadow, does the US have the resolve to do shape the world in its own."? "And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead." I actually agree with that statement. "Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. "Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;" We're already the sole, remaining, superpower.......but we're going to need a much larger and better equipped military to carry out what the PNAC sees as our "responsibilities." "• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;" As this is the second of four items listed, it's safe to assume that we will use our expanded military to "challenge regimes that are hostile to our interests and values." NOTE: The site does not say that these regimes have to be a military threat to the United States, merely nonaligned with our (commercial?) interests and (moral?) values. The accidentally cut statement about promoting political and economic freedom in foreign countries is hypocritical in this context. The NAC crowd are only interested in promoting the freedom of other countries to agree with and support American "interests and values" "• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. " We need to structure the rest of the world to create an international order friendly to US security, US prosperity, and US principles. Colonialism. So there you go John. I don't expect you to agree with my perspective. But stow the crap that I haven't ever specified the nature of my concerns. This is probably the third or fourth time I have repeated this in this NG, and only did so because you asked in a reasonably civil manner. |
Hybrid Mode
