• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

PNAC

Kess

Thinker
K
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
193
I'm uncertain whether to ask about the following, as it could provoke strong reactions, but this matter is troubling me so here goes...

A politician (Michael Meacher) in the UK is being pilloried for suggesting that the current US administration exploited 9/11 to launch a quest for global domination along the lines laid down by a neo-conservative think-tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) several years ago. Some are just dismissing Meacher as a nutty conspiracy theorist, but I looked up the PNAC and he may have a point...

The PNAC did indeed propose using military force to extend US influence worldwide, starting with Iraq and the Gulf and then China/Korea. They even raised the extraordinary idea of using genetically-targeted biological weapons "as a political tool". And the PNAC also suggested in 2000 that a "catastropic and catalysing event" - like 9/11 - could provide the spur to get things moving.

I find the PNAC stuff pretty scary, not least because the people behind PNAC are big players like Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. who are now in the Whitehouse.

Perhaps you all already know about the PNAC, but it's new to me - hence this post. The questions I have are:

- What is the opinion of PNAC in the US? Is it taken seriously or all considered a big joke? Do people in the street know or even care about it?

- If prominent UK politicians expressed the extreme views of PNAC the press and political opposition would be all over them. Have PNAC aims/views been publicised or questioned in the US?

- Have I misunderstood something somewhere?

Can anyone enlighten me?
 
Read their own Statement of Principles. Browse that website, read what they think about China, Europe, the ICC, 'tactical' nuclear weapons.

Please try to find something on there that would indicate that it may be a big joke. Please post a link here if you can find it, because I can't. I think they are deadly serious.
 
Earthborn said:
Read their own Statement of Principles. Browse that website, read what they think about China, Europe, the ICC, 'tactical' nuclear weapons.

Please try to find something on there that would indicate that it may be a big joke. Please post a link here if you can find it, because I can't. I think they are deadly serious.
Click to expand...

It's no joke. Their vision is that the U.S. should rule the world, by economics where possible, by force where necessary. They would love to see a world where we rule and others work for slave wages to serve us.
 
Earthborn said:
Read their own Statement of Principles. Browse that website, read what they think about China, Europe, the ICC, 'tactical' nuclear weapons.

Please try to find something on there that would indicate that it may be a big joke. Please post a link here if you can find it, because I can't. I think they are deadly serious.
Click to expand...

Well more than the fact they they are not joking, look who "they" are:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/lies.htm

In 1998 the Project for a New American Century wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton urging the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. That letter was signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and Robert B. Zoellick.

10 of these 18 signers hold positions in the Bush cabinet today.
Click to expand...

In addition, the Statement of Principles for the PNAC is endorsed by Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, 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, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Click to expand...
 
Well more than the fact they they are not joking, look who "they" are
Click to expand...
Or what the Bush administration has been saying about, for example, the ICC. Compare that to what PNAC is saying about it. See any similarities?

These extreme leftwing sites such as USA for ICC are undoubtedly making me worry too much, and I'm sure the Bush Administration will do a fine job ruling the world. I will just have to trust America. (I added that last sentence in case the NSA is reading this with that Echelon thingy. But I'm am sure I worry too much: nothing in this world ever went according to plan.)
 
According to the book, The Right Man - the surprise presidency of George W Bush, written by former Bush speechwriter David Frum (who coined the phrase "axis of hatred," which was changed to "axis of evil"), Bush had been looking for a reason to take on Iraq and other adversaries from the moment September 11th happened. IOW, he wasn't concerned with catching the real criminals; he was looking for "evidence" that indicted whom he wanted to go after.

And this wasn't some whistleblower; he was writing about why he genuinely feels George III is a great guy.
 
Thanks for all the responses so far. I had already looked at a number of the suggested sites, and it's good to know that there are a number of people out there (and here) who are alarmed by PNAC's ideas.

However, does this just represent an enlightened minority? I'd guess a lot of anti-PNAC sites and articles might be dismissed by Joe Public as unpatriotic anti-American propaganda. To paraphrase my original questions:

- Are the general public in the US aware of or concerned about PNAC's ideas or the fact that the people behind it are now in power there?

- Why don't the opposition draw attention to this stuff (or do they - we don't see it in the UK)? Surely it would make good material for the Democrats to attack the current administration.
 
Earthborn said:
Read their own Statement of Principles. Browse that website, read what they think about China, Europe, the ICC, 'tactical' nuclear weapons.

Please try to find something on there that would indicate that it may be a big joke. Please post a link here if you can find it, because I can't. I think they are deadly serious.
Click to expand...

Took a look at the link you posted. I haven't read everything, but here's their main stated goals:

"• 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 promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• 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."

Are you opposed to any of these four primary objectives? Or is it just the details you don't like?

And this organization is not dictating policy. With only about a minute of scanning the site I was able to find a subject where they disagree completely with the administration, so I don't exactly consider these folks to be some sort of power behind the throne, even if they are influential.
 
I amazed to see all the undercover woo-woos on this board show their true colors. Didn't we have a thread about the Bilderberg (sp?) conspiracy crap a while back?

PNAC is quickly becoming the boogeyman for the anti-bush woo-woo; much like the NWO was the boogeyman for the anti-Bush Sr. woo-woo or how our own atf/fbi became the boogeyman of the anti-Clinton woo-woo.

Here's your sign.
 
PNAC is the sickest side of America: it caters to those who want to see America's place as the sole superpower converted into the sole dictators of world policy.

They want, for instance, to return to the days in which our defense spending was a greater % of the national budget a la Reagan - EVEN THOUGH THE USSR IS NO MORE.

What do you think they planned to do with a larger army? Play tiddly winks? They want to stick our noses in other peoples' affair, scare the daylights out of anyone who might have the courage to stand up for their principles against America's might.

What do you think they have been doing the past two years? They said it, then then did it. Don't call me paranoid... it's their words.
 
DrChinese said:
PNAC is the sickest side of America: it caters to those who want to see America's place as the sole superpower converted into the sole dictators of world policy.

What do you think they planned to do with a larger army? Play tiddly winks? They want to stick our noses in other peoples' affair, scare the daylights out of anyone who might have the courage to stand up for their principles against America's might.
Click to expand...

I suppose you'd rather China or the UN have that coveted role?
 
kongdrop.jpg



"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."
 
Tony said:


I suppose you'd rather China or the UN have that coveted role?
Click to expand...

Straw man; we already had the #1 role and needed to do nothing to retain it;

Red herring; I mentioned nothing about wanting other countries to become more powerful.

Next...
 
DrChinese said:


Straw man; we already had the #1 role and needed to do nothing to retain it;

Red herring; I mentioned nothing about wanting other countries to become more powerful.

Next...
Click to expand...


I'm asking a legitimate question.
 
DrChinese said:
PNAC is the sickest side of America: it caters to those who want to see America's place as the sole superpower converted into the sole dictators of world policy.
Click to expand...

Funny, I see it rather differently. I see it as a US that is willing to stick up for its own interests, who is willing to use force to stop the spread of dangerous ideologies and fascist dictatorships. I see it as a US that thinks an organization like NATO, which consists of only democratic nations, has a lot more moral legitimacy than the dictator's club you like to call the UN. And I see most of the interpretations of PNAC as the fevered delusions of those who can't accept the fact that the American public hasn't bought into their ideology which excuses terrorists and dictators as people just standing up for their "principles" (see below).


They want, for instance, to return to the days in which our defense spending was a greater % of the national budget a la Reagan - EVEN THOUGH THE USSR IS NO MORE.
Click to expand...

What, you think that's our only threat? We could use nuclear deterence against Russia. But urban warfare and peacekeeping operations require a lot of soldiers, and we can't deter terrorists with nukes. A large army requires a lot of money. I'm not surprised a lot of people don't want that, but the only rational objections are going to come from those who think it's not worth the dollar cost. Your complaints are mostly paranoid rantings.


What do you think they planned to do with a larger army? Play tiddly winks? They want to stick our noses in other peoples' affair, scare the daylights out of anyone who might have the courage to stand up for their principles against America's might.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I'm sure France is really worried that we'll attack them because of their obstructionism. Please, you're pathetic. What "principle", exactly, was Saddam sticking up for? What about Kim Sung Il? The principle to starve their own people?
 
Tony said:



I'm asking a legitimate question.
Click to expand...

No, I would not want China or any other entity to be stronger than the US. I do not want the US to be stronger than the US is now, either.

(Your question has little or nothing to do with the PNAC discussion, however, and that was what I was addressing in my prior post.)
 
DrChinese said:

(Your question has little or nothing to do with the PNAC discussion, however, and that was what I was addressing in my prior post.)
Click to expand...

Yes it does, PNAC is about securing and maintaining America’s dominance. China (and to a lesser extent, the UN) is a potential threat to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom