Project for the New American Century

[Gank]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Read the front page, then click the statements of principals at the top and check out the names of the sponsers at the bottom of that page. Read some of the articles as well. Should give those US citizens here an insight as to why theres so much "anti-americanism" around these days.

[Evaders99]

And? The United States is the superpower of the world and we need to start taking responsibility... not letting dictators rule and destroy all human rights... not letting terrorists kill millions of innocent people... not letting the UN to continue issuing resolutions that are not backed by force.

 

I'm sure you'd like the US to be an isolationist state once again.. but its not going to happen because of people like Hitler and Saddam. Our good-will isolationist stance left millions of families vulnerable during World War II. We will not let this happen again.

 

-- ranting done

If this does get too heated, I will close the topic.

Don't attack people, attack ideas. State opinions but back them up with fact.

[Jahled]

 

Evaders, does this mean the United States is going to remove the totalitarian-regimes and Dictators in Pakistan, Burma, North Korea, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar..in fact, most of the Middle East, Algeria, most of Africa, and China? And impose democracy? All their human rights records suck. Or is this a measure of any potential threat to the United States? We simply can't ignore why the middle east is so inflamed by what your country and my country are doing. They percieve it as hypocracy.

[GonkRaider]

yes folks thats right.. evader..the only voice of reason =) In this majority of anti american sentiment

[Gank]

Evaders I suggest you go and read some of the documentation on the site before you assume its about promoting democracy and removing the threat of terrorism. Its not about that, its about ensuring the US's control of the worlds economy and preserving the US's way of life. Your country holds 25% of the worlds wealth and has 4% of the worlds population. These people are not looking to decrease that ratio, they are looking to increase it, and that can only be done at the expense of others. Where on this site are there any calls for the elimination of world hunger, or the providing of water to the 30% of the world that dont have it? Its not about making the world a better place, its about making the US a better place.

 

As for isolationism, your government cant afford that, if it retreats into itself its cuts itself off from its only means of suporting itself. Your budget has ran at huge deficits for quite some time now, only balancing it by exporting money. Across the world the dollar is used as a secondary currency, if this were to change your economy would be up shit creek without a paddle. And its already starting to, the Euro is replacing the dollar in oil sales and Asian ecomists are calling for the Yuan, china currency to replace the dollar.

 

This information is freely available, if we can read it you can bet the governments of Russia, France, China, Iran, Syria, etc have read it, and I dont think they are going to stand around while the US tries to run the world. Remember theres 6 billion people in the world, not just the 300 million in the US.

 

While theres nothing wrong with getting rid of regimes like Saddams and terrorist like Al-Quada, who installed the Ba'ath party in the first place, who funded and trained Al-Quada during the 80s, the US thats who.

[Trejiuvanat]

The invasion of Iraq is certainly one of the first steps in this "project for a new american century".

Their plan is a simple one, it is a way of political and economcal neocolonialism. And while we won't bee seing more U.S. colonies like Guam, we will see countries that will be strongly influeced by the U.S. Imposing the dollar as a second currency was the very first step. Costa Rica uses the dollar as a secondary currency, Panama, El Salvador and Ecuador use dollar as the national currency. Removing dictators is opening up new colonies which will serve as hubs of american culture expansion, destroying other cultures entirely. Iraq is first, Plan Colombia has started to do so in my region. In a couple of months will the target be north Korea? An African country for the last. Europe is splitting up right now, being divided by the Iraqi War Issue, the Russians still resenting 50 years of a cold war, and a financial crisis, are isolated. The former-socialist countries are finding a way to keep up with global economy. The Euro is getting stronger, but not enough as to keep up with the dollar, so far it hasn't made any serious pushes in exporting money, like the U.S. does.

The strategy of the PNAC is a simple one and sadly it is working. U.S. has less than 5% of global population. For an U.S. american living the way he does five people need to live in poverty. U.S. won't return to isolationism, and not only because it "needs" to prevent dictators from rising, but because its expansionist economy won't retreat now that it's at it's peak.

The U.S. have trained Al-Qaeda terrorists in the 80s, have been respnsible for lots of dictatorships in latinamerica, only to prevent communism from spreading, even if the communist was elected by the people democratically. (Chile-Allende (1973)).

I hold this opinion because of all the active members in this forum I live in a "third-world" country. Most of you live in Europe or the U.S. so I could say I know how much has this PNAC has an influence in my country. Even Costa Rica's stupid psychiatrist-president has supported the "Coalition", if only to secure the Free-Trade agreement with the U.S., his argument was:"If I had to choose between U.S children and Costa Rica Children AND Iraqi children. I'd choose American Children." Hardly worthy of a peace-loving country. jining a coalition when we don't have military.

 

______________________________________________________

This post was editted to correct my poor spelling. Thanks Jahled for pointing it out. I was writing fast but not angry. I wanted to see a soccer game in the evening.

Edited March 30, 2003 by Trejiuvanat

[Evaders99]

I can't argue what's already been done - the US has always done what it believes to be the worst of two evils. We supported Iraq against Iran, we supported Afghanistan against communist Russia... I can't say that we've not done terrible things.

 

But no where does this say we're taking advantage of the rest of the world. It is dictators like Saddam and Kim that are a danger to freedom and democracy.

 

What I see now in these anti-American movements is a resolve to destroy the sovereignty of the US and the "American" way of life - capitalism. In a free economy such as Japan, there has been enormous technological advances that have paved the way for human progress in Asia. Even now, China is continuing to develop economic zones based on capitalist ideas - the improvements there are astounding.

 

We can no longer give trillions of dollars in foreign aid for it to be abused by these groups. The UN has funded weapons programs throughout the 60s.. arming and abetting known militant groups. France, Germany, and Russia are known to increase the military power of numerous totalitarian regimes. Our "Food for Oil" programs are going into the coffers of dictators such as Saddam, not the people who truly need it.

 

There is no other solution - if the US is hit again, the dollar and the world economy suffers. We've all seen that since September 11th.

 

On Iraq: yes we did support them and tried to leave them alone with their own sovereignty. Instead, they commit acts of murder on their own people and threaten numerous other countries around them. To see such hatred against Americans for enforcing our own ceasefire agreement with Iraq is just demeaning. American and other coalition forces stopped him from committing genocide and threatening 2/3s of the worlds oil supply. We still have maintained southern and northern no-fly zones to protect the innocents that Saddam is trying to destroy. We can no longer keep the status quo because he is not disarming.

 

I don't hear the "peace" protesters calling for Saddam to leave... to disarm.. to bring about civil and economic change. He is the one that is making himself better at the expense of everyone else.

 

We gave the UN a chance to remain united... instead they have chosen division. It is not us that have ruined the diplomatic process, it is countries such as France who would not even vote on a resolution. At this point, it does not matter. The UN has shown it is nothing more than an anti-American platform. When you have such countries as Libya on the human rights committee, and such countries as Iran and Iraq on the disarmament committee, you see how hard it is to take them seriously. When most of these countries are controlled by dictorial regimes, would you rather the UN control your country, or your country control your country.

 

I can't defend everything said in the website. But I do believe that we have a duty to defend ourselves. As Europeans are worried we will fail, Asians are worried we will win. At this point, doing something is better than doing nothing.

 

There will always be anti-American sentiment as long as their is human emotions. Because we support freedom and a democractic government, because we respect human rights and have capitalist society, because we have morals and views that are upheld through the Constitution. The envy and raw hatred I see is astounding. Yes Americans do have a better standard of living.. but it is because there is opportunity and the fight for freedom. Its not because we go across to foreign countries and plunder. We buy from countries so they can support their people. If we wanted oil, we would have taken it by now.

 

Coalition forces are the ones dropping food and supplements for the Iraqi people.. calling for them to surrender and not defend Saddam. We are the ones doing everything we can to minimize casualties... high-precision missiles are targetting military targets. It is Saddam's group that is threatening the lives of his people, housing military groups by water plants, power planets, hospitals... using mosques and other civilians as human shields.

 

As I see it, we need to resolve to fight terrorism and totalitarian regimes. We will use diplomacy as we can... 12 years of it didn't solve anything in Iraq. In other situations, it has worked effectively. We're not all gungho about using force, but we are ready to. Because we can no longer afford to "speak softly, and carry a big stick" - only by speaking loudly against such regimes can we change the status quo.

 

There are many many times in history where we could have established an American Empire - that's what you all fear. But it has not happened because that is not our motives, nor our intentions. Say what you will, but if that is what America was about, you'd all be Americans already

 

---

 

Man, all across the board today. Too many subjects to discuss.

 

I can't say I represent anyone but myself. These are my free opinions, and not representative of any group. Do not take this as the view of all Americans, because there are just as many that would hate me for writing this as there would be agreeing with me.

 

Nor do I believe that all others are anti-American. It is a small porportion of these countries' populations that are easily incited in these anti-American marches. If all these people were against the US, I'm sure I would not be talking to you now: as the evil Internet was invented for use by the American Department of Defense

 

The ranting and ravings of me. Supporting the coalition troops out there liberating Iraq!

[GonkRaider]

thank god for evader..-pulls a mini tie defender out of his pocket and gives it to him- Keep up the good fight =D

[Trejiuvanat]

I cannot and wil not agree with you Evaders, but I can say that in some way I can understand your point of view on this. Your are livign the American standard of life, you will have a harder time imagining the real conditions of poverty in Iraq or any other third-world country.

Your constitution includes moral view and values that are valid for your country. I'm not saying that this values are wrong or that democracy is wrong, but in some level they do apply for the U.S. only. The Brits democracy, nor the German's or the French' will be the same. The moral values of a country are influenced by the context they were created.

There is no political American Empire, in the economic level there is one, it is hard to argue about the influence that it has.

In Costa Rica peace protest protest the war. Agasint Bush and his measures, agaisnt Abel Pacheco for supporting him. But most of the protesters know that Saddam has to go. The UN failed not only because France didn't even vote on the matter. Perhpas if the Chilean proposal for the disarmment would have been suppported by one of the coalition countries france would have voted for it. The UN failed because it was shown that the U.S. could have almost managed to put it's agenda thorugh as an U.N. resolution. The U.N. has always been a weak organ with no real authority.

Most of the Anti-U.S. sentiment is derived of the actions of the U.S., their meddling in in conflicts in a part of the world that should not matter to them. They have no moral high ground to be the judges of a country. Invade it and then turn it into a hub of American influence.After WWII they wanted that Germany became a country devoted to agriculture....

Actually after 9/11 latinamerican economy recovered a bit with the fall of the dollar.

The argument of Freedom and Democracy loses part of it weight when you analyze and discover that it is the American interpretation of Freedom and Democracy. There aer ocuntries where a dicatorship works best because they need efficience. Under a dictatorship there isn't the problem of bureaucracy or having projects being approved by the parlament.

The Oil for Foos programs, well as long as the foodstuff isn't the same of Alianza por el Progreso....

I'm glad that we can discuss this calmly. I am not angry at you and the above posts were written calmly. While I disagree with the U.S. politics, I cannot agree with Saddam, only that I think there is no way for any country to strike preemptively at him. Especially the U.S., whom is known to have strong expansionist politics. Which was the starting point of this forum. The PNAC.

[Gank]

Well said boys, its nice to have somebody actually willing to debate the actual benifits and disadvantages of the pnacs policies instead of just calling you a conspiracy theorist. But the sad fact remains, that in order to preserve the US's way of life, billions of people are suffering. Money is not an infinite resource, and the US holds more than a quater of it, and those people who run the country are not looking to spread that around a bit. The US would benefit far more by using the money being spent on the star wars program top help alleviate world hunger or provide drinking water to those who need it. It is estimated that providing safe water to the 30% of the world that does not have it would cost one tenth of the cost of star wars. Yet the US believes that protecting itself from imagined threats is more important.

 

The fact of the matter is the pnacs policies effectively pit the US against the world. I think we all know, that despite the US's technological and military superiority this is a mistake. I'm not saying they are going to start ww3, but no country is going to want to be under the sort of control these guys are calling for. These people aren't talking about eliminating terrorists, they are talking about creating them. Look at some of the countrys the US has labelled as evil and ear marked as "regime change" Cuba, Lybia and Iran, all are ruled by dictators, yet all are regarded as pretty liberal outside the US and their governments have huge popular support. The US wants to replace these and install democracys, what happens when the person elected is anti-US, which after a "liberation" such as is happening in Iraq is a certainty. Does anybody think the US is going to fight a war to liberate countrys and then allow the people to elect an unfriendly government?

[Jahled]

...and along the lines of your final point, that's exactly what the population did in Algeria; elect a relatively pro-fundermentalist Islamic government through democratic means. The army representing the west's interests took control, and have been effectively in power ever since! Democracy becomes meaningless if you don't respect a nation's democratic wishes if they represent a concern to your own interests.

 

The horror that has unfolded in the last decade in Algeria has proberbly got to complex and murky to use as any analogy with the present situation, however.

 

Just a thought.

[Gank]

It also happened in Vietnam, one of the terms of the ceasefire arranged with the French was that elections would take place in the whole of vietnam to determine its future. These were delayed and blocked for ten years because it was certain that Ho Chi Mings party would win. The democratic government the US was meant to be protecting was in fact a military dictatorship, which had never been elected or never had any intentions of holding any. End result of that war, 3 million vietnamese dead, an unknown number of Cambodias and Laotians, and the destabilisation of the area.

[Evaders99]

On Vietnam: I believe that our military would have won without the politicians up in Washington controlling everything. A sad attempt at containment that was full of political agendas. If the military had the support like they do today, then Vietnam would not be communist now.

 

Yes, I do believe we allow anti-American elected officials. Look at France and Germany. Chirac and Schroder have a decisive anti-American platform.

 

To change the status quo, there will be suffering. After WW2, Japan and Germany were near militaristic-states. We had to rebuild them. Our commitment was there. As it is now to rebuild Afghanistan and to rebuild Iraq. When these countries can come into the 21st century, democracy will flourish.

 

You believe we will continue to give out money, when it is being spend on weapons designed to harm us? There is corruption in the UN that stinks... nearly 20 billion dollars the UN is receiving for its "Food-for-Oil" program. We can't continue to trust the UN to do its duty and ensure this money gets used properly to feed people. Nor can we go in and start preparing to bring water resources into a sovereign nation. We would be chewed even more for not giving the money to their government to use. It would be a breach of all international law.

 

What we can do is route out sources of support for terrorists. We remove a regime, by force if necessary with a declaration of war, and then prepare to take responsibility for rebuilding the country. We have seen both the bad and the good that can happen. We have the experience and the allies necessary to stop these terrorists. And in the process, we will be fostering democracy.

 

We are in-between a rock and a hard place. If the US does nothing, we are blamed. If the US does something, we are blamed.

 

There is a fine line on what we will accept and what we will not. Now I believe that line is set: we will not accept regimes that are supporting and aiding terrorists. Saddam has been known to support the Al-quada and Palestinians terrorists, and if he arms them with chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons, then the whole world will suffer.

 

 

--- I really cannot comment on every action that the US has taken. There will continue to be terrorists, America being the main target. There is a war.. the Islamic "jihad" movement considering all American citizens targets. So to not respond means death.. to respond may trigger more attacks, but at least we will have the chance to stop them.

 

We're going across every topic, so now I recommend we go back to the issue at hand: this website and its ideas. Post why in this proposal the US is preparing to control things.

[Gank]

On Vietnam: I believe that our military would have won without the politicians up in Washington controlling everything. A sad attempt at containment that was full of political agendas. If the military had the support like they do today, then Vietnam would not be communist now.

Evaders you are ignoring the fact that most people in Vietnam supported the Viet Minh/Cong. Whether or not your military would have won or not is besides the point, the fact is they were there to prevent the people of vietnam from getting what they wanted. BTW, the US military had over 1 milliontroops in vietnam at the highest point, fighting a poorly equipped, trained and numerically inferior force and they never once even came close to securing the country, I find your claim extremely suspect.

Yes, I do believe we allow anti-American elected officials. Look at France and Germany. Chirac and Schroder have a decisive anti-American platform.

Umm, Chirac and Schroder were probably two of the most pro american leaders those countrys ever had before the US decided its way was the only way and tore up the UN charter. Not to mention the heavy blows this invasion will deal to both of their economys, due to the legitimate business deals both had with Iraq. And invading France and Germany are completely different things than Iraq, I think we both know both would end in a US defeat. Both have modern militarys and in some areas are technologically superior to the US, and neither have suffered from 20 years of war and 12 years of sanctions.

To change the status quo, there will be suffering. After WW2, Japan and Germany were near militaristic-states. We had to rebuild them. Our commitment was there. As it is now to rebuild Afghanistan and to rebuild Iraq. When these countries can come into the 21st century, democracy will flourish.

Sounds great, but you neglect to mention the fact that Germany and Japan both have heavy debts to the US for said reconstruction. You didnt rebuild them out of your own pocket, you actually profited from it. Take the case of Iraq, humanitarian aid and reconstruction will be paid for by the oil for food project. Quite frankly the frequent claims coming from the US about european ingratitude for US aid during and after WW2 are ridiculous, if you lived in one of these countrys and realised the heavy price that was and still is being paid you would realise this. BTW there has been little or no rebuilding of Afghanistan, and the country is ruled by US friendly warlords.

You believe we will continue to give out money, when it is being spend on weapons designed to harm us? There is corruption in the UN that stinks... nearly 20 billion dollars the UN is receiving for its "Food-for-Oil" program. We can't continue to trust the UN to do its duty and ensure this money gets used properly to feed people. Nor can we go in and start preparing to bring water resources into a sovereign nation. We would be chewed even more for not giving the money to their government to use. It would be a breach of all international law.

Considering the balatant disregard your country has already shown for international law this is a pretty poor excuse dont you think. And the US does not "give out money" in fact the US owes the UN money. While you may get annoyed about what you see as the US givin out your hard earned tax dollars, the fact is the US takes in more from other countrys than it has ever given out. Where do you people get this myth that the US is giving billions in oversea aid, the only state that gets any money from the US without giving anything back is Israel.

What we can do is route out sources of support for terrorists. We remove a regime, by force if necessary with a declaration of war, and then prepare to take responsibility for rebuilding the country. We have seen both the bad and the good that can happen. We have the experience and the allies necessary to stop these terrorists. And in the process, we will be fostering democracy.

Even if said democracy is hostile to the US? Your being very naive if you think a democratically elected government in Iraq is going to be US friendly, same goes for most of the other countrys in the region. The majority of people in Iraq are Shi'ite Muslims, a fundamental sect which sees the US as the great Satan, if you do manage to depose Saddam, and its starting to look doubtful, do you think these people are going to change they're beliefs?

There is a fine line on what we will accept and what we will not. Now I believe that line is set: we will not accept regimes that are supporting and aiding terrorists. Saddam has been known to support the Al-quada and Palestinians terrorists, and if he arms them with chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons, then the whole world will suffer.

Your right about the palestinian bit, but there is extremely thin evidence that Saddam supports Al-quada or has NBC weapons. All we've seen so far are 10 old mustard gas shells, a couple of thousand nbc suits and absolutly nothing to link him with al-quada except some unsubstantiated claims by "sources"

-- I really cannot comment on every action that the US has taken. There will continue to be terrorists, America being the main target. There is a war.. the Islamic "jihad" movement considering all American citizens targets. So to not respond means death.. to respond may trigger more attacks, but at least we will have the chance to stop them.

America is only the target because it makes itself one, the continual meddling in middle eastern politics has resulted in the terrorist threat you now face. Please explain why you think going in there and killing more muslims is going to help solve the problem. I'm from a country that has suffered from terrorists, and its not as simple to solve as going in with all guns blazing. How do you know somebody is a terrorist? theres no way of being sure until they actually commit a terrorist act.

We're going across every topic, so now I recommend we go back to the issue at hand: this website and its ideas. Post why in this proposal the US is preparing to control things.

Umm have you read the damn thing? Says it right there on the front page, US global leadership, attained through military, economic and diplomatic means. I think thats pretty clear. Go read some of the articles, they explain pretty much how this is to be achieved. This one is interesting, particularly the last line.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/bushdoctrine-013002.htm

It might help if you pretended you were somebody from another country while you read this, remember you are in the top 4% of the worlds population, and theres 6 billion other people worse off than you. Its easy to have a nice and rosy view of the world when you have it easy.

[Jahled]

One of the most brilliant posts i've ever read! I think it might be useful to actually paste that final line for the lazy:

 

The Bush Doctrine is also notable for what it is not. It is not Clintonian multilateralism; the president did not appeal to the United Nations, profess faith in arms control, or raise hopes for any “peace process.” Nor is it the balance-of-power realism favored by his father. It is, rather, a reassertion that lasting peace and security is to be won and preserved by asserting both U.S. military strength and American political principles

 

If this is the democracy America is proprosing to enforce on the world, it has failed morally before it has begun. That is exactly the same language and argument people into Islamic terrorism justify in their murderous deeds. When political thinking drifts off into basically asserting that the world is essentially safer under American military control and domination, then the true colours are out, and quite frankly, we can't realistically label people fighting against it as terrorists, they have a justifiable cause to fight the supression imposed upon them.

 

Given the said American objective and ambition, every Arab and Persian has every right to fight us in any way that they can. It disturbs me to speak so, but it sickens me to read and understand the subject Gank has raised in his link. My heart is troubled.

[dinochick]

No offense or anything, but how do we know this is for real. I have honestly never heard of it and neither have several of my professors I have asked about it. I mean, common, anyone could make a website and sign those politicians’ names to it, right.

I for one think that it is a horrible idea, if what they are saying is that the US should pretty much rule the world. It will never fly. Another reason I hate politicians.

But, seriously, is this a real thing? What make you think that it is?

[Gank]

Well I read about it on the guardian website, so i presume they would check its authenticity out before commenting on it. And I think if it wasnt real you'd see it shut down very quickly. As to why people arent discussing it, I dunno, though from what I've seen most on other forums most americans dont seem to care.

[Evaders99]

Evaders you are ignoring the fact that most people in Vietnam supported the Viet Minh/Cong. Whether or not your military would have won or not is besides the point, the fact is they were there to prevent the people of vietnam from getting what they wanted. BTW, the US military had over 1 milliontroops in vietnam at the highest point, fighting a poorly equipped, trained and numerically inferior force and they never once even came close to securing the country, I find your claim extremely suspect.

 

The fact is that we lost. And I'm sure they like their communist government now. Another proof that "containment" does not work.

 

Umm, Chirac and Schroder were probably two of the most pro american leaders those countrys ever had before the US decided its way was the only way and tore up the UN charter. Not to mention the heavy blows this invasion will deal to both of their economys, due to the legitimate business deals both had with Iraq. And invading France and Germany are completely different things than Iraq, I think we both know both would end in a US defeat. Both have modern militarys and in some areas are technologically superior to the US, and neither have suffered from 20 years of war and 12 years of sanctions.

 

Sorry, I don't see Chirac and Schroder being pro-American in anything that would not benefit their own political ends. Again, another proof that "containment" - the sanctions - do not work when Russia would continue arming Iraq against the UN resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm.

 

Sounds great, but you neglect to mention the fact that Germany and Japan both have heavy debts to the US for said reconstruction. You didnt rebuild them out of your own pocket, you actually profited from it. Take the case of Iraq, humanitarian aid and reconstruction will be paid for by the oil for food project. Quite frankly the frequent claims coming from the US about european ingratitude for US aid during and after WW2 are ridiculous, if you lived in one of these countrys and realised the heavy price that was and still is being paid you would realise this. BTW there has been little or no rebuilding of Afghanistan, and the country is ruled by US friendly warlords.

 

Sure, I'd love to see the day when no one is indebt to anyone. But I'm sure the French would rather be speaking French than German right now. What heavy price? I don't see the Germans going an-arm-and-a-leg to pay back any kind of debt. They have one of the highest standards of living. There has been rebuilding in Afghanistan, with much money and resources there to rebuild the country. Yes, a lot of the country is still ruled by warlords, but that has happened even before the Taliban. Take it one step at a time.

 

Considering the balatant disregard your country has already shown for international law this is a pretty poor excuse dont you think. And the US does not "give out money" in fact the US owes the UN money. While you may get annoyed about what you see as the US givin out your hard earned tax dollars, the fact is the US takes in more from other countrys than it has ever given out. Where do you people get this myth that the US is giving billions in oversea aid, the only state that gets any money from the US without giving anything back is Israel.

 

I don't see any law stating we cannot resume aggressions if a country does not abide by its ceasefire agreement. Where do you get the myth that we're taking money away from everyone else? Is the US going into every country that we have oversea aids programs and demanding slaves? I don't see why we should not expect accounting of the money "supposedly" being used for aid.

 

Even if said democracy is hostile to the US? Your being very naive if you think a democratically elected government in Iraq is going to be US friendly, same goes for most of the other countrys in the region. The majority of people in Iraq are Shi'ite Muslims, a fundamental sect which sees the US as the great Satan, if you do manage to depose Saddam, and its starting to look doubtful, do you think these people are going to change they're beliefs?

 

You're right. This won't change people's belief. It takes a lot of time and dedication to destory fanatism and old hatred. Take the communist movement... it is slowly being destroyed because we have survived. We haven't backed down and left this country turn into a socialist regime. Nor are we going to allow terrorism to continue.

 

Your right about the palestinian bit, but there is extremely thin evidence that Saddam supports Al-quada or has NBC weapons. All we've seen so far are 10 old mustard gas shells, a couple of thousand nbc suits and absolutly nothing to link him with al-quada except some unsubstantiated claims by "sources"

 

Now, if we gave away everything we knew about Iraq, they would just move it and none would ever prove we were right. I do believe that the US has much more "sources" than it will give out to the general public: to do so would endanger the lives of our forces everywhere. That being said, proof cannot be obtained until something "big" happens. We didn't have any proof that the Russians were going to use nuclear weapons against us, but we're damn sure they wouldn't arm Cuba with them

 

America is only the target because it makes itself one, the continual meddling in middle eastern politics has resulted in the terrorist threat you now face. Please explain why you think going in there and killing more muslims is going to help solve the problem. I'm from a country that has suffered from terrorists, and its not as simple to solve as going in with all guns blazing. How do you know somebody is a terrorist? theres no way of being sure until they actually commit a terrorist act.

 

I'm sorry, we haven't "meddled" in Middle Eastern politics anymore than Saddam has meddled in American politics. We have tried to remove murders like Milosevic at the urging of France and Germany. We have defended Kuwait from Saddam and stopped his threat of controlling 2/3s of the world's oil. We have supported Israel in the defense of its people, nearly 1/5 of them not being Jewish but Arab.

 

I'm not saying all muslims are terrorists. However, it is the Muslim code that is being preached by the minority that are terrorists. That being said, we don't go into Europe to ask the Al-quada leaders to stop. We go into their bases and destroy the threat. If you believe that we're just going to kill all Muslims, we haven't. We're taking out military targets in Iraq to the best of our ability.. it is Saddam that is endangering civilian lives by housing his forces near water planets, hospitals, and mosques.

 

Umm have you read the damn thing? Says it right there on the front page, US global leadership, attained through military, economic and diplomatic means. I think thats pretty clear. Go read some of the articles, they explain pretty much how this is to be achieved. This one is interesting, particularly the last line.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/bushdoctrine-013002.htm

It might help if you pretended you were somebody from another country while you read this, remember you are in the top 4% of the worlds population, and theres 6 billion other people worse off than you. Its easy to have a nice and rosy view of the world when you have it easy.

 

Leadership. Leadership. If you take that for "global domination, destruction of Muslims, and pillaging the poor to raise up the rich", then that's your own opinion. I don't have a rosy view of the world because my parents strugged to get here from China. My grandparents nearly died through the events of World War II. It was people like French bureacrats that let it go so far... who could have thought there would be a second World War after the first? But there was. And now we have to take responsibility to see that it does not happen again.

 

You've already said we can't change people's minds. There are people out there to destroy the US. If we do not do anything than chaos will reign. The progress that the US has given the world: technological, social, economic, human rights... fostering a new era of hope with independence, freedom, and liberty - that is what I believe the US stands for. And I'm not going to let that be destroyed and ruin the lives of all 6 Billion people in the world.

 

Believe what you will about the motives of the US. We've done more good than harm in this world, and we're in for the long haul. We're ready to take responsibility for removing Saddam, just as we are for helping the Iraqi people. If the goals are to bring leadership back to the impotent UN, then it will be done for the all humanity - not just Americans.

 

I pray that the impotence of the UN never again destroys the diplomatic process that we started. I also pray for the lives of those forces in the Middle East, maintaining order and stopping hostile forces from destroying all civilization.

 

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

 

I'm not a politician nor do I claim to know what the politicians up at Capitol Hill are up to.

 

We agree to disagree right? That's good enough for me.

[GonkRaider]

lets face it.. evader rules =)

[Guest Scathane]

Well I read about it on the guardian website, so i presume they would check its authenticity out before commenting on it. And I think if it wasnt real you'd see it shut down very quickly. As to why people arent discussing it, I dunno, though from what I've seen most on other forums most americans dont seem to care.

 

I do not aim to offend you, Gank, but for someone who has repeatedly told other people to get their facts straight, told them to read about things before commenting on them and even openly questioned the validity of other people's news sources, I must say that you yourself are presuming quite a lot: Dinochick made a good point in questioning whether these PNAC people represent any real formal power of authority. You're argument that most Americans don't seem to care as the reason that people are not discussing it is all too easy.

 

Although I do not advocate American control over this world, I must say that in all debates about America and their alleged lust for world domination, I have missed several matters of importance.

 

1. The entirity of Europe and large parts of the rest of the world would have been dominated by a totalitarian regime of either fascist or communist conviction if it weren't for the USA. We're talking no freedom of speech and ideas, as well as religion here!
2. A lot of people accuse Bush of having alterior motives with regard to the 10% of the world's oil reserve that Iraq holds. Consider the following:

a). France, Germany and Russia, who all were against a war against Iraq, all have economic stakes in Iraq; they weren't against it for humanist reasons. Example: France generated 3 billion euro in trade deals with Iraq, Russia did about 1.4 billion euro in teh same year. For those of you failing to see the point: the UN agreed on a trade embargo with Iraq!
b). Personally, I wouldn't dare name a country, government of other faction that would say NO to 10% of the world's oil reserve, had they the power to secure it for themselves.

3. Then there is the point that a lot of people on these forums are of the opinion that America has shaped ttoday's political and economic landscape, including the division between poor and rich countries. First of all: you aren't wrong, the USA has been one of the deciding countries in that respect. However, so were Russia and China and I never hear you guys about them! The way the world looks today isn't a legacy of the USA alone!

4. The United States is predominant in this world and whether you like that or not, the USA is a country that advocates democracy and freedom of speech. Personally, I would take that every day over a totalitarian regime or a dictatorship.

 

I think we all can agree that the United States does actually have the responsibility of a global leader. Let's hope they use it wisely.

[ElvisMiggell]

First let me start by saying well done. Two long pages and no name calling! Yay!!!

 

Anyway, I don't mean to offend, but I would like to voice my concerns.

 

Though America is not looking for a physical empire per se, like the European states before the world wars, there are a number of similarities that disturb me.

 

Britain France and Germany all failed at Empire building, I think that much is obvious. What were our methods? Military might, and bringing democracy to the uneducated foreigners. We decided that democracy and our model society were right for the rest of the world. It didn't work, we messed up, big time, and we're still seeing the after effects of it today, right accross the world.

 

Now the USA may not be seeking to invade in quite the same way as we did over a hundred years ago, but it does seem like over the last 50 years that they are headed in the direction of trying to enforce democracy on the world. It's been tried before and it doesn't work. The USA is younger the the European countries, and it feels to me sometimes like they're trying to do what we did 100 years ago.

 

It seems like they haven't, or are refusing to learn from our mistakes, and that is going to cause problems for another century at least.

 

Much as we want to MAKE the world a better place, we can't. We have to let countries shape themselves. Heck, we even tried to shape America, and look where that got us!

 

By all means send aid to these countries to help them, and maybe even protect them if they're attacked, and when i say protect, i mean escort, none of this proactive stuff, it's all a bit too Kyp Durron for me.

 

I think the USA needs to step back. Don't become isolationist, but don't try and do things that you just can't do. If we can't convinvce each other on an individual level, how on earth are we going to convince an entire country? Democracy is the way to go, but countries have to find that out for themselves. IMHO.

[Gank]

The fact is that we lost. And I'm sure they like their communist government now. Another proof that "containment" does not work.

Actually they do, I've been there and theres a great sense of pride in the fact that they defeated the US. Sadly US economic sanctions have kept them in poverty since the war and prevented them from making anything of their hard earned country. So containment in fact did work.

Sorry, I don't see Chirac and Schroder being pro-American in anything that would not benefit their own political ends. Again, another proof that "containment" - the sanctions - do not work when Russia would continue arming Iraq against the UN resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm.

Its private russian countrys which are providing the Iraqis with equipment, and US companys have dealt with the Iraqis as well, even the one ran by Dick Cheney.

Sure, I'd love to see the day when no one is indebt to anyone. But I'm sure the French would rather be speaking French than German right now. What heavy price? I don't see the Germans going an-arm-and-a-leg to pay back any kind of debt. They have one of the highest standards of living. There has been rebuilding in Afghanistan, with much money and resources there to rebuild the country. Yes, a lot of the country is still ruled by warlords, but that has happened even before the Taliban. Take it one step at a time.

The only reconstruction that has taken place in afghanistan by US is a building of a pipeline across the countyr, any other rebuilding has came under the UN and is funded by the international community. As for war debts, I suggest you actually go and find out before you dismiss them. Last year alone the british paid the US billions in war debts.

I don't see any law stating we cannot resume aggressions if a country does not abide by its ceasefire agreement. Where do you get the myth that we're taking money away from everyone else? Is the US going into every country that we have oversea aids programs and demanding slaves? I don't see why we should not expect accounting of the money "supposedly" being used for aid.

Look to your own constitution and the UN charter, your country is in breach of both. As for "ceasefire" arrangements, these come under the UNs authority not yours, you have NO legal authority to wage war on iRAQ.

You're right. This won't change people's belief. It takes a lot of time and dedication to destory fanatism and old hatred. Take the communist movement... it is slowly being destroyed because we have survived. We haven't backed down and left this country turn into a socialist regime. Nor are we going to allow terrorism to continue.

The US was never in any danger of becoming a socialist regime, your containment of socialism was in other countrys, in many cases against the people of that countrys wishs. As for allowing terrorism to continue, how do you propose to stop it? do you honestly for one minute think that invading Iraq is going to stop anti-US sentiments in the middle east? I suggest that you go and watch the news reports and see how many muslims are burning the US flag at the minute.

Now, if we gave away everything we knew about Iraq, they would just move it and none would ever prove we were right. I do believe that the US has much more "sources" than it will give out to the general public: to do so would endanger the lives of our forces everywhere. That being said, proof cannot be obtained until something "big" happens. We didn't have any proof that the Russians were going to use nuclear weapons against us, but we're damn sure they wouldn't arm Cuba with them

That makes no sense, if the US had information about the whereabouts of nbc weapons they should have turned it over to the UN inspectors. If had done so the inseptors would simply have gone to the site unannounced and checked it out. The fact of the matter is the US gave its "evidence" of weapons to the UN a couple of times and they weren't impressed with it. You seem to be ignoring the false documents the US and UK published concerning Iraqs deceptions and attempts to buy plutonium. If they had hard evidence why did they feel the need to falsify documents?

I'm sorry, we haven't "meddled" in Middle Eastern politics anymore than Saddam has meddled in American politics. We have tried to remove murders like Milosevic at the urging of France and Germany. We have defended Kuwait from Saddam and stopped his threat of controlling 2/3s of the world's oil. We have supported Israel in the defense of its people, nearly 1/5 of them not being Jewish but Arab.

FYI the US were the ones to put the ba'ath party in power back in the 50s. You are ignoring the US's propping up of Saudi Arabias regime and the Violent Shah of Iran, which let to the revolution there. As for the Arabs in Israel, you are glibly ignoring the fact that they are treated as second class citizens, and dont have the same rights as Jews. Not to mention the fact that they''re being turfed out of their homes and their land taken.

I'm not saying all muslims are terrorists. However, it is the Muslim code that is being preached by the minority that are terrorists. That being said, we don't go into Europe to ask the Al-quada leaders to stop. We go into their bases and destroy the threat. If you believe that we're just going to kill all Muslims, we haven't. We're taking out military targets in Iraq to the best of our ability.. it is Saddam that is endangering civilian lives by housing his forces near water planets, hospitals, and mosques.

True, but you bhave declared war on him, hes going to use whatever means necessary to ensure his survival. Did you honestly expect hi to drive everything out into the open and let the US bomb it to pieces? Bit niave dont you think.

Leadership. Leadership. If you take that for "global domination, destruction of Muslims, and pillaging the poor to raise up the rich", then that's your own opinion. I don't have a rosy view of the world because my parents strugged to get here from China. My grandparents nearly died through the events of World War II. It was people like French bureacrats that let it go so far... who could have thought there would be a second World War after the first? But there was. And now we have to take responsibility to see that it does not happen again.

Leadership is control, and the language used on that page makes it clear this is whats desired. Saddam was not about to start ww3, no offense but its completely stupid to even try and insinuate this. The only country in danger of starting ww3 here is the US. Cant you guys see the writing on the wall. US leadership is not wanted.

You've already said we can't change people's minds. There are people out there to destroy the US. If we do not do anything than chaos will reign. The progress that the US has given the world: technological, social, economic, human rights... fostering a new era of hope with independence, freedom, and liberty - that is what I believe the US stands for. And I'm not going to let that be destroyed and ruin the lives of all 6 Billion people in the world.

It may look like this to you, but to those outside the US it looks like a new era of profiteering. And your countrys record of human rights is actually worse thatn some of the regimes you propse changing, lets not mention camp x-ray, the execution of minors and insane, etc.

Believe what you will about the motives of the US. We've done more good than harm in this world, and we're in for the long haul. We're ready to take responsibility for removing Saddam, just as we are for helping the Iraqi people. If the goals are to bring leadership back to the impotent UN, then it will be done for the all humanity - not just Americans.

 

I pray that the impotence of the UN never again destroys the diplomatic process that we started. I also pray for the lives of those forces in the Middle East, maintaining order and stopping hostile forces from destroying all civilization.

You claim that the US started a diplomatic process, thats completely absurd, the US has rarely ever tried to sort things out by diplomatic means, what diplomacy was used with Iraq? And you complain about the impotency of the UN, when you are the very people making it impotent.

 

But your right you have your views I have mine, and I think we'll both be long dead before its clear who was nearer the truth. Bear in mind though unlike yourself I have no reason to be biased towards the US, they've never done anything to my country (nor much for it) and probably never will.

 

@ Scathane please read my post carefully before you attack my words, I said from what I've seen on other forums most americans dont seem to care. Not the US as a whole. In reply to your other points

1. You seem to believe the misguided notion that The US won the War in Europe single handedly, as most historians will tell you, Russia basically did. US helped greatly, but the war for europe was fought and won on the eastern front, Italy and France were mere sideshows in comparison. Not running down the US effort, it certainly would have been harder without them, but they were not the reason the war was won. By the time D-Day came the Germans were already losing badly.

2. France and Russias deals with Iraq were not against UN sanctions, they were future deals to start when the sanctions lifted. And just fyi, the vast portion of the french deals were made by a subsidary of a US company, Halliburton, which at the time was run by Cheney.

3. Quite right, this is what the pnac wants to change, make it purely a US show.

4. the US is not the only democratic government, and qquite frankly, compared to some european countrys you democracy is a sham, you have only 2 partys, both of which are indiscernable to an outside observer.

 

You americans seem to think the US's policy is to spread the american way of life worldwide. Like I keep pointing out. it takes 25% of the worlds wealt to support your standard of living with 4% of the worlds population. Do the maths and determine the amount needed to elevate the rest of the world to your status. Then please how your going to achieve this while spending billions on the military.

 

@Elvis, well said, but the US cant afford to step back, their economy as I have pointed out and people have ignored is supported by exporting the dollar and economical dominance, if they step back and let China Russia or Europe become economically powerful it will suffer, and they arent about to let this happen. Happen it will though, and risky foreign policys like the ones the pnac proposes and the government seems to follow are going to make the fall worse.

[Guest Scathane]

@ Scathane please read my post carefully before you attack my words, I said from what I've seen on other forums most americans dont seem to care. Not the US as a whole. In reply to your other points

1. You seem to believe the misguided notion that The US won the War in Europe single handedly, as most historians will tell you, Russia basically did. US helped greatly, but the war for europe was fought and won on the eastern front, Italy and France were mere sideshows in comparison. Not running down the US effort, it certainly would have been harder without them, but they were not the reason the war was won. By the time D-Day came the Germans were already losing badly.

2. France and Russias deals with Iraq were not against UN sanctions, they were future deals to start when the sanctions lifted. And just fyi, the vast portion of the french deals were made by a subsidary of a US company, Halliburton, which at the time was run by Cheney.

3. Quite right, this is what the pnac wants to change, make it purely a US show.

4. the US is not the only democratic government, and qquite frankly, compared to some european countrys you democracy is a sham, you have only 2 partys, both of which are indiscernable to an outside observer.

 

There you go again, Gank: you're presuming again. How? I'll tell you how:

1. I did not in any way imply that the USA won WWII singlehandedly. That is what YOU read into it. I merely said that the USA most definitely made a difference, mainly because of tackling Japan, which ultimately would have invaded Russia from the East, hadn't the USA come into the game.

2. Why are you telling me that MY government has only two parties? You seem to presume that I'm American... What on earth are you talking about? I'm Dutch, man! I'm just as European as you are! And, quite frankly, if the American democracy is a sham, than so is ours in Europe.

 

And it seems you have trouble reading as well. I did not say the USA as a whole with regard to your remark that most Americans don't seem to care, I used exactly the same term you did, namely most Americans don't seem to care. Furthermore, the deals I am talking about weren't future deals dude, they were actual deals. Deals that neither Russia nor France want to give disclosure on.

 

One last think, Gankster, I never have called anyone's notions or ideas misguided or have labeled them nonsense in any other way. I would appreciate your doing the same.

[Jahled]

...just a little point of interest. As some of you guys might know, I work in the transport industry and a while ago I came up against an interesting little problem. One of our client's at Reuters news agency wanted a consignment flown out to Cuba. No problemo! I thought. (Excuse the pun), Anyway, package in office, I was speaking to one of my overseas haulers and was joking about Simon Bolivar cigars and the said package.

 

He then informed me he couldn't move it; his company was owned by a larger company who would be fined if they dealt with Cuba because of US sanctions.

 

Dumbfounded, partly due to the fact he had no problem moving my consignments to anywhere in the Middle East, (Al-Jazerra are one of our clients), I had to phone around all the contacts I had; and in the end had to set up a new account with a smaller hauler that afternoon in order to get the bloody consignment out of my office. Top of my head there are two other places I can't get consignments to; Bosnia (still classed as a war-zone) and North-Korea (I've never bothered to ask..).

[Guest Scathane]

Definitely a good point, Jahled... I must admit that sometimes I have the feeling that politics just is too much dirty hands.....