Project for the New American Century

[Gank]

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.

Dont make me laugh, look at the size of Russia and look at the size of Japan, and compare there respective populations at the time. Thats a ridiculous statement and you know it. Russia was in as much danger of being invaded by Japan as the US was. In fact, Marshal Zhukov actually defeated the Japanese prior to WW2 and both had a truce. I did misread your original statement though, partly because I though you were another american telling us how much we owed your country, my apologies.

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.

Fair enough, my mistake, I presumed this from your last sentence, I did not think somebody outside the US would like to have their military and economic policies determined in Washington, evidently not. As for the government, I did specifically state the US, and you have to admit that there is a lot more political choice in Europe than the US. We can even vote for former terrorists here.

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.

If they dont want to give disclosure, then how the hell do you know about them. You are just presuming here arent you. And I dont see what your are trying to say when you are accusing me of presuming as regards my statement, the language I used makes it pretty obvious that this is exactly what I am doing. I dont see what your problem with statemnet which is quite obviously a presumption and was not intended to be seen otherwise.

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.

By replying with contradictory views this is exactly what you are doing. You may not be calling them nonsense and misguided, but its the same thing. Dont see why you take offense at it though, doesnt mean we have any disrespect for each other, anybody can be wrong, and lets be honest none of us are experts on the subjects being discussed here. I did misinterpret most of your post though, and I apoligise for that, I've had a long day and my inbox is full of flames from patriotic americans who disagree with my views. Makes me kind of irritable

[Evaders99]

I'm sorry you are being flamed. But as you express your opinion, others are entitled to express theirs. That's a free society for ya.

 

No, I'm in no way calling for you to be flamed. So don't - we may disagree, but keep it civil!

 

The problem I see is that the US is getting mixed messages.

 

1) American civilization has been at the forefront of human progress. As more countries take a look at our own success, they try to emulate it. It is much in-part to American technology that we are speaking now. Communism is nearly dead while capitalism is flourishing. Music is turning away from the old European classics to rock'n'roll... food from fancy restaurants to McDonald's. While we do have a part in marketing these goods, it is the general population that wants American culture.

 

2) By trading with other countries, we make each country depend on everyone else. The interdepedence our country has with the rest of the world benefits everyone. The gasoline we buy in America is not taken, it is bought and sold by international cartels, who by them from countries such as Iraq. Iraqi people benefit from the selling of oil to support their familes.

 

3) No longer can we go into isolationism. After World War II, it is apparent that we would have to form an united forum for nations to solve problems. We always worried that such a body would attempt to control our foreign policy, but it was a given that it should happen. We gave the Russians a permanent seat which is one of the reasons why the Cold War finally ended.

 

4) We cannot force any country to accept American culture. In many areas they do not want our help, nor can we force this on them. Many lines cannot be crossed in terms of soveriengty... civil wars, etc. We can, however, make sure our own treaties are being enforced such as the one with Iraq.

 

The US can no longer let the support of terrorists spread. Should they continue to defy the UN mandates, we will have no choice. Because if we do nothing, the blame is certainly on us.

 

I do not believe we can control any nation nor is this our intention. Nor can we go out and pretend not to have an influence in the world like after WWI. We have a responsibility as a superpower, and with the critizism that we get, I don't see how possibly we can control the world.

 

If we remained united on the disarmament of terrorists and not divided on the blind hatred of the evil "America" - we will get much more accomplished in the support of peace and prosperity. We need the world as much as the world needs us. There is no reason to divide when armed terrorists threaten everyone's freedoms.

 

If this website supports total domination of a people, then I would not support it. The American way is even the smallest minority gets a say. That is the opinion of these people, not the American population as a whole.

 

I end my comments with these words:

 

Let not debate lead to inaction. Let not fear deter our resolve. Let not instability stop our responsibility.

 

 

---- too seriously heated today. I'll cool off. Perhaps you guys can PM each other if you want to flame. Otherwise, make sure you guys cool off before posting.

[Trejiuvanat]

1) American civilization has been at the forefront of human progress. As more countries take a look at our own success, they try to emulate it. It is much in-part to American technology that we are speaking now. Communism is nearly dead while capitalism is flourishing. Music is turning away from the old European classics to rock'n'roll... food from fancy restaurants to McDonald's. While we do have a part in marketing these goods, it is the general population that wants American culture.

 

The general population does want American culture because it was a culture that was imposed on them. Propaganda and publicity made people think that american culture is better than a local culture. Espcially on children it is a subtle way to impose it. SO that in the end they know only American culture...

 

2) By trading with other countries, we make each country depend on everyone else. The interdepedence our country has with the rest of the world benefits everyone. The gasoline we buy in America is not taken, it is bought and sold by international cartels, who by them from countries such as Iraq. Iraqi people benefit from the selling of oil to support their familes.

 

In Costa Rica there have been protests against the NAFTA, North american Free Trade Area, basically because in such an agreement the country that can export most is the one that "wins". Costa Rican goods won't stand a chance if Costa Rica is opened to foreign economies. Most of the money will simply go to the U.S. and people in the U.S. won't simply start buying Costa Ricans goods. Here U.S. good will have a lower price than Costa Rica goods so our economy will decay... decay even more....

 

3) No longer can we go into isolationism. After World War II, it is apparent that we would have to form an united forum for nations to solve problems. We always worried that such a body would attempt to control our foreign policy, but it was a given that it should happen. We gave the Russians a permanent seat which is one of the reasons why the Cold War finally ended.

 

It seems to me that it was the otehr way round. The U.S. government has been for a long time a puppeteer behind the U.N., in this last issue iwth Iraq the U.N. lacked any real power because the u.S argued agasint their decisions

 

4) We cannot force any country to accept American culture. In many areas they do not want our help, nor can we force this on them. Many lines cannot be crossed in terms of soveriengty... civil wars, etc. We can, however, make sure our own treaties are being enforced such as the one with Iraq.

 

You do not force them you rainwash them subtly... That's the main function of the entertainment industry. It is used to transmit ideals. There was polemic here because on Hollywood movie suggested that Costa Rica was a good vacation spot to get a few cheap whores... That scene was deleted here. Bond's last movie attacks North Korea.... The U.S. have always preferred such subtle techniques over Nazi or Stalinistic Propaganda.

 

The US can no longer let the support of terrorists spread. Should they continue to defy the UN mandates, we will have no choice. Because if we do nothing, the blame is certainly on us.

 

"Either you are with us, or you area against us." That were Bush's words after 9/11. It is one radical comment, the U.S government is forcing the rest of the world to take sides in a conflict that msot of the countries will not have to afront. TErrorism is a radical measure of opposition. Why don't the u.S attack the roots of this opposition by removing the threat???

 

I do not believe we can control any nation nor is this our intention. Nor can we go out and pretend not to have an influence in the world like after WWI. We have a responsibility as a superpower, and with the critizism that we get, I don't see how possibly we can control the world.

 

After both WWII there was only one country that did not suffer any losses in their territory, whlie Europe and the Sowjets and the Giappis, did have to rebuild thier infrastructure. A couple of quick political maneuvers allowed the u.S. to reach the top of the world. The politicians, apparently seem to confuse terms like responsibility, so that their responsibility to secure peace is a tool to secure their influence.

 

If we remained united on the disarmament of terrorists and not divided on the blind hatred of the evil "America" - we will get much more accomplished in the support of peace and prosperity. We need the world as much as the world needs us. There is no reason to divide when armed terrorists threaten everyone's freedoms.

 

The ideal should not be teh disarment of terrorist but the disarmament of all countries. Costa Rica did it, fifty years ago and reverted to a pacifist position, even if we did declare war on nazi Germany (they destroyed a fisher boat with a torp). money was inverted in education and public health. REverting to such a policy for foreign matters, could speed up the pacification process. instead of trying to spread all over the world with a mighty military.

 

If this website supports total domination of a people, then I would not support it. The American way is even the smallest minority gets a say. That is the opinion of these people, not the American population as a whole.

 

There is no ideal political system. I'd like to see anarchism implemented, somehwere I read that anarchistic militias ( no ranks, no hierarchy) weremore organized thatn the strict militias. Democracy is the will of the masses, masses can be manipulated easier than a single individual. Dictatorships are ruled by the will of their ruler, they are effective, although they tend to totalitarism and when insane men come to achieve this posts their maniacal tendencies get to have an effect on politics.

[Gank]

First off I'd like to point out that this isnt the only forum I'm discussing this on, and I wasnt impling anybody here was falaming me with emails, to be honest I deleted them without even bothering to read them properly so if it is anybvody here, and I seriously doubt it is anybody whos replyed anyways, they are wasting their time. Anyways in reply to your points:

1. This may be the case in America, but here for instance most people wouldnt eat in mcdonalds if you paid them, american music while it may figure well in the charts is not what most people listen too and american technologoly is regarded as inferior to Japanese or German. It is not a case of people wanting these things, its simply that these things are cheaper to produce and sell than homemade brands, which is not necessarily a good thing. I know of several business which have had to close down because they could not compete with Gateway or Dell, this means that jobs are being lost here and profits are going to the US. You can argue that this is simply capitalism at work, but when one of americans industrys are threatened they introduce tarifs like they did on steel, to protect jobs at home.

 

2. True, but the vast majority of profit goes to US companys, already the us has 25% of the worlds wealth, how much more does it need?

 

3. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Bush adminstration seems intent on withdrawing from said forums and treaties, as is described in the article by the pnac,

 

4. The treaty with Iraq as I have already stated, was not a us treaty, you have no authority to enforce it without its full consent, which you do not have.[/b]

 

As for the rest I'd like to point out that the majority of actions this website called for and the Bush administration seems to be following were wrote before sept 11th, before the so called "war on terror" And while I respect the ideals you have stated, they are ideals and not realitys.

 

Al Quada are not concerned with fighting democracy and freedom, they are concerned with the US only. They have never once taken any action against any country other than the US nor have the evr stated their wish too. Their ultimate goal as they have stated is to get the US to withdraw from middle eastern politics, stop propping up Israel, remove troops from Mecca and basically leave their people alone. They are not attacking Freedom or Democracy, they are attacking the US because of its actions in their home countrys. look at this logically, the chances of any nation or people in the world invading the US and removing your freedoms and libertys are below 0.

 

Ever heard the saying prevention is better than cure? Elvis pointed out the US would do well to look at other countrys history, his own countrys experiences in Northern Ireland are a good example, the brits suffered from terrorism there, but the more force they used the worse it got, same applies here. By going into these countrys and killing people, whether its intentional or not, your just creating more enemys, and they're come a day when you cant fight them all.

[dinochick]

WOW! Ok you all have been busy today! Where to start?

Dinochick made a good point in questioning whether these PNAC people represent any real formal power of authority.

 

Thanks Scathane

 

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!

 

Sorry. I do not know enough about Russia or Chinas positions so I do not feel as thought I could make an educated argument. that is why I have never talked about them.

 

This may be the case in America, but here for instance most people wouldnt eat in mcdonalds if you paid them.....I know of several business which have had to close down because they could not compete with Gateway or Dell, this means that jobs are being lost here and profits are going to the US.

 

lol Gank, McDonalds SUCKS! I would go there either!!!! What kind of computer do you have? I have a home made one that is WAY better than a Gateway or Dell!!

 

In Costa Rica there have been protests against the NAFTA, North american Free Trade Area, basically because in such an agreement the country that can export most is the one that "wins".

 

IMHO NAFTA sucks, but then again, no one in the government cares what I think

 

Well, I have forgotten everything I wanted to add, sorry. There was just to much "information" presented today, lol. But I would liek to say once again that if that website is real, this American totaly disagrees with the concept and thinks it is a horrible stupid idea, IMHO!!

[Guest Scathane]

By replying with contradictory views this is exactly what you are doing. You may not be calling them nonsense and misguided, but its the same thing. Dont see why you take offense at it though, doesnt mean we have any disrespect for each other, anybody can be wrong, and lets be honest none of us are experts on the subjects being discussed here. I did misinterpret most of your post though, and I apoligise for that, I've had a long day and my inbox is full of flames from patriotic americans who disagree with my views. Makes me kind of irritable

 

Thanks for replying, Gank. Of course your apology is accepted. With regard to WWII, I must admit that my knowledge sort of stops at the level we're at right now. And I do agree with the fact that we're not experts: I, for one, am not!

 

There's one thing that bugs me, though... How can you say that I'm implying that other peoples ideas are misguided by expressing contradictory views? Saying that you don't agree with someone or even telling them you think they're wrong is something totally different than telling them they are misguided. You as a native speaker of English must know that.

 

With regard to the American government telling ours what to do... I think that they do this much more in an economic way than in any other. I think you made reference to this as well somewhere. Heck, as a Dutchman, I am in the luxury position to either choose which products I buy and won't buy: nobody's forcing me.

 

With regard to other, smaller company's having no chance to compete with companies such as Dell... Come on, man! Michael Dell started selling computer's online from his dorm room! At the time, he was an absolute nobody and he has built a multinational company from scratch, competing with organisations such as Packard-Bell, Compaq and IBM! I mean, he's been there, dude.

 

I must admit, though, that there are economic policies in the west that don't give development countries much or any room to really develop. But in that respect, we Europeans shouldn't criticize the USA, we should turn to our own governments instead. In that matter, Europe and the European Union are just as guilty.

[GonkRaider]

Funny how once gank is backed in to a corner.. now no ones an expert =)

[ElvisMiggell]

About the WWII Russia thing.

 

Japan could have invaded Russia. By the time Russia was on the counterattack against Germany, pretty much all of her forces were engaged in the west, leaving the east almost entirely open to attack. Russia would have lost the war if Japan had invaded and Europe hadn't been invaded by a combination of Brits and Americans, and Aussies, and Polish and a whole load of other nations. Pretty much the only way to win the war was to do exactly what happened, and ALL the countries involved were essential, even the French resistance!

 

I can't speak for the pacific theater so much.

[Guest Scathane]

About the WWII Russia thing.

 

Japan could have invaded Russia. By the time Russia was on the counterattack against Germany, pretty much all of her forces were engaged in the west, leaving the east almost entirely open to attack. Russia would have lost the war if Japan had invaded and Europe hadn't been invaded by a combination of Brits and Americans, and Aussies, and Polish and a whole load of other nations. Pretty much the only way to win the war was to do exactly what happened, and ALL the countries involved were essential, even the French resistance!

 

I can't speak for the pacific theater so much.

 

Thanks ElvisMiggell. This is actually what I was referring to.

[ElvisMiggell]

I aim to please. I must say that my previous statement on the Russia situation is based on evidence examined during GCSE and A Level history, and subsequent conclusions reached by my class and teacher. Whether or not other noted historians would support my point of view i do not know.

[Trejiuvanat]

Reussia could have fallen to the Japis, but instead they focused on the War for the Pacific, holding Vladyvostok in the coldest winter wasn't an encouragement, probably. And I can imagine the Germans telling the Japis that they shouldn't attack Russia until they (the GErmans) did defeat Moscow, Stalingrad, and the western russia. There were Hitler's weird concpetionof arism in between.

English, French, U.S. American did their part in pressing on GEmrany from the West but the GErman focused on defending the east. Their petroleum cmae from there. Their best troops and fighter corps were defending the east not the west.

[Gank]

Russia could not have been taken by the Japanese. At the time Russia entered the war the Japanese were at war with a number of countrys, namely China, Britian, France, Holland and were gearing up for a war with America. As I have already pointed out Japan did in fact attack Russia in 1939 and suffered a heavy defeat. Russia was better equipped, trained and had more resources for the type of winter war that would have followed. Also, most of the battles fought in the pacific were naval and air, with limited amounts of troops, assets which would be near useless in the harsh russian north. If japan had invaded Russia, at most the war would have been delayed, same if the Allies had not attacked in the west. It would have cost the Russians many more casualtys then the 20 million they suffered, but the outcome was never in any doubt.

[Gank]

Funny how once gank is backed in to a corner.. now no ones an expert =)

What the hell is that supposed to mean, I was refering to myself as well as everybody else. If you have something to contribute to the discussion, please to so, but chucking in the odd snide remark only makes you look like an idiot.

 

@ Scathane, saying somebody is misguided is exactly the same as saying they are wrong, its just a nicer way of putting it. As for the question of choice, we all have it but money is usually the main factor in the choice made for me anyways. I'd like to buy Irish and keep jobs and money at home but 9 times out of ten I just cant afford too. As for Dell, you forgot the other half of the point I was making, that its alright for the US to take jobs from over here but when jobs are threatened in the US its a different story, steel tarifs for example.

 

Anyways its far far cheaper to set up a company and run it in the US than Europe, they have cheaper tax rates, less strict enviromental laws, not to mention the overabundance of capital over there.

 

And to your last point, you have already stated that the US controls your country economically, how is it your governments fault they cant help the developing world? The US has ran the show for the last 50 years, and much of the third world is in the same state it was before then. That is what the PNAC wants to preserve, the US's grip is being loosened and they want to stop this. The US is a capitalist state, its not about Freedom and Democracy, its about profit, and this is what it wants from the future.

[Guest Scathane]

@ Scathane, saying somebody is misguided is exactly the same as saying they are wrong, its just a nicer way of putting it.

You're right, I looked it up. It was my misguided notion that the word had a negative connotation.

 

As for the question of choice, we all have it but money is usually the main factor in the choice made for me anyways. I'd like to buy Irish and keep jobs and money at home but 9 times out of ten I just cant afford too.

1. Buying your own, national products doesn't secure you of jobs and money in that same nation. France's been doing it for years, and it hasn't really gotten them a stronger economic position than, for instance, Germany or the Netherlands. Coca-Cola and Reebok both have their Eurpoean HQ located in the Netherlands. They may be American corporation, but they provide us with employment, money and cashflow and, as such, the Dutch are better off having their HQs here. In this respect, I don't really care where a company originally comes from, or where the worldwide HQ is.

2. If money is your main buying motivator, than quit saying you'd like to buy Irish products. YOU are the one making the choice here, as are all other consumers with you. I have heard this so many times from people who say the would like to support products which are better for they environment, which help farmer's in Argentina or other parts of the world, but who do otherwise: I would like to buy it, but it too expensive. Bullshit! If money was always the main motivator, than why do we see a lot of companies marketing on something other than price? Generally speaking we don't buy it because it looks shabby and because it's packaging constantly reminds us there is a Thirld World out there and that's just not what we want as consumers. We see a lot of shit in the news as it is and the last thing we're waiting for is being reminded of the Third World while we just wanted to have a cup of coffee.

 

As for Dell, you forgot the other half of the point I was making, that its alright for the US to take jobs from over here but when jobs are threatened in the US its a different story, steel tarifs for example.

No, I haven't forgot that. I just pointed out that by, for instance, subsidising their own agriculture, Europe basically does the same: the entirity of Europe is just as protective of their own economy and economic investments as the USA. Heck the European Union was set up to form a trade union!

 

Anyways its far far cheaper to set up a company and run it in the US than Europe, they have cheaper tax rates, less strict enviromental laws, not to mention the overabundance of capital over there.

No, it isn't cheaper to set up a company in the USA than in Europe persé. I'm sure there are many examples of Europe being more expensive in this repect, but it certainly isn't true as a rule. In fact, the country with the best business environment in 2002 happened to be the Netherlands. Moreover, the abundance of capital in the USA is largely a loan, don't forget that: the USA is largely rich through foreign investors, if they were to pull their money out, than the USA immediately would go bankrupt.

 

And to your last point, you have already stated that the US controls your country economically, how is it your governments fault they cant help the developing world? The US has ran the show for the last 50 years, and much of the third world is in the same state it was before then.

I didn't tell you that the USA controls my country economically, that's what you make of it. I merely said that the USA holds economic influence over the world, including my government. You can hold the USA responsible for this, but it is largely due to investors on the Walstreet SE and other investors in America that they are able to hold that influence. Furthermore, Europe's just as much to blame for the Third World situation in the following respects:

1. Save a few exceptions, Third World countries have all been European colonies. Underdevelopment, exploitation and other mongering actually started in the colonist era.
2. Europe subsidises its own businesses, so that Third World companies aren't able compete with them.
3. We produce too much in Europe: for instance, we produce too much milk and butter. We dump these product on Third World markets at prices lower than the local competition can.

In this respect, you should maybe consider buying Third World products instead of Irish products.

 

That is what the PNAC wants to preserve, the US's grip is being loosened and they want to stop this. The US is a capitalist state, its not about Freedom and Democracy, its about profit, and this is what it wants from the future.

I don't agree with the PNAC at all, Gank. I even doubt whether they are any power of consequence. But I do think that the rich countries, the USA and the Netherlands included, have a responsibility in this world.

[Trejiuvanat]

Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz are founding members of the PNAC....

I'd say they do have power....

[Guest Scathane]

Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz are founding members of the PNAC....

I'd say they do have power....

 

Yes, and so have Steve Forbes, Dan Quale and Jeb Bush, who have allegedly signed the Statement of Principles on the website. Nevertheless, as Dinochick pointed out, they're just some names on a website. Until verified, we cannot be sure this thing's for real.

[Gank]

Thats a pretty sceptical view and understandably so, given the stupidity of publishing your plans for global control for the whole world to see. But the proof is in the pudding, and the US certainly seems to be doing the things these people are calling for. If it is a hoax, its a very well done one, and I'm sure the US government would have pulled it down if it wasnt endorsed by those members on the statement of principles.

 

Anyways a simple search provides a wealth of information on it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document092101b.shtml

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?2243

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/bremnerbirdfortune.html

http://www.jcpa.org/nai.htm

This ones very interesting: http://www.thepaper.org.au/issues/043/043rumsfeld_s_war_letters_to_clinton.html

If its a hoax its a good one check out the name under the new citizen project on this page http://www.jmof.org/grants/1998n.htm

http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/research/int/hot_topics/intlawiraq.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

http://www.biotechpolicy.org/BiotechPolicy/ChannelRoot/Features/The+Sanctity+of+Life+in+a+Brave+New+World.htm

 

But I'm sure you've already done one to check out for yourself? Would seem the logical thing to do if you doubt its authenticity.

[Guest Scathane]

Okay, I must admit that I am inclined to think so myself: if endorsement like this was fake, legal steps would most certainly have been taken. I'm still sofrt of amazed, though, that the media haven't shed their light on this yet...