Leftist arguement for you neo-conservatives
Following this link reveals the true intentions of Senior US governmental officials - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld.
I find the admissions on the Principles page odd as they don't seem to have realised that a Canadian would one day come to such development as to find the un-ethic in
1. "Challenging regimes hostile to our interests and values"
2. "Extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles"
Its all there. Next stop Iran eh?
I find the admissions on the Principles page odd as they don't seem to have realised that a Canadian would one day come to such development as to find the un-ethic in
1. "Challenging regimes hostile to our interests and values"
2. "Extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles"
Its all there. Next stop Iran eh?
Comments
Promote your self-interests and challenge those who are aggressive or dangerous. Not a damned thing wrong with that.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
.erifkcab ot erus si taht sa narI kcatta ton od yeht taht epoh s'teL
perhaps its because i'm ethnocentric (or positively spun as patriotic
Let's hope that they do not attack Iran as that is sure to backfire.
I read quite a bit about the 'neo-conservative' Plan for a New American Century, authored by the likes of Wolfowitz, Perle et al. This sinister idea looks disturbingly deja vu.
The last attempt at an empire, some 70 years back was an unmitigated disaster. Empires don't work; they break much more quickly than nations, and the bigger they are the harder they fall. Empire-building should be obsolete, as is communism. It doesn't work, specially when its people are concerned. America is a free Republic, not a damned empire.
Does this plan call for colonization?
Originally posted by groverat
Iran don't need no attacking. I'll protest in the streets about an attack on Iran.
Why you want to protest that? They have a nuclear capability that's way ahead of anything Iraq ever had. They have a religious nut for a leader, they have no democracy, human rights abuses are rampant, they have oil, they're a fully paid up member of the Axis of Evil...and....they also have chemical (and biological?) weapons stashed away somewhere...they used tons of the stuff in their war with Iraq. Aren't these the reasons (?!) given for attacking Iraq? And...you have said you are pro war re. Iraq
?
And....Iran just had 3 "precision guided" (!) Cruise missiles land in their territory....miles off target.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E25777,00.html
But.....if the US starts making noises about attacking Iran, I'll be in the streets protesting that too.
Originally posted by sammi jo
They have a nuclear capability that's way ahead of anything Iraq ever had. They have a religious nut for a leader, they have no democracy, human rights abuses are rampant, they have oil, they're a fully paid up member of the Axis of Evil...and....they also have chemical (and biological?) weapons stashed away somewhere...they used tons of the stuff in their war with Iraq.
And....Iran just had 3 "precision guided" (!) Cruise missiles land in their territory....miles off target.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E25777,00.html
Well, you convinced me. Let's bomb the livin' bejeepers out of those horses!
The thing about precision guided weapons: they are precise, but when they're misprogrammed, they're still precise, just inaccurate.
Originally posted by groverat
Iran don't need no attacking. I'll protest in the streets about an attack on Iran.
I love you.
OK, not really.
Originally posted by groverat
What "charges" do we have?
Does this plan call for colonization?
("Charges" wasn't the best choice of terms). Colonization? It doesn't look like it, in the old fashioned sense of the world, where a nation is ruled over by a foreign government...PNAC looks more subtle than that, although there is some element of "my way or the highway"...and flexing of military muscle. I must re-read the their website and mission, and see if anyone like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
I find the admissions on the Principles page odd as they don't seem to have realised that a Canadian would one day come to such development as to find the un-ethic in
1. "Challenging regimes hostile to our interests and values"
2. "Extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles"
It seems a little knee-jerk to call that unethical. I mean, let's toss a pair of precision-guided antonyms into those statements:
1. "Encouraging regimes hostile to our interests and values"
2. "Extending an international order hostile to our security, our prosperity, and our principles"
Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? And "the happy medium" would just mean doing nothing (1919-esque), which isn't much less ridiculous. We are the hyperpower, and it's certainly better if we accept that and act like it than if we don't.
Originally posted by groverat
Iran don't need no attacking. I'll protest in the streets about an attack on Iran.
Keep to the sidewalks though; don't want to delay anyone on their way through downtown Austin, eh?
1. The New American Century is not official US government policy. Your link and comments make it sound as if it is.
2. There is nothing there that bothers me either. I'm sure one could interpret it the way sammie jo and others have. The fact is, I agree that this nation as a Superpower (and that's true whether you want it to be or not) has the responsibility to lead. "Leading" doesn't mean colonizing or dominating. It does mean extending influence and trade agreements and yes, military presence. IMO, those are all good things. The New American Century has to believe that our system of government (democracy, captialism, adherence to law, individualism) is "correct" and we should do everything possible to encourage this system throughout the world. That doesn't mean we should impose it, unless the nation-state in question represents a serious national security risk (e.g Iraq). It does mean adherence to the philosophy that democracy is the only way a population can lead a self-determined existence. In other words, the old cliche that "democracy is not just for some, it is a God-given right".
Iraq, Iran and North Korea:
Three very different situations. It amazes me that while the Left (and I don't mean that as an insult, digitalmonkeyboy) usually resorts to calling conservatives and conservative policy "simplistic" (e.g Bush and Reagan), it cannot see the complexities of these situations and their inherent differences.
Points:
Iraq is totally different than Iran. Of the posts here, BuonRotto said it best:
...I think the perception is that moderates are getting the word out, gaining momentum and haven't (yet) been crushed by the Ayatollah's regime. I think Groverat sees the potential that the regime might turn arouns with the moderate youth movement. Obviously, we'll have to see hw things go, but unlike Iraq, their voices have not been squelched altogether. There is still some hope in Iran.
I agree. Iraq has even invited international "supervision" (for lack of a better term) for its nuclear program. Things are not lost there as of yet. They seem to have had the opposite reaction the Axis of Evil speech...as compared to North Korea.
Now, speaking of North Korea:
1. One must understand how much rhetoric there is and how meaningless it can be.
2. While a bad guy, I don't think Kim-Jong Ill is as wacked as Saddam. He sees this as an opportunity for a power play. The US and international community have called him on it and now he is quite unhappy.
3. Despite being nuclear, North Korea does not pose the same threat Iraq does, at least to the US. Kim Jong Ill, despite his government's ridiculous rhetoric, has not shown the propensity to gas his own people. He has talked and starved his people (which we are attempting to prevent with the rest of the world), but he is a bit different.
4. This really DOES require what people on the Left have been screaming for: Multilateralism (though I have to say that I still do not agree that the Iraq crisis has been handled unilaterally). North Korea, with its potential mating of nuclear weapons and ICBM's, poses a much GREATER threat to China and Japan than it does to the US. China and Japan have no interest in North Korea going nuclear and starting an arms race. It is a very international problem that all parties are interested in.
Negotiating with the US alone will simply do no good whatsoever. Those using the "what about North Korea" logic to oppose a war with Iraq are either being opportunistic or show a total lack of thinking about the subject. Are they arguing we SHOULD attack North Korea...but not Iraq?
5. Lastly, let's be real. North Korea really does have a stronger military than Iraq. Maybe those who make the argument in last two sentences above point to this and say "I see...the US only goes to war with powerless or nearly-powerless nations". That seems to be the jist of what I hear. Well, again, what are these people really saying? Do you WANT to get into a bloody battle that might go nuclear with this country? I don't. Neither does the President. The fact that a war with North Korea would be longer and more costly than one with Iraq (which can be used an an "example" to other terror states) is a valid one. Though the outcome would still be certain (as the US's military superiority is not in question) a conflict should be avoided at nearly all costs. In any event, if the North would attack the South conventionally there would be interntaional and unanimous condemnation and pursuant military action by MANY parties (probably including the US, China, Russia, UK, and all relevant powers...oh, and France too
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ok.
1. The New American Century is not official US government policy. Your link and comments make it sound as if it is.
2. There is nothing there that bothers me either. I'm sure one could interpret it the way sammie jo and others have.
It IS official government policy. It was written by Paul Wolfowitz and 5 other members of the US administration. The 'Bush doctrine' is official policy and encapsulates an element of the PNAC doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. The tragedy of 9/11 formed the catylising "new Pearl Harbour" mentioned in that document. Policy toward Europe, redistribution of troops from 'old' to 'new' Europe is well under way. The overthrow of Saddam has been a stated aim of the NAC for about 7 years. It is official government policy.
I respectfully but urgently ask you to understand that it SHOULD worry you. If the US follows these policies it is impossible to underestimate the anger and resentment that will be caused. This will result in more terror, more wars, and more 9/11's. More dead Americans.
You need to look beyond "protecting American interests" -- understandable -- and understand how 'American interests' translate on the ground; it means CIA activity as much as it means diplomatic arm-twisting and simple invasions of other lands. And the CIA does stuff like knocking out democratically elected regimes (it DOES, SDW, it really does).
Look at Iraq. The war's going to be over pretty quickly, Saddam (a bastard) will be gone. And 'American interests' will see US companies running the schools and hospitals (the tender went out last week) and rebuilding the country. This should be Iraqi companies benefiting, paid via the UN. Global hostility to America (don't care? You should. The world will be more dangerous). The hatred you're creating right now in the Arab countries is terrifying. More dead Americans. Turkey's thinking "well we're going to protect our interests and invade north Iraq then, stop that Kurdish terrorism. The chaos of Iraq after this will be fertile ground for extremism and terror recruitment. More dead Americans. And this is a result of this doctrine.
You should care.
Now know why I dislike this war: Untimely, suspicious of foreirgn policy makers having "world vision" that conflicts with other nations' values and traditions.
Paul Wolfowitz named right on principles page>>Is a foreign policy maker>> so his interested are suspected to show up or ARE showing up in actual actions of US...(half coutnering SDW, half agreeing)
Then what'd I say...ya that I am glad people are saying that wouldn't like atack on iran......but wait til the government sociologists figure out what evidence they can link in....watch for that!! It will happen like it did this time!
:::Condoleeza Rice: "What is at the root, is a hatred of freedom"
Which is giant assumption and incorrect, but oh so ideal! (The root is Saddam is a paranoid communist SRC: Frontline) Easy to like that concept so we role with it and all of asudden its the truth, thats the big problem with administration swaying public opinion, its a mind game.
To Harald, Lots of hatred indeed, but spawning hate for America should not change its goals. If the cause is just and worthy it should be followed through. By this I do not mean the current foreign policy (or facsimile close thereof).
SDW, I really don't like old cliches involving God since it does not represent everyone...and I do not beleive democracy is perfect since there are 100 000 000 people in the US who don't even vote because they're either too ignorant or uneducated to realise the importance. Whats the use of that? ---I'll start a new thread if we want to argue about democracy.
US companies running the schools and hospitals
And I trust everyone knows about that? Thats great for Americaa, what about nations that really need the oppurtunity? US is often saturating the agricultural market for example, selling on average 57% below cost of production in many African nations which are trying to compete.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
To Harald, Lots of hatred indeed, but spawning hate for America should not change its goals. If the cause is just and worthy it should be followed through. By this I do not mean the current foreign policy (or facsimile close thereof).
(snip)
And I trust everyone knows about that? Thats great for Americaa, what about nations that really need the oppurtunity? US is often saturating the agricultural market for example, selling on average 57% below cost of production in many African nations which are trying to compete.
The point is that America does not need to spawn hatred -- which makes the whole world so dangerous -- to help its people in their search for happiness.
Your other point is an example -- just one -- of how 'protecting American interests' may mean hardship to others round the world. The prevention of the sales of generic drugs to poor countries is another one. These dead people in Africa mean short-term protection of profits for Big Pharm and long term hatred of America when people die needlessly.
Keep to the sidewalks though; don't want to delay anyone on their way through downtown Austin, eh?
Exactly.
Actually I'll just protest in my living room, I might slow down some pedestrians and I want to be nice to everyone.
Hey hey, ho ho
war in iran has got to go!
I've seen the word used a few of times today, in various media opinions and reports, so I guess someone at the top of the Democrat dogpile has decided to make it a popular term.
I'm sure we can expect to see more of the word "neoconservative".