World War #4?

[Digit]

i'm quite certain you are underestimating the close ties between the PNAC and the current admin. for starters, half of the members of the Project for a New American Century ARE the current admin (or a brother of the prez, lol).

"PNAC is just one method among many to deal with the challenges." i just dont see how anyone could be so calm describing the next threat of world domination. is it just one big game of risk to you? c'mon! this is actually happening.

PNAC is just the public face of it. sure they are just a bunch of neocons thinking up plans for "American world leadership" (their words, not mine). but its not just the Republican Party thats in on this. its that whole Corporate Ruling Class. Clinton really got the ball rolling, in fact it could be said that it was him who turned america into a dictatorship. taking away executive accountability in small measures and adding in large measures executive autonomy and secrecy bills. basically meaning the president can do what they like and not have to tell anyone! hmm... that sounds familiar doesnt it. *coughbushcough*

now since Kerry is just as much a corporate rulling rich class 'jerk' (not forgeting a member of Skull and Bones) as the rest of them. if he gets into power he'll be far better at smoothing international relations, which lets face it, have never been this bad before, thnx to bush. his actions no doubt will be a bit more liberal, a bit more rational, sensible and inteligent than bush (i hope), but its not going to make any difference. the plans will still go ahead, he wont scrap patriot acts and all the others that strip america of its freedom making it the BIGGEST joke in the world. (see: Smiling American citizens waving their flags saying "land of the free"... oh the irony ) And so, even under a Kerry administration nothing will have really changed. it won't hamper the plan at all. we'll have just said goodbye to the puppet president, the fool who got used as the biggest government patsey ever for the goals of the ever powerhungry arrogant fascist fat cats. a Kerry term of office would infact make things EASIER for them. take a little pressure of them for a little while.

being all liberal and libertarian, sure i'd rather have someone with policies like Kerry's in power than someone like Bush. but since its all bullshit... theres this part of me that thinks, maybe it would be better if bush was in power for another term (kinda like a cruel to be kind thing), so that things get so bad that the people's revolution, the new renaisaunce, can finally kick off bigtime. its been brewing for a while... peoples apathy just needs a slap. i've given up on the ignorant. its just the unmotivated, and the apathetic that need to realise, we are WAY past the eleventh hour.

 

[ken]

well said digit

 

[Euripides Eumenides]

Thanks for taking the time to answer back, Digit.


You wrote:

i'm quite certain you are underestimating the close ties between the PNAC and the current admin. for starters, half of the members of the Project for a New American Century ARE the current admin (or a brother of the prez, lol).

I don't think I underestimate.
I stated twice, albeit roundabout-ly, that it's tied to the current regime.
They are neocons, so why wouldn't they follow the neocon strategy?

I said: " it is just a think tank that the current administration currently agrees with. And regime change in America would see a change in doctrine."

Also: "the neocons...foresee the hostile climate that we're in now. This is the tack they chose to follow.
When Kerry comes to power - if he does - he will select his own think-tank to formulate his liberal foreign policy."

When Bush is out of office, and assuming he is not succeeded by another Neocon if he wins the next election, the climate will no doubt change.
Any regime ties itself to an ideology and uses the think-tanks that best suit its purposes.

"PNAC is just one method among many to deal with the challenges." i just dont see how anyone could be so calm describing the next threat of world domination. is it just one big game of risk to you? c'mon! this is actually happening.

The reason I'm calm is rational minds have to prevail here. If people do not agree with the PNAC or other neocon strategists, it is YOUR imperative to counter that with calm, rational counter-arguments.
I'm also calm because it is simply words on paper. It's people who must act on the ideas, and while it's happening, it's clearly not the chicken-little scenario that's being clucked about.

The next threat of world domination is solely conceded to the US? Isn't militant Islam making itself known? We're the only problem out there?
And don't you think certain Arab governments hostile to the West (Europe included, even if they play "nice nice" with you) have their own version of a PNAC for the Middle East? They don't seek power or control? Didn't Saddam fancy himself the next Saladin?
Doesn't Usama consider himself the next Caliph of Islam?

What is the fate they choose to see for us? Should that be ignored completely, or conceded as our inevitable punishment for treading so heavily....which one?

PNAC is just the public face of it. sure they are just a bunch of neocons thinking up plans for "American world leadership" (their words, not mine). but its not just the Republican Party thats in on this. its that whole Corporate Ruling Class.

Digit, no offense mate, but I think you go off the deep end here.
"The public face"....you're privy to the insider's discussions? Have you been to the bonfires and pow-wows? You're speculating, and it's taking you further than this subject requires.

American world leadership is a bad thing? Doesn't the EU seek to be a world leader? China, Russia? The UN?

if he gets into power he'll be far better at smoothing international relations, which lets face it, have never been this bad before, thnx to bush. his actions no doubt will be a bit more liberal, a bit more rational, sensible and inteligent than bush (i hope), but its not going to make any difference

Well, will it be different or not?
Who knows, right? But in the context of the PNAC, should Kerry win, you'd have to think (rightly) that he would abandon the neocon tack for some other doctrine.
He could go with appeasement or he could stick tough but be less intrusive and focus more on Al-Qaeda.
If Kerry comes to power, he departs from the track we're on. Isn't that change? Even if it's not a full-blown capitulation of power.

He will, IMO, be more pliable to gutting the PA. Plus, the onus is on us and him to present during the debates and run-up to the election the folly of the PA.


We are past the eleventh hour, but I see many with confused looks on their faces, when they should be reading their 20th century history.
Instead of a Munich-pact, Bush chose to preempt and end the see-no-evil mentality that settled onto the public like a nice cindy haze through the 90's.

Nice talking with you.

 

[Digit]

quotes by Euripides Eumenides
Thanks for taking the time to answer back, Digit.

no no, thank you.

The reason I'm calm is rational minds have to prevail here.

*bows* so true. i once was calm, measured, reserved, maybe even a little conservative. i loose my grip on calm often these days though (mental chaos) in the face of ignorance, hypocracy, destruction etc etc.
(in no way was i saying you fit any of those categorys, it was just the topic of discussion)

The next threat of world domination is solely conceded to the US? Isn't militant Islam making itself known? We're the only problem out there?

i need to be careful about that. what i say can often be misinterpreted to make me sound like i'm on the side of those wacko extremist religious zealots. not so, i'm a pasafist. neither capitalist oppression nor islamic oppression apeals to me at all. though i don't know which would be worse.

[edit]...but one other point on that...
Osama Bin Laden, with all his CIA training, Corporate backing and tea and crumpets (or whatever the american equivalent is) with the Bush family... it does make me ask the question: Would the events of 11th September have happened if Osama had not recieved his orders to go start an uprising?

Digit, no offense mate, but I think you go off the deep end here.
"The public face"....you're privy to the insider's discussions? Have you been to the bonfires and pow-wows? You're speculating, and it's taking you further than this subject requires.

nope. i have not been to any of their partys, meetings, or any other private discourse. i have only heard from those who have. anything i say could be wrong. i could be getting systematically fed disinformation. but in the interests of spreading knowledge, thought and broader perceptions, i share that which i learn. (i think there's something in my sig line about that. )

but i will not concede that it takes us "further than this subject requires".

American world leadership is a bad thing? Doesn't the EU seek to be a world leader? China, Russia? The UN?

...
i just dont quite know how to reply to that.
thats a clever twist there. i'm quite certain that from the tone that is implied in the pnac website, that^ is not the meaning they have in mind of world leadership. they've changed the wording a few times to make it more palitable, but the type of being a world leader you mention above is not the meaning of world leadership they mean.
as is seen on the first page of their site:
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

to me, that implies far more than just being another player in the world.

Giants in the playing feild. so to speak.

Well, will it be different or not?
Who knows, right? But in the context of the PNAC, should Kerry win, you'd have to think (rightly) that he would abandon the neocon tack for some other doctrine.
He could go with appeasement or he could stick tough but be less intrusive and focus more on Al-Qaeda.
If Kerry comes to power, he departs from the track we're on. Isn't that change? Even if it's not a full-blown capitulation of power.

He will, IMO, be more pliable to gutting the PA. Plus, the onus is on us and him to present during the debates and run-up to the election the folly of the PA.


We are past the eleventh hour, but I see many with confused looks on their faces, when they should be reading their 20th century history.
Instead of a Munich-pact, Bush chose to preempt and end the see-no-evil mentality that settled onto the public like a nice cindy haze through the 90's.

i have noticed those rose tinted shades everyone wore throughout the 90s, however... i think bush's actions went too far. so far infact, to the point that it has become nothing more than the political methodology of using fear as a tool of control.

now what is going to be much more scary than seeing the largest buildings destroyed, then being told of this evil danger that lurks around every corner that could obliterate you, spread the worlds most horrific diseases, etc etc etc and whatever else is on the list.

also... since this danger in this specific case is "terrorism" and "terrorists", whos goal would be to terrorise, (as opposed to the evil communists of the McCarthy era) would not the best course of action be to stop their ability to spread terror, to spread fear? isn't it counter productive to be spreading more terror when fighting terrorism? Is not the bush administration helping them?

the PNAC will continue, regardless.
why?
first clue is in the title. (hint, last word)
second clue... these are powerfull people. powerfull people with deaply rooted ideals and beliefs. they wont just go away and stop. they have the motive and the means.



ps.
its so good to have a discussion with someone who isnt a grunter

 

[BushyOldGrower]

The question isn't how we got here...

The question isn't how we got here...

No matter which view anyone takes here there is really very little presented as what to do now.

I feel that as America is blamed for more attacks by Al Qaeda around the world that America will eventually back out of the Global War on terror. I hope we do.

What I hope for is an isolationist America that has no involvements in affairs accross the ponds. I have always felt this way but many want to police the whole world. Why?

Being the world police makes you a main target and who pays for all the defense equipment? America pays for most and we are broke so as our economy fails we will pull back to protect our homeland despite the possible destruction of Israel and the loss of arab oil.

When America is out of the picture I wonder how this will all be handled. BOG

 

[Digit]

bog

bog

and where will the UK stand then too?

 

[ken]

BoG: how on earth can we get america out of the picture?

America created the "War on Terror", why should europe or the un pick up the pieces?

broke?

but still enough money to invade other countries, send massive funding to isreal, etc.

and who exactly is going to destroy Isreal? they have more 'WMD's (yes nuclear, chemical & biological) than most & by far the most powerful military in the region too, which they currently use to hold occupied terrortory.

I think many muslims just want to stop getting attacked, then maybe a few less would turn into crazy suicide bombers with nothing to loose.

 

[EYESEEYA]

U N ?

U N ?

IF WE USA LET THE UN TAKE OVER ...THEY WILL REALLY FUCK THINGS UP MORE THAN ALREADY IS...THEN THEY WILL BLAME USA ANYWAY....WE MUST FIND WAY OUT OURSELVES...AND MAYBE IN A MANNER THAT WILL HELP THE HEALING....HAVE YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THE CORRUPTION SCANDAL RAGING IN THE U. N.
THESE DAYS ...ALL ABOUT U N -IRAQI CORUPTION...I WILL FIND SOME LINKS TO ENLIGHTEN......PEACE

 

[Digit]

yeah, and when you enlighten us, do you think you could do it with a little less SHOUTING? can you see the capslock button?

 

[BushyOldGrower]

You will miss the free ride when we are gone

You will miss the free ride when we are gone

We got sucked into your first 2 world wars and now even though we were declared war upon from your side of the pond. Sneak attacked like Pearl Harbor again.

America has not accomplished much so perhaps we should take our ball and go home. I have always been an isolationist so let the EU do as they please.

Israel is everyones problem now. They have over 100 nukes and the war they face won't be pretty. Of course they will launch them and they will be landing a lot closer to you than to America.

The only way I see out for America now is to withdraw and allow Israel to worry about its own security. We can then close out borders to whatever trade we please and actually manufacture our own goods in america again.

Perhaps America has lost but we will keep our country and our markets if no one minds or not. BOG Vote Kerry fellow americans and change this fool in the white house.

 

[Ferre]

It stinks, it even stinks more then you can ever imagine.

Most is documented here :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheNeuschwabenlandTimes/

You will need to do a lot of reading, as I have been doing the past few years...IT STINKS!

 

[ken]

best start building that wall to keep all us evil foreigners out, bog.

 

[BushyOldGrower]

America is all Foriegners

America is all Foriegners

You will need to do the same. BOG

 

[Guest]

the wall

the wall

no point building a wall ,were already overun with foreigners

 

[ken]

so i dont see the use in threatning a trade war on the rest of the world if we dont do as they say, seems bog has been taking diplomacy lessons from the bushes.

 

[Pink Panther]

Here's my poli-opinion...

1. Marijuana should be legalized and everyone should be required to smoke a nightly dub. And then just maybe we might be able to live in peace....

 

[wisc2]

The world is getting smaller, we cant help stepping on each others toes. How often did you talk to people in other countries be4 the net? Unless the US finds a lot more oil somewhere, we have to muscle some1 elses. How else do you fill up that surburban/explorer in the morning? Personally I dont care, all countries were decided by war. 2 people want the same land, you fight for it, winner keeps it. I worked in a military truck factory, every 3rd truck was painted tan and was marked for Isreal. I couldnt figure out how they fit all that equipment in such a small country. Instead of the tit for tat bs going on now, I say let em fight it out. winner keeps the land. I have a muslim friend, and a hindu friend, and we have discussed these issues. If im worshipping the wrong god, why do I live in a nice house, new comp, nice car, and they live in a house made of sticks and mud? With such a big difference in the quality of life, I would think about converting.

 

[Guest]

I agree with BOG

ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE !

We should just pack up all of our foreign aid, and stop giving out hand-outs to the rest of the free world while we go billions in debt.

As far as Isreal goes, Their problems are their problems. Now they rocket attack people and their PM is taking bribes according to the AP. Let them clean up their own mess.

Close the borders and force us to live on US GOODS ONLY!

We will adapt or we won't survive

P.S. I also like the 1 joint a night idea

 

[filth water]

Sharp Pain......

Sharp Pain......

Your suggestions are highly deplorable.
p.s you suck.

 

[Guest]

filth water

filth water

you definately live upto your name