project for a new american century

[brad]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ThePlan.htm
'
[01]21:12:34 TED KOPPEL, ABC NEWS

(OC) You can watch our story tonight on at least two levels. One, the conspiracy theory, as in this excerpt from a Scottish newspaper, the Glasgow "Sunday Herald". "A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure regime change even before he took power in January 2001." And a similar, if slightly more hysterical version from a Russian paper, the "Moscow Times". "Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed, years ahead of the blow."

[01]21:13:13 TED KOPPEL, ABC NEWS (CONTINUED)

(OC) Take away the somewhat hyperbolic references to conspiracy, however, and you're left with a story that has the additional advantage of being true. Back in 1997, a group of Washington heavyweights, almost all of them neo-conservatives, formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century. They did what former government officials and politicians frequently do when they're out of power, they began formulating a strategy, in this case, a foreign policy strategy, that might bring influence to bear on the Administration then in power, headed by President Clinton.
'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_johannsen_031103_pnac.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html

http://64.176.94.191/article1665.htm

====================================


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Rebuilding+America's+Defenses%3A+Strategy%2C+F orces+and+Resources+For+a+New+Century&btnG=Google+ Search

www.newamericancentury.org/ (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:DPYRbX_2KfwC:www.newamericancentury .org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf+Rebuilding+America% 27s+Defenses:+Strategy,+Forces+and+Resources+For+a +New+Century&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8

[brad]

basically they state what the war is really about.

oh by the way they say saddam is just a pretense even if hes not there got to invade.

interesting reading but if you think operations northwoods is no big deal (killing americans to stir up war fervor) then you wont think this a big deal either.

anyway at least bush is a conservative and would never, say, ban guns or anything. for example that 'assault weapon' ban has no chance of being renewed with bush in the white house and an all republican congress.

[MMMMMM]

From first light reading (about a month ago), the PNAC seemed to me like a damn good idea.

[brad]

thats true it might be a good idea, but then why do they hide the true reasons for the war?

thats my main point really although i wont concede its a good idea.

i mean its been announced we're in world war 4. a 30 year at least war.

if i was 15 i would be a little nervous, heh.

if i was 50 i might be excited.

if i was a member of bohemian grove the thought of all that blood would probably drive me to a frenzied orgasm.

[MMMMMM]

Well I can't be sure I agree with it or not until I read it more thoroughly--it was a first impression only based on a quick look-over.

When you say: "but then why do they hide the true reasons for the war?" you're making a few assumptions.

1) You're sort of assuming that the PNAC represents the views and policies of today's Bush administration, which may not be entirely true.

2) There are quite a few reasons for the war. I doubt it's all contained in the PNAC.

3) Strategic reasons would be less politically palatable to the world and to some Americans. However strategic reasons are still important.

4) I'm not so sure that the PNAC calls for war with Iraq no matter what--are you sure of this? I'll have to reread it.

[Cyrus]

"I'm not so sure that the [Project for a New American Century] calls for war with Iraq no matter what."

I'm not so sure what you don't understand. If a strategic plan is adopted and set in motion, lots of "inexplicable" little things are bound to be included, such as little wars, etc.

"You're sort of assuming that the PNAC represents the views and policies of today's Bush administration, which may not be entirely true."

Most of the architects of that policy and the writers of its blueprint are serving in the current Bush administration.

"Strategic reasons would be less politically palatable to the world and to some Americans. However strategic reasons are still important."

It is harder to disguise the true reasons behind political action nowdays than it used to be in the past (and "war is an extension of..", etc). The reason is freedom of the press and the opportunities (e.g. the internet) for the widest possible dissemination of information. These are today's most crucial obstacles for a ruler who supports such a supremacist world policy

Could you guess the next logical objective for that ruler ?..

[John Cole]

Isn't that "Carthago delenda est" you're citing there? Anyway, kal emera, and there's your shot to fix my Greek.

[MMMMMM]

I'm trying to avoid drawing unwarranted conclusions;-) Does PNAC actually call for war with Iraq? (I don't know--as I told brad, I'll have to look at it again).

Actually, your second paragraph supports my statement rather than refutes it, since there I very deliberately used the word "entirely" because many of the PNAC authors are serving in the Bush administration. The point I'm trying to make is that even if much of PNAC doctrine is represented in Bush administration policy, the parts that aren't could be very significant.

As I've written before, I think only democracies should be permitted nukes (and not even all of them: non-proliferation is still desirable). The supremacy of democracy over totalitarianism strikes me as something to be hoped for and worked towards. Hopefully the scourges of totalitarianism and fascism will be eradicated from the face of the globe within the coming decades.

I don't think Bush is aiming to become Dictator of the World, either, but civil liberties are always worth keeping an eye on.

[Cyrus]

"Isn't that "Carthago delenda est" you're citing there?"

Well, "Delenda [est] Carthago" was written in the sense that "Something must be done about Carthago - but what? It must be destroyed!" A more energetic reminder, and more appropriate for our times, then the original.

Feel free to disabuse me of any illusion there, because I thought that was precise Latin, though not what Cato was reportedly intoning. The quote is as you wrote it. (I do not speak Latin, by the way.)

[andyfox]

The PNAC plan is the post-Cold War NSC8: a call to arms to remake the world in our image. The war in Iraq is the first step. Undoubtedly, the quick success of that war will be an inducement not to avoid others.

[andyfox]

[MMMMMM]

Parts of the world should be remade in the image of freedom, democracy and human rights. Specifically, those parts which currently embody totalitarianism and fascism.

That's a good thing and a worthy goal. Conversely, totalitarianism and fascism are bad things and undesirable. So, now that we and the rest of the free world are acquiring the power to actually defeat tyranny on a case-by-case basis, why all the long faces?

[John Cole]

Cato's quote, at least from what I recall of both high school Latin and Ancient History, is translated as "Carthage must be destroyed." I believe the Romans, after destroying Cathage, also spread lime over the ground as an added insult. But my memories are old ones, and most of the three years of Greek have faded as well. Too bad.

John

PS. Word order in Latin is largely irrelevant. (I think.)