PNAC
 

What is wrong with the PNAC? I've only read a few articles but the ones I've read were spectacular IMO.

One of the last articles I've read was this one:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Which in my opinion could not of been much better. It's hard for me not to like an article that has 47 sources. It's also hard for me not to like an article made almost completely up of quotes taken in context.

Why is this place hated so much? Please do not say "ooooo you know who founded that website?" I don't give a crap who's behind it. Show me what is so wrong with the information/logic please.

-inspired by nothumbs OOT post.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this place hated so much? Please do not say "ooooo you know who founded that website?" I don't give a crap who's behind it. Show me what is so wrong with the information/logic please.


[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.newamericancentury.org/pu...onsreports.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

[ QUOTE ]
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: PNAC
 

The PNAC provides the phislophical underpinnings for war-mongering neo-conservatives.

Oh, you want a 'rational' argument against the PNAC...I can't help you there.

Re: PNAC
 

I wondered the same thing, Wacki...when I read it over lightly more than a year ago it seemed pretty good.

Generally speaking, I think Leftists hate the idea of America having bases in key parts of the world and thereby being able to project power. They also harp on the theme that the PNAC shows the US "planned" to invade Iraq long ago.

Anyway I liked the PNAC, overall, when I browsed it. I think one problem Leftists have with it is they don't like to see America stronger; they would rather see America weaker. To them, important issues, in general, revolve around the concepts of imperialism and class warfare and exploitation--and other such hooey. Those issues just AREN'T the pressing issues of today, and besides, those issues have a long history of obfuscation and subversion for political power-grab purposes.

Freedom...capitalism...a good Constitution...voting...building up of infrastructure, development...these are the things that will eventually bring hope and progress to the troubled parts of the world. America and the West can lead the way against the forces of ignorance and tyranny. And the Left will see it as imperialism and exploitation through their strange-colored lenses.

Don't they see that the current situations in bad parts of the world as severe exploitation by the regimes in power? Much worse than any "exploitation" the West could bring through Nike and McDonald's?

Go figure.

Re: PNAC
 

I have to conclude that MMMMM is joking in this thread. I don't usually think he makes ridiculous statements like this. Its a little more Limbaughesque then I expect from him.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Leftists hate the idea of America having bases in key parts of the world and thereby being able to project power.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think one problem Leftists have with it is they don't like to see America stronger; they would rather see America weaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I expect better from him.

Re: PNAC
 

I don't know man. I hear so many lefties think like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't they see that the current situations in bad parts of the world as severe exploitation by the regimes in power? Much worse than any "exploitation" the West could bring through Nike and McDonald's?

[/ QUOTE ]

which relates to the two quotes you made. Hard core lefties hate McDonalds in other countries and big coorporations. The motives described by MMMMMM and the actually held by the lefties may not be the same but they sure do seem to have the same effect.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

[ QUOTE ]
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow, way to take the quote out of context. The author was talking about the evolution of military weapons/tactics and what might come in the future. I fully expect that to happen. The author did not say we should devlop that he only said it will happen. Not only do I agree with him, but I think anyone that can't see this is delusional. I expect either China or North Korea to be the first country to develop that kind of technology. Still the technology is very risky and could easily backfire when strains mutate. I do not see the US using this technology. Please do us a favor and stop wasting this forums time with that bullshit spin.

As for the books, your point is????? Please think out your response a lot more thoroughly before you post.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
have to conclude that MMMMM is joking in this thread. I don't usually think he makes ridiculous statements like this. Its a little more Limbaughesque then I expect from him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since MMMMM got it wrong (apparently)...I'll wager a serious guess.

The PNAC opponents do not like the fact that they (the PNAC) appears to claim the moral high ground in international disputes. Many people are resentful of the US's financial and military dominance, distort the US's human rights record, and dispute the US's claim to moral superiority. PNAC opponents advocate multilateralism and appeasement in US foreign affairs.

Re: PNAC
 

the thing i most enjoy about that article is that suddenly all conservative's have decided that it would probably be a good strategy to just go on with blaming clinton for anything bad that ever happens. we've been fighting this war for almost 3 years now and only in the past few months have i read work coming out of conservative think tanks that puts the responsibility for the iraq war on clinton's shoulders.

You should understand that when liberals read this after we have gone through 2 years of hearing our presidents reasons for war changing as he finds out that his previous one was laughably untrue. Once liberals started to point out that we had no interest in the "freedom" of iraq until after the president had already told us that iraq 100% had WMDs and was then proven to be incorrect. When this newfound desire for iraq's freedom was discussed the president looked ridiculous and the conservative think tanks sprang back into action looking for any way to blame clinton they could. so i assume bush will begin distancing himself from this war and then blame its utter failure on clinton? yes, hes right, bush never wanted this war, clinton forced his hand. bush wanted nothing but peace and tranquility for the iraqis, but mr. warmonger bill clinton practically forced him to go to war right?

i dont imagine we would have heard much about how clinton wanted to invade iraq from our president had the war been successful. it makes for a very interesting series of lies.

rj

Re: PNAC
 

First, stop paying attention to the propaganda. Yes, I know it's out there, but it's not worth spending time on.

Second:
i dont imagine we would have heard much about how clinton wanted to invade iraq from our president had the war been successful.

Holy cow. Odd you say this because from a US casualty point of view the invasion might very well be one of the most successful in history. It is easily the most successful in history when you look at how long it took to invade.

As for building a democracy, well there was far more bloodshed in the US between the time the US wrote the Articles of Confederation and the end of the Civil War. Iraq has a long ways to go before they end up being as bad as the US was.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom...capitalism...a good Constitution...voting...building up of infrastructure, development...these are the things that will eventually bring hope and progress to the troubled parts of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. And it is also the case that many lefties are prone to silly knee jerk reactions.

But three more things are true, which makes everything very complicated.

1) If the history of failed "development" initiatives and ideas has taught us anything, it is to be very, very wary of any school of thought that proposes that "all good things go together" - that democracy, economic development, freedom, etc are mutually complementary and if we could just get the rest of the world on this benign track, all would be good. In fact, it is unclear how and whether these things support each other. Scholars have looked for a long time for a connection between democracy and economic growth, sometimes positing a negative relationship and sometimes a positive one. But the only convincing thing that has ever emerged is the idea that if a democratic country reaches a certin level of wealth, it is very unlikely to revert to authoritarianism. No other relationship has ever been convincingly demonstrated.

2) That there is also very little historical evidence of democracies being successfully "created" by outside powers. While this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to support democracy, having an intelligent policy means acknowledging the severe limitations that history seems to teach us about. Without some kind of embedded political institutions and a history of at least half steps toward democracy, it is unfortunately very unlikely a democracy will just spring up. Look at the former communist world. Those countries in eastern europe that had some history of democratic governance have managed to stabilize democratic regimes (the EU has helped tremendously too). But those in Central Asia and the Caucases have just become authoritarian fiefdoms with democratic trappings.

3) It is also time to start calling a spade a spade when it comes to the international economy. First, the system is basically rigged against developing countries and this generates a tremendous amount of ill will and frustration on their part. Lefty reactions against globalization are stupid, but so is naive righty support of American trade policy. Second, the unfortunate reality is that world economic growth has been very sluggish over the last twenty years. Some Harvard economist does some math, scratches out a model and declares that Capital+Human Capital+Technological Innovation-Transaction Costs is the magic formula. But let's get real. That is just some scribbling on a piece of paper. Sit back for a second and think about what an unbelievable stretch it is to think that you could accurately model a global social-economic system. Impossible? No. But we should be skeptical about any proposed authoritative "answers" to the problems of the world. And we should weigh everything against the empirical evidence, which is that very little seems to be working these days when it comes to inducing growth in most places (with the exception of China and America during the 90s boom - two places which teach very contradictory lessons about the "right" answers!).

Re: PNAC
 

After reading this essay (referenced by Wacki):
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

I don't believe the PNAC is being apologetic or evasive.

The PNAC merely seems to be setting the record straight as to the timeline of events and opinions which led up to the war. Within the US there was broad governmental support for overthrowing the regime of Sadam Hussein, even prior to GW taking office.

To my knowledge, the PNAC as a whole does not seem to be involving themselves in the creative notion that the Bush administration falsified intelligence in order to justify the war (although the PNAC representatives on the Bush administration have strenously denied such allegations, along with Colin Powell and other very credible insiders).

Re: PNAC
 

"Holy cow. Odd you say this because from a US casualty point of view the invasion might very well be one of the most successful in history. It is easily the most successful in history when you look at how long it took to invade."

Come on wacki- you know perfectly well that the support for the war and Bush's approval ratings are what will be the short term measuring stick for this operation.

Re: PNAC
 

Hi Kurto,

I should have qualified my remark by saying "some" Leftists. Of course it is not true of all Leftists, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Re: PNAC
 

The quotes he posted are overly-simplistic stereotyping and are misrepresenting positions people take.

His premise is nothing more then the Left wants a weak America. That's just poor propagandistic crap.

To argue against the US doing something specific (we'll say 'X') which may make the US strong, does not mean that the person(s) arguing against X want the US to be weak.

You can want your country to be strong AND not exploit the less fortunate. They are not mutually exclusive.

[ QUOTE ]
Hard core lefties hate McDonalds in other countries and big coorporations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with MMMMMM stating that all lefties want the US to be weak?

For the record, many lefties may work for/have leadership in corporations. To criticize policies of a corporation doesn't mean one has to be against all corporations.

This is the heart of Limbaughisms.... over-simplify or outright misrepresent your opponents positions and then rail against them.

Like the question of bases in other countries-- A Lefty can want the US to have bases in other countries. But they can NOT want the US to engage in a war whose express purpose is to get a foothold in a country they are currently not welcome. (If I recall correctly, that was one of the goals of going to war in Iraq. Excuse me if I'm remembering things a little off... its been a while.)

If you take MMMMMM's statement, he would imply that lefties don't want bases anywhere outside the US because they want the US to be weak. I find it hard to believe anyone doesn't think that statement is hyperbolic BS.

Re: Your original question: The problems with PNAC, as I see it, is that they had an agenda of a war with Iraq prior to Bush taking office. They took the 9/11 as an opportunity to push for the war they wanted, and had to lie to America to get there.

I'm sure there's plenty of good stuff coming out of PNAC. But the fact that they clearly wanted to take the US to war in the Middle East on used 9/11 to their own ends is the problem.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
I should have qualified my remark by saying "some" Leftists. Of course it is not true of all Leftists, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt any 'leftist' out there wants the US to be weak. I think you are misrepresenting their views.

I don't think anyone thinks that way. I just reread it again when replying to Wacki and thought it seemed more ridiculous when I reread it.

This fits thematically into the "the left hate the US" propaganda. It's dishonest, unconstructive and just builds partisan rancor.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the PNAC is being apologetic

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't think the PNAC will ever be accused of that

[ QUOTE ]
or evasive

[/ QUOTE ]

They are evasive of relevant facts if they don't promote it's vision

[ QUOTE ]
The PNAC merely seems to be setting the record straight as to the timeline of events and opinions which led up to the war

[/ QUOTE ]

From June '97 till Dec '99! What about after, what about since 9/11. The PNAC are trying to suggest that War was inevitable because of a path Clinton was on, and you think this is a reasonable explanation. What happened to hiding, supplying and training terrorists? What about the WMD's? What about all of Bush's reasons? Are you people really so dumb you'll believe any Bullchit they put in front of you?

[ QUOTE ]
Within the US there was broad governmental support for overthrowing the regime of Sadam Hussein, even prior to GW taking office

[/ QUOTE ]

By any means? Not til Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge, the PNAC as a whole does not seem to be involving themselves in the creative notion that the Bush administration falsified intelligence in order to justify the war

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. They spin for the neo conservative view. Of course they aren't gonna put any doubt into the empty heads they educate

[ QUOTE ]
(although the PNAC representatives on the Bush administration have strenously denied such allegations, along with Colin Powell and other very credible insiders).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wow really. Oh maybe you have a point then. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Holy cow. Odd you say this because from a US casualty point of view the invasion might very well be one of the most successful in history. It is easily the most successful in history when you look at how long it took to invade."

Come on wacki- you know perfectly well that the support for the war and Bush's approval ratings are what will be the short term measuring stick for this operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I am well aware of that. Popular opinion in 1943 Germany was that the Jews were bad for the country and deserved to be exiled or dealt with in a harsh maner. That doesn't make it right.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone thinks that way. I just reread it again when replying to Wacki and thought it seemed more ridiculous when I reread it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the hardcore left feels that way either. However, if they did feel that way, much of their foreign policy wouldn't change.

Re: PNAC
 

wait, how is this war possibly successful? what have we accomplished? to make three different rationale's for going to war, only to have all of them turn out incorrect and to occupy a country with no real goal of what we or they want to do does not strike me as a successful war. if you think the fact that we forced elections in iraq was worth the casualities and that is what made this a successful war i am amazed.

for months we heard about how pressing the need to attack iraq was, now that we know that these threats wasnt pressing in the least bit, now that we know that the administration is on their fourth round of rationales for why we are fighting there, its clintons fault!!!

good god this is disgusting, please administration, you made a mistake, everyone knows it, just fess up, dont get your conservative friends to write articles placing the blame for your obvious misjudgements on other presidents. the fact that they would actually blame clintons threats aimed to get weapons inspectors back into iraq as cause for this war is astounding. If this was the case why this administration not chose to go to war with iraq before 9/11 if these needs were so pressing? because there wasnt the climate necessary for a group like PNAC to start writing inflammatory articles on why we needed to invade iraq and then writing about how its someone elses fault many months later, very admirable! this group is great for america in that now we all have a way to read propaganda before it is told to us by the president. i imagine bashing clinton will become the trademark for Bush's last couple years in the white house.

rj

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Holy cow. Odd you say this because from a US casualty point of view the invasion might very well be one of the most successful in history. It is easily the most successful in history when you look at how long it took to invade."

Come on wacki- you know perfectly well that the support for the war and Bush's approval ratings are what will be the short term measuring stick for this operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I am well aware of that. Popular opinion in 1943 Germany was that the Jews were bad for the country and deserved to be exiled or dealt with in a harsh maner. That doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, so its not "right" to judge the success of this war by bush's approval ratings, but that is what this administration is doing. beyond that, what criteria are "right" in judging this war? you seem to believe that since american casualities are low that this is a "successful" war. is it really just the casualities? i would say that a successful war happens when a country has goals for that war, accomplishes them and does minimal long term damage. in this case, going into the war we had 3 goals: get saddam out of power, get rid of iraqs "many thousands of WMDS!!"(which didnt exist anyways) and to further our war on terror. well, we got saddam out of power, confirmed that there were no WMDs and continue to fight our war on terror. so we accomplished 1 of those 3 stated goals, getting saddam out of power. Does that make this war successful? does the fact that only thousands have died to achieve this make the war successful? im still baffled at what is successful about any of this.

rj

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
im still baffled at what is successful about any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

More like blinded by emotions. I feel dumb for taking the time to explain this as I have lots of work to do.

You are talking about the war on terror. You can argue with reasonable logic that Iraq was a bad move in that case and I'm not going to argue with you.

I am talking about the very specific act of invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, and planting the seed of democracy. That specific act is a huge success and one of the biggest in history of mankind. If you argue against that you are simply proving how out of touch of reality you really are. Just look at our long, bloody history, and the history of many other democracies for crying out loud.

I've already stated this. Now I think you are just trolling and this is a hijak. Goodday PITTM.

Re: PNAC
 

I am sure that some on the Left want the U.S. to be less powerful and less dominant (Cyrus and Chris Alger, for example [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

A familiar refrain I have heard from the Left, is that the U.S. is too powerful and hegemonistic. I've encountered this view both within the U.S and from Europeans Lefties. For the U.S. to be less powerful it must become weaker (or relatively weaker). Sort of a basic inverse relationship, there;-)

I'm not trying to cast aspersions; just remarking on what I've noticed. And, once again, it certainly isn't true of all those on the Left. But I do think it is a fairly familiar refrain.

Also, I'm not saying that even those those Leftists who want the U.S. to be weaker or to be reined in, want the U.S. to do badly (although there are a smaller number who do want exactly that)--just to be less strong, less influential, less powerful, less of a force to be reckoned with.

Take that crackpot faux-Indian professor, Ward Churchill. He wants the U.S. to not only be less powerful, but to be attacked and humiliated "as often as necessary" (or something pretty much along those lines). Granted he is an extreme example but I offer him as Exhibit "A" just to demonstrate that there are indeed some Leftists who wish for things contrary to what you might expect (since you said you don't think anyone thinks that way).

Also, I'm not mentioning this to be divisive, but rather, it's part of my take on why so many on the Left oppose the PNAC and (puzzlingly to me) seem to view it as something evil. I could be wrong, but these are some of my guesses and some of my observations. Granted it definitely doesn't apply to everybody on the Left.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im still baffled at what is successful about any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

More like blinded by emotions. I feel dumb for taking the time to explain this as I have lots of work to do.

You are talking about the war on terror. You can argue with reasonable logic that Iraq was a bad move in that case and I'm not going to argue with you.

I am talking about the very specific act of invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, and planting the seed of democracy. That specific act is a huge success and one of the biggest in history of mankind. If you argue against that you are simply proving how out of touch of reality you really are. Just look at our long, bloody history, and the history of many other democracies for crying out loud.

I've already stated this. Now I think you are just trolling and this is a hijak. Goodday PITTM.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is by no means a hijack, i am discussing the article that was posted. my issue is with the fact that this "great rationale for going to war" was nonexistant before all of the other reasons were proven false. if we were going to go to war to fight for a free democratic iraq in the first place this war would be successful, but that was not the stated goal. but it was the goal we accomplished, so if we plug this in as our initial reason for going to war it all looks like a success. my point is that the only way to make this war "successful" was to completely change our goals and reasons for being in iraq after the war was well underway. this seems like a disasterous way to make decisions in the long run.

then to go on to say that i am "blinded by my emotions" in one paragraph and then to say that this war is "one of the biggest successes in the history of mankind" in the next make me think that you must not be thinking clearly. using terms like "planting the seed of democracy" are just cliche phrases used to make us feel like killing thousands of innocent people under a wrongful presumption might not have been so wrong. thanks for the mature reply though.

rj

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about the WMD's? What about all of Bush's reasons? Are you people really so dumb you'll believe any Bullchit they put in front of you?

[/ QUOTE ]

The White House said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (citing US and foreign inteligence sources).

But, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (at least at the time of the invasion).

So, this proves that the White House must have lied about the existence of WMD.

Question: Could the White House simply have been wrong about WMD?

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
my point is that the only way to make this war "successful" was to completely change our goals and reasons for being in iraq after the war was well underway.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think you actually know what the administrations main reasons were? BTW, oil isn't what I am talking about and there have been several threads on this.

Still, you can't call the war in Iraq a failure. You just can't. You can call it a mistake, but not a failure. The fact that you are having so much difficulty realizing this basic concept is really making want to ignore you. I don't argue with trolls, the emotionally unstable, or idiots.

And yes, I think you are blinded by emotions.

Re: PNAC
 

yes, that is a possibility. but the problem here is that the main justification for going to war was based on this flawed intelligence and this was the case because the administration didnt bother to verify these claims before they went to war. since this administration is big on "taking responsibility" with no reprecussions, i would imagine they dont want people knowing that they made a mistake and would rather just blame the CIA for all of this.

rj

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could the White House simply have been wrong about WMD?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It would make them extremely incompetent but that seems to be par for the course.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my point is that the only way to make this war "successful" was to completely change our goals and reasons for being in iraq after the war was well underway.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think you actually know what the administrations main reasons were? BTW, oil isn't what I am talking about and there have been several threads on this.

Still, you can't call the war in Iraq a failure. You just can't. You can call it a mistake, but not a failure. The fact that you are having so much difficulty realizing this basic concept is really making want to ignore you. I don't argue with trolls, the emotionally unstable, or idiots.

And yes, I think you are blinded by emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

is that seriously your argument? i am a "trolling, emotionally unstable, idiot" because i dont agree with the completely opinion based statement you just made? i understand that you dont think its a failure. but you saying "you cant say its a failure" is completely opinionated and has absouletely no factual backing. but i guess im an idiot troll for not just agreeing with everything you say...calling me names and then saying im blinded by emotions makes for a pretty convincing argument...

and i know what the administrations stated goals for going to war were because they were "stated" many times in speeches leading up to the war. do you really disagree that those were the stated reasons?

rj

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
do you really disagree that those were the stated reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stated reasons? no. Real reasons? very possible.

One last question.

Lets pretend the goal of the Iraq war was to remove Saddam from power and plant the seed of democracy as quickly as possible without a massive loss of life relative to normal war standards. Now, under those conditions, do you still think the Iraq war was a failure?

Yes or no only please.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think you actually know what the administrations main reasons were? BTW, oil isn't what I am talking about and there have been several threads on this

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you saying? That it is OK for the government to lie, to take the country into an expensive and unnecessary war on falsehoods because 'hey thats what governments do,' they are never gonna tell you the whole truth, they just don't do that'.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]

What are you saying? That it is OK for the government to lie, to take the country into an expensive and unnecessary war on falsehoods because 'hey thats what governments do,' they are never gonna tell you the whole truth, they just don't do that'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this forum officially sucks. How in the hell did you get that from my posts?

Re: PNAC
 

yes, i think you are now understanding the basis for my entire argument. anything is "correct" if you change what the intentions were in the first place.

rj

Re: PNAC
 

well there is an obvious argument against yours that involves oil. since you specifically said we cant talk about that for some reason, you obviously admitted there was wrongdoing, but dont seem to care much, to the point that you ask that it not be discussed. i suppose thats what he could have been referring to? but yes, the poster was obviously exaggerating a bit.

rj

Re: PNAC
 

I am trying to get you to think which is proving extremely difficult.

Kurn Son of Mogh and I both posted many threads and articles about how the most important reasons for going into Iraq weren't wasn't even about Iraq. It was about it's neighboring countries. Do a search if you want.

Look, I'm done talking to you. Your attitude is more about hate and arguing than actual discussion.

Good day sir.

Re: PNAC
 

hate and arguing? uhhhh, did you read ANY of my posts? jesus christ, they seriously got you to be an admin? why?

rj

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
How in the hell did you get that from my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

because in an earlier reply to PITTM you said

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think you actually know what the administrations main reasons were?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well because they told us the reason. And when that reason didn't quite pan out they told us again only with something different this time and when that reason blah blah ...

PITTM does a fine summing up of your position


[ QUOTE ]
anything is "correct" if you change what the intentions were in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you really believe is that it does not matter what the US says or does regarding its position in the world. The ends justify the means and the ends are the US being completely dominant over the rest of the globe.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the hell did you get that from my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

because in an earlier reply to PITTM you said

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think you actually know what the administrations main reasons were?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well because they told us the reason. And when that reason didn't quite pan out they told us again only with something different this time and when that reason blah blah ...

PITTM does a fine summing up of your position


[ QUOTE ]
anything is "correct" if you change what the intentions were in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you really believe is that it does not matter what the US says or does regarding its position in the world. The ends justify the means and the ends are the US being completely dominant over the rest of the globe.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for supporting my "trolling, emotionally unstable, idiotic viewpoint" but since you and i are so hate filled and wacki is completely open minded to all posts i imagine he will really take this to heart. and by that i mean he will make petty insults at you and then accuse you of letting your emotions influence your argument. good times...

rj

Re: PNAC
 

You said


What are you saying? That it is OK for the government to lie,

and I said:
[ QUOTE ]
How in the hell did you get that from my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]


Now your proof is:

[ QUOTE ]


because in an earlier reply to PITTM you said

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think you actually know what the administrations main reasons were?

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

????? Did my points really fly over your head? Other than my views on PNAC and PITTM I haven't said a single opinion. I have only discussed possibilites not morals. You guys are reading way too much into things.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
anything is "correct" if you change what the intentions were in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you really believe is that it does not matter what the US says or does regarding its position in the world. The ends justify the means and the ends are the US being completely dominant over the rest of the globe.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no clue as to what I believe is right or wrong.

This conversation has been a waste of time.

Re: PNAC
 

[ QUOTE ]
Question: Could the White House simply have been wrong about WMD?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it does not appear that this is the case.

For starters, both Rice and Powell, prior to the sounding of the drums of war, had both publicly said that Iraq was no threat.

Second... look at the Downing Memo. The Brits knew the intelligence was being fixed.

Furthermore, just remember the events. The forged Niger documents. They had already investigated the documents and determined they were no good. Yet they passed them as further evidence.

Our own intelligence agencies were dismissing the Administrations arguments, so they ignored them.

I think by all appearances, they were lying.