PNAC

[wacki]

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.

[PLOlover]

[ 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 ]

[wacki]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

http://www.spacewar.com/news/milspace-05k.html

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Military Wants Weapons In Space

Washington (UPI) Apr 6, 2005
The Bush administration is advocating the weaponization of space to sustain the global dominance of the U.S. military.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
With nations like China and Russia actively pursing treaties that would outlaw the deployment of space-based weapons, analysts say cosmic battlefields will only flourish if the president extends his policy of pre-emptive military action to the heavens.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]

Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and 'combat' likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, 'cyber-space,' and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. 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 ]

[player24]

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.

[MMMMMM]

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.

[kurto]

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.

[wacki]

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.

[kurto]

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.

[player24]

[ 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.