PNAC

[PITTM]

thats what happens when you refuse to accept any viewpoint that is the slightest bit different from yours i suppose.

rj

[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 ]

[wacki]

That was a well thought out and written argument andyfox. It will probably take me a couple of days to read those referenced articles (busy with work) but I will get back to you when I'm done. Thankyou for your input.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so I don't waste anymore time.

[ACPlayer]

.... it depends on what the meaning of the word "lie" "is".

The extents some people will go to support their proven mistakes.

[PITTM]

woah, its just like before, except now you are just not physically reading them and ignoring the contents because they arent "wacki" enough.

rj

[MMMMMM]

Fine post, Andy; here are a few quick thoughts:

Just because the PNAC authors might have the foundation of a Manichean world view, does not mean that they haven't drawn the approximately correct conclusions regarding world powers and struggles.

Just because they might have some hubris or arrogance, does not mean their strategy is fatally flawed.

Just because they see the world in terms of good and evil, does not mean that certain systems are not worse than others--specifically "worse" are communism, theocracy, Islamism, and fascism--and any combination of the above. So, even if you don't believe in "good" and "evil", you probably do believe in "better" and "worse"--and there really isn't much practical difference between the two sets of terms when you compare the first set to the second set. In this world we constantly must try to choose betwen "better" and "worse"--if "good" and "evil" offends your philosophical sense of decorum somehow, try using the other set of terms;-)

Islamism {politicized Islam), communism, and fascism are all inherently rigid in the ideological sense. They also have an expansionist philosophical theme which is actually conquest-oriented. If we do nothing they will attempt to overcome us. It is because the relatively free West is strong, that the West has not been conquered by one or more of these totalitarian ideologies.

Those ideologies, and the political systems married to them, are NOT acceptable to humans wishing to live a relatively free life, nor for those who wish not to see others oppressed or enslaved. Such systems are inherently incompatible with liberty and human rights. So I don't buy the argument that "it may be OK for them", or the multiculturalist view, that all cultures are equally OK and valid. Cultural aspects which promote fascism or lack of human rights are NOT OK. The Saudi government and Wahhabi culture, with its fascistic state religion and its oppression of women and non-Muslims, is NOT OK.

Yes, the PNAC may be a bit overly aggressive or assertive in its approach (I haven't browsed it since quite some time, so I can't say for sure).

Yes, there are some dangers in and of hubris.

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing they disagree about with their hero Reagan is in their pessimistic view of human nature and society. They see the world as a Hobbesian one of conspiracy and struggle where perpetual military competition for supremacy is the normal state of affairs and moderation is unadvisable and virtually impossible, where trust is elusive at best, and where adversaries must be preemptively crushed lest they crush you first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lean towards the optimistic view of human nature on a personal level and in small groups. The larger the group, however, the worse it generally gets. I believe that on the state level, the view you ascribe to PNAC authors is mostly correct and is borne out by bloody history throughout the ages. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the enemy must always be crushed first; but pre-emption, when practical against a serious, dangerous and determined foe, is simply a wise strategy.

If dictatorships and theocracies can be replaced with democracies, all of humanity will win. I realize that's a big IF.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
That sounds like it might be a falsehood but perhaps not a lie, since "to lie" implies deliberately and knowingly telling a falsehood.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people believe it was a lie and they knew as much. See the Downing Street Memo. See Powell speaking in Europe prior to 9/11 saying how Saddam was no threat because he was disarmed. (same from Condeleeza)

I think only the Bush apologists think he wasn't lying these days.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That sounds like it might be a falsehood but perhaps not a lie, since "to lie" implies deliberately and knowingly telling a falsehood.

[ QUOTE ]



I think most people believe it was a lie and they knew as much. See the Downing Street Memo. See Powell speaking in Europe prior to 9/11 saying how Saddam was no threat because he was disarmed. (same from Condeleeza)

I think only the Bush apologists think he wasn't lying these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can reconcile that with the fact that prior to the war, the governments of: U.S.A., Russia, England, Germany, Australia and Israel all believed that Saddam possesed WMDs and/or was working on WMD programs.

[jokerswild]

the fascist posts as usual from racist people like MMMM., adios, broken Glass Can, and a few other coward hawks is just sickening.