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 ]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[PITTM]

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

[wacki]

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.