TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Since I'm feeling it
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeJulez This American foreign policy doctrine, now explicitly propounded by Bush but in practice spans back several Presidential generations, in its current manifestation draws as its base a manifesto drawn up in 1997 called "Project for the New American Century," whose main backer in the administration is the uber-hawk and rampant neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz. Here's a link to the official website: www.newamericancentury.org (read the "Statement of Principles") I just don't think that courses of action following this doctrine will successfully counter-attack and put down terrorism; if it does, I still think the cost will GREATLY outweigh the means.

Wow. This website... is this for real? To me, this seems like the work of lunatics.

Take a look-see, read some of the articles. Here are some juicy tidbits:

quote:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership. The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

I think we are all agreed to the idea that rule of the world by one power is absolutely absurd. Also, I don't think many outside America think that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," certainly not the latter.

quote:

Americans prefer to act with the sanction and support of other countries if they can. But they're strong enough to act alone if they must. That combination may prove to be the winning formula in Europe and elsewhere. Maybe it won't be quite the principled multilateralism Europeans and Kofi Annan prefer. In an age of American hegemony, it will be multilateralism, American style.

American hegemony?? Pray tell, what is the "next step"?

The kinds of attitudes presented on this website are very disturbing, and betray a deeply-rooted ignorance of all world matters by the organizers and supporters of such a "New American Century."

Tell me, what is the difference between this "New American Century," and global dictatorship? Because, in the end, that's what it all boils down to.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeJulez I would argue that the US is taking reactionary measures in its course of action post-9/11. I say this because in my view all the US is basically following the same path of foreign policy it has followed all along; the big change that 9/11 effected was that it gave the US some justification to be more aggressive in this course of dealings in world affairs. This American foreign policy doctrine, now explicitly propounded by Bush but in practice spans back several Presidential generations, in its current manifestation draws as its base a manifesto drawn up in 1997 called "Project for the New American Century," whose main backer in the administration is the uber-hawk and rampant neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz. Here's a link to the official website: www.newamericancentury.org (read the "Statement of Principles")

Ummmm how do you arrive at the conclusion that our foreign policy was constructed out of this ridiculous horse rubbish? It looks to me that it's one of many extremist groups that sit around all day writing propogandist articles and collect donations. And saying that we were waiting for something like 9/11 to happen so we could have justification in expanding our foreign policies seems a little reminiscent of a conspiracy theory that the US government conspired to committ the terror attacks itself. If you recall the elections everybody KNEW that foreign policy wasn't Bush's strong suit. Part of the reason he was elected was because a lot of people agreed with his national policies. If anything America was leaning towards focusing inwards rather than outwards.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummmm how do you arrive at the conclusion that our foreign policy was constructed out of this ridiculous horse rubbish?

This is what I'd like to know too. The New American Century website smells just as bad as the conspiracy theory ones do.

quote:

If you recall the elections everybody KNEW that foreign policy wasn't Bush's strong suit. Part of the reason he was elected was because a lot of people agreed with his national policies. If anything America was leaning towards focusing inwards rather than outwards.

You know, I've wondered since this has all began - What are the reactions of the American people to Bush's aggression? I know there are those opposed to the war in the US, but I wonder what the consensus is. Because if, as you've said, he was elected for his national policies rather than international relations, it would be interesting to see what Americans think of Bush for his "tough stance" on Iraq.

I would think that the majority support their President regardless, however reluctantly. However, it is the obligation of the people to keep the government in check. Where are the people's voices being heard, if they are against the US position?

Comments, thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode You know, I've wondered since this has all began - What are the reactions of the American people to Bush's aggression? I know there are those opposed to the war in the US, but I wonder what the consensus is. Because if, as you've said, he was elected for his national policies rather than international relations, it would be interesting to see what Americans think of Bush for his "tough stance" on Iraq. I would think that the majority support their President regardless, however reluctantly. However, it is the obligation of the people to keep the government in check. Where are the people's voices being heard, if they are against the US position? Comments, thoughts?

Well I think you can see a lot of people disagree with the war through the anti-war rallies that are being held across the country. As for the complete majority ... I think that it would be somewhat close to 50-50. There are those that completely oppose him, there's people like me who think he's kind of heading in the right direction, and there's people who completely support him. Bush is too stupid to deal with something like this ... this situation demands Clinton's finesse in foreign policy. Hell even George Bush Sr's finesse. He handled allied support in the gulf war coalition masterfully.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummmm how do you arrive at the conclusion that our foreign policy was constructed out of this ridiculous horse rubbish? It looks to me that it's one of many extremist groups that sit around all day writing propogandist articles and collect donations. And saying that we were waiting for something like 9/11 to happen so we could have justification in expanding our foreign policies seems a little reminiscent of a conspiracy theory that the US government conspired to committ the terror attacks itself. If you recall the elections everybody KNEW that foreign policy wasn't Bush's strong suit. Part of the reason he was elected was because a lot of people agreed with his national policies. If anything America was leaning towards focusing inwards rather than outwards.

Oi occrider, I'm sorry if I come across as presenting my argument in an ultra-conspiratical (word? ) manner; I am not saying that we were waiting for 9.11 to happen, nor by no means am I meaning to allude to that popular conspiracy theory the US had prior knowledge of 9.11 and could have stop it, etc, because I too don't buy it. But what I am saying is that an unintended consequence of 9.11 is that the US now felt it had some justification for going with a more aggressive foreign policy.

It was from a lecture, given by the head of a think-tank on US foreign policy at Boston University (a conservative ex-Marine turned scholar), that I came across this idea, and because of the recent events, this lecture came back to my mind. Given in early 2002 after the State of the Union address (I think), and when looking back at it now, certain strands of the argument it propounds can be reflected in the actions taken today by the US government. The speaker's basic point was that American foreign policy would grow much more forceful in the future. A question posed at the end asked what the speaker's view was of the future of the relationship of America and the UN; he basically said while the concept of a UN was nice and idealistic, in reality American muscular diplomacy was probably the way of the future, a policy which he seemed to support. Anyways, it was quite a powerful argument that he gave; I think there is a tape somewhere lying around at my homebase in Boston, so if any of you would like to see it, PM your address and I will send you a copy when I return home in April.


I know Bush ran on platform which heavily favored a focus inwards than outwards. But the "New American Century" draws from among its supporters Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams (MidEast section chief of the National Security Council), even his brother Jeb Bush (who was initially thought to be the Bush brother in line for the Republican Presidential candidacy, and probably so at the time it was written); look at the signatories of its "Statement of Principles":

(http://www.newamericancentury.org/s...fprinciples.htm)

Rumsfeld and co. have been around Washington since the 1970's, holding various posts here and there, and even in times they might not have formally held a governmental position, their influence most probably was still a preponderant force (I think that when Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1980, he was a private citizen). VP Cheney, in 1992 when he ran the Pentagon, drafted a "Defence Planning Guide" along with Wolfowitz. This was a strategy blueprint for future US leaders in the stewardship of the now sole world superpower after Communism's demise. Here is a NY Times article from '92 which briefly summarizes the document's main points and principles:

http://brandhast.airbeagle.com/DPG1992.htm

A lot of what is said about the "Guide" reflects the principles subtlely (to me at least ) being espoused by today's Administration.

William Christol, the Chairman of this "New American Century" was the Chief of Staff of former VP Dan Quayle. Though now not a government employee, I think it would be safe to assume that he still has many friends in the Administration. This is why I am calling your attention to this site; as extreme as the views on it might be, the fact that a lot of the high positions in the Bush Administration subscribe to principles in this philosphy is very interesting, to say the least.

I'm sorry if the whole blurb above comes across as if I were trying to expound some extreme conspiracy theory; I am by no means a left-wing conspiracy theorist hehehe. I don't really know what to make out of all this as well; these are just some things I stumbled across that I thought might be of interest in this political hotbed of a forum.

quote:

Originally posted by IronDragon I do, however, believe that the U.S will bludgeon up 9 votes and go into war with that "moral authority".

It's happening.....

Once again, am I good or what?

quote:

Originally posted by IronDragon It's happening..... Once again, am I good or what?

Why the hell are you wasting your talents here man??? Make yourself useful and predict me some lottery numbers!

quote:

Originally posted by IronDragon It's happening..... Once again, am I good or what?

Things change minute by minute, so dont claim victory yet.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeJulez It was from a lecture, given by the head of a think-tank on US foreign policy at Boston University (a conservative ex-Marine turned scholar)

Well, that explains that. Of course you'll have gung-ho military (even ex-military) people supporting this crazy idea of American foreign dominance. It's unfortunate that these people are able to convince others about it.

quote:

A question posed at the end asked what the speaker's view was of the future of the relationship of America and the UN; he basically said while the concept of a UN was nice and idealistic, in reality American muscular diplomacy was probably the way of the future, a policy which he seemed to support.

See above and below on this.

quote:

Anyways, it was quite a powerful argument that he gave;

This does not make his point any more "valid." Hitler was known to make powerful arguments.

There is just no possible way anyone can justify the rule of a single nation or power over others, let alone the globe. Those who support this idea are sick egoists and megalomaniacs. How could you tell a Spaniard what is in his best interests? Or an Iraqi? Do you even know where Iraq is? (rhetorical question)

quote:

I know Bush ran on platform which heavily favored a focus inwards than outwards. But the "New American Century" draws from among its supporters Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams (MidEast section chief of the National Security Council), even his brother Jeb Bush (who was initially thought to be the Bush brother in line for the Republican Presidential candidacy, and probably so at the time it was written); look at the signatories of its "Statement of Principles":

These are all, in varying degrees, megalomaniacs. Why are these people allowed to be in such influential government positions?

quote:

This was a strategy blueprint for future US leaders in the stewardship of the now sole world superpower after Communism's demise. Here is a NY Times article from '92 which briefly summarizes the document's main points and principles: http://brandhast.airbeagle.com/DPG1992.htm

The way you describe the "blueprint" makes it look like a child's picture book. In fact this document from the Defense Department does no less than spell out the aggression that must take place to put America solely on top of the world.

Some disturbing excerpts (from the article provided by the link above):

quote:

...part of the American mission will be �convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.�

But America is, of course, "allowed" to "pursue a more aggressive posture to protect its legitimate interests." Legitimate, eh..? What business does the US have outside its own borders?

quote:

With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism, the strategy that emerged from World War II when the five victorious powers sought to form a United Nations that could mediate disputes and police outbreaks of violence.

There is no such thing as "benevolent domination by one power," whether in politics or social affairs. Human nature (and experience!) dictates that any sort of sole domination always, always turns into a dictatorial rule, from the school-bully to the Romans. There really is no exception. I don't see how this will be good for the world. It would be really interesting to see some of the arguments that these people present.

quote:

The continuation of this strategic goal explains the strong emphasis elsewhere in the document and in other Pentagon planning on using military force, if necessary, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in such countries as North Korea, Iraq, some of the successor republics to the Soviet Union and in Europe.

quote:

What is most important, it says, is �the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S.� and �the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated� or in a crisis that demands quick response. Bush Administration officials have been saying publicly for some time that they were willing to work within the framework of the United Nations, but that they reserve the option to act unilaterally or through selective coalitions, if necessary, to protect vital American interests.

Wow, is it just me or is this exactly the situation today?

quote:

But this publicly stated strategy did not rule out an eventual leveling of American power as world security stabilizes and as other nations place greater emphasis on collective international action through the United Nations. In contrast, the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders �must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.�

quote:

A lot of what is said about the "Guide" reflects the principles subtlely (to me at least ) being espoused by today's Administration. William Christol, the Chairman of this "New American Century" was the Chief of Staff of former VP Dan Quayle. Though now not a government employee, I think it would be safe to assume that he still has many friends in the Administration. This is why I am calling your attention to this site; as extreme as the views on it might be, the fact that a lot of the high positions in the Bush Administration subscribe to principles in this philosphy is very interesting, to say the least.

And quite disturbing!

quote:

I'm sorry if the whole blurb above comes across as if I were trying to expound some extreme conspiracy theory; I am by no means a left-wing conspiracy theorist hehehe. I don't really know what to make out of all this as well; these are just some things I stumbled across that I thought might be of interest in this political hotbed of a forum.

Well, thanks, it's good to have as much information as possible. Like I said in an earlier post, this kind of thinking (sole dominance) is utterly absurd and ignorant. It only comes to show that people will be people, and politicians will be politicians - with power the main motive behind all of their actions. What remains to be seen is whether or not this will escalate and, if and when it does, what will be the consequences (dire for sure).

Cheers Alccode, good commentary! I agree with all your points.

Just a side note, maybe I should have written more clearly about the lecture. The "powerful argument" the speaker gave was that the US was moving toward a more aggressive stance on foreign policy, NOT on why this is a good course of action to take; indeed, if he had wanted to sway the audience to this effect, I think it had the opposite effect!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Yeah sorry about that EXCITED mode hehehe.. thing is, people are just too closed minded.

some people are "close-minded"????
I think it's you that are close-minded

raising the same old arguments and shouting "fuck war" without delving deeper into the world situation

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeJulez Cheers Alccode, good commentary! I agree with all your points. Just a side note, maybe I should have written more clearly about the lecture. The "powerful argument" the speaker gave was that the US was moving toward a more aggressive stance on foreign policy, NOT on why this is a good course of action to take; indeed, if he had wanted to sway the audience to this effect, I think it had the opposite effect!

Thanks! Good to hear we're on the same wavelength.

I see that I totally misunderstood the lecture that you attended, thanks for correcting me. Kind of surprising that the speaker was lecturing on that subject - as if one needed "proof" that the US is pursuing a more "aggressive stance" on foreign policy!

j/k - I'm aware s/he was just presenting a good observation. In any case I am totally for it! It is good to raise awareness about global political issues such as this.

The sound you hear is me eating my hat.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.