|
| 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).
|
