Slashdot Mirror

I think you have them confused with this group...

I stumbled accross this. Interesting to say the least and answers a lot of questions. Of particular concern is:
"* we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
...from their Statement of Principles.
The worrying thing is, the chairman of this particular gang seems to work for the Weekly Standard, as shown by an entry in the WHOIS of the domain: Registrant Email:wkristol@weeklystandard.com
Scary stuff for us in the rest of the world!

I stumbled accross this. Interesting to say the least and answers a lot of questions. Of particular concern is:
"* we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
...from their Statement of Principles.
The worrying thing is, the chairman of this particular gang seems to work for the Weekly Standard, as shown by an entry in the WHOIS of the domain: Registrant Email:wkristol@weeklystandard.com
Scary stuff for us in the rest of the world!

True. If by funny you mean the sort of joke that makes you want to throw up... and let's not forget that the CIA under Reagan was the primary organizing force behind the Afghan mujahedin, including certain terrorists of recent renown.

The denigration of the UN, so mindlessly echoed by many on here, is a neocon tactic designed to set up the New American Century. Just look at the smearing of the IAEA (and subsequent total failure of the US to do any better). It's sad when people are so ignorant of history that they forget why the UN was created in the first place, or how Germany and Japan undermined the League of Nations as a critical part of their imperial manouevres in the 30's.

People need to take a minute to think about the agenda behind this constant rubbishing of the UN. Is Empire really what Americans want? Possibly not, but there's no way of knowing: see e.g. Mike Scheuer, former head of CIA's bin Laden unit, who points out that the underlying reasons for Arab terrorism or the implications of America's continued imperial expansion are simply not part of the political dialogue in America right now.

As for bureaucracy, I've worked in many US govt labs and the idea that America is somehow less bureaucratic is another of those jokes that makes you want to hurl. People, turn off your TV, it's lying to you...

The facts speak for themselves. The Bush family has strong ties to the Saudis in general and the Bin Laden family in particular. Bush lied about Saddam having ties to Al Qaeda and having WMDs (not to mention his minion's lies). Bush's cousin *did* call the election for him and he *did* work at Fox at the time.

You can say all you want about "leftie" politics but your head is *still* firmly in the sand. The truth IS unpleasant for you and so you try to dismiss them with *your* baseless claims. I suppose it doesn't matter to you anyway, now that your friendly wackos from the Project for a New American Century are in charge of the government now. Yeah, go look at the list of signatories--all your favorites are there: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, William Bennett--need I go on?

You know it's funny how you talk about repeating a mantra over and over again--that's exactly what you do without citing a single irrefutable fact. Nice try, though.

And yes, Fox News is not a fair and balanced representation of the news--it's little more than a thinly disguised mouthpiece for the Bush administration and their lies (Iraq--A-OK!). So yes, you *are* a sheep if you think that you're getting the truth from either the Bush administration or Fox News or whatever right wing news source you subscribe to. As for Fox's lies all you have to do is look here to see plenty.

Look, you obviously didn't follow the links in my post. The whole notion of 'empire' is being redefined. Some call it the New World Order, including Poppy and W.

There are radical differences in the way hegemony is managed between the Romans, lets say, and the post-colonial period that we're now in; those kinds of empires can't exist now, for a whole range of reasons. Essentially, the New American Century is already here.

Whilst military bases might provide the US with a global military reach they don't generate any direct income or economic benefit which is the real point of Empires.

The relationship between big-ticket trading, industries, etc. and those who run the --empire, forgive me-- is so complex and profuse and obscured by sleight of press that it's understandable how people miss seeing a 'direct benefit.' Anyway, I guess you don't live in the commonwealth, or you'd know that that empire always worked hand in hand with business. In Canada we had the Hudson's Bay Company. I guess that makes it Haliburton in Iraq.

http://www.pnac.info/ A more indepth look (or replace indepth with "bias")

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm

The scariest place on the net. If you really support this admin, and haven't read this, your an idiot. No arguement here, you don't understand what it is your supporting. Pax Americana.

http://www.peace.ca/paxamericana.htm Just an outline of the shift in the admins arguement for going to war. Linguistists will be studing this for YEARS. Seriously, this shows a new form of language manipulation that is balls out scary.

Oh fuck you and your worthless out-of-context sound bites. Kindly explain to the audience here exactly which one (or the aggregate) of those sentences said "We should immediately and unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq no matter what the consequences".

In short, you can't. There was always the suspicion that Saddam still possessed a limited amount of WMD material (based on his not having fully divulged information and allowed complete inspections). But NOBODY but Bush and the NeoCon ass-masters ever said we should use our standing as the world's sole superpower to enforce a Pax Americana on the world, starting with Iraq and continuing on to the rest of the Middle East.

You fail it, and all your ignorant ilk fail it too.

You want a fascinating read on Iraq, read Tricky Dick Cheney's own words about it (back in 1991, when he was defending Chimp Senior's decision not to engage in nation-building).

maybe you should take a look at the The Project for the New American Century.
It states pretty clearly very early on that we are entitled to peruse our capital interests using war. Having a key portion of the worlds energy supply in close alignment with the US government-corporate leadership is a capital interest.

Their are lots of other reasons for invading as well... such as establishing a client state from which you can launch military operation in the region, normalizing relations with the Iraqi markets, and setting an example for other countries that question US hegemony.

Last of which is helping Iraqis which we are certainly trying to do in the sense that a lot of people believe that is what we are doing there, but it was certainly not the first priority for the goverment leadership of the US. It would have been much easier to help Iraqis by not supporting Saddam though the worst of his atrocities or if we not imposed genocidal sanctions against the people of that country, or if we had not lifted the no fly zone to allow Saddam to crush the Iraqis as they rose up against him, etc.

'It's not a healthy thing to lock yourself in a room and create your own reality.'

Project for the New American Century.
Need I say more? o_O

You have no idea what a "neoconservative" is; these are definitions you've made up yourself (along with others who wish to vilify neoconservatives and make "neocon" a dirty word).

Neocons are not the ultra conservative religious right.

Neocons are not killers of abortion doctors.

Neocons are not gay bashers.

Now, Bush IS a neoconservative. But there seems to be a disconnect here. Because if you think that Bush is anywhere CLOSE to this ultra fanatical religious right you think about, you have no fucking idea who those people are. Hint: it's the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons. Think some of those people and their followers got Bush elected? You bet. But that's not because Bush is one of them, it's just that viewed on a practical scale, Bush (or any conservative) is probably closer to their ideals than, say, Kerry.

Your attempt to associate neoconservatism with abortion doctor-killers, gay beaters/killers/bashers, and ultra right-wing fundamentalists is a ridiculously laughable one, but sadly typical among many liberals and leftists today. Go ahead, try to redefine the word. You and others like you have already been successful to an extent. But that's not what neoconservatism means, at all.

Neoconservatism is based generally in the following ideals:

Free markets and trade
More social investment than traditional conservatives
Aggressive and non-isolationist foreign policy
Unilateralism
Opposition to communism and non-democratic ideals

Your rants on religious fanaticism and gay bashing are utter fantasy.

If you're actually interested in neoconservatism and what it really means, and not what you think it means or what you'd like it to mean, see:

Neoconservatism

And, critically, if you want to see what the entire US foreign policy is based on, see:

Statement of Principles

Interestingly, liberals are mortified when they read that. I have no earthly idea why, as it represents a critical and fundamental understanding that we have an obligation not only to ourselves but to the world at large to spread concepts of freedom and democratic principles for positive gain.

If you can't understand why we're in Iraq right now, here it is in a nutshell:

- NOT because of WMD (even though that was, correctly, presented as the primary reason at the time, since it was, again correctly, assumed that we would indeed find large stockpiles of said weapons, thus justifying the mission on its face)

- BECAUSE Iraq was a largely secular state, there wouldn't be as violent an Islamic fundamentalist backlash as if we had entered, say, Saudi Arabia

- BECAUSE we already had a history with Iraq, and the case could be relatively easily made to the US populace

- BECAUSE we have limited resources, do NOT have 500,000 or more troops to commit, and do NOT want the draft that all the liberals think Republicans want

- BECAUSE of those limited resources, we can only afford change on a single front, and have hopes that this will catalyze democratic reform in neighboring states, or at least begin the processes

- BECAUSE something needs to be done about Panislamic radicalism. Why Iraq, then, and not Saudi Arabia? Because going into Saudi Arabia would be viewed as a war directly on Islam (which this is NOT, by the way, dumbass) even more than going into Iraq is, and would simultaneously cause the oil market stability in the entire mideast to utterly collapse, which would gravely hurt the US economy as well as that of Europe

- BECAUSE the FREE flow of information and ideas and freedom of religion, government, speech, association, coupled with security and rule of law, have a chance at a quick modernization of several borderline nations in the mideast (e.g., Iran, Jordan, Egypt), and could have far-reaching long term implications for our own s

Every 2 sentences the author takes a stab at anything left of the current republicans:

- socialist-minded policy wonks
- The antitrust laws provide a means by which sour-grapes competitors can achieve through politics what they fail to achieve in the marketplace.
- Mr. Litan commits what Hayek called the "fatal conceit" of believing that government bureaucrats, rather than entrepreneurs and consumers, are in the best position to decide what constitutes a "legitimate business purpose."

She then goes on to argue that it is monopolies, and not everybody else, that have the right to judge their own conduct! What a load of trash! I'm sure Microsoft upper-end will be flogging over this one for months to come.

She also completely ignores the fact that lower costs aren't the only factor to take into consideration when ascertaining what is best for consumers. You have to take into account things like:

- choice
- quality
- support
- interoperability
- whatever else consumers say is important

The article is so right-wing I would have told you it came straight from the Project For a New American Century" if I didn't know better. Or Microsoft. In fact I'd be pretty damned surprised if Microsoft weren't behind this 'article'.

Uh, check out Riyadh, the capital city of W's best friend. There are regional elections there (nothing national, because the Saudi family are monarchs) and women are not allowed to vote. Women are further not allowed to travel without the permission and accompaniment of a male relative. This is in the capital city of one of our allies, and nothing is said by W's government about the human rights abuses there.

The war in Iraq was all about the PNAC agenda for world hegemony. The NeoCons hijacked the Republican party and manufactured scandals against Clinton until they found one that stuck so they could use the outrageous indignation of the growing Evangelical RightWing to vault into power.

You really should learn some critical thinking skills if you're going to debate anyone on foreign policy issues.

It's not a myth. Or is it that you can't bring yourself to question your worldview that perhaps the US government isn't as benevolent as you'd hoped? As it stands today, the US is unable to support itself with domestic oil alone. That means that in order to support its war machine, it needs foreign oil and gas to keep functioning. Do you think it's coincidence that Pakistan enjoys impunity over its KNOWN nuclear black market while Iran is vilified for even ATTEMPTING to gain nuclear know how?

Wake up and realise you no longer live in a nation built on free and fair values, but rather on global hegemony designed to ensure its supply of resources to maintain living standards at present levels at the expense of everyone else. Democracy and freedom don't factor into the equation. They are merely platitudes to keep the populace uneducated. Why not read a few other sites for a different viewpoint:

Counterpunch

Truthout

Information Clearing House

Cryptome

WTF is this "neo"-con business? I mean, isn't the whole point of being conservative an attempt to (a) maintain the status quo or (b) revert something to a previous form? I don't get the "neo" prefix.

The following is an attempt to be as lacking in judgement about the right or wrong of it as possible. Use your own judgement.

Neo-conservative is distinguished from traditional conservative by its global policy agenda and fiscal policy. Traditional conservatives follow the "walk softly and carry a big stick" agenda militarily, neo-conservatives believe we have a duty to bring democracy to other nations. Traditional conservatives believe in fiscal conservancy (IE: zero deficit), neo-conservatives believe in deficit spending to promote future growth.

There's more info on neo-conservatism, in their own words, here.

On the liberal / conservative / left / right / democrat / republican / neo-conservative / other thing, I haven't much of an opinion. I'm too busy trying to convince people that hacker and cracker are different. :)

Easily done. Get your net worth to above $10,000,000 and get a lobotomy. At this point, you should be able to go to the PNAC site and find that everything you see there makes perfect sense. At that point, you'll be a true neocon. Go to the Republican National Committee website and donate them most of your money.

Glad I could help.

I think you're being a little unfair on Rumsfeld here.

Sure he's a lying, cheating arsehole, like the rest of the Republican party. But keep in mind that he's not the one in control here. The Project for the new American Century is in charge, and Rumsfeld and Bush are merely pawns in their game. Guilty, lying sons-of-bitches pawns, but pawns regardless.

Most corporate FUD is actually lies and smokescreen, intended to promote the other corporation. Most people who talk about the government in a less-than-flattering way do so because there is copious evidence that the current government is not trustworthy, does not have the interest of its people at heart, is in bed with corporate and militaristic interests, and would like nothing more than to rape our natural resources and leave the wilderness ravaged.

Now, what does someone like, say, me, gain or benefit when I talk about how bad the current administration is? Do I do so because I want political power, because I want to be president? Because I want to have the free world at my beck and call. Well, maybe. But be that as it may, the real reason is because unlike Bush, I believe in the existence of a little thing called the Future. And the future won't exist without reasoned and careful behavior. Currently, the administration is pretty reckless, I'd say, stretching resources thin, going deep into debt while trying to permanently reduce future revenues.

These don't seem like reasonable steps to me.

Any corporation that did the things that the government has been doing for the past four years would have been tossed on its collective ass by its investors a few years ago. And who are the investors in this metaphor? Well, they're, uh, us, the voters/taxpayers. Only this year, a lot of people decided that it was more important to pay attention to the PR department than what was happening with the financials, and more interested in the CEO's personality than in the overall company's statement of purpose.

The Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here.

The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page.

Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.

The Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here.

The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page.

Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.

The Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here.

The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page.

Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.

Alot of comments here seem to suggest that since Bush cannot be re-elected, he is now free to do anything he wants without regard for the public opinion. These comments miss a few very important points.

The Bush administration has a large interest in keeping public approval. Not so much Bush himself, but the neocons arounds him - ie Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer and Lewis Libby to name a few.

The neocons have had key positions in every republican administration since the mid-70s, including under Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush senior and now Bush junior. They are an ideological group based in part on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whose stated goals are to spread democracy around the world, by force, preserving Pax Americana and expanding the american economic and cultural empire.

To acheieve this goal, an organization named The Project for a New American Century was founded by William Kristol in 1997. Its members include all of the neocons listed above, and its basic principles are, according to its website:

• American leadership is good both for America and for the world
• such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle
• too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership

The neoconservatives have had complete control of the US foreign policy in the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine is based on a document written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, called the Defense Planning Guidance. At the time, under Bush senior, the document was regarded as too radical and key propositions in it was rejected (including unilateralism and the use of preemtive strikes). These radical propositions now form the core of US foreign policy.

In addition, the PNAC released a report in 2000 called Rebuilding Americas Defenses (PDF download here), which outlines the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and installation of a US base in Iraq to secure the oil for geostrategic purposes after peak-oil (just consider the control it would give them over China, when they can control a large portion of their energy supplies), and to attempt to spread democracy in the region. According to the document, this would only be possible after, and I quote, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".

Now, this little project of theirs is quite ambitious, and will take a long time, so the neocons have great interest in keeping a republican presidency (puppet or not), so they stay in control of foreign policy. They attempted to persuade Clinton to attack Iraq, but without any success, so now that they are in power they won't give it up easily. Luckily for them, the american public seems more than happy to go along.

Alot of comments here seem to suggest that since Bush cannot be re-elected, he is now free to do anything he wants without regard for the public opinion. These comments miss a few very important points.

The Bush administration has a large interest in keeping public approval. Not so much Bush himself, but the neocons arounds him - ie Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer and Lewis Libby to name a few.

The neocons have had key positions in every republican administration since the mid-70s, including under Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush senior and now Bush junior. They are an ideological group based in part on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whose stated goals are to spread democracy around the world, by force, preserving Pax Americana and expanding the american economic and cultural empire.

To acheieve this goal, an organization named The Project for a New American Century was founded by William Kristol in 1997. Its members include all of the neocons listed above, and its basic principles are, according to its website:

• American leadership is good both for America and for the world
• such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle
• too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership

The neoconservatives have had complete control of the US foreign policy in the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine is based on a document written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, called the Defense Planning Guidance. At the time, under Bush senior, the document was regarded as too radical and key propositions in it was rejected (including unilateralism and the use of preemtive strikes). These radical propositions now form the core of US foreign policy.

In addition, the PNAC released a report in 2000 called Rebuilding Americas Defenses (PDF download here), which outlines the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and installation of a US base in Iraq to secure the oil for geostrategic purposes after peak-oil (just consider the control it would give them over China, when they can control a large portion of their energy supplies), and to attempt to spread democracy in the region. According to the document, this would only be possible after, and I quote, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".

Now, this little project of theirs is quite ambitious, and will take a long time, so the neocons have great interest in keeping a republican presidency (puppet or not), so they stay in control of foreign policy. They attempted to persuade Clinton to attack Iraq, but without any success, so now that they are in power they won't give it up easily. Luckily for them, the american public seems more than happy to go along.

Alot of comments here seem to suggest that since Bush cannot be re-elected, he is now free to do anything he wants without regard for the public opinion. These comments miss a few very important points.

The Bush administration has a large interest in keeping public approval. Not so much Bush himself, but the neocons arounds him - ie Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer and Lewis Libby to name a few.

The neocons have had key positions in every republican administration since the mid-70s, including under Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush senior and now Bush junior. They are an ideological group based in part on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whose stated goals are to spread democracy around the world, by force, preserving Pax Americana and expanding the american economic and cultural empire.

To acheieve this goal, an organization named The Project for a New American Century was founded by William Kristol in 1997. Its members include all of the neocons listed above, and its basic principles are, according to its website:

• American leadership is good both for America and for the world
• such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle
• too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership

The neoconservatives have had complete control of the US foreign policy in the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine is based on a document written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, called the Defense Planning Guidance. At the time, under Bush senior, the document was regarded as too radical and key propositions in it was rejected (including unilateralism and the use of preemtive strikes). These radical propositions now form the core of US foreign policy.

In addition, the PNAC released a report in 2000 called Rebuilding Americas Defenses (PDF download here), which outlines the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and installation of a US base in Iraq to secure the oil for geostrategic purposes after peak-oil (just consider the control it would give them over China, when they can control a large portion of their energy supplies), and to attempt to spread democracy in the region. According to the document, this would only be possible after, and I quote, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".

Now, this little project of theirs is quite ambitious, and will take a long time, so the neocons have great interest in keeping a republican presidency (puppet or not), so they stay in control of foreign policy. They attempted to persuade Clinton to attack Iraq, but without any success, so now that they are in power they won't give it up easily. Luckily for them, the american public seems more than happy to go along.

As a European, I'm thoroughly ashamed how many would vote for Kerry when clearly Bush is your only way to go. He has great vision, speech and plans for the future. What other candidate has great plans for going to mars? The US patriotism must never be allowed to die, because without it, where would the world be?

Kerry is just a multibillionaire. He's too intelligent. He speaks too coherently, consider the issues in detail, thus thinks TOO much (flip, flop). How can you trust Kerry with anything? Better to vote Independent than to vote Kerry.

As a European, it is incomprehensible to me that anybody could vote for somebody like Kerry. Bush is clearly the one you must vote for. So I urge every patriot US consumer to vote for Bush. You have to! Somebody must be left to save your Country!? I am seriously concerned about you.

You have to vote for Bush, as a European I demand it. Kerry can't be allowed to win any election, neither here or in the US.

I say Bush is your only choice. Either you're with me on this, or you're against me. There's no middle ground for you.

Either you have to vote for Bush, or you have to vote Independent. It's better for you to vote independent or don't vote at all, than to vote on Kerry, so you won't steal any votes from Bush. Kerry is absolutely a no-no for you. I know what's best for you, because God speaks through me.

For more information, here is the grand future plans for the US. Notice the names at the bottom, do you find Kerry there? NO. He's a wuss. He doesn't value our fundamental principles.

The Bush administrations big plans for the future.

Notice all the names on the bottom. These are the brave people, and why you should vote for Bush. Any other action in insensible, but if you must vote, vote independent. Or better no voting for you then. People like you aren't ready for the crusade.

Only thing I've read so far is this:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20041024.ht m

Didn't see a single mention of 'morality'.. though I did read some alternative accounts of life in Iraq that gives me hope for the future of the people who live there.

The "not bright" comments are not that relavant in my opinion. Bush is surrounded by many smart people. He can get facts and informed opinions if he has a question easier than just about any other human on Earth can get.

Which is to say, he is a complete puppet for whoever provides him with the information, given that he is sufficiently ignorant to not know the difference and do what he's told. So the real question is: who are Bush's advisors, and what are they telling him to do? Well, mostly they are these people and if you read the site, you'll get an idea of what they have in mind.

Jedidiah

Uh, read The New America Century statement of principials. Whether they can be successful at it is open to debate but it is their goal.

The only mistake they made in Iraq was to attempt an occupation, oh and in thinking the Iraqi's would welcome them with open arms. I assure you "Shock and Awe" was entirely about sending a message of intimidation to the next countries on the list Iran, Syria, maybe North Korea and basically the rest of the world. America may not be able to successfully occupy anything without reinstating the draft and putting a couple million Americans in army boots, but they can pulverize any smaller nation they choose and remove its leader in a very short period of time. Now that every country knows that, the U.S. neocons are thinking they can intimidate everyone in to doing what they want without using force. Unfortunately it isn't working on North Korea or Iran who are just accelerating their nuclear programs so they can intimidate back.

The Bush administration plan to field a missile defense system kind of falls in to this. They would like to make America's nuclear deterent unidirectional and preclude anyone from striking back. Its kind of crazy especially with China and Russia but the people who signed the New American Century are pretty crazy, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush representing the Bush clan.

OK since some people seem to think this post has merit, I don't know why:

Skull and bones is a 100% American. Where exactly did you get "they are a power out of Europe". They are in fact full of wealthy and powerful Americans dedicated to expanding America's wealth and power and dictating to the rest of the world. They are close cousins to the Neocons. If you want to read their outline for global domination read The New American Century. Many of the people behind this statement are in the current administration and key backers of the war in Iraq, including Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz. It is kind of a noble sounding statement, freedom and all, until you appreciate its dark side is it advocates American domination of the world.

The only thing out of Europe about Skull and Bones is yes they are very much an American version of forming a ruling elite like those you find in Great Britain. You know... the sons of the wealthy elite are sent to prep schools and the Ivy League and get the best of everything (like Bush and Kerry), they are qualified to lead and ordinary Americans(like Clinton) aren't. Clinton was basically trailer trash, Rhodes scholar aside, and its one reason the powers that be hounded him every minute he was in office.

Yes there have been cartels since before the USA, though the RIAA/MPAA obviously aren't examples of the same, recording and motion pictures, not being invented until long after the US came in to being. They aren't doing much but trying to protect and maximize the profits they make on mostly bad music and bad movies. I'm not sure they actually count for much on the global stage because their products are so bad and devoid of substance, though people the world over still seem to buy them for some reason. Maybe they are good sedatives. To break the RIAA's back form a band that makes music that doesn't suck and sell it over ITunes without selling your soul to them. To break the MPAA's back stop watching bad movies which is most of them.

One might guess you are alluding to a global Jewish conspiracy, if thats what you are getting at why don't you just spit it out and get flamed for it instead of using all the veiled references like "a power out of Europe" and "cartels". What the hell is that.

Bottomline you are doing what all American's do these days, especially our political leaders. Blame everything bad America does on someone else, instead of taking responsibility when we let our government do bad things. Ranting about "the right to own guns" as being the solution is bullshit until and unless you and probably a whole bunch of others are ready to use them. It would probably be a blood bath and you would probably lose. It may well be that it will come to that if American government stays its current course but I'd say at the moment you are blowing smoke.

If you're an American, and you haven't seen this website, I strongly encourage you check it out.

Project for the New American Century

Look at the "Statement of Principles", and then look at the names at the bottom of the page. This site has several major members of the Bush administration.

My opinion:

What bugs me about PNAC is the focus on "moral clarity". This group is out to divide the world into "team players" and "enemies". While it can be effective at rallying support against a presence, it does nothing for our world image.

"Moral clarity" is culturally defined. This administration is very clearly out to change the world based on it's own world view. It is an extremely dangerous and agressive stance to take, and can create as many enemies as it neutralizes them.

It's this kind of language which indicates the definition of our two party system along religious lines. Morality and religion are such polarizing issues. They push people into voting for someone based on issues that will effect public policy indirectly, at best. ... And since I want to see less of it in policymaking, I'm voting against the Bush administration. Egads. See, I'm feeling forced to vote for an issue I don't think is truly important. This is why voting blows.

Anyhow, back to PNAC, and it's effects. If the Bush administration frees up significant resources and stablizes Iraq, mark my words, the millitary effort is far from over. This is going to cost the world dearly over the long term.

Over 1,000 of our troops have died in the last three years in part to bring free and open elections to Iraq and Afghanistan...and of the braaave.

Spare us the ignorant jingoism.

The USA is killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan for two reasons; enrich the Capitalist Oligarchy and further American Imperialism.

Have you heard of The Project for a New American Century?

The warmongers in washington are pursing a policy of war to extend american power.

There is no 'honour' in what your doing there. The 1000 dead are tools - and your delusional. Where did you get the idea that this was a Nation Building exercise...? I thought it was about OBL and WMD?

1. From a NYT article: "The [Bush] aide said that guys like me [the writer] were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''"

2. Now if you believe that the above quote is just heresay and didn't come from the horse or asses' mouth, I would direct you to browse the pages of The Project For a New American Century: I would in particular direct you to this page, which is their statement of principles, and which lists among the signees such members of the Bush administration as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, 10 of the 18 signatories of the PNAC doctrine have positions in the Bush administration.

Now whether you believe an American global empire is a good thing or not is up to your particular political compass, but it is hard to refute the evidence that the neo-cons and superhawks in the Bush administration are carrying out their plans to expand America's reach for political and economic gain, and for what they believe is the safety and prosperity of America as a whole. They want an empire.

1. From a NYT article: "The [Bush] aide said that guys like me [the writer] were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''"

2. Now if you believe that the above quote is just heresay and didn't come from the horse or asses' mouth, I would direct you to browse the pages of The Project For a New American Century: I would in particular direct you to this page, which is their statement of principles, and which lists among the signees such members of the Bush administration as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, 10 of the 18 signatories of the PNAC doctrine have positions in the Bush administration.

Now whether you believe an American global empire is a good thing or not is up to your particular political compass, but it is hard to refute the evidence that the neo-cons and superhawks in the Bush administration are carrying out their plans to expand America's reach for political and economic gain, and for what they believe is the safety and prosperity of America as a whole. They want an empire.

--But did the President say something he knew was untrue? In other words, did he lie? No.--

I honestly believe that there is more going on in this situation than "did he lie?" A lot of people stand to make a *LOT* of money from this war...

We've been de-stabilizing countries for decades now.(Check out The Project for the New American Century : http://www.newamericancentury.org/) We've been trying to build pipelines in the middle east region for years as well. As I type this, (and I'll have to get the list...) the US has troops affecting the governments of something like 50+ countries all over the planet. Remember the Taliban? *WE* helped get them into power. Saddam Hussain? *WE* gave him the guns and ammo, and also THE EQUIPMENT to MAKE the chemical weapons that he used.

Fact : One company that stands to profit from the war in Iraq is the Carlyle Group. Colon Powell has worked for them. Don Rumsfeld has worked for them as well as :
George Bush Sr. - as senior advisior
Frank Carlucci -Carlyle Chairman Emeritus
Former Secretary of Defense
and Deputy Director of the CIA.
James Baker -Carlyle Senior Counselor
Former Sec. of State and Sec. of
the Treasury.
John Major -Former Prime Minister of England.
(continued)

If you look at the writings of the Project for a New American Century circa 1997

Speaking of which, this article sheds an interesting light on the subject - particularly, that some of the undersigned on the Statement of Priciples for the Project for the New American Century include Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush. Scary stuff indeed.

You sir are a fascist and I mean that in the most literal of sense per the definition of fascism. More over, your statements fall in line with the ideals of the neoCons and thus I take it you are a whole-hearted supporter of Bush and a Fox News educated brownshirt. I'll stretch is a bit, but not far, and suppose you consider anyone who would question the President or voice dissent of the US Government to be a traitor.

By calling for the end of the Democratic party in part or in whole, you are saying America should be a dictatorship, And by calling for the destruction (speedy exit -- same as destruction?? I think so) of all non-democratic, non-judeo-christian societies, I think you would have fit in quite well in Nazi Germany. It seems you share our current Governments Totalitarian and Nationalistic doctrines. Hence, my referring to your beliefs as Fascist and my wanting to back hand you.

You see, unlike you, I am a patriot. I believe in freedom, personal choice and the fact that as long as there is more than 1 person alive on this earth you shall have conflict. Moreover, I believe in the right to disagree but I accept violence as a possible outcome of any dispute. I do not fear violence nor do I care to give up essential liberties for a false sense of security. You and I have EXTREME conflict. You see, I believe in the ideals that founded this country, I believe in the Freedom of the individual to think and share his own thoughts without fear of persecution, imprisonment and death. I believe that all people should be allowed to worship any god or no god at all, I believe in my inaliable rights and that people have the right to act against their government should the need arise. While you on the other hand support the annihilation of all you fear or do not understand. Your mind set much like Bushco's is that all people not like you should either conform or perish. That in my mind is treason to the our Democratic charter and to your fellow American. For it betrays the very essence of Democracy and Liberty. You and all neoCons like you are nothing but brownshirts who thrive on fear and hate and practice violence to make your case. And that's why if we ever did met up, there would be blood. Because as an American I understand who the enemy is, it's people like you who would attempt to take away my rights and the rights of all americans and to subvert that to a fascist regime of endless war to impose it's views of right/wrong unto the world.

You may think I'm taking it out of context, but I'm only taking your argument to it's logical conclusion. Because once Fascism starts it will not stop until defeated in an act of great bloodshed.
The neoCon ideal is for a controlled Police State where corporate self interest reigns supreme over the rights of the people and all people are monitored by their peers, all dissent quelled and diversity of thought excised. Already America has been agressive in confiscating the rights of Americans to speak and travel freely in the name of "terrorism". Already we have seen politicians call each other "traitors" for speaking in dissent, already we have seen the ignorant citizen who confuses Nationalism with Patriotism. Nazi brownshirts were no different, they thought themselves to be patriots as well. So we see it again, the brownshirts such as yourself eating it all up on Fox and goosestep to the Ashcroft war against civil liberties applaud the war on terror and think your actions Patriotism. The natural outcome of the Patriot Act legislation, the war on terror and the NeoCon ideal is to transform America, if not the whole world into a Police State in the name of "National Security". Don't believe me? Then look at the Patriot Act.... Secret warrants, secret arrests, secret imprisonment with secret charges for indefinate periods of time, secret trials and secret convictions. When I was a child, that is exactly exactly what I was told were the policies of America

Wasn't it the US who put Pinochet in power? Supported Osama bin Laden? And Saddam Hussein? Arrested Dmitry Sklyarov for breaking US laws in Russia? Attacked Iraq under false pretenses?

Yup. The first was even on Sept 11, 1973. 3000 died that day. Sound familiar...?

It could be possible to argue that PNAC had noble motives behind their idea to conquer to free the world, if they had at the same time supported some of the worst dictators on the planet, such as Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov.

I feel it is hard to get reliable reports on what people there think, but I have heard reliable reports that many in the democratic opposition welcomed America to central asia after 911, but has later been disappointed. Also, I have heard conflicting reports on whether the conditions have deteriorated with Bush's support, or has just been in status quo. However, judging from the few reports I see, it seems like Karimov has gained a stronger position, and that he is abusing the position heavily. I collaborated with scientists in Uzbekistan on a project, but there is nothing left now. Also, the Bush administration has recently withheld economic aid, but I'm unsure whether this is genuine change of policy, or a "we don't need you anymore, bye".

Either way, I'm surprised that this is not something that would come back and haunt Bush, as it is seems like a clearcut example of hypocricy to me, which directly undermines "we are creating free countries" rhetoric.

New York, directly after 9/11 is not the place where policy that influences the next century or so should have been written. Approaching world affairs with a revenge mindset is unlikely to lead to good outcomes.

Second, the imposition of a dictatorship was in the Nazi party program from the start.

And imperialism has been in the Bush administration's program from the start.

Some of those names look awfully familiar...

Or the other option--he's part of an ideological movement which believes that attaining American "global leadership" should be our mission in the future, and that Iraq is a good first step to gaining a foothold in the Middle East. Check out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org

Here's their statement of principles(note the signatures):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm

Look, here's a letter to President Clinton from 1998 advocating a regime change in Iraq, for the same ridiculous reasons(again, note the signatures):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm

Or the other option--he's part of an ideological movement which believes that attaining American "global leadership" should be our mission in the future, and that Iraq is a good first step to gaining a foothold in the Middle East. Check out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org

Here's their statement of principles(note the signatures):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm

Look, here's a letter to President Clinton from 1998 advocating a regime change in Iraq, for the same ridiculous reasons(again, note the signatures):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm

Or the other option--he's part of an ideological movement which believes that attaining American "global leadership" should be our mission in the future, and that Iraq is a good first step to gaining a foothold in the Middle East. Check out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org

Here's their statement of principles(note the signatures):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm

Look, here's a letter to President Clinton from 1998 advocating a regime change in Iraq, for the same ridiculous reasons(again, note the signatures):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlette r.htm

The Bush administration has been gunning for Iraq since before they were elected. Proof of this exists here in their mission statement dated 1997.

You speak of resolutions, but what about the ~60 resolutions that Israel has violated during the past 50 years? Quite the double standard, don't you think?

The truth is, we have found no weapons. The one or two that we have found were 14 year old batches of Sarin, which has a shelf-life of maybe 2 or 3 years (pre-gulf war 1). We have pissed a lot of people off. We have created more terrorists instead of less and our allies would rather brandish their middle finger than lend us a helping hand.

Asside from the number of dead bodies we've either had to bury or fly back home in pine boxes, I'd still say we did a pretty shitty job. You tell us to "get the facts straight" and that "Saddam failed to comply with any of the resolutions". The fact that not a single WMD nor tangible program to develop them has been discovered tells me that you need to get your facts straight.

The comments that count are from Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others in their 1998 letter to Clinton about why Iraq needs to be invaded to capture its oil supply for the West. Read it online at The Project for the New American Century, the far-right website for all things Pax Americana. It's worth noting that ten of the people that signed this letter have now served in the Bush administration.

It was always about oil, even before Bush got in.

TWW

As long as you start with day one being 9/12, then you are ok. We would not be in iraq if 9/11 had not occurred.

As long as you start with day one being 9/12, then you are ok. We would not be in iraq if 9/11 had not occurred.

The unavoidable reality is that the exercise of American power is key to maintaining what peace and order there is in the world today.

The unavoidable reality is that the exercise of American power is key to maintaining what peace and order there is in the world today.

He's not trying to take over the world or whatever nefarious deeds you've conjured up in your imaginations.

Umm.. yes he is. I can't believe you don't think that he is.

Afghanistan, Iraq == "Two Shining Examples of Western Democracy In the Middle East"

My ass he's not trying!