Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

US GOV'T and PNAC's plan for world domination

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • VonWeiner
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill
    Wouldn't that be the same thing as Britain starting a war with us for the election of, say, Jimmy Carter as president??
    I almost wish they would have! :lol:

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Bill, you and Von point out the great irony in this whole mess. The results of democraticization may be something that in the long term is nearly as undesirable as the Ba'athist regime. And the U.S. simply has to live with it.

    The U.S. simply has to abide by the Iraqi people's decision on their elected government. We simply can't do otherwise. If the U.S. has lost standing in the world community over this pre-emptive war, I can only imagine how ridiculous we would look if we went into Iraq to topple the government we created.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    And another thing: if the Iraqi's vote in a government that is anti-U.S., then we HAVE to say, so be it. We can give them the right to vote, I do not believe we have the right to tell them who to vote for. Wouldn't that be the same thing as Britain starting a war with us for the election of, say, Jimmy Carter as president??

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    "The point I was making was that it looks bad for us, right or wrong. As well as the torture pictures - which despite some claims seem real enough to me, even the Bush admin and US Army acknowledge that. "

    Yeah, I can't abide by that stuff. I don't know what makes people tick to do those things let alone photograph them!! They may be ideologically, politically, or theologically different, but by God, they are humans. How can you do that to another human??

    Leave a comment:


  • dlackey
    replied
    I was against pre-emptive war, but now that we are there, we have to be willing to finish the job, and stomache unpopular casualities. BUt not torture of prisoners, that is bullshit.

    Leave a comment:


  • VonWeiner
    replied
    I agree with you Bill. The point I was making was that it looks bad for us, right or wrong. As well as the torture pictures - which despite some claims seem real enough to me, even the Bush admin and US Army acknowledge that.

    I also believe it was good to get rid of Saddam (WMD's or not) but now we have to figure out what we are doing there (or what we are going to do). It was my understanding going in that we were ousting Saddam and ridding the world of the threat of his WMD's. I think these goals have been accomplished. Now it just looks like democratization (sp?) and the Iraqis will not submit to an American placed gov't. I remember Rumsfeld being asked "If the Iraqis in a few years elect a gov't which is not democratic and/or not friendly to the US what will the US gov't do?" He reply was something like "Well, we might just have to go back in there."

    This worries me. Is it our job to setup pro-US gov'ts. If we believe in democracy and free elections can't we let them make thier own choices? If they want a theocracy, who are we to stop them?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Not in any way a slam against Von Weiner, since he knows what I am about to say (I didn't say "agree") and deserves better, but generally speaking, it is amazing how so many people see a casket on TV, or a child being shot on TV and assume that it is the FIRST TIME this has ever happened. Arabic TV (best exemplified by Al-Jazeera, but they are by no means the only ones) have been showing images like this - with the same intended effect - for years. Decades even.

    I think the issue of civilian casualties is a red herring from the perspective of cause and effect. Let me say, no, scream, that ANY LIFE LOST IS A LIFE WASTED. NO CASUALTIES SHOULD BE IGNORED. BUT, the idea that there is such a thing as "war" with no casualties is the stuff of Tolkein. We all knew this going in. The issue isn't, and should not be, that on April 28th, a civilian child died, therefore we need to get out of Iraq. What about the thousands of children killed by Saddam for no other reason than a FAMILY MEMBER lived in an area populated in large part by the Kurds?

    The issue should be whether we should be there at all or not, and while I don't want to make this post all-encompassing, like those that try to reverse their position now with the claim "Bush told us there were WMDs there and there aren't" (this isn't how it happended, and you know it, and all along there was the possibility that there weren't WMDs available to be found), there is a rising number of people that are similarly reversing their position - or worse yet, fighting for a domestic issue by using the war - with the claim that "civilians are dying". To me that is nothing more than self-preservation and opportunism.

    (And don't waste the bandwidth calling me a cold bastard. You are talking to someone who believes that life is sacred and that it is wrong to knowingly advocate and legislate the taking of life in any capacity; I am against the death penalty on principle, and am personally scared shitless about dying. I am not saying these lives are meaningless, I am saying that it is wrong to use these deaths as a furtherance to one's political position.)

    Leave a comment:


  • VonWeiner
    replied
    Originally posted by dlackey
    Originally posted by VonWeiner
    It doesn't matter, with all the craziness going down in Iraq in the last few days, it's only a matter of time before we pull out. They don't want us there and the entire populace will soon be against us. I have a link to some majorly graphic images of hurt/killed civilians (many of them children) that are running all over arabic televisions (I won't post it because the images are WAY too graphic). Even if they are from other battles/wars it is creating an impression on the arab world that the US is just an oppressor pushing its own ways on an arab country by force of arms. We are probably creating more terrorists than ever before.

    C'mon dude, you know how arab tv works- terrorists shoot children in the middle of battle and the Americans get blamed for it. Let's try to be a little more realistic here.
    Well, I wouldn't generalize so much about civilian casualties. I am sure a fair share are from US munitions. I think the people engaging US forces from populated areas share the blame as well, but I do know (and the US mmilitary has admitted as much) that there has been "collateral damage" from the US. I haven't seen reports of Iraqi fighters shooting children then claiming it was the US, so I can't address that. I am sure there are plenty of civilian casualties from both sides.

    Even so, the point I was trying to make was that regardless of how these people are dying (which happens in every conflict), the arab world's perception is being manipulated by "news" agencies like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia (sp?). Even if the deaths were caused in the way you say, it will look bad for us and just fuels the hatred and distrust of the USA in the region.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlackey
    replied
    It doesn't matter, with all the craziness going down in Iraq in the last few days, it's only a matter of time before we pull out. They don't want us there and the entire populace will soon be against us. I have a link to some majorly graphic images of hurt/killed civilians (many of them children) that are running all over arabic televisions (I won't post it because the images are WAY too graphic). Even if they are from other battles/wars it is creating an impression on the arab world that the US is just an oppressor pushing its own ways on an arab country by force of arms. We are probably creating more terrorists than ever before.[/quote]


    C'mon dude, you know how arab tv works- terrorists shoot children in the middle of battle and the Americans get blamed for it. Let's try to be a little more realistic here.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlackey
    replied
    I don't know, to me it sounds like more sloganeering. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • VonWeiner
    replied
    Originally posted by dlackey
    C'mon, this is just as paranoid as extreme right wing anti-UN stuff.
    You may be right about the article being paranoid, but when you read about PNAC from their own site it is disturbing. Did you read PNAC's goals and their membership? Here's a few bits of info in their "Statement of Principles"

    We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership

    Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

    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.
    Here's a few of their members

    Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,

    Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes,

    Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle,

    Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz,

    Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen,

    Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz,
    Here's what they are "About"

    Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.
    All this talk of American global leadership sounds like domination to me. Their desire to have a New World Order (their words, not mine) sounds like an American hegemony. If you read some of the "Letters and Statments" you 'll find letters to the Clinton admin dated back in 1998 that call for war with Iraq over WMD's and why we should be exercising regime change in the middle-east - signed by Rumsfeld and others in our current admin, which leads me to believe that they absolutely were looking to attack Iraq after 9/11 as so many on the left claim and so many on the right deny.

    I wouldn't even care about this organization if it weren't for its many members that are associated with or are part of the Bush administration.

    Is global leadership what the USA is all about? Is regime change? Should we be trying to create a New World Order? These questions just disturb me.

    It doesn't matter, with all the craziness going down in Iraq in the last few days, it's only a matter of time before we pull out. They don't want us there and the entire populace will soon be against us. I have a link to some majorly graphic images of hurt/killed civilians (many of them children) that are running all over arabic televisions (I won't post it because the images are WAY too graphic). Even if they are from other battles/wars it is creating an impression on the arab world that the US is just an oppressor pushing its own ways on an arab country by force of arms. We are probably creating more terrorists than ever before.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlackey
    replied
    C'mon, this is just as paranoid as extreme right wing anti-UN stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • VonWeiner
    started a topic US GOV'T and PNAC's plan for world domination

    US GOV'T and PNAC's plan for world domination

    Here's a great article on the current admin's plan for the world. It invovles setting up gov't around the world which are pro-US, pre-emptive strikes on countries, new laws to restrict the rights of citizens and all the stuff that makes people angry/scared of the current admin. It also goes into PNAC (Project for a New American Century) which has many of the top people in GWB's admin among its members.

    http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm


    PNAC site:
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/

    These guys are especially disturbing. Their ideas are imperialistic and their membership is like a who's who of the Bush administration. They are the new Romans.
Working...
X