Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on June 22, 2006, 05:57:07 PM
-
Haven't seen this discussed.
They give me the willies. http://www.newamericancentury.org/
hap
-
No kidding... check out the names at the bottom.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
-
Thinly disguised fascism. Why am I not surprised.
-
It's been discussed before and in depth.
There was a time when the Trilateral Commission was going to lead the US into socialism too. Or was it the Council on Foreign Relations? Maybe it was the Bilderberg Group.... I dunno, I often lose track of who's taking over the world at any given moment.
I myself am an acolyte of.... Dr. Evil.
-
it's ineviatble america shall rule the world.
-
Originally posted by storch
it's ineviatble america shall rule the world.
Does that mean that I'll need to be fluent in Spanish to order a cheesesteak in Fallujah?
-
Neubob wrote;
Does that mean that I'll need to be fluent in Spanish to order a cheesesteak in Fallujah?
Only at the Fallujah Hooters.
-
I wonder who's gonna be working at the chili's franchise.
Al Franken?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Does that mean that I'll need to be fluent in Spanish to order a cheesesteak in Fallujah?
well since we hispanics are taking over america and with america taking over the world it seems you have answered your question with a question. very clever.
-
after 9/11 they basicly sent memo's saying "this is our chance"
Real bunch of 'patriots' (that's sarcasam) (rollseyes)
-
more like if we don't do something, a few more sand savages blowing up the right buildings in country will throw the US into an unrecoverable depression ...
I'm all for it
-
Anyone read, "Where the Right Went Wrong?" In a nutshell, there exists those who desire American to be a republic and those who desire America to be an empire.
And what blu wrote, isn't at all too far from what happened.
hap
-
It's been discussed before and in depth.
There was a time when the Trilateral Commission was going to lead the US into socialism too. Or was it the Council on Foreign Relations? Maybe it was the Bilderberg Group.... I dunno, I often lose track of who's taking over the world at any given moment.
I myself am an acolyte of.... Dr. Evil.
I think that’s being a bit intellectually dishonest to try and dismiss PNAC as some fringe, uninfluential body when a great many of its members not only hold/held significant foreign policy positions in this administration and have advocated (well documented) before, during and after 9/11 the actual actions that the current administration has undertaken in the Middle East. And I’m not just talking about the big names, but a lot of those folk holding/held deputy positions, etc.
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Fief, Condi, etc. have pushed for regime change in Iraq for a long time (well predating 9/11) for reasons that had noting to do with international terrorism/threats. A variety of “I was there” sources (Richard Clarke, for example) show that 9/11 represented a great opportunity to finally get their policy goals achieved, even though Iraq itself wasn’t linked to 9/11. It started on 9/12 with Wolfowitz not wanting to hear anything about this “al Queda” group, just “What’s Iraq’s role?”
So, either Bush agreed with their plan to remake the Middle East to serve our and Israel’s interests though a democratic foothold in Iraq (and resulting domino effect), or he let himself get misled by these advisors -- or it was all just a huge coincidence. A coincidence that PNAC’s long-standing, publicly stated (whitepapers, Congressional testimony, press releases, policy magazine, etc.) policy goals came to pass with no influence from the many PNAC members serving in the current administration. To me, it’s pretty clear that WMD were used as the public, focus-group proven selling point (legally justified, no doubt expected to be found, etc., certainly an issue in a long laundry list of issues for regime change) to achieve the “grand vision” held by these Ivy League, insulated “think tankers” who apparently were not quite as smart or well versed in cultures and human behaviors as they thought they were. Oops.
Nope, PNAC is no Trilateral Commission. How can you even make that comparison give the realities of the actual PNAC members holding/held senior positions in the current administration? At least 17, I belive. Senior, "Lets close the door and figure out what to do next..." positions. My comparison would be a modern example of Robert McNamara. Not only a philosophy on policy, but the actual power, influence and administrative position to promote that policy on the ground.
Just about everything that could be said from the different perspectives, and certainly from my perspective, is covered in this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=152713&referrerid=5405
Probably not much reason to reinvent the wheel here.
Charon
-
PNAC has failed.
The real question is.. what will replace it... or will it be allowed to continue to strip the wealth of this nation in pursuit of a failed policy agenda?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
PNAC has failed.
The real question is.. what will replace it... or will it be allowed to continue to strip the wealth of this nation in pursuit of a failed policy agenda?
Failed? Maybe I'm missing something but so far they appear to have been wildly successful.
The question is a good one though. What next?
-
Originally posted by Charon
I think that’s being a bit intellectually dishonest to try and dismiss PNAC as some fringe, uninfluential body....
pssst Charon.... peep this thread. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85664&perpage=50&highlight=PNAC&pagenumber=1)
-
thanks for the ref, Nash. everyone now and then we talk seriously about something that's serious.
hap
-
Here are just a few of the unimportant nobodies that were members of the Trilateral Commission (TC) or the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or the Bilderbergs (BB).
I guess you're right Charon; they can't be as important as PNAC because none of these people could possibly have influenced foreign policy positions.
David Rockefeller, Chairman Emeritus
Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations
Paul Volker, North American Chairman of the Trilateral Commission
President of the United States of America
William Clinton -- CFR, TC, BB
Asst. Sec. for Administration, United Nations
Dick Thornburgh -- CFR
National Security Advisor
Anthony Lake -- CFR
Vice President of the United States of America
Albert Gore, Jr. -- CFR
Secretary Of State
Warren Christopher -- CFR
Secretary Of Defense
Lee Aspin (Deceased)-- CFR
Chairman Joint Chiefs Of Staff
Colin L. Powell -- CFR
Director Central Intelligence Agency
James Woolsey -- CFR
Chairman, Council of Economics Advisors
Laura Tyson -- CFR
Treasury Secretary
Lloyd Bentsen -- Former CFR, BB
Secretary of Interior
Bruce Babbitt -- CFR
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Henry Cisneros -- CFR
Secretary of Health & Human Services
Donna Shalala -- CFR, TC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDICIARY:
Sandra Day O'Connor, Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court -- CFR
Steve G. Breyer, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Boston -- CFR
Ruth B. Ginsburg, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Wash., DC Circuit -- CFR
Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Wash., DC Circuit -- CFR
UNITED STATES CONGRESS -- SENATORS:
David L. Boren (D-OK) -- CFR
William Bradley (D-NJ) -- CFR
John H. Chafee (R-RI) -- CFR, TC
William S. Cohen (R-ME) -- CFR, TC
Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) -- CFR
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) -- TC
Bob Graham (D-FL) -- CFR
Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) -- CFR
George J. MiTChell (D-ME) -- CFR
Claiborne Pell (D-RI) -- CFR
Larry Pressler (R-SD) -- CFR
Charles S. Robb (D-VA) -- CFR, TC
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV) -- CFR, TC
William Roth, Jr. (R-DE) -- CFR, TC
UNITED STATES CONGRESS -- REPRESENTATIVES:
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) -- CFR
Thomas S. Foley (D-WA) -- CFR
Sam Gejdenson (D-CT) -- CFR
Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) -- CFR
Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA) -- CFR
Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN) -- TC
Amory Houghton, Jr. (R-NY) -- CFR
Nancy Lee Johnson (R-CT) -- CFR
Jim Leach (R-IA) -- TC
John Lewis (D-GA) -- CFR
Robert T. Matsui (D-CA) -- CFR
Dave K. Mccurdy (D-OK) -- CFR
Eleanor Homes Norton (D-DC) -- CFR
Thomas El Petri (R-WI) -- CFR
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) -- TC
Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (D-PR) -- CFR
Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) -- CFR
Peter Smith (R-VT) -- CFR
Olympia J. Snow (R-ME) -- CFR
John M. Spratt (D-SC) -- CFR
Louis Stokes (D-OH) -- CFR
TREASURY DEPARTMENT:
Roger Altman, Deputy Sec. -- CFR
Robert R. Glauber, Under Sec., Finance -- CFR
David C. Mulford, Under Sec., Intntl Affairs -- CFR
Robert M. Bestani, Dep Asst Sec., Intntl. Monetary Affairs -- CFR
J. French Hill, Dep. Asst. Sec., Corp Finance -- CFR
John M. Niehuss, Dep. Asst. Sec., Intntl. Monetary Affairs -- CFR
WHITE HOUSE STAFF:
George Stephanopoulos, Director, Communications -- CFR
Willian J. Crowe, Chief Foreign Intelligence Advisory Bd. -- CFR
Nancy Soderberg, Staff Director, National Secuity Council -- CFR
Samuel R. Berger, Deputy Advisor, National Security -- CFR
W. Bowman Cutter, Deputy Assistant, National Economic Council -- CFR
U.S. ARMS CONTROL & DISARMAMENT AGENCY:
Thomas Graham, Jr., General Council -- CFR
William Schneier, Chmn., General Advisory Council -- CFR
Richard Burt, Negotiator On Strategic Defense Arms -- CFR
David Smith, Negotiator, Defense & Space -- CFR
DEPARTMENT OF STATE:
Madeleine Albright, UN Amabassador -- CFR
Clifton Wharton, Jr., Deputy Sec. -- CFR
Lynn Davis, Under Sec. for International Security Affairs -- CFR, TC
Brandon H. Grove, Dir. of Foreign Service Institute -- CFR
H. Allen Holms, Asst. Sec., Bureau Of Politico-Military Affairs -- CFR
John H. Kelly, Asst. Sec., Near East-South Asian Affairs -- CFR
Alexander F. Watson, Deputy Rep., United Nations -- CFR
Jonathan Moore, UN Mission -- CFR
Joseph Verner Reed, Chief of Protocol -- CFR
Dennis B. Ross, Director, Policy Planning Staff -- CFR
Edward Perkins, Dir. of Personnel -- CFR
Abraham David Sofaer, Legal Advisor -- CFR
Peter Tanoff, Under Sec. for Political Affairs -- CFR, TC
Brian Atwood, Under Sec. For Management -- CFR
Joan E. Spero, Under Sec. Eco. & Ag. Affairs -- CFR
George E. Moose, Asst. Sec. African Affairs -- CFR
Winston Lord, Asst. Sec., East Asian & Pacific Affairs -- CFR, TC
Stephen A. Oxman, Asst. Sec., European Affairs -- CFR
Timothy E. Wirth, Counselor -- CFR
DEPARTMENT OF STATE -- AMBASSADORS:
Strobe Talbott (Special Advisor For CIS) -- CFR
Thomas R. Pickering (Russia) -- CFR
Morton I. Abramowitz (Turkey) -- CFR
Michael H. Armacost (Japan) -- CFR
Shirly Temple Black (Czechoslovakia) -- CFR
Julia Chang Bloch (Nepal) -- CFR
Henry E. Catto, Jr. (Great Britain) -- CFR
Frances Cook (Camaroon) -- CFR
Edward P. Djerejian (Syria) -- CFR
Geoge E. Moose (Senegal) -- CFR
John D. Negroponte (Mexico) -- CFR
Edward N. Ney (Canada) -- CFR
Robert B. Oakley (Pakistan) -- CFR
Robert H. Pelletreau, Jr. (Tunisia) -- CFR
Christopher H. Phillips (Brunei) -- CFR
Nicholas Platt (Phillipines) -- CFR
James W. Spain (Maldives & Sri Lanka) -- CFR
Terence A. Todman (Argentina) -- CFR
Frank G. Wisner II (Egypt) -- CFR
Warren Zimmerman (Yugoslavia) -- CFR
-
Just reviewed that old thread.
I think I pretty well covered my position on PNAC there and it hasn't changed any.
Sure haven't seen any intelligent arguments that would change it here, either.
-
That is still an apples to oranges comparison, and, I just can't believe you do not see that.
PNAC is a national think tank of like-minded individuals sharing a common foreign policy position on how to best advance the interests of the United States. Their beliefs in summary (from Wikipidia):
In foreign policy, critics argue that neoconservatives tend to view the world in 1939 terms, comparing the threat from adversaries as diverse as the Soviet Union, Osama bin Laden (and, more broadly, Islamic extremism, dubbed Islamofascism by many neoconservatives), and China to the threat then-posed by Nazi Germany and Japan, while American leaders such as Reagan and Bush stand in for Winston Churchill. In this analogy, leftists and others who oppose them, are cast either as Neville Chamberlain-style appeasers or as an Anti-American fifth column. For example, Donald and Frederick Kagan's book While America Sleeps argues, at book length, an analogy between the post-cold war United States and Britain's post-World War I reduction in its military and avoidance of confrontation with other major powers.
As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which sometimes exhibit an isolationist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory. Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to such American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons.
The newly aggressive support for democracies and nation building is founded on a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Neoconservatives have often postulated that democratic regimes are, on aggregate, less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. In support, they argue that there has been no war between genuine democracies anywhere in the world since the War of 1812. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, the Administration has advocated spreading democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, most notably the Arab nations of the Middle East.
In addition, the neoconservative-influenced Project for the New American Century has called for an Israel no longer dependent on American aid through the removal of major threats in the region.
Neoconservatives also have a very strong belief in the ability to install democracy after a conflict - comparisons with denazification in Germany and Japan starting in 1945 are often made, and they have a principled belief in defending democracies against aggression. This belief can be seen in the reconstruction of Iraq War, which was a war largely backed by neoconservatives such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney. Despite the distance, practical difficulties and dangers involved, neoconservatives would generally support the belief that it is America's duty to install democratic government after a conflict has settled.
A great many PNAC members (neoconservatives) have held or currently hold senior positions in the current administration's foreign policy circle. Through some strange coincidence, from the "Axis of Evil" speech on down, the US has followed a path almost identical to this group's long-stated goals.
Now, what about that Trilateral Commission?
The Trilateral Commission is an international group of people, with perhaps some general "pro globalization" and pro business focus. Given the elite nature of politicians and industrialists pro business common ground is hardly unexpected from a demographics standpoint. However, it is an international group with a fair degree of diversity of opinion at the nuts and bolts level. For example, Dick Cheny and George HW Bush have been members, as have Bill Clinton and Diane Feinstein. I think that says it all right there. I see it as an "Elites Knitting Club."
PNAC is a national, activist think tank with long-standing, clearly stated policy goals and with many active members holding, or having, held senior foreign policy positions in the current administration. People, with such clear, uniform, lockstep beliefs that were appointed by the current president over many paleoconservatives (limited overseas involvements, fiscal responsibility, etc.) that he could have appointed. An administration that aggressively has pursued a path identical to PNAC's long-stated goals, in detail, and starting with the first stated "democracy domino" on their list and ending with the quick acceptance of democracy by Iraq's citizens due to their fairly secular experience under Saddam (oops). WMD was the excuse, a McNamara style view of how to create everlasting peace in the Middle East was the core goal -- IMO, and I think obviously so unless politicians never lie, use spin or manipulate the American public to do any number of things.
I mean, if he appointed members of the CATO institute, I would not be surprised if the domestic and foreign policy reflected a libertarian focus even if that wasn't the message being pushed publicly. Why is it so hard to see that we have a president who follows neoconservative thought to the point where Colin Powell was the only non neocon in his inner circle (and an "honorary" appointee in my opinion that clearly, as well documented, found himself as the "odd man out" where setting policy was concerned).
For that matter, Tucker Carlson is now trying to reinvent himself as a libertarian. Personally, I don't buy that one either because there's all that documentation that suggests otherwise.
Charon
-
If you have any questions with respect to my views on PNAC, please refer to the other older thread.
My response to your post can be found there. ;)
-
Originally posted by Charon
Through some strange coincidence, from the "Axis of Evil" speech on down, the US has followed a path almost identical to this group's long-stated goals. Charon
The "Axis of Evil" speech, including the term "Axis of Evil," was written by a Canadian.... and I don't think he was a member of PNAC.
Just yankin' your chain - I don't think you'll get very far with this from Toad. :D
-
Nope, he won't. I think the old thread stands unchallenged. :)
-
If a useless political hack like Al Gump is involved, it's got to be stupid. Politicians care about themselves and thier friends... and I bet good ole Al would, being the uber citizen he is, invent a world leader job to assign himself to... just because he cares about me.