|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,171798,00.html
Still today I find friends and coworkers who know nothing about the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) although it's been on the Internet since at least 2000, and stories of Wolfowitz's infamous testimony to Congress in 1998 suggesting we invade Iraq then and establish a "safe zone" in southern Iraq from which to support an "insurgency" were published in 1998. But Congress thought it more important to "cleanse" the White House and lo and behold, the man some thought was "crazy" becomes #2 in the DoD. All this stuff has been entered in these discussion groups multiple times. Google (or Yahoo): PNAC Project for a New American Century Wolfowitz testimony 1998 neoconservative PNAC Statement of Principles If you want a list of "signers" of the PNAC Statement of Principles, here it is again: Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis ***uyama 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 Not included in "signers" but active colleagues who contributed to other PNAC articles include John Bolton Stephen Cambone Grover Norquist To my knowledge, only Francis ***uyama has renounced his involvement with the PNAC agenda although he stated he still views his friends as friends, e.g. he readily contributed to Libby's defense fund. True oligarchy. |
||
|
|
Member |
Oooops... need to add Richard Perle, Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, and Karl Rove(?) as significant figures. Op-ed writers here expressing views consistent with PNAC include Gaffney, a signer, Brookes and North. That's three pundits with similar political views contributing to the same forum. Hmmmm....
It is my view that the above named individuals and their colleagues have little interest in majority opinion, majority rule, true democracy, or true democratic process. The PNAC openly declared intentions for the U.S. as "sole superpower" to pursue "Pax Americana" or a world order per our direction/guidance/dominance. Just because Americans were paying little or no attention as journalists like Bill Moyers were trying to alert us doesn't mean foreign officials, diplomats, military, fanatics, enemies, allies, pundits, professors, political junkies were ignoring the "mushroom cloud" that was the successful rise of an elitist political movement to the offices of Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Asst. Sec. of Def.(later head of World Bank), COS to the VP(later convicted felon), appointed although never confirmed US Ambassador to the UN, Ambassador to Afghanistan (then Iraq, then UN). The fact that the brother of the President(candidated then office holder) was a member of this movement I'm sure raised eyebrows overseas. The fact that a member of this group had central involvement in Iran-Contra I'm sure generated some speculation as to America's intentions under Bush/Cheney leadership, his status as one who plea-bargoned his way from potentially multiple felony charges to two misdemeanor guilty pleas notwithstanding (besides, he got a Presidential pardon anyway). It all happened under our collective noses, so we only have ourselves to blame. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Funny how the PNAC seems to have dropped of the face of the earth. Once proudly proclaiming the path to Imperial America, since the whole wonderful plan has gone south, and the funding of it has bankrupt the country, they dropped their web site (apparently without paying the bill). I’m pretty sure the web hosting company can forward the billing to an address in Dubai.
www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-101402.htm |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Iran + Iraq = Irate.
 |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I have one question for everyone. Does anyone realize the lack of logistical capabilities of the Iraqi forces. Yeah some of them can fight but without support they will all collapse. Notice even Obama uses the words COMBAT TROOPS when he talks about bringing people home. I don't care which side of the aisle you sit on they are all not telling the truth. We are stuck and we are not going anywhere for a while.
|
|||
|
* |
Yes, I think most of us know that IRAQ uses our Tanks and Humvees, our Intelligence Reports, our higher-level officers for advice and training... etc., etc., etc. And yes, those that know how war works understand the difference between combat troops and support troops/advisers. Finally, yes. Everyone understands we are stuck there for several years to come, which is why so many of us are voting for a change in both the people and their respective political parties this November, especially when it comes to the White House. Do you understand? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Obviously he does... at least as well as you since all you did was parrot his post and then throw an insult in at the end.
|
|||
|
New Member |
What I think is ironic is that the Administration gets criticised for under estimating what all we needed to prosecute the war, but the very same people are so quick to claim we are losing whenever the enemy puts up a fight, as if they thought we could win a war with no set backs and that the enemy would just roll over because we are there.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
I think its funny you mention "those that know how war works" in your post. Who are these people exactly if not the ones actually fighting the war? And as far as "stuck" goes... Stuck is a very pessimistic term. It is a term that engenders a degree of defeat in that you can't go any further. It was crazy how successful the beginning of the war was when 85% of Americans were in support of it. But like typical Americans, we are spoiled and when the war didn't end right away because we wanted it to, we cry and complain and moan and look for someone else to blame. You blame the Bush Admin for getting us into this war. But what about all the Senators that voted for it? What about all the those who CONTINUE to fund the war but say we shouldn't be there. THEY have the power. If THEY are so right, and the people are so behind them, why don't they stop the funding for the war? EVeryone would have to pull out then. And since supposedly the vast majority of Americans want out, they wouldn't have to worry about anyone claiming they don't support the troops. But THEY continue to fund it. While I am not a supporter of Obama, I do have respect for the fact that he was against it form the beginning and he has stood by that. Atleast in that respect he is not a hypocrit like so many others. The real tragedy of all this is that this isn't about a war we can't win or a Pres who supposedly lied to further his own Neo-Con agenda. All it boils down to is a case of buyers remorse. The American people were so eager to lash out after 9/11. Afghanistan wasn't enough because it wasn't a large enough op to garner tons of TV coverage. We wanted to our "righteousness" firsthand. Be honest, we would have went to war with nearly 85% in favor even if WMD's were not a part of the sell. |
|||
|
|
Member |
WMD's were part of the sell a big part of the sell...Remember Clinton's admin had bad Intell and since Bush was in office less then a year and still had a lot of Clinton's folks sitting in their same positions when he took over (Bush made the mistake of trusting them and their Intell) To the point where on more then one occasion Clinton and John the commie Kerry (who sat on the Intell committee), said that Iraq had WMD's.
Bush might have looking for a excuse to go after Iraq and that bad Intell and the point that Clinton and Kerry said Iraq had WMD's was all he needed to push it along. The comment about 1998, well, who was President? It wasn't Bush...it was Clinton.. Obama being against the Iraq war from the start, yes he was..but then again he wasn't even in ffice at that time..Soooooooo... If we pull out of Iraq next week, How much do any of you want to bet Obama will try his darnest to claim it was because of him!! Then Afgan will be next....now you looking for another Vietnam..there's your place. Iraq was and still is not like Vietnam. but Afgan sure can be. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Which is why Wolfowitz was just some scary guy spouting off to Congress in '98 and nothing more. Under Bush/Cheney, Wolfowitz was given real power to act on his maniacal vision, a maniacal vision shared by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Bolton, Cambone and others who also had real power to "interpret" intelligence and send our Military into harms way in service of PNAC's global ambitions as the "preeminent... sole superpower." The Middle East will never accept dominance by an American-Israeli alliance, which is what the PNAC people pursued. The Afghans have shown they will accept help but not colonization. The contrived nation of Iraq is far from any reasonable stability, and what stability existed before was under the thumb of Saddam and his Baathists, not democratic consensus of the Iraqis. I suspect the Saudis are content to keep their neighbors in conflict and use the US as their bodyguards. One conclusion we might draw is that the people of the Middle East seem to prefer a despot from their native soil or kin over any leadership from outside the Middle East. Meanwhile, China and Russia watch us slug it out in Iraq with smug satisfaction. |
|||
|
|
Member |
You have pretty well summed it up bwf27. The US is caught up in a vicious quagmire, borrowing billions from China to finance a lost war, while a resurgent Russia stands by waiting to compete with China for Superpower Nation of the Decade when the inevitable collapse of the US takes place. Meanwhile the US continues to kowtow to the most hated nation in the middle east (Israel) much to the detriment of its already sordid reputation among the civilized world. I guess it's our turn in the barrel. I'm just hoping for a Cubbies World Series win before Armaggedon. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Five years ago we invaded Iraq expecting that the Iraqis would have a democracy, after we had gotten rid of Saddam. Now after all the bloodshed, deployments, redeployments, and surges they now have a democratically elected government and are free to make their own choices.
However, when those democratically elected leaders do govern, asking for a target date for the removal of our forces. Iraq's Resistance to the Occupation It's, wait a minute, not so fast. There are deals that need to be made yet. Bush's mantra has been, "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." The democratically elected government has now stood up, saying it's time for us to go. That this is becoming the reality, then all at once its, White House says no 'hard date' for withdrawal in Iraq talks. If Iraq's democratically elected government says, "It's time to go!" then we must honor that. To do otherwise is to add another lie to our reasons for this war. |
|||
|
|
Banned by admin |
just yesterday they said they didnt want us to leave just yet... |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Got a link for that laws? |
|||
|
|
Banned by admin |
well it was not only on the news yesterday but also a thread floating around.... why dont you do your own research... after all whatever i post you will discredit...so get one yourself...
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
As expected, all talk, no walk.  |
|||
|
|
Banned by admin |
oh please try to google it and ill bet yourll find something...
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,171728,00.html |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
One out of 18 provinces says they aren't ready for the handover yet, and they only want a few more months. What about the real issue of the Iraq leaders wanting us out? When they change their story, I'll change mine.
|
|||
|
|
* |
I have been against the incursion into and the occupation of IRAQ since the day Bush decided that he must invade that country. You can look back in my posts, you'll see I have NEVER supported the war in IRAQ but I have always supported us going after those who attacked us, and they are not now in Iraq, they are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, right where they have always been. The war in IRAQ has always been about Oil and Saddaam, not WMD's nor fear of Nuk-Lee-Er attack. Even the administration admits to that at this point.
That would be people like me, those of us who have served during a War. I lived through it, but I buried a brother who was with the 101st in 1968. I think I understand what war is, and how it can be LOST by pin-headed retards who call themselves "Politicians" and then go about ruining our economy and wasting our children's lives fighting the more useless ones, such as our Fool's Errand into IRAQ and the absolute mistake that was Vietnam. But thanks for asking. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
