All nations have master plans but you do not know exactly what those plans are, except in the case of the U.S. which master plan was released by PNAC group reports, but you can draw up a theory of what they maybe conspiring.
The following is the goal of the current government in the U.S. will this change with the new group of puppets coming in I don't know, but doubt it...
The Project for the New American Century website states the following "fundamental propositions": "that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."
Its original "Statement of Principles" of June 3, 1997, posted on its current website, begins by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
• 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.
While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today ," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."
I just provided a direct response to the quoted text. Somebody advocating a no border policy better have some ideas on dealing with people who can only exist under sharia law.
World government would require far to many compromises from to many people.
I just can't comprehend you wishing for an bigger bureaucracy to rule over you/us.
As bad as this system is for you, it's still better than world government by a enormous margine.
If the security situation around the worls is as precarious as the Bush administration would have us believe, than they should be just as worried about Brazil as they are about Russia.
After all, how could they tell us that Brazils weapons are any less likely to be stolen by terrorists than say Russia?
This is where the story starts to break down, and hypocricy becomes more obvious.
Just like each, and every advocate of that policy has dodged the validity of MAD questions now that Iran has nuclear ambitions.
Again Mutually Assured Destruction implies that the parties involved are mutually armed, not one party held hostage to the threats of the other.
It is hypocritical to distinguish between Russia and Brazil? i am sure there are plenty of people in Rio who will not appreciate such a distinction refusing to be drawn.
The problems with an Iran with nukes is not that Iran will suddenly launch missles at the USA. The problem is that it has ambitions and interests in the area by which its possession of nukes will make it far harder to block.
Well, I was just using the example cited previously. Same question, just substitute Isreal.
Well, that's their perogotive. I like to use the same criteria to evaluate all potential threats.
I would hope they are scrutinizing our actions just as vigilently.
Perhaps then it is time to relect on our own ambitions, and evaluate whether they can be justified without the rampany hypocricy consistent in so much of the USs foreign policy. ( The price we pay for letting corporations dictate policy. ) Nobody likes a hypocrite, and even less would wish to negotiate with one.
The criteria is the same. If Brazil was working to destabilise foreign countries in South America and impose a dictatorship in said countries, i suppose there would be issues with a nuclear Brazil. It doesn't, so there are not any. Iran does, so there are. There is no hypocracy involved. The true hypocracy is saying one defends freedom and liberty, and then treating those who uphold those values the same as those who do not.