"Rebuilding America's Defenses"

[Mason]

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century

Interesting document. Google "rebuilding America's Defenses" if you think this one is biased.

I'd like your opinions on this document relating to the USA's current military endeavors.

[PatrickHenry]

USA hegemony is destined for failure.

1. The world is too big and too independent to be shoved around by US military adventurism. Look what a pissant country like Iraq has done to US military readiness and morale. You think larger, wealthier countries will knuckle under to Uncle Sam?

2. The cost is too high in dollars and blood. Few in America are willing to die in a foreign nation for a war of aggression. Those presently in the US military are finding it difficult to retain their trust in their civilian leadership if it's all about hegemony. They signed up to defend their nation, not to occupy other people's homeland.

And we can't afford the financial burden. Taxes aren't paying for such military spending...borrowing is! What happens when the credit limit is reached?

3. Hegemony is not the tradition that the people of the US salute. They respond to words like freedom and democracy. When pictures of torture at AbuGhraib are published along with stories of GIs raping and murdering Iraqi families, on top of destroying entire cities like Fallujah in order to save them, US citizens begin to look closely at the agenda. And I think those who advocate crimes like preventive war are civilized savages that need to be shot.

So, that PNAC document is going to be consigned to the circular file eventually, IMHO. I hope the world can avoid melting down in the meantime. The SuitMonsters who wrote it are in control of an awesome nuclear machine and they think they can throw nukes and win. I think they are wrong, but I don't wish to see them try to prove it.

[notworthabean]

1) America, if it were a bit more of an imperial country, would handle Iraq fine. the problem is we treat them with kid gloves. in just about any convention war, with anyone (now) we would destroy the conventional army. the problem is we don't understand unconventional warfare properly, we need to teach our officers more about the Indian wars

2) the reason PNAC etc wants hegemony is defense. we'd like to keep the world order as its to maintain peace and trade. it may not be working out that way but that is my understanding of their goals. They want to keep American strong so the world can keep the seas free and the missiles from flying

3) really...so Americans didn't salute to taking Indian land? to taking Mexican land? Hawaiian land?

[PatrickHenry]

I refuse to argue with someone whose writing is as poor as yours, dude.

You need help with your language skills as well as critical thinking...

[RickSp]

I'd like your opinions on this document relating to the USA's current military endeavors.

This has been around for years. It is effectively a blueprint for American world domination written by many who are now employed by the Bush administration. It is insanity writ large. Naked imperialism fueled by hubris.

You might also be interested in a letter written to President Clinton in 1998 by these charlatans calling for an invasion of Iraq using exactly the same arguments that Bush used to justify the invasion five years later. it puts to rest any claims that 9/11 was what justified the invasion. For this group 9/11 was a convenient excuse.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Take a look at those who signed the letter as well:

Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage,William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol,Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman,Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz,R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick

[Osborn F Enready]

I was just glancing around the forum for the older threads on this topic, couldn't find them in a quick search.

I don't support the PNAC, or a global gubbmint idea, unless it is focused on equal rights for all in the human species, and natural rights are observed by all who make it up, nationally.

[RickSp]

A few links adressing the PNAC or in which the PNAC is mentioned or discussed.

PNAC Doctrine: Why US is in Really in Iraq

Project for the New American Century

Wolfowitz in the World Bank

so, it's official now

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks Rick. I'm not awake yet.

[notworthabean]

I refuse to argue with someone whose writing is as poor as yours, dude.

You need help with your language skills as well as critical thinking...

spellings fixed,thinking was always fine.

[PatrickHenry]

spellings fixed,thinking was always fine.

OK. Now I will argue with you.

1) America, if it were a bit more of an imperial country, would handle Iraq fine. the problem is we treat them with kid gloves. in just about any convention war, with anyone (now) we would destroy the conventional army. the problem is we don't understand unconventional warfare properly, we need to teach our officers more about the Indian wars

The USA is certainly an imperialist nation. It has simply slipped into a newer type of imperialism. Instead of the brutality of occupying each subject nation, it has found ways to subvert the elites of its vassals. And there is occupation, in the form of bases in scores of world nations, over 700 foreign US military bases in all, which strengthen the forces of darkness and tyranny. There is also a huge fleet of naval vessels able to rain death and destruction on those nations who defy the dictates of Uncle Sam. Regardless, the Empire is an economic one, with its main tools being instruments of financial pressure. It's the modern Way...

I take it that you would subject conquered nations to even greater brutality than has been utilized in Iraq and in Afghanistan? You vaunt the Indian Wars of the 19th Century as an example of how an Empire like the US should treat conquered nations?

Let me ask you this...What do you, personally, receive from the forces of US hegemony and Empire? Is there an economic incentive or just the arrogance of identifying yourself with a regime that can force others to its will? Because unless you wear a suit and occupy a high office in Washington, DC, I think that this project (that the US is engaged in just now) is an actual detriment to your personal well-being. Or maybe you are the CEO of a globalist corporation and your ability to exploit the rock bottom cost of foreign labor is augmenting your brokerage account and your 501K?

More likely you are a victim of powerful statist, corporatist and media propaganda that pushes the aims of empire under the cover of extending freedom, democracy and "free markets" to other nations, while impoverishing both the working class in the US and in the exploited nation. You may even be an exploited worker yourself, assenting to your own exploitation because you have been taught to do so in a concerted fashion by effective psychological tecniques. Do you think that the enormous media enterprises and foundations of the wealthy haven't thoroughly researched how to manipulate us?

2) the reason PNAC etc wants hegemony is defense. we'd like to keep the world order as its to maintain peace and trade. it may not be working out that way but that is my understanding of their goals. They want to keep American strong so the world can keep the seas free and the missiles from flying

If that were the aim, I could support a military of great strength. But if we examine the foreign wars that the US has engaged in, in the last five decades, we see a different story entirely. Defense has never been the aim. However, I have to admire the subterfuge of renaming the War Department as the Department of Defense and renaming the cabinet position from the Secretary of War to the Secretary of Defense. It just sounds better somehow.

I don't think you understand the concept of just war. Then again, perhaps you are a realist or a militarist, unconcerned with ethics. I certainly think that the PNAC is a militarist organization. Here's a place where you could begin your research: Just War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) really...so Americans didn't salute to taking Indian land? to taking Mexican land? Hawaiian land?

I see you have some knowledge of the historical tradition of imperialism in the US. You would be hard pressed to find those in government today who would openly espouse such siezure of lands and subjection of native peoples. The foreign policy elite would couch it in terms of extending the "benefits of freedom" to others less fortunate, even if a few (thousand or million) must be killed. It's a propaganda ploy, well rehearsed and perfectly scripted by those in the publishing offices of the mainstream media. I observe that you are unable to discern their spins...

[RickSp]

1) 2) the reason PNAC etc wants hegemony is defense. we'd like to keep the world order as its to maintain peace and trade. it may not be working out that way but that is my understanding of their goals. They want to keep American strong so the world can keep the seas free and the missiles from flying

That just demonstrates the complete failure of the PNAC ideas. Launching wars of choice does nothing but weaken our defenses.

[Joe Doakes]

This has been around for years. It is effectively a blueprint for American world domination written by many who are now employed by the Bush administration. It is insanity writ large. Naked imperialism fueled by hubris.

You might also be interested in a letter written to President Clinton in 1998 by these charlatans calling for an invasion of Iraq using exactly the same arguments that Bush used to justify the invasion five years later. it puts to rest any claims that 9/11 was what justified the invasion. For this group 9/11 was a convenient excuse.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Take a look at those who signed the letter as well:

Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage,William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol,Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman,Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz,R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick

I see all the top gangsters from the council on foreign relations were signatory to the letter.Reminds me of an S/S duty roster.