DarkBlueSky, have you actually read the entire PNAC report? Or our official foreign policy? It is all aimed at American hegemony.

How much of either report have you actually read?

ForestLady - I haven't read the entire PNAC report, Have you? I assume you mean the Report titled "Rebuilding America's Defences" dated September 2000, correct?

I have some free time this weekend so I will read the whole thing. We can compare notes next week. Deal?

I may be completely ignorant on this, but is there a single document that lays out the official foriegn policy of the United States?

DBS, sure it's a deal, no problem there. And yes, I did read the entire PNAC report, pubished in Sept. of 2000.

All of it is about how America must maintain its place as the sole superpower of the world and that we need to extensively beef up our military in order to sustain it. The report also states that, knowing that the American public probably won't like this idea, they said that the U.S. needed a Pearl Harbor type of event to effect this transformation.
It's on the top of page 63 in the report.

A type of Pearl Harbor event...hm, could that be 9/11? Right after that, we started pouring all kinds of money into the military.

It may not be the same verbatim, but all the ideas are the same and it's where the U.S. got its current foreign policy. Most of the people who were signatories to the PNAC document were hired by Bush in the first year of his 2000 term, most notably Dick Cheney, but also Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and a host of others. I counted at least 12 people who ended up in the Bush admin. that signed the PNAC document. The real question may well be: Why wouldn't they have adopted a document that they wrote and/or signed, to be used as our foreign policy? The same PNAC guys were the same ones who served in Bush's admin.
The neocons are the ones in charge of our foreign policy and they are a different animal than the traditional Republican party values of small govt. and isolationism. In my book, the neocons aren't really Repubs, they are a different party altogether, because their views are so radically different from regular Repubs.

Originally posted by forestlady


How does this relate to Hugo Chavez? Because when I read that document (which became U.S. foreign policy) back in Nov. 2001, I was horrified because of the aggressive stance towards every other country that it took. I'm sure Hugo Chavez interpreted it in the same way. I know if I was a head of state and read that, I would be very concerned for my country, at the very least.

If you were Chavez, sitting on all that oil, you would be paranoid.

Good point, FL.

Originally posted by shots


Originally, you stated this was an official foreign policy of the US, yet that is not what it states. Are you now saying this is the document that sets the standards for our official foreign polcy? Here to refresh your mind

Shots,
As Forestlady described, PNAC is our nation's foreign policy in a great big nutshell.

If you don't know that, get up to speed.

I think what was requested was a bona-fide government document in black and white. It might be trouble obtaining that however. Cheney probably swallowed it in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY. National security, that term is too ubiquitous. How about CHENEY SECURITY.

Originally posted by wingman77
I think what was requested was a bona-fide government document in black and white. It might be trouble obtaining that however. Cheney probably swallowed it in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY. National security, that term is too ubiquitous. How about CHENEY SECURITY.

You think the terms overused here, try going to PRChina, talk of Democracy, free Tibet and many other things that have nothing to do with National Security are censored or outright forbidden in the name of National Security, well more precise under the term State Secret.


Ok, had nothing to do with it, but I use any chance I get to criticize PRChina.


As for the Plan For a New American Century, I don't recall it ever being officially made
are national policy, though it's more than obvious that it is unofficially being followed
to some extent.

Neocons, not just for conservative liberals anymore.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


Shots,
As Forestlady described, PNAC is our nation's foreign policy in a great big nutshell.

Yes I understood that.

I just find it very odd it is alleged to be one thing yet titled another. it is titled.The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"


-----

Forest

I am still waiting for the alleged portioon/portions of the document stating what you said about covert ops etc. Not those exact words but I would think you get my drift. All I can find is mention WMDs which is a far cry from authorizing covert ops.

Shots, sorry, I don't know what you are talking about - covert ops, I don't rememeber saying anything about that being in our foreign policy. I just woke up, can't think straight. Could you refresh my memory and tell me what you mean?

Originally posted by forestlady
Shots, sorry, I don't know what you are talking about - covert ops, I don't rememeber saying anything about that being in our foreign policy.

Too refresh your memory from your very first post

If you read the PNAC document, our official foreign policy plan, you will see where it says that we will invade any country without provocation by them, if w deem it necessary for U.S. interests or some such wording.

Now from my post which you are talking about or I should say just replied to I said

I am still waiting for the alleged portioon/portions of the document stating what you said about covert ops etc. Not those exact words but I would think you get my drift

Note the wording "not those exact words and the use of etc" Those were qualifiers implying I was going from memory whch I assumed you would understand.


[edit on 6/30/2007 by shots]

Shots, I read the entire 90 page report back in 2001, right after 9/11. In fact, I've read it twice to make sure I was reading what I thought I was. I was. I do remember what it says, but I don't remember where it is. I hope you can appreciate that I don't have the time to search thru 90 pages to find what you are looking for. Besides that, I believe that you should read it yourself, it is our foreign policy and I think every American should read it and judge for themselves. I've already spent hours of research on this and can't give it any more time.
I've given you the URLs, you can read for yourself and decide what you think.

Originally posted by forestlady
I hope you can appreciate that I don't have the time to search thru 90 pages to find what you are looking for.

Gee and here I have thought all along the burden of proof lies upon the invidual who make the claim to prove it is true or are you claiming exemption from the rule of thumb that members of ATS go by? You made the claim not me now you want me to prove you are right

No I do not think so that is your job not mine.

Shots, I DID prove it to you and others have confirmed my statements. I gave you links to read, but I can'd do the reading for you, that's your responsibility.
Do you really expect me to reread 90 pages of material just to satisfy you? As I said, I've already put in several hours of work to contribute to this thread, I think that's enough.

Originally posted by forestlady
Shots, I DID prove it to you and others have confirmed my statements.

No you did not the links you gave lead to a document named other then you claimed see links above. I understand you cannot prove what you said lets just leave it at that.

I am sure had you been in my shoes you would be jumping up and down right now demanding proof yet when it comes to you; you tell me to look it up myself not very nice if you ask me.

BTW just how long do you think it would take a computer too search out the word invade saying lets say the document is 200 pages, Oh my 14 seconds geesh if you cannot back up your statements please do not make them.

[edit on 6/30/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Shots,
As Forestlady described, PNAC is our nation's foreign policy in a great big nutshell.

If you don't know that, get up to speed.

Can you produce the document she mentioned? If not I would not comment on the matter.

Anyone interested in discussing the globalresearch article link I posted above about Hugo Chavez?

Originally posted by forestlady
Anyone interested in discussing the globalresearch article link I posted above about Hugo Chavez?

Not me I came here to discuss radical chavez and his foolish remarks, not alternate views about him.

I would however love to see your proof that we have an offical foriegn policy written several years ago in writting from and official source though.

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by forestlady
I hope you can appreciate that I don't have the time to search thru 90 pages to find what you are looking for.

Gee and here I have thought all along the burden of proof lies upon the invidual who make the claim to prove it is true or are you claiming exemption from the rule of thumb that members of ATS go by? You made the claim not me now you want me to prove you are right

No I do not think so that is your job not mine.

NO. forest lady has done extensive research. I have, too. And I suggest you read it all for yourself and make your assessment from there.