It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We aim to make the case and rally support for American "global leadership"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett

Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
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


Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

Read the statement of principles for the PNAC neo con group:
www.newamericancentury.org...

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

*If there are problems like they state, their plan isn't the way to go about it. This "plan of action" if going to be the death of us.
Sorry to say, but this isn't American's job, I didn't think that this country was supposed to take the lead in the global arena in the name of whats favorable to american principles and interests...

if anything, this is TOTALLY UNamerican.


Here's a letter to Clinton from the PNAC group in 1988 urging Clinton to do something about Iraq.

Who are these people and why are trying to dictate to the leaders what "should" happen... Help?

www.newamericancentury.org...

[edit on 28-10-2004 by TrueLies]




posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Was just reading the New American Century website, and about to post this info. But I saw someone else has already gotten it out here. The reason for my reply is to try to bump this to the top. People need to read this info, and realize the implications of it. Their statement of principles (linked above) is a plan for what the entire Bush Administration has carried out. It makes sense though, seeing as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Good ol' Jeb just happened to be a part of this group.

Wake Up!!



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Please look at "Letter to President Clinton on Iraq," dated Jan 26, 1998 in the LETTERS/STATEMENTS section. These people are pretty blatant, aren't they!??

Bush's war cabinet signed on back then.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Global Leadership is a completly Un American Idea.

Our founding fathers warned us against getting entangled in other countries affairs.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I'll never work, the Chinese are on the horizen, this is THEIR century, America is screwing up too much politically and economically. Ten years from now and it will be a spent force, except militarily.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Heck, our founding fathers made it against the rules to have a President and a V.P. from the same state. They saw a state's interest (Oil here) might confict with U.S.'s best interests. This is why Cheney had to sell his giant house in Dallas before the first election. The one that was down the way from Billionare Mr. Hicks (Republican Supporter, Texas Ranger's and Dallas Stars owner. Yes, that house just down the way from George W's old home, when he was just a nobody (at that time, part owner of Texas Rangers). His daddy would come to games to help sell seats. That investment might have been one of the best in ALL time!



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
It would never work, to many powerful nations would oppsoe it, if anything it would cause a nuclear war.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Well True lies Amuk, this is the one area that that keeps me a republcan and prevents me from going libertarian. While I feel the domestic planks of the LP are dead on, It is in the are of foreign policy that I agree 100% with the neo cons. You see in the world we live in today everyone and everything is so interconnected that IMHO America must be a global leader. If we do not actively seek to lead the world in a way that is in line with American principles, then some other nation will. As the only other powers which can now, or will be able in the future to, take the position of leadership are the EU, china, or russia, all of which would reshape the world in a way that is not beneficial to american interests, we have no choice but to take up the position as world leader. The costs if we do not are simply IMHO too high.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Recent history especially?
We have been the World Leader for some time; the PNAC initiative mutates the leadership-through-best-practices-and-best-business-minds into a beligerent military might first approach. It further dictates a agressive & confrontational stance of actively trying to curtail the growth of challengers.
These things leave a never ending cycle of what we have endured for the last 3 years.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well True lies Amuk, this is the one area that that keeps me a republcan and prevents me from going libertarian. While I feel the domestic planks of the LP are dead on, It is in the are of foreign policy that I agree 100% with the neo cons. You see in the world we live in today everyone and everything is so interconnected that IMHO America must be a global leader. If we do not actively seek to lead the world in a way that is in line with American principles, then some other nation will. As the only other powers which can now, or will be able in the future to, take the position of leadership are the EU, china, or russia, all of which would reshape the world in a way that is not beneficial to american interests, we have no choice but to take up the position as world leader. The costs if we do not are simply IMHO too high.


absolutely, mwm1331! I will probably get (and maybe even deserve) a bunch of machetes thrown at me for saying this, but I think that in this age, foreign policy is clearly the front burner issue...domestically, you'd really have to TRY to screw America up to break it. Anyways...

I checked out the newamericancentury website, and I think that even liberals have to admit that this website is a fresh of breath air after listneing to the likes of Ann Coulter and hte rest of the gang who think that anyone opposed to the Iraq war is a weird, anti-christian mongrel.

I personally agree with the neocons - I realize that the founding fathers warned against 'foreign entanglements' but like it or not, we are well and truely entrenched in the world - we are now responsible for it in a way. After world war two, it was necessary to do some questionable things in the world to hold back communism, such as supporting horrible regimes in asia and the middle east just so that they would be on our side and not the soviets. Iraq was not such a case...that was to hold back the tide of Iranian fundementalism (which, of course, was a result of the Carter administration supoprting the coup against the Shah in 1979 - a staggering mistake).

Now of course, the cold war is over, but the fallout from what was then a sensible strategy is posing a threat to the United States in the form of terrorism. When neocons such as myself say that there is a link between Iraq and 9/11, we don't mean that Saddam Hussein actually was personally involved in planning the attack...here is what we mean:

Regimes such as the previous Iraqi one depend on many things to stay in power (despite their pathetic systems of government and economic policies). One of these is obviously fear, and the crushing of dissidence, which one COULD say is an internal affair. But the other measure is to promote a culture of hatred against the US and its values. This is by no means a crazy strategy on their part. It actually makes a lot of sense, because if the people are too busy blaming America and Israel for all their troubles, they are more forgiving towarsd the real villians who run their country. And that culture of hatred is a LARGE reason for why terrorism crops up. That culture of state-promoted-hatred represents a danger to the United States.

Now, to fight that, the people need to hav the right to question their own governments, and select their own leaders - democracy in other words. Some say that through trade and diplomatic relations we can influence these regimes, but frankly, that has not worked in much of the middle east, with whom the US DOES enjoy good diplomatic relations. Hence, democracy had to be forced onto the area ONCE, and made to work by the US ONCE. The reason Iraq was chosen (in the face of arguably larger threats such as Iran) was that that was seen as the most justifiable one to invade - most Americans and most of the World saw Saddam as threat.

So the reasoning here is that IF we can make Iraq work, it will serve as an example to the entire region, and freedom will gradually take hold and the governments that are chosen as a result will be less hate mongering.

Now I'll be the first to admit that the administration has been far from perfect in achieving this. Iraq is a bloody mess right now, and the administration was unnecssarily smug towarsd our allies and our enemies - NOT the behaviour of a superpower.

However, I do believe that this is a coherent policy in the war on terrorism. Freedom is the key to ending this madness. Why else would Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi himself say that 'democraacy is a lie....against our religion"? It is because it threatens them. In fact, more than anything, more than economic sanctions, our military power, even the threat of nuclear war, what these people fear the most is being held to account for their crimes. THAT is why they hate democracy so much, and that is why WE need to promote it wherever we can.

Anyways, I know that this is not as simple as me saying all that, and unlike many of the conservatives here, I do believe that most liberals care for America as much as I (or anyone else does)...our viewpoints may collide, but hey, that's what makes america great...the competition of ideas, and a system that protects this competition.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
What America had to offer the world was a working model of true democracy - in action. That's gone. What's left in it's place is tyranny and totalitarianism.

Unless and until America 'heals itself,' all it's doing is spreading political disease - and supporting the base corporate colonialism that our founding fathers fought to stop.




top topics



 
0

log in

join