ah well... we all know our "wise" leader cant even read his own morning briefings...
you know, im not a big Michael Moore fan (no pun intended), but some of his stuff makes sense... like when he called us all a bunch of stupid white men...
i think this war is about Oil, Daddy, and Bandhar Bush...
@Alex:
You hit the nail on the head.
No. It's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC
The other reasons are just perks.
Chipmaster wrote:
...
Edit: To those who will assume I put something different, the censored word above is D1ck and that is his real name. Kerm perhaps you should change that so a capitalized D1ck is ok
Nah, I think it's funnier that way 
Notice that I didn't say whether PNAC goals were good or bad, I just threw it out. You have to consider the advantages of American hegemony...I'm sure none of you are complaining about our position as superpower, or if you are, you would not be happy to see China or the EU replace us.
PNAC...I hadn't heard of that before the article. Where did that come from?
I actually agree with some of the policies of PNAC. I just thought it was a little egotistical for someone to believe a nation not only could, but should rule the world. It reminds me of a totalitarian leader who believed his Aryan race was the purest among mankind and should dominate the world. I don't think that worked out to well for him in the end...
PNAC's goals aren't based on ego. They're based on American interests such as peace among developed nations (the so-called 'Pax Americana'), the continued success of the American economy, America's position as a world leader, and national security.
And how does the war with Iraq improve relations between developed nations. Seems to me that the majority of developed nations do not support the war. Also some tension has been created over the theft of French and German oil contracts. Wouldn't it be more productive to go to war with North Korea, instead of Iraq to achieve these goals
Who said anything about improving relations? It is actually advantageous for the US to have bad relations with the rest of the world. (Will find evidence supporting this when I feel like digging through giant piles of debate papers...)
Jonathan Pezzino wrote:
PNAC's goals aren't based on ego. They're based on American interests such as peace among developed nations (the so-called 'Pax Americana')
Wouldn't that require good relations 
No, not at all. Fear, supression, overwhelming force, and interdependence. are excellent ways to keep peace without good relations between the potentially warring parties. Case in point: Any country that tried to make war on America would be devastated economically on top of being crushed militarily. Why wage war when you can live peacefully in submission and relative happiness?
Very good point...but how does the domination of Iraq show that we are a powerful nation. Yes, there is no question that we are the most powerful nation on earth at the current time, but because of the lack of support for the war and own economy's previous recession, it seems to me that this war has had the opposite affect on our nations standing.
China and India are rapidly increasing their capabilities as industrious nations in the world. Although Bush > Kerry, Bush still has things about him that won't help this nation (such as the suppression of research and educational funding) get anywhere in this world. The Democrats view that the poor need every penny the nation has to offer is also stupid (along with their view that everyone needs their life to be controlled by the "superior minds" of politicians to tell one how to live and help the nation). Whan needs to happen is for someone to make a no BS law (one that forces a bill to have one focus and not "Constitution Day" (which is in and of itself un-Constitutional) or a pay raise pinned to it)
kirb wrote:
China and India are rapidly increasing their capabilities as industrious nations in the world. Although Bush > Kerry, Bush still has things about him that won't help this nation (such as the suppression of research and educational funding) get anywhere in this world. The Democrats view that the poor need every penny the nation has to offer is also stupid (along with their view that everyone needs their life to be controlled by the "superior minds" of politicians to tell one how to live and help the nation). Whan needs to happen is for someone to make a no BS law (one that forces a bill to have one focus and not "Constitution Day" (which is in and of itself un-Constitutional) or a pay raise pinned to it)
What are you saying?
That no matter which (major) party we go with, we're not going to fare out much better.
Heh....actually, the US Constitution actually accounts for and depends political incompetency and indecision - what do you think separation of powers and checks and balances are for? An inefficient beauracratic process is in many ways a good one.
You're trying to tell me that Congress doesn't set themselves atop their pretty self-made pedestals? Checks and balances aren't typically enfored when they should be.
Jonathan Pezzino wrote:
Heh....actually, the US Constitution actually accounts for and depends political incompetency and indecision - what do you think separation of powers and checks and balances are for? An inefficient beauracratic process is in many ways a good one.
In that case, our government must be one of if not the best in the world.
a Cheney is the founder
