PDA

View Full Version : Politics in the US



aceace
28-07-2005, 11:56 PM
Hi folks, new member here. Just trying to get a British perspective on US politics. Many here in the states have lost faith in our Govt and seem them as evil and on a mission of conquering the world. They are currently being controlled by an elite group of bankers that are in the upper echelons of Govts in the US/UK/Israel. Enter PNAC in a search engine. It stands for Project for a New American Century and is merely a disguise for WW3 which will begin in the Middle East. Many believe that 911 was perpetrated by this very orginization using Mossad tactics and brainwashing. The same way they tricked the four London bombers. It is interesting that on the same day that London was running a terror drill to simulate bombs on the tube. The US was similating planes crashing into buildings on 911.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The bombings in London were a scare tactic designed to get the new ID bill passed in Parliament. Many of us in the US that are trying to protect our rights anticipate another attack soon (on the US) to bring about martial law. Just wondered what the view is overseas? I have plenty of links to examine if anyone wants to see them.

craner
30-07-2005, 12:54 AM
What exactly are you trying to say by "many believe"? Do you believe that? If you do (or don't) why hide behind the "opinions" of others?

The very mention of Isreal and Mossad throws some necessary suspicion on your links.

This kind of ignorant or idiotic nonsense (or both) is why I find this forum hard to stomach.

Say what you intend to imply, please, or don't bother.

From your post you seem to believe that there's some kind of PNAC-Mossad conspiracy behind jihadi terror.

For a start, the PNAC amounted to an open letter to the Clinton Administration regarding said Administration's foreign policy.

For what it's worth, you have been better off looking up The Centure for Security Policy and the American Isreal Public Affairs Commitee for your squalid conspiracy. But then, on closer inspection, you would have found less to back it up. In fact, you'd have found that the people you assume run everything, have less influence than you could imagine.

Unless you really do believe that the Jews control America. And the world.

Omaar
30-07-2005, 03:29 AM
Well yeah there are some unsubstabtianted claims made upthread but they doesn't affect the fact that PNAC are (or have been) a very influential organisation with very dubious policy goals.

Here's a bit from a John Pilger article (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2744)

"Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is."

...

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Another interesting bit in the PNAC Rebuilding America's defences report (which is the most miselading title ever) is the bit where American control of space and cyberspace is advocated.

craner
30-07-2005, 01:00 PM
So some Republican foreign policy and defence wonks shaped a Republican Administration's foreign and defence policy. What's your point?

Omaar
31-07-2005, 02:32 AM
My point is not just that this group were influential, but rather that the policies they were (are?)advocating were pretty abominable:

"The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';"

from here http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Rebuilding America's Defences is an important document because it provides a view of what US aspirations were prior to 9/11. Not suggesting that this is the smoking gun that proves US complicity in the World Trade Center attacks.

craner
31-07-2005, 12:58 PM
You're really over-egging the PNAC: it barely even qualifies as a think tank.

As for this secret report that the Sunday Herald "uncovered": seems a little convenient to me that it might be drawn up by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bushand Scooter Libby - all well known names with infamy attached. These things are usually written lower down the ladder.

But what about the abominable statements:

Defending national interests.
The UN is not effective.
Concern about rival power blocs and their intentions.
Chinese democratization should be supported.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a threat to the US.
Money should be spent on advancing military capability.

Now any report commisioned with the specific remit of assessing US foreign and defence policy with a particular empahsis on US interests and national security, is obviously going to come up with the same points every single time. Otherwise certain people would not be doing their job effectively.

I would also say that, if you object to the American Military Industrial complex and some of the nasty shit it throws out onto the battlefield, and I object to some amount of it, then waving around PNAC documents written over five years ago, is not such an effective way of drawing attention to what you abhor.

Similarly, it's really rather pointless if you want to criticise a particular Administration, who are prefectly capable of and prepared to churn out their own incriminating documents.

And really, using the PNAC as a straw man, as much as anything else, is a cliche and an obfuscation.

Do you know what the PNAC is now? It's a website. You want to see your nightmare active? Then go and read the American Enterprise Institute website. The AEI actually influences current Administration decisions.

While we're on it, though, is this not a better model for foreign policy than some other recent models (thinking Nixon-Kissinger, Ford, Carter, H.W.Bush, Clinton...):

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;

Omaar
31-07-2005, 01:37 PM
Agreed on your point about the Sunday Herald article, but I think you're misunderstanding me elsewhere in your reply. I'm not waving this document around, it was mentioned upthread and I've argued that it was an important document from a group containing people very close to or in the Bush Administration. It's certainly not the most important document around, but it is what we've been discussing on this thread.

Also, the policies that you list the PNAC as espousing are the least questionable ones, really: ('Defending national interests,The UN is not effective, Concern about rival power blocs and their intentions, Chinese democratization should be supported, The Islamic Republic of Iran is a threat to the US - although I personally disagree with a few of these) .

The bits about the PNAC report that I found objectionable are the way it advocates aggressively pursuing US global dominance, developing biological weapons, and seeking control of space and cyberspace.

What is good about about a foreign policy based on agressively pursuing dominance over other nations?

Thanks for the info on the AEI, I will have a read of their website.

aceace
31-07-2005, 07:14 PM
What exactly are you trying to say by "many believe"? Do you believe that? If you do (or don't) why hide behind the "opinions" of others? Of course I believe that, I was trying to get a British perspective on US/GB politics. Since they seem to be one in the same. I have many friends that consider this current time period to be a very dangerous time in which we live. There are about 600 questions concerning 911 that have not been answered. It is very apparent to me that 911 was an inside job. The US/UK/Israel seem to be one.


The very mention of Isreal and Mossad throws some necessary suspicion on your links. Why? Israel has many human rights violations. There were 5 guys arrested just minutes after the WTC fell on the NewJersey shore opposite the WTC buildings. They were filming and celebrating when the towers fell. They were held for several days and then mysteriously released.


This kind of ignorant or idiotic nonsense (or both) is why I find this forum hard to stomach.

Say what you intend to imply, please, or don't bother. I said exactly what I intended, I asked what is the British perspective on US Politics? How much clearer could it be. Instead of answering the question you chose to belittle me.


From your post you seem to believe that there's some kind of PNAC-Mossad conspiracy behind jihadi terror. Yes, exactly.


For a start, the PNAC amounted to an open letter to the Clinton Administration regarding said Administration's foreign policy.

For what it's worth, you have been better off looking up The Centure for Security Policy and the American Isreal Public Affairs Commitee for your squalid conspiracy. But then, on closer inspection, you would have found less to back it up. In fact, you'd have found that the people you assume run everything, have less influence than you could imagine.

Unless you really do believe that the Jews control America. And the world. The members of PNAC in case you havn't noticed are all in key positions of the US Govt and are making most of the policy decisions in the US. So its more then a letter to Clinton. Clinton has been out 5 years now. No, I don't believe the Jews control the world. They are a major force in it. It is an elite group that has control.

adruu
31-07-2005, 11:36 PM
elvis shot jfk

no really, i just listened to the last Left Business Observer show about cnsprcs, waddled over to dissensus, and saw this thread. fortunately it is all a c-o-i-n-c-i-d-e-n-c-e-?

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html

craner
05-08-2005, 12:39 AM
1. US and UK foreign policy are not the same. Only ignorance could make that claim. But that's not your fault. Why should anyone be interested in geopolitics when it just gets in the way of rhetoric and conspiracy which are, after all, a lot more fun and provide some comfort.

2. What are your 600 questions about 9/11? I mean, 100 would be fine. You don't want to bore people, after all.

3. This relates to 1. How, exactly are the UK/US/Isreal one? I mean, in Hendon or Stamford Hill, that may be the case. But certainly not in Bow, or Downing Street. The Isreali government take a pretty dimn view of New Labour, Labour Friends of Isreal not withstanding.

4. Isreal has many human rights violations as do Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Hezbollah, and all the Arab States who have lined up in the past to elimenate Isreal completly, as do the mullas of Iran.

5. Mossad did not engineer 9/11. You're sounding silly now.

6. Belittle you? I barely even began too.

7. Well of course. I was a letter from a segment of the Republican party who are now in power in a Repblican administration. The PNAC was a way of adressing the Clinton Adminisration while they were out of power. By the way, have you heard of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a biparty Congress act brokered by Trent Lott and Al Gore? That was long waiting to be acted on. Come on, ditch the PNAC angle. The Republicans have many think tanks that actually work. The PNAC isn't even a think tank. My hints and tips have already helped you more than you deserve. Go dig.

8. Your last couple of sentences were a bit weird. The jews are an elite group who have control? Or an elite group has control that includes Jews and happens to use Mossad to carry out foreign policy? Or what?

What the fuck, man?