American Global Leadership

[yrwyddfa]

What do you guys make of this

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

Look who signed it!

[nemaroller]

Figures.

Funny how they fail to mention any domestic initiatives at all.

Here's looking forward to 2008!

[yrwyddfa]

I wondered whether it was real, or not. I mean most of us infer that that is what some major players in America are up to, but I didn't expect them to be forthright about it.

IF you look at this:http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm, then you can see that Rumsfeld was all for invading Iraq in 1998.

[nemaroller]

That would be no surprise... but a recent nac statement seems they are less in bed with Rumsfield as one might think... they seem to slam him here.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/troops-20050713.htm

[moeur]

I mean most of us infer that that is what some major players in America are up to, but I didn't expect them to be forthright about it.

That is because you are a cynic. You don't believe that people are acting on their convictions and as such have nothing to hide.

You instead believe that there is some ulterior motive behind their actions so the have to go slinking around behind people's backs to get things done.

There is one thing I can safely say about Bush that I could not say about any president before him (that I knew). He acts from his convictions and is completely honest and forthright about what he is planning and doing.

[MasterBlaster]

President Bush and Tony Blair are sitting in a bar.

A guy walks in and asks the bartender, "Isn't that Bush and Blair sitting over there?"

The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."

So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! What are you guys doing in here?"

Bush says, "We're planning WW III." The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"

Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde with big t!ts."

The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big t!ts? Why kill a blonde with big t!ts?"

Bush turns to Blair and says, "See, I told you no one CARES about the 140 million Muslims".

[-TPM-]

LOL That's a good one MB!

[grilkip]

There is one thing I can safely say about Bush that I could not say about any president before him (that I knew). He acts from his convictions and is completely honest and forthright about what he is planning and doing.

I hate to go into default and bash Bush, he certainly appeals to a lot of Americans because they voted for him and I won't poop on the leader of a friend nation. But..

Wouldn't you rather have a pragmatic leader than one who acts solely on convictions? He threw away all progress made by the Clinton administration regarding N-Korea because of his conviction that one shouldn't deal with non-democratic regimes (which he does just the same), he 'stretched the truth' to get into Iraq (just as much the fault of legislators though), which was out of his conviction that an American foothold(bases) should be created in that region, I mean what other reason was there? Terrorists??

By the way, I think my own Prime-Minister is a huge fool, thank god he isn't so powerfull

[MasterBlaster]

The only progress Clinton made was to decimate our military, sell our balistic missle technology to china, cut off the CIA's nads, create an un-sustainable budget, make the situation worse in palestine by dealing with terrorists, fire a rocket that missed bin-laden, Prop up our economy on an unstable bloated market, then rocket our economy straight into a recession. I'll take George Bush's form of progress any day.

As far as NK goes. That "UN" sponsored deal was doomed from the start.

[moeur]

He threw away all progress made by the Clinton administration regarding N-Korea

Clinton's progress with North Korea consisted of promising Nuclear power plants and fuel in exchange for NK halting their nuclear weapons program.

Clinton never delivered on his end and NK continued development in secret. Bush's contribution is to say, you won't be making a fool of us again, let's get some other parties involved, parties that are closer to your borders and may have greater influence.

he 'stretched the truth' to get into Iraq

again the cynic in you says that he really didn't believe Iraq had WMDs, he had ulterrior motives.

...which was out of his conviction that an American foothold(bases) should be created in that region, I mean what other reason was there? Terrorists??

To clean up the cesspool of terrorist nations that the Middle East had become by promoting Democracy in the region.

[CORONA BEER]

What do you guys make of this

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

Look who signed it!

http://www.why-war.com/encyclopedia/...lliam_Kristol/

http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php...5&postcount=11

[yrwyddfa]

That is because you are a cynic. You don't believe that people are acting on their convictions and as such have nothing to hide.

You instead believe that there is some ulterior motive behind their actions so the have to go slinking around behind people's backs to get things done.

There is one thing I can safely say about Bush that I could not say about any president before him (that I knew). He acts from his convictions and is completely honest and forthright about what he is planning and doing.

Of course I believe that people are acting on their convictions - why else do people act? If their conviction is greed, then they act upon it

As for your second paragraph - do you not think this is true is some cases regarding Bush/Blair/Iraq? If so, you must think that these men are totally incompetent.

It's nice to know that you've 'pigeon holed' me already. Makes manipulation of an argument much much easier

And a final note about convictions. If Bush is a Christian (?) and he is acting on his convictions then what does that say about keeping the church and the state seperate? What does your constitution say about it?

Edit: And besides if you knew it was all about regime change from as early as 1998 why were you not honest about it? Why the rubbish about WMD, why the blame on terrorists? You certainly cannot hold the moral ground regarding this, so you may as well join me in the gutter

[moeur]

As for your second paragraph - do you not think this is true is some cases regarding Bush/Blair/Iraq? If so, you must think that these men are totally incompetent

Your logic escapes me.

If Bush is a Christian (?) and he is acting on his convictions then what does that say about keeping the church and the state seperate? What does your constitution say about it?

The costitution says that Congress shall pass no law that promotes one religion over another. It says nothing about separation of church and state.

And besides if you knew it was all about regime change from as early as 1998 why were you not honest about it? Why the rubbish about WMD,

We've had this discussion before. Bush has always been honest about wht he went into Iraq (WMDs, Regime Change, Democracy etc.)

why the blame on terrorists?

That is where the blame lies. The Middle East breeds terrorists; we're going to clean it up.

[Xanith]

Of course I believe that people are acting on their convictions - why else do people act? If their conviction is greed, then they act upon it.

That’s obviously your opinion which you are entitled too of course. But you don’t have any proof to back your assertion now do you?

It's nice to know that you've 'pigeon holed' me already. Makes manipulation of an argument much much easier

You’re a left wing Neville Chamberlain type who will never learn that evil has to be dealt with not appeased or apologized too. How’s that for “pigeon holing”

And a final note about convictions. If Bush is a Christian (?) and he is acting on his convictions then what does that say about keeping the church and the state seperate? What does your constitution say about it?

The constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state but you are forgiven for being so ill informed because you are not a citizen of the US.

Edit: And besides if you knew it was all about regime change from as early as 1998 why were you not honest about it? Why the rubbish about WMD, why the blame on terrorists? You certainly cannot hold the moral ground regarding this, so you may as well join me in the gutter

Just because you fail to understand or cannot fathom the reasoning doesn’t mean there is no moral ground to stand on. Like I said you are a Neville Chamberlain type who would have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt in perpetuity like your type did with Hitler (oops I said the H word!). I refuse to go into a long post explaining everything because you will not understand it anyway. Lets just say we disagree and move on.

X

[yrwyddfa]

I agree that you would be very unlikely to understand anything more complex than 'Yea Haw: Let's go to war'

So as you suggested, let's move on.

[yrwyddfa]

That is where the blame lies. The Middle East breeds terrorists; we're going to clean it up.

Funny. I didn't see the US 'cleaning up' Northern Ireland. In fact your countrymen by in large funded 'em. I suppose there is some slant on why an Irish terrorist, is different from an Middle-Eastern one? If you cannot demonstrate the difference then shut up.

[yrwyddfa]

And besides if you knew it was all about regime change from as early as 1998 why were you not honest about it? Why the rubbish about WMD,

I agree Bush has always been fairly honest about being a war-monger. I believe he has been quoted as saying as much.

YOU are the one that ducks and dives, my friend. You and Xanith - particular Xanith forget that this forum has a number of posts going back to pre-Iraq war, and all your 'reasoning' all your 'logic'

. . . which of course has since been proven to be a pack of ill-informed, right wing, bigoted lies.

[demotivater]

The only progress Clinton made was to decimate our military, sell our balistic missle technology to china, cut off the CIA's nads, create an un-sustainable budget, make the situation worse in palestine by dealing with terrorists, fire a rocket that missed bin-laden, Prop up our economy on an unstable bloated market, then rocket our economy straight into a recession. I'll take George Bush's form of progress any day.

As far as NK goes. That "UN" sponsored deal was doomed from the start.

Don't forget the Baltics/Kosovo

[yrwyddfa]

I'm just wondering . . . Are any other Americans embarrassed about what their fellow countrymen say?

I know I am about some fellow Brits.

[moeur]

I'm just wondering . . . Are any other Americans embarrassed about what their fellow countrymen say?

You'll find plenty of Americans who are embarrased what by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Howard Dean say. These are politicians who can do nothing but say how bad this country and its military are. So yes you do have your political compatriots in this country.

YOU are the one that ducks and dives

If you think I have ever changed my position on these matters in these discussions, then I understand why you think Bush has changed his position. You don't remember what has been said from one day to another.

I didn't see the US 'cleaning up' Northern Ireland. In fact your countrymen by in large funded 'em. I suppose there is some slant on why an Irish terrorist, is different from an Middle-Eastern one?

No, there is no difference. People in the US have funded the IRA terrorists just as they are now funding the Islamic terrorists. The difference between then and now is that we have realized that terrorism is a threat to our national security and we have a president who is willing to do something about it.

[yrwyddfa]

You'll find plenty of Americans who are embarrased what by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Howard Dean say. These are politicians who can do nothing but say how bad this country and its military are. So yes you do have your political compatriots in this country.

If you think I have ever changed my position on these matters in these discussions, then I understand why you think Bush has changed his position. You don't remember what has been said from one day to another.

No, there is no difference. People in the US have funded the IRA terrorists just as they are now funding the Islamic terrorists. The difference between then and now is that we have realized that terrorism is a threat to our national security and we have a president who is willing to do something about it.

(i) At least you don't believe you are representative of what is a great nation
(ii) I've already said that I know Bush doesn't change his position. I think you do
(iii) Hang on a minute. What about all the rhetoric about 'protecting our allies' I am assuming - and I could be wrong here - that the UK is a US ally? Where was your support when the IRA was blowing up civilians, then?

I know what you are trying to say - you just seem to have a little trouble in saying it. I shall paraphrase for you:

"I couldn't give a monkey's about you lot. if you get blown up - so what? As long as it's not us Americans."

That's fair enough - you are entitled to your point of view. But for goodness sake just say what you mean.

[davebat]

you are not a citizen of the US.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

[moeur]

Hang on a minute. What about all the rhetoric about 'protecting our allies' I am assuming - and I could be wrong here - that the UK is a US ally? Where was your support when the IRA was blowing up civilians, then?

This argument is specious. Our policy now cannot be made retroactive. If we go back far enough in history we can always find policies that contradict today's policies.

Bush doesn't change his position. I think you do

you have me confused with someone else.

[yrwyddfa]

This argument is specious. Our policy now cannot be made retroactive. If we go back far enough in history we can always find policies that contradict today's policies.
you have me confused with someone else.

I know that technically 10 years is history, but come on -don't you think you're clutching at straws on this one.

[grilkip]

Just because you fail to understand or cannot fathom the reasoning doesn’t mean there is no moral ground to stand on. Like I said you are a Neville Chamberlain type who would have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt in perpetuity like your type did with Hitler (oops I said the H word!). I refuse to go into a long post explaining everything because you will not understand it anyway. Lets just say we disagree and move on.X

Please remember that the US was planning to leave Hitler alone untill he started atacking US vessels (one of his many tactical blunders).

I'll take the points made regarding N-Korea, I'll admit I'm not fully briefed.

As far as US security is concerned, one could argue that it was better served with the isolation of Iraq (which worked, O.F.F. scandals are nothing) than with a badly planned war.

Nobody is saying that Saddam is but if arguments used to remove his regime are purely moral arguments, then one would be obliged to do the same werever they apply.

[moeur]

I know that technically 10 years is history, but come on -don't you think you're clutching at straws on this one.

No, I really don't see how today's administration can be held responsible for what was allowed to happen 10 or more years ago. Even the previous administration was full of appeasers.

As far as US security is concerned, one could argue that it was better served with the isolation of Iraq

One could argue that point and in fact it is arqued in this country every day.

...than with a badly planned war.

You're believing your news media providers again.

but if arguments used to remove his regime are purely moral arguments, then one would be obliged to do the same werever they apply

Who is arguing that the motives were purely moral? They were in the interest of self defense.

[grilkip]

Who is arguing that the motives were purely moral? They were in the interest of self defense.

Saddam wasn't a threat to the US, anybody knows that and knew that.

[moeur]

Originally Posted by moeur
Who is arguing that the motives were purely moral? They were in the interest of self defense.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[yrwyddfa]

Good for you!

[MasterBlaster]

Saddam wasn't a threat to the US, anybody knows that and knew that.

Actually, Saddam was a threat to the US and what's left over from his time as president is still a threat to the US. Same with Afghanastan. WMDs sitting on top of ICBMs are not the only way to attack a country. Just as New York City or London or Madrid or the dozen other countries that have been attacked. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and Iran are/were all funneling resources to these maniacs.

As far as the IRA giving england hell. Would you have approved if the US bombed the tar out of Ireland? If Engand asked for it I guarentee it would have been done. If they thought it would have helped they would have done it themselvs. The RAF is more than capable of leveling Ireland.

[grilkip]

Actually, Saddam was a threat to the US and what's left over from his time as president is still a threat to the US. Same with Afghanastan. WMDs sitting on top of ICBMs are not the only way to attack a country. Just as New York City or London or Madrid or the dozen other countries that have been attacked. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and Iran are/were all funneling resources to these maniacs.

Never heard of any indication (except partison retoric) that Saddam was ordering jihadi's to the west.

Afghanistan is a totaly different story, there where huge Al-Qaida camps there.

[yrwyddfa]

As far as the IRA giving england hell. Would you have approved if the US bombed the tar out of Ireland? If Engand asked for it I guarentee it would have been done. If they thought it would have helped they would have done it themselvs. The RAF is more than capable of leveling Ireland.

That's more or less my point. It is inappropriate to bomb areas due to terrorism whether it's in the Middle East or in Ireland.

I'm sure America would be delighted to level yet another civilian population, too, especially if it was by invitation.

As a matter of point, the US only outlawed the IRA as an illegal organisation AFTER the 911 atrocities.

So it was the same administration, the same policies, but a different game.

[moeur]

I'm sure America would be delighted to level yet another civilian population, too, especially if it was by invitation.

Where does this bigoted hatred come from?
Mabey you and CORONA BEER can hang out and compare your conspiracy theories with each other.

1. There were no WMD's, understand that was a lie to support the invasion and to back up the "War on Terror" theory.
2. Iraq was not involved in the Zionist operation called 9/11.
3. Bin laden had nothing to do with 9/11.
4: Iraqi oil is going to Israel, yes.
5: Americans are Dying for Israel, yes.

[MasterBlaster]

Never heard of any indication (except partison retoric) that Saddam was ordering jihadi's to the west.

Afghanistan is a totaly different story, there where huge Al-Qaida camps there.

I never said he did but he did allow them to train in his country and come and go as they please. That is what I mean by resources.

[grilkip]

I never said he did but he did allow them to train in his country and come and go as they please. That is what I mean by resources.

Only to a very small extend. As we all know by now, Saddam didn't have a good relation with Al-Qaida.

Beter have gone looking in other countries

[MasterBlaster]

That's more or less my point. It is inappropriate to bomb areas due to terrorism whether it's in the Middle East or in Ireland.

I'm sure America would be delighted to level yet another civilian population, too, especially if it was by invitation.

As a matter of point, the US only outlawed the IRA as an illegal organisation AFTER the 911 atrocities.

So it was the same administration, the same policies, but a different game.

The situation in Ireland and the Middle east are two seperate issues. Bombs aren't always necessary as in Lybia, philippians, and Syria. Sometimes they are. The IRA wasn't running Ireland.

If you honestly believe the american people enjoy leveling countries then you have a seriously twisted view of the world and Americans in particular. The Taliban and Saddam were both given many opportunities to avoid what happened to them. They wouldn't take it.

Outlawing the IRA was more of a legal issue than a policy issue.

[MasterBlaster]

Only to a very small extend. As we all know by now, Saddam didn't have a good relation with Al-Qaida.

It only took 4 guys to kill and wound people in london.

Beter have gone looking in other countries

I agree with that statement 110%

[grilkip]

It only took 4 guys to kill and wound people in london.

Yes, and 4 people can be anywhere, even right under your nose. There's very little point invading countries to find 4 people.

[MasterBlaster]

Yes, and 4 people can be anywhere, even right under your nose. There's very little point invading countries to find 4 people.

quite a few more than 4 terrorists have been killed in Iraq

[grilkip]

quite a few more than 4 terrorists have been killed in Iraq

Great, now the rest of the world.