NWO - bullish or true....merryprankster you the analyst what you think?

[diego]

http://pub12.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm1.showMessage?topicID=4100.topi c

this just caught my eye so i don't know what to think as i haven't read the whole link.

[Christopher M]

Yeah, it's real, except for two things:

1) It's neither secret nor new, and has been published in the public domain for years. Check PNAC's website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).

2) That article conflates PNAC with Bush/the Bush Administration/the American government; whereas in fact these are all very different things.

[David Jamieson]

There was a lot of talk about that document and the Bush doctrine.
The neo cons that Bush has as his advisers and henchmen are the authors of this stuff, particulalry one Mr. Wolfiwitz who appears to hold a good deal of sway and say in teh current wh admin.

The pax americana idea is no secret, the concept has been around since before jfk was offed. It's a neo-conservative manifesto for what the USA's place in the world should be if they had their way. Very Orwellian in scope, frightening really at the core of it and laid out on a table it looks like facism raising it's ugly head through the Conservative right not just in the US, but in sympathizers all over the world seeing the 'strike hard' tactics as the only way of resolving the global issues instead of actually giving up a little filthy lucre.

Another expansionist roman-like lunacy parade imo.

Let the flames begin oh right wing posters! :D

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Let the flames begin oh right wing posters!

Why would right-wing posters flame that? Perhaps this (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j110102.html) would be educational about what the "right-wing" thinks; perhaps this (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative) would be educational as to where the "neoconservatives", and hence the source of this "facism," is coming from. Or to mix both, this (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010303.html). Ooohh, and this (http://www.antiwar.com/essays/isolatio.html) is just great; really cuts to the heart of the whole thing. I love this guy; thanks Chen Zhen. :D

[David Jamieson]

From the links provided.
But there is no doubt the neocons have come to define the conservative movement, which bothers me. They do not represent traditional conservatism.

And yet, what does the rest of the right say about the neocons drinking all the good hooch in the white house?

If you don't like em, stop givin them money to run their campaigns! :D

wallets speak louder than words in the new world politics.

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
And yet, what does the rest of the right say about the neocons drinking all the good hooch in the white house?

I'm not sure I follow. The "rest of the right" has been violently opposed to them from the beginning, as those links discuss in detail. The links also suggest "the Left" is actively ignoring, and even undermining this opposition. This has been my experience as well; including on this forum.

Because the "rest of the right's" concern isn't just with neoconservative supernationalism, but with any kind of supernationalism at all (what the links call internationalism or interventionism). Since this undermines "the Left's" position, they can't afford to take it seriously. And since "the Left" is more attached to their supernationalism than to opposing this war, they've actively silenced the "rest of the right" at anti-war protests or any other venue where this opposition could be popularized. I think he discusses this. ...and also because "the Left" generally refuses to acknowlege rightist viewpoints, under a belief that they are inherently selfish, repgunant, etc.

[Merryprankster]

Yup. It's true folks (not that I'm authoritative).

But you gotta remember that defining a foreign policy direction doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get what you want in practice. NOR does it necessarily mean that when you write something like this, you're looking to actually do these things.

In the world of analysis and think tanks, very often, you do "thought papers." Papers where you get to go out on a limb and say "Gosh, I see this role for us and this is how it might go on."

The reality of such things is usually genuinely different. On the other hand, you can tell a lot about the way that the authors think about government, its role and the geopolitical scene when you read them. And clearly, they will use these precepts in their governance should they come to power.

However, equating NPAC and GWB's admin is not necessarily an appropriate logical step. It would be better to say that the thoughts on this website represent how GWB's admin regards the overarching role of the United States in the world, not specifically how that can best be implimented--think tanks have a lot of different people in them and they don't always agree. Certainly they influence each other but they don't always agree.

Does that make any sense?

FWIW, I didn't see a single document blueprinting a New American Century. I saw many articles discussing the role of the U.S. in Geo-Politics.

[Merryprankster]

Very Orwellian in scope, frightening really at the core of it and laid out on a table it looks like facism raising it's ugly head through the Conservative right not just in the US, but in sympathizers all over the world seeing the 'strike hard' tactics as the only way of resolving the global issues instead of actually giving up a little filthy lucre.

Hi. My name's Kung Lek, and I think the only consideration governments make is directly tied to corporate interests. I also live in a box and see little green men.

[Merryprankster]

Here it their mission statement. I would say this is probably a better indication of their guiding principles than anything else.


June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


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.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• 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;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.



The way I see it, this is nothing new--it's a classic example (which has been running around for years now) of old cold warriors who are trying to force-fit the world into their old view of things. It worked with a bipolar world. Different times.

[old jong]

This image says it all! (http://www.thedude.org/images/content/img3e265c5d9c728.jpg) ;)

[David Jamieson]

Hi. My name's Kung Lek, and I think the only consideration governments make is directly tied to corporate interests. I also live in a box and see little green men.

Merry, I calls em like I see's em.
I'm sure that some good legislation makes it through the cracks without having an addendum attached. But, all my life, the state of the first world has been one of decline. Right, Left or otherwise.

cheers

[Royal Dragon]

You know, I can't even read that ring. It could say "I love my mommy" for all I know

[shaolin kungfu]

It's the ring from lord of the rings.:eek: