The "buried" comment was in reference for the war plans to protect the Alamo, Artemise, not to this PNAC. I'll search around and see if I can find the PNAC and see what it really says.

Aquilla, the PNAC is waved around as if there's something evil about it. It is a well thought out view of the world and how we need to fit into it. Specifically, how we can help shape that new world so as to make it a better and safer place. Nothing evil about that.

Those who disagree with it get very emotional, which only weakens their position. I suspect some are merely upset that it has found an agreeable audience in Bush, post 9/11. It was presented to Clinton and rejected. It was again presented, to Bush this time, but didn't take hold until after 9/11.

If viewed through 'old' glasses, it's easy to find fault with it. When viewed through the glasses of a 'new' world, it makes a lot of sense. In either case it doesn't merit the sort of bogey-man status the left places on it. They probably do so because they fear its success. Then what?

And does not the emotion of those who support it weaken their position, as well? Let's try to be consistent here.



Viewed through some kind of glasses, that's for sure. What is it, exactly, about this "new world" that obsoletes all of history and game theory and military strategy that went before?



They fear its short-term success leading to long-term disaster. Fear is a legitimate reaction to a threat; show me a man who feels no fear and I'll show you someone who cannot be trusted to make sane decisions.

If I saw those who support it get too emotionally wrapped up when stating their position, I'd say the same thing. I don't see that as a rule, certainly not as much as those who oppose it.

The world has changed in a myriad of ways. Most apropos is the nature of the dangers present and how best to defend against them. Also the ever-changing alliances. How wars are fought. Why they are fought. The interdependent nature of the global economy. In short, today's world looks very different and demands different strategies than the world of a mere 50 years ago.

As for the fear factor, I believe we will improve our safety and security as we continue to send clear messages that we will respond with the necessary force required to protect our interests both home and abroad. This is the only message that many who oppose us understand. The Saddams and Osamas of the world will not be so quick to pounce on what they once perceived as American weakness. I call that long-term security, not disaster.

Considering both Saddam and Osama were U.S. funded and armed, then we bombed their people, however as far as know both are still alive, I dont believe this logic holds up. I dont see how you come to either of them believing the US was weak, in fact S. Hussein never threatened the US.

As far as this new pre-emptive strong arm strategy, other than security, more likely we shall be ever more distrusted, and cause unprecedented global conflict and suffering. Most people around the world see us suddenly as imperialists, with little rationale except some psuedo-moral self righteousness and desire to steal resources. They are not going to take it lying down.

Some people (ahem, Abs) wave the PNAC around like it is a skeleton in the closet. SEE, SEE, their real motivations, only nobody knows it.

The PNAC is well-documented, well-thought out, public stance backed, yes, by many in the current administration. Of course, that does not mean that GWB necessarily proscribes to in all aspects. Read the documents, alot of it does make sense from a "New World Order" perspective. That does not make it some secret "cabal". It does make it a statement of principles backed by some.

It does not advocate us crushing opposition or steam rolling weaker countries. It advocates building partnerships to ensure that America stays strong. Of course, that in and of itself makes it evil for some people.

WAAIT a minute, you mean the US WANTS to stay on top? Of course we do. We feel we have the right system, the right values and the right mindset. We want to share that with others, but not force it on them.

Artemise:


That argument holds no water. Just because we gave weapons for purpose A, does not put us at fault when the people use those weapons for purpose B. If anything, it gives us more of a responsibility (evil word), to make them "play nice".

Yes, the PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" does support keeping the U.S. at the top of international affairs. This sounds good in the short-term, but it just won't work in the long run. To achieve this, you eventually have to suppress the competition either militarily or economically... which the report addresses with calls to build the military even further, control space with a new division of armed forces and even control "cyberspace," among others.

That's nice. The Romans, Ottomans, French and Germans once thought they had the right system, values and mindset as well. All of these "empires" eventually had to resort to force, either economic or militaristic. The same will apply for the United States. You can't share with somebody what they don't want or ask for. In order for them to accept it, then, you must resort to force. Perhaps an embargo here or a precision strike there.

As long as one group or nation is going to strive to hold others back, and maintain pre-eminence, they are going to face increased enemies and conflict. If we are to trust the lessons of history, such a group or nation will be toppled, likely in a violent fashion.

But where is next? All we can do is guess. It certainly doesn't say much, though, when we have to ask "where" rather than "if" anybody is next. It seems an almost foregone conclusion that there will be others to follow Iraq. Where will it stop, or more importantly, will it stop?

The PNAC document in question (Rebuilding America's Defenses) has basically morphed into our National Security Strategy under the current administration. From where I sit, this position of belligerent superiority -- no matter what it does for the short-term -- will ultimately fail the test of time. As was (and may still be) the message of a quote of an AD member: history doesn't necessarily repeat itself, but rather rhymes. Our song may be different than those that came before, but we're following the same tune.

I disagree whole heartedly with your supposition of the 'long-term' failure. However, none of us will be around to find out. Which makes it a bit hard to refute our argument. Or was that your intent?

Passion, I laid out the reasons for my position. While we may not be around to find out, you can address the reasons I gave for disbelieving its success in the long-term.

To isolate and summarize it...


You can address my reasons for skepticism and, if you'd like, also my question of where or if it will stop.

Abs, our system IS superior. It has been for over two centuries. Whether or not you want to debate that is, of course, another thread.

What we want is to SHARE our freedom with others. Oppressive regimes should be a thing of the past. This is the 21st century. For better or worse, we won't directly impose our way of thinking upon others.

We want to cajole them, persuade them, bring them around slowly. That is fine, but one thing should be clear to all: we will no longer tolerate these throwbacks that sponsor terrorism.

Some have brought up the "hornet's nest" theory where actually doing something to get rid of one hornet could stir up a large swarm of hornets which, individually, pose no threat, but collectively could seriously harm us. (Actually, this theory is my own interpretation of the beliefs expressed here by others, no one has actually used those terms to describe the situation, to my knowledge). That scenario may be accurate, but it is a risk that we need to take. We cannot be frozen into inaction by second guessing all of our actions before we even do them. Of course, we must always be forward thinking, but not to the point of tenativeness.

While you (and others, surely) feel that we have no right to "impose" our system upon others, anyone who has experienced it knows that it is inherently superior. Whether the system you are talking about is the social democracy of some European countries, or the form used in the US is of no concern. Bringing freedom to the entire people of the world should be a worthwhile goal (and a monumental accomplishment).

Someone (in another thread) referenced the Human Rights Convention adopted by the UN in 1948 (I believe). This document is a model for all to strive for. Unfortunately, less than half of the people in the world have even half of the freedoms expressed in that document. What does the UN do about that, even though most of the countries in the world are signatories to that document: nothing. It is not in their power to enforce, or even encourage.

The United Nations is an organization built upon utopian ideals. Unfortunately, it exists in a world that is not ready to embrace the ideals that it represents. Its member states are largely repressive dictatorships which exist only to further the goals of the country's leaders. These leaders don't want to spread freedom, because it would mean their own downfall.

The end of the Cold War brought dozens of more countries that much closer to freedom. Those countries (notably Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics) are not under the US's thumb. They can do with their freedom what they will. They are new to it, and the freedom still tastes sweet to them. That is why so many of them joined the "Coalition of the Willing".

To answer the question posed by this thread "Where is next?" : I can't say. But if I were a repressive regime who sponsors terrorism, I would think of the Iraq War as a shot across the bow. Time to change course now or suffer the consequences.