On 28 Dec 2003 07:16:30 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated?

John H

Dig into the PNAC website a bit, John.

The devil is in the specifically outlined details- not the platitudes and
general principles.


Chuck, you and I both know that you are embellishing and exaggerating.
Again, please show me where 'obliteration of governments' is stated,
either directly or indirectly.

You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so
perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of
Principle do you disagree?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On 28 Dec 2003 07:24:22 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated?

John H

How about the following quote from NOYB, an adherent of the PNAC, agreeing with
my analysis of the New American Century's agenda? You're unlikely to accept
the opinon of a goddam liberal- but NOYB is certainly one of the conservatives
best schooled on the PNAC agenda. You might find him more credible:

I wrote:

I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a
lot of
people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to
obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq,
Iran,
Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally
justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit
that
they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for
more
than a single opinion.

NOYB wrote:

Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's
agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long.

Chuck, you have been very critical of the New American Century (NAC).
NOYB is not the NAC, nor is he even mentioned on their web site. I'm
not asking NYOB about his disagreements with NAC, I'm asking you.

Besides, NYOB, in the above reference, says he supports the PNAC
agenda. He doesn't define the agenda, as you did, to mean
"obliterating the governments of...."

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so
perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of
Principle do you disagree?


That web site is too important to have someone else digest it for you, John.
Read it. To do otherwise is lazy, and that has no place in a healthy
democracy. There's an election coming up. You need to be sure of what you're
voting for.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:26:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so
perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of
Principle do you disagree?


That web site is too important to have someone else digest it for you, John.
Read it. To do otherwise is lazy, and that has no place in a healthy
democracy. There's an election coming up. You need to be sure of what you're
voting for.

I have. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? Is
that question too difficult to answer? You could just give me a
number. If you cannot state the disagreeable principle(s), then one
must assume you disagree with none of them, True? If you disagree with
none of the principles, then why all the fuss about the New American
Century?


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:26:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


You say my knowledge is incomplete (which is a true statement), so
perhaps you could reenlighten me. With which of the Statements of
Principle do you disagree?


That web site is too important to have someone else digest it for you,
John.
Read it. To do otherwise is lazy, and that has no place in a healthy
democracy. There's an election coming up. You need to be sure of what
you're
voting for.

I have. With which of the Statements of Principle do you disagree? Is
that question too difficult to answer? You could just give me a
number. If you cannot state the disagreeable principle(s), then one
must assume you disagree with none of them, True? If you disagree with
none of the principles, then why all the fuss about the New American
Century?

John,
I've asked the same question several times...and never received a response,
either. Don't hold your breath.

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 strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile to our interests and values;

[[(oops).accidentally cut the part about promoting econonic and politcal
freedom in other countries]]

• 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.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve
Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz


************************************************

OK, John. Here we go.

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

As you would discover elsewhere on the site, "American Global Leadership" even
includes extending American religious and moral values to other countries. It
is a process of economic and moral colonization. How do I disagree? I believe
that until we solve our own problems we have no business assuming the role of
the world's military or moral police power. I believe that an Asian, European,
African, or South American individual is as entitled to self determination as
any US citizen of North America. Aussies too. Who the hell are we to presume
that the rest of the world is even interested in having us "lead" them
anywhere? Has to be one of the most arrogant public positions ever taken. Who
are these couple of dozen people to presume to speak for the entire country?

"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?"

IOW, "having eliminated a rival philosophy that sought to shape the world in
its shadow, does the US have the resolve to do shape the world in its own."?

"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."

I actually agree with that statement.


"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."

We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most
favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or
mandate, to do so. How arrogant.

"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're already the sole, remaining, superpower.......but we're going to need a
much larger and better equipped military to carry out what the PNAC sees as our
"responsibilities."

"• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile to our interests and values;"

As this is the second of four items listed, it's safe to assume that we will
use our expanded military to "challenge regimes that are hostile to our
interests and values." NOTE: The site does not say that
these regimes have to be a military threat to the United States, merely
nonaligned with our (commercial?) interests and (moral?) values.

The accidentally cut statement about promoting political and economic freedom
in foreign countries is hypocritical in this context. The NAC crowd are only
interested in promoting the freedom of other countries to agree with and
support American "interests and values"

"• 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. "

We need to structure the rest of the world to create an international order
friendly to
US security, US prosperity, and US principles. Colonialism.

So there you go John. I don't expect you to agree with my perspective. But
stow the crap that I haven't ever specified the nature of my concerns. This is
probably the third or fourth time I have repeated this in this NG, and only did
so because you asked in a reasonably civil manner.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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."

We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most
favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right,
or
mandate, to do so. How arrogant.


We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and security in
Europe, Asia, and the Middle East."
And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental
interest".

"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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."

We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are
most
favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our
right,
or
mandate, to do so. How arrogant.


We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and security
in
Europe, Asia, and the Middle East."
And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental
interest".

Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking, you
can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons.

On 28 Dec 2003 17:04:45 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

June 3, 1997
Snipped

*********************************************** *

OK, John. Here we go.

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


As you would discover elsewhere on the site, "American Global Leadership" even
includes extending American religious and moral values to other countries. It
is a process of economic and moral colonization. How do I disagree? I believe
that until we solve our own problems we have no business assuming the role of
the world's military or moral police power. I believe that an Asian, European,
African, or South American individual is as entitled to self determination as
any US citizen of North America. Aussies too. Who the hell are we to presume
that the rest of the world is even interested in having us "lead" them
anywhere? Has to be one of the most arrogant public positions ever taken. Who
are these couple of dozen people to presume to speak for the entire country?

Snipped

Chuck, I'm not going to argue each point with you, at least not in one
post. You stated, "The US should not be the world's military or moral
police power." We already *are* the world's military power. We now
have a choice: We can bury our head in the sand or not. You seem to
favor the 'bury our head in the sand' approach, i.e. we do nothing to
encourage those who act in our national interests or to discourage
those who act contrary to our national interests.

IOW, we would take no action regarding events outside the boundaries
of the US. If we had adopted your philosophy, we would have done
nothing about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Please give your attention to the article below. It explains, a
little, the consequences of your attitude. Note the source.


************************************************** ********
Power & Duty: U.S. Action is Crucial to Maintaining World Order


Gary Schmitt
Los Angeles Times
March 23, 2003


As the war in Iraq unfolds, the awesome military power of the United
States is on exhibit for the whole world to see. Despite the real but
mostly tacit support of friends and allies around the world, America
is exercising its power in the face of world opinion decidedly opposed
to the war. In some respects, the very fact that the United States can
do so is even more confirmation to its critics around the world that
American power seemingly unhinged from all restraints -- be it the
United Nations or world opinion -- is as much a danger to world order
as perhaps Saddam Hussein himself.


Critics of America’s preeminent role in the world, like France’s
president, are quick to see the supposed problems related to a
unipolar world. What they are far slower to offer is a realistic
alternative. For example, for all the huffing and puffing about the
need to have this war sanctioned by the United Nations, it goes
without saying that neither Paris nor Beijing is especially eager to
constrain its national security decisions because of U.N. mandates.
Indeed, in the continuing case of North Korea’s violation of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, France and China have actively sought
to push the matter away from U.N. consideration.


The fact is, the U.N. can only operate by majority consensus, and this
means that its decisions will be governed by the particular interests
of the individual member states of the Security Council -- not some
disembodied, benign voice of the “international community.” As the
failure to back up its own resolutions on Iraq and to act decisively
in the cases of Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990s shows, the U.N. cannot
be trusted to be the sole arbiter of these matters.


No. The unavoidable reality is that the exercise of American power is
key to maintaining what peace and order there is in the world today.
Imagine a world in which the U.S. didn’t exercise this power. Who
would handle a nuclear-armed North Korea? Who would prevent the
one-party state of China from acting on its pledge to gather
democratic Taiwan into its fold? Who would be left to hunt down
Islamic terrorists increasingly interested in getting their hands on
weapons of mass destruction? Who could have contained, let alone
defeated, a tyrant like Hussein, preventing him from becoming the
dominant power in the Middle East? Who can prevent the Balkans from
slipping back into chaos? Who is going to confront regimes like those
of Iran, Syria and Libya as they rush to get their own weapons of mass
destruction? Given how little most of our allies and critics spend on
defense, certainly not them.


As Robert Kagan notes in “Of Paradise and Power,” his seminal
examination of the growing distance between the strategic perspectives
of America and Europe, the United States today is in much the same
position as Marshal Will Kane, played by Gary Cooper in the movie
“High Noon.” The townspeople are more than happy to live in the peace
brought by his law enforcement but are nervous and resentful when the
bad guys come back to town looking for him, to enact their revenge.
The residents shortsightedly believe that if the marshal would just
leave town, there would be no trouble. Of course, the reverse is true.
Without Kane to protect them, the town would quickly fall into an
anarchic state, paralyzed by ruthless gunslingers.


The simple but fundamental point is that it matters more what purposes
our power serves than that we have power. President Bush made it clear
in his address to the nation last week that removing Hussein was
necessary not only because of the threat he poses but also because it
could begin a process of reform in a region long in need of it.
Cutting the nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorists
requires transforming regimes that possess these weapons and cooperate
with or spawn terrorists.


Like the townsfolk in “High Noon,” this naturally makes many in the
world anxious. Change always brings risk and instability. But the
danger in doing nothing -- of pretending that the volatile Middle East
mix of failing regimes, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction and
terrorism can be contained safely if we only let it alone -- is far
greater. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on the floor of
Parliament during a debate over Iraq last week, “What was shocking
about 11 September was not just the slaughter of the innocent, but the
knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been
not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000, and the more the
suffering, the greater the terrorists’ rejoicing.”


But change also brings opportunity. The president’s decision to remove
Hussein from power and his work to create a viable, democratic Iraq
has already led to a number of positive steps in the region. In Iran,
moderates, emboldened by the possibility of a democratic Iraq, are
again pushing to reform that cleric-dominated state. In Saudi Arabia,
the homeland of 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the attacks on
the United States, the royal family has for the first time begun
serious deliberations with reformers on how to transform and
democratize the country. In the Palestinian territories, Yasser Arafat
reluctantly agreed to give up much of his day-to-day control over the
Palestinian Authority to a new prime minister. And in Egypt, the
government has just released its most vocal human-rights advocate.

Rest of article snipped.
************************************************** *******

This idea you, Chuck, seem to have, that we should just sit at home
taking care of our poor and sickly, paying no heed whatsoever to the
rest of the globe (because it's arrogant) just isn't workable.




John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:33:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
.com...

Snipped

And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental
interest".

Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking, you
can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons.


Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!