Project for the New American Century

[EvilDr.Frog]

That's why its a conspiracy theory. It has nothing to do with reality, but rather reads between the lines, changes words to make something to be other than what it really is. The more I think about this, the more I realize how many people are being sucked into it. Its like those cults you see on TV news

OK, Blemonds, I just don't think I am reading between the lines all that much. Let me repeat one of the points from the Statement of Principles:

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

Hostile to our "interests and values." The more of their literature I read, the more imperialist they seem. Their principles are such that it seems like no large leap to use the word "imperialist." If you want to use a nicer word to describe it, I suppose it is simply a reflection or our respective biases.

 

[Blemonds]

OK, Blemonds, I just don't think I am reading between the lines all that much. Let me repeat one of the points from the Statement of Principles:

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

Hostile to our "interests and values." The more of their literature I read, the more imperialist they seem. Their principles are such that it seems like no large leap to use the word "imperialist." If you want to use a nicer word to describe it, I suppose it is simply a reflection or our respective biases.

What are the consequences of not challenging regimes that are hostile to our interests?

 

[EvilDr.Frog]

What are the consequences of not challenging regimes that are hostile to our interests?

In my view, greater peace and security comes out of isolationism. If you advacate confronting regimes hostile to American values and interests because you think greater peace and security comes out of it, that still makes you imperialist, regardless of who is correct.

 

[Blemonds]

In my view, greater peace and security comes out of isolationism. If you advacate confronting regimes hostile to American values and interests because you think greater peace and security comes out of it, that still makes you imperialist, regardless of who is correct.

Sure it does. Just as long as you redefine imperialism

 

[The Shredder]

I don't think the definition requires much stretching:
Imperialism, as seen on Merriam-Webster Online, second definition:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

 

[Blemonds]

I don't think the definition requires much stretching:
Imperialism, as seen on Merriam-Webster Online, second definition:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

Darn, that little word dominion again, which is not found in the PNAC, but is "divined" by the conspiracy theorists.

 

[EvilDr.Frog]

Sure it does. Just as long as you redefine imperialism

More specifically, I need to define "imperialism" a little more broadly than you do. Merriam-Webster Online defines it:

2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

Once again, our disagreement stems from differing definitions.

 

[The Shredder]

Darn, that little word dominion again, which is not found in the PNAC, but is "divined" by the conspiracy theorists.

The fact that you are grasping at each little word to make your point just shows that there is no point in trying to discuss this topic with you anymore. I've always realized that in a debate, when it degenerates into the definition of words, the nitpicker is a waste of time to deal with.

 

[Blemonds]

The fact that you are grasping at each little word to make your point just shows that there is no point in trying to discuss this topic with you anymore. I've always realized that in a debate, when it degenerates into the definition of words, the nitpicker is a waste of time to deal with.

On the contrary. when you take a phrase like global leadership and change it to "imperialist global dominion", then there is a problem.

 

[The Shredder]

On the contrary. when you take a phrase like global leadership and change it to "imperialist global dominion", then there is a problem.

No, when you look at the phrase global leadership and ignore how they go about achieving that goal, then there is a problem. This is the problem with focusing on single words, you focus on the tree and ignore the forest (I forget how the saying goes exactly).

 

[praying]

Ah PNAC, if you are trying to defend those that subscribe to this agenda and justify it with your Christian teachings, I think one really needs to crack open the Bible to see if it would be right for any country to use their military might in order to push an invasion of a country just to make that country's ideals the same as yours.

Perhaps you should read the read no one not even Blemonds is using the Christian and/or the BIble to justify anything.

 

[k]

Ah PNAC, if you are trying to defend those that subscribe to this agenda and justify it with your Christian teachings, I think one really needs to crack open the Bible to see if it would be right for any country to use their military might in order to push an invasion of a country just to make that country's ideals the same as yours.

It's kind of like the Civil Rights movement. If the entire movement was a bloody rebellion where blacks killed white people, would that be justified since they're goal is equality? Remember the end does not justify the means no matter how good it is.

If I go and disembowel people involved in criminal behavior to "clean up" my community, my actions are wrong regardless of my intentions.

Great!! The ends DO NOT justify the means.

 

[voice-in-the-wilderness]

It appears that several people are working together to achieve a common goal, distortion of facts. Yes, I do know what a conspiracy is.

You must be referring to the PNAC.

 

[voice-in-the-wilderness]

You bet. Just change the words global leadership to American imperial dominion and voila, conspiracy.

You say tom-ay-to, I say tom-ah-to

 

[k]

That's why its a conspiracy theory. It has nothing to do with reality, but rather reads between the lines, changes words to make something to be other than what it really is. The more I think about this, the more I realize how many people are being sucked into it. Its like those cults you see on TV news

It's a bit strange to me that people take a position on something (such as the PNAC), and have yet to really read the manifesto or anything substantial by the group. On the surface, the "It has nothing to do with reality..." statement shows a lack of comprehension of the PNAC. Ask any of the US troops in Iraq, or the parents of the dead troops, "Are you living out a nightmare of theory or reality?"

 

[k]

EDITED: Not a productive statement.

 

[voice-in-the-wilderness]

On the contrary. when you take a phrase like global leadership and change it to "imperialist global dominion", then there is a problem.

In marketing, there's a practice called "polishing a turd," which meant taking a negative and putting a positive spin on it. "Global leadership" is a nice way of saying "imperialist global dominion."

We have exercised imperialist dominion over many other nations in economic policies alone. Militarily, we have troops deployed in many foreign countries around the world; a military presence with the mission of protecting can also be used as a means of intimidation (flexing imperialistic muscles). Politically, rhetoric reveals imperialistic intent; "you are either with us or you're with the terrorists" — translation, get on board with our agenda or we're gonna get you.

Actions unmask this imperialistic agenda. The PNAC (and their apologists) may spin this imperialism as "global leadership," but no matter how much you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Conspiracy theories!

If something like this were actually real I don't think the rest of the world would let us take over it...

 

[praying]

Conspiracy theories!

If something like this were actually real I don't think the rest of the world would let us take over it...

If something like what? PNAC they exist, they are real and their ideology, though I don't belief it to be a nefarious attempt at world domination in the classic conspiracy theory way, is for the US to control world think and for the US to put forth the best policies for everyone on the world stage. I just plain and simple to do not agree with that agenda.

 

[k]

Conspiracy theories!

If something like this were actually real I don't think the rest of the world would let us take over it...

Is the "Conspiracy theories" your response to the question in the OP? What does that mean "If something like this..." 'cause the PNAC is real, and the real members are also the real people in the Bush admin. Just a little confused by the post, that's all.