Thanks for being so observant. You must be a genius.
2006-10-09 12:27:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by gizzardout 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
PNAC - Project for the New American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/...
In September of 2000, PNAC published a White paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," That paper ominously describes four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of terrorism. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. On September 20th 2001, Bush released the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier, and much of it is word for word. The American people, who are anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will realize too late that no exit is planned.
Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the world domination schemes of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. On September 11th, when the Towers came down, these men saw their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
Sidenote: Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill was trying to investigate the very same terrorists who were planning to blow up the trade towers on 9-11, but was prevented from doing so when President Bush signed Presidential Directive W199i, making it a crime to investigate or instigate the terrorists in any way. Resigning his position due to frustration, John O'Neill was given a new career as Director of Security at the Trade Towers in New York City. John O'Neill didn't know that September 11, 2001, his first day on the job, would also be the last day of his life. Whatever reasons or suspicions Mr. O'Neill had, died with him that day.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
2006-10-09 13:15:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by tat2me1960 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
We tried direct talks before. Kim Jung(mentally) Ill promises not to build nukes in return for huge amounts of aid for his country. Aid he wouldn't need if he didn't spend all his counties wealth on pursuing weapons by the way. He takes the aid and then goes right back to his nuclear ambitions. Bush and Co just didn't play the silly game this time. Kim Jung Ill has shown that he can't be trusted in one on one talks.
2006-10-09 12:37:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Michael 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually dumbass, we sat down with N. Korea along with Russia, China, Japan, and S.Korea beginning in November of last year and N. Korea walked away from the table. And believe me, it's no surprise to anyone in the administration, especially the president that Kim has nukes. By the way, you don't by any chance remember who gave him the means to build a nuclear weapons program do you? That's right your buddy Bill "The Rapist" Clinton.
2006-10-09 18:20:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jeff F 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
So many republicans are eager for war because of something called the Military-Industrial complex. Conservatives believe that war keeps the economy going-- think Halliburton. It's no secret that Republicans are in bed with big business who basically own the voting workforce.
2006-10-09 17:51:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by stelle d. 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
How do you successfully rob a bank? You place you friends in the position that have the power to judge you. Create a smoke screen to keep people occupied, And run in and rob the bank. That is what Bush is doing.
2006-10-09 12:42:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by King Midas 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's like George Orwell's 1984. When you keep war going on all the time, people's minds are focused on that instead of what is going on in their own country.
2006-10-09 13:31:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by The Doctor 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is the final straw. The republicans can't govern their way out of a paper bag.
2006-10-09 12:28:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
That is so old and stupid.
No one likes war.
Sometimes you have to get your cojones together and stand up for security and freedom.
2006-10-09 12:31:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by opitmdotcom 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
what scale are you using to determine "clinically stupid"?
I've never heard of that test.
2006-10-09 12:35:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You cant hug with nuclear arms.
2006-10-09 12:34:51
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋