donal rumsfeld, paul wolfowitz, dick cheney and others signed a statement stating what PNAC was about and what it stood for. The statement said that America needed to increase spending on defense dramatically and needed to wage a continuous war on many fronts focusing on the middle east with no end. in order to become the dominant imperial force in the world. and that it would take many years for this to happen unless a CATASTROPHIC PEARL HARBOR LIKE EVENT happened to speed up the process.
This has all been published, exists, and is not in any way a conspiracy theorists wet dream.
2007-09-14 16:17:22 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
this is their website http://www.newamericancentury.org/ the report that is signed off on by the members of this administration is called rebuilding america's defense. It was published in 2000 but was written between 1997 and 2000 not the 70's. and a contingency plan shouldn't include wishing for war and hoping for it and saying america needs to be in a never ending war in order to be the dominant emperial country in the world.
2007-09-14 21:12:34 · update #1
Those of us who have read up on the subject care. Some prefer not to know.
Here's a link to PNAC's website. The group is quite real, and an extraordinary number of its signatories hold or held powerful positions in the Bush administration: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Elliot Abrams (of Iran/Contra fame), Gary Bauer the arch-right wing fundamentalist politician, Zalmay Khalilzad, Frances Fukuyama, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Dan Quayle, and the disgraced moralist William Bennett.
Their letters and position papers are there for anyone to read who cares to.
Alas, it seems more convenient to some to attempt to bash you than to attempt to debate you. Thanks for the post. It's worth many stars, confrontational tone and all.
2007-09-14 16:53:16 · answer #1 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Meaning no disrespect may I offer a kind suggestion that you may need to re phrase & look at your post before you submit it. I am being kind but many will verbally slay you for nobody vs anybody and spelling. It can be a tuff room here. Just one poster to another.
It is common knowledge that war is always supposed to be good for the economy. I am concerned where you got this information from and would appreciate a link if available.
During the Clinton administration it was reported (my bad I have not the link in hand) that downsizing the military was appropriate as things were ??? He made some excuse. Including closure of PEARL HARBOR. Believe it or not, yes, I am a Hawaii resident and base closures were happening all over then someone said Pearl was no longer necessary??
I truly believe that these plans of unrest in the Middle East are simply untrue. Even Clinton would not go that far. He just set up the disasters to happen, in my opinion. So, if you speak of dreams please give of more to go on. Thanks and keep writing on. Kim
2007-09-14 16:31:09 · answer #2 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This was published in the late 70s and has little or no bearing on what is happening now. As far as the" pearl harbor event" the exact statement says that is what it would take to unite the American people. It did not hope that such an event would happen This piece of rubbish is usually the first statement out of the mouth of any conspiracy theorist. And there was nothing in there about becoming an "imperial force" you are making statements that are not true.
2007-09-14 16:27:28 · answer #3 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Planning contingencies and strategy, understanding threats, projecting the current events as a function of the future, hypothesize....
Would it surprise you to know there are plans for just about any event you could imagine? I doesn't surprise me, and I am glad their are. When something happens unexpectedly, they turn to the plans to use as a starting point for an action plan. Those plans stay in place for all administrations, and are continually reviewed and updated. Do you think that a President takes office and knows everything that needs to be known?
With your logic, we wouldn't even have a military. We would just stand around like a bunch of jackasses waiting for something to happen, then react to it.
I know some of the documents you are talking about. I don't have links for them anymore. They are old, and they are part of what government does. Plan for the future. Imperialism is not part of the picture, or the language.
2007-09-14 16:27:00 · answer #4 · answered by Chef 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
hmm i notice that you do not post any reliable sources .. or any sources at all.. whre do you get this info?
I will actually go look at it. Thank you for the reply The reply link is not working so I add it to comments. While conservative in many ways I am always open to learning more! After all a nickle lands heads up half the time
2007-09-14 16:25:32 · answer #5 · answered by allamericanred2 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess Reagan must have been in on it also- cause he put a lot of money into building up the military.
2007-09-14 16:23:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Bush talked about taking out Saddam before the election in 2000 during his campaign. Clinton also wanted to topple him but he wanted to do it with peaceful means using the sanctions that were in place when we attacked Iraq.
2007-09-14 16:24:31 · answer #7 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Of course my opinion is changed. You people have been saying for so many years what an idiot Bush is, but now you tell me he has had a master plan all along. I am aghast. My delusions overwhelm me.
Published? Uh Huh! Where. What a stupid question.
2007-09-14 16:23:59 · answer #8 · answered by Jim H 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Can you or anyone else prove that? If someone published something like this, does that mean it is true? Hell no!
2007-09-14 16:31:09 · answer #9 · answered by Max 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Everyone look up Project for a New American Century.
It is published and it is real.
Get a clue.
2007-09-14 16:27:12 · answer #10 · answered by Howlin' 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋