View Full Version : Project for the New American Century (LONG)

08-23-2004, 11:15 PM
I have recently learned of these documents, and quite frankly, they scare the hell out of me.

Key Positions
Among the key conclusions of PNAC’s defense strategy document (Rebuilding America’s Defenses) were the following [3]:

* “Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.”
* “Control the new ‘international commons’ of space and ‘cyberspace,’ and pave the way for the creation of a new military service—U.S. Space Forces—with the mission of space control.”
* “Increase defense spending, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.”
* “Exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs’ [transformation to high-tech, unmanned weaponry] to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces.”
* “Need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements” complaining that the U.S. has “virtually ceased development of safer and more effective nuclear weapons.”
* “Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces.”
* “America must defend its homeland” by “reconfiguring its nuclear force” and by missile defense systems that “counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.”
* “Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter” and the U.S. “should seek to establish a network of ‘deployment bases’ or ‘forward operating bases’ to increase the reach of current and future forces,” citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia to increased permanent military presence in Southeast Asia and “other regions of East Asia.” Necessary “to cope with the rise of China to great-power status.”
* Redirecting the U.S. Air Force to move “toward a global first-strike force.”
* End the Clinton administration’s “devotion” to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
* “North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself.”
* “Main military missions” necessary to “preserve Pax Americana” and a “unipolar 21st century” are the following: “secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war.”

........To justify a need to "rearm" the country, however, reasons must be found. In the more peaceable world of the late 1990s, with no rival super-power in sight, Iraq and "ballistic missile defense" against "rogue states" were the main games in town. The group's links to advocacy for ballistic missile defense came through Donald Rumsfeld, who in 1998 chaired a bi-partisan commission on the "US Ballistic Missile Threat" and Vin Weber, a registered lobbyist for Lockheed Martin and other Fortune 500 companies.

........PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Cent ury#History

And then they use Chalabi's testimony as "fact" proving Saddam's danger to the US. Seems to be a slight conflict there. The rough drafts of these documents were drawn up in '92 by Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams (convicted liar), Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc..

They look a lot like rough drafts for global economical domination. Many of the people involved have direct ties to big businesses such as oil, weapons, mercenaries, and so on.

Several original PNAC members, including Cheney, Khalilzad and the Bush family, have ties to the oil industry. Many other members have been long-time fixtures in the U.S. military establishment or Cold War "strategic studies," including Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Vin Weber, and Paul Dundes Wolfowitz. It should not be surprising, therefore, that while the group devotes inordinate attention to Iraq, its most general focus has been on a need to "re-arm America." The prospect of mining oil riches may explain part of the group's focus on Iraq, but this motivation has been buried under the rhetoric of national security and the need for strong national defense. <hr /></blockquote>

Pax Americana: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Pax_Americana

The plan "dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic" and, rather, speaks about convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities. "In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence."

To accomplish this goal, the "United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

..........The report struck a prescient note when it observed that “the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”<hr /></blockquote>

The most important consequence of the Iraq intervention for American power is the release of tendencies toward multi-polarism on the part of great powers like China, Russia and -- to a lesser extent -- the Franco-German combine. The second global consequence is the increased difficulty of containing states and movements that fall outside the order of globalization -- specifically, the two other members of the "Axis of Evil" -- Iran and North Korea -- and the stateless movement of Islamic revolution.
Part of the rationale for pre-emptive war in the American National Security Strategy of 2002 was to diminish the threats from other "rogue states." The result of the first application of that policy seems to have been the reverse of what was intended. <hr /></blockquote>

Imperialism, if not already here, is not far off. I urge you to read more about this, and of course, draw your own conclusions. I see this as a policy of "bullyism" and it looks like they're on their way to implementing it full force. Is this really good for america? Or is it good for american companies? Do we really want to sustain troops all over the world policing our "installed democracies"? If the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld's "National Security Strategy" of '02 was drafted from these documents doesn't prove the long held agenda for an Iraqi war, I don't know what does.

I apologize for the length of this post.

08-24-2004, 06:03 AM
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence."
<hr /></blockquote>

cool /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

08-24-2004, 06:38 AM
sieg heil /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif