|
Post by Ceci on May 3, 2007 17:02:37 GMT -5
It has gained notoriety from the beginning of the Iraq War. You've probably heard about it in passing, but it is the signature document that was created in 1997 that plotted a change in foreign policy, especially in Iraq. Allegedly, they had peddled the plan to former President Clinton, but he swatted it down. And during the current Administration, it has been allegedly used in trying to change how the United States does business right down to suggesting a form of "pax Americana" in the form of democratic regime change. In case you guys wanted to see the the signature document that set it off, here it is. Just remember, it is in PDF form and requires a lot of reading for those who are interested: Rebuilding America's DefensesOther than that, I'd be interested to hear what others have to say about PNAC and its impact on current foreign relations policy.
|
|
|
Post by truthseeka on May 10, 2007 22:23:10 GMT -5
Pretty scary document.
PNAC itself is enough to cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. I mean, Cheney calls for a Pearl Harbor type event to get the public behind their agenda. And we KNOW the govt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance...
Besides that, the first 2 countries on the hit list have been attacked, in order. And this hit list is quite long. Looks a lot like a plan for US imperialism, but I'm not sure how that fits into the world government that so many elites have wet dreams about.
|
|
|
Post by Ceci on May 10, 2007 22:26:23 GMT -5
(I saw that you mentioned the Pearl Harbor event. I had to change my take just a little because of that. ) I do agree entirely with what you said, though. Even though PNAC discusses the Middle East in detail in terms of its spread on democracy, I still think that Iran is the next country on its hit list. The American government is making too many insinuations about Iran to leave it alone. And still there are people in government (as well in the rest of the nation) that will not escape from the manipulation that is taking place because of the document. Iran, to them, is just another step toward democratizing the Middle East. It is quite a read--especially in conjunction with the rest of their documents on their institute page.
|
|
SeventhSeal17
Junior CNV Member
Featured CNV Contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by SeventhSeal17 on May 11, 2007 9:17:39 GMT -5
That's if the Iran doesn't have an internal revolution before we get there If I had to pick one nation in the world today that would be most prone to a revolution, it would be Iran. On a side note, if America does indeed enter Iran with military forces... I'll be leaving this country as soon my means can allow. I can't even stand by the flag without feeling ashamed. About the document, which I only skimmed until I have time to read it, seems to promote "perpetual war for perpetual peace". I think they seem to be confusing the word "defense" with "offense"...
|
|
|
Post by Ceci on May 11, 2007 9:25:51 GMT -5
Although PNAC is more in tune with the scope of dealing with how to get the military back into "fighting shape" while shaping foreign policy toward a "Pax Americana" (their words in the text), Iran is very much there. However, like we discussed in another thread, their plans for this shift in policy is still pretty much based on a conventional war. And from reading the pages, they still don't get the picture that there is a different fighting style in the Middle East than anything based in the past. Truthseeka's right in saying that it is a scary document to say the least. But, how they go about this planning and seeing some the fruits of their labor actually being acted out (and slowly shifting toward Iran) is another story. But you're not the only one about leaving the country. I think that there will be a lot of young adults of draftable age that will be doing the same thing if Iran is going to be part of the larger conflict in the Middle East.
|
|
SeventhSeal17
Junior CNV Member
Featured CNV Contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by SeventhSeal17 on May 11, 2007 9:39:07 GMT -5
I can picture the conversation now: Dick: We should have wars or something George: I read about this called "Rome" or something or other. They had a bunch, we should do that. Dick: Yeah, we could even start an overseas empire! George: Yeah! And we could call it "Pax Americana", that's sooo original Dick: Now I know why you're the President! Seriously though, I don't think emulating the foreign policy of Imperial Rome is the route we want to take... It's a point of fact, empires fail. Always. Nevermind the fact that Colonialism started TWO world wars... World leaders... sometimes I wonder where they get these stupid ideas. Oh, and in regards to a draft. I long for the day I can march up to my local recruiting center and burn my draft card in their imperialist faces. EDIT: And I just read a very interesting section while I was jumping around the document: Also, you just have to love when they say: “arsenal of democracy”. And also, did anyone pick up the undertone of "it's ok to nuke people if it will work" that the article was giving off, at least to me?
|
|