Military coup in Thailand

by **cavalierlwt** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:11 pm

I agree that it wasn't purely about oil, but a bigger picture which oil was a part of.

Read that PNAC crap, they lay it out right in their mission statement. They believe in some sort of American world leadership, and Iraq was supposed to be the establishment of a Democratic foothold in the ME. Once they imagined Iraq turned into some glorious democratic 'proof of concept', they believed Democracy would spread to the ME, dictators could be phased out.....cats and dogs playing together....blah blah blah. And certainly securing the flow of oil was a big part of it, but in their idea it would be secured by setting up America-friendly democracies.

Their whole manifesto is based on the idea of America being 'pro-active' and leading. I guess they forgot to consider that the world ain't looking to led by anyone else.

From their website:
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

This is the thinktank that Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, Cheney were all part of.

by **SavageParrot** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:31 am

Originally posted by RCglider
Scaremongers have been saying that since 1914.

It's bunk.

Tell that to the oil industry then and their furious attempts to carve up nature reserves for oil...

You might not believe it but they certainly do.

by **Chacal** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:35 pm

Originally posted by cavalierlwt

From their website:
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

This is the thinktank that Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, Cheney were all part of.

Makes me throw up every time I read it.

by **petersapien** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:04 pm

Americans bent on world domonation...... what a freaken surprise. Not just american but martally controlled.

by **Chacal** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:19 am

Try to avoid generalization, that leads to flame wars.

by **SavageParrot** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:33 am

I want to know when america is gonna stop living in denial and actually starts calling itself and empire

Historians might like to read the Niall Fergusson book "Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire". I guarantee it's worth the read.

by **PraiseA||ah** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:38 am

Originally posted by SavageParrot
I want to know when america is gonna stop living in denial and actually starts calling itself and empire

Hmm.. Empire...

Well we don't have any countries occupied by our military, dominated by our laws and cultural point of view. We've not extracted any resources to make ourselves richer while subjugating it's indeginous people and forcing governmental and politcal 'reforms' down their throats.

Nope. I just don't see where you're going with this. You're out of your mind SavageParrot.

Oh... Wait a minute!

by **Chacal** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:01 am

Hey! What's wrong with an empire?

by **SavageParrot** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:29 am

The concept of an empire is only intrinsically wrong if you hold democratic freedom to be the best state of being for any man to be in. If you look in terms of wealth, employment, stability then you have to look very hard to find a country that is better of now than it was under the british empire for example. Similarly I can't really see that the people of Puerto Rico, American Samoa or Guam would be better off without america now. And I think the ewoks are destined for some heavy duty political strife withouth vader to enforce peace.

I don't think I really need to list countires that are significatly worse off now than they ever were under the british

by **PraiseA||ah** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:42 am

If only it were that simple. What is really happening though is that economic drain and political power were not totally given up in these countries.

by **SavageParrot** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:15 am

He he because you are still in the colonisation period of empire. The British empire was largely founded in the attempt to make things safe for british companies already operating there. Sound familiar?

At some point it is going to become apparent that Your wealth is largely dependent on thier goodwill and willingness to play along with the rules. If they stop playing I don't rate their chances of staying independent for long.

by **cavalierlwt** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:48 pm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cavalierlwt

From their website:
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

This is the thinktank that Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, Cheney were all part of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Chacal
Makes me throw up every time I read it.

It's amazing that anyone would study Post-WWII American foreign policy and then come to the conclusion that we need even *more* of that type of policy. The idea of stopping an Adolph Hitler before he gets started may seem alluring, but right around the time you're trying to cause a governmental overthrow in a country like Australia, reality should start to set in. The hubris of these guys is simply off the scale.

Military coup in Thailand

Who is online