the Project for a New American Century

[Karmashock]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

If anyone wants a real good insight into the minds that are driving current US foreign policy, then i recommend this site.

It counts many top US officials as members...

[Papa Smurf]

The organisations name says it all.

[Karmashock]

No it doesn't.

Statement of Principles
June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Read some of the articles... there are very clear principles.

[Morpheus]

Just from that quote, it looks alot like propaganda. US needs to sort out the mess inside first, before going around and telling others what to do.

[shutupandshave]

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
this scares me

[Papa Smurf]

i stand by my original comment new american century, american denotes ownership, it tells the story before i had even opened the link, and yes i did read a few of the articals and wow they were right wing politcal dogma just as i expected.

And yes, those type of sweeping, we are the greatest statements, scare me too.

Especially when you consider they is a monkey incharge there now, all its going to take is an organ grinder, then we are truly screwed.

[Tank0]

i know i have read things like that b4 ...... mmmm .....

From the very first day I have proclaimed as a fundamental principle: 'the German is either the first soldier in the world or he is no soldier at all.' No soldiers at all we cannot be, and we do not wish to be. Therefore we shall be only the first. As one who is a lover of peace I have endeavored to create for the German people such an army and such munitions as are calculated to convince others, too, to seek peace.

======

I believe that for us all these international hopes can only teach us to stand firm together and to cling to our friends. The more that we in Germany form a single community, the less favorable will be the prospects of these inciters to war, and the closer we unite ourselves in particular with the State which is in a position similar to ours, with Italy, the less desire they will have to pick a quarrel with us! . . .

======

Adolf Hitler

WEIMAR

SPEECH OF NOVEMBER 6, 1938






When they say in other countries that they will arm and will keep arming still more, I can tell those statesmen only this: They will not be able to tire me out. I am determined to proceed on this road and I have a conviction that we shall proceed faster than the others. No power on earth will ever again be able to entice the weapons from us through any phrase.

Should, however, somebody be craving for measuring their strength with ours, then the German people also are ready at any time and I am ready and determined.

====

We have done it and have now erected a national German people's State. This people's State wants to live in peace and friendship with any other State but it will never again let itself be forced down by another State.

I do not know whether the world will become fascist! But I am deeply convinced that this world in the end will defend itself against the most severe bolshevistic threat that exists.

Therefore I believe that a final understanding between nations will come sooner or later. Only when this Jewish wedge among peoples is removed can the establishment of co-operation among nations - built on lasting understanding - be considered.

=====


During the same time as the so-called peace-loving and Puritan nations led a great number of wars, Germany then knew only one aim: To maintain peace, to work in peace, to raise the prosperity of its inhabitants, and thereby to contribute to human culture and civilization.

=====


Then our people will bloom and flourish. Our people will be able to put their geniality, their ability, their diligence and steadfastness into the works of peace and human culture. This is our desire. We hope for it and we believe in it.

=====

Believe, therefore, because of this wonderful road, also in the course of the German people in its coming great future!

Germany - Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!

=====

Adolf Hitler

WILHELMSHAVEN

SPEECH OF APRIL 1, 1939

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/

[shutupandshave]

now that IS scary

Although Karma wont be able to see the comparisons... or else the US will have "controls" in place to stop it happening to them ;)

[Morpheus]

I actually thought of the comparison before, Tank0, only didn't want to bring it up, knowing what kind of reaction I would get.

[Karmashock]

Just from that quote, it looks alot like propaganda. US needs to sort out the mess inside first, before going around and telling others what to do.
It's a statement of intent. As to mess, the world isn't sitting still. You assume that we'll be able to do as much good in the future.

anyway, things are going well so far... I honestly want you to go through the site.

This isn't the stuff they put out for public consumption. This is something that is more around for a smaller number of like minded people. Which is why much of it can be so easily taken the wrong way.
=============================
this scares me
That's how you know its sincer. It's not been rephrased to make you comfortable.

i'm putting this up so you'll be tempted to read into it. This will give you a very very good understanding of what is driving us.

Seriously... some of it is scary... you don't think I see this? I do... but you have to put it in context.
=============================
i stand by my original comment new american century, american denotes ownership, it tells the story before i had even opened the link, and yes i did read a few of the articals and wow they were right wing politcal dogma just as i expected.
Not ownership... we don't expect to be out there alone. However, we have a choice, considering our power, as to how the world can be. We can do nothing and leave the world as it is, or we can change it.

The question then becomes if we wish to change it... how should it look?

we've decided democracy... I don't see an arguement against that means much to me.

And yes, those type of sweeping, we are the greatest statements, scare me too.
I understand that, which is why it should be taken NOT as a PR statement. Its for the like minded. It hasn't been polished for you. If you want a real honest understanding of what is going on, then there it is. Think of it like reading someone's diary or personal journal.

Especially when you consider they is a monkey incharge there now, all its going to take is an organ grinder, then we are truly screwed.
Bush isn't much... we never liked him... he was just reliable.
now that IS scary

Although Karma wont be able to see the comparisons... or else the US will have "controls" in place to stop it happening to them ;)
if we're anything more then your monkey, we're bad.

deal with the fact that Europe is not a prime mover in the world anymore. It's a blow to your pride, but calling us evil is going too far.

[shutupandshave]

It's the fact that the unpolished statements look identical to polished Nazi statements....

I hope this doesn't catch on.

[Karmashock]

they look nothing alike. Where did the nazis say they wanted to spread freedom and end tyranny?

no where

[shutupandshave]

:) - I see it.... when you can, you will have taken your first step towards intellectual independence :)

[Karmashock]

You mean conformity to your group think? :lol:

I posted this so that you could learn something, and you’re not taking advantage of that.


Oh well… it was here for you to learn.


Post your version of this…

[shutupandshave]

I have no policies for aggressively converting countries to force the governments into a shape I've defined, sorry.

[JADezimar]

"Yes the german america is going to pillage, destroy and take all for itself" muahhahaa. "We will make you speak our language, and serve in our military sounds great."

[Karmashock]

I have no policies for aggressively converting countries to force the governments into a shape I've defined, sorry.

Yes you do. You believe in globalism and the absolute power of the UN... at least... ideally.


I believe each nation should have individual sovereignty and that all governments should be subject to their host populations via democratic elections and national referendums.


If you disagree with that, then we have different conceptions of the future... as we obviously do.

[shutupandshave]

I want globalisation but not aggressive globalisation... there's a big difference...

However, here's the interesting thing. I am unsure as to whether it's possible to achieve globalisation unaggressively.

[Karmashock]

I want globalisation but not aggressive globalisation... there's a big difference...

However, here's the interesting thing. I am unsure as to whether it's possible to achieve globalisation unaggressively.
Globalism is inherently aggressive. it isn't 'regionalism', it's GLOBALISM. It makes those that participate more powerful then those that don't. This destablizes regional power bases. This will put the global powers against the regional OTHER groups, that might ally at some point in nothing but opposition to the WESTERN GLOBAL movement.

That globalism is ineviable. The world is too small to have such bitterly different systems. There will be horrible horrible war.

That is unless we can make the revolutions mostly internal. Civil wars instead actual wars. A series of cultural collapses towards what is without a doubt a superior system by moral virtue alone.

Democracy takes the minds of the people first. While we might scare you, we give those living in oppression hope. That hope eats away at the foundation of the tyrannies of the world. Hope is what kills them. And in their stead we'll have free societies that are the peer and equal of any nation (per capita at least) just as those are generally equal within each society. It will be a safer world and a friendlier world. A world where you wouldn't mind moving to almost any country and raising a family.

I can't see the problem with that. The only thing dying is an old evil... which will get its chance in the halls of congress around the world as they shift to democratic systems... but it hsould be kept in check by about million medias and competing interests... just as they are in our nations respectively.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

I dont think it's globalisation until everyone is involved.

[Morpheus]

I believe that every country should leave each other the f... alone, and only act when specifically requested to do so, not just imply that you're doing something for their own good.

[shutupandshave]

Hmmm, well that's got merit, but I dont feel it's a good way to get things done for the future.

Why not every town, or every city, or every road, or every continent or every land mass.

I believe it has to be all or nothing.

[Morpheus]

Then let there be all or nothing. People that need each other will still need each other. People that can be completely self-sufficient will be left alone. Cooperation can produce drammatic results, so it is very beneficial. Thing is, when a problem arises, noone wants to back off and everyone else wants a say in it. I really don't have an answer to that(other than someone being the smarter one and backing down, but that's not very realistic now, is it), I just know that all current answers are bad ones.

[shutupandshave]

true, but then so is "just leaving it and seeing what happens"

[Karmashock]

I dont think it's globalisation until everyone is involved.
and you support the process that gets people involved... which is the above process... it's been going on for decades... if not centuries.
=====================
I believe that every country should leave each other the f... alone, and only act when specifically requested to do so, not just imply that you're doing something for their own good.
that age has come and gone. The world is too small... we're all neighbors, trade partners, and prospective allies/enemies.


it's just not realistic to assume people will ever leave each other alone... they neve have and they never will.


all I'm suggesting is allowing the people to personally decide exactly how that's going to go down. I assume that the man on the street isn't going to feather his ego by going on a tear like half the tyrants on the planet. He wants a decent job, treated properly, and have a good future for his family... that's about it.

which is really about as simple as it should be. But they tyrants don't feel teh pain. Thye don't care about the people. The people are just pawns. That's what has to stop.