JR wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

I fear those who believe they have some duty to expand our role of
influence and to enforce their own sense of morals on other countries
at gunpoint in the name of gawd. There were a couple of phrases in
particular that give me the creeps:

"... America's unique role in preserving and extending an
international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our
principles".

" ... Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity"

Chuck Vance (just what is this "international order" anyway ...
is it anything like the "new world order"?)


Has two parts,

1) The "Wolfowitz Doctrine"

'As the New York Times explained it, the Wolfowitz Doctrine
argues that America's political and military mission should be to
"ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its
focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the
Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of
collective internationalism." Its core thesis, described by Ben
Wattenberg in the April 12, Washington Times, is "to guard
against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for
example, Iraq or China. America is No. 1. We stand for something
decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world.
That's the way we want to keep it."'

http://www.antiwar.com/rep/utley4.html

2) The "Cheney Doctrine" (aka the "One-percent Doctrine")

'......Ron Suskind's riveting new book, "The One Percent
Doctrine," refers to an operating principle that he says Vice
President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr.
Suskind's words, "if there was even a 1 percent chance of
terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction -- and there has
been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time --
the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." He
quotes Mr. Cheney saying that it's not about "our analysis," it's
about "our response," and argues that this conviction effectively
sidelines the traditional policymaking process of analysis and
debate, making suspicion, not evidence, the new threshold for
action.'

http://tinyurl.com/qxfnh

Just lovely. And people really believe that following these two
"doctrines" will make us safer?

Or did I miss the point?


Chuck Vance (yeah, I didn't really miss it, but it sounds so
cynical to say it's all about power and wealth for those in charge of
our military/industrial complex)