Names to know

Steve wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:40:59 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

IMHO it looks like nothing so much as Manifest Destiny dusted off
and given a new suit of clothes.

So you think that Divine Providence has expanded our franchise? ;-)
Bush could very well believe that.
Nothing encourages sin like the blessing of one's deity.

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"?)

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

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)

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...
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)

Apparently, the complex was a concern long before the public got wind of it:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...ts/indust.html

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:17:03 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:



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

Or did I miss the point?

In short, yes.

In longer, it's only some of the people. Unfortunately many of them
are in political and / or military power.

Personally, I think we're nearing, if not past, the end of being the
determining power of the known world. We're where the British were
before they had to pull in and become quieter. It's the way France
and Germany once had the scientific leadership (and France the
fashion) leadership of the western world. The Brits seem to have
become resigned to being a lesser political, military, and economic
power, but the French and Germans, particularly the French, seem still
a bit bewildered that not all science is first brought out in their
languages.

Look what happened to the Russian brand of communist rule. It
overspent trying to keep itself in power to the point where it
collapsed or clogged, like the lungs of someone with COPD. Korea,
Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, costing too much in
productivity and money are going to do, in more or less the same way,
that to us.


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)

I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I think that a lot of those
guys believe what they're doing is the right thing for the US. Then
they foster each other's illusions / delusions. I"m sure that the guy
who said, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."
really believed it, too.

On a side note, there's Afghanistan. I'm mildly superstitious about
it. Everyone with large military / empirical ambitions since
Alexander has conquered it at some time or another. Somehow, nobody
but the Afghans managed to keep it and many of their '"conquerors'"
empires fell apart when they were driven out.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:35:20 -0600, Cyli wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:17:03 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:



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

Or did I miss the point?

In short, yes.

Just to be clear: Not that I meant you missed the point. But that
they think it will make us safer and stronger and better.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

JR wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote:

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


Has two parts,

1) The "Wolfowitz Doctrine"

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

They've evidently discarded the Powell Doctrine, which demands that the
following questions be answered affirmatively:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.