Names to know

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.

"Fred Lebow" wrote in message
et...
Do you think that the scumbags have a vested interest in military
spending???


Fred


I seem to remember that many of them hold or have held paying positions on
Boards of MilitaryIndustrial corporations, so I'd think they do have a
direct vested interest. Moreso, I think that their motivation is for the
benefit of the US and the US economy, and since they see the US military
playing a key role in establishing a beneficial economy, then I think you
could say that they have an indirect vested interest also.

I mean, they aren't doing this altruistically, are they?

--riverman

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

I worry equally about loonies like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manucher_Ghorbanifar

...and the fact that he's still trying to sell ideas to weakminded pols,
such as George Bush.

After reading about PNAC, I've realized that Bush, et al, aren't weakminded
or stupid at all. They are incredibly intelligent and strong-willed people
pursuing a stupid goal. Despite my inherent disagreement with their
principles, I gotta give them some credit: they DID get themselves injected
into government at all levels and were able to make a running stab at their
ideals. You can't say that about most Political Think Tank operations.

--riverman

Jonathan Cook wrote:
rw wrote:


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?


I agree with 1-7. But if 1-7 are satisfied, #8 doesn't matter.
In any case we really don't mean "broad" (e.g., a simple majority
of the UN member countries), we really mean "most of the
countries we consider as 'important' friends"...which ends up
being a tiny fraction of the world.

These douche bags violated every single principle of the Powell Doctrine.

Jon.
PS: full freezer?

Nope. We scouted a perfect setup two days before the opener, but the
wolves drove the elk off. Now we've had a heavy snow and the hunting is
over -- our spot is remote and the trails are too hazardous. That's the
way it goes.



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

In article , says...
After reading about PNAC, I've realized that Bush, et al, aren't weakminded
or stupid at all. They are incredibly intelligent and strong-willed people
pursuing a stupid goal.



I wouldn't even say it was a stupid goal, since they wanted to make the
world a better place by spreading democracy throughout the middle east.
I do think that they chose about the worst possible way to achieve that
goal.

One problem with fanatics is that they only listen to other fanatics.
The skeptic who interrupts the conversation to say "This won' work
because..." or "What if..." either gets browbeaten into submission or
gets excommunicated from the cult (look at the long list of military
officers and intelligence officials who got canned for trying to point
out inconvenient realities to the bosses.)

Kevin