So it is, before I get started, here is a link: Project For the New American Century
Read the post before you vote in the poll, and to those who took the 'pledge on no Iraq threads' feel free to skip this, as that is likely what it will turn out to be.
It really, all starts back in pre-WWII, where the U.S. had to worry about growing concerns from the Nazis, due to a lack of army, George C. Marshall, instituted a vote on the congress, to make the U.S. army grow in size. The vote got through, but only for 1 year, during this time he had to deal with lack of funding also, and many U.S.soldiers were training with broomsticks, and previously had numbered only a few over100.000!
The Congress decided that one year was enough, and Marshall had to beg for them to support it again, it only passed by a few votes, a very small majority. Months later, Pearl Harbor was bombed. George C. Marshall was Chief of the U.S. army at the time, i.e. Dwight D. Eisenhowers boss, and after the war he was promoted to Secretary of State.
Europe was unstable, Marshall was disillusioned, thinking that the recovery of Europe could be dealt with by the Soviet Union, after a meeting with Joseph Stalin, his thought rapidly changed, and he decided Russia planned to profit from Europes problems, as opposed to trying to restore it, and start a plan of restoration. He devised a plan, and gave his speech at Harvard, (MASS.) University. In which he stated that Europe should have constant and reliable help from the U.S. during its trying times. Which, in some respects, interprets to building up a country as much as possible, and setting up a U.S. democratic form of Government, i.e. one that is acceptable to us (Americans). It was carried out in Japan also, if that helps to shed more light on the subject.
Now, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), is, in all respects Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The idea is to make one such Democratic state out of Iraq, and thus pacify much of the Middle East, to set a example, and to make the Middle East think of us a friend, not something they should go sacrifice their lives, for a chance to kill our civilians.
Obviously biased, but in effect it is a National Defense plan also. And their view on these subjects is frequent. It is a Right-wing think-tank hell-bent for war. The Idea behind the war with Iraq, was that we would put the Marshall plan into play, make Iraq to the Middle East into what Japan is to S. Eastern Asia. We turn a potentially hostile government, and make it into a intensely pro-American society, to influence that area and change their view on the west. You may doubt what I am saying about PNAC influence on the Bush Administration, but chances are, after I tell you that Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, and Cheney, were all part of PNAC, along with William Kristol, the editor of the The Weekly Standard, and currently leads PNAC, you will see a lot of The Weekly Standards articles on the PNAC site, perhaps you will believe that war with Iraq was planned since this PNAC started dominating the Republicans leading candidate, in effect, making George W Bush a puppet of sorts.
In actuality, it is a good plan, and will, no-doubt make Iraq into a Democracy, as that is their whole point. It somewhat amuses me that people foreign to the U.S. will go about posting things like:
, even with smilies. And to give European anti-americanism a little punch in the arm
.
Mindless Americans not sure of foreign affairs? Hmmm, seems to me you should be worried about which americans are running for president, and what his administrations intentions are, as it effects you, just as much, if not more, than it effects us.
Maybe next time you can include that in your intensive scanning of the thousand and one places on the internet, anarres, so I wont have to go to the trouble. And bring this to your intention, for something that came into affect, 3 years ago.
A pretty big IF? Im not so sure, as building up Iraq is the entire reason we are making war against them, according to PNAC, the people who decided we should take over Iraq in the first place.
In any effect, I am opposed to much of it, even though I believe it is the only way to significantly reduce Middle Eastern Terrorism on the U.S. (Or the threat of) and other countries. We all believe Saddam is not a good ruler, and kills his people brutally, but does that justify a war? A war in which we take over Iraq, destroy many buildings and lives, just to build it up again, and make it friendly to us?
Read the post before you vote in the poll, and to those who took the 'pledge on no Iraq threads' feel free to skip this, as that is likely what it will turn out to be.
It really, all starts back in pre-WWII, where the U.S. had to worry about growing concerns from the Nazis, due to a lack of army, George C. Marshall, instituted a vote on the congress, to make the U.S. army grow in size. The vote got through, but only for 1 year, during this time he had to deal with lack of funding also, and many U.S.soldiers were training with broomsticks, and previously had numbered only a few over100.000!
The Congress decided that one year was enough, and Marshall had to beg for them to support it again, it only passed by a few votes, a very small majority. Months later, Pearl Harbor was bombed. George C. Marshall was Chief of the U.S. army at the time, i.e. Dwight D. Eisenhowers boss, and after the war he was promoted to Secretary of State.
Europe was unstable, Marshall was disillusioned, thinking that the recovery of Europe could be dealt with by the Soviet Union, after a meeting with Joseph Stalin, his thought rapidly changed, and he decided Russia planned to profit from Europes problems, as opposed to trying to restore it, and start a plan of restoration. He devised a plan, and gave his speech at Harvard, (MASS.) University. In which he stated that Europe should have constant and reliable help from the U.S. during its trying times. Which, in some respects, interprets to building up a country as much as possible, and setting up a U.S. democratic form of Government, i.e. one that is acceptable to us (Americans). It was carried out in Japan also, if that helps to shed more light on the subject.
Now, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), is, in all respects Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The idea is to make one such Democratic state out of Iraq, and thus pacify much of the Middle East, to set a example, and to make the Middle East think of us a friend, not something they should go sacrifice their lives, for a chance to kill our civilians.
Obviously biased, but in effect it is a National Defense plan also. And their view on these subjects is frequent. It is a Right-wing think-tank hell-bent for war. The Idea behind the war with Iraq, was that we would put the Marshall plan into play, make Iraq to the Middle East into what Japan is to S. Eastern Asia. We turn a potentially hostile government, and make it into a intensely pro-American society, to influence that area and change their view on the west. You may doubt what I am saying about PNAC influence on the Bush Administration, but chances are, after I tell you that Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, and Cheney, were all part of PNAC, along with William Kristol, the editor of the The Weekly Standard, and currently leads PNAC, you will see a lot of The Weekly Standards articles on the PNAC site, perhaps you will believe that war with Iraq was planned since this PNAC started dominating the Republicans leading candidate, in effect, making George W Bush a puppet of sorts.
In actuality, it is a good plan, and will, no-doubt make Iraq into a Democracy, as that is their whole point. It somewhat amuses me that people foreign to the U.S. will go about posting things like:
And...
...and...
The last one has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, but I figured I would throw it in there, as the URL quotes look pretty damn good
., even with smilies. And to give European anti-americanism a little punch in the arm.Mindless Americans not sure of foreign affairs? Hmmm, seems to me you should be worried about which americans are running for president, and what his administrations intentions are, as it effects you, just as much, if not more, than it effects us.
Maybe next time you can include that in your intensive scanning of the thousand and one places on the internet, anarres, so I wont have to go to the trouble. And bring this to your intention, for something that came into affect, 3 years ago.
A pretty big IF? Im not so sure, as building up Iraq is the entire reason we are making war against them, according to PNAC, the people who decided we should take over Iraq in the first place.
In any effect, I am opposed to much of it, even though I believe it is the only way to significantly reduce Middle Eastern Terrorism on the U.S. (Or the threat of) and other countries. We all believe Saddam is not a good ruler, and kills his people brutally, but does that justify a war? A war in which we take over Iraq, destroy many buildings and lives, just to build it up again, and make it friendly to us?
. And even worse when you think that half the people who voted for him didnt even know.
, I never thought of including that in the poll
. I was talking about the point that many people go about saying Americans do not know anything about international relations, apparently many Europeans do not know much about their international relations either. Also, I know from post you have made on other threads, you have a very negative outlook on the U.S. Why do we think the way we do against the French? Because we have free-speech, we have allowed racist to exist in our country, because they have the option to choose who they like, or dislike. The U.S. government is not going around telling people to destroy French bought things, but they spent there money on it, they can use it however they want. Its the same with American based anti-Americanism, they bought our flag, they have the right to burn it. My point, who are you to tell me who I can or cant like? Will I listen to you now? No, would I listen to you if you told me to dislike the French? Absolutely not. 
.
