Et tu, Tim?

Only 9% of Americans want to attack Iran now. 33% would favor using military force in Iran if the U.S. decided to use it; 63% would not.

When we attack Iran is when we know democracy has utterly failed in this country.

Please, Please, Please, people. Do NOT act surprised about some kind of military intervention in Iran.
After Iran is Syria. After Syria is Turkey. After Turkey is Jordan. After Jordan is Egypt.

Read it: PNAC. And, any one of the republican ‘candidates’ (meaning Ron Paul is not a candidate because of MSM) are going to keep the ‘fight’ going.

Read it: newamericancentury.com

Peop le will call you an insane wacko for believing that some thinktank will takeover foreign policy. But, it’s happened before, and, so far, Bush has followed PNAC step for step. Not one single thing has been a surprise to me after reading analysis of PNAC.
Thing is, for some reason, you have to dig deep into the internet to find analysis of PNAC. Why doesn’t Rolling Stone do it?

Jordan, Turkey, Egypt?

Blood: Here is where an analysis of PNAC is, in case you’re curious…….

informationc learinghouse.info/article1665. htm

I know you’ve heard of PNAC. I know you know the list of people involved. The question is, do you support it??

you mean PNAC, the american version of mein kompf? the neo-cons that think that military power can make them uber rich and powerful regardless of what it does to the rest of the nation and the world? yea, I’m familiar with it and the criminals that have signed it’s declaration.

Blows-
I had not really paid much attention to PNAC, prior to your bringing it to my attention. I was unable to link to the article you posted, but have just visited the website. So, far, I fully endorse the very general policy statements that I encountered there. Nothing, save for the slightly Orwellian name of this organization, disturbs me. Perhaps, if I drill down a bit, some sinister purpose will emerge – I am seriously willing to consider this possibility. I think, though, that the organization presents a vision of foreign policy that I find appealing. In a world where any number of nations are vying for regional supremacy and control of critical resources through militarization and other forms of intimidation, I believe that political power will eventually be consolidated in a small number of states possessing the military capability to enforce their hegemony. I would prefer to see this power concentrated in a liberal democracy such as the United States. I am not certain that absolute world domination is something I support, at this point; but, I think that increasingly the problems (ranging from security to the environment) that world faces point to global solutions. Without a consolidation of power, the US, Canada, Europe, and Pacific Rim Democracies are increasingly thwarted in their efforts to effect positive change on the glbal stage. If the US shrinks from its role as the steward of this process, then US risks that role being filled by less scrupulous states – states where the voices of dissent, such as yours, are kept in check through whatever means possible as a matter of policy. I do not suffer from the delusion that the United States will be able to carry out this role without self-interest interjecting itself in the process, nor do I think it will be able to do so with a high-degree of competence. I can only say that it is the best alternative, given the present state of international affairs.

funny, that was hitlers justification for enlarging his empire. control of resources, cleaning up the poor… characterized by jews, romas, mental handicaps etc. …and making the world peaceful by force of arms.
No wonder you support their philosophy so much.

Blood:
Well said. However, your whole argument seems/seemed to be assuming that the threat of terrorism is actually a force big enough to justify military globalization.
Shouldn’t we, first and foremost, figure out if terrorism/terrorists are the threat they’re being perpetrated?
It would make much more FISCAL sense, even in the long term, to figure out how these ‘terrorists’ actually gain the means. I think, if you dug far enough into the economic dealings of these militias, you’d find an American footprint in more than one or two places.
Therefore, while military globalization from a liberal democracy sounds good in theory, sounds are often interpreted in different ways.

Reality blows, There is no need to attack Jordan, Egypt or Syria, Israel can take care of those 3. Iran is different their weapons are killing Americans in Iraq. Irans nueclear program is a threat and must be destroyed.

As long as we’re considering attacking Iran we need to open a dialogue about when we will get around to bombing France. France has socialized medicine (practically Communism) a large population of Islamifascists and hundreds of nuclear reactors. Don’t forget they opposed the invasion of Iraq. Also unlike Sadam Hussein they did harbor terrorists.

How dangerous is that?

Thank God we have a mammoth military industrial complex in this country that has more than enough bombs to go around.

Go Rudey!

I agree, pretty much, (how can I not, you usually argue at a lofty and dareIsay ‘esoteric’ level, and this post is getting farther and farther away. I’m sure future threads will see us return to this vein for mining.

another one of those didactic tactics, overwhelm them with volume and no content. greenspan was a master at saying nothing in as many convoluted/ing words as possible. I believe this guy must be greenspans understudy in that respect.

“the count of democracies is considered to be somewhere over 100 countries at present and has grown steadily since WWII. ”

Is that saying nothing?

Jed-
What are “didactic tactics?”

so that would make the supreme court and the cabinet are positions of profit. well, that makes perfect sense… I understand why they act the way they do, they are there merely to profit themselves, their cronies and their party. Seems somewhat logical I guess. What it has become, that is.

intellectual laziness prevents you from looking up words in dictionary.com? or are you too used to having things, including knowledge, handed down to you for your consumption and assimilation.

Actually, I prefer onelook dot com.

JOHN MC CAIN – NEO-CON REP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATED

Lobbies for American wealth and blood to sacrificed in wars against Iraq and Iran – solely in the interests of Israel.

His citizenship is American; but his heart is transparently pure Israeli.

As he cries ouT” bomb – bomb – bomb, the American People send his poll ratings down – down – down.

JOHN McCAIN – NEO-CON REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE?

Lobbies for American wealth and blood to be sacrificed in wars against Iraq and Iran – solely in the interests of miscreant Israel.

His citizenship is American; but his heart is transparently pure Israeli – a dedicated agent of the Israeli Lobby.

As he cries out: bomb – bomb – bomb, the American People send his poll ratings down – down – down.