Why isn't this scaring anyone else sh1tless?

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

The world isnt that simplistic as you make it sound unfortunately, we're better off "working together" with other nations rather than working alone.

 

[glugglug]

Why isn't this scaring anyone else sh1tless?

Because rose-colored glasses have been mandatory in today's society for a long time now or you get labeled as a pessimistic downer and ignored. The prescription has just recently been severely increased.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

The world isnt that simplistic as you make it sound unfortunately, we're better off "working together" with other nations rather than working alone.

As with any situation, there may be differences of opinions and sharing of ideas. But thereALWAYS MUST be one leader. No two persons or countries are equal. Those that can't comprehend that (such as the French) risk undermining such alliances.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

Only we aren't behaving very benevolent at the moment. Combative, stubborn, and narrow-minded come more to mind. And on the homefront, the citizens are starting to be deprived of the very things that have made this country so great - freedom and justice. Like I said, the goals are not the issue I have with this, it is the means these people are using to achieve them. They are aiming mighty high, and are set to leave a lot of fallout along the way.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

Only we aren't behaving very benevolent at the moment. Combative, stubborn, and narrow-minded come more to mind. And on the homefront, the citizens are starting to be deprived of the very things that have made this country so great - freedom and justice. Like I said, the goals are not the issue I have with this, it is the means these people are using to achieve them. They are aiming mighty high, and are set to leave a lot of fallout along the way.

To say you're exaggerating is an understatement.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

The world isnt that simplistic as you make it sound unfortunately, we're better off "working together" with other nations rather than working alone.

As with any situation, there may be differences of opinions and sharing of ideas. But thereALWAYS MUST be one leader. No two persons or countries are equal. Those that can't comprehend that (such as the French) risk undermining such alliances.

I think the French very much understand it. And if it's the mentality of the US that there can only be one world leader, they want the EU to be it. No two countries are equal, you always have apples and oranges. And it's damn hard to make a legitimate argument why one is better than the other. And when the US doesn't even have its sh1t straight at home, it's completely assinine to try and force that argument. Unless you are ready, willing, and able to go the 'might makes right' route, which if does come (and from their statement, it sounds like they are in fact gearing up for it), I hope it's a day long after my time.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

The world isnt that simplistic as you make it sound unfortunately, we're better off "working together" with other nations rather than working alone.

As with any situation, there may be differences of opinions and sharing of ideas. But thereALWAYS MUST be one leader. No two persons or countries are equal. Those that can't comprehend that (such as the French) risk undermining such alliances.

I think the French very much understand it. And if it's the mentality of the US that there can only be one world leader, they want the EU to be it. No two countries are equal, you always have apples and oranges. And it's damn hard to make a legitimate argument why one is better than the other. And when the US doesn't even have its sh1t straight at home, it's completely assinine to try and force that argument. Unless you are ready, willing, and able to go the 'might makes right' route, which if does come (and from their statement, it sounds like they are in fact gearing up for it), I hope it's a day long after my time.

so you're saying that the EU, with its rigid labor system that's choking economic growth, has it's sh!t straight and is a model for economic growth and prudent welfare? And are you also saying that the United States, with the largest economy, military, and influence across the globe, should take a back-seat to a hodge-podge institution such as the EU? Are you also saying that the within the EU, all the nations have equal say, or is it lead mainly by the French?

If you're answer is yes to any of these questions, then you need to pass the pipe, cause I really need a hit.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

The world isnt that simplistic as you make it sound unfortunately, we're better off "working together" with other nations rather than working alone.

As with any situation, there may be differences of opinions and sharing of ideas. But thereALWAYS MUST be one leader. No two persons or countries are equal. Those that can't comprehend that (such as the French) risk undermining such alliances.

I think the French very much understand it. And if it's the mentality of the US that there can only be one world leader, they want the EU to be it. No two countries are equal, you always have apples and oranges. And it's damn hard to make a legitimate argument why one is better than the other. And when the US doesn't even have its sh1t straight at home, it's completely assinine to try and force that argument. Unless you are ready, willing, and able to go the 'might makes right' route, which if does come (and from their statement, it sounds like they are in fact gearing up for it), I hope it's a day long after my time.

so you're saying that the EU, with its rigid labor system that's choking economic growth, has it's sh!t straight and is a model for economic growth and prudent welfare? And are you also saying that the United States, with the largest economy, military, and influence across the globe, should take a back-seat to a hodge-podge institution such as the EU? Are you also saying that the within the EU, all the nations have equal say, or is it lead mainly by the French?

If you're answer is yes to any of these questions, then you need to pass the pipe, cause I really need a hit.

No to all of them. I am saying no country, in it's current state, is fit or worthy to take the position as sole world leader, and forcing the issue now or in the forseeable future is going to cause more problems than it solves.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

The world isnt that simplistic as you make it sound unfortunately, we're better off "working together" with other nations rather than working alone.

As with any situation, there may be differences of opinions and sharing of ideas. But thereALWAYS MUST be one leader. No two persons or countries are equal. Those that can't comprehend that (such as the French) risk undermining such alliances.

I think the French very much understand it. And if it's the mentality of the US that there can only be one world leader, they want the EU to be it. No two countries are equal, you always have apples and oranges. And it's damn hard to make a legitimate argument why one is better than the other. And when the US doesn't even have its sh1t straight at home, it's completely assinine to try and force that argument. Unless you are ready, willing, and able to go the 'might makes right' route, which if does come (and from their statement, it sounds like they are in fact gearing up for it), I hope it's a day long after my time.

so you're saying that the EU, with its rigid labor system that's choking economic growth, has it's sh!t straight and is a model for economic growth and prudent welfare? And are you also saying that the United States, with the largest economy, military, and influence across the globe, should take a back-seat to a hodge-podge institution such as the EU? Are you also saying that the within the EU, all the nations have equal say, or is it lead mainly by the French?

If you're answer is yes to any of these questions, then you need to pass the pipe, cause I really need a hit.

No to all of them. I am saying no country, in it's current state, is fit or worthy to take the position as sole world leader, and forcing the issue now or in the forseeable future is going to cause more problems than it solves.

OK, then let's just not say it. If you like, we'll make it a natural transition (BTW, the transition started in 1989). Basically what the PNAC is saying is that we've earned the right to be top dog. We've faced many enemies and challenges and overcome all of them. Now that we are King of the Hill, we shouldn't let anyone dethrone us. They can if they want, but there will be a very high price to pay (as the Soviets found out when they went bankrupt trying to compete against "Star Wars").

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

The world isnt that simplistic as you make it sound unfortunately, we're better off "working together" with other nations rather than working alone.

As with any situation, there may be differences of opinions and sharing of ideas. But thereALWAYS MUST be one leader. No two persons or countries are equal. Those that can't comprehend that (such as the French) risk undermining such alliances.

I think the French very much understand it. And if it's the mentality of the US that there can only be one world leader, they want the EU to be it. No two countries are equal, you always have apples and oranges. And it's damn hard to make a legitimate argument why one is better than the other. And when the US doesn't even have its sh1t straight at home, it's completely assinine to try and force that argument. Unless you are ready, willing, and able to go the 'might makes right' route, which if does come (and from their statement, it sounds like they are in fact gearing up for it), I hope it's a day long after my time.

so you're saying that the EU, with its rigid labor system that's choking economic growth, has it's sh!t straight and is a model for economic growth and prudent welfare? And are you also saying that the United States, with the largest economy, military, and influence across the globe, should take a back-seat to a hodge-podge institution such as the EU? Are you also saying that the within the EU, all the nations have equal say, or is it lead mainly by the French?

If you're answer is yes to any of these questions, then you need to pass the pipe, cause I really need a hit.

No to all of them. I am saying no country, in it's current state, is fit or worthy to take the position as sole world leader, and forcing the issue now or in the forseeable future is going to cause more problems than it solves.

OK, then let's just not say it. If you like, we'll make it a natural transition (BTW, the transition started in 1989). Basically what the PNAC is saying is that we've earned the right to be top dog. We've faced many enemies and challenges and overcome all of them. Now that we are King of the Hill, we shouldn't let anyone dethrone us. They can if they want, but there will be a very high price to pay (as the Soviets found out when they went bankrupt trying to compete against "Star Wars").

Nations change, is the ensurance of US (or any one country's) world dominance for eternity really something you want to happen? 100 years from now the US may become more oppressive than Iraq, who's going to liberate us (meaning the whole planet) then?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Dari
The Project for A New American Century is one of the best and most forward-looking paper I've ever read (you guys are over 6 years late). If all of these policies are enacted by future administrations, the world will be a better place. Global leadership eminating from Washington D.C. is the epitome of the new utopia.


EDIT: The signatories are the Who's Who of advocates for a stronger American foreign policy.

To hear you tell it, I think we're 19 years late. A true utopia eminating out of D.C. is about as likely to happen as potpourri eminating from my ass.

Look at Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Those regions/countries have followed American leadership for the past 50 years. While they were under our wings, democracy flourished and poverty dissapated. Now, region by region, we will extend the wings of our benelovent empire across the globe. Nothing could be better.

The world isnt that simplistic as you make it sound unfortunately, we're better off "working together" with other nations rather than working alone.

As with any situation, there may be differences of opinions and sharing of ideas. But thereALWAYS MUST be one leader. No two persons or countries are equal. Those that can't comprehend that (such as the French) risk undermining such alliances.

I think the French very much understand it. And if it's the mentality of the US that there can only be one world leader, they want the EU to be it. No two countries are equal, you always have apples and oranges. And it's damn hard to make a legitimate argument why one is better than the other. And when the US doesn't even have its sh1t straight at home, it's completely assinine to try and force that argument. Unless you are ready, willing, and able to go the 'might makes right' route, which if does come (and from their statement, it sounds like they are in fact gearing up for it), I hope it's a day long after my time.

so you're saying that the EU, with its rigid labor system that's choking economic growth, has it's sh!t straight and is a model for economic growth and prudent welfare? And are you also saying that the United States, with the largest economy, military, and influence across the globe, should take a back-seat to a hodge-podge institution such as the EU? Are you also saying that the within the EU, all the nations have equal say, or is it lead mainly by the French?

If you're answer is yes to any of these questions, then you need to pass the pipe, cause I really need a hit.

No to all of them. I am saying no country, in it's current state, is fit or worthy to take the position as sole world leader, and forcing the issue now or in the forseeable future is going to cause more problems than it solves.

OK, then let's just not say it. If you like, we'll make it a natural transition (BTW, the transition started in 1989). Basically what the PNAC is saying is that we've earned the right to be top dog. We've faced many enemies and challenges and overcome all of them. Now that we are King of the Hill, we shouldn't let anyone dethrone us. They can if they want, but there will be a very high price to pay (as the Soviets found out when they went bankrupt trying to compete against "Star Wars").

Nations change, is the ensurance of US (or any one country's) world dominance for eternity really something you want to happen? 100 years from now the US may become more oppressive than Iraq, who's going to liberate us (meaning the whole planet) then?

We'll worry about that when it happens. Until then, let's not speculate.

As for perpetual world domination, that is something we have to work towards, HARD. But again, one day at a time, please.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There is really no speculation about it, power corrupts. It's been proven time and time again. And without other prominent countries (not enemies, but allies with thier own point of views) to keep the US in check, it will happen again. I think I need to reiterate, I don't have a problem with the PNAC's goals as stated, but I can't help but feel they are greatly understating their actual target. And to forcibly hasten it along, especially with the methods they have used thus far, as opposed to allowing a natural transition only strengthens my suspicions along with my fears that this will cause more harm than good.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
There is really no speculation about it, power corrupts. It's been proven time and time again. And without other prominent countries (not enemies, but allies with thier own point of views) to keep the US in check, it will happen again. I think I need to reiterate, I don't have a problem with the PNAC's goals as stated, but I can't help but feel they are greatly understating their actual target. And to forcibly hasten it along, especially with the methods they have used thus far, as opposed to allowing a natural transition only strengthens my suspicions along with my fears that this will cause more harm than good.

like I said earlier, the transition started in 1989, with the fall of the soviet union. that lead francis fukuyama to write "The End of History." But he was wrong. Anyway, from 1989 to September 11, 2001, the US was in a transition of a transition. We were becoming the preemminent power, but at tthe same time we shared the burden and prestige with our allies (an example of which was the serbian conflict, which was a disaster because clinton decided to let a general from each western country call the shots). After 9/11, the resentment and fear (of our new found power) emerged from the shadows. Our allies and enemies started to complain loudly about american hegemony and the need for a multi-polar world, all of which is non-sense considering that they want to eat the cake without helping to bake it. But the architects of the PNAC are in power and they have no interest in sharing this delicious cake (sorry, I'm at work and a cake sounds delicious right about now).

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
There is really no speculation about it, power corrupts. It's been proven time and time again. And without other prominent countries (not enemies, but allies with thier own point of views) to keep the US in check, it will happen again. I think I need to reiterate, I don't have a problem with the PNAC's goals as stated, but I can't help but feel they are greatly understating their actual target. And to forcibly hasten it along, especially with the methods they have used thus far, as opposed to allowing a natural transition only strengthens my suspicions along with my fears that this will cause more harm than good.

like I said earlier, the transition started in 1989, with the fall of the soviet union. that lead francis fukuyama to write "The End of History." But he was wrong. Anyway, from 1989 to September 11, 2001, the US was in a transition of a transition. We were becoming the preemminent power, but at tthe same time we shared the burden and prestige with our allies (an example of which was the serbian conflict, which was a disaster because clinton decided to let a general from each western country call the shots). After 9/11, the resentment and fear (of our new found power) emerged from the shadows. Our allies and enemies started to complain loudly about american hegemony and the need for a multi-polar world, all of which is non-sense considering that they want to eat the cake without helping to bake it. But the architects of the PNAC are in power and they have no interest in sharing this delicious cake (sorry, I'm at work and a cake sounds delicious right about now).

Actually, after 9/11, there was a lot of international support offered to us. But Bush with his my-way-or-the-highway attitude pissed it all away and brought about the fear and complaints. But anyway, the resentment of our power is a problem, one I don't see being solved by creating more resentment and gaining more power. Unless, as I said earlier, you are willing to use that power to go the might makes right route with anyone that dares resent you. And I think that's a very contradictory direction for a country to go that has it's whole foundation set in tolerance and freedom.

 

[FuzzyBee]

But anyway, the resentment of our power is a problem, one I don't see being solved by creating more resentment and gaining more power.

How do you see it being solved - to just roll over and ask the people that hate us what would make them feel better?

i have no problem at all with America looking out primarily for our interests. Isn't that what every other nation does?

 

[Fencer128]

There are some very disturbing viewpoints here. I don't know what's worse - that people want to assimilate the world or that they think that they're doing all countries a favour by doing so.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Then why is the UN constitution almost identical to the US's? seems most people think it's not so bad...

 

[Red Dawn]

The fact that Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush and Bill Bennett are members of that group is what's unnerving to me!

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Then why is the UN constitution almost identical to the US's? seems most people think it's not so bad...

If you see the UN and the US as being so similar then you need to do a little more research.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The fact that Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush and Bill Bennett are members of that group is what's unnerving to me!

Dan Quayle? That's unpossible!