Pax America?
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Pax America?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786

    Pax America?

    Does anyone remember a post where the topic of discussion was something like: US targets enemies with A-Bombs.

    Well, at that time I did some digging and found some more on that press release, which BTW was from the Washington Post. I stored this info in a folder for future reference.

    With Bush’s recent press conferences it might be relevant, and thought I would put it here to kick around.

    Please keep in mind this IS from a ‘very’ right wing organization “the Thomas Paine org.”

    =======================================
    a leaked government document revealed the administration intends to lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons. The Defense Department is planning to develop smaller, more "precise" nuclear bombs, and may consider using them preemptively against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction.

    The Bush administration's actions fit neatly into a plan for United States hegemony first mapped out in a draft Pentagon paper 10 years ago. The secret document, known as the "Defense Policy Guidance," was written by two relatively obscure civilian Pentagon officials in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

    The main authors were Paul Wolfowitz, now the deputy secretary of defense and widely considered among the most hawkish of administration officials, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a lawyer who now serves as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser. During the first Bush administration, both men were working for Cheney, who was defense secretary.

    In 1992, The New York Times was the first to obtain the draft Pentagon paper and break the story. It published excerpts of the document, setting off a storm of controversy in Washington. Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden, now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called it a prescription for "a Pax Americana," or a world order enforced by U.S. power.

    The uproar subsided only after National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and then-Secretary of State James Baker prevailed on Cheney to tone down the final draft, which he did. Though the document may have been revised, administration initiatives today seem strikingly similar to the original.

    According to the original draft, preventing the emergence of a rival superpower "is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

    In addition to Western Europe, these regions include "...East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and Southwest Asia," the same three regions where the new Bush administration has been most promiscuous in deploying military forces since 9/11.
    Indeed, under the new world order envisaged by Wolfowitz and Libby a decade ago, American military intervention around the world would come to be seen "as a constant feature," according to the draft.

    The document even anticipated the latest nuclear moves by the Pentagon, as well as Bush's warning to the "axis of evil" that he would resort to pre-emptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction.

    "The U.S. may be faced with the question of whether to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction," the document said. It noted that pre-emptive attacks, including attacks on nuclear plants, might be required, even in conflicts that did not directly engage U.S. interests.

    Even historic U.S. allies should not be permitted to gain sufficient power to challenge the United States. "We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," the draft said.

    The plans called for a new order that would satisfy the interests of the advanced industrial nations sufficiently to discourage them from challenging American leadership.

    Though the strategies in the document outraged many in 1992, the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon seem to have provided the pretext for Wolfowitz, Libby, and like-minded officials to use a war against terror to reintroduce their 10-year-old ambitions.


    Published: Mar 26 2002
    http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5345
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  2. #2

    Re: Pax America?

    Originally posted here by Tedob1
    =======================================
    defense secretary.


    Even historic U.S. allies should not be permitted to gain sufficient power to challenge the United States. "We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," the draft said.

    Published: Mar 26 2002
    http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5345

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Who made The US the "Rulers Of the World"??


    IMHO, it's because of this type of thinking that The US are targets for every terrorist in the Middle east.



    And it's not only there military way of thinking. Just recently, Mr Bush has given approval to subsidise US farmers. That's great for US farmers but will devestate free trade for the rest of the world. Here's a small quote from a local Australian paper


    The United States Congress is ready to give final approval to an increase in subsidies for US farmers, ignoring warnings from other farming nations, including Australia, that this will spark an international trade war.



    I wish Australian poloticians would pull their heads out of their ass's and stop blindly following the US.....Just my opinion...

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    452
    You think you have it bad? Come on down to Canada, the 51st state.

    Two words. Pax Romana. And we all know what happened to their "invincible armies" when enough people got pissed. Not too great a plan.
    Elen alcarin ar gwath halla ná engwar.

  4. #4
    Senior Member cwk9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,211
    I'm with Conf1rm3d_K1ll and thesecretfire on this one.

    The United States Congress is ready to give final approval to an increase in subsidies for US farmers, ignoring warnings from other farming nations, including Australia, that this will spark an international trade war.
    I live in a farming communite(in Canada) and I know a few people who will most likly lose there farms becase of this. Now the US goverment did this to prevent americans from having to sell there farms witch is understanable. But the problem is that there just paying farmers to grow stuff that no one wants to buy. Over production forces prices lower and lower until in the end the market hits rock bottom and US farmers lose there farms anyways.

    Even historic U.S. allies should not be permitted to gain sufficient power to challenge the United States. "We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," the draft said.
    Being a back staber never pays off in the end.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    889
    I will simply say that I elect those I feel and VOTE is a key word, those people I feel can do the best job. Am I happy with a blanket statemet form Bush some media hook catch phrase..nope. We elect goverments to act for us but we never get that really. American people in general do not subscribe to such things and just as many resign them selves that no matter whom we elect still push their own agenda. American Potlticians promote them self as #1, the American population in general say can we get to know you. So go figure just as your own country do they act for the benefit of all or their agenda? I know there is a world of many different people and their ways, it is not me but my goverment that forces the issue and here we do the best we can. Me not happy was around for the tenior of Bush's daddy ex CIA I believe....so look at Bush ask who's yer daddy..Texas slang...his daddy spoke of a thousand points of light..little did I know at that time the dim light bulb was gonna be his son..
    I believe that one of the characteristics of the human race - possibly the one that is primarily responsible for its course of evolution - is that it has grown by creatively responding to failure.- Glen Seaborg

  6. #6
    GreekGoddess
    Guest
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Who made The US the "Rulers Of the World"??
    Hell if I know, I've lived here my whole life and hate the general arrogance and ignorance that breeds among the masses here. I think the rest of the world would agree that we would be a lot better off if we removed our heads from our collective asses. Just a thought.

    *whispers*

    The beautiful people......the beautiful people....

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    There is a growing number of people in the US, who don't much care for our government's forign policy and would like to return to more of an isolationist way of life, not cut ourselfs off from the world, but more take care of our own buisness. Not for fear of terrorists, because thats no reason to change, but rather, because it's the right thing to do.

    Im happy to say the libertarian party is now the third largest political party in the us. with a little effort they can at least show the two partys now in power, how fed up with their **** we really are and put a stop to them getting in the good graces of big biz at the expense of our way of life.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    262
    I`m glad to see that not all Americans believe all the BS that is feed to them on a daily bases by Mr. Bush heres something else to think on. When Mr Bush decided to go to war Canada stood behind him and sent in our troops. Mr Bush decided then to put a high tarif on Canada`s lumber so now to export lumber to the States it cost 27% more. In the long run he is only hurting his own people because now to build a house it will cost the American builder 27% more because the costs are passed on to the buyers. Makes a lot of sense to stab Canada in the back that way and at the same time stab the American people in the back also.
    No good deed goes unpunished.

  9. #9
    GreekGoddess
    Guest
    I'm definitely a Libertarian, sometimes I'm a little extreme with my ideas, but I'm very openminded. I don't believe that we should isolate ourselves from foreign policy and any problems that may arise with other countries, I think we should help anyone who needs help at all costs. It's the attitude here that's the problem. I have always thought that if there was a WWIII and some of it was fought on our mainland, and not just terrorists hijacking planes and bombing a building, I mean full out war, the kind most Americans only see on TV...their attitudes would change.

    A good analogy of the United States and War would be a little boy (because the US is still very young) and a huge rabid rotweiler on the other side of the fence (War) You can talk **** because there's a fence there, that dog is no threat unless that fence comes down. You can taunt it, tease it, throw rocks and sticks, but as soon as that dog breaks down that fence, your attitude is going to change, and maybe you'll take a look at the way you were handling things......If you survive it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •