An Election for American Values?

Quote:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

While this isn't proof of anything, it is indicative to me of a desire to control more than just this Republic.

0 Replies

Well 'evidence' is a pretty strong word. I'm going by Kerry's statements, supported by most of his followers--the polls would suggest that's a lot of folks--suggesting that the whole Middle East/Iraqi problem should be turned over to the UN to handle and the whole concept of it being wrong for the USA to 'go it alone', etc. Its a gut level thing.

How would you see a one-world government structured?

0 Replies

I don't think that multi-nationalism means one-world government.

Here's more from our friends at PNAC:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/global-032303.htm

I guess if there were a one-world government it might look like what they are describing in that article.

0 Replies

The really really nice thing about the internet is that you can find evidence galore to support any run amok idea out there. I once found a site with evidence that republicans actually love and look forward to diverse ideas, I was agast of course but it was right there in black and white with red borders. Red! did I say RED borders? Well ok, not really commie pinko red but good old american patriotic red borders. Anyway I also found a site with some really great deals on bomb shelters left over from the missle-gap war. Have a nice weekend, buy low and sell high.

0 Replies

Willow writes

Quote:

I just don't think the poll has any relevance foxy...we were attacked by terrorists..our Intelligence Agencies failed us...and we definitely misread the warning signs...

I meant to respond to this earlier, Willow, and got sidetracked. I am not particularly fond of or confident in Pew polls and would like to see some others before buying into the accuracy. So there I think you might be onto something.

I do see lots of evidence of much anger including a kind of redefinition of patriotism, contempt for flag wavers, contempt for the Bush administration, contempt for military efforts in Iraq, etc. etc. etc. that do support Leo's thesis in the article starting this thread.

I think 9/11 did change everything. But what warning signs out tens of thousands should have been heeded to prevent it?

We underwent a severe cultural upheaval in the 1960's. Are we undergoing another one now 40 years later? Are traditional values kaput if Kerry is elected? If Bush is elected?

Will anything change if Bush wins both the popular vote and electoral college by a significant magin this time?

0 Replies

Quote:

Panzade writes
I don't think that multi-nationalism means one-world government.

Here's more from our friends at PNAC:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/global-032303.htm

I guess if there were a one-world government it might look like what they are describing in that article

From the PNAC site

Quote:

Established in the spring of 1997, the object for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.

Panzade, do you know William Kristol and Gary Schmitt are strong spokespersons for the Republican party? PNAC is no advocate for a centralized world government. They are advocates for the USA exercising leadership in the global community in the tradition of those initiatives that helped form the League of Nations, NATO, and yes, even the United Nations. Bill Kristol has spoken out strongly against the rampant corruption in the UN as it exists today however.

0 Replies

there's been a humorous error here. I'm not agile enough to have found that link.

On another point Foxy. The left isn't against flag waving IMO, they're against Dick C. inferring that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists running amok. That insults my intelligence and should insult yours.

Besides, being called unpatriotic because we point out the emperor has no clothes really rankles me.

0 Replies

Panzade writes

Quote:

there's been a humorous error here. I'm not agile enough to have found that link.

On another point Foxy. The left isn't against flag waving IMO, they're against Dick C. inferring that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists running amok. That insults my intelligence and should insult yours.

Besides, being called unpatriotic because we point out the emperor has no clothes really rankles me.

Okay, I can appreciate that. Is there any campaign stuff coming from the left that equally rankles you?

0 Replies

Yeah, that was me with the PNAC stuff. It seems to me they are very carefully wording their opinion that America should accept its role as the dominant superpower and use that power to, well basically, control the world. I don't mean it to sound paranoid but I don't know how else to describe it.

Some other members of PNAC:

Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
I. Lewis Libby
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

It's this connection between people who are currently in charge of much of our foreign policy and this group that make me think that it is Republican organization.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

there's been a humorous error here. I'm not agile enough to have found that link.

On another point Foxy. The left isn't against flag waving IMO, they're against Dick C. inferring that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists running amok. That insults my intelligence and should insult yours.

Besides, being called unpatriotic because we point out the emperor has no clothes really rankles me.

I agree pan...what traditional values will be lost either way...I already think our freedoms are being limited by the current administration..and wanting to alter the constitution to prevent gay "marriages" instead of equal rights seems rather shallow and diserving....

Quote:

I think 9/11 did change everything. But what warning signs out tens of thousands should have been heeded to prevent it?

the cross sharing of intelligence between agencies may have helped..

I differ somewhat from my other democratic friends in i believe in a strong Military...but I want that military to be used prudently and wisely..and i don't think it has been these past 3 years...and i am pro Israel...

I just feel there is such a divide this time Foxy, that has not been felt for a long time...and i don't see it getting any better if Bush wins the election.

0 Replies

Oh right Freeduck. It was you. (Apologies Panzade Smile

)

No, not a Republican organization. There are no ties with the GOP at all. Their leadership and membership is made up of conservative Republicans and Democrats however. And no, they have no desire to control anything other than constitutional principles.

It is like any other think-tank-like activist organization that you find on both the right and left. Without them and their intense research activities, we would have a lot less information about the world and world politics than we do.

Nothing sinister here. And looking at the membership makeup, there is zero chance they are advocating any kind of one world government or U.S. expansionism. Expanding U.S. influence, yes. Imperialism, no.

0 Replies

The problem is in your perception FD.

You see it as a wish to "control" the world instead of "lead" the world. There is a big difference in those two words.

As long as a leadership vacancy exists someone will need to fill it. The UN tries, but fails. No other country has the resources, money and willpower to do it, so that leaves the US with a mighty big burden.

Look at the situation is Sudan. The UN is still talking about what they are going to do.

Look at Afghanistan. After the war, NATO was given responsibilty for securing the country until elections could be held and a governemnt put into place. They failed.

Russia is beset by too many internal problems to be a world leader anymore.

Until a better solution comes along, I am comfortable with the US as the leader of the world.

0 Replies

Well said McG. The thesis of this thread, however, suggests that there are many who want the U.S. to take a back seat and for the leadership to come from elsewhere.

0 Replies

McG, I agree that I perceive it differently than you do. I know they use the word 'lead' but many of their writings clearly indicate leading by force. And while in one article they give lip service to strong allies, in another they denigrate them as powerless and in need of our leadership. What is government if not leadership? I think our differing perceptions may have something to do with our differing levels of trust in the people who are pushing this.

Unfortunately, I think we may yet see the fruits of their labor.

Now put a cheesehead on that eagle.

0 Replies

I don't assign blame for 9/11. To me that's faulty hindsight.

I was sickened by Kerry's goosey photo op.

I don't like Kerry's health platform and one final quip.:

Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)

Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him?

If Nixon were running for president today, he would be seen as a "liberal" candidate, and he would probably win. He was a crook and a bungler, but what the hell? Nixon was a barrel of laughs compared to this gang of thugs from the Halliburton petroleum organization who are running the White House today -- and who will be running it this time next year, if we (the once-proud, once-loved and widely respected "American people") don't rise up like wounded warriors and whack those lying petroleum pimps out of the White House on November 2nd.

Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him.

You bet. Richard Nixon would be my Man. He was a crook and a creep and a gin-sot, but on some nights, when he would get hammered and wander around in the streets, he was fun to hang out with. He would wear a silk sweat suit and pull a stocking down over his face so nobody could recognize him. Then we would get in a cab and cruise down to the Watergate Hotel, just for laughs.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The really really nice thing about the internet is that you can find evidence galore to support any run amok idea out there. I once found a site with evidence that republicans actually love and look forward to diverse ideas, I was agast of course but it was right there in black and white with red borders. Red! did I say RED borders? Well ok, not really commie pinko red but good old american patriotic red borders. Anyway I also found a site with some really great deals on bomb shelters left over from the missle-gap war. Have a nice weekend, buy low and sell high.

Hmm. Is there anyone else out there who is confused as to why Republicans are assigned the "red" states on the electoral college map? I mean, shouldn't it be the other way around?

Laughing

0 Replies

I wondered that too.

0 Replies

Panzade, you hung out with Richard Nixon? Really?

0 Replies

Sorry Fox...it was a quip from Hunter S. Thompson

Mea Culpa.

0 Replies

LOL, well I was prepared to be impressed. Smile

0 Replies

An Election for American Values?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know