It says a lot of things. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" "From 1945 to 1990, U.S. forces prepared themselves for a single, global war that might be fought across many theaters; in the new century, the prospect is for a variety of theater wars around the world, against separate and distinct adversaries pursuing separate and distinct goals." "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Seems to me like none of that has come to pass, save the last, and 9/11 did not bring revolutionary change like the PNAC was speculating.
The War in Iraq and Afghanistan are multiple theaters, no? They're not traditional American victories - but there again, what is a "traditional American victory"? I do believe most of our goals were accomplished in both engagements. I guess the 'decisively' part is up for interpretation, but our KIA and overall military losses are a drop in the bucket compared to the losses of our enemies.
Where did it get us, and what 'revolution' has occurred because of it? I don't think you could hang a 'decisive win' on any of the wars we engaged in. What did we gain over there?
This is important to the topic because I have never seen it happen. I would like proof, evidence, something that shows what you are stating is concrete fact. You SAY people are shills all the time, but you say stuff all the time anyway. Just because you say people are shills doesn't make it so. So again, I would like proof that what you say is true. If you have a quote of someone stating "yes I am a paid shill." That not withstanding, I will also accept the name of posters here that can be verified to work for the government. Any of this will do. I can wait. If you come back with anything short of the concrete evidence I request, then I will pull a truther and assume what you are saying is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
Good luck getting anything other than snide remarks out of RWAF. Funny how truthers think there are paid shills when nobody believes truther (*)(*)(*)(*) in the first place. Who would spend money on a bunch of nut jobs who can't even come up with a theory they can agree on other than Al Qaeda didn't do it? You would have to be brain dead before believing anything a truther says.
In Iraq: * We toppled Saddam. * We liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam's oppression. * We opened Iraq for American businesses. http://www.usatoday.com/money/world...eign-business-quadruples-iraq-2011/52260544/1 http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2011-07-19-foreign-investment-iraq-investors-business_n.htm * Part of "A Clean Break" was fulfilled, so Israeli interests were met. In Afghanistan: * We toppled the Taliban regime. * Osama bin Laden is dead. * While not fully stabilized, their are business interests in Afghanistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/w...ignals-interest-in-afghan-oil-concession.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/w...tml?_r=1&gwh=75679268A5609BB05173DE6C5D4A3124 EDIT: As to 'revolution', I would say that is up to interpretation. Post-9/11 has seen revolutionary changes in the way the American people are viewed, looked at, and interacted with by the federal government because of legislation and government programs. The War on Terrorism has always had its gaze inward as much as outward.
Looking through the archives of the New York Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/w...ckcheney&gwh=9242F030CAC0F725F6A2DBA9F9127787
Wake up and smell the (*)(*)(*)(*) you're shoveling! They aren't talking about invading countries. They are talking about going after Al Qaeda in various regions. When are you going to realize your speculation on 9/11 being brought about by our government to fulfil nebulous claims in the PNAC are nothing but flights of fancy? You have no evidence to back up your connection between 9/11 and the PNAC, much less evidence the government was behind 9/11.
No evidence? What the F U C K do you call what happened in Iraq, Lebanon, and now Syria then? Just a F U C K ING coincidence? Jesus, man, wake up. "A Clean Break" is real.
A Clean Break was a proposed response to a perceived threat. Are you suggesting the threat is not real? If the threat is real how different does the response have to be before you would attribute it to something other than a clean break?
"I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on - and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa What's your thoughts on the above, since you're just throwing stuff out of the window today, Patriot.
I think there are 2 most likely scenarios. 1. He was trying to ingratiate himself to his audience with an embellished personal story. 2. That's really what happened. Are you trying to suggest a more likely scenario? What would that be?
There is truth to much of "A Clean Break", the policy. The interests of Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq conflicted and caused harm to the interests of Israel, and the US. That much is obvious, always is. I want to answer your second question...but I don't know really what to say to it. I mean, if Israel and us didn't go through with plans - take out Iraq/Saddam, do their business in Lebanon, and be involved in the Arab Spring/Syrian Civil War, then it would be different. But its not. Those things have happened, and they've happened only because 9/11 happened. I hope I've answered it to your liking.
The thing I don't understand is that there was no television footage of the first plane crash until later in the day - so how did he watch it on TV and have those very personal thoughts about the experience? Because if it is #2, what exactly does that entail?
Okay, so you admit that there was a threat. That's a good start. Now, I don't think you understood the premise of the 2nd question. Is it possible that the points of similarity between actual policy, and proposed policies are due to the nature of the threat, and not due to the nature of the proposed policy? How many different ways are there to deal with people who are not only enemies of our interests, but are also threats to our security?
What's not to understand? If he was embellishing for effect, do you really think it's suspicious that he said he saw the plane hit? If it was the second, it merely entails a poor recollection of the timeline. This is not out of the ordinary either.
I'll start with your second question first: there are many different ways to deal with people that are enemies of our interests, but few when it comes to security. I want to point out that none of the countries - Iraq, Lebanon, or Syria - pose(d) a legitimate threat to the security of the United States. I should clarify that, "the physical security of the United States". Their meandering about in their countries and regions affected our interests, which does affect our security, but I don't level it off as the same as physical security. Nevertheless, their meandering about certainly affected the physical security of Israel (in their mind at least), as well, interests. A 1-2 combination, if you will. And regarding the first question...yes, I suppose it is possible; however, the timing of the policy being enacted is more than suspicious. As soon as 9/11 happened, signs were pointing towards Iraq. Lebanon was mentioned in the Times nines days later. The policy was enacted as a result of 9/11, that's pretty clear, no?
It is weird, no? Because at the base of it, our former President was either lying, or he actually saw the plane impact before everyone else did. I can forgive him for lying - though my curiosity drives me to wonder why he would "embellish" such a fable in the first place. And if he did see the first impact as he claims he did, I obviously would like to know the story on that too.
I didn't realize you had the ability to detect legitimate threats to our security with such clarity. You should run for office. You weren't in office at the time, however. As such, the people in office at the time on both sides of the aisle didn't see it that way. The policy for regime change in Iraq was enacted during the Clinton Administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act Are you suggesting that the law signed in 1998 was enacted as a result of 9/11? Lebanon was run by a madman with admitted ties to support for the Lockerbie bombing. Syria is where Saddam's weapons all ended up. What makes you think our entire foreign policy was centered around the 9/11 attack?
OR option number three he was using the word saw in place of the word learned. If I tell my friend "Hey, I saw you got a new car" when all I did was read about it on facebook, I didn't actually SEE the car, but I am acknowledging that I learned he got a new car. Do I need to apologize to my friend for lying about not actually SEEING the car? No. I would not be using English in the clearest sense, but who ever claimed Bush was "Mr. Perfect" in the English language?
Relion doesn't kill, made men do. You have my sincere condolences on the loss of your friends. Fanatics have always been hard to understand. I keep seeing the images of people leaping from 80 stories up to eacape the flames. There is no known punishment for those that thought this up. Our American goverment did not have a hand in this tradgey.
