Well I agree to that.

If one attacked a country because they didn't believe in one's religion, or some other thing that concerned no one else, that would be terrible.

Who is doing such a thing?

No it isn't.

Well, in my opinion anyway.

I mean, they have to be relevant and actually make some sort of point and actually be a springboard to discussion instead of making you want to email the author of the actual article, surely.

I didn't mention imperialism once. You're just spouting off without really reading what I write and therefore, presuambly, without really thinking about it.

When did you ever turn the other cheek? What are you referring to? And saying that people don't like you now, so it doesn't matter if you make yourselves unpopular, is bizarrely illogical. You're not going to get everyone to love you, but if the problem is one of image, which it basically is, then this project will be totally counter-productive. All the armies in the world can't stop suicide bombings. Just ask the Israelis. Suicide bombings will only stop when people no longer want to carry them out.

I really think the difference is entirely semantic. You're saying that if they take money then they should agree with you.

'Right' in what sense? You might think it's for the right reasons, so perhaps in that sense it is 'right.' On the other hand, PNAC is not the best course of action, so in that sense it isn't 'right.'

As far as I can see you like PNAC because of the fact that it says, 'fuck the rest, we'll do our own thing' (though it actually doesn't say anything like that). You haven't mentioned how you believe this will actually work in America's interests.

When the Cole was bombed, and our embassy in Africa and when we see people carrying signs about "Yankee go home" and people burning the American flag and this in countries where we have fed them, fought their wars and protected them from their neighbors, that is when we turned the other cheek. That is alllll gonna change.

If it makes us unpopular--and it will--what the Hell? We are better off if we don't have any friends anyway. We lose enough of our soldiers in OUR OWN wars, without getting them killed for a bunch of chinamen or Koreans or VietNamese, or Frenchmen or, quite frankly old man, Brits.

And right IS a definable term. At least to US it is definable. It means what is good for the USA and if the rest of the world doesn't like it, tough titty.

No, it means that a handle of rich white conservatives think its best for the USA.

Remember when the UK tried dictating opinions of the world in the 18th century? There was a little thing called the American Revolution.

handful*

Nobody is tryin to dictate opinions.

What we are saying is "mess with the best, die like the rest."

Leave us alone, don't threaten us, don't kill our people, you have nothing to fear.

Any of the above and your ass belongs to God.

When the Cole was bombed you firstly bombed Afghanistan, then found and arrested several suspects. You also bombed Sudan when the embassies were hit, and later killed the man who planned the bombings in an air strike. Were you not aware of this? I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do, but how is that turning the other cheek? I don't know why I have to find these things out for you. If you don't know about the events that you're talking about I suggest you do less posting and more reading newspapers.


I'm not really sure how this is in any way relevant. If you want to be fighting fewer wars then I don't see how PNAC is going to help you, because it wants you to increase the use of your military. Moreover, the more friends you have the less fighting you will have to do. Still, the best way to do less fighting is to have fewer enemies.


I never said it wasn't definable, I was just asking how you wanted to define it. Now you have, so I repeat my question:

How exactly will the PNAC benefit the USA?

Thje reason that I tefer to clinton's actions as turning the other cheek is that his actions were completely inadaquate. Launching a few cruise missiles and a few air strikes in the desert is not the answer to terrorism, nor was it the answer to non compliance and threats from Iraq.

The answer, as W has shown, is to take the war to the terrorists. Fight them in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and yes, in every other Hell-hole in the world, rather than in New York, Boston, or London. Wouldn't you agree?

That is what PNAC is about--being in a position to respond to terrorism, and to threats from rogue states with something other that a two day bombing run which hurts few terrorists and only serves to make us look weak.

Now when we do these things, there is a great hue and cry all over the world about America being a bully. And some, even here in the US think that somehow we can intellectualize our way through this. They want to be popular in the world more that they want to be safe. PNAC exposes the folly of that line of faux "reason" and calls for action.

That is why we took action in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So far the results have eclipsed anything that the clinton administration had done and we are quite pleased with the results.

Stay tuned. You ain't seen nothin' yet!

Your god, I assume. My god doesn't seek retribution.

How many Gods do you think there are?