what is your opinion on this subject?
Do you considers his ideologies to extreme?
or
Is he leading the u.s down the right road?
Do you considers his ideologies to extreme?
or
Is he leading the u.s down the right road?
Paul Wolfowitz good or bad for the u.s and international relations?
- Thread starter rbx
- Start date
Don't know.
You be the judge: Is "American Leadership" good for your country?
"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 and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership. "
From
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
signed by Wolfowitz, among others, in the statement of principles.
There's something about this thing that reminds me of the Nazi's. The things I put in bold, they really bother me. They're all things most of us agree with, so restating them like this makes it seem EXTREME. We all agree that having a strong military is good.... right? But when that's a fundamental idea behind your organization--- it seems to be a call for MORE military power. Same with moral principle: There seems to be a huge religious tone to this, in a bad way. And global leadership---- eh.
"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 and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership. "
From
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
signed by Wolfowitz, among others, in the statement of principles.
There's something about this thing that reminds me of the Nazi's. The things I put in bold, they really bother me. They're all things most of us agree with, so restating them like this makes it seem EXTREME. We all agree that having a strong military is good.... right? But when that's a fundamental idea behind your organization--- it seems to be a call for MORE military power. Same with moral principle: There seems to be a huge religious tone to this, in a bad way. And global leadership---- eh.
i get the feeling that the oil issue is far less sinister then what the bush admistriation(the hawks) have in mind for the middle east.
I dunno, but the term "global leadership" smacks a bit of "global government" which I am 100% against regardless of who is in charge.
Not sure of the context that the term was used in though.
Not sure of the context that the term was used in though.
Wow, moral principle and political leaders in the same sentence. Isn't that called an oxymoron?This guy seems like a zealot and zealots are dangerous whatever their political hue.
Well, now we have an administration that's determined to do what it think is right. No one has THE right answer, and it seems that the resolve that people like Wolfwitz have is presenting the United States to the world as the continuation of the global police that has been despised for the last a hundred years. The united States never actually made any real friends, only parasite buddies who feed on the U.S. for a warm bed, some food, and a roof over the head. So Wolfwitz is like the personification of American policies. The question is, how much so called democracy do we have that we claim we have? the hawks are convinced they are right and the French and the rest of the country are bunch of wuss who can't tell the difference between a Glock, a Berreta, or a Sig Sauer. Yeah Wolfwitz is bad for our relations with other countries. But he is just a part of the hard line Republicans that are self-proclaimed saviors of the world. We ARE the new crusade, I mean, what the hell is Preemptive(Spelling?) Strike different from the message "you tick us off or get in our way and we'll F**k you up with our homies? He is not making the international relations all that much worse, because it's already bad enough. He is not doing any more damage than most past republican cabinets. He's just playing his part in what he thinks is the right thing to do.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/893730.asp?0cv=CB10
It continues with Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld with their version of the New Wor.... I mean New American Century.
The thing that I notice most about this administration, more so then any in the past, is the complete lack of consistency from person to person. Powell is saying one thing, Cheney another, and any number of other peons saying and doing whatever.
This inconsistency spills over into all aspects of the administration. Economic and social policies seem to be determined by whomever is standing in front of the mike at any given time. That uncertainty or inconsistency, if you will, plays havoc with the economy.
It continues with Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld with their version of the New Wor.... I mean New American Century.
The thing that I notice most about this administration, more so then any in the past, is the complete lack of consistency from person to person. Powell is saying one thing, Cheney another, and any number of other peons saying and doing whatever.
This inconsistency spills over into all aspects of the administration. Economic and social policies seem to be determined by whomever is standing in front of the mike at any given time. That uncertainty or inconsistency, if you will, plays havoc with the economy.