[BobTheEngineer]

I just heard of it the other day, they're a neo-conservative think tank with some prominent members in power today such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and others.

They published a white paper back in '97 called Rebuilding America's Defenses, which called for, among other things, increased defense spending, resuming nuclear missile testing, and a major transformation of the military structure. They also identified America's major post-Cold War threats such as Iraq and North Korea

They also note that

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.

Hmmmm.

What do you guys think? It seems to me these guys had a hard-on to go after Iraq waay before 9/11. Which is understandable, but what was the real reason for the recent Iraq war? Was it Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" - (which now we find were B.S.) or just a part of our leader's plans to ensure American domination into the new century?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not debating whether Saddam was an evil dictator or that we don't need to worry about defense, but our sons/brothers/friends/dads are getting killed over there, we should know the real deal

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Interesting point - but I don't know if the best way to ensure world domination is through physical force in this day and age...as we drive ourselves deeper and deeper into financial debt, we run the risk of becoming dependent upon other organizations, both governmental and non-governmental for support.

I don't care if we can squish them with military power...we can't beat everyone, and there comes a day when being the biggest bully on the playground is not a desireable position.

Okay - I'm tired, I've re-written and deleted like six different huge paragraphs trying to phrase and defend the rest of my position, and I give up in light of the fact that mentally I'm incapable of formulating a good argument this morning. lol...back to work I have job descriptions to write and a new employee to interview today - and somehow I think that's going to take the entirety of my mental capacity of an eggplant this morning.

 

[scofflaw23]

i totally agree with you, jr bullit. as our government gets itself deeper and deeper into iraq, while trying to hide the failures in afghanistan, it seems that global domination is both inefective and impossible.

check out the website at: www.newamericancentury.org

scary.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

I don't think it's conservative to think that unipolar world is the most stable effective and fair global model. I also don't think that its unsafe to assume that the US is in the best position to continue as that pole.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
I also don't think that its unsafe to assume that the US is in the best position to continue as that pole.

too many negatives there, so let me ask a clarifying question...

Are you saying that* the US is[\b] in the best position** to lead the world?

* in your opinion, of course
** or at least one of the very few

 

[Jr_Bullit]

We had a debate along these lines in one of my classes last year that analyzed the impacts of technology on the nation-state and international organizations. The question we ended up debating was whether or not there was truly a role in the future for traditional nation-states to even exist in such a complex and interdependent world, or if in the end, what we would have are more regional-type governments with NGOs such as the United Nations, World Bank, and so on controlling an international code of conduct by which all people's learned to live.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

I remember back when I was a kid in school, we were taught that the US stood for freedom and democracy and that war was bad, but necessary sometimes, in order to defend our freedom and way of life.

Now it seems to me that the real world is in stark contrast to this fantasy, where we are sending off US citizens to be killed solely for the purpose of maintaining control of the "Middle east energy producing region" to use the words of PNAC. I also found it disturbing that the Afganistan war was preceded by a few months by the collapse of a pipeline deal between ExxonMobil and the Taliban, when the Taliban demanded too much money.

It's obvious to me that public opinion was manipulated to a high degree to gain support for the war, which had nothing to do with Bin Laden or the fact that Hussein was a terrible dictator with weapons of mass destruction. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think the American public needs to question a lot more what our goverment is up to and whose best interest it's actions really serve.

Also, regarding the US being in the best position to be the sole worldwide super power, sure, no other country can touch us in terms of military power. But given our extremely irresponsible attitudes towards the environment, nuclear proliferation, etc, what do the rest of the world's countries think about it?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
... just a part of our leader's plans to ensure American domination into the new century?

yes. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
yes. Do you have a problem with that?

Kind of. I have no illusions that we've got the best living conditions here in this country compared with anywhere else in the world. I'm used to many creature comforts that just wouldn't be possible without our unique economic position. I just wonder, how long can we sustain this, and at what price? We could beef up our arsenals and interfere in global affairs whenever we're threatened, but this seems to piss off the rest of the world. Sure, we could say, screw em, but this leads back to the question, how long can that type of strategy be sustained? Also, who really benefits from this. Definitely not all Americans, as many are in poverty here. I'd like to hear your thoughts, I've been on the fence for a while on this topic.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by LordOpie
too many negatives there, so let me ask a clarifying question...

Are you saying that* the US is[\b] in the best position** to lead the world?

yeah. let me restate by changing the charge of the sentence.

"I also think that its safe to assume that the US is in the best position to continue as that pole."

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
yeah. let me restate by changing the charge of the sentence.

"I also think that its safe to assume that the US is in the best position to continue as that pole."

What is probably more accurate is to say that the US is (by far) in the best position to enforce a particular standpoint.

Whether the standpoint they are enforcing is the best one is a different question.

We are basically looking at a similar situation to the Pax Romanus and Pax Brittanica periods where one nation had sufficient power and presence to limit conflict to local areas.

Unfortunately we now have dangerous enough weapons that local conflicts (or remote unilateral action) can cause an awful lot of destruction. That's progress for you.