Tony Blaire - Look at the Internet

Perhaps instead of picking my words, you should have read the first addition to this thread in its entirety.

"As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States.

PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defence spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

He then gives you a weblink to this organisation's site. If, after reading these, you need more info...I'd be happy to oblige.

PNAC

And seeing as this site is run by William Kristol, I think it's pretty legit.

Well, I was hoping to get your insight, your input rather than someone elses.

I think I've given you my insight. But my insight isn't really relevant. What is is Richard Perle's, William Kristol's and Donal Rumsfeld's. That's the stuff you need to read.

I guess if you don't care to share, then I won't bother you about this anymore, but it makes it more difficult to take you seriously, Soledad. If you can't even explain it yourself without referring me to a website, well... :confused: :confused: :confused:
Like I said, I prefer not to read "something" on a website, simply because I know how the internet is, I could say I'm anyone and say anything I chose, but that doesn't make it true.

All I've seen of your insight is that you're against this war and you think we're taking over the Middle East. I just wanted to know how you came to these conclusions. That's all. Was it from reading info on this website you're referring me to? Sorry to bother you, I just thought you'd welcome the chance make your argument.

You clearly do not want to read what I've supplied you with. Why is that?

I would supply you with more references, but I don't think you will actually read them.

I've stated my opinions. You wanted to know where I'd gotten this stuff from, I supplied a reference, and you say that's not enough? Wow, you sure read fast.

I find it hard to take someone seriously who refuses to read a few things.

Well, its the same site as in the original post and I have read a good bit of it already. It's been up here all day.
It doesn't matter if you take me seriously or not. I just wanted to know. Forget it.

Well, I'd like to know your thoughts on what you've read. Does it make sense to you? Do you see where their line of logic is going?

I've read quite a bit, not all of it. No, I don't see anything that intimates "Middle Eastern domination".
In the Statement On Post War Iraq I read this :
'The United States military will necessarily bear much of the initial burden of maintaining stability in Iraq, securing its territorial integrity, finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction, and supporting efforts to deliver humanitarian assistance to those most in need. For the next year or more, U.S and coalition troops will have to comprise the bulk of the total international military presence in Iraq. But as the security situation permits, authority should transfer to civilian agencies, and to representatives of the Iraqi people themselves. Much of the long-term security presence, as well as the resources for reconstruction, will have to come from our allies in Europe and elsewhere - suggesting the importance of involving the NATO Alliance and other international institutions early in any planning and implementation of the post-conflict stage.'

I read that we're going to give them their country after we secure its independence. I don't read that we're taking over the Middle East as our own. I've looked for it and I don't see it. That was why I was asking you how you formed your opinions.

In the Second Statement on Post War Iraq I read:
'The Iraqi people committed to a democratic future must be fully involved in this process in order for it to succeed. Consistent with security requirements, our goal should be to progressively transfer authority as soon as possible to enable Iraqis to control their own destiny. Millions of Iraqis are untainted by service to the Ba'athist dictatorship and are committed to the establishment of democratic institutions. It is these Iraqis - not Americans, Europeans or international bureaucrats - who should make political and economic decisions on behalf of Iraq.'


And this:
'Administration of post-war Iraq should from the beginning include not only Americans but officials from those countries committed to our goals in Iraq. Bringing different nationalities into the administrative organization is important because it allows us to draw on the expertise others have acquired from their own previous peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. It will also facilitate closer and more effective ties between the security forces in post-war Iraq and those charged with administrating the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq.'

I still do not see it. I'm still reading.

Try reading in between the lines at times. They're not going to be obvious about it.

I can read between the lines in anything ever written, if I so choose. Soledad, I thought you had an argument here, but apparently you choose to "read between the lines". I could do that with every facet of life, but where would that get me? I could read between the lines of the constitution, of the bible, of Shakespeare for that matter.

Why wouldn' they come right out and say it? If that's truly how the feel and they're goal. Wouldn't they get much more support from people who would actually like to see that happen? Doesn;t make much sense to set up a site and then expect everyone to read between the lines.

Soledad, I see where you're going with it, but I have to agree with Micki that the overall tone of the article is one of giving the people Iraq control of their own country, with help. Now, I'm sure that the U.S. will back the candidates that will be most helpful to the U.S., but, I'm not sure where the crime is in that.

What I'm saying Micki, is that they are not going to say "we are going to go out and dominate the middle east, take over their oil wells, install military bases and impose American values on them." They would no more say that than say "we are going to war and we are going to kill a lot of innocent civilians and little Iraqi children", they are going to say "collateral damage." It's just the system. It's politics, Micki, they aren't going to "tell it like it is" if it's going to look bad in anyway.

I guess I'm not getting the whole thing with collateral damage. It's the price of war. I asked my parents about how it was during WWII and they said there was not the discussion about it. It was accepted as part of the horribleness of war and nobody laid blame to anyone else for it.

I wasn't contesting the use of the word collateral damage, just implying that it is a euphemism and that there is more behind those two rather clinical sounding words than most would expect.

It sure sounds better than massive civilian death, don't you think?

But what I was saying was that in other wars that was not an issue, rather it was accepted as being a horrible part of war.

That's fine, but I wasn't saying that collateral damage was bad, just misleading.

Gotcha. Sorry, but standing out in the cold for 3 hours this afternoon made my brain tired! lol

Well Soledad, I've done my best to create a discussion of your views and opinions and I can see that's not gonna happen. I was very curious and interested in any information or views that you had, instead I get sent out into the Internet. (I'm generally not to trusting of websites, as they've been notorious for bogus information not saying that’s the case here.)
I reiterate. All I've seen of your insight is that you're against this war and you think we're taking over the Middle East. I just wanted to know how you came to these conclusions. That's all. I just thought you'd welcome the chance make your argument in a way that would enable people to potentially understand and grasp your beliefs about the situation.
I know we're all going off half cocked (myself included) about why this war is right or just, or why it isn't. So many feel the rights of Iraqi's are being violated and just as many others feel like we're doing an injustice if we look the other way and let Saddam continue in power. I HATE war. I FEAR war. I FEAR any person/group that will not even consider attempting to see another viewpoint. That kind of tunnel vision is scary, and I've had my own fair share of it lately.
No, I don't know what the Iraqi people want. I'm not so sure they do either. You don't either. I *think* if it were me living the life of an Iraqi citizen, I would want my freedom. But then again I may not know how to live any other way.

I truly believe that conquering the Middle East is not the goal of our leaders. I also believe if we ever did, it would be the end of our country. We would be blown off the planet. I don't think our leaders are so stupid that they don't realize that.

That website was a starting point. It is not bogus. I don't know why you have this belief that anything on the internet is somehow shady. This site is run by Kristol, a major advisor to the president. I don't really know what else to say on the matter.

I would give you other information that has helped form my opinion, but it is mostly online and what is not I don't know that I feel like posting internationally (cost and all).

I am left feeling as though you want me to do all the work for you. I came to my conclusions about this war because A LOT of study and reading, if you cannot do some of it, then I can't really help you.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soledad
My idea of patriotism is a little different. It goes like this:

A true patriot listens to the world. Because no country exists in a vacuum.

A true patriot is offended by unfair, unfounded accusations that hold no water.

A true patriot listens to legitimate criticism in an attempt to hold their politicians accountable to true American ideals.

A true patriot is big enough to know when their country has gone down the wrong path, is not afraid to admit it, and actually does something to change it.

Here's what I DON'T believe what a patriot is:

A patriot does not say "my country right or wrong" and let their country go down the toilet in the process.

A patriot does not put a leader before the country.

A patriot does not seek to silence others for a differing opinion.

A patriot does not close their eyes and ears to the truth.

A patriot does not refuse to stand back and look at things from a new perspective.

A patriot does not stand by while its freedoms and values are being taken away.

---

at least this proves that Saddam is NOT a patriot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by micki76
Well Soledad, I've done my best to create a discussion of your views and opinions and I can see that's not gonna happen. I was very curious and interested in any information or views that you had, instead I get sent out into the Internet. (I'm generally not to trusting of websites, as they've been notorious for bogus information not saying that’s the case here.)
I reiterate. All I've seen of your insight is that you're against this war and you think we're taking over the Middle East. I just wanted to know how you came to these conclusions. That's all. I just thought you'd welcome the chance make your argument in a way that would enable people to potentially understand and grasp your beliefs about the situation.
I know we're all going off half cocked (myself included) about why this war is right or just, or why it isn't. So many feel the rights of Iraqi's are being violated and just as many others feel like we're doing an injustice if we look the other way and let Saddam continue in power. I HATE war. I FEAR war. I FEAR any person/group that will not even consider attempting to see another viewpoint. That kind of tunnel vision is scary, and I've had my own fair share of it lately.
No, I don't know what the Iraqi people want. I'm not so sure they do either. You don't either. I *think* if it were me living the life of an Iraqi citizen, I would want my freedom. But then again I may not know how to live any other way.

I truly believe that conquering the Middle East is not the goal of our leaders. I also believe if we ever did, it would be the end of our country. We would be blown off the planet. I don't think our leaders are so stupid that they don't realize that.

---

Did you read any of this?
No I don't want you do "do all the work for me". I wanted your OPINIONS, IDEAS, INPUT not the "stuff" that's helped you form those opinions. Most people who argue their point so feverishly can (and want to ) do so without sending people off into the (sometimes) never, never land of the internet. I cannot (and do not want to) support an argument "for war" so I don't try. I simply try to support the forces and say a prayer that a madman will be stopped. I don't have all the answers and I don't know how to stop a madman. But I do know I want him stopped.

I did read it. But what I was trying to tell you was that I had already given you my points and my input and was trying to show you some sources that lead me to those points of view. You were not willing to read them because they were on the internet (oh the irony).

I think everyone here on the Doghouse has seen my input and point of view. Why should I rehash it all? I'm wondering why you're backtracking when you originally asked for sources as to why I think the way I do. And I'm also wondering why you've returned after your declaration to leave the Doghouse for good because the only reason people are here for is a fight?:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

And I'm also wondering why you've returned after your declaration to leave the Doghouse for good because the only reason people are here for is a fight?

---

Please don't be so angry. You're only reinforcing my statement. I saw that you had posted in this forum and got excited and thought you might like to actually have a conversation instead of an argument. My mistake. I don't think I said I'd NEVER return. This is the exact reason why I don't like the doghouse too much, but I am interested in different views and opinions. I'm quite curious about this issue and question many things about it.

Quote:

---

You were not willing to read them because they were on the internet (oh the irony).

---

I read the one website that you keep touting. Don't say I didn't read it; I gave you direct quotes from it! Just because I don't chose to "read between the lines" and I don't glean the same thing you do from it doesn't mean I didn't read it!

Quote:

---

I'm wondering why you're backtracking when you originally asked for sources as to why I think the way I do.

---

Where am I backtracking? I read your sources and became interested. You became angry for some reason and have continually been rude to me when I am only asking some basic questions. Oh the gall that I must have! :rolleyes: You act like I am interrogating you. Don't be so defensive. I am very interested in learning from others. Their views, their reasoning, etc. I obviously asked you for something that you either don't have or are not willing to share for some reason.

If you don't want me to ask, then why are you even here? You posed some interesting theories and I've come to believe some of the anti war sentiments I've read here, so I was INTERESTED. EXCUSE ME!!!

I'm not as angry as you think I am. If you want to discuss this further, perhaps we should PM each other? I am more than happy to have an exchange and share my views in an environment conducive to civil debate. I don't believe the Doghouse is such an environment, but I am happy to discuss with you one on one my beliefs and further resources.:)

I have PM'd you Soledad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soledad

And I don't think it's necessary to call other countries "insignificant" because you don't like ONE person's opinion.

---

I agree with this- calling another person's country "insignificant" is NOT nice whether you agree with their beliefs or not. I can't believe that there are so many of you out there that seemed to think that it was okay.........................:(
There have been other 'not so nice' remarks also, from other P. Talkers.

I have not been involved with PT too much lately, but saw all this stuff and could not believe the way it's all going here with this subject. My husband and I disagree about the war, and my sister and I do also. W don't get rude with each other about it though.

I don't like America-bashing any more than the rest of you, but there are some peole here from these other countries that simply are against the war, and have said so. That does not make them 'America-bashers' :confused:

On one the other threads on this subject, I believe *cheetahgirl* expressed some fear and concern because of living so close to Iraq and the war. Now, she may not be a huge USA fan either, but I did not see anything that she wrote that was exactily bashing us.
Besides, how can any of us here in the states really know how it feels to live so close to the war that is going-on and all the fall-out that is going to happen (whatever that may be)?

Here is my opinion:
I support our troops 100%. I pray for them daily.
I don't however, support the war, and I don't believe that it makes me a BAD AMERICAN.
Freedom of Speech applies to everyone, even people like me!

And by-the-way, I am an American. Born here, raised here.
I have a cousin that is in Iraq, and also the husband (and father too) of a good friend of mine. So you see, I DO care.

I proudly registered to vote on my 18th birthday and have not missed voting in a local, state or national election. I vote without regard to party, race or gender. I vote for the person I believe to be best qualified. I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats. I consider voting together just about the sexiest and most romantic thing my husband and I do. I have willingly and proudly served on jury duty.

I am a war protester.

My mother’s family has been in this country since before the Revolutionary War (a HUGE protest against the government.) My father’s family immigrated fairly recently – in search of economic opportunity and religious freedom.

I am a war protester.

I read a daily newspaper and 2-3 news magazines a week. I am a student of world and U.S. history (I teach a course that uses US labor history to explain US labor law.) I pay my taxes – not happily but willingly -- as the price of communal living.

I am a war protester.

I consider it my obligation as a citizen to know history, geography, current events and to decide my position as a result. I see no contradiction between being a patriot and being opposed to this war and the actions of this administration. I have family members and friends with different beliefs – however I still drink their wine and eat their food – and they mine. And I hope and believe that any rational member of the armed forces enlisted in order to protect a country based on freedom – including the freedom to protest.

You're right Sara, the men and women in the military DO fight for our right to protest, but, when asked, a lot, if not most, would say that they don't appreciate war protest when they're over there, putting their butts on the line, and some of their own countrymen (and women) are flaunting how much they hate the war. Just an opinion. And, just for the record, while I don't agree with war protesters I will defend to the death their right to do it.

Mugsy,

Some of the decisions made by the leaders of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen were appalling, bad, wrong. That doesn't mean that the hardworking men and women of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen were appalling, bad, or wrong. They were doing the job they were asked to do, to the best of their abilities, and proud of the work they did.

My disagreement is with the leadership team.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
Mugsy,

Some of the decisions made by the leaders of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen were appalling, bad, wrong. That doesn't mean that the hardworking men and women of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen were appalling, bad, or wrong. They were doing the job they were asked to do, to the best of their abilities, and proud of the work they did.

My disagreement is with the leadership team.

---

You're right-on about that Edwina's Secrectary!
I could not have worded it better myself.