Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elpolvo who wrote (60106)	12/21/2003 3:32:24 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

..... "the project for a new american century"..... .....very few readers will have any problem in seeing the motivation for the wars the u.s. has started or predicting the future course of action of the present administration. the documents were both written before september 11, 2001...... I read the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). This was <font size=4>NOT<font size=3> the Foreign Policy of the Bush Administration prior to 9/11. That is a fact. A quick search of the internet provided a few prime examples that dispel that myth. If they aren't sufficient, I'll gladly find more relevant facts that prove that PNAC was NOT the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy. 9/11 made it painfully clear that our previous policy of appeasement & endless diplomacy was not going to stop evil terrorists from their already ongoing war. It was only after 9/11 that President Bush not only joined the war on terrorism, he took the war to them. And that was the proper action to take........... ________________________________________________________ ..... <font size=4>Why the Bush administration has made disarming Iraq one of its main foreign-policy objectives has been at the center of public debate..... ..... Ross, now director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that although President George W. Bush and his advisers shifted the focus of U.S. foreign policy from Middle East peace to Iraq early on in his administration, it was the shock of Sept. 11 that "convinced them that they could not put the United States in a position where it might be surprised again, only this time with much more catastrophic results.".....<font size=3> ..... Dennis Ross, who was special Middle East coordinator under President Clinton and also helped shape Mideast policy in the first Bush administration...... newseum.org _______________________________________________________ <font size=4>The War on Terror changes the US forever<font size=3> By Hugh Michael Denny Jr. <font size=4> In the days following the tragedy of September 11, President Bush began the groundwork for the radically new American foreign policy based on the War on Terror. Unlike the United States' efforts to fight terrorism worldwide prior to 9/11, the President made it clear that, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.".......<font size=3> ....Under this plan, the United States simplifies one of the challenges of combating terrorism by taking out the places where terrorists hide. As President Bush said, the US will, "Pursue nations that provide aid and refuge for terrorists. Every nation has a decision to make: either you are with us or against us." <font size=4>This is how the war on terror began..... .... As the Bush Administration began to take office, it was made clear that the United States wished to have a diminishing role in international peacekeeping operations and would rather look after it's own interests. A policy of containment for rogue states was at the forefront of foreign policy rhetoric. <font size=5> However, even in the pre-9/11 days there were members of the Bush Administration who advocated the new idea of "pre- emption" in order to prevent future national security challenges. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz have long advocated this policy: in particular making a regime change in Iraq. In a classified Defense Department paper Wolfowitz wrote in 1992 he outlined a policy of "pre-emption" and gave some examples where this should be used, specifically Iraq and North Korea. This report was leaked to the New York Times and met significant opposition causing it to be re- written to a policy of containment by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. However, with the events of September 11, a policy of "pre- emption" became the cornerstone of the US Security Policy as can be seen in the National Security Policy report of 2002. It is very clear that 9/11 opened President Bush's eyes to a different world where the United States can make a lot of changes. The War on Terror is the catalyst for this change in American foreign policy.....<font size=3> delawreview.com _________________________________________________________ EMPIRE U.S.A. .... Chomsky writes ..... <font size=4>"They recognized that the 9/11 atrocities provided them with an opportunity to pursue long-standing goals with even greater intensity, closely following the script of their earlier tenure in office." ..... This stunningly simplistic conspiratorial worldview contradicts much evidence. It ignores the differences in tone and tactics between the Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush administrations. It overlooks George W. Bush's desire to avoid complicated foreign adventures prior to 9/11, and his transformation after Osama bin Laden's murder spree...... <font size=3> nypost.com _________________________________________________________ <font size=4> ..... To the contrary, I think the paleocons' assumptions about President Bush and his war effort are in error and thus at least part of the reason for their opposition is based on their misunderstanding of Bush's motivations.<font size=3> A few characteristics in common with neoconservatives does not make President Bush one of them. If he's not, then the paleos ought to lighten up on him a bit...... <font size=4> ..... Contrary to liberal talking points, President Bush did not plan this comprehensive war against the "Axis of Evil" before 9-11 and use it as an excuse to justify his preplanned "imperialism." But for 9-11, I dare say, there would be no full scale, comprehensive War on Terror. Obvious, you say? I agree, but not to many of Bush's opponents...... ..... President Bush did not have a grandiose foreign policy agenda prior to 9-11; the event itself shaped what was to become his driving vision......<font size=3> ..... It may surprise you to know that there are those of us out here (I'd call us mainstream conservatives) who are hawkish against terrorism and bullish on Israel, yet not interested in creating an American empire. Our guiding principle is protecting America's strategic national interests. If that means we sometimes have to attack other nations, even preemptively, so be it. We are far from being isolationists, but we are just as far from being imperialists...... townhall.com ___________________________________________________________ <font size=4>This guy doesn't like President Bush at all....... ....There are certain conspiracy theorists who claim that Bush's foreign policy was Pax Americanish prior to 9/11, but I seriously don't buy that, given the talk and commitment to isolationism that characterized his campaign and his early days in office......<font size=3> spectacle.org