US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
New American Empire (english)
24 Jul 2003
what has the Project for a New American Century accomplished?
More than one hundred and fifty brave American soldiers are now dead in their graves. Hundreds more are injured. What are they fighting for? For the strategy of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dan Quayle and other great "thinkers."

Here are the principles of the PNAC:

increase defense spending significantly to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

strengthen our ties to democratic allies to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

See full details here:

On the surface this seems to be merely an assertion of American interests in foreign affairs, but how has it been implemented?

1) "increase defense spending." Yes, already to the tune of $400 Billion, NOT COUNTING the Billions being spent in Iraq week by week. "carry out global responsibilities." This statement is so incredibly vague, many would not even know what they are talking about. In fact, they mean exactly the invasion of Iraq, the use of pre-emptive military force whenever and wherever it pleases them. This is a direct violation of the US Constitution, which places the decision for going to war in the hands of Congress, not unilaterally with the President, and much less with a group of well-funded zealots at the vanguard of defense industry interests. Next these "global responsibilities" will be shifted to Syria, Iran, etc, with catastrophic results!!!

2) "strengthen ties to democratic allies and challenge regimes hostile to our values." So we have strengthened our ties to the UK and Spain, while alienating the vast majority of world's other democracies. What kind of jackass fuckup is this? That is to say, when Richard Perle went up to the microphones and began crowing in ecstasy about the "death of the United Nations," didn't anyone realize that the hundreds of nations involved might take offense?

perle article,3604,918764,00.html

Didn't anyone ponder on the relative value of actual negotiations for UN support, rather than just listen to the sickening arguments of one extremist? And now the the United States must definitely find a way to work with the UN, to bring them into Iraq, because our "coalition" (consisting of US, UK, Spain) is seen as an unwanted, occupying army, NOT a liberator. So while the main policy "genius" of the Bush White House is still trashing the UN, and Negroponte is trying to browbeat other nations into supplying military support without a UN resolution, those other nations are not finding it in their interest to be spit upon, kicked in the teeth, and told what to do by fascists. Hmm. Who would have figured? Well, leave it to the policy "geniuses" of PNAC! Wonder where Dan Quayle fits it?

"challenging hostile regimes." apparently Iraq was such a regime. The wierd thing is, Saddam Hussein was supported by the CIA in the first place. He was supplied with the very weapons being decried by the Reagan-Bush administration. And yet, people in the Bush administration (and the ubiquitous "Kevin" on IMC) will claim that no such relationship ever existed between the US government (especially Donald Rumsfeld) and Saddam. The fact of Rumsfeld's role as Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East, and his meeting with Saddam in Baghdad in Dec 1983 which resulted in a flood of weapons, 771 weapons export licenses and hundreds of millions of US$ worth of weapons going directly to Saddam, is considered to be what? A fantasy? A dream?

the facts are the facts:

Rumsfeld opened the floodgate of US weapons to Saddam Hussein.

Hussein was (is) a bastard. But at the time, the US fostered him in opposition to Iran (yet another country that the US meddled with, by installing the infamous Shah). The fact that the US eventually considered Hussein to be hostile is a political reality. To depose Saddam was to clean up a mess that the we ourselves made in the first place. It does not quite jibe with the high-minded rhetoric about challenging regimes hostile to our values and interests.

The important thing is: what does the verb "challengin" actually mean? In PNAC-speak, "challenging" means "crushing with the might of the US military."

Are we succeeding?

The fact is the US is not looking like an all-might giant right now. We are looking like a ham-strung overweight wrestler getting stung by wasps. Great plan PNAC "geniuses!" You set out to show the world a lesson, show them who is the big dog on the planet, and you make the United States look like a gang of stupid thugs!

To hell with your "genius!"

You are traitors!

3) "promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad."

The key word here seems to be "abroad," because they have done nothing except repress our freedoms here at home. Economic freedom? For whom, pray tell? This is the most transparent and shameless siezure of assets for the vested interests of energy, industrial, and infrastructure corporations ever seen!

Cheney's Energy Task force had the whole thing planned out in detail in early 2001! No wonder he was so keen to hide the papers. But now they are out, after two years of lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. And does anybody notice? Does anybody care that the Vice President of the United States had set up a plan to exploit the oil reserves of another nation, having conveniently eradicated that nation's government by military force? Ummm. This stinks. It is called belligerent invasion. So Dick Cheney is using the office of the Vice President to create his war plans for the illegal invasion of another country to steal their assets! And nobody cares????

Where is the outrage?

Cheney's "Energy Task Force" documents:

4) "accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

Clearly this feeds back directly to the earlier statements by Richard Perle: "death of the United Nations." We are supposed to believe that "coalitions of the willing" will save us from the "abject failure of the UN."

And so, Mr. Perle, your "coalition" has won what?

The scorn, the emnity, the hatred of countless people around the world, who now associate the great nation of the United States with your own arrogance, your own fascist sledgehammer foreign policy, your own naked greed.

Perle is the most conflicted soul on planet earth. He set up a company, Trireme Corporation, to sell "homeland security" services to countries suddenly threatened by terrorism due to his own policies!

see "lunch with the chairman"

Thanks alot for your New American Empire!

Until the lot of you are standing trial for treason, our great nation is doomed.

Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.