Be careful Mr. Honesty - those are not my links. You said the articles not from PNAC and that's what I referenced. Be accurate Hayes.
yes they do. rhadamanthus and rimrocker summed it up pretty good. post #133 should put an end to your assertion that pnac never called for military action against iraq in the late 90's. iraq aside, it seems that the majority of their writings are based around maintaining u.s. power thru military force and reagan-style arms buildup. they write that in order to more rapidly achieve this goal the country would need a "pearl harbor" style attack...9/11 anyone? "To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs." "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." -project for a new american century - rebuilding america's defenses (- ch. 5 pg. 51 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ses&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
I already changed my prior posts to read 'the' links. The articles are not from the PNAC. They are reprinted on the PNAC site from the Weekly Standard and the NYT. And you're making an weird u-turn. You already acknowledged these are not 'documents' from the PNAC nor the literature that was the subject of my earlier query.
Um, no - they don't. Even if I were to grant that those articles called for a US invasion, which I don't, those aren't PNAC documents calling for action. They are articles written in the Weekly Standard and the NYT, NOT documents from the PNAC. OK. None of this is relevant. None of it backs up your assertion that the PNAC documents were calling for an invasion of Iraq in 1998. It's fairly simple. Go find something from the PNAC that calls for the invasion of Iraq. You've haven't. You can't. It doesn't exist.
i wasnt specifically talking about the clinton letters, but since you brought it up the clinton letter dated 1/26/98 ABSOLUTELY talks about military inteverention in iraq... "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy." "We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." some of the signers of the letter included john bolton, william krystol, richard perle, donald rumsfeld and paul wolfowitz. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm OH SNAP!!!
see my previous post. 1998 - LETTER TO CLINTON - MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAQ - OFFICIAL PNAC DOCUMENT FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE. OH SNAP!!!
so i guess when they say that we must take "military action" against iraq and that the long term goal of the u.s. should be "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power" i should not assume that they are calling for military intervention. have you seen idiocracy yet? good movie.
That would be you making the u-turn. From: A Way to Oust Saddam Robert Kagan Weekly Standard September 28, 1998 NOT from PNAC, but reprinted on it's website --- But lets not banter about silly Hayesian word games usually employed to deviate from more important conversation. The PNAC website, documents, references, signatories, reprinted articles etc. are without a doubt pro-invasion.
Military action does not necessarily mean invasion. Supporting an internal uprising, which is the only detail provided (from an article in the Weekly Standard, not the PNAC), is not an invasion. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source syn·o·nym (sn-nm) Pronunciation Key n. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language. The US used its military power in Serbia. Did we invade Serbia? No, we did not. As we can see from this example, the two are not synonymous. If this were true then it would seem an easy burden for you to find a PNAC document (the original claim to which I took exception) stating we should invade Iraq. You haven't done so. Neither has anyone else. That is 'reality.'
Hayes, I found this statement by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf on The Daily Show very revealing. Since it deals with the topic, in regard to consequences of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, what is your opinion? Pakistan Prez Appears on 'Daily Show' By JAKE COYLE AP Entertainment Writer NEW YORK — Jon Stewart welcomed Pakistan's president to "The Daily Show" on Tuesday with tea and a Twinkie. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's tete-a-tete with Stewart on the Comedy Central program was even more unlikely than the much-anticipated meeting between Musharraf, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Bush, planned for Wednesday. As a gesture mirroring Pakistani hospitality, Stewart welcomed Musharraf with a cup of jasmine green tea, and offered the more American delicacy of a Twinkie. Musharraf chuckled and thanked the host, though Stewart promptly changed the subject. "Where's Osama bin Laden?" he asked suddenly. "I don't know," replied Musharraf. "You know where he is? You lead on, we'll follow you." Musharraf's appearance on "The Daily Show," which was taped late Tuesday and was to air Tuesday evening, was the first time a sitting head of state appeared on the program, a show spokesman said. The comedy show, though, has frequently drawn major political figures, including former President Clinton last week. The Pakistan president, who is on tour of the U.S., appeared on the program to promote his new memoir, "In the Line of Fire." The book has drawn headlines for, among other things, the Pakistan president's claim that after the Sept. 11 attacks he had no choice but to support the U.S. led war on terror groups or face an American "onslaught." On balancing the wishes of the U.S. and Pakistan, which is largely anti-American, Musharraf told Stewart: "I've had to learn the art of tightrope-walking many times, and I think I've become quite an expert of that." Stewart, himself, has also proven deft at balancing both humor and seriousness on "The Daily Show." At one point, he asked Musharraf if he had omitted any mention of the war in Iraq in his memoir because it has "gone so well." Musharraf again laughed, but said: "It has led certainly to more extremism and terrorism around the world." To conclude the interview, Stewart put Musharraf on the "Seat of Heat," a new feature for the program in which red lights flash around the studio and the guest is asked a final question. "George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden — be truthful — who would win a popular vote in Pakistan?" asked Stewart. "I think they'll both lose miserably," replied Musharraf, an answer met with raucous laughter by the "Daily Show" audience. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/TV/Musharraf_Daily_Show.html I'm looking forward to seeing it in about an hour. I'm sure it will be hilarious. Stewart always is, but there is more meat than usual on tonight's program. Keep D&D Civil.
Wrong, and very much so - see my previous post. They are pro-invasion. They do not say "invade Iraq now" in flashing neon lights, but any idiot can see that. If they are not pro-invasion, why the **** are they reprinting hordes of articles that blatantly call for it? Why are half the stinking signatories of the clinton letter unabashed Iraq war supporters? What does "militray intervention" mean? Your inability to draw any rational conclusions are indicative of serious mental deficiencies. You see it's easy to turn the tables too - where does PNAC advocate not invading? Your pathetic attempts to utilize one particular word as indication of a massive theme are silly and a waste of time.
What a hilariously stupid argument. The US used its military power in Iraq. Did we invade Iraq? Yes, we did. As we can see from this example, the two are synonymous. It's not how wrong your "logic" is that bothers me as much as the inherent arrogance.
Isn't William Kristol the editor of the Weekly Standard? I don't know if he was at the time, but according to Wikipedia, he is now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Your previous post claimed I don't deal in 'reality or synonyms.' So I'm not sure what that proves. Can see what? I think you're starting to lose it again. That's a shame. You already agreed with my initial claim that the PNAC documents do not call for an invasion. I understand you feel compelled to respond to any challenge I make in the D&D but you look pretty silly when you've already agreed with me before you started to lose it. I never said they were anti-invasion, I said they never issued documents calling for it. They haven't. What does that prove? I supported the war. By your logic that means I was calling for an invasion in 1998. Not very sound logic. It can mean many things. The no-fly zone is military intervention. Support for an internal uprising is military intervention. A bombing campaign is military intervention. A blockade is military intervention. The one mentioned (in the section of the article you left out) is supporting an internal uprising not invading the country. The problem is exactly that you see military intervention (or more appropriately the use of military power) as synonymous with invasion/occupation. You've made that clear with your statement about the two being synonymous. But they aren't synonymous as I have conclusively shown by example above. As usual you are seeing what you want to see. More on that: Two schools of definition exist for defining military intervention. Both see it as armed interference by one state or states in the affairs of another. The first, more traditional school counts only those cases as military interventions when the interference takes place in an already existing conflict. Examples of the third party intervention approach are the Correlates of War Project (COW)2, which only distinguishes intervention in civil wars, and the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kriegsursachenforschung (AKUF) of Hamburg University.3 This definition will be used in this essay. A second school defines a military intervention as any armed operation outside the territory of the state. Seen in this perspective military intervention necessarily includes here the first armed confrontations in a conflict. Excluded are those military actions by a government against groups on national territory when they do not cross borders i.e. civil wars without spill-over. Examples of this school are the studies of Tillema4 and Pearson.5 Isabelle Duyvestyn: Military Intervention and the Escalation of War: Quantitative Findings, 1945-1992 http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcont...mt=MTE1OTMzODA3NA==&access_ok_form=Processing... Sadly you've lost the plot again and reverted to your ad hom attacks. Get back on the meds and we'll continue the discussion. Sorry but your reversal makes no sense. A claim was made that the PNAC was advocating invasion in 1998. I challenged the statement. So far nobody has been able to show the PNAC making any such statements. I don't have to show the PNAC advocated not invading to have a valid point. You're just continuing with your string of poor logical reasoning. If I had said 'the PNAC has advocated not invading,' then it would be reasonable for you to ask me to show where they said that. I didn't so I don't. Aside from your lack of any logical reasoning skills, your problem is the assumption that military action must either be invasion or nothing. I have shown through examples above that this is not the case. Your answer about the two being synonymous is equally silly. I already defined synoymous for you since you apparently don't understand what it means. Military power can be invasion. It also can be a lot of other things. Therefore the two cannot be synonymous. They do not mean the same thing. Maybe this example will clear it up for you: A square is always a rhombus. A rhombus is not always a square (it could be a diamond, for example). Square and rhombus are not synonymous even though a square is a rhombus. That's straight logic for you. Your retort works exactly the same way. An invasion is always a military action. A military action is not always an invasion. Invasion and military action are not synonymous. Now see if you can deal with that instead of continuing to display your immature and insecure bbs persona.
I assume you mean this part. Let me know if that's not what you're pointing out. We don't know what the world would have looked like sans the intervention in Iraq. I don't think Al Qaeda would have been sitting on their hands had we stayed out of Iraq. It would seem reasonable to conclude there would have been a spike in their actions (like in Bali or in Madrid) anyway. I'd agree that some actions such as the London bombing and the terrorism in Iraq more than likely would not have happened since they are directly linked to the intervention in Iraq. However it also seems likely that we'd have seen the same type and number of incidents in Afghanistan instead of Iraq had we not gone into Iraq. AQ would have just been calling for jihad against the West there and drawing the same recruits there as they have in Iraq.
I think HayesStreet has limited himself to a very narrow strip of the argument. He is basically saying that PNAC itself never technically stated the exact words "America should invade Iraq." So far, looking at the articles quoted, he is technically correct. PNAC Memo 1998: Now, I'm no genius but using "ground action" to force a regime change sounds a lot like an invasion. Moreover, after reading some of the other PNAC articles, it seems that their original plan is to build "anti-Sadam" safe zones in Southern Iraq, where Iraqi revolutionaries can safely gather and form an alternative government. PNAC argued that America should support such efforts and provide military aid to such efforts if necessary. Now, if California were to secede from the United States, and Cuba provided troops and military aid to Sacramento, would we quibble over whether Cuba technically "invaded" us? Now, I don't know why we're stuck on this invasion language in the first place, nor do I know why we are limiting our research to PNAC documents and excluding stuff from the Weekly Standard, which sometimes served as a PNAC mouthpiece. But yes, you are right Hayestreet. The words "invade iraq" is not on the PNAC website, as far as I can tell.
