CyberRose said:
No thats great thanks. A very cohesive summary. I for one would like to see the essay if you wouldn't mind posting it here. Are you a politics student then?
I agree that it does seem to be about empire building.
As summarized on the PNAC website:
'• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.'
Despite their idealistic references to political freedom, I think it is more about ‘economic freedom’, or dominating the economies of weaker nations for American interests, but primarily for private interests. In this way they are allied with economic ‘Globalists’, using phony rhetoric and strong arm tactics to subject and profit from them. Leaving those countries in devastated as in the case of the World Bank and Argentina (see my ‘Globalisation’ thread) or with the Neo-Cons and Afghanistan and Iraq.
If I may be permitted to state the obvious once again, I think they are also opportunists, as in the case of Afghanistan, or use subterfuge (Iraq). Many of them are adherents to Machiavellian principles, they make no secret of this. Though I am no expert I believe this basically means that the ‘ends justify the means’. This leads to all kinds of horrific possibilities.
They are also very militaristic, as their stated principles above show. One of their core ideas is that America had not made full use of its military advantage.
)
