The Downing Street Memo: Just another empty Anti-War Leftist canard

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, June 19, 2005 09:05
VIEWED: 15313
PAGE 3 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 11:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Dude...the Excellent ConnorFlynn, the Non-Bogus SignyM, and Bodacious SergeantX...

You just watch Bill and Tedd's Excellent Adventure or what?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 11:33 PM

It's what I fall back on when I'm there to be silly.
This thread is the most entertaining RW one I've read in a long time.
HK, you said what I, and I suspect many others, were only thinkin' of sayin'.
I hope people take me down like that if I ever get sooooo serious, like I'm speakin' Gosple, or something.

Non, non non, non heinous Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 12:19 AM

Quote:
Dude, your thread has been taken over by the Excellent ConnorFlynn, the Non-Bogus SignyM, and Bodacious SergeantX; the facts, firepower and brains of them combined mean one thing...

...I wanna be bodacious.! ME Make me bodacious, or I'll... I'll.... WHAAAAAHHHH!!!!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 12:44 AM

Lynch, didn't mean to make fun of your thread. I understand your passion, but I obviously think it's misplaced. I quite frankly don't understand why you would trust ANY President as deeply as you seem to. And I wonder- did you defend Clinton with the same passion that you defend Bush? (BTW- I didn't vote for Clinton either.) Are you defending the Presidency- as you claim- or the President?

One of the things I find curious about your appeal to us as "Browncoats" is that you also seem to misunderstand- as far as I can tell- what a Browncoat is and what the Alliance represents. Did you catch the fact that the USA is the paradigm for the Alliance? What would that make the President of the USA? Certainly not a Browncoat! Browncoats tend to disrespect a Great Authoritarian. Browncoats think for themselves. Browncoats mistrust Big Government. Browncoats are loyal to each other- not blindly loyal to an office. At least, that's how I understand it.

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LynchAJ

Connorflynn,

Your post saddens me because it sounds like you've come to believe the misrepresentations so prevelant in the MSM and others. I can understand it though, they have been repeated so many times.

I ask you to questions the assertions, look for the canards, and not to give up hope. The US is a force for good in the world, President Bush is an honest man, and removing Saddam was the right thing to do regardless of the steady drumbeat of the naysayers pounding away.

I am not giving up.

Andrew Lynch

LOL.. Man, You don't know me very well. I've been visiting these boards for ages. I've gone around and around with just about every person on these boards at some point or another. I happen to be a politics junky. I was a Republican at one point in my life. That went out the window long ago, when I realized Dems and Repubs were EXACTLY the same (Politicians).

Points of interest :

1) You said : "The US is a force for Good in the world." - I agree. Every country can be a force for good in the world. Every country can make mistakes. I never said that We were evil. I said we were mislead by some serious people.

PNAC
June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequ

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
We are not the world police. We are the United States of America. Personally I thought we were against Imperialism..the PNAC are Imperialists.

Once again, I couldn't agree more, Connor. But here's what confuses me. This information is all freely available to anyone who'll go to the PNAC's site. To their credit, they are forthright and open about their plans for world domination. But how come people con't care? Very few of us seem to be willing to recognize, much less question, the PNAC agenda or its methods. Have we really grown so cynical?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 1:39 AM

Actually the PNAC changed their initial Mission statement after a general outcry at how hawkish it was (borderline 3rd Reichish to be honest).

Not many people know about PNAC. I don't believe I've seen 2 people mention it on a message board other then myself and one other friend (debater LOL).

The PNAC's Mission statement at first glance seems almost honorable. It's when you start looking at what parts each signee has played and then read the various articles and letters. It's taken me the better part of 3 years to get through some of it. Again, I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist..but LOL

I'll leave the rest up to you to judge after you've read the papers and what not.

Here are a couple for your perusal:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

This one I find particularly chilling:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Schmitt-112000.pdf

Another Strange one:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/indonesia-060700.htm

enjoy.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I understand your passion, but I obviously think it's misplaced.

Bodacious SignyM, he is passionate. He really cares, and I get that.
Using the political structure of the Firefly universe to hopefully ignite a new point of view is an interesting choice.
In my twenties I saw a Steven Segal movie (yeah, that's right- don't laugh so hard) that flipped the switch in my head. For years images of the Vietnam war were stuffed into my young head. Buddist monks burning themselves to make a point, people running on fire in villages, daily counts on American soldier casualties, etc. In this simplistic film a line was said by the star: "We wiped out entire cultures-", and suddenly the movie fell away and I was left with the rather terrifying realization that people die needlessly in the world due to the small quick words spoken in private by leaders in governments around the planet. I cried as I sat there, but not due to Steve's brilliant performance. It wasn't that I suddenly knew anything new, a moment opened for me where truths came together to form a (somewhat) fearless world view; that small, but very important pieces of what you see and hear from Rich people running this world is well sculpted bullshit.
It's scary at first, but that's the game. Always has been, just more 'civilized' now than in previous centuries, thank the Supreme one.

Just in case anyone's interested.

Oh, to the topic! It's nothing new or world-shaking. Probably have little effect on much.

Long- winded Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 2:07 AM

Connorflynn, if history teachers in High School were as good as you are at breakin' it all down for the somewhat feeble-minded, such as myself, this would undoubtedly be a country of superior understanding and compassionate concern. Thanks for your words and links on these boards.

Oh! And to the topic, yeah, I saw 'em. Big woop.

Topic-minded Chrisisall

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 2:34 AM

Having had to do a thesis paper on the Yalta Conferences my senior year of highschool I learned quickly that the big players in government are the men behind the President. Determining how strong the President is, usually determines how much leeway the men have behind him. Roosevelt was a strong President initially until he became infirm. At which point Alger Hess gave away the farm to Russia.

Based on my readings and I watched this all unfold in the 80's and 90's as well, the people behind the 2000 administration and this one are trudging along at a pretty quick pace. Alot has been achieved in 4.5 years. Afghanistan is down. Iraq has fallen. Libya is toeing the line. Saudi Arabia is playing the game and Syria and Lebanon are unstable and in the sights. Pakistan seems to be playing along and kanoodling with India (albeit grudgingly). The Israelis and Palestinians only seem to be killing each other at a rate of 3 or 4 a day. Iran is developing Nukes..that is an unfortunate circumstance..perhaps they will be the next in the crosshairs, though I believe that we are now actively supporting the rebellion within Iran from Iraq.

A perfectly played strategy. The only question that remains is whether or not they can keep the US public playing along and whether or Not Russia makes a move to become a communist state again, a possibility.

My impression in regards to Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld is that they have had designs on Iraq for ages. It's the focal point for their Middle East Plan. They artfully used 9/11 to advantage. Why I believe this is of a more cynical nature is the shear obsession the PNAC has in regards to Iraq. After the findings came out that there were NO WMDs left in Iraq, there was no accountability. (Thats what floored me) Sure maybe a couple of firings on a low level, but the PNAC members seem to be getting promoted. That tells me right there, there is something fishy in smellville.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE