Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What has the PNAC said about Iran?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ChavezSpeakstheTruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 07:54 AM
Original message
What has the PNAC said about Iran?
That's how we'll know if we're going to attack and invade them, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. "They're next!"
did you have any doubt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uptown ruler Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. we are so there. =(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
D-Notice Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. From the PNAC site:
Going Soft on Iran - PDF

Regime Change for Iran

Looks like they're the next target
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. "Regime Change for Iran"??!?!?!?!
Wow, we're totally fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChavezSpeakstheTruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. No -they're totally fucked
we can continue shopping and consuming happily!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. I don't think everyone else is just going to sit on the sidelines.
I think we're going to see major alliances forming against the U.S. if we keep up this doctrine of pre-emptive strike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChavezSpeakstheTruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. But the PNAC has taken that into account
they are not afraid of anyone!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. You're right, they're not afraid, but
Edited on Tue Jul-20-04 08:15 AM by sirjwtheblack
I am! We're having a hard time in Iraq and we're spread thinner than a worn-out condom all over the world. I think we'd be fucked if, say, Germany, Russia, France, and/or China united against us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChavezSpeakstheTruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. China is scary indeed - N Korea has a 1,000,000 person army
And speaking of China, didn't we used to hate communists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. We only hate poor or non-sharing communists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nodictators Donating Member (977 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. Is this Bush's October Surprise?
Suppose Bush creates pretext in October, TV "news" begins howling for regime change in Iran, Bush begins bombing Iran in late October, days before the presidential election, Kerry disappears from our TV screens, Bush declared winner of election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. I can't believe the neo-cons aren't out in the street by now!
From this thread: PNAC links


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
Practice to Deceive
Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan.
April 2003
By Joshua Micah Marshall

<snip>In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, the president himself never quite said this openly. But hawkish neoconservatives within his administration gave strong hints. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Meanwhile, neoconservative journalists have been channeling the administration's thinking. Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future."

<snip>

Whacking the Hornet's Nest

If the Bush administration has thought through these various negative scenarios--and we must presume, or at least pray, that it has--it certainly has not shared them with the American people. More to the point, the president has not even leveled with the public that such a clean-sweep approach to the Middle East is, in fact, their plan. This breaks new ground in the history of pre-war presidential deception. Franklin Roosevelt said he was trying to keep the United States out of World War II even as he--in some key ways--courted a confrontation with the Axis powers that he saw as both inevitable and necessary. History has judged him well for this. Far more brazenly, Lyndon Johnson's administration greatly exaggerated the Gulf of Tonkin incident to gin up support for full-throttle engagement in Vietnam. The war proved to be Johnson's undoing. When President Clinton used American troops to quell the fighting in Bosnia he said publicly that our troops would be there no longer than a year, even though it was widely understood that they would be there far longer. But in the case of these deceptions, the public was at least told what the goals of the wars were and whom and where we would be fighting.

Today, however, the great majority of the American people have no concept of what kind of conflict the president is leading them into. The White House has presented this as a war to depose Saddam Hussein in order to keep him from acquiring weapons of mass destruction--a goal that the majority of Americans support. But the White House really has in mind an enterprise of a scale, cost, and scope that would be almost impossible to sell to the American public. The White House knows that. So it hasn't even tried. Instead, it's focused on getting us into Iraq with the hope of setting off a sequence of events that will draw us inexorably towards the agenda they have in mind.

The brazenness of this approach would be hard to believe if it weren't entirely in line with how the administration has pursued so many of its other policy goals. Its preferred method has been to use deceit to create faits accomplis, facts on the ground that then make the administration's broader agenda almost impossible not to pursue. During and after the 2000 campaign, the president called for major education and prescription drug programs plus a huge tax cut, saying America could easily afford them all because of large budget surpluses. Critics said it wasn't true, and the growing budget deficits have proven them right. But the administration now uses the existence of big budget deficits as a way to put the squeeze on social programs--part of its plan all along. Strip away the presidential seal and the fancy titles, and it's just a straight-up con. </snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. I made this side by side comparison of the
SOTU speech and the PNAC manifesto in a pdf.
I took only the rhetorical parts of the SOTU that referred to foreign policy and highlighted the similarities in the talking points.

the PNAC doesn't have the word "Iran", but notice on the SOTU speech where "Iran" corresponds rhetorically, next to the section on reshaping the Middle East.

I made this comparison right after the SOTU speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Do you have a link to the comparison?
Can you post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. here's the link...
sorry I forgot the link. (d'oh! )

http://www.bzart.com/ebay/comparison.pdf

it will download a pdf file (or open it I think, if your browser is set to do that)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC