Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UN "World Domination" VS PNAC Plan - Will Religious People Pay Attention?

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
 
InfoMinister Donating Member (546 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 04:07 PM
Original message
UN "World Domination" VS PNAC Plan - Will Religious People Pay Attention?
Edited on Mon Oct-04-04 04:08 PM by InfoMinister
This is one thing I keep on hearing about from religious evangelists about Kerry's support of the UN. They don't support the UN because of fears of a world government that is talked about in the Book of Revelations. However, if they knew about the PNAC would they reconsider their support of Bush?

Project For a New American Century(PNAC)was started by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and Lewis Libby and is a neo-conservative think tank. The organization was founded in 1997 and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with other current members of Bush’s war cabinet.


""The United States is the worlds only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global technological leadership, and the worlds largest economy. Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the worlds other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. Americas grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible."

----

"In particular, we need
to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
- defend the American homeland;
- fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
- perform the ?constabulary? duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
- transform U.S. forces to exploit the ?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." ***

"MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance."

---

"Americas global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other ?non-state actors."

---

"HOMELAND DEFENSE. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority."

---

"LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the ?wo-war standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts."

---

"The presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the
extent of Americas status as a superpower and as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability."

---

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

- http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


Also, here's a story ABC News did about it.

"The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?



March 10 — Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon."

- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Never underestimate the fundamentalist capacity for compartmental thinking
They wouldn't care about a world government as long as it was run by conservative Christian Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InfoMinister Donating Member (546 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Not Sure, I've Watched That Religious Channel
and sometimes the guy who predicted the world was going to end...twice...condemned the Bush administration for saying they were going to help Palestine. Any type of intervention in the Middle East from anybody made him mad unless it was building a wall or hurting Palestine in some way. He also had a special talking about big government and checking bags for money at the airport. The police took the guy's money because they claimed it was drug money. The case never went to court but they kept the money. He was talking about the government getting into people's personal business. Something the current administration has done a lot of thanks to the Patriot Act.

I don't know. Maybe they'd actually say something if they had all of this info but I doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. That is a good point - that here these people are wanting to prevent
world domination and here they are voting for those who are in the position to implement it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InfoMinister Donating Member (546 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Kind of Ironic Isn't It
When I read this document I don't know exactly what their intention is as far as fighting these wars. I mean it could be an eventual good and there's the idea that they're trying to spread Democratic ideals to some currupt areas. It seems like it has good intentions but kind of misguided and reckless. Astronomical amounts of money, astronomical losses of life, and the ability to go offtrack according to what the leaders want to actually do. What if some guy gets in there and decides, "Hey, they wanted to spread democracy but I only want money and power." Well, you have Book of Revelations type stuff happening right there. When you read this stuff you can't help but get a little paranoid and wonder what are their real intentions? But even the UN detractors are pretty damn paranoid when you really get down to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. I know! The total irony flabbergasts me as well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Gramma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Is THAT what the RWs have against the UN?
I've never understood this except that patriarchal idiots don't like authority, unless it is theirs. Now I get it, they are afraid of a global government ala the Book of Revelations. And yet...Bush fits the description of the Anti-Christ better than any contemporary world figure, and they support him. I guess if you're a RWingnut, logic isn't your forte.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Chick tracts lay out the lunacy:
www.chick.com (bring a barf bag. And hip waders)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InfoMinister Donating Member (546 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Send Chick.com The Document
Maybe they'll pay attention. You never know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. doubt that: they're theocrats;
a One World Government is okay if it's under Jaaaaayzus (not to be confused with Jesus), and PNAC is a slightly secular version of it, ripe and ready for hijacking by Robertson, Falwell, & Co (LLC)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InfoMinister Donating Member (546 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Well, They Can't Believe In A World Gov't At All
The Book of Revelations talks about there being a deceiver who will declare himself God and created a world government. He'd come about in the guise of good and seem to have good intentions but it's all supposed to be a sham. Or at least that's what I remember. Haven't read the Bible in awhile. Anyway, there can't be a world government no matter who it is and it's supposed to be a sign when they're in the process of doing it that people should start freaking out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. reaction????world govt by US=good; world govt by UN=bad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. Of course they know
Bush is one of them whereas Kofi Annan is black. They can't let a black guy run things you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. not to mention all the mooslims
and other heretics and heathens running the place!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackieforthedems Donating Member (534 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. A Link For You
At http://www.propagandamatrix.com/ look under New World Order and Bilderberg for info on this topic.
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 Tue May 07th 2024, 10:08 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