| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: The PNAC Document |
 |
|
Just wondering has anyone here changed their minds on the meaning behind the 'new pearl harbour' line in the sept 2000 PNAC document 'Rebuilding Americas Defenses' or do you still refuse to accept the meaning of these terms?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I find most alarming about that document is that if they weren't behind 911 they sure wanted it bad. Never mind alleged 'dancing Israelis', Donald Rumsfeld was probably working hard to keep his face from cracking into a big grin when he went on telly to say how awful it all was. They've certainly exploited 911 as much as they possibly could, which sickens me.
A lot of folk say, if they were behind 911 they wouldn't have said this 'pearl harbour' stuff in a public document. I think it would be correctly assumed that citing it as 'evidence' would be dismissed as conspiracy theory.
I take it as establishing motive but that's it.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come on critics. Are you still towing the nonsense theory that it refers to technological development?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Come on critics. Are you still towing the nonsense theory that it refers to technological development? |
Since it clearly refers to technological development, that is more of a fact than a theory. The theory is 1) that it means more than that and 2) that Pearl Harbour was provoked by FDR, who was warned but let it happen. Number 2) is maintained by one historian in his book, and disputed by all the others. Number 1) there is no evidence for, except wishful thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | Come on critics. Are you still towing the nonsense theory that it refers to technological development? |
Since it clearly refers to technological development, that is more of a fact than a theory. The theory is 1) that it means more than that and 2) that Pearl Harbour was provoked by FDR, who was warned but let it happen. Number 2) is maintained by one historian in his book, and disputed by all the others. Number 1) there is no evidence for, except wishful thinking. |
There's also the fact that 9/11 and the war in Iraq have hampered many of the goals laid out in the document. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay then. So what would you say if i were to provide proof that it does not merely refer to technological development but does in fact refer to the build up of military power as i first claimed?
And what if i were to offer you this proof courtesy of William Kristol the former chairman of PNAC?
Then, finally would you accept the fairly obvious wording of a document that is after all in your own language?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No response?
I'll take that as a reluctant 'yes'.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I reject the notion that they ever wanted a new pearl harbor. That's not what the sentence says, unless you read what you want to see into it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | I reject the notion that they ever wanted a new pearl harbor. That's not what the sentence says, unless you read what you want to see into it. |
Ha ha.
Nice.
Can anyone spell 'B.A.C.K.T.R.A.C.K.I.N.G'?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am backtracking? really? Care to show me where I've ever said anything different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | I am backtracking? really? Care to show me where I've ever said anything different? |
Fair enough. But seriously, you guys (generalising, yes) have insisted that this document refers to the developement of technology (!!??!!) when it clearly does not. Now we have the former chairman of PNAC confirming this.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't care if they said "a massive terrorist attack", the sentence, in no way, conveys that they actually _want_ one, let alone want to _cause_ one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | I don't care if they said "a massive terrorist attack", the sentence, in no way, conveys that they actually _want_ one, let alone want to _cause_ one. |
Okay so...
"We want a drastic build up in military spending and presence but without a new Peral Harbour style incident we wont get what we want."
Said new Peral Harbour style incident occurs....
Drastic military buildup and presence occurs....
"Nofin t'do wi' me guvner."
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you put quotes around things that aren't being quoted?
Wouldn't it make more sense to just quote the actual sentence... or does the actual sentence only make sense in your world view when you get to reword it the way you want? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | Okay then. So what would you say if i were to provide proof that it does not merely refer to technological development but does in fact refer to the build up of military power as i first claimed?
And what if i were to offer you this proof courtesy of William Kristol the former chairman of PNAC?
Then, finally would you accept the fairly obvious wording of a document that is after all in your own language? |
Whay's your point? The whole document argues for America to remain the dominant military power in the world, there is no dispute about that, surely? The particular section with the Pearl Harbor quote refers to technological change, and argues that it should be embraced more quickly, at the expense of building more of today's systems such as aircraft carriers and the JSF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The particular section with the Pearl Harbor quote refers to technological change, and argues that it should be embraced more quickly, at the expense of building more of today's systems such as aircraft carriers and the JSF. |
Whoopsy daisy. You sure about that?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | The particular section with the Pearl Harbor quote refers to technological change, and argues that it should be embraced more quickly, at the expense of building more of today's systems such as aircraft carriers and the JSF. |
Whoopsy daisy. You sure about that? |
OK then let's look at it, because as far as I can see every instance of the use of the word "transformation" in the passage refers to technological change:
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. Information technologies,
in particular, are becoming more prevalent
and significant components of modern
military systems. These information technologies
are having the same kind of transforming
effects on military affairs as they
are having in the larger world. The effects
of this military transformation will have
profound implications for how wars are
fought, what kinds of weapons will
dominate the battlefield and, inevitably,
which nations enjoy military preeminence.
The United States enjoys every prospect
of leading this transformation. Indeed, it
was the improvements in capabilities
acquired during the American defense buildup
of the 1980s that hinted at and then
confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm,
that a revolution in military affairs was at
hand. At the same time, the process of
military transformation will present
opportunities for America’s adversaries to
develop new capabilities that in turn will
create new challenges for U.S. military
preeminence.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by
limited budgets and pressing current
missions, has seen funding for experimentation
and transformation crowded out
in recent years. Spending on military
research and development has been reduced
dramatically over the past decade. Indeed,
during the mid-1980’s, when the Defense
Department was in the midst of the Reagan
buildup which was primarily an effort to
expand existing forces and field traditional
weapons systems, research spending
represented 20 percent of total Pentagon
budgets. By contrast, today’s research and
development accounts total only 8 percent of
defense spending. And even this reduced
total is primarily for upgrades of current
weapons. Without increased spending on
basic research and development the United
States will be unable to exploit the RMA
and preserve its technological edge on future
battlefields.
Any serious effort at transformation
must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military
missions and defense budgets. The United
States cannot
simply declare a
“strategic pause”
while
experimenting
with new
technologies and
operational
concepts. Nor
can it choose to
pursue a
transformation
strategy that
would decouple
American and
allied interests.
A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
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. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A
decision to suspend or terminate aircraft
carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction
of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. Likewise, systems entering
production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for
decades to come. Wise management of this
process will consist in large measure of
figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs. The
expense associated with some programs can
make them roadblocks to the larger process
of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter
program, at a total of approximately $200
billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus,
this report advocates a two-stage process of
change – transition and transformation –
over the coming decades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Please note that he refers to "a new Pearl Harbor" as catastrophic. Not normally a term we use for things we "want" to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We need a new pearl harbour to cancel the joint strike fighter project. Not quite as exciting as some people would have hoped.
Last edited by pepik on Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "Absent a new pearl harbor, the path to canceling the JSF is going to be long and hard." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
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. |
Seems like plain english to me.
Anyway. Back to my question. If these terms actually did describe the overall buildup of military power and not just military technology, and that this was confirmed by the former chairman of PNAC, would you cretinous apologists finally change your tune. Or do you know better than the authors of this document?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I've already said, nowhere in that document does it say that they _want_ a new Pearl Harbor. Neither does it say they should _CREATE_ one. I've already asserted that even if it said "a massive terrorist attack", it doesn't mean they wanted one, or would want to orchestrate one. Those are things _you_ are reading into it.
It's just that simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Barring 2 billion people dying, the process of learning how to feed the planet more effectively is going to be a time-consuming process."
That sentence does not imply that I think killing 2 billion people is something I want. English is easy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | "Barring 2 billion people dying, the process of learning how to feed the planet more effectively is going to be a time-consuming process."
That sentence does not imply that I think killing 2 billion people is something I want. English is easy. |
Not unless you were in the business of feeding people, and stood to make a lot of money from it. And then 2 billion people died. And you and your ilk were directly linked to the people accused of killing 2 billion people.
Perhaps you might want to refine your metaphors before you use that sopping wet grey ball of cheek fluff someone syringed in to your ears.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Logical fallacy. None of that changes the intent of the statement. You are READING into it, given alot of circumstantial evidence. It is circular logic. If you presuppose a conspiracy, you can find it anywhere you look.
I need evidence of a conspiracy, before I start believing in one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Not unless you were in the business of feeding people, and stood to make a lot of money from it. And then 2 billion people died. And you and your ilk were directly linked to the people accused of killing 2 billion people. |
So you are saying the farmers are behind famine? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | Not unless you were in the business of feeding people, and stood to make a lot of money from it. And then 2 billion people died. And you and your ilk were directly linked to the people accused of killing 2 billion people. |
So you are saying the farmers are behind famine? |
Errr....yehhhh....
Thats right pepik. You scored a goal there.
Jesus Christ, are you from JRef too? That place is spitting out cakeheads.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ad hominem in place of logic, again. More hallmarks of rational thought. Followup a circular reasoning with ad hominimem. I'm starting to catch on to how you "prove" things in your model of knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Quote: | A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
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. |
Seems like plain english to me.
Anyway. Back to my question. If these terms actually did describe the overall buildup of military power and not just military technology, and that this was confirmed by the former chairman of PNAC, would you cretinous apologists finally change your tune. Or do you know better than the authors of this document? |
The whole paper is about the build-up of military power, this section argues that it is best achieved by technological change, not continuing with existing programmes. It says that it is likely to be slow without some catastrophic and catalysing event. To describe an event as catastrophic does not, to plain English speakers, indicate that you desire it.
Anyway, you have obviously found something you think will be a devastating knock-out blow and are bursting to use it, so why don't you just get on with it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Ad hominem in place of logic, again. More hallmarks of rational thought. Followup a circular reasoning with ad hominimem. I'm starting to catch on to how you "prove" things in your model of knowledge. |
Okaaaay then.....
Explain to me where exactly in the above arguement it states that farmers are directly linked to the deaths of 2 billion people.
Hmmmm....
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
