| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayler&g |
 |
|
Well? You are the truthseekers. Discuss.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:12 am Post subject: Re: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayl |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | Well? You are the truthseekers. Discuss. |
A link or something would help things along a tad.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: Re: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayl |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | Well? You are the truthseekers. Discuss. |
Discuss the statement "You are the Truthseekers" ??
That would make a good philosophy exam question
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: Re: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayl |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | Well? You are the truthseekers. Discuss. |
This is critics corner Rodin, so you more likely to get dismissive arguments than constuctive perspectives. If that's not your intention, this may be better asked in General Chatter
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayl |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | rodin wrote: | | Well? You are the truthseekers. Discuss. |
Discuss the statement "You are the Truthseekers" ??
That would make a good philosophy exam question |
It would, wouldnt it?
"Is it better for a man to seek the truth, no matter how painful, or defend his ego against the truth for the benefit of his comfort and peace of mind?"
I'll tell you what though, the Greek old school would have no trouble ripping into that one
Another thing in passing Ignatz:
If you truly believe Prole Art Threat to be feebleminded conspiracy loon or some such:
What does it say about YOU that you mock him?
I'll give you a clue: it says a lot, much to your discredit
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsum
Moderate Poster
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well said John. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ignoring Ignatz faux philosophical quandry (would anybody be a Lie-seeker, other than to expose the truth?), it's a good question.
Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'?
Given the timeframe when PNAC was formed and their paper published, the proponents, being very old-school reactionaries, probably thought that the ravings of a dry and dusty, not very well known policy think tank would never become widely known to anybody outside their target group of government insiders and industry execs.
Of course, subsequent mass internet take-up (and not solely as an entertainment delivery medium - drat!) changed all that, so now everybody who's interested knows.
Not that they like to brag about it now. A search for the phrase (remembering to use the US spelling) on their website
( http://www.newamericancentury.org/ )
turns up the non-reply 'Unable to locate search index for this site'.
You can however find it in their policy document: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
I guess they would observe that there's no conceivable connection with their policy stance and the events that followed. But then, some people are born lucky, and those that aren't, make their own luck, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course the phrase actually occurs when they are talking about developing new technologies and operational concepts, but that does not stop truthshirkers dragging it out and claiming it is some sort of confession, in the same pathetic way they try to use Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote. Another demonstration of the weakness of their case. Incidentally it is on page 51, for those interested in seeing it in context, not as some sort of slogan.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayl |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Another thing in passing Ignatz:
If you truly believe Prole Art Threat to be feebleminded conspiracy loon or some such:
What does it say about YOU that you mock him?
I'll give you a clue: it says a lot, much to your discredit |
No. Given that he's impervious to reason it might shock him into realising he's in for more of the same out there in the big wide world if he continues to peddle such lies and drivel.
Incidentally John White, do you admonish your fellow Truthers who come over to CC and engage in similar tactics? (Rhetorical question) Had a word with Patrick about his shill-fest? What does that say about you, Mr Oh-So-Reasonable? If you want even-handed "decency" then lead the way. I look forward to it.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayl |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | John White wrote: | Another thing in passing Ignatz:
If you truly believe Prole Art Threat to be feebleminded conspiracy loon or some such:
What does it say about YOU that you mock him?
I'll give you a clue: it says a lot, much to your discredit |
No. Given that he's impervious to reason it might shock him into realising he's in for more of the same out there in the big wide world if he continues to peddle such lies and drivel.
Incidentally John White, do you admonish your fellow Truthers who come over to CC and engage in similar tactics? (Rhetorical question) Had a word with Patrick about his shill-fest? What does that say about you, Mr Oh-So-Reasonable? If you want even-handed "decency" then lead the way. I look forward to it. |
Not at all Ignatz: your responsible for your own behaviour and dont require leadership from me to demonstrate the "quality" of your ethical standards: though obviously it's a simple matter to pwn you over them, and you could do far worse than learn from my posting example
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Of course the phrase actually occurs when they are talking about developing new technologies and operational concepts, but that does not stop truthshirkers dragging it out and claiming it is some sort of confession, in the same pathetic way they try to use Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote. Another demonstration of the weakness of their case. Incidentally it is on page 51, for those interested in seeing it in context, not as some sort of slogan. |
And equally 'of course' you can be relied upon to put some attempted spin of innocence on it BW, even though the paragraph specifically relates to 'policy goals' and 'interests' and 'transformation'- which is what all the technological hardware is about after all.
"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."
But 'of course', you knew that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Of course the phrase actually occurs when they are talking about developing new technologies and operational concepts, but that does not stop truthshirkers dragging it out and claiming it is some sort of confession, in the same pathetic way they try to use Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote. Another demonstration of the weakness of their case. Incidentally it is on page 51, for those interested in seeing it in context, not as some sort of slogan. |
And equally 'of course' you can be relied upon to put some attempted spin of innocence on it BW, even though the paragraph specifically relates to 'policy goals' and 'interests' and 'transformation'- which is what all the technological hardware is about after all.
"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."
But 'of course', you knew that. |
The "transformation" is the technological change to give the US pre-eminence in military capability, and not its adverseries. The paper argues that military conservatism will mean that the process of change will be a long one, 'absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor' as anyone reading it for themselves, and not relying on distortions put on it by some "truthseeker", can see.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Of course the phrase actually occurs when they are talking about developing new technologies and operational concepts, but that does not stop truthshirkers dragging it out and claiming it is some sort of confession, in the same pathetic way they try to use Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote. Another demonstration of the weakness of their case. Incidentally it is on page 51, for those interested in seeing it in context, not as some sort of slogan. |
And equally 'of course' you can be relied upon to put some attempted spin of innocence on it BW, even though the paragraph specifically relates to 'policy goals' and 'interests' and 'transformation'- which is what all the technological hardware is about after all.
"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."
But 'of course', you knew that. |
The "transformation" is the technological change to give the US pre-eminence in military capability, and not its adverseries. The paper argues that military conservatism will mean that the process of change will be a long one, 'absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor' as anyone reading it for themselves, and not relying on distortions put on it by some "truthseeker", can see. |
Yes, yes truthdenier - but transformation in pursuit of what?
Duh! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | .... but transformation in pursuit of what?
Duh! |
US hegemony
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Of course the phrase actually occurs when they are talking about developing new technologies and operational concepts, but that does not stop truthshirkers dragging it out and claiming it is some sort of confession, in the same pathetic way they try to use Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote. Another demonstration of the weakness of their case. Incidentally it is on page 51, for those interested in seeing it in context, not as some sort of slogan. |
And equally 'of course' you can be relied upon to put some attempted spin of innocence on it BW, even though the paragraph specifically relates to 'policy goals' and 'interests' and 'transformation'- which is what all the technological hardware is about after all.
"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."
But 'of course', you knew that. |
The "transformation" is the technological change to give the US pre-eminence in military capability, and not its adverseries. The paper argues that military conservatism will mean that the process of change will be a long one, 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.as anyone reading it for themselves, and not relying on distortions put on it by some "truthseeker", can see. |
Yes, yes truthdenier - but transformation in pursuit of what?
Duh! |
"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades" because "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."
In other words, they argue that technological change presents a challenge to the current American military pre-eminence, and that pre-eminence may be lost unless America switches from simply building more aircraft carriers to concentrating itself on technological change, but that process of switching is likely to be a long one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So there we are, in your own collective words, promoting pre-eminence and preserving hegemony.
It's pretty obvious who was offering mendacious distortions now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | So there we are, in your own collective words, promoting pre-eminence and preserving hegemony.
It's pretty obvious who was offering mendacious distortions now. |
Military pre-eminence, let us have it right, as has existed since the end of the Cold War.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayl |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Not at all Ignatz: your responsible for your own behaviour and dont require leadership from me to demonstrate the "quality" of your ethical standards: though obviously it's a simple matter to pwn you over them, and you could do far worse than learn from my posting example |
You missed the irony in my statement, which was fully expecting this kind of hypocritical response.
Your hypocrisy (and arrogance) is shown by the fact that you'll attack the "ethics" of Critics, but not of Truthers. Put your own house in order, Mr Moderator.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | So there we are, in your own collective words, promoting pre-eminence and preserving hegemony.
It's pretty obvious who was offering mendacious distortions now. |
Military pre-eminence, let us have it right, as has existed since the end of the Cold War. |
Only in the wonderful illusionary PR world promoted by our wonderful leaders.
Neither Russia, China nor the USA has relinquished one single weapon system since START, so it seems at least to me, we're still living in a MAD world.
Has anything changed I should know about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | So there we are, in your own collective words, promoting pre-eminence and preserving hegemony.
It's pretty obvious who was offering mendacious distortions now. |
Military pre-eminence, let us have it right, as has existed since the end of the Cold War. |
Only in the wonderful illusionary PR world promoted by our wonderful leaders.
Neither Russia, China nor the USA has relinquished one single weapon system since START, so it seems at least to me, we're still living in a MAD world.
Has anything changed I should know about? |
We are not talking nuclear weapons, we are talking of conventional forces, surely you realised that?
From the Key Findings of the document:
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
Wiki on the Russian military
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Why did PNAC advertise the 'New Pearl Harbor'? <Shayl |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Not at all Ignatz: your responsible for your own behaviour and dont require leadership from me to demonstrate the "quality" of your ethical standards: though obviously it's a simple matter to pwn you over them, and you could do far worse than learn from my posting example |
You missed the irony in my statement, which was fully expecting this kind of hypocritical response.
Your hypocrisy (and arrogance) is shown by the fact that you'll attack the "ethics" of Critics, but not of Truthers. Put your own house in order, Mr Moderator. |
No, I ignored the cynicism in your statement, but I'm not suprised you dont realise I talk to truthers via PM: with critics I keep it public, and consider it wise to do so: a matter of trust (via its abscence).
My house is fine, yours is on soggy foundations, but its your own argument your undermining, so by all means carry on
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | So there we are, in your own collective words, promoting pre-eminence and preserving hegemony.
It's pretty obvious who was offering mendacious distortions now. |
Military pre-eminence, let us have it right, as has existed since the end of the Cold War. |
Only in the wonderful illusionary PR world promoted by our wonderful leaders.
Neither Russia, China nor the USA has relinquished one single weapon system since START, so it seems at least to me, we're still living in a MAD world.
Has anything changed I should know about? |
We are not talking nuclear weapons, we are talking of conventional forces, surely you realised that?
From the Key Findings of the document:
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
Wiki on the Russian military |
Despite the hair splitting, we are talking, in von Clausewitz' words of 'contunuation of policy by other means'.
Surely you realised that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | So there we are, in your own collective words, promoting pre-eminence and preserving hegemony.
It's pretty obvious who was offering mendacious distortions now. |
Military pre-eminence, let us have it right, as has existed since the end of the Cold War. |
Only in the wonderful illusionary PR world promoted by our wonderful leaders.
Neither Russia, China nor the USA has relinquished one single weapon system since START, so it seems at least to me, we're still living in a MAD world.
Has anything changed I should know about? |
We are not talking nuclear weapons, we are talking of conventional forces, surely you realised that?
From the Key Findings of the document:
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
Wiki on the Russian military |
Despite the hair splitting, we are talking, in von Clausewitz' words of 'contunuation of policy by other means'.
Surely you realised that? |
Military power is designed to make war as best one can, if required, and if an adversary is not deterred, who is denying that?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | So there we are, in your own collective words, promoting pre-eminence and preserving hegemony.
It's pretty obvious who was offering mendacious distortions now. |
Military pre-eminence, let us have it right, as has existed since the end of the Cold War. |
Only in the wonderful illusionary PR world promoted by our wonderful leaders.
Neither Russia, China nor the USA has relinquished one single weapon system since START, so it seems at least to me, we're still living in a MAD world.
Has anything changed I should know about? |
We are not talking nuclear weapons, we are talking of conventional forces, surely you realised that?
From the Key Findings of the document:
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
Wiki on the Russian military |
Despite the hair splitting, we are talking, in von Clausewitz' words of 'contunuation of policy by other means'.
Surely you realised that? |
Military power is designed to make war as best one can, if required, and if an adversary is not deterred, who is denying that? |
Someone arguing that the PNAC 'Pearl Harbor' scenario exists in some sort of unrelated vacuum, separate from US policy with a military budget rising from $307 Bills in 2001 to $536 Bills in 2006 to intevene aggressively to influence world events since 9/11 it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right, not me then.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Right, not me then. |
Hell no, perish the thought.
After all, you're 'BushWACKER', not 'Bushsnivellingapologist'.
Anybody can see that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Right, not me then. |
Hell no, perish the thought.
After all, you're 'BushWACKER', not 'Bushsnivellingapologist'.
Anybody can see that. |
As often with you, chek, I get the feeling that you are arguing or being insulting not to make any particular point or because of any real belief, but merely for the sake of it.
I am not a Bush apologist, snivelling or otherwise, I think Bush has been the worst US president ever and his foreign policies have been disastrous, succeeding in turning the world-wide wave of sympathy for the USA after 9/11 into near world-wide condemnation.
The point at issue here is the phrase used in the paper, which is often taken completely out of context and trumpeted as some sort of confession to advocating a faked attack on the USA. Taken in context it is clearly nothing of the sort.
I have no more to say on the subject.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever.
But it seems you didn't succeed in getting that brave band of chickenhawks at PNAC off the hook after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What the paper says is: If America wants to rule the world we need massive military expenditure and we can't get quick approval to do that without a New Pearl Harbour.
I think its fairly clear, guilty as charged.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
