Try the official PNAC website and see what if anything differs from the synopsis:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Notice the supporters of the wacky right in the statement of principles. Then, politics aside, ask yourself if the US as a declining economy driving a false GDP with personal and public debt as a debtor nation in a global society can afford to continue that direction. And for how long. Hopefully, all who support that direction have amassed substantial personal fortunes to provide for their descendants.

 

The unique thing about money being it has absolutely no friends or loyalty regardless of political affiliation, but can temporarily buy power and everyone has a price.

As to economists, put 100 of them in a room with no publicity and there should be 100 different opinions. Most every private and government economist quoted in the media has an axe to grind, that being keeping the public confident. Be it a brokerage, bank, university or treasury economist, their job is to keep the public spending money to help sustain our internal transaction based GDP. The only media exposed economist who has hinted at the dangers of our fiscal irresponsibility is Greenspan, who commented on the problems we face with our deficit spending to be clocked for the history books as he retired.

While I may not agree with some, I respect anyone's opinion based on logical, sound reasoning. My entire professional career was numbers and money. When someone tells me our country can afford the direction we're taking with our foreign and domestic policies based on fear that very foreign policy generates, and that they support that direction to the point of relinquishing their civil liberties, all I can do is wish them good luck.

 

And ill judge shrub by the company he keeps, and the way he conucts himself. Seems fair.

 

Ok this is the last one for today (maybe have more time tonight lol).

I had a chance to quickly take in the major points of the PNAC and am still going thru the info, but I also had a chance to view the main page of that site and while viewing something I have found interesting before I realized something that many of those opposing the admin in general (and even some supporting it) may not have realized, or at least in my opinion.

I think anyone of average inteligence can realize there is a problem with this thinking or at least question it to a point that would create a need for further investigation.

Even with the constant reminders from all directions that GW has friends, and interests in the oil industry there is still a cause for questioning this type of thinking as this all being only for oil just clearly makes no sense at all. Keep in mind the main reason I am going to get into this is due to so many I know honestly believing that there is a connection between the war in iraq, and the oil under it.

Now just for a moment consider even using my thinking that big business and wealthy americans are those truely running things from behind both parties, and then throw in the other popular thinking that the admin has a motivation thru or from the oil industry in the US. I think no matter how you slice it there just is not any way this makes total complete sense, and if the only idea here was to increase the profits of the oil industry in general there would have been no reason or purpose in having a long war or even ground troops involved. The instability needed to increase pump prices could have easilly been accomplished without having to extend anyware near the amount of dollars spent, and potential negative public opinion.

I hope I dont lose everyone from here as this may get a little involved, and also please understand this is little more than an opinion based on what information both past and present I have had avail. Being its only an opinion please feel free to add or object as you may feel fit.

I will start with repeating some comments I had heard on one of the political discussion TV shows prior to sept 2001. The only reason I remember it so vividly is because I had actually found the idea stuck in my head as it involved who the next bad guy would be. The basic idea being discussed was that the analysts seemed to think that there was some need for a boost to the US that only a war could produce, but being that the last time this had happened was during desert storm, and that Iraq was working within the basic guidlines of the surrender and didnt offer an answer to the need. They had discussed how it seemed some may have been looking for a new "bad guy" to go after that the american public would have accepted, and got behind the govt and military to "get em". They mentioned Iran, but agreed no one fit the bill, then Libya but had the same end result. When I had changed the channel the discussion was finding the next bully or bad guy that the US would potentially go after, and I had thought about it for some time also.

Now like Geroged refers to lets follow the money, and even the power from that point on. I will try and make it obvious when things are opinion vs fact but I am typing really fast and appoligize for the ones I miss. Why the disclaimer you may ask? Basically because some of the things I am going to touch on are a little out there, and seriously scarry beyond belief if they are in anyway true.

Just for a moment think about who was to benefit from the war in afganistan, and Iraq, or whoever the next stop is? Who would benefit from the attacks on the world trade center? What industries, people, nations and who ever else stood to benefit from any of these actions? Seriously think about it for a moment, are you thinking of things like military suppliers, our economy, those who consider these countries were at war with their enimies, those who will replace the previous leaders of those countries, those who will supply the goods and products needed to rebuild those countries, the added stability to the US influence on the region, and so many more I cant type them all out.

I am sure we have all seen the various conspiracy theories around about everything from GW being behind the initial attacks on the US, the pentagon not ever being hit by a plane, all the planes being loaded with explosives, the plane over PA being shot down, the Isreal musaud (their CIA or NSA etc) being directly involved with the people who actually flew the planes, certain foreign govt's helping the attackers gain entry to the us, and a host of others that play on our ability to accpet such things as even being possible, or for anyone to have done, and our willingness to try and investigate what truely happend.

If you really really give this serious thought, and think within the idea that everything happens for a purpose, and continue to follow the money etc not all of these theories are unbelievable and some even start to make cause for further investigation. Its not an easy thing to even consider that our govt was in anyway knowing or involved with the attacks (I seriously doubt they were directly involved) and I dont think anyone would want to believe there are so many have lost and are risking their lives only for true benefit of a small few, but forget that for a moment and only track the money or who is to benefit etc.

What are you coming up with? Do you see how a defense contractor would benefit, or how a large oil company would see increased margins and profits? OK those were easy, but what about any others?

Had any countries in that region come to mind? How about the Saudi's, or even Isreal? What about those in Europe, and what do they have to gain?

What about the idea of just creating a positive growth economy, expanding military budgets, or giving the US public something to join together and stand for, or maybe even just not give them something to disagree with as most people are retalitory in nature anyhow.

Did anyone even think of the original stated reasons we were invading or attacking Iraq in the first place (their WMD's being a threat to us etc) I didnt think so, but then why did this all happen? Was it all just because there was no other "bad guy" around like discussed on that show I had seen? or was truely because Iraq was not cooperating and was developing wmd's?

Now no matter your background or beliefs you have to be able to see that there is obviously motivation besides the WMD scenerio, and even if you dont agree or believe all of the various different opinions or theories there are some that do make a certain amount of sense when you look at things from the outside.

Ok so now lets consider what else is at stake here besides the more easilly traced money lines. Things like a better stability and controll of the region, potentially removing potential future terror threats, actually creating future threats by continued involvement, a showing of power to any future enemy, creating a stability or increased control of the oil markets, a testing of our allies loyalty, and again so many more than I can type or prob even know of.

There are so many behind the scenes things happening that its really hard to decifer the truth between all the utter BS (are the NSA, and other issues only to cause further clouding?) but things I honestly believe in my head and my heart is that the war has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, WMD's, Saddam, but at the same time was a needed thing to happen for the better of all of America for several reasons.

Does this make it right? Does it make up for what may have been done if any of the so called "conspiracy theories" are actually true? Does it right the wrong of not being 100% truthful with the American people? I seriously dont believe so, but I also respect everyones RIGHT to come to their own conclusions, and stand behind their beliefs etc, and its these rights and the potential voilation of these rights by the NSA program and the Patriot Act that caused me concern, and started this thread.

I hope everyone can now better understand that no matter your political beliefs there is a serious need to pretect our rights as US citizens, and that we must demand our leaders maintain a true system of checks and balances as defined by our countries forefathers as this is our only defense against any potential violations (as discussed above) and creates our ability to reel in or put an end to any leaders who may chose to go beyond the limits of our constitution.

 

It would be nice to keep this dicussion on the issues and not people who post.
Anyone care to comment on this article...and what is and what isnt true? And if you think its not true...wheres the documentaion?




When Americans No Longer Own America
by Thom Hartmann


The Dubai Ports World deal is waking Americans up to a painful reality: So-called "conservatives" and "flat world" globalists have bankrupted our nation for their own bag of silver, and in the process are selling off America.

Through a combination of the "Fast Track" authority pushed for by Reagan and GHW Bush, sweetheart trade deals involving "most favored nation status" for dictatorships like China, and Clinton pushing us into NAFTA and the WTO (via GATT), we've abandoned the principles of tariff-based trade that built American industry and kept us strong for over 200 years.

The old concept was that if there was a dollar's worth of labor in a pair of shoes made in the USA, and somebody wanted to import shoes from China where there may only be ten cents worth of labor in those shoes, we'd level the playing field for labor by putting a 90-cent import tariff on each pair of shoes. Companies could choose to make their products here or overseas, but the ultimate cost of labor would be the same.

Then came the flat-worlders, led by misguided true believers and promoted by multinational corporations. Do away with those tariffs, they said, because they "restrain trade." Let everything in, and tax nothing. The result has been an explosion of cheap goods coming into our nation, and the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs and thousands of manufacturing companies. Entire industry sectors have been wiped out.

These policies have kneecapped the American middle class. Our nation's largest employer has gone from being the unionized General Motors to the poverty-wages Wal-Mart. Americans have gone from having a net savings rate around 10 percent in the 1970s to a minus .5 percent in 2005 - meaning that they're going into debt or selling off their assets just to maintain their lifestyle.

At the same time, federal policy has been to do the same thing at a national level. Because our so-called "free trade" policies have left us with an over $700 billion annual trade deficit, other countries are sitting on huge piles of the dollars we gave them to buy their stuff (via Wal-Mart and other "low cost" retailers). But we no longer manufacture anything they want to buy with those dollars.

So instead of buying our manufactured goods, they are doing what we used to do with Third World nations - they are buying us, the USA, chunk by chunk. In particular, they want to buy things in America that will continue to produce profits, and then to take those profits overseas where they're invested to make other nations strong. The "things" they're buying are, by and large, corporations, utilities, and natural resources.

Back in the pre-Reagan days, American companies made profits that were distributed among Americans. They used their profits to build more factories, or diversify into other businesses. The profits stayed in America.

Today, foreigners awash with our consumer dollars are on a two-decades-long buying spree. The UK's BP bought Amoco for $48 billion - now Amoco's profits go to England. Deutsche Telekom bought VoiceStream Wireless, so their profits go to Germany, which is where most of the profits from Random House, Allied Signal, Chrysler, Doubleday, Cyprus Amax's US Coal Mining Operations, GTE/Sylvania, and Westinghouse's Power Generation profits go as well. Ralston Purina's profits go to Switzerland, along with Gerber's; TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, while John Hancock Insurance's profits go to Canada. Even American Bankers Insurance Group is owned now by Fortis AG in Belgium.

Foreign companies are buying up our water systems, our power generating systems, our mines, and our few remaining factories. All because "flat world" so-called "free trade" policies have turned us from a nation of wealthy producers into a nation of indebted consumers, leaving the world awash in dollars that are most easily used to buy off big chunks of America. As www.economyincrisis.com notes, US Government statistics indicate the following percentages of foreign ownership of American industry:

· Sound recording industries - 97%
· Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
· Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
· Metal ore mining - 65%
· Motion picture and video industries - 64%
· Wineries and distilleries - 64%
· Database, directory, and other publishers - 63%
· Book publishers - 63%
· Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
· Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
· Rubber product - 53%
· Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
· Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
· Plastics product - 51%
· Other insurance related activities - 51%
· Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
· Glass and glass product - 48%
· Coal mining - 48%
· Sugar and confectionery product - 48%
· Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying - 47%
· Advertising and related services - 41%
· Pharmaceutical and medicine - 40%
· Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products - 40%
· Securities brokerage - 38%
· Other general purpose machinery - 37%
· Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media - 36%
· Support activities for mining - 36%
· Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation - 32%
· Chemical manufacturing - 30%
· Industrial machinery - 30%
· Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities - 30%
· Other food - 29%
· Motor vehicles and parts - 29%
· Machinery manufacturing - 28%
· Other electrical equipment and component - 28%
· Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities - 27%
· Architectural, engineering, and related services - 26%
· Credit card issuing and other consumer credit - 26%
· Petroleum refineries (including integrated) - 25%
· Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments - 25%
· Petroleum and coal products manufacturing - 25%
· Transportation equipment manufacturing - 25%
· Commercial and service industry machinery - 25%
· Basic chemical - 24%
· Investment banking and securities dealing - 24%
· Semiconductor and other electronic component - 23%
· Paint, coating, and adhesive - 22%
· Printing and related support activities - 21%
· Chemical product and preparation - 20%
· Iron, steel mills, and steel products - 20%
· Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery - 20%
· Publishing industries - 20%
· Medical equipment and supplies - 20%

Thus it shouldn't surprise us that the cons have sold off our ports as well, and will defend it to the bitter end. They truly believe that a "New World Order" with multinational corporations in charge instead of sovereign governments will be the answer to the problem of world instability. And therefore they must do away with quaint things like unions, a healthy middle class, and, ultimately, democracy.

The "security" implications of turning our ports over to the UAE are just the latest nail in what the cons hope will be the coffin of American democracy and the American middle class. Today's conservatives believe in rule by inherited wealth and an internationalist corporate elite, and things like a politically aroused citizenry and a healthy democracy are pesky distractions.

Everything today is driven by profits for multinationals, supported by the lawmaking power of the WTO. Thus, parts for our missiles are now made in China, a country that last year threatened us with nuclear weapons. Our oil comes from a country that birthed a Wahabist movement that ultimately led to 14 Saudi citizens flying jetliners into the World Trade buildings and the Pentagon. Germans now own the Chrysler auto assembly lines that turned out tanks to use against Germany in WWII. And the price of labor in America is being held down by over ten million illegal workers, a situation that was impossible twenty-five years ago when unions were the first bulwark against dilution of the American labor force.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III in the Declaration of Independence, "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation…" he just as easily could have been writing of the World Trade Organization, which now has the legal authority to force the United States to overturn laws passed at both local, state, and federal levels with dictates devised by tribunals made up of representatives of multinational corporations. If Dubai loses in the American Congress, their next stop will almost certainly be the WTO.

As Simon Romero and Heather Timmons noted in The New York Times on 24 February 2006, "the international shipping business has evolved in recent years to include many more containers with consumer goods, in addition to old-fashioned bulk commodities, and that has helped lift profit margins to 30 percent, from the single digits. These smartly managed foreign operators now manage about 80 percent of port terminals in the United States."

And those 30 percent profits from American port operations now going to Great Britain will probably soon go to the United Arab Emirates, a nation with tight interconnections to both the Bush administration and the Bush family.

Ultimately, it's not about security -- it's about money. In the multinational corporatocracy's "flat world," money trumps the national good, community concerns, labor interests, and the environment. NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO tribunals can - and regularly do - strike down local and national laws. Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" are replaced by Antonin Scalia's "Rights of Corporate Persons."

Profits even trump the desire for good enough port security to avoid disasters that may lead to war. After all, as Judith Miller wrote in The New York Times on January 30, 1991, quoting a local in Saudi Arabia: "War is good for business."

 

Buster I sure have a comment on that one.

The author totally missed the fact of where the govt is replacing the income from all the tarriffs they eliminated, and the documentation is printed boldly in everyones paycheck, and property tax bills.

I was trying not to get too much into this part of the discussion since there is another thread here titled "why buy american" but its more a problem with getting confused to which thread I would be replying to, and I have no real issue to discuss this further here as I know it does sort of fit in etc.

Also dont be afraid to take a look at the other thread if you havent, and there plenty of good discussion for everyone [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: 440EX026
This guy sounds like a Rush Limbaugh of the left. His shrieking about Arabs taking over our ports has been widely refuted.

His list of percentages of U.S. companies owned by foreigners is interesting. I wonder what a similar list giving the percentages of U.S. ownership of foreign industries would look like?

You also have to wonder that if our economy is being run into the ground, why would so many foreigners want to invest there money here?

 

One of the primary reasons for the US attack on Iraq was due to Saddam's plan to use Euros as his oil currency. Without the Petrodollar, the world oil currency, we'd be unable to sell our debt and in effect tax the world with our fading dollar or maintain this leaky boat. We are a debtor nation and the rest of the world wouldn't need USD. The flap with Iran is more due to their plan to begin a bourse, accepting Euros for their oil instead of Petrodollars, not the nuclear issue. Russia is already accepting partial payment for their oil in Euros and anxious to align itself with Iran to expand their intake of Euros while reducing USD requirements.

Many countries, including our 'allies' Taiwan and S. Korea, have already announced they're moving from USD to a mixed basket of currencies as reserves, anticipating inevitable future decline of the USD. The Fed raising interest rates to curb inflation which doesn't include the two most volatile items of energy and food, is hogwash the public accepts as it destroys our last remaining strong industry, domestic housing. We raise interest rates because the rest of the world including Japan was balking at buying our low interest rate debt to purchase oil. We've already reached interest rate inversion, short-term paying more than long-term, and now the treasury brings back the long bond, thinking it can stave off USD debt redemption even longer. Wolfowitz publicly admitted WMDs were the only issue administration could come up with that the US public would back for invading Iraq. But that was in a published periodical, not in the mass media.

 

Good grief! Some of you guys are like a bunch of old hens gossiping![img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Why don't you go to the source and read it for yourself before you start pushing someone else's take on this organization. If you really wanted people to learn what it is about and think for themselves you would send them to the site and trust that they could figure out whether it was good or not.

Here is the link to PNAC so you can read it for yourself instead of reading the opinion these guys want you to have about it. This whole concept would be like me suggesting you figure Bill Clinton out by listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of watching and listening to Clinton himself!

PNAC

 

Good points!!

And to think I thought the Soviet Union only traded in Stoli's [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Seriously though does anyone truely believe that the actions in Iraq were motivated by the suspicion of wmd's?