User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 23

  1. #1
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default USA needs another 9/11?

    Stu Bykofsky | To save America, we need another 9/11

    He merely echoes previous statements:

    "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"

    Project for a New America (PNAC), Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", (2000)

  2. #2

    Default

    I don't think another 9/11-scale terrorist attack would fix anything that's broken in America. We'd see the same thing all over again:

    1. Temporary unity caused by grief and initial anger that assures smooth sailing for a retaliatory military response.

    2. Criticism of the party in power at the time due to the fact that victory isn't swift and the enemy does not give up simply because we fight back.

    3. Exploitation of the situation for political gain by the party not in power.

    4. Just add water, and...instant discord and much more effective fighting among us than against the enemy.

  3. #3
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    I really don't agree that such a situation recurring would have any positive impact. It just turned us all into paranoid security seekers willing to sacrifice our freedom. It was a horrible state of affairs that will have terrible repercussions for many years to come. I really hope you don't sympathize with this person, heart. It's so cold and tactical to wish for another such event for the sole sake of potentially galvanizing the public to unity.

  4. #4
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    I really hope you don't sympathize with this person, heart. It's so cold and tactical to wish for another such event for the sole sake of potentially galvanizing the public to unity.
    Oh good grief no! I was just wondering what other folks thought about the article and also wondering how many people are aware of the PNAC document published in the year 2000 where they said the USA would need a "New Pearl Harbour" event to get them accept war in Iraq and other places the PNAC wanted regime change.

  5. #5
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    I really don't agree that such a situation recurring would have any positive impact. It just turned us all into paranoid security seekers willing to sacrifice our freedom. It was a horrible state of affairs that will have terrible repercussions for many years to come. I really hope you don't sympathize with this person, heart. It's so cold and tactical to wish for another such event for the sole sake of potentially galvanizing the public to unity.
    The PNAC believes, at it's core, that America is righteous and should be allowed to spread it's "faith" across the globe (faith being either Xian or Democracy - truth be told, I don't think they care what they are spreading). The major limiting factor is that the people of the country are strangely against a world wide escalation of war. And even stranger, the people don't seem willing to die for the manifesto!

    What these comments from the PNAC are saying is that they need events to make people either malleable to their doctrine/leadership, or to reduce the "lazy" attitude and get up and die for the cause.

    I wish I could say that I'm being dramatic, but I'm actually under-dramatising exactly what is being said... a lot.

    To them, the positive impact would be a carte blanche, which they would use, to invade countries and occupy them. True unrestricted imperialism of old. Power by force, nothing else. Unity isn't the goal, it's the means.

  6. #6
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Most people in the USA do not know what the PNAC was or why it matters to the USA even now. They won't read about it and they don't care.

    We were told flat out in their documents, especially in the one from the year 2000 about rebuilding America's Defenses, what was to come and probably what is yet to come. Nothing was hidden from people and yet no one cares either.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Oh good grief no! I was just wondering what other folks thought about the article and also wondering how many people are aware of the PNAC document published in the year 2000 where they said the USA would need a "New Pearl Harbour" event to get them accept war in Iraq and other places the PNAC wanted regime change.
    I really hope that the implication here isn't what I think it is.

  8. #8
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FMWarner View Post
    I really hope that the implication here isn't what I think it is.
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
    Here is the document from the horse's mouth, it is in Section V.

    As to what it implies, that is really up to the individual reader to decide.

  9. #9
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
    Here is the document from the horse's mouth, it is in Section V.

    As to what it implies, that is really up to the individual reader to decide.
    I don't really understand what the negative implications of this document are. It seems as though they simply want to shore up weak defenses, and preserve American international power. What's the bad part? I didn't see anything hinting at oppression or cruelty. Did I miss something?

  10. #10
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    I don't really understand what the negative implications of this document are. It seems as though they simply want to shore up weak defenses, and preserve American international power. What's the bad part? I didn't see anything hinting at oppression or cruelty. Did I miss something?
    "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"

    Project for a New America (PNAC), Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", (2000)

Similar Threads

  1. Does USA needs new election laws/rules ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-21-2016, 06:57 PM
  2. Do we really need another INFP around this place?
    By Mia. in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-19-2012, 12:42 AM
  3. Did the world need another INFP?
    By myriah in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-30-2010, 12:51 PM
  4. As if I needed another forum to check every day...
    By Cogwheel in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 07:09 AM
  5. [MBTItm] Another INFJ girl thread (need help!)
    By dga in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 04:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO