|
Simplicity 3.9 cents/min. Dial 1+ Long Distance - supporting
NewsOnDemand.org |
|
*Special Features & Resources* Here are some ideas concerning the strategic orientation of the United States of America within our contemporary and our future global environment. "Preventive Warriors" is critique of the National Security Strategy of the United States as espoused by the administration of President George W. Bush. Thomas Barnett is a Senior Strategic Researcher, Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, at the U.S. Naval War College. Click on the links below if you're interested in finding out where in the world our government wants to take us this century! |
|
* Preventive
Warriors - a critical look at the official doctrine of U.S. foreign policy Dedicated to the courageous men and women servicing in the U.S. armed forces. a synopsis by Michael Burns |
| * Preventive Warriors - from DemocracyNow! - full video and audio links |
| * Preventive Warriors - links from Google |
| * The National Security Strategy of the United States - the official White House document |
| * PDF version of the National Security Strategy of the United States - have you read it yet? |
| * Read about the "Project for the New American Century". (More from Wikipedia.) The signature list on the organization's "Statement of Principles" includes several of the most influential members of the United States government's executive leadership team and the team's most trusted advisors. Their explicit aim is to promote "American Global Leadership" in terms of military, economic, political, and social power. This organization apparently wants to shape the world in the image of the United States, under the guise of making the world a safer place for Americans. These so-called "neocons" make the case that the United States should not squander the opportunity to impose it's ambitious will around the globe while there are no other superpowers that are capable of putting up a challenge, especially since President Ronald Reagan worked to effectively to eliminate the Soviet threat. Their explicit claim is that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world." Some might interpret their objective as being one of global domination and control, much to the dismay of the rest of the world. Please click these links for more information and news about this organization. Is the United States of America really ready to take on the role of instituting a single global government, made in its own image? You read, you decide. |
| * A related viewpoint, from Thomas Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century" - Watch C-SPAN's American Perspectives program, presented at the Center for Strategic Development; Search the issue; Globalization - good/bad/various viewpoints |
| * A similar organization, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, "...has been more influential..." than nearly every other think tank, in a quote attributed to President Ronald Reagan. According to Wikipedia, this "think tank" has emerged as one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Disinfopedia calls the AEI "an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank". MediaTransparency reports, as part of its research on Strategic Philanthropy, that the AEI is second on their list of conservative foundation grant recipients, garnering close to $7 million over the 1992-1994 period to help finance its work in domestic and foreign policy affairs. Wikipedia provides a list of all kinds of "Political and Economic Think Tanks". In order to know who really guides the national policy agenda under the various presidential administrations, these are the core group people and organizations that you need to follow. |
|
Among the problems with the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq were:
The Determination by the President is in many ways equivalent to a Certification. However, in almost all cases a Certification is issued by a recognized Certificate Authority. For a law degree, this authority would be the law school, and for law school accreditation the authority would be the American Bar Association. In this case the Determination was made solely by the members of the Executive Branch of the United States government, with no independent verification or proof that its contents and allegations were actually true. No proof of the allegations was provided to the People of the United States by either Congress or the Supreme Court. The issuer of a Certificate cannot certify it's own actions or declarations. This would be tantamount to an attorney issuing his or her own license to practice law! Some folks have argued (Part 1, Part 2) that the Determination by the President was actually made when the President knew that the statements within it were indeed false, that he knew at the time that there were no longer any WMD's in Iraq and that there was no verifiable connection between the government of Iraq and the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. Would the President's actions therefore be contrary to the above law? The question remains now that if the President's actions were proven to be illegal, not just according to the law of the United States, but also according to the laws and the Charter of the United Nations, would such a transgression be an impeachable offense? Is it possible that among the primary reasons for the President to use military force in Iraq was the desire to execute part of a much grander and bolder scheme to further the agenda of the Project for the New American Century, as describe above? I invite you to read from the news and analysis resources provided within this web site, and then you are invited of course to decide for yourself whether or not these issues are of concern to you. |
|
Please click here to
provide a valid link to a critique, or to other viewpoints. |
*****
This web site was created because most often there are more
than just two sides to every story.
*****
This Web page is updated often.
Feel free to visit often for the latest about what's new in the world around us.