So what message are we sending to the US citizenry -- the government is stupid and doesn't care about you?
The "mind" of the Republican party, I like that.
--- bitch at pulpculture.org wrote:
> At 12:37 AM 2/13/2007, you wrote:
> >So what's going on? Is this machismo stuff
> preparatory
> >to some settlement negotiations? Is it genuine
> lunacy?
> >Is there a rational basis that I do not see? Oh
> wise
> >men and women, enlighten me. I am in darkness.
>
>
> i have no idea, but it seems perfectly inline with
> all the neocon stuff
> about geo-political positioning. i mean, does a
> tough guy battling for the
> soul of the republican party cut deals? back down?
> admit he was wrong? not
> a chance. and don't forget, as Max Weber pointed
> out, posturing on the
> geo-political stage is as much about sending the
> message to your enemies
> (everyone's an enemy on the neocon view) as it is
> about sending a message
> to your citizenry.
>
>
> But the most significant intellectual and political
> battles in the next two
> years won't be between Republicans and Clinton. They
> will be for the mind
> of the Republican party. And it is not too much to
> say that on the outcome
> of these battles will hinge the possibility of
> successful American
> leadership for the 21st century.
>
>
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RepubFuture-Sept%207,%2098.pdf
>
> From an American perspective, the value of such
> bases (in Iraq) would
> endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over
> the long term, Iran may
> well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in
> the Gulf as Iraq has. And
> even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve,
> retaining forward-based forces
> in the region would still be an essential element in
> U.S. security strategy
> given the longstanding American interests in the
> region.
>
>
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
> (and
> seriously, they don't even want them to have
> ballistic missiles, let alone
> nukes. search on iran. it's always mentioned in the
> context of ballistic
> missiles)
>
>
> Party of Reagan: Republicans in the coming election
> will likely propose a
> very different kind of internationalism. In the
> tradition of Teddy
> Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, they will argue that
> the United States can and
> should lead the world to a better future, one built
> around American
> principles of freedom and justice -- but only if it
> has the power and the
> will to use that power.
>
> Republicans will argue that American security cannot
> be safeguarded by
> international conventions. Instead, they will ask
> Americans to face this
> increasingly dangerous world without illusions. They
> will argue that
> American dominance can be sustained for many decades
> to come, not by arms
> control agreements, but by augmenting America's
> power and, therefore, its
> ability to lead.
>
> President Clinton may enjoy calling Republicans
> isolationists, but a year
> from now, Democrats will be running against the
> party of Reagan. It looks
> as if they plan to run as the party of Jimmy Carter.
>
http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_044.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> Bitch | Lab
> http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/