How can US residents defend their government?

The "mainstream press" is no longer mainstream or press.

seems like you're talking about illuminautti to me.

personally it saddens me to think that from day one of landing on this rock the settlers of this country slaughtered it's natives to take their land only to leave them with disease and poverty..It's even worse to think that there are still Indian reserves out there if you could even consider it that, more like trailor parks. The rightful natives of "OUR" usofa reduced to a speck on the map.I don't understand how anyone could wage war, but it scares me to see how easy it is for this country to go to war, i mean...does the presidency even really stand for anything other than the figure head of an even more gluttonous machine than the one we deem as society. middle class slave hands with upper class debt turning the gears of a corporate ran economy. i don't understand how money/gold and power can be worth the torture our world "leaders" put the masses through. No regaurd for anything other than self gain, and holding the reigns of power only to what? pass them along to ......is trust even a word. i can only hope and dream for revolution, we're the only ones that can take our world back, fuck we're the gears that make it turn....if only more people could open their eyes...get out of that rutt beaten and branded into their being..i can hope, and i will dream.....i have faith, there is good out there, we just need to combine forces.

Okay, a few thoughts from the libertarian/hawk wing of the Republican Party (as opposed to the libertarian isolationist wing, that's a longer discussion):

1) Basically every one pays the same price for oil. Now transportation costs, refining costs (usually done at a local level) and most of all taxes determie most of the variance between national "at the pump" prices. Gas taxes are MUCH higher in Europe than the US. Could the US stand to raise said taxes? Well, I do believe in carbon taxes but it 's a damn hard sell.

2) If the US was only concerned about the oil, invading Iraq would be rather stupid. It's much easier to negotiate trade agreements with a dictator. We could have followed French wishes (I'm sure French ownership stakes in Iraq had NOTHING to do with their foreign policy) and dropped the sanctions entirely and gotten a hell of a lot more oil on the world market rather quick. Rattle the saber a bit to get more American participation in the Iraq oil industry, the whole thing would been done in a matter of weeks. That would leave the potential security threat of Iraq an open issue of course, but if all the US cared about was oil, then so what?

3) Went to the PNAC site, most of the text there is links to other authors, some part of the project, some not. Not sure which documents you are indicting Kendra, but here is thier statement of principles, short version:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Fair enough, these aren't pacifist principles. But I don't see oil mentioned explicitly. Sure oil is an issue, it's a very important commodity and the US (and Europe) depend on a somewhat steady supply (i.e. no sudden embargos). But that's not the only principle there.

The way I see it, the neocons want to do for the Middle East what was done to Europe after WW2, take it out of the national security equation. The best way to do that is to have free and democratic countries in place. Not that this would be a guarantee of course, but a bit safer situation. It was easier in Western Europe due to historical ties and the Soviet threat. It is of course much harder in the Middle East. It's a fair argument as to whether the US should attempt this, or if Iraq is the right starting point, or if the current administration is too incompetent to do it correctly. But that's different than arguing "it's all about the oil".

ETA: As for the original post, the Guardian is not the most unbiased of sources (doesn't mean they are wrong, by all means the accusations need to be looked into), the Guatanamo and Abu Gharib shit is rather disturbing and hasn't been dealt with adequately, and the war, well you and I disagree about the nature of it there, as noted above.

The Statement of Principals is a good place to start, I notice in your "short version" you leave out all the real juicy stuff that sounds like a Wagnerian Death March across the globe. I pointed you towards the site --read it. I'm not asking you to defend it or attack it --just read the stuff. THAT is what the US Government is doing right now. If one likes it and believes in it -- then I guess I'll see them on the other side of the barricades.

Lines are being drawn folks --Know where ya gonna stand. I'll be on the side of freedom and morality.

You know the Guardian is little better than a tabloid and I would sooner believe a story from The Onion.

Lit, you can find a good summary of PNAC and its positions and goals here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Yes, but the Illuminati don't have their own website. PNAC advertises their goals. See the Statement of Principles? Recognize any of the signatories?

Kendra: Yeah, I read the whole page before I posted, it's too long to quote so I didn't post the whole thing here. Sure it slams Clinton (on military budgets) and fawns all over Reagan. It's all a bit over the top. But I'm not sure if such rhetoric around it's stated principles (freedom and democracy are mentioned, as are alliances, with an aummption that a big stick is required as well) constitutes a goal of "Imperialist hegemony and manifest destiny of the globe" as you put it. If you already have reason to believe that it does, okay, it certainly can be interpreted that way. But your editorial assumes a certain prespective that is not self-evident (to everyone, we're not talking 2+2=4 here) and is a whole 'nother ideological battle ground.

Chip: I have heard lots of drama about Wikipedia when it comes to political topics, but I'll check it out. I would not be surprised if some of the authors related to the group are a bit unhinged (again, I must emphazise, an affliction that haunts both the left and the right). But not now, Super Bowl is almost on.

AHA! That's the American spirit everyone is talking about!

Awwww ya read the whole PAGE??? Take a month -- read the site. Then get back to me after you've waken up and shaken off the kool-aid.

OK Kendra, I'll bite. Yeah I read the whole page (and I've read much of the linked material previously, but certainly not all). And I glanced over the links (some of which are to folks like Hitchens, pro-war but certainly not neo-con). This is the second time I've made some arguments on one side, to which you tell me to simply "wake up". Well, that's not really the debating "trump card" you think it is. If there is something you have read on the site that proves your point inescapably, please link to it, quote it, point me to it, something. I'm not keen on reviewing every pro-war pundit (some crackpots, some not) to respond to a phantom allegation.

Kendra, if I am so obviously wrong and misinformed, please inform me. Telling me to read EVERY reference (which I suspect no one has done) and all the materials they reference to, is a means to never come to a decision. We are both making judgements here, we are both internally referencing different sources. No amount of reading on our parts (given our current views on the subject) are likely to change that. So feel free to point me to the reference that is your ace in the hole that I am missing, because you haven't posted it yet (in the threads that I have followed at least, so indulge me please). As for me convincing you, well I've given up on that, but you brought the subject up (not the inital thread, but the war for oil and lobbying group thread) so I'd hope you have some further arguments on the subject than the soundbites you have given us so far.

Chip: I read the Wiki entry, relatively balanced I thought. Setting aside the 9/11 conspiracy theory at the end, the big arguments seem to be about an obsession with Iraq (which I will grant, it is their ideal test case, whether a test is warranted is a fair argument) and the desire for the US to remain the lone superpower. I'll grant that the US as the lone superpower (and the military expenditures to maintain such status) is not an unalloyed good, but I'd be more interested in discussing the point in relation to another kind of geopolitical status. I doubt anyone REALLY wants a return to the Cold War (which gave birth to much of the real politick that people hate us for now, and understandably so), but arguing the current situation without reference to alternatives is not terribly practical.

Simply put --I can't have a serious debate with you on this --as you have not read the material. (BTW I have read the entire site -- it's not hard ya know, just takes time)
You have to make up your own mind --I can't do that for you. Lefties like me are notoriously bad at following authority AND being authority. We just don't view the world as a contest.

You have your beliefs based, I have mine. Since much of my opinion of PNAC is formed from copious readings of the material I linked to, I don't see how we can have a valid discussion on said material if you have only casually perused it. No offense, but I'm often struck by how many people of your mindset look for "smoking guns" and the "definative soundbite" to make "points". Sorry, Bucko --life is not that simple for me. I enjoy nuance --it's how the world spins.

It is not imcumbent upon me to ferrit out snippets to give you a "cliff notes" summary of what I base my opinions on here. There is no "Ace-In-The-Hole" -- it's a gestalt. I've pointed you to the wellspring, and your response is for me to "prove" my opinions?

I don't have anything to prove. It all reminds me of my Uncle Moey -- in trying to teach me a lesson in subjectivity he would ask me questions like:

"Hey, kiddo --what's your favorite tomato sauce?"

I'd reply "Aunt Millie's"

He'd say "YOU'RE WRONG!!"

if others want to pay high gasoline taxes, i fail to see why we should join them. such regressive taxes cause particular harm to the least wealthy among us. it's heartless to limit low income peoples' options for transportation and employment.

Edited: Enh, on second thought, we were already far off topic, and a discussion of debating tactics is REALLY off topic.

I might ask you how you could defend a government that caused war with this country solely to try to prevent our legal trade with France and other European nations, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Indians, men, women and children in revenge for the Sepoy Rebellion, placed South African civilians in Concentration Camps, started a war with China just to protect its monopolistic drug trade in opium after opium was banned by the Chinese Government, then looted and burned down the Summer Palace, one of the greatest cultural acheivements in history, seized Chinese territory and kept it for over 100 years, continues to keep territory seized from Spain over three hundred years ago and refuses to return Greek cultural treasures from the Parthenon? I guess that no government is very moral when you come right down to it.

So obviously we've got no right to demand that our current government act ethically, nor do we have any right to be disgusted when they act as barbarously as they presently are?

I am hoping nuclear winter will make all this a moot point.

I think that genuine torture is another thing, altogether from events that have typically taken place in our facilities, and I just get kind of pissed by Brits riding high horses on the subject of torture, especially after their own penchant for torture and murder in Kenya, Malaya and Ulster.
Specifically, I'm thinking about a British government report on alleged torture carried out by the British army and police during internments of political prisoners in Northern Ireland that was issued 34 years ago.
Amid arguments that are very similar to those surrounding the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other locations, the Compton report examined so-called sensory deprivation techniques used on IRA suspects held without trial - hooding, wall-standing, white noise, sleep deprivation.
It ruled that these did not constitute torture or brutality but did amount to "slight physical ill-treatment."
Mr Edwin Heath, British Prime Minister at the time, commented on the report: "When you go through the report carefully, the number of incidents involved in the arrest of 300 odd men were small and, in the conditions of war against the IRA, trivial. Here they seem to have gone to endless lengths to show that anyone not given 3-star hotel facilities suffered hardship and ill-treatment. Again, nowhere is this set in the context of war against the IRA.
What, above all, I object to - and I think many others will share this view to the point of driving themselves into a lesser or greater degree of fury - is that the unfounded allegations made for the most part by outsiders are put on exactly the same level as tested evidence from the Army and the RUC [Royal Ulster Constabulary]. This I believe to be intolerable."

Ardith,

It is not that at all - I agree with you, all governments should be held to a high standard. It is the arrogant attitude that is exhibited by some European players about Americans that gets a bit tiring. It is about ensuring your own house is in order before criticizing anyone else's. I don't agree with the current administration, in fact I abhor it - but I think even less of someone from another country standing in judgement of it as if their own country is beyond reproach.

How can US residents defend their government? Funny, I thought it was the government's job to defend the people but politics confuse me. I guess if I was forced to defend the US government, I'd probably hire it out to Haliburton or Lockheed-Martin.

By saying that it is still less corrupt than any other foreign government I have been exposed to.

Dev you are kiddding right?

Kendra,

Thanks for the pointer to the site.

-- danny d.

Hehe, I was kind of thinking the same thing. True, we probably have one of the more just forms of government in these modern times, but I think it's really an issue of the US government's internal face vs. its external face. It's that spooky, clandestine external face of GovCo (hehe, Isis) -- that we citizens are shielded from (probably by design) -- that warrants scrutiny. In addition, there is probably so much that goes under the radar that I honestly don't think there is any quantifiable way for the ordinary citizen to make any real determination about GovCo's fidelity.