While searching for some other information, I ran across this article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm) which links to This pdf document (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf).

It does not bode well.

Here is the relevant body of the article.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'. I haven't read the document in question yet as I have to re-install Adobe Acrobat, but here is some other information from a seperate article.



Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department. Now I've never been to this site before, so I don't know how truthful or respectable the authors are, but if this is correct then it is chilling indeed.

I think that I've seen this story before, only it went a little different...

"What we gonna do t'night, Brain?"

"Same thing we do everynight, Pinky, try and take over the world!"

Yeah, I have seen it before...perhaps the author of the story used to write for Warner Brothers?

Empirically, I believe you mean "Imperial Ambitions".

You think that's bad? Check out this link:

http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/IMG/pdf/bushregimedeck.pdf

You probably could've guessed, but yeah, not only do I agree with the article, but the faces in that card deck remind me just why I voted for Bush.

Don't think of it as five more years of Bush...think of it as five more years of his fifty-one neo-conservative cronies!

"What we gonna do t'night, Dick?"

"Same thing we do everynight, George, try and take over the world!"
They decided to build a website instead:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The taking over the world part is planned for Term II. :eek: If there is one. :shake:

Rumsfeld-Rice in 2008!

I dont know about that exact document but there have been many documents drawn up by the neo-cons speaking in "imperial" terms. It is not something they have really tried to hide, for these guys 9/11 was a true blessing, at last they could fulfill their dreams!

for these guys 9/11 was a true blessing, at last they could fulfill their dreams This is my vote for the most offensive quote I've seen in 2003.

Maybe I'm naive, but this board seems to be dominated by conspiracy nuts. Doesn't anyone go outside anymore. I highly recommend you all go see the movie "Sneakers". It is an old Robert Redford movie you will all love it.

I'm afraid to say more. I would hate to be Shralped.

Classy, joacqin, really classy. A low point, even for you.

BTW, you can probably bury the "neo-con" label that you (and others) keep affixing to Bush. By signing the prescription drug bill, Bush outed himself as a faux-conservative.

As far as the topic, I agree with the Snook, the conspiracy stuff is getting a little thick. Besides, don't you know, the whole world is run by a cabal of old European families. :rolleyes:

Shralp me if you want.

@Great Snook & Jack

Unfortunately, Joacqin's comment is the truth.


In a document two years ago, the Project pondered that what was needed to assure US global power was 'some catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor' Taken from here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,901066,00.html) .

I see, because joacqin, BOC, and the guardian say something is true, then it must be. *cough* hubris *cough*

So tell me, is Santa real or not? Once you have answered the question, I will definately know the truth.

The original document is here (http://cryptome.org/rad.htm) . Satisfied now?

EDIT:
In case you believe that the above website has forged the document you can find it here (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) as well, directly from PNAC's website.

[ December 19, 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: BOC ]

You guys seem to be confusing opinion with news. Just because an ultra-conservative group (PNAC) authored a document outlining a viewpoint toward the future of America, does not make it policy. The PNAC is typically regarded as a bunch of nuts by most Conservative Americans. The biggest stretch of all of this is that it was "prepared for" current members of the Administration. Return to the real world, please.

There are think tank groups that espouse political ideals ranging from Communism to Facism, but never do they dictate the policy of the US government. I am certain that within your own nations there are groups that represent all possible views of political thought...or is the US the only place where the right to hold and express opposing views is protected?

PNAC's principle of statement is signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and someone called Jeb Bush, who I think is George Bush's brother. If you regarded them as a bunch of nuts why did you give them your vote?

Yes, I am satisfied. Satisfied that you didn't read the document. Satisfied that you took a quote that takes the Pearl Harbor comment out of context.

The WHOLE quote is:

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. The transformation that they are referring to is that of the military. Not "what was needed to assure US global power".

So from here, you connect the dots and come up with a conspiracy? Wow. Do you ever leave your house?

And if you were bothered to read just the next paragraph you would read this:
In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership , tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions

OK, we can discuss this without getting personal.

Global leadership is quite different than global imperialism.

I take back my accusation that PNAC are a bunch of nuts...Ultra-Conservative yes, but nuts, no. I must have had them mixed up with some other PAC.

I agree with JF, that it looks like anyone who uses this document to purport a conspiracy theory, either did not read it or didn't understand it. Again, I remind you, this is "opinion", and I would rather see it expressed than suppressed. There is no direct link between this document and the Bush Whitehouse...if you can find one, post it.

Also, I never made any claim that Cheney et al did not support the "mission statement" of the PNAC, I merely said that to insinuate it was prepared for their use in the formation of policy is an illogical and improper stretch.

@BTA

Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? This is from PNAC's statement of principles. If this isn't imperialism, then I don't know what imperialism is.

Also, since I was accused of being a consiracy theorist, let me clarify something. When I say that 9/11 was a blessing for these guys I don't mean that they have planned the attack. I mean that the attack was the deus ex macina, who helped them to speed up their plans.

Striving for conditions favorable to American principles and interests is a far cry from dominion over other nations.

If this isn't imperialism, then I don't know what imperialism is It isn't imperialism. It is the foreign policy objective of just about every nation. It is the local policy of just about every state/province in every country. Lastly it is also the objective of every city and town in every state/province.

I notice you are from Greece. Do you honestly believe that the Greek government is working for the benefit of humanity? Do they have a one world attitude and are striving to unite the world as one under the banner of the United Nations? Of course not. They are trying to do what is best for Greece and the Greek citizens.

I see no difference.

Here (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_Imperialism) is a cogent and intelligent look at US imperialism, both past and present.

Strangely, it leaves out all mention of the dastarly plans of the PNAC. It is also interesting that the only link between this PNAC document and the Administration was made (and unsupported) by the Sunday Herald.

@BTA & Great Snook

I don't know if you read the document, but if you read it, you will find phrases like "Preserve Pax Americana" or "Secure and expand zones of democratic peace; deter rise of new great-power competitor; defend key regions". You may disagree but for me these show pure imperialism and nothing else

@Hacken Slash

There is no direct link between this document and the Bush Whitehouse...if you can find one, post it.I think that the events of the last months are the proof that this document is connected with the White House.

If you read the document, it assumes Pax Americana (American peace) currently exists and wants to preserve it. Do we currently hold dominion over the world? No.

While talking about deterring a great power COMPETITOR, it also talks about the BLESSING of wealthy and democratic ALLIES.

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'. The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests' The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'. The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA; l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US; Now I know I just grabbed them from the top post,m but come on fellas, If that's not Imperial Ambitions (hehe) I don't know what is.

An Empire may not necessarily be evil, and sure, people may want the rest of the world to live by their principles, but to say that the world (and space!) is the 'new American frontier' and that this pax Americana is to be enforced to the seclusion of any other power, and by force, is what an empire is.

Come on, we cannot prove what is going on in the minds of someone elses head, but from what has been written, and the fact that leading members of parliament and George's younger brother were involved leads me to think it's a pretty fair asumption.

We cannot say this for sure, but we can say it is likely, and no-one here can say for sure that it isn't.

Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?Does that have to apply to anyone except the American people. We're trying to improve our own country? Yours can most likely say the same.

It isn't imperialism. It is the foreign policy objective of just about every nation. It is the local policy of just about every state/province in every country. Lastly it is also the objective of every city and town in every state/province. Thank you Snook. Any country whose leaders don't try to ensure their own interests have no business being leaders, as they'll let anyone else do whatever they want.

I think that the events of the last months are the proof that this document is connected with the White House. Or perhaps its a series of coincidences woven together into a conspiracy theory. The same thing has happened several times in the past.

If you read the document, it assumes Pax Americana (American peace) currently exists and wants to preserve it. Do we currently hold dominion over the world? No.

While talking about deterring a great power COMPETITOR, it also talks about the BLESSING of wealthy and democratic ALLIES. Remember the Cold War? When everyone in the world lived in fear of a nuclear holocaust? Do you want that again? This 'Pax Americana' thing is intended to assure that doesn't happen.

Come on, we cannot prove what is going on in the minds of someone elses head, but from what has been written, and the fact that leading members of parliament and George's younger brother were involved leads me to think it's a pretty fair asumption.America has no parliament. Jeb Bush is what, the governor of Florida? That means nothing.

People are taking this way out of proportion. This document is intended to prevent the situation that was prevalent throughout the 20th century called the Cold War. I don't know about you all, but I'd rather not have to live with the thought that there are millions of nuclear missiles pointed at my backyard.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does that have to apply to anyone except the American people. We're trying to improve our own country? Yours can most likely say the same.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't imperialism. It is the foreign policy objective of just about every nation. It is the local policy of just about every state/province in every country. Lastly it is also the objective of every city and town in every state/province.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Snook. Any country whose leaders don't try to ensure their own interests have no business being leaders, as they'll let anyone else do whatever they want.

The difference is that for me ensuring the interests of my country means to keep my borders safe and to have cooperation and good relationships with my neighbours and the rest of the world. What PNAC document says about shaping the world is an application of the Athenian Thesis.

The first occurrence in Thucydides’ work of public discourse justifying the empire
happens at the conference held in Sparta just before the war broke out, when the Athenians
(in 1.76.2-3) present the initial formulation of what is called ‘the Athenian thesis’6. Athens,
they claim, is entitled to rule over the empire because the latter is the result of the city
having honorably acted based on the greatest natural compulsions—fear and profit. These
compulsions, the Athenians go on to say, are natural motives and, if a city acts honorably
upon them, proving worthy of what it acquires, it would be foolish to ask it to drop its
possessions out of considerations of justice.

Rastor, you are completely missing the point, and ignoring what was being said by everyone here as well I think.

Whether you think it is better or not for the rest of the world to follow American idealism, some of those other countries may feel differently. We are talking about using military force, that is, the threat of death, to dictate how everybody else behaves? What gives anyone this right?? Or even this responsibility?

Whether you think it is right to do this or not doesn't change the fact of what is actually happenning, that it is the threat of a new world order so to speak, one ruled by force- this is what has been proposed.

Ok, let's take a few of your statements on board here... you say that the only good or responsible leader (you said that anyone else had no business being a leader to be precise) is one who will ensure their own interests. Here we are talking about enforcing those interests overseas by arms, and I assume you were talking about the same thing, otherwise you are way off topic.

Let's say New Zealand or Egypt had been secretly making nuclear weapons and building tanks, and had recruited mercenaries that were stationed in tactical posistions across the globe. How would you feel if your own military was vastly outpowered by theirs, so from this day forward you (as a country) have to act inaccordance with the wishes of the country with the biggest guns, because they think you should. America may be seen as a threat to them, so they may decide to launch a pre-emptive strike at you to make sure the message is clear, to make an example of you so to speak, in-case you might rise big enough to defeat them, or at least, to make your own decisions. You would call that a global dictatorship I think, and would probably endorse a war against them; Whether you think some of their 'pax Egyptian' was good or not, you probably wouldn't like the idea of being dominated like that by principle alone.

Sounds different when the shoe's on the other foot now doesn't it?

This is Special Agent Dick Bonsky with the Central Intelligence Agency. I am posting on the computer of a certain "Hacken Slash", after he was arrested for hacking into the IRS mainframe and authorizing tax rebates for all citizens who have more than 2 vowels in their names.

I would like to thank "Mr. Manus" for the following very sensitive information:
New Zealand secretly making nuclear weapons and building tanks mercenaries that were stationed in tactical posistions across the globe We have long been looking for a new target, now that the occupation in Iraq is winding down to police action, and the nation will soon be turned over to French peacekeeping forces.

We are grateful for the tip concerning the previously unkown threat from New Zealand...seems they've been making a little more than movies down there for the last few years, huh?

Also, Mr. Manus, if you have any information that will help us locate and apprehend the leader of this rogue state, you may be able to claim all or part of the 25 million bounty we will be offering for him. Further, we will gladdly give a $25 gift certificate to Starbucks if you would at least let us know who the leader of New Zealand is.

Love to stick around and chat games with you folks, why I even played D-end-D once when I was younger, but I have to check out a hot tip about a chemical weapons plant disguised as a landfill on Long Island.

Live Long and Prosper (that is what you people say, right?)

I notice you are from Greece. Do you honestly believe that the Greek government is working for the benefit of humanity? Do they have a one world attitude and are striving to unite the world as one under the banner of the United Nations? Of course not. They are trying to do what is best for Greece and the Greek citizens.
First of all Greek politicians are incompetend and have forgotten the word benefit if it does not mean their pockets. I include the 99.9% of them in this statement.
Secondly Greeces foreign policy is being designated, in its biggest part, from foreign people, circles, groups and countries- a sad fact that all Greeks know. I could give you an example from the WW II the beginning of the current balancies that exist now throughout the world but i will not unless asked to.
And just to be in topic i will inform you that before USA started to play their preemptive strikes game and medling with the internal affairs of countries the last 8 or so years, i and most of (vast majority) the people i know, talk or am aware of their feelings about this felt a lot safer before than now. Why? Because you may talk about Kossovo like something distant or Iraq like something away from you (and you are right about this assumption) but we live next door.
And the Kossovo issue has stirred up some extreme nationalist groups (UCK and his new form but with same goals), which now dream of Great Albania and thinking of claiming their demands with weapons. And this can easily lead to another Balkan war. An allready victim of this is FYROM which country right now is being tormented by an undeclared civil war that has not reached beyond the closed doors of Foreign Office i presume.
The invasion in Iraq and the role that the Kurds have taken in that has given them the rightfull claim of independence. I agree with that allthough i know that should this thing even remotely happen (not a sovereign state but a big deal of independence) the whole area of eastern Mediterranean will ignite like a napalm and if you don't think so, go and check what Turkey thinks.
As for Greece, the only thing we the majority of the people want is safety in our and for our country and neighbours you can talk with for any issue risen. What do we have?
We have from one side (north) Albania who want to take and the rest of Ipeirous as another gift (nothern Ipeirus is not enough), FYROM who has some extreme elements that want the whole Thessaloniki area in order to manage some growth, Turkey (and more specifically Turkish generals since these people really govern Turkey) who would love to see at least the half Aegean sea ( and the islands to have somewhere to do their vacations) under their command and Cyprus as an alternative option for vacations too (only the Greek islands is too monotonous you see). Are we supposed to feel happy now that Turkey feels stressed with the Kurdish issue and looks my country as a roasted chicken ready to be delivered? Should i feel safe? Or the example of what happens in Cyprus, where noone is innocent, but despite the fact any UN leaded effort to solve the whole issue diminishes in useless talks (or stupid demands) about nothing while in the same time the simple people want to put this thing behind.
Does it look like Greek politicians strive for the benefit of the country? Well from inside i tell you that they do not and all they care about is their own wellfare, and they remember us every four years (elections you see), who during that year (of the elections) try pathetically to ensure us that they do strive for our benefit.
Should i feel safe also for the fact that the war against terror has managed to light the fire of hate in the hearts of most muslims against the West? And the fact that because the are being hunted (or we think they are now since they were always) they have become more ruthless than ever? Should i feel happy now that in about 8 months from now my country and more specifically Athens, the city i live in, hosts the Olympic games, which supposedly are a fest of peace and friendship between people but instead, and under the current global situation, will be a fest of security and control? Or should i mention the despicable fact that untill now every month we have a warning about the security of the Olympic games from the US administration because we have not accepted to hand over this issue to US or any other country for that matter?
We whine about humanitarian principles because we have already been where USA is trying to be (world empire) and i tell you that the downfall is a natural thing and the higher you are the harder the fall. We whine for humanitarian principles because we have maybe seen our share of war ( i dare say a big share too) and have understood that something is wrong in the whole picture. And maybe you don't get this but imagine your country to be like Iraq or Serbia or any country near these conflicts (supposedly lets say that Canada did all this stuff) and tell me how would you feel, safe?
Would you like you to have the treatment these people had? And don't tell me they deserved it. Because they did not.
Or perhaps its a series of coincidences woven together into a conspiracy theory. The same thing has happened several times in the past Yeah right remember Nixon, just coincidences

@Mithrandir

we have already been where USA is trying to be (world empire) That's a little gradiose, wouldn't you say?

Mithrandir,
I have another scenario then. Let's see how safe you feel about this one.

The US withdraws from all foreign intervention and proceeds to follow the Monroe doctrine again. We're out of the UN (which would collapse due to lack of funds without us, BTW), and adopt our new self-serving policy.

Now, here's where you should start to get scared. Any country (or individual) that conducts any hostile action gets nuclear warheads into them. So, we're now turning Afghanistan into a crater (because that's where bin Laden is hiding). After that, any country that he then runs to is quickly destroyed by nuclear and hydrogen weapons without even given a chance to turn him over. Suppose he comes to your country?

Would you rather we followed that policy?

Nice scenario Rastor but you forget to include three crucial factors. Russia, France and China. Do you think that they will wait for you to nuke them?

And don't forget India, Pakistan and the UK. Particularly Pakistan and India won't like to have their neighborhoud turned into a nuclear wasteland. Which then would impact phone-customer service in Greatbritain.

Rastor, that is not a different policy, it is simply one that is more extreme. I think you are now being silly, and I also think that destroying the world doesn't serve anyone.

By the way, the greeks did conquer all of the world known to them, and then stopped- They held it for quite a while on several occasions, and paid the price in blood.

Mithrantir I think has a valid point, you cannot keep up this sort of ambition -and I am not saying that America is yet trying too, but they may be getting close- it only ends in bloodshed. You cannot expect people to always be rational, and contempt breeds contempt, death breeds death.

In the end, you can enforce peace only for a short period of time, it has been tried before, and has always ended in dire consequences for everyone involved on both sides, and more often than not those who tried to stay uninvolved as well.

Now when I started this topic, I meant that I was astounded that this sort of thing could go on. The first few posts (See Hacken Slash, Grey Magistrate and Chandros the Red, all of who are American) is what I expected, that people would recognize that it is silly to sincerely think that trying to take over the world in such a fashion is plausible.

Don't get me wrong here, while I disagree with America's foreign policy and wars of invasion in general, I will immediately admit that some good may have come from several of these wars. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been done in a better way, but it is true that such policing does have an effect, and it can be viewed as a misguided benefactory, and I cannot say that I would prefer that anyone be lead by those dictators or groups, only that the ways in which these wars are conducted, and the lead up to them which often has the US (and other nations as well, I'm not denying that) supporting the people it then turns on, does not seem to me like the best option, and far too much is destroyed.

The fact is however, that if you are 'leading' other nations and they do not wish it, it is agressive imperialism, a dictatorship on a large scale. If you wish conditions be favourable in your own country, the best place to start is within that country.

Now I can understand if some of you sincerely do think that everyone else out there is a threat to you, as little as I myself agree with you, and I can even understand if the thought among such people is that the best defense is a good offense, and it is not surprising that you feel your own beliefs are the ones everyone should believe as well.

But does anyone here truly believe that the best solution is to bring the rest of the world to fire and the sword? How long do you think such a peace eould last holding each country at sword-point? Could you honestly live with yourselves if you did such a thing?

It was Stalin I believe who said: Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.

Is this the type of peace you want? Remember it is your lives at stake here too.

There is a huge difference between defending your country, assisting another (and let's assume that they asked for the help here to reduce the number of arguments) and world dominion.

However, on a more serious note I am authoring a petition to be forwarded to a certain Dick Bonsky pertaining to the release of our beloved spokes-man and peace-keeper Hacken Slash. May our taxes be reduced.

I believe that the leader of New-Zealand is Gandalf the White, he defeated Saruman, but didn't like it on the far shores. The Grey Havens were too strong a reminder of his past so he came back.

However, I think it may have been sold to Autralia (hehe) for the letters 'i' and 'e'. In this case the leader is Mr. Sheen.

"It has always been easier to destroy that to create" -- Spock ;)

I would welcome USA's "Empire" with open arms if they kept Southeast Asia free from the grasp of communist filth China.

That's a little gradiose, wouldn't you say? No since we had a world empire as Manus reminded you. At least of the then known world.
The US withdraws from all foreign intervention and proceeds to follow the Monroe doctrine again. We're out of the UN (which would collapse due to lack of funds without us, BTW), and adopt our new self-serving policy.
Well this would sound to me as the beginning of the end of our civilization. USA against the rest of the world? Nice match. But i have a question on your scenario.
First of all who would it be possible for USA intelligence services to know where Bin Laden lies since thwy would have withdrawn from all the treaties of cooperation they have made.
Secondly can you tell me what would happen if you found out that Bin Laden had somehow entered USA and is hiding in there? What US administration would start nuking every suspect city? Or if he is in Iraq near the US troops? Would US public opinion concede to kill thier own troops just for one guy?
Or would the public of USA would like to see the whole world unite against USA?
Answer me if you wish
And BTW Mithrantir not Mithrandir thank you ;)

@Mithrantir
Continuing off topic. "Known world"? Isn't that a little bit grandiose? Known to who? There were thriving civilizations in other parts of the world at this time (China, India, Japan, the Americas) that the Greeks could not have conquered. Just because the Greeks did not have knowledge of these civilizations does not mean that the did not exist. That is why you are being grandiose.

A true world empire is unatainable. At least for now.

As far as Rastors Monroe doctrine scenario, it is pointless to debate a scenario that will not occur.