will the US take over Mongolia as a satelite client state

Originally, Komin

1 will the US take over Mongolia as a satelite client state ? The US president Bush2 is arriving in Mongolia next week , for discusion with the Mongols about some sort of military alliance , for the surveying and for the containment of China, and in this way helping India ' s missiles pinpointing Chinese targets with American operated radar stations based in Mongolia , may be forming part of the ECHELON radar systems which the American NSA is working daily in Australia , Taiwan , Japan and New Zealand . will Mongolia become a new American satelite state because Mongolia needs the American Money ? or will Mongolia become a partner of the TIMBERLINE II electronic spy system listening in on China ?

Maybe the people of the US will stop Bush's PNAC agenda in its tracks. But Bush's intention about Mongolia is clear. The people may not like what their government is doing in their name, but in America, the president has a lot of power. That power can translate into military power at the whim of the president at any given time. And Bush is known to be stubborn, very stubborn. And he has plenty of support still in the media and the neoconservative lobby.

I agree with Komin's observation.

For the sake of peace for future generations as well as for us and for the sake of the longterm survival of all living things on this plant, don't be confused. Confusion leads to complacency which in turn leads to castastrophe. The PNAC targets Iraq, Iran, Syria, and a list of other coutries culminating in China. And the Bush administration's rhetoric and foreign policy has so far echoed that serial plan.

Unlike Iraq, Bush can't handle China withoug first encircling it. His effort to militarize Japan, keeping South Korea busy with its Northern counterpart, keeping Taiwan restless, demanding forward miltiary bases in Central Asia, and re-establishing strong ties with India are all part of the strategy to encircle China.

Bush and the Washington power elite whom he represents want China's money derived from the hard work of young rural women who would leave their home and children behind and labor day and night to finance its neo-colonial conquests and want it to hand that money over bowing on its knees.

Only if the American people wake up soon enough to stop this insanity will we see that Syria, Iran, and other countries will not suffer the horrific fate that Iraq has faced.

Bush is too stubborn and his administration too corrupt.

"And as long as I am commander in chief, our strategy in Iraq will be driven by the sober judgment of our military commanders on the ground," the president said. (Bush said this in reference to his refusal to pull our troops out from Iraq. Of course, invoking his military commanders was just a cover.)

So he must be impeached and removed from office to stop this process of insanity he is now in full control of.

And the politicians who are still catering to the neoconservative lobby must be totally discouraged from their amoral position of attempting to achieve their own personal aggrandizement through immoral means.

Like the progressive magazine ``The Nation'' in the latest issue has demanded:

``There can no longer be any doubt: The American war in Iraq---an unprovoked, unnecessary, unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation---is a moral and politcal catastrophe. It has also become the single greatest threat to America's national security .... `The Nation' will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the American war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign.''

This is a wise move from ``The Nation''. And Moveon should take up this position. Right now the political opposition is too weak to get us out of Vietnam, uh, Iraq, I mean. The reason the opposition is weak is because there are ambitious politicians who want to appease to the powerful neocons to keep their White House ambition alive.

This is wrong and unjustiable.

Thanks to Komin for educating us about Bush and his administration's dark intention in Asia. Pax Americana, America's neo-colonialism by another name, coined by the likes of I. Lewis ``Scooter Libby'' (among people like Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and others) and faithfully executed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, et al. is anything but Pax or peace. It is disaster for the whole planet simply because it is so out of control, so deceitful, and so harmful to the global atmospheric system (not to mention so expensive in life and treasure). It is our longterm survival which is at stake, fellas!

lo yeeOn ========

It used to be that any mention of the PNAC would get people to laugh at you. But the fact that it is a blueprint for wars and American solo dominance over the world, that it is a document the existence of which has never been denied, and that Bush's foreign and military policies have faithfully echoed the steps it dictates have enabled more and more Americans and other people in the world to know the real intention of this so-called war on terror.

A PNAC Primer

Bernard Weiner

. . .

"I'm not making up this stuff," I said. "It's all talked about openly by the neo-conservatives of the Project for the New American Century -- who now are in charge of America's military and foreign policy -- and published as official U.S. doctrine in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America."

. . .

In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century. (PNAC) Their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, privates Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush,

. . .

The "outsiders" from PNAC are now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they can exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of Rupert Murdoch's The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC has a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

. . .

Here is a shorthand summary of PNAC strategies that have become U.S. policy.

1. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense privates Cheney had a strategy report drafted for the Department of Defense, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. In it, the U.S. government was urged, as the world's sole remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential compebreastors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to butture "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mbutt destruction and threats from terrorism. (For the essence of the draft text, see Barton Gellman's "Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower" in the Washington Post.

2. Various Hard Right intellectuals outside the government were spelling out the new PNAC policy in books and influential journals. Zalmay M. Khalilzad (formerly buttociated with big oil companies, currently U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan & Iraq ) wrote an important volume in 1995, "From Containment to Global Leadership: America & the World After the Cold War," the import of which was identifying a way for the U.S. to move aggressively in the world and thus to exercise effective control over the planet's natural resources. A year later, in 1996, neo-conservative leaders Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, in their Foreign Affairs article "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," came right out and said the goal for the U.S. had to be nothing less than "benevolent global hegemony," a euphemism for total U.S. domination, but "benevolently" exercised, of course.

3. In 1998, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The January letter from PNAC urged America to initiate that war even if the U.S. could not muster full support from the Security Council at the United Nations. Sound familiar? (President Clinton replied that he was focusing on dealing with al-Qaida person cells.)

4. In September of 2000, PNAC, sensing a GOP victory in the upcoming presidential election, issued its white paper on "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy,Forces and Resources for the New Century." The PNAC report was quite frank about why the U.S. would want to move toward imperialist militarism, a Pax Americana, because with the Soviet Union out of the picture, now is the time most "conducive to American interests and ideals...The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this `American peace'." And how to preserve and enhance the Pax Americana? The answer is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars."

In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations," for example. No country will be permitted to get close to parity with the U.S. when it comes to weaponry or influence; therefore, more U.S. military bases will be established in the various regions of the globe. (A post-Saddam Iraq may well serve as one of those advance military bases.)

5. George W. Bush moved into the White House in January of 2001. Shortly thereafter, a report by the Administration-friendly Council on Foreign Relations was prepared, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," that advocated a more aggressive U.S. posture in the world and called for a "rebuttessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly cited as a "security imperative." (It's possible that inside Cheney's energy-policy papers -- which he refuses to release to Congress or the American people -- are references to foreign-policy plans for how to gain military control of oilfields abroad.)

6. Mere hours after the 9-11 person mbutt-liquidates, PNACer Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks. "Go mbuttive," the aides' notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Rumsfeld leaned heavily on the FBI and CIA to find any shred of evidence linking the Iraq government to 9-11, but they weren't able to. So he set up his own fact-finding group in the Pentagon that would provide him with whatever shaky connections it could find or surmise.

7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively in the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published its "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the New American Century and others like it over the past decade. Chief among them are:

1. the policy of "pre-emptive" war -- i.e., whenever the U.S. thinks a country may be ambutting too much power and-or could provide some sort of compebreastion in the "benevolent hegemony" region, it can be attacked, without provocation. (A later corollary would rethink the country's atomic policy: nuclear weapons would no longer be considered defensive, but could be used offensively in support of political-economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes" could be employed in these regional wars.)

2. international treaties and opinion will be ignored whenever they are not seen to serve U.S. imperial goals.

3. The new policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia."

In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions (and threat of "shock and awe" attacks, including with nuclear weapons) keeping the outlying colonies, and potential compebreastors, in line. Those who aren't fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way; "you're either with us or against us."

. . .

For complete article, please visit

Linkname: A PNAC Primer