PNAC shut their website down, and naturally their document "Project for the New American Century" was quoted in many 911 truth films - namely Loose Change II etc etc.

Naturally someone kept a copy and put it back out, and here is your chance to get a copy of it.

It is back online at Scribd at : http://www.scribd.com/doc/3098235/RebuildingAmericasDefenses

Get a copy of it from there before it possibly disappears from there as well.

Thanks for that Yakhont I have my copy of the document saved! We wouldn’t want people to forget about the “new Pearl Harbor” that the neocon element of the Bush Admin required for their global dominance through military means.

I wonder why they decided to shut down the PNAC site now?

Ah well, for all our latest neocon news we can still go here - American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where some of the old PNAC crew, most notably Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and John Bolton, like to hang out.

One of the AEI papers I found interesting was Iranian Influence in the Levant, Iraq, and Afghanistan released just this year. The author is Frederick Kagan who was a signatory of the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document and son of Donald Kagan who was born into a Jewish family and is co-founder of the PNAC.

Look out Iran…

What is a Yakhont?

Q24-

You are distorting facts. That PNAC document is nothing other than just another think-tank analysis paper looking in broad generalities and summarizing general points regarding American military strategies and funding.

You have read it. Anyone who decries it has read it. And, if they link it to a conspiracy, they full well know they are engaging in distortion.

In general, the references to Pearl Harbor are mostly relating to the USN.

This Word Document represents just a few areas related to all the bally-hoo regarding this paper-

a Yakhont is a member and topic starter..

overlooking a detail like that makes me wonder if you're really up to the job of discrediting this PNAC biz..?

The point is, if the OP is up to speed on Russian military systems, he ought to be able to understand the PNAC report.

So should anybody, for that matter. It is clear, and straightforward.

The Pearl Harbor references relate, ultimately, to the USN.

It has nothing to do with the attacks in New York, or the war in Afghanistan, or Iraq. It is a baseless attack.

It is a gross misrepresentation.

Anybody that has read the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper should agree with Merril's assessment.

The point being made in the paragraph containing that oft-quoted (out of context) "new Pearl Harbor" line was that rebuilding our defenses in a manner befitting the new war methodologies and technologies would take a very long time but is a worthwhile endeavor.

It would take a long time assuming no "new Pearl Harbor," that is.

The line is a reference to how quickly America rebuilt it's defenses in the past, once attacked by the Japanese, and that the attack on Pearl was the element that galvanized the entire country into action, allowing the US manufacturing sector to reach all time highs in production.

None of this, BTW, has occurred in the aftermath of 9/11. One wonders why this is continually brought up, since it has no relation to, and no effect on, what happened after 9/11 or what is happening now.

Harte

A sizeable number of PNAC members and Rebuilding America’s Defenses signatories went on to the highest levels of prominence within the Bush Administration, therefore it is a “notable” rather than “just another” think-tank analysis.

Your idea that the required “new Pearl Harbor” quote relates mostly to the United States Navy is plain inaccurate; you have not read the document properly if you are coming to that conclusion. The Rebuilding America’s Defenses document is, as you first said, a broad military strategy for the future. Here are some excerpts of issues discussed, prior to the quote in question: -

• “Indeed, 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.”
  
  
• “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.”
  
  
• “And, according to the force posture described in the preceding chapter, future American policy should seek to augment the forces already in the region or nearby.”

Now, anyone can understand that the above plans have been enabled and have been happening exactly due to the “new Pearl Harbor” type event that was 9/11. I asked you this on another thread but did not receive an answer - if a group wrote a letter saying they wanted to rob a bank, and then 6 months after members of that group take up security positions within that bank, a major heist takes place, are you not going to want them all in for questioning?

So they state that they wish to remove all that oppose and reject US superiority, namely Iraq, Iran and North Korea...
Im not one to watch the mainstream media 'News' nowadays but has there not been a steady push for war with all 3 of them over the last few years...
The very fact many of the Signee's of the document are now in positions to exert there will and influence should be enough to raise an eyebrow at the very least.
Kind of like Kissinger originally being appointed to Chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
(I think it was chairman anyway..the main man if you will) -.-
...
Imagine If Kissinger had run the 9/11 commission like Bush Jr and his cohorts wanted...

Lol, imagine if he hadnt been rejected due to his past and unwillingness to discuss his business buddies...he may of had his seat on the 9/11 commission after all..
Would of been an even worse investigation -.-

I dont understand the 9/11 commission..They stated -
Who funded the highjackers wasnt important...What the effen?
World Trade Center 7 wasnt worth mentioning as it wasnt directly related to the attacks or target...another wateneffen..
It just housed a bunch of Government spook agencies, and all the cases that were closed due to its collapse.
Including the Enron Scandle.

Meh, Just another dismall failure in a long and steady stream of screw-ups in the recent History of the United States Governmental organisations in a 8 year period right?

Meh i cant trust a Nation that made up a false event to provoke a war.
Gulf of Tonkin.

Or the great nation that comes up with bright ideas like Op. Northwoods...

If i remember correctly, Did the Australian Navy not warn the USA that the Imperial japanese fleet was heading towards hawaii?
I remembers the news articles from the previous day in an Hawaii newspaper, then yes they should of had enough time to mobilize a defense..

Who knows eh?