What a total load of BS....Frankly people making the argument that you are making typically show a complete lack of historical contextual understanding.
The goals of PNAC are (as you post):
• 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.
If you go back to the start of the Cold War, and then the instances of terrorism that occurred throughout the previous decades, the lessons are fairly clear...terrorism (and other state aggression) is embolden when American looks weak...we see it over and over again in history..all throughout the Middle East especially.
Further, if you bother to read memoirs of any of those people, you will clearly see how they formulated their views and the historical precedence that supports them. For example, Rumsfeld was very concerned about the defense spending being so slow when he was in the Ford Administration, and (in his book) makes actually a very good case for why it was to low.
Hardly...it is a description of you reading something into a statement that is not really there. They don't want to dominate the world by force, unless you somehow pretend that "modernize the military" means "take over the world."
Further, Clinton himself signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act which made "regime change" in Iraq the stated policy of the United States...that legislation passed the House by a margin of 360-38 and passed the Senate unanimously. Clinton himself said, "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Yes...unfortunately people seem incapable of comprehending their stated agenda and instead just making things up about it.
You stated that their ideology is flawed...I am interested in what point specifically you are so opposed to?
