NicoleC:
It was blessedly short. It seems to consist of three points in a 1992 document about post cold war strategy for the US.

#1• The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.

That would be good if we would all act like gentlemen and gentlewomen and not try to take advantage of other weaker countries. I think it is obvious by the way that we aid others, even the Palestinians. America provides more aid than any other country for the Palestinian refugee camps. Please don't ask me to make a chart of how much we supply to every country in the world but if we wished harm on people that oppose us we would not support Palestinians.

#2. Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.

Being here in the US is a thing not to be taken for granted. I feel very lucky. I wish everybody in the world could live under the same conditions. That does not mean I should convert them to my religion or make them speak only my language or eat the same food that I do. When it comes to a religion or ethnicity that means harm or annihilation of anther religion or way of life that is a threat to peace for the other peaceful religions of the world. That should be dealt with.

If there are 50 people of different religions and ethnicities together in one room. One of them pulls a knife and says he hates someone there and is going to kill him, I think that person should be restrained by the others in the room that are capable of restraining him. I think it is for the good of all in the room.

#3 if necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.

If the only people in the room that are willing to risk their own well being to restrain the person in the room that wants to kill somebody are Americans, I don't see how that makes the Americans evil. Some others might not want to join the struggle to make it easier for the American but they should not hinder the Americans.

You can add all kinds of things to this analogy like suppose the person to be killed had something that the Americans wanted or suppose the Americans did not like the person that was going to be killed but the basic truth is that the Americans are only trying to help. An innocent person or an American might get hurt in the struggle but that cannot always be avoided. That does not mean the struggle should not take place. If the person that wants to do harm is successful, he will do it to someone else.


I don't see how these three points of the American military strategy as it was in 1992 are bad or evil in any way.

Can you now tell us if there are any flaws in Dr. Paul Wolfowitz's character or shortcoming in his intelligence and experience?

Old guy