Rating: 
Summary: Right on Target!
Review: I agree with most of what the authors point out in this book. It's not that dictator's in South America and Africa aren't evil, of course they are, but simply that they are no where near as dangeous as those in the Middle East. Dictators who gladly kill for Allah (and a few dancing virgins after death) are bad AND dangerous b/c they have BIG oil money with which to kill millions if only they could get their hands on WMD. These people are the new Nazi's of the 21st century, and liberals who are too stupid to realize this had best read up on how wonderful a guy Mohammad really was before it's "too late baby."
Rating: 
Summary: Astonishingly arrogant and ignorant, a window into new evil
Review: It is hard to imagine a copy of this book that survives more than one reading - I threw the book against the wall on many occasions with a John McEnroe cry of "You cannot be serious!" As a recipe for getting US sons in uniform killed, for killing innocent civilians in half a dozen targeted countries and for further alienating the US and endangering its citizens - it's perfect. How people with such muddled thinking come to power and prominence is amazing in and of itself, that they stay there is miraculous. If this disgusting book achieves anything, it will hopefully expose them to a wider audience and take them out of paranoid, self serving think tanks. I think we have found a Henry Kissinger for the new millenium (unfortunately Mr Perle would probably take that as a compliment)! Apart from all that, I liked it!
Rating:
Summary: Anomalous Title
Review: First "an end to evil". What is evil ? by definition it is "sinful, wicked, a cosmic evil force". Evil begets evil unless it is the later definition in which case it is pervasive. Obviously these authors prefer the later definition, since it allows them to demonize an entire culture, religion and region as one rooted in evil. Would this not qualify as hatemongering ?
So the recipe they offer for ending evil is one where we do not need to examine whether it is a reaction to some action or policy, but rather a constant against which a simple dogmatic and unwavering destructive campaign should be sustained. Hence by ignoring the laws of physics, they leave us vulnerable to that inevitable reaction which may fester until its manifestation. Second "..war on terror..." . Terror is defined as "a state of intense fear". By using such a simplistic definition, the authors avoid any contextualizing of the terrorism facing the US.
Their "terror" is faceless and a phenomena arising out of simple hatred, evil and even irrationality. How convenient to make their readers believe that there are no causes for the terror other than pure innate evil. The content of the book stays true to the title's very dangerous premises....
Rating: 
Summary: Another neocon iniciative to rule the world
Review: First of all, I've actually read the book. Boring, all ideas have been already written and the authors gives nothing new to digest. Another We have to go to north korea, and to Iran and be more agressive with france and saudi arabia, etc... They want to export the latin policy of the cold war to the middle east and asia. Their description of this countries are far from accurate and they don't seem to understand their population either.( Basicly: they are begging the US to come liberate them). They also have some good points. They underline the fact that all current organisations are from the cold war and must be transform to this new era. I'm not not shocked anymore with this neocon books, which is bad as they are an amount of atrocity too great to list in a review.
Rating:
Summary: Sure to be a Doublethink masterpiece
Review: A truly instructive tract from one of the architects of America's War on Freedom. A must read for those who want to learn how to turn words like good into evil or vice versa merely by asserting it is so. This book also contains many helpful hints on how to use the United Nations to act in the interest of a single country.
Rating: 
Summary: A must-read for "neocons" and everybody else
Review: To clarify, a "neocon", or neo-conservative, can best be described someone who would have been called a liberal 30 or 40 years ago (or maybe was a liberal), but is now considered a Reagan/ GW Bush style of conservative. In foreign policy they can be characterized by ambitious and optimistic ideas. Frum and Perle, two of the leading minds in the neocon movement, describe this foreign policy brilliantly. Their bold ideas about the war on terror and nation building are not founded on any desire for war just for the sake of war. They are founded on idea that by replacing terrorist regimes with democracies, we can end much of the conflict in the world today. After all, when did any two democracies ever go to war? Never. And which democracy did the 9/11 hijackers come from? In short, it's a thought provoking and optimistic book, a must read no matter which side you're on.
Rating:
Summary: Open consideration
Review: Though the title demonstrates what I personally view as seemingly foolish optimism. I don't think any policy, administration, or nation can end evil. The book does not hold this direct claim within its actual text, it remains centered on a specific evil. It is true that the authors of this work carry a less than favorable reputation with many on the political left, and an over-estimated reputation in the eyes of the politcal right, but this work (if read with an open and objective mind) offers many excelent arguments and insights that transcend party politics. An excelent read...
Rating:
Summary: Truly scary book, must read
Review: [...] This book argues for Regime changes in Syria and Iran and a more aggressive policy stance towards Saudi Arabia and Frace. [...] This book is both a warning and a call to action.
Rating:
Summary: Disturbed
Review: I find that neoconservatives are generally disturbing, at least because they feel they are objectively right, but above all because they are totally wrong. This sloppy arrangement of thoughts espouses world domination and exhibits ethnocentrism at its deepest and most chilling levels. Feel free to read this book, but beware that Hitler could also convince the masses. Can we assume that Nazis were all stupid? Or were they were misled, cheated, hateful and taught to fear? This book needs more than a grain of salt.
Rating: 
Summary: Informative and Interesting, But I'm Not Persuaded
Review: I am opposed to the U.S Invasion of Iraq. I remain opposed after reading this book. That's not to say there isn't value in this book. I picked it up looking for a fair presentation of a viewpoint contradictory to my own, and would recommend this book to others of my political persuasion. The book lays out clearly the intentions of the Bush Administration in their war, and contrary to what Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have to say, oil is only a small component of the reason the United States invaded Iraq. Frum and Perle do well at explaining their reasoning behind an activist policy in the Middle East. I find them credible, and am convinced after reading the book that the Bush Administration was doing what it believed to be best in the War on Terror, not playing some game to enrich the oil barons. The book does not, however, bring me around to their way of thinking, because it does not adequately address my fundamental objection to the war, namely, would the Arab World leave the United States alone if our military stayed entirely out of the region, including the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Near the end of the book, the authors address this question, but only tangentially, and with an air of righteousness that makes me suspect they are not confident in their own answer.
| 
