Neoconservatism?

[13788]

hawl: I know, I know, this is probably the most boring topic name yet ! Still, I think we're going to be hearing more, not less, about its pros and cons for a while, at least until after the 2004 election. I and most Americans don't know too much about it, but it seems to be important to a lot of the people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, The Wall Street Journal) directing our foreign policy right now, so it could be in some ways sorta like a matter of life and death. With so many American lives lost in Iraq, I think people are going to be increasingly curious about a worldview that considers the CIA and Pat Buchanan (just to use two flashy examples) to be "too cautious". Here's a positive view of the "ism"-http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp and here's a negative one-www.amconmag.com/04_21_03/cover.html.

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: Not that it really has too much bearing on my life (not being an American), but I personally view them with deep suspicion. They seem to be a bunch of meddlers with FAR too much power to be deemed totally safe. It is quite scary exactly how much of your government (and senior members at that) are taken over with this philosophy, which is quite fundamentally flawed (IMHO, of course).

The problem is that the major issues lie with the attitude towards foreign policy which at such delicate times is a very serious concern. First and foremost is the belief that the world would be safer if everywhere was like America - now, I'm sorry, guys - but that just feeds the common view that Americans just want to run roughshod over every other culture in existance, whether by financial capitalist means or by sheer media dominance. This view is most clearly seen in the countries that the neocons want to 'help' most.

Secondly lies the notion that you can remove terrorism by bombing the hell out of it. Terrorism arises from the sheer inequalities in the world - if everyone was content and secure, then there would be very few willing to blow themselves up to further a radical cause. Israel is a very clear case in point here - if continued sheer aggression towards militants were the way to peace, then it should be the most peaceful nation on earth! A far more successful model to follow is that being used to sort out N Ireland at the moment - using diplomacy to increasingly sideline the paramilitary arms. By bombing another nation, you don't only breed resentment towards the aggressors (Iraq, anyone?), but make the poverty and hence desperation and call to terrorism tenfold worse.

Thirdly, and this is probably not a 100% neocon issue, is the placation of Israel. The recent issues surrounding the Israeli missile strike on Syria shows a very strong case in point. There is no way that a missile strike on a seperate sovereign country can be seen anything but an act of war. If Syria still had an army of any reasonable size then it would almost undoubtedly have responded in course. As it doesn't, it had to respond to the UN and ask for a condemnation. Of course, Israel, as ever, just relies on the US using its veto, even though EVERY SINGLE OTHER country on the security council made statements condemning the act. As long as Sharon feels protected then his acts will become more and more extreme. Now he has been given the green light to launch strikes on independant countries without fear of retalliation. In the days following, in a show of force, the Israeli air force flew fighter jets at supersonic speed over Syrian cities, together with the sonic booms et al. - and they wonder why there is such widespread Arab resentment?

It is madness really that the arguments they use to 'prevent' international terrorism are going to be exactly those that keep the fires of resentment burning well into the 21st century.

 

[jonb]

And if we're going to attack terrorists, make sure we attack the right country. Don't coddle his financiers (Sorry, but the bin Ladens had never disowned Osama.) just because you know them. And, if your dad has influence with one of their financiers (i.e., the Saudi royal family), use it. This isn't just PCT cranks - I couldn't care less about how many Jews were late to work, whether or not bombs were placed in strategic locations, or how they got past national security - I got this all from the mainstream press.

 

[13788]

aj2181: Very well said gentleman! I hadn't looked at this thread becuase I was afraid of heading down another anti-bush tangent.

I have to say Isreal is one of the worst nations when it comes to flagrently violating UN resolutions. I feel less and less sorry for them each time someone gets blown up over there. The current regime in Jerusalem is one of the worst at diplomacy. However, how do you fix this problem??? I'm at a loss of ideas. Talking hasn't worked yet and violence never works as you both point out so eloquently.

The Conservitives are the only people I know who can be totally atrocious and get away with it. One thing that they have over the democrats is their ability to fund raise. As I said in the president thread the VP came to South Bend and raised nearly a half million for our already wealthy congressman. I think its disgraceful. You know why Bush wanted tax cuts? So he would get bigger donations to his war chest! That money could be better spent employing the hundreds and hundreds of hard workers who are suffering.

Another thing the conservitives have for an advantage is they are simple. Very simple. There is no vision for the futer well being of the country to worry about. There is no dedication to any social programs to worry about. They have it esay. They just waddle around shouting "Tax Cuts" and that draws in the gullable.

 

[Pecker]

[quote author=aj2181 link=board=99;num=1065875647;start=0#3 date=10/18/03 at 16:35:42]I hadn't looked at this thread becuase I was afraid of heading down another anti-bush tangent.

You know why Bush wanted tax cuts? So he would get bigger donations to his war chest! [/quote]

Looks like you were right, aj.  You shouldn't have looked.

 

[13788]

aj2181: [quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1065875647;start=0#4 date=10/18/03 at 20:10:24]

Looks like you were right, aj.  You shouldn't have looked.


[/quote]

Hey now! Dont pick on me LOL

 

[13788]

hawl: Here's a concise attack on neoconservatism by one more "shrill leftist"-www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35550. I'm over-the-top pro-choice, so I hardly think this guy is Presidential material, but isn't this a saner view of foreign policy than the perspectives the usual "power players" on both "the left" and "the right" have been presenting? Regarding "the left", so many of these clowns hurt their own case through brain-dead repetition of tangential complaints and their seeming fear of discussing "red meat" issues that so many Americans are unaware of, like how Israel (a country slightly smaller than New Jersey with 1/1000th of the world's population) for better or worse traditionally gets about 1/3 of U.S. foreign aid. For the time being at least, it might be wise to show a polite interest in the affairs of "the Muslim world", which at 1.3 billion people (1/5 of the world's population), and comprising the majority in 45 countries, might have some strategic value. I've seen strong hints on stuff like Nightline that neocon Cheney may step aside (the dude was never exactly trying to win any popularity contests, and I think a lot of these think-tank guys are pleasantly surprised at how much of their once-theoretical agenda they've managed to push through, and so quickly!). This might not be so cool for the Democrats, though, if he and perhaps others are mildly scapegoated, draw the heat away from Bush, and are replaced by a relatively moderate crowd-pleaser like Giuliani. Remember how Agnew flamed out as Nixon's V.P., but was replaced by Ford, and Nixon was reelected?

 

[13788]

Thumper_10x7_CA: WOW! I have to say I'm impressed here. It seems guys with big cocks CAN hold intelligent conversations! I applaud you all! Now if only our Gov't could do the same...

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: I'm presuming that's not the Pat Buchanan that you've been mentioning in other threads!

V good and informative article. Unfortunately the lesson 'not to meddle' seems not to have been learnt from previous mistakes. To those listed I can also add two little spats caused by our intervention - Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan.

 

[13788]

aj2181: I think the neoconservatives get elected in the first place because they act like leaders. Whereas Democrats like Tom Daschle come off as frightened little girls sometimes. The people want someone who will lead us. Someone who will act and not apologize for it. As much as I despise President Bush, he has done that. To an extent anyway.

Part of the problem of why these neocon nuts get in office is the amounts of money they raise. Bush is the best fund raiser policits at the moment. Clinton could give him a run for his money but I'm not ready for another Clinton in the White House.

BTW what is up with the secretiveness of the Bush White House? It seems as if they are trying to be as secretive as Nixon was.

 

[13788]

hawl: [quote author=aj2181 link=board=99;num=1065875647;start=0#9 date=11/22/03 at 11:41:21]
BTW what is up with the secretiveness of the Bush White House? It seems as if they are trying to be as secretive as Nixon was. [/quote]I think even moderate Republicans are feeling the secrecy vibe has gotten way out of hand and is breeding too many conspiracy theories. Isn't that the gist of this story about Republican Thomas Kean-www.truthout.org/docs_03/102603A.shtml? The amount of not just "interesting questions", "healthy skepticism" etc., but full-on belief in any and all theories anyone with any imagination and dexterity can propound, has gotten so out of control that even "the left" is complaining-www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12536. Here's an article by conservative Washington Times bigwig Arnaud de Borchgrave on the extent of the "theorizing" in other countries-http://perspectives.zambezitimes.com/fullcom.php?id_comm=1.

 

[13788]

str8_nnj: Secretiveness as far as the goverment goes, is neither a Republican or Democratic thing. Neither party has anything on the other when it comes to telling the truth.
Theorist (sp) always have a field day when a situation develops,which only "clouds" judgement and causes confusion with the public. Ever think where some of these theories come from? Need a movie made?.A book to publish? Topics: Kennedy? Flight 800? Iraq? ....
We all have our opinions and base those opinions on what we hear,read,and see....being somewhat older than most here I can remember Kennedy's assasination,and how it all was layed out for the American people to "understand". Just remember the Goverment will ALWAYS help you understand

 

[13788]

hawl: I'm not one of the board members who are "prime draft age" but I feel I have to post this long article-www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html. Any refutations ??? ?