Following this link reveals the true intentions of Senior US governmental officials - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld.
"Following this link" gets you nothing new or different. PNAC simply took the time to write down current US policy and project it forward based on what is actually happening in the world today instead of the pipe dream policy of the UN. Nothing there is a revelation, but Democrat spin-mongers have decided to pump up the efforts to make the current administration appear to be some kind of kooks.
This is part of the propaganda war, and it's taking place right here. Al Queda has nothing to worry about.
I think I speak for an interestingly large majority here finboy when I say that blaming democrats for every critizcism of as you call it "Republicans" is steering the conversation away from what people are upset about here.
I am not interested in American Partisan Politics.
What we don't want is a trigger-happy policy that will have heads roll to get certain American global visions (written by very few) on the highway.
What the world wants is respect from US, of which they will not get if this policy is carried out. Respect that will not only "allow" their lives to progress a truly free mannor, as you are of course a big promoter of freedom assumedly, but not having the elephant trunk of this policy spanking them into submission, forcing certain ideals upon them!
I think I speak for an interestingly large majority here finboy when I say that blaming democrats for every critizcism of as you call it "Republicans" is steering the conversation away from what people are upset about here.
I am not interested in American Partisan Politics.
What we don't want is a trigger-happy policy that will have heads roll to get certain American global visions (written by very few) on the highway.
What the world wants is respect from US, of which they will not get if this policy is carried out. Respect that will not only "allow" their lives to progress a truly free mannor, as you are of course a big promoter of freedom assumedly, but not having the elephant trunk of this policy spanking them into submission, forcing certain ideals upon them!
Using the words "Leftist" and "neo-conservative" is a great way to start a thread by someone who says they aren't interested in American partisan politics. If you think you can make THAT statement stick, you are really in denial about your own internal rationalization process.
For not being interested in partisan politics, you are certainly responding to the agenda of the Left by parroting their current concerns. Whether you believe that you are partisan or not isn't important -- your little reference to neoconservatives falls in line with the Democrat agenda that I've started to see played out elsewhere.
So either you're lying to yourself or your being used -- which is it? As I said, this New American Century stuff is being used by the Democratic Left in the US as a whipping boy right now -- are you with them or not on this?
You can be legitimately upset about the NAC stuff, but don't pretend that it isn't a political argument. And I think you should stick to speaking for yourself.
I am trying to advertise for those who feel personified or who beleive that that is what they are, and usually that is what they beleive they are!
Furthermore, you are still ignoring the purpose of the entire bloody post and the concerns brought forth here. Argue them and not me being something or not being something.
I simply disagree. I think the determination has been made that there is already state-encouraged, massive anti-Americanism. Doing nothing would well, "do nothing" to prevent it's spread. To be be honest, I wasn't convinced that this whole "stablize the Middle-East" plan. Now, I'm on board though. Iraq really can set an example, in two ways. One, it can serve as an example of a liberated people who become more prosperous. Two, it will show certain regimes that the US is serious about not supporting terror. In short, what should we do....withdraw and make nice?
Oh, and BTW: Regime change has been official US public law since 1998. It's not just conservatives....it was a bipatisan effort.
DigitalMonkeyBoy:
Quote:
SDW, I really don't like old cliches involving God since it does not represent everyone...and I do not beleive democracy is perfect since there are 100 000 000 people in the US who don't even vote because they're either too ignorant or uneducated to realise the importance. Whats the use of that? ---I'll start a new thread if we want to argue about democracy.
Well, it represents about 98% of the people on this planet.
And, are YOU ACTUALLY SAYING that democracy is bad or not the best system of government?
Finally: Neo-Conservative is, in fact, a propoganda term.
"Neoconservative" is a new Democrat propaganda code-word to be used to paint Republicans as ultra -Right Christian nuts.
I've seen the word used a few of times today, in various media opinions and reports, so I guess someone at the top of the Democrat dogpile has decided to make it a popular term.
I'm sure we can expect to see more of the word "neoconservative".
Hmm. I was under the impression that this was the name chosen by Wolfowitz, et al during the Bush I regime. They alternately referred to themselves as neo-Reaganites and neo-conservatives.
There was a really fascinating Frontline documentary on a few days ago called "The Long Road to War" that describes some of this. You can view it all online at the PBS.org site, I believe.
At any rate, neo-conservative isn't a moniker to be ashamed of. It simply describes a brand of conservatism in the US--the argument is generally that the republican party had been run for the most part by "moderate" conservatives who had compromised too many fundamental principles (economic, social, etc) of conservative thought. The neo-cons hope to correct that. Most of the neo-cons, I imagine, would (rightly) argue that it's actually a return to the principles of classical capitalism. They would also not mention that most of the ideas behind classical capitalism were junked (and deemed a failure) between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries.
I always thought that neo-conservatism was basically a dummied-down version of libertarianism. That's still an improvement over what's out there today, if you ask me.
The site you pointed to seems to be more concerned with military strength than anything else, which would have me classify them as Teddy Roosevelt-esque republicans, but they are even more concerned with the military. There's nothing "neo" about that.
For what it's worth, I don't think the next generation of conservatism -- that being today's youth who find themselves tentatively voting republican -- is going to be much like this. Being in the middle of a bunch of future lawyers and politicians all the time, I can tell you first hand that most students with aspirations for conservative politics are more concerned with building a global free market than anything else.
Your absolutely right with the last thing you said. I definitely think that today's young conservatives do not feel nearly as passionately as their parents and grandparents did on issues such as abortion, religion in schools, and other social aspects of the conservative ideology.
Well, for what it's worth, I've been corrected by an historian friend of mine who's reminded me that neo-conservatism (as expressed by Wolfowitz and Horowitz, and probably by Karl Rove, as well) is almost entirely about foreign policy, not domestic policy (and look where we are now).
Oh well. My real point was that the term was NOT a brand placed upon them by democrats. It was their term from the get-go.
Cheers
Scott
edit: spline: I may be WAY wrong here, but I was told that the "neo" comes from the fact that some of these original movers and shakers were in fact leftists/democrats to begin with, and then changed their tune at some point. Hence the "neo." Anyway.
Why you want to protest that? They have a nuclear capability that's way ahead of anything Iraq ever had. They have a religious nut for a leader, they have no democracy, human rights abuses are rampant, they have oil, they're a fully paid up member of the Axis of Evil...and....they also have chemical (and biological?) weapons stashed away somewhere...they used tons of the stuff in their war with Iraq. Aren't these the reasons (?!) given for attacking Iraq? And...you have said you are pro war re. Iraq
?
They may be the reasons, but they are the reasons because Iraq signed a ceasefire banning thrm from possessing them.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
And....Iran just had 3 "precision guided" (!) Cruise missiles land in their territory....miles off target.
Yup, and the official Iranian news agency just said they were Iraqi missles, not US missles. Guess, you can't stick that one on the US. (not that they did any danage anyway.)
Hmm. I was under the impression that this was the name chosen by Wolfowitz, et al during the Bush I regime. They alternately referred to themselves as neo-Reaganites and neo-conservatives.
It's still being used by the Left as a codeword. Much as some have used "appeaser" to describe the anti-war crowd. The term has meaning beyond what is obvious.
They may be the reasons, but they are the reasons because Iraq signed a ceasefire banning thrm from possessing them.
Yup, and the official Iranian news agency just said they were Iraqi missles, not US missles. Guess, you can't stick that one on the US. (not that they did any danage anyway.)
What the people dead in Syria and the crater in an eastern Turkey field? Precision guided bombs ... well, it's only one country over I suppose.
If we just left these guys alone, we would surely be safer, especially as time goes on. It's a good thing we didn't take care of this in '91, it would have been wrong.
What the people dead in Syria and the crater in an eastern Turkey field? Precision guided bombs ... well, it's only one country over I suppose.
Keep digging harald..i am sure you will find that a least 1 or 2 US missles went off course...happens in a war. But, lust like those 3 US missles in Iran that turned out to be Iraqi, don't automatically blame everything on the US...well, I guess we can't ask that of you, it seems to be in your nature.
About Iran, I thought found the British official's statement from this august article to be telling:
Quote:
"Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."
Anyway, at least one of the motive has been extremely clear: Iran's position in "The Great Game." The NA in afghanistan were funded by Iran specifixally to keep enough instability to prevent the pipeline from running through afghanistan. Currently, afghanistan won't be an option as long as the warlords continue to have that country split up, so Iran is looking like the only stable option (to compete with the russian pipelines and coming china one). Iran, like every country in the region, would love to have that pipeline on their territory. That wouldn't be a problem if Iran was a little more, shall we say, western oriented.
SDW, I'll refrain from using terms in the future, unless I've checked them out.
But. Since there is direct to from the sites principles to Senior Governmental officials including head policy maker, there is a strong connection even if it is not policy [yet].
Comments
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
Following this link reveals the true intentions of Senior US governmental officials - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld.
"Following this link" gets you nothing new or different. PNAC simply took the time to write down current US policy and project it forward based on what is actually happening in the world today instead of the pipe dream policy of the UN. Nothing there is a revelation, but Democrat spin-mongers have decided to pump up the efforts to make the current administration appear to be some kind of kooks.
This is part of the propaganda war, and it's taking place right here. Al Queda has nothing to worry about.
I am not interested in American Partisan Politics.
What we don't want is a trigger-happy policy that will have heads roll to get certain American global visions (written by very few) on the highway.
What the world wants is respect from US, of which they will not get if this policy is carried out. Respect that will not only "allow" their lives to progress a truly free mannor, as you are of course a big promoter of freedom assumedly, but not having the elephant trunk of this policy spanking them into submission, forcing certain ideals upon them!
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
I think I speak for an interestingly large majority here finboy when I say that blaming democrats for every critizcism of as you call it "Republicans" is steering the conversation away from what people are upset about here.
I am not interested in American Partisan Politics.
What we don't want is a trigger-happy policy that will have heads roll to get certain American global visions (written by very few) on the highway.
What the world wants is respect from US, of which they will not get if this policy is carried out. Respect that will not only "allow" their lives to progress a truly free mannor, as you are of course a big promoter of freedom assumedly, but not having the elephant trunk of this policy spanking them into submission, forcing certain ideals upon them!
Using the words "Leftist" and "neo-conservative" is a great way to start a thread by someone who says they aren't interested in American partisan politics. If you think you can make THAT statement stick, you are really in denial about your own internal rationalization process.
For not being interested in partisan politics, you are certainly responding to the agenda of the Left by parroting their current concerns. Whether you believe that you are partisan or not isn't important -- your little reference to neoconservatives falls in line with the Democrat agenda that I've started to see played out elsewhere.
So either you're lying to yourself or your being used -- which is it? As I said, this New American Century stuff is being used by the Democratic Left in the US as a whipping boy right now -- are you with them or not on this?
You can be legitimately upset about the NAC stuff, but don't pretend that it isn't a political argument. And I think you should stick to speaking for yourself.
Furthermore, you are still ignoring the purpose of the entire bloody post and the concerns brought forth here. Argue them and not me being something or not being something.
Originally posted by groverat
Iran don't need no attacking. I'll protest in the streets about an attack on Iran.
ha ha ha ha ha!
I'll see you on the street then. It only takes a couple of whitehouse spinners about 7 minutes to put together a smear just like it did with iraq.
Should I bring the placards and jiffy markers.
I simply disagree. I think the determination has been made that there is already state-encouraged, massive anti-Americanism. Doing nothing would well, "do nothing" to prevent it's spread. To be be honest, I wasn't convinced that this whole "stablize the Middle-East" plan. Now, I'm on board though. Iraq really can set an example, in two ways. One, it can serve as an example of a liberated people who become more prosperous. Two, it will show certain regimes that the US is serious about not supporting terror. In short, what should we do....withdraw and make nice?
Oh, and BTW: Regime change has been official US public law since 1998. It's not just conservatives....it was a bipatisan effort.
DigitalMonkeyBoy:
SDW, I really don't like old cliches involving God since it does not represent everyone...and I do not beleive democracy is perfect since there are 100 000 000 people in the US who don't even vote because they're either too ignorant or uneducated to realise the importance. Whats the use of that? ---I'll start a new thread if we want to argue about democracy.
Well, it represents about 98% of the people on this planet.
And, are YOU ACTUALLY SAYING that democracy is bad or not the best system of government?
Finally: Neo-Conservative is, in fact, a propoganda term.
Originally posted by finboy
"Neoconservative" is a new Democrat propaganda code-word to be used to paint Republicans as ultra -Right Christian nuts.
I've seen the word used a few of times today, in various media opinions and reports, so I guess someone at the top of the Democrat dogpile has decided to make it a popular term.
I'm sure we can expect to see more of the word "neoconservative".
Hmm. I was under the impression that this was the name chosen by Wolfowitz, et al during the Bush I regime. They alternately referred to themselves as neo-Reaganites and neo-conservatives.
There was a really fascinating Frontline documentary on a few days ago called "The Long Road to War" that describes some of this. You can view it all online at the PBS.org site, I believe.
At any rate, neo-conservative isn't a moniker to be ashamed of. It simply describes a brand of conservatism in the US--the argument is generally that the republican party had been run for the most part by "moderate" conservatives who had compromised too many fundamental principles (economic, social, etc) of conservative thought. The neo-cons hope to correct that. Most of the neo-cons, I imagine, would (rightly) argue that it's actually a return to the principles of classical capitalism. They would also not mention that most of the ideas behind classical capitalism were junked (and deemed a failure) between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries.
Cheers
Scott
The site you pointed to seems to be more concerned with military strength than anything else, which would have me classify them as Teddy Roosevelt-esque republicans, but they are even more concerned with the military. There's nothing "neo" about that.
For what it's worth, I don't think the next generation of conservatism -- that being today's youth who find themselves tentatively voting republican -- is going to be much like this. Being in the middle of a bunch of future lawyers and politicians all the time, I can tell you first hand that most students with aspirations for conservative politics are more concerned with building a global free market than anything else.
Future conservatives will focus on economics.
Oh well. My real point was that the term was NOT a brand placed upon them by democrats. It was their term from the get-go.
Cheers
Scott
edit: spline: I may be WAY wrong here, but I was told that the "neo" comes from the fact that some of these original movers and shakers were in fact leftists/democrats to begin with, and then changed their tune at some point. Hence the "neo." Anyway.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Why you want to protest that? They have a nuclear capability that's way ahead of anything Iraq ever had. They have a religious nut for a leader, they have no democracy, human rights abuses are rampant, they have oil, they're a fully paid up member of the Axis of Evil...and....they also have chemical (and biological?) weapons stashed away somewhere...they used tons of the stuff in their war with Iraq. Aren't these the reasons (?!) given for attacking Iraq? And...you have said you are pro war re. Iraq
?
They may be the reasons, but they are the reasons because Iraq signed a ceasefire banning thrm from possessing them.
Originally posted by sammi jo
And....Iran just had 3 "precision guided" (!) Cruise missiles land in their territory....miles off target.
Yup, and the official Iranian news agency just said they were Iraqi missles, not US missles. Guess, you can't stick that one on the US. (not that they did any danage anyway.)
Originally posted by midwinter
Hmm. I was under the impression that this was the name chosen by Wolfowitz, et al during the Bush I regime. They alternately referred to themselves as neo-Reaganites and neo-conservatives.
It's still being used by the Left as a codeword. Much as some have used "appeaser" to describe the anti-war crowd. The term has meaning beyond what is obvious.
Originally posted by Tulkas
They may be the reasons, but they are the reasons because Iraq signed a ceasefire banning thrm from possessing them.
Yup, and the official Iranian news agency just said they were Iraqi missles, not US missles. Guess, you can't stick that one on the US. (not that they did any danage anyway.)
What the people dead in Syria and the crater in an eastern Turkey field? Precision guided bombs ... well, it's only one country over I suppose.
If we just left these guys alone, we would surely be safer, especially as time goes on. It's a good thing we didn't take care of this in '91, it would have been wrong.
Originally posted by Harald
What the people dead in Syria and the crater in an eastern Turkey field? Precision guided bombs ... well, it's only one country over I suppose.
Keep digging harald..i am sure you will find that a least 1 or 2 US missles went off course...happens in a war. But, lust like those 3 US missles in Iran that turned out to be Iraqi, don't automatically blame everything on the US...well, I guess we can't ask that of you, it seems to be in your nature.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Keep digging harald...don't automatically blame everything on the US...well, I guess we can't ask that of you, it seems to be in your nature.
So now you can pretend that everything he says is invalid. How intelligent!
"Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."
Anyway, at least one of the motive has been extremely clear: Iran's position in "The Great Game." The NA in afghanistan were funded by Iran specifixally to keep enough instability to prevent the pipeline from running through afghanistan. Currently, afghanistan won't be an option as long as the warlords continue to have that country split up, so Iran is looking like the only stable option (to compete with the russian pipelines and coming china one). Iran, like every country in the region, would love to have that pipeline on their territory. That wouldn't be a problem if Iran was a little more, shall we say, western oriented.
But. Since there is direct to from the sites principles to Senior Governmental officials including head policy maker, there is a strong connection even if it is not policy [yet].