PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Why I Am Not a Neo-Conservative


The Mad Crapper
03-24-2011, 12:01 PM
When George Bush launched the military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein and enforce Security Council resolution 1441 and sixteen other Security Council resolutions he had defied, I was for it. I would be for it today. It was a necessary war and a just war. By toppling a monster who had defied international order and was an obvious threat, Bush did the right thing. When he named the campaign Operation Iraqi Freedom, I was also an enthusiast. It put the Democratic Party, which soon betrayed the war, and the political left, which instinctively supports America’s enemies, on the defensive. When he said he was going to establish democracy in Iraq, I almost believed him. And that seemed to put me in the camp of the neo-conservatives for whom democracy in Iraq was not only a wish but an agenda. In any case, people labeled me that not least because I am a Jew and “neo-conservative” functions for the ominously expanding anti-Semitic Left as a code for self-serving Jews who want to sacrifice American lives for Israel.

But whatever I wrote about the war in support of the democracy agenda, inside I was never a 100% believer in the idea that democracy could be so easily implanted in so hostile a soil. I wanted to see Saddam toppled and a non-terrorist supporting government in its place. I would have settled for that and a large U.S. military base as well. But I allowed myself to get swept up in the Bush-led enthusiasm for a democratic revolution in the Middle East. I remained on board until the Beirut spring began to wither and got off when election results in Gaza came in and put a Nazi party into power. That spelled the end of my neo-conservative illusions.

It looks like we are headed for the same result in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to win the September elections. The reality is that a totalitarian Islam is the vibrant and increasingly dominant movement in the Arab world. Any elections likely to take place will be on the order of one man, one vote, one time. Neo-conservatives are now cheering on the Obama administration’s reckless intervention in Libya, as though the past ten years have taught them nothing. The nation building effort in Iraq led to a squandering of American resources and a weakening of American power. Putting a man who is hostile to American power in the White House is not the least aspect of this American decline. Because of these nation-building delusions we are still mired in Afghanistan — now the longest war in American history. And now we have been plunged into the Middle Eastern maelstrom with no clear agenda or objective.

The Obama Administration, in my view, is the most dangerous administration in American history, and conservatives need to be very clear about the limits and objectives of American power so that they can lead the battle to restore our government to health. To accomplish this, neo-conservatives need to admit they were wrong, and return to the drawing board. They should give up the “neo” and become conservatives again.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/23/why-i-am-not-a-neo-conservative/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_campaign=a731957f04-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 12:16 PM
Unfortunately, David Horowitz, is considered a NeoCon and the first paragraph shows it including the focus on calling others anti-semitic. This is one of their stock-and-trade charges whether or not it's true. Most American Jews didn't even support the Iraq intervention. Most American Jews are on the liberal left. However, it also shows in his desire to go after a tin-pot dictator or rogue leader because that is progressivism right there which is NC. Anyhow, the whole Iraq scene goes back to PGWI. As I said before the Arab on the street is neither Israel or America's friend.

I am at least glad to see, he has altered part of his earlier position but it's hard to tell if it's out of convenience because Obama is on the left and not enthusiastically pro-Israel in the eyes of many on the right ( not just NeoCons). I am glad to see he recognizes that there are limits to American power and that constant warfare, wars of choice, wars for progressive purposes, wars for enforcing UN resolutions will dissipate our powers eventually.


Still I can't believe Horowitz wrote that for a title.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 12:21 PM
Unfortunately, David Horowitz, is considered a NeoCon...

You say that because he's a Jew, don't you.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 12:23 PM
...I am at least glad to see, he has altered part of his earlier position but it's hard to tell if it's out of convenience because Obama is on the left and not enthusiastically pro-Israel in the eyes of many on the right ( not just NeoCons).

Sure enough, there it is.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 12:28 PM
I find myself halfway between Horowitz and the neocons. Like Horowitz, democratizing the Arab world was never an agenda item for me. It was an interesting possibility, but I would have been satisfied with a pro-American, reasonably malevolent dictatorship in Iraq. But unlike Horowitz, I haven't completely given up on the Arab/muslim world in terms of it's ability to adapt liberty-based democracy to their culture. I am and have always been skeptical, but I don't think it's a completely hopeless idea. Iran, for example, might be able to eventually shed it's theocracy and give birth to a civilized culture.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 12:29 PM
Nope you are an arch-NeoCon pat. You use a lot of their arguments and smears. Right out of the book as a matter of fact. Then again you read The National Review—which has some decent limited govt stands but is dominated by the NeoCons. War! War! War!

Jaric
03-24-2011, 12:32 PM
I find myself halfway between Horowitz and the neocons. Like Horowitz, democratizing the Arab world was never an agenda item for me. It was an interesting possibility, but I would have been satisfied with a pro-American, reasonably malevolent dictatorship in Iraq. But unlike Horowitz, I haven't completely given up on the Arab/muslim world in terms of it's ability to adapt liberty-based democracy to their culture. I am and have always been skeptical, but I don't think it's a completely hopeless idea. Iran, for example, might be able to eventually shed it's theocracy and give birth to a civilized culture.
Put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it," camp. They've been killing each other for thousands of years for one reason or another. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

That said, getting involved trying to force that change is a fools errend. I'd bet my paycheck if we devoted the resources wasted on wars in the middle east to figuring out a way to make cars run without the need for oil we'd probably have jet packs and flying submarines by now. (don't ask me how submarines fly, just accept that we'd have them by now)

patteeu
03-24-2011, 12:43 PM
Put me in the "I'll believe it when I see it," camp. They've been killing each other for thousands of years for one reason or another. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

That said, getting involved trying to force that change is a fools errend. I'd bet my paycheck if we devoted the resources wasted on wars in the middle east to figuring out a way to make cars run without the need for oil we'd probably have jet packs and flying submarines by now. (don't ask me how submarines fly, just accept that we'd have them by now)

My view is that we should definitely be involved trying to influence change, but not necessarily change to democracy and not necessarily by way of military force.

As for flying submarines, they've been around since at least 1965 (See youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4FHXcnZS3Y) clip from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, embedding disabled).

And here's something (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7872645/Pentagon-plans-flying-submarine.html) more recent and perhaps more real:

Pentagon plans 'flying submarine'
Pentagon researchers are attempting to develop a military vehicle which can travel underwater like a submarine before bursting out of the waves and flying like an aeroplane.

By Tom Chivers 1:50PM BST 05 Jul 2010

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the US military science and technology department, has set about creating an aircraft that can fly low over the water until near its target before disappearing under the sea to avoid detection.

It would then creep closer in submarine form before attacking its target, probably a ship or coastal installation, and fly home.
New Scientist reports that the project, which has been in development since 2008, has reached design proposal stage, and several outside developers have submitted designs. DARPA could start allocating funding to developers in as little as a year.

more... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7872645/Pentagon-plans-flying-submarine.html)

patteeu
03-24-2011, 12:46 PM
Nope you are an arch-NeoCon pat. You use a lot of their arguments and smears. Right out of the book as a matter of fact. Then again you read The National Review.

I'm pretty sure I know what I am. I only use their arguments when they have good arguments and I only use their smears when they are appropriate.

Jaric
03-24-2011, 12:47 PM
My view is that we should definitely be involved trying to influence change, but not necessarily change to democracy and not necessarily by way of military force.

As for flying submarines, they've been around since at least 1965 (See youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4FHXcnZS3Y) clip from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, embedding disabled).

And here's something (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7872645/Pentagon-plans-flying-submarine.html) more recent and perhaps more real:

Awesome. This is off topic but I know around WW2 the Japanese developed a submarine aircraft carrier. They never really saw much service but the idea has alot of potential (at least in my mind)

Back on topic, when you say, We should be trying to influence change, what exactly do you mean by that. Our current method has the unfortunate consequences of pissing the middle east off and costing trillions of dollars we don't have.

Bowser
03-24-2011, 12:48 PM
As for flying submarines, they've been around since at least 1965 (See youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4FHXcnZS3Y) clip from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, embedding disabled).

And here's something (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7872645/Pentagon-plans-flying-submarine.html) more recent and perhaps more real:

Sweet. Hopefully it's like the one in The Looking Glass novels, complete with a star drive.

Bewbies
03-24-2011, 01:10 PM
If you like cheeseburgers you are a neocon I'm pretty sure.

I'd prefer that we had leaders who saw America as THE solution, not by military force but by example. People who bragged up our virtues and spoke constantly of freedom and liberty while abroad. The whole 'shining city on a hill' thing. That would be far more influential than going to war and apologizing for our past crap. Who wants a gov't like ours when all we do is tell the world how bad we are?

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 01:50 PM
If you like cheeseburgers you are a neocon I'm pretty sure.
Nah! They're just progressives with guns.


Here's a list by Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html) on what they believe in that handled it partly for me. I had it up before. It's a bit long but you can just look at the listing....even if it omits some things...like they tend to be supply-siders. ( Keynesians with a tax cut on top.) There's was an excellent one on the Christian Science Monitor which also listed the leaders....like Horowitz.


A few that I think are stand-out positions:
•They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

•They accept the notion that the ends justify the means — that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2011, 02:29 PM
Horowitz is right about Libya Al Qaeda are part of “the rebels” opposing Gadhafi.

Our new “allies.”:hmmm::banghead:

orange
03-24-2011, 03:17 PM
Awesome. This is off topic but I know around WW2 the Japanese developed a submarine aircraft carrier. They never really saw much service but the idea has alot of potential (at least in my mind)


http://www.damninteresting.net/content/i400_hangar_2.jpghttp://www.damninteresting.net/content/i400_surrender.jpg

On 09 September 1942, at about 6:00am Pacific War Time, a lookout on the US Oregon coast spotted a single incoming aircraft. The small, unmarked biplane plane sputtered and popped as it flew through the dawn mist. It slowly made its way over a heavily wooded area which was known to be particularly prone to forest fires, and dropped a pair of cylinders from a low altitude. Soon a column of smoke became visible from the forest as the strange plane turned around, its distinct engine noise fading back towards the ocean.

Immediately, Howard “Razz” Gardner– the lookout who had first spotted the aircraft– dove into the thick forest to battle the developing blaze. By the time the larger support crew penetrated the woods with their firefighting equipment four and a half hours later, Gardner and a fellow lookout had managed to wrestle the fire into submission. As the crew helped to mop up the last of the smoldering mess, the investigators found the remains of the offending ordnance. The fragments of the phosphorus incendiary bombs were stamped with Japanese markings.

The event came to be known as the Lookout Air Raid, and it marked the first time that the continental United States was bombed by an enemy aircraft. It was determined that the aircraft responsible was a Yokosuka E14Y floatplane, and that it had managed to reach the US coast because it had been launched from an unlikely platform: a Japanese submarine lingering just offshore.


more: http://www.damninteresting.com/submersible-aircraft-carriers

Jaric
03-24-2011, 03:25 PM
We actually captured at least one of them. It's an interesting idea, but I doubt the US would ever develop it. We generally like countries to see our Aircraft Carriers coming.

Fishpicker
03-24-2011, 08:08 PM
you can always spot a neocon when they are knighted
usually they are bestowed with command in the order of the bath, the order of the garter, or one of a few others. (cant remember the names of the orders) They always serve someone else.

banyon
03-24-2011, 08:24 PM
I'm pretty sure I know what I am. I only use their arguments when they have good arguments and I only use their smears when they are appropriate.

No, no, if you read books or magazines, then that automatically means that you agree with everything in that book or magazine. Right? In fact, all of those political views are absorbed into you, osmosis-style.

That's why bep doesn't read anything that she suspects might disagree with her existing views. No brainwashing risk.

patteeu
03-24-2011, 08:52 PM
No, no, if you read books or magazines, then that automatically means that you agree with everything in that book or magazine. Right? In fact, all of those political views are absorbed into you, osmosis-style.

That's why bep doesn't read anything that she suspects might disagree with her existing views. No brainwashing risk.

You've got a point there.

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 12:15 AM
I am against neoconservativism for probably many reasons, but as far as foreign policy is concerned, we can probably boil it down to a core point: I do not believe that our foreign policy, especially our military policy, should be entirely dedicated to What's Best For America.

I believe it should be our predominant concern. But that it should be a concern that dominates any and all other concerns is probably my biggest problem with neoconservativism.

patteeu
03-25-2011, 06:39 AM
I am against neoconservativism for probably many reasons, but as far as foreign policy is concerned, we can probably boil it down to a core point: I do not believe that our foreign policy, especially our military policy, should be entirely dedicated to What's Best For America.

I believe it should be our predominant concern. But that it should be a concern that dominates any and all other concerns is probably my biggest problem with neoconservativism.

Wow. For real.

Fishpicker
03-25-2011, 08:53 AM
I am against neoconservativism for probably many reasons, but as far as foreign policy is concerned, we can probably boil it down to a core point: I do not believe that our foreign policy, especially our military policy, should be entirely dedicated to What's Best For America.

I believe it should be our predominant concern. But that it should be a concern that dominates any and all other concerns is probably my biggest problem with neoconservativism.

wow that's odd. I do want a FP that puts Americas interests first. And that is why I dont support the Neo-Cons with their FP.

The Mad Crapper
03-25-2011, 09:11 AM
I am against neoconservativism for probably many reasons, but as far as foreign policy is concerned, we can probably boil it down to a core point: I do not believe that our foreign policy, especially our military policy, should be entirely dedicated to What's Best For America.

That's why you support Obama and I don't. Obama does not have America's best interests at heart. Not just on foreign policy, but also domestic policy.

RedNeckRaider
03-25-2011, 10:36 AM
we can probably boil it down to a core point: I do not believe that our foreign policy, especially our military policy, should be entirely dedicated to What's Best For America.

Why is nobody suprised by that~

patteeu
03-25-2011, 10:54 AM
wow that's odd. I do want a FP that puts Americas interests first. And that is why I dont support the Neo-Cons with their FP.

You two need to get together and get the anti-neocon story straight. :)

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 02:21 PM
Wow. For real.

Why is nobody suprised by that~

It's not an entirely controversial thing to say. You've just been soaked in the National Review so long, anything less than "America should able to walk into any bar and cockslam any bitch it sees at any time" is treason by comparison.

Think about it -- we are arming governments across the Middle East that fire on peaceful democratic protesters from helicopters. And we do that because we like using the launching pads they've built for us there.

That is totally fucking over the human condition in struggling parts of the world. Actively aiding and assisting in resisting modernity in third world countries. All so we can have a shorter flight to Syria if we need to.

Neoconservativism, at least what I've become familiar with, says the bottom line here is clearly in our best interests. So we prop up any dictators we see that show a slight American bias.

I'm all for putting America first. But the fact that America's interests should be damn near the ONLY thing we focus on, fuck the consequences, is not a responsible way for the world's only superpower to operate.

And that's why I am not a neoconservative.

chiefsnorth
03-25-2011, 03:05 PM
Is anyone a "Neo-conservative" anymore? There are few who ever were and it was a brief movement that was really only a faction. It's an out of vogue label following the normal lifecycle of political labels. At first it's a neologism, a buzzword with only a conceptual meaning. Then a well formed concept with more or less agreed-upon tenets and orthodoxy. Now that it's more or less passed into the past it's undefined again, little more than a name-call. The only usage the term gets is as a straw man or a label that people apply to others for holding one or a few beliefs that the third party feels are in alignment.

It's not a meaningful concept to discuss anymore. It's like talking about something that is made of "space age" materials

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 04:07 PM
Is anyone a "Neo-conservative" anymore? There are few who ever were and it was a brief movement that was really only a faction. It's an out of vogue label following the normal lifecycle of political labels.

Ummm... our foreign policy is dominated by neoconservativism.

chiefsnorth
03-25-2011, 04:12 PM
Ummm... our foreign policy is dominated by neoconservativism.

Barrio is such a neoconservative, I know.

Actually, what dominates our current foreign policy is incompetence and spinelessness. Say what you will about Bush and his errands, at least they could decide what they wanted to do and then give it a college try, and they would call things what they are. Foreign policy to them was still, correctly, policy. To this administration it's either PR, a distraction, or both.

patteeu
03-25-2011, 04:14 PM
I agree with north to the extent that it doesn't seem like people share a common definition for the term. I'm going to explain why I don't agree with Direckshun's definition though, rather than completely buy into the idea that the term has lost all meaning.

Direckshun's beef seems to be with a much wider group of Americans than just neocons. Essentially, he seems to be opposed to some variant of nationalistic realism. Let me distinguish between a Dick Cheney, who I don't consider a neocon and a Paul Wolfowitz who is. Both are nationalists who want to advance US interests first and foremost. Wolfowitz believed that US interests would be served by pushing hard for democratic reforms in the middle east because he believed that by introducing democracy I would drain the oppression swamp from which radicals are bred. Cheney could be convinced by the neocon argument at times, but if he would be more skeptical of the ability of democracy solve the problems of an already radicalized population and he'd be more likely to align himself with a friendly dictator if he thought it was the more realistic way to serve American interests. Neither of them are against humanitarianism, but US interests come first. Ironically, Wolfowitz was known as a bleeding heart because of his belief that a human rights/democracy agenda was the best way to serve US interests. IOW, Direckshun is more like Wolfowitz the neocon, than like Cheney, the more skeptical realpolitik nationalist.

It's still extraordinary that Direckshun would sacrifice US interests in order to serve some more important interest of a foreign people as conceived by Direckshun, but at least he's honest about it. Our president isn't.

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 04:17 PM
Barrio is such a neoconservative, I know.

The behavior exhibited by our government's foreign policy is almost identical to what it was under Bush. The only difference is that the Obama administration probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

But Obama endorsed a surge in Afghanistan.

He put Pattreus in charge of Afghanistan.

He's maintained Gitmo.

He's let the CIA get away scott-free with murder of POWs.

He's defended the Patriot Act at every turn.

He's stepped up our bombing campaign in Pakistan.

He's added Libya and Yemen to the list.

When he received a Nobel Peace Prize, he flew to Denmark and gave a 30 minute speech on the occasional necessity of war.

If that's not neoconservativism, nothing is.

Actually, what dominates our current foreign policy is incompetence and spinelessness. Say what you will about Bush and his errands, at least they could decide what they wanted to do and then give it a college try, and they would call things what they are. Foreign policy to them was still, correctly, policy. To this administration it's either PR, a distraction, or both.

Irrelevent to a discussion on neoconservativism.

If you want to start a topic about how great it would be if Bush were handling Libya, I'll meet you there. I'm not going to veer down every rabbit hole your brain meanders into.

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 04:20 PM
It's still extraordinary that Direckshun would sacrifice US interests in order to serve some more important interest of a foreign people as conceived by Direckshun, but at least he's honest about it. Our president isn't.

Yeah, I'd give up a launching base in Bahrain if it meant we stopped supporting a dictator that fired on peaceful democratic protestors. That is perhaps one of the most clear ways that even menial American advantages are favored over what is clearly best for freedom in the Middle East.

Is that something with which you'd refuse to part, pat?

patteeu
03-25-2011, 04:21 PM
The behavior exhibited by our government's foreign policy is almost identical to what it was under Bush. The only difference is that the Obama administration probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

But Obama endorsed a surge in Afghanistan.

He put Pattreus in charge of Afghanistan.

He's maintained Gitmo.

He's let the CIA get away scott-free with murder of POWs.

He's defended the Patriot Act at every turn.

He's stepped up our bombing campaign in Pakistan.

He's added Libya and Yemen to the list.

When he received a Nobel Peace Prize, he flew to Denmark and gave a 30 minute speech on the occasional necessity of war.

If that's not neoconservativism, I don't know what is.

FYP. That's not neoconservatism (although it's certainly an influence), and you apparently don't.

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 04:23 PM
FYP. That's not neoconservatism (although it's certainly an influence), and you apparently don't.

I largely associate it with the American desire to police the earth.

chiefsnorth
03-25-2011, 04:24 PM
Pat, do you believe that Obama wanted to act in Libya? I don't believe that, just like he didn't want to address the calls for a troop surge in Afghanistan. I think he sits on the sidelines hoping somone else will do something as long as possible and only acts when PR forces him to.

In Egypt the situation played out fortuitously for him; he couldn't decide which side to be on so he waited to see who would win and simply got on the winning team. In Libya he tried the same play, but when protestors started getting mowed down and - more importantly - when people like Sarkozy and Cameron were about to lead if he wouldn't, only then did he get involved. He is so reactive on foreign policy, he sits like a frightened squirrel, unable to make a choice. Going on vacation and hoping problems fix themselves or somone else will do it is not a policy. It's the absence of one.

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 04:27 PM
Pat, do you believe that Obama wanted to act in Libya? I don't believe that, just like he didn't want to address the calls for a troop surge in Afghanistan. I think he sits on the sidelines hoping somone else will do something as long as possible and only acts when PR forces him to.

In Egypt the situation played out fortuitously for him; he couldn't decide which side to be on so he waited to see who would win and simply got on the winning team. In Libya he tried the same play, but when protestors started getting mowed down and - more importantly - when people like Sarkozy and Cameron were about to lead if he wouldn't, only then did he get involved. He is so reactive on foreign policy, he sits like a frightened squirrel, unable to make a choice. Going on vacation and hoping problems fix themselves or somone else will do it is not a policy. It's the absence of one.

Hard to believe you don't have a job on Fox News with insight of such pristine quality. You'd basically be parroting Sean Hannity.

patteeu
03-25-2011, 04:30 PM
Pat, do you believe that Obama wanted to act in Libya? I don't believe that, just like he didn't want to address the calls for a troop surge in Afghanistan. I think he sits on the sidelines hoping somone else will do something as long as possible and only acts when PR forces him to.

In Egypt the situation played out fortuitously for him; he couldn't decide which side to be on so he waited to see who would win and simply got on the winning team. In Libya he tried the same play, but when protestors started getting mowed down and - more importantly - when people like Sarkozy and Cameron were about to lead if he wouldn't, only then did he get involved. He is so reactive on foreign policy, he sits like a frightened squirrel, unable to make a choice. Going on vacation and hoping problems fix themselves or somone else will do it is not a policy. It's the absence of one.

I think you're right. I think his policy intuition is generally in conflict with the politically palatable option. I think he is paralyzed to some degree by this tension and only acts when the political negatives of dithering start to mount. And when he acts, political considerations rule the day. If he can manage to package it politically, he follows his anti Israel, anti capitalist, anti colonialist instincts but if not he throws them overboard.

chiefsnorth
03-25-2011, 04:32 PM
Hard to believe you don't have a job on Fox News with insight of such pristine quality. You'd basically be parroting Sean Hannity.

The point is that his foreign policy is emphatically not comprised of actions that are motivated by a neoconservative ideology. His foreign policy is comprised of actions that are motivated by a strategy that is risk-adverse above all else. A Martyball of sorts, it seeks to avoid large embarrassments by avoiding all risks, failing to anticipate that in so doing, they create more of both.

Direckshun
03-25-2011, 04:35 PM
The point is that his foreign policy is emphatically not comprised of actions that are motivated by a neoconservative ideology. His foreign policy is comprised of actions that are motivated by a strategy that is risk-adverse above all else. A Martyball of sorts, it seeks to avoid large embarrassments by avoiding all risks, failing to anticipate that in so doing, they create more of both.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

vailpass
03-25-2011, 04:36 PM
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You women are all the same.

chiefsnorth
03-25-2011, 04:50 PM
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You claimed that neoconservatism dominates his foreign policy, which is a false choice. You see actions that are consistent with neoconservatism and conclude that they must be caused by neoconservatism. In reality there is more than one choice. In reality, he has quietly continued all these policies and shaped his own decision-making not because he suddenly became a neocon, but in an effort to avoid political risk, which would damage his domestic agenda and hurt his reelection prospects among other negatives.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2011, 04:59 PM
Hard to believe you don't have a job on Fox News with insight of such pristine quality. You'd basically be parroting Sean Hannity.

I have to agree with you—a rarity. This dude is a sterling Neo Conservative right down to hating real conservatives or libertarians.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2011, 05:04 PM
Is anyone a "Neo-conservative" anymore? There are few who ever were and it was a brief movement that was really only a faction. It's an out of vogue label following the normal lifecycle of political labels. At first it's a neologism, a buzzword with only a conceptual meaning. Then a well formed concept with more or less agreed-upon tenets and orthodoxy. Now that it's more or less passed into the past it's undefined again, little more than a name-call. The only usage the term gets is as a straw man or a label that people apply to others for holding one or a few beliefs that the third party feels are in alignment.

It's not a meaningful concept to discuss anymore. It's like talking about something that is made of "space age" materials

Yeah, this must be why the American Enterprise Institute took down their website and is no longer—only to arise as a new group. They know they must hide who they really are under a new label.
But they're there and they're back. However, it wasn't a "few" who were. Then there's those who drank the Kool-Aid they served which resulted in them taking on the color of one. Thus, every current
contender of today's GOP is a NeoConservative—with zero intention of rolling back the state even if FP is what mainly defines them.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2011, 05:07 PM
Oh heck YES—there is a definition that's accurate of a Neo Con. It's just that few bother to research what these men believe consistently.
Believe me the NeoCons want this confusion so no one can spot them.

Chocolate Hog
03-25-2011, 06:08 PM
Wait so people actually believe the guy isn't a Neo-Con?

patteeu
03-25-2011, 06:22 PM
It's not an entirely controversial thing to say. You've just been soaked in the National Review so long, anything less than "America should able to walk into any bar and cockslam any bitch it sees at any time" is treason by comparison.

Think about it -- we are arming governments across the Middle East that fire on peaceful democratic protesters from helicopters. And we do that because we like using the launching pads they've built for us there.

That is totally ****ing over the human condition in struggling parts of the world. Actively aiding and assisting in resisting modernity in third world countries. All so we can have a shorter flight to Syria if we need to.

Neoconservativism, at least what I've become familiar with, says the bottom line here is clearly in our best interests. So we prop up any dictators we see that show a slight American bias.

I'm all for putting America first. But the fact that America's interests should be damn near the ONLY thing we focus on, **** the consequences, is not a responsible way for the world's only superpower to operate.

And that's why I am not a neoconservative.

Neoconservatism isn't belligerence. Neoconservatives are willing to use force in pursuit of American interests but they're equally willing to use diplomacy. Neoconservatives, like other peace-through-strength foreign policy conservatives, understand that diplomacy is more effective if there is a plausible willingness to use force behind it.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2011, 06:28 PM
Wait so people actually believe the guy isn't a Neo-Con?

Yes....even one of the most well known leaders of the pack it seems. Then again it is a NeoCon saying he isn't one and we know about their belief in the "Noble Lie." There it is right there!

patteeu
03-25-2011, 06:33 PM
Yes....even one of the most well known leaders of the pack it seems. Then again it is a NeoCon saying he isn't one and we know about their belief in the "Noble Lie." There it is right there!

Do you really think that Obama believes in the same foreign policy that Richard Perle and Bill Kristol do? Come on. Chiefsnorth hit the nail on the head. Obama is following the foreign policy of Bush because to do otherwise would be to court political disaster. There's no political upside to holding a terror trial in NYC against the vast majority of public opinion. There's no political upside to letting a terrorist attack happen if a few wiretaps here and there can prevent it. There's no political upside to letting Afghanistan and Iraq descend into chaos and emerge as anti-American states/nonstates so shortly after Obama took command.

Chocolate Hog
03-25-2011, 07:28 PM
Do you really think that Obama believes in the same foreign policy that Richard Perle and Bill Kristol do? Come on. Chiefsnorth hit the nail on the head. Obama is following the foreign policy of Bush because to do otherwise would be to court political disaster. There's no political upside to holding a terror trial in NYC against the vast majority of public opinion. There's no political upside to letting a terrorist attack happen if a few wiretaps here and there can prevent it. There's no political upside to letting Afghanistan and Iraq descend into chaos and emerge as anti-American states/nonstates so shortly after Obama took command.

Ever heard of doing the right thing? Polls and public opinion do change. The truth is Bushs wars made us no safer ( see the failed terrorist attacks, mexican border, etc.)

patteeu
03-25-2011, 07:44 PM
Ever heard of doing the right thing? Polls and public opinion do change. The truth is Bushs wars made us no safer ( see the failed terrorist attacks, mexican border, etc.)

:spock: My post was about Obama, not Bush. Whether Bush foreign policy is the right thing or not wasn't addressed, although you and I obviously disagree on much of that because I'm not as naive as you are.

Chocolate Hog
03-25-2011, 07:48 PM
:spock: My post was about Obama, not Bush. Whether Bush foreign policy is the right thing or not wasn't addressed, although you and I obviously disagree on much of that because I'm not as naive as you are.

Yes I know. I am arguing that Obama following Bush's foreign policy for political points is wrong. I'm hardly the naive one because A. We went to Iraq for WMD's when there wasn't any. B. We went into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Aqeada and Bin Laden, neither of which are still in Afghanistan.

mlyonsd
03-25-2011, 07:52 PM
Yes I know. I am arguing that Obama following Bush's foreign policy for political points is wrong. I'm hardly the naive one because A. We went to Iraq for WMD's when there wasn't any. B. We went into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Aqeada and Bin Laden, neither of which are still in Afghanistan.

If AQ isn't still in Afghanistan did they leave because the food sucked?

BucEyedPea
03-25-2011, 08:15 PM
Yes I know. I am arguing that Obama following Bush's foreign policy for political points is wrong. I'm hardly the naive one because A. We went to Iraq for WMD's when there wasn't any. B. We went into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Aqeada and Bin Laden, neither of which are still in Afghanistan.

I agree anyone buying into that was/is naive. It's really just partisanship on their side though because Bush...'er Cheney is their guy. Of course, that's when it's okay to believe the state propaganda.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2011, 08:17 PM
You women are all the same.

Interesting.

patteeu
03-25-2011, 08:22 PM
Yes I know. I am arguing that Obama following Bush's foreign policy for political points is wrong. I'm hardly the naive one because A. We went to Iraq for WMD's when there wasn't any. B. We went into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Aqeada and Bin Laden, neither of which are still in Afghanistan.

There were a number of reasons given for our invasion of Iraq. The naive only remember the one about WMD though.

mlyonsd
03-25-2011, 08:31 PM
There were a number of reasons given for our invasion of Iraq. The naive only remember the one about WMD though.Kids.

mlyonsd
03-25-2011, 08:45 PM
I agree anyone buying into that was/is naive. It's really just partisanship on their side though because Bush...'er Cheney is their guy. Of course, that's when it's okay to believe the state propaganda.

Bleh. You must have been making cupcakes during the 90's and not paying attention to real chit going on.

Chocolate Hog
03-25-2011, 08:51 PM
There were a number of reasons given for our invasion of Iraq. The naive only remember the one about WMD though.

Short sided bullshit. You want to call everyone who doesn't believe a lie naive. The only way Saddam was capable of being a threat was producing WMD's because he sure as fuck didn't fund terrorism. He's gone now and has been for over 7 years yet we're still there.

patteeu
03-26-2011, 09:19 AM
Short sided bullshit. You want to call everyone who doesn't believe a lie naive. The only way Saddam was capable of being a threat was producing WMD's because he sure as **** didn't fund terrorism. He's gone now and has been for over 7 years yet we're still there.

You don't know much about Saddam, do you? It's impressive how unaware you can be about Saddam's terrorism funding activities after all this time.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2011, 10:34 AM
Bleh. You must have been making cupcakes during the 90's and not paying attention to real chit going on.

Ah, no....I've only started watching Cupcake Wars over the past few weeks. I have yet to make some though....except for red velvet ones this past Valentine's Day. Did I see CW before that. I don't recall actually.

As to seeing some quotes of pat's—Meh! I don't recall it just being about WMD. I recall that the Iraq Resolution transferred the authority to decide when to use military force to the President and that it was enforcing UN Resolutions more than protecting American security which was more like a secondary consideration.

Plus all the phoney war powers interpretations by the Bush administration which didn't even think it needed a Congressional resolution that were made at the time. Now the same folks are caterwauling about Obama doing the same thing.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2011, 10:35 AM
Short sided bullshit. You want to call everyone who doesn't believe a lie naive. The only way Saddam was capable of being a threat was producing WMD's because he sure as **** didn't fund terrorism. He's gone now and has been for over 7 years yet we're still there.

That's all he's got.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2011, 10:45 AM
Libya Exposes Obama As Our Latest Neocon President (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/salsman1.1.1.html)


"Obama – amid loud applause from neoconservative cheerleaders at The Weekly Standard, excuse-making “anti-war” leftists at The New Republic...

stevieray
03-26-2011, 10:59 AM
Ever heard of doing the right thing?people who do the right thing don't shit in gold toilets in multiple palaces and aren't CAPTURED while hiding in a hole, eventually ending up swinging from the gallows pole.

Chocolate Hog
03-26-2011, 04:43 PM
You don't know much about Saddam, do you? It's impressive how unaware you can be about Saddam's terrorism funding activities after all this time.

I question how much you actually know about Saddam Hussein. He was a creation of our own government here let me refresh your memory

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rumsfeld_&_hussein1.jpg


And just for good measure this is what else the type of flawed foreign policy you support had produced:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/68772733_a94c2aafa2.jpg


Who's naive again?

patteeu
03-26-2011, 07:32 PM
I question how much you actually know about Saddam Hussein. He was a creation of our own government here let me refresh your memory

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rumsfeld_&_hussein1.jpg


And just for good measure this is what else the type of flawed foreign policy you support had produced:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/68772733_a94c2aafa2.jpg


Who's naive again?

You, because you said Saddam didn't fund terrorism when the truth is he was a long time sponsor of many different terror groups.

I've seen those pictures hundreds of times and I'm pretty comfortable saying that I'd put my knowledge of our dealings with Saddam and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan up against yours anytime.

Chocolate Hog
03-27-2011, 04:42 AM
You, because you said Saddam didn't fund terrorism when the truth is he was a long time sponsor of many different terror groups.

I've seen those pictures hundreds of times and I'm pretty comfortable saying that I'd put my knowledge of our dealings with Saddam and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan up against yours anytime.

Your knowledge is limited to calling people naive. A US military study even confirmed theres no ties between Saddam and Al Aqeada (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/13/iraq.usa)

No evidence Iraq had ties to 9-11 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/cheney-there-was-never-an_n_210145.html)


You've been debunked I now ask you quit calling people false names and speaking out of your ass.

patteeu
03-27-2011, 10:14 AM
Your knowledge is limited to calling people naive. A US military study even confirmed theres no ties between Saddam and Al Aqeada (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/13/iraq.usa)

No evidence Iraq had ties to 9-11 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/cheney-there-was-never-an_n_210145.html)


You've been debunked I now ask you quit calling people false names and speaking out of your ass.

First of all, you said that Saddam didn't fund terrorists and now you're only talking about al Qaeda. The fact is that the Pentagon report (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html)referenced by the Guardian in your link is filled with examples of Saddam's collaborative relationships (including funding) with islamist terrorist organizations throughout the middle east. So on that point there is no debate and you are wrong.

Second, wrt al Qaeda, the report does say that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam and bin Laden's al Qaeda (which isn't really new information), BUT it also finds that Saddam DID have a collaborative relationship with terrorist organizations closely affiliated with al Qaeda. The best example of this is his relationship with Ayman al Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ). You know who Zawahiri is, don't you? If not, he's Osama bin Laden's #2. He got to be Osama's #2 when his EIJ organization merged with Osama's al Qaeda organization in the late 1990s. Several of Osama's top cadre members at the time of 9/11 were Egyptians from EIJ. So technically, since Saddam's work with EIJ took place before the merger, there wasn't a finding that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda, but practically speaking, he had a history of working with some of al Qaeda's top leadership. Even a naive rube like you should be able to recognize that.

Read the actual report (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html) and learn, my naive and uninformed little friend.

Chocolate Hog
03-27-2011, 04:47 PM
First of all, you said that Saddam didn't fund terrorists and now you're only talking about al Qaeda. The fact is that the Pentagon report (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html)referenced by the Guardian in your link is filled with examples of Saddam's collaborative relationships (including funding) with islamist terrorist organizations throughout the middle east. So on that point there is no debate and you are wrong.

Second, wrt al Qaeda, the report does say that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam and bin Laden's al Qaeda (which isn't really new information), BUT it also finds that Saddam DID have a collaborative relationship with terrorist organizations closely affiliated with al Qaeda. The best example of this is his relationship with Ayman al Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ). You know who Zawahiri is, don't you? If not, he's Osama bin Laden's #2. He got to be Osama's #2 when his EIJ organization merged with Osama's al Qaeda organization in the late 1990s. Several of Osama's top cadre members at the time of 9/11 were Egyptians from EIJ. So technically, since Saddam's work with EIJ took place before the merger, there wasn't a finding that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda, but practically speaking, he had a history of working with some of al Qaeda's top leadership. Even a naive rube like you should be able to recognize that.

Read the actual report (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html) and learn, my naive and uninformed little friend.


No direct connection.

patteeu
03-27-2011, 05:34 PM
No direct connection.

Yes, I explained just how limited that phrase is when used in this context. And I also pointed out how your naive statement about Saddam not funding terrorists was disproven by the very report you used as evidence.