The term neocon was actually first invented to describe left-wingers who moved to the right. Beyond that, even prominent neoconservatives like Fukuyama can't describe any truly coherent set of beliefs that neocons adhere to. Even if you say that an aggressively pro-democratic attitude to foreign policy is common to all neo-cons, there's a maelstrom of difference between the way neocons like Richard Perle & Paul Wolfowitz believe we should prosecute the war on terrorism and the way run-of the-mill conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Rumsfeld, and Victor Davis Hanson think we should go about it. I've never known a 'neo-con' to actually say, 'yeah I'm a neocon'. Leftists are always talking about 'neocons' but they’re the only ones. I think 'neo-conservatism' is a mythical doctrine constructed by the left and superimposed on the right (much like Liberalism is in the opposite sense I admit). Can anyone elucidate exactly what the tenets and premises of this reviled canon ‘neo-conservatism’ are?

I don't know the textbook definition of NeoCon, either.

But whenever I see the Left offer up a definition, invariably they include one or both of the terms "Jewish" or "Zionist".

Supposedly the nouns are intended to be represent a conversationally preemptive "double-whammy".

More of the "If only we could kill them all" irrational logic.

And folks wonder why, if I'm not a Republican, I'm not automatically a Democrat.

I'm not stupid.

QED

Purely from context, I’d say a neo-con is a Republican who is willing to abrogate democracy to get their way; that is, a dictator (or dictator's henchman) wanna-be. And that explains why they won't admit to being one.

So, taking the circuitous route to being wrong makes you any less wrong at the "."?

"There is no connection between the political ideas of our educated class and the deep places of the imagination." - Lionel Trilling

I don't get it.

WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?

Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp)

This might be of some use.
____________________

• Kristol, Irving. "The Neoconservative Persuasion". Weekly Standard, v.8, i.43, August 25, 2003. See http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29

When traditional conservatives are balking about neo-cons this hatred for them and their policies seems to transcend partisan lines. It is true that many neo-cons are actually liberals, who were rejected by the Democratic party in the late 60's, and switched sides. I guess we know where all the animosity comes from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29

God bless wikipedia.


'neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government'

In light of the above, it seems I am part neocon and part not. I certainly support a big stick approach to foreign policy. I'm not sure if I'm a social conservative. In some senses I am socially radical as I have no religious reservations about embracing science to aid medical research, and I could care less if women chose to kill their fetus's. However, I think the state should play a much larger part in upholding moral values - not for a religious sake, but for their own -than it does; I would like homosexuality and other deviant behaviors to be subverted to the full extent of the states power. I think also neo-cons tend to be a little complaisant about immigration, whereas I am a fervent Nationalist.

I believe nationalism, religion, greed and selfishness are the source of all world evils. :D

Udecided offered:
It is true that many neo-cons are actually liberals, who were rejected by the Democratic party in the late 60's,...
Having come of age in the same period, and today still sporting the period's signature full facial hair w/belt-length ponytail -- you're quite wrong.

Many of us modern non-Democrats were Liberals of the time who eventually rejected the Democratic Party, having grown up, and moved on.

The Herd doesn't define me (as a subset of the group us; whatever range of definitions populate the term us). I define my participation in the Herd.

Therein lies the difference between reality and your pretense of certitude.

WellCookedFetus
You forgot ignorance. ;)

I believe nationalism, religion, greed and selfishness are the source of all world evils. :D

I think we need to look 'beyond good and evil'. ;)

fine: the cause of all the worlds problems then.

I think we need to look 'beyond good and evil'.
And beyond our own navels.

Were the possible having ever been in evidence.

fine: the cause of all the worlds problems then.
Pandora, she let them all out of that box of hers. :)

I believe nationalism, religion, greed and selfishness are the source of all world evils. :D

I think this comment has about as much usefulness as 'i think the sun is responsible for all the heat in the solar system'.

"All world evils", like Soylent Green, is made of people.

The rest is just ideas little different than your own.

"All world evils", like Soylent Green, is made of people.

The rest is just ideas little different than your own.

Now is that moment when I bumped into somebody ellse in the shoping center and I'm not sure if he meant to bump into me.

The term neocon was actually first invented to describe left-wingers who moved to the right.

Even if you say that an aggressively pro-democratic attitude to foreign policy is common to all neo-cons........

I think 'neo-conservatism' is a mythical doctrine cCan anyone elucidate exactly what the tenets and premises of this reviled canon ‘neo-conservatism’ are?

All words are whatever people think they are.

I personally have been hearing the word neoconservative at least since the early eighties, but I have always been a foreign policy buff.

Short answerr is that a neoconservative is a conservative who may or may not be loyal to any conservative principles but must be primarily foccussed and dedicated to advocating for an aggressive use of American power in the world for the purpose of increasing America's power relative to the world. Neoconservatives do not need to agree on why America should be more powerful in the world or what America should do with that power.

When a neoconservative uses the word democracy they may be talking about something other than what we mean by democracy. I don't consider neoconservatives advocates of democracy, I consider them to be advoctes of thuggery in service of democracy to be created in a future time when voters will learn to vote "correctly". A real democracy in Haiti was destroyed and is still being disinformed about so that small nations every where shall learn not to disobey authority and so that third world voters will learn that if they do not vote correctly their rights to vote will be revoked by the global authority. But back to neocons......

Neoconservatives tend to not have the fear and contempt for big government that other conservatives have. Half of Neoconservatives seem to be Jewish. At this point in time strong support for Israel now so defines the word neoconservative that somebody who's views were steriotypically neoconservative except for a lack of support for Israel would not be considered neoconservative.

From the Lind article on bottom of post: "Neoconservatism--the term was Michael Harrington's--originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves "paleoliberals." While there was a pro-Israel wing, the movement's focus was on confrontation with the Soviet bloc abroad and on the defense of New Deal liberalism and color-blind liberal integrationism against rivals on the left at home."


Other people defining Neoconservatism stress the intellectual legacy of Albert Wohlstetter and Leo Srauss. I feel that this intelectual legacy idea might be true for Bush's Neoconservatives but does not make any sense when applied to people like Scoop Jackson of the 1970s. So, the word Neoconservative is changing.


The spiegel article called W. Bush's neoconservatives "Leoconsrvatives". Made me laugh.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,259860,00.html : "What is the story with his students, the "Straussians," who have so often been invoked and described since the end of the Iraq war that they have almost become an intellectual legend? They are viewed as a group of neo-conservative conspirators, as a small, elite order guiding the Bush administration - and when its path becomes crooked, providing it with a good conscience. They can be found among the justices of the Supreme Court, and they work at both the White House and the Pentagon."

University of Chicago must be an evil place. They were also central to supply side Voodoo economics.

I have no problem with the neocon love of Realpolitk; my problem is that the neocons are incompetent at realpolitik but have convinced themselves, some media people and our president that they are masters of Realpolitik. The world in which the British amassed a great empire by manipulating local leaders as if they were pawns on a chessboard while ignoring public sentiment is over. The third world public matter now because they have become modern political creatures with their own pseudoromantic sense of political right and wrong just like the American public. When this happened empires became to expensive to maintain without the cooperation of the ruled. The Bush era neocons don't seem to get it that they can not get the cooperation of the third world masses while at the same time appearing to be trying to set up puppet regimes to rule over them.



Good article on neocons by a notable exneocon:

A Tragedy of Errors
by MICHAEL LIND

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror
by David Frum and Richard Perle


[from the February 23, 2004 issue]

About a decade ago, I invented a game with a colleague of mine who, like me, had once worked for Irving Kristol. We called it neoconservative bingo. The idea was that the clichés of neoconservative discourse would be arranged in various combinations on bingo cards: "The World's Only Superpower"; "The New Class"; "The China Threat"; "Decadent Europe"; "Against the UN"; "The Adversary Culture"; "The Global Democratic Revolution"; "Down With the Appeasers!"; "Be Firm Like Churchill." The free space in the center of the bingo card would be "The Palestinian People Do Not Exist" (nowadays it would be "No Palestinian State" or "All Palestinians Are Terrorists"). As you read an essay or a book by a neoconservative, you would check off each slogan on the card in the order in which it appeared.

We never printed our neocon bingo cards. But the neoconservative manifesto by David Frum and Richard Perle, An End to Evil, which is more a collection of talking points than a coherent argument, can serve just as well. The United Nations "has traduced and betrayed" the dream of world peace. The China Threat: "Eventual Korean unification will reinforce the power of the world's democracies against an aggressive and undemocratic China, should China so evolve." There are the Neville Chamberlain appeasers and the Decadent Europe theme: "To Americans, [Europe's doubts about the invasion of Iraq] looked like appeasement. But it would be a great mistake to attribute European appeasement to cowardice--or to cowardice alone." There are the obligatory Churchill references--a chapter is titled "End of the Beginning"--and there is this: "We will never cease to hope for the civilized world's support. But if it is lacking, as it may be, then we have to say, like the gallant lonely British soldier in David Low's famous cartoon of 1940: 'Very well, alone.'"

Bingo.

Paradoxically, Perle and Frum happened to publish their manifesto of neoconservative grand strategy at the very moment many of their colleagues were insisting in print that neoconservatism does not exist, and that the neocons have no influence on US foreign policy. Up until the summer of 2003, neo-conservatives proudly championed their movement against adversaries on the left and against factions on the right (realist, paleoconservative and libertarian) that questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq. That summer, however, the invasion of Iraq--planned for a decade and carried out chiefly by leading neoconservative foreign policy experts like the Bush Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith--went terribly wrong. As of this writing....... http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040223&s=lind

Many of us modern non-Democrats were Liberals of the time who eventually rejected the Democratic Party, having grown up, and moved on.

Were I to try to hold a Republican accountable to my vision of what the world should be, I would be laughed out of the hall. On the other hand, were I to lecture the Democrats on the same, half would hang their heads in shame while the other half tried to make excuses. That half that would hang in shame, they know. They're in it because, like it or not, the Democrats are the de facto liberal representation in American society; they're the folks that tried being Greens and such in high school, and remember--I did watch this very fight play out--being dumped by a girlfriend for eating non-fat yogurt and granola out of--gasp--a styrene container. They're the ones who know the Fourth International has its head in the ground and have come to the conclusion that there are no real Socialists. They understand the refinement of the revolutionary idea while disdaining actual revolution because they're conditioned to a society that has such simple notions of what revolution is. They're furious at the roll to the right, but still vote for Democrats so they can have someone to hold accountable. They won't walk away from the party because it's tantamount to surrender.

And I respect them; my actual feelings for Christianity are analogous. In Oregon, enough Christians voted for the right thing for ten years to stop one of the most perverse religious-political organizations in American history.

And to the other side I'll tip my hat to a gentlemen whose name I recall to be Berkman, who, facing a divorce from his beloved GOP as the party soured to an unmanageable politic, chose not to abandon it but, from his position as state party chair, destroyed it in order to raise it from the rubble and keep the extremists from doing to his party what Clintonian moderation would eventually do to the Dems. He would not countenance the possibility that Oregon's effective Republicans would merely "play along" with a turncoat party leadership. Literally, he dissolved the Oregon Republican Party in order to prevent the alienation of a possible majority of the party. Takes balls.

There are folks within the parties who still believe in serving society through their political efforts. Abandoning them to the wolves will only bring more surrender.

Think of Michael Moore: one of the reasons the Republicans don't like to acknowledge his criticisms of Democrats is simply, "God help the GOP if e'er real Democrats show their faces en masse."

Maybe if Kerry loses, they'll finally dump McAuliffe. That'd be a start. Perhaps the real story defining American politics for the next twenty years, even considering wars, is the question of who the next leader of the Democratic Party will be. The Dems are overdue to simply take their lumps and admit they're an opposition party.

I do wish all those sick enough of the major parties as to walk away would offer some better solutions than carrying a chip on their shoulder, but then again, I sympathize with Anarchism, so it's all the same in the end.

I have no problem with the neocon love of Realpolitk; my problem is that the neocons are incompetent at realpolitik but have convinced themselves, some media people and our president that they are masters of Realpolitik. The world in which the British amassed a great empire by manipulating local leaders as if they were pawns on a chessboard while ignoring public sentiment is over. The third world public matter now because they have become modern political creatures with their own pseudoromantic sense of political right and wrong just like the American public. When this happened empires became to expensive to maintain without the cooperation of the ruled. The Bush era neocons don't seem to get it that they can not get the cooperation of the third world masses while at the same time appearing to be trying to set up puppet regimes to rule over them.


In all reality though neocon realpolitik (if that's what we're calling it) has some real claims it can make - noone denies that the Reagan and deterrence bankrupted the Soviet Union. Wheather neocon ideas will prove as successful in this new era will i guess be found out in time.

As for the third world, a realistic approach is key, as you say, but the reality is that there is no easy solution. I don't disagree that this 'neocolonialism' is floundering, but you have to make that criticism with due appreciation of the other options. How do you pacify a hostile, culturally rearward world majority? Disengagement/pacifism = geo-political suicide. Liberal internationalism (the U.N) is a nice concept, but in reality is a corrupt organization divided by self-interest. After that the only other scenario is for the U.S to embrace it's role as empire. Really, if this were any other era in history America would use it's political superiority to annihilate it's declared enemies. I imagine if Napoleon were transposed to the current U.S leadership he would be baffled by the reservations of current peoples to wage war on clear enemies. Neocons are not driven by realpolitic, they just don't categorically reject realpolitik in favor of idealisms. Neocon ideas abouts foerign policy reflect unresolved problems in the modern pysche - people are all full of ideals - but the world is full of cruel real problems. Installing puppet governments is like fighting with boxing gloves on - we want to win the fight really hurting our opponents.

Many of us modern non-Democrats were Liberals of the time who eventually rejected the Democratic Party, having grown up, and moved on.

From what I heard it was the Democratic Party who rejected them, not visa versa. If the neo-cons had their way ideally they would be neo-libs, and working for the Democratic Party. The Democrats unlike Republicans at the time were more likely to get involved in international affairs, because at the time Republicans were not exactly big fans of intervention. Now because of Neo-con influence the tables have changed.

The Herd doesn't define me

How can the herd define itself? Do you honestly think you are not part of the Herd? LOL! Oh my that was a good one.

Therein lies the difference between reality and your pretense of certitude.

Therein lays nonsensical posts, sentences, and pointless arguments. Oh and did I forget ignorance?

In all reality though neocon realpolitik (if that's what we're calling it) has some real claims it can make - noone denies that the Reagan and deterrence bankrupted the Soviet Union. Wheather neocon ideas will prove as successful in this new era will i guess be found out in time.

As for the third world, a realistic approach is key, as you say, but the reality is that there is no easy solution. I don't disagree that this 'neocolonialism' is floundering, but you have to make that criticism with due appreciation of the other options. How do you pacify a hostile, culturally rearward world majority? Disengagement/pacifism = geo-political suicide. Liberal internationalism (the U.N) is a nice concept, but in reality is a corrupt organization divided by self-interest. After that the only other scenario is for the U.S to embrace it's role as empire. Really, if this were any other era in history America would use it's political superiority to annihilate it's declared enemies. I imagine if Napoleon were transposed to the current U.S leadership he would be baffled by the reservations of current peoples to wage war on clear enemies. Neocons are not driven by realpolitic, they just don't categorically reject realpolitik in favor of idealisms. Neocon ideas abouts foerign policy reflect unresolved problems in the modern pysche - people are all full of ideals - but the world is full of cruel real problems. Installing puppet governments is like fighting with boxing gloves on - we want to win the fight really hurting our opponents.

I deny that Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union. It was going to happen anyway. People are not ants, there is a limmit to how much we are willing to sacrifice for the colony. Every year that went by after 1917 Russians lost more and more faith in communism and became more and more out for their own interests and this bankrupted the Soviet Union. Giant corporations (and Communism is essentially a one corporation state) are not as efficient as market competition because the giant corporation relies upon the honesty and intelligence of management to determine which part of their operations are successfull and unsuccessful. In market competition among small corporations and among animals under Darwins theory the weak die and the strong grow management's stupid ideas do not get followed because in small companies bad management is thrown out or the compay folds. Interesting thing about Russia is that it is worse of now than it was when communism collapsed which I take as support for the idea that it was the growth of corruption rather than Reagans spending that collapsed the Soviet spending.

"How do you pacify a hostile, culturally rearward world majority?" Answer: "Leave them alone." The Islamic extremists do not believe that they started this fight between America and Islamic extremism. The Islamic extremists do not want "The West" to interfere in the struggles over rulership and culture in the Islamic world. The Islamic extremists do not wish to tell Americans whether or not Americans have the right to watch Baywatch but the Islamic Extremists do not want America to tell them whether or not they have the right to ban Baywatch and whether or not they have the right to set their own oil policies.

Bush's they hate our freedm speach was a deliberate lie by Bush designed to keep the American people from second guesssing the policies that put America into conflict with Islamic extremism.

The neocon praise of democracy does not fit with their hostile behavior towards democratic movements so I believe that Realpolitik outranks idealism in neocon circles. Sometimes I wonder if neocons are using a different definition of the word democracy than I am using.

Disengagement would result in less anti-American terrorism but would in no way address peak oil, or the PNAC goal of creating a world in which no alliance of nations can challenge American will. I think PNAC/neocons are nuts in the same way that Napoleon was a nut. They want to bight off more than they can chew.


Saddam (who was not crazy except in the same way that Napoleon was and Rumsfeld are crazy) was an enemy of Islamic extremism. You don't open two front wars if you don't have to. We should have remade Afghanistan before trying to remake Iraq but the neocons were afraid that with every year that passed after 9/11 the ability to sell an invasion of Iraq to the American people would be diminished. Saddam was brutal because he wanted to be great and Saddam was brutal because holding Iraq together is very difficult to do without brutality. Even Abe Lincoln could not hold America together without brutality. Saddam was a creep and I am not defending him but there was no urgency other than from a PNAC point of view for the removal of Saddam. When Saddam was at his worst, America was supporting him.

Every reason given for the removal of Saddam do not fit with American motivations as extrapolated from past American foreign policy. Only the PNAC explanation makes sense. PNAC's desire to replace Saddam is really the beginning of an American war against China, Japan, Germany, France, India, Russia, Brazil and the rest of the world. Suddenly the worlds refusal to help makes sense. The UK and the smaller EU states were in a struggle aggainst German/French joint domination of the EU; now our allies start to make sense.

The UN was designed to be weak. All politics are corrupt by nature. We need a powerfull redesigned UN to help the world move forward because trying to stay where we are would be disastrous. What happens when organized crime takes up terrorism as blackmail for profit? This is just arround the corner; there is money to be made with apolitical terrorism. We need a unified world to deal with terrorism and global warming. In order to have a unified world we must have a stronger UN and America must be part of the world rather than the ruler of the world. Granted a stronger UN does not mean that poor nations should be allowed to use the UN to take wealth from rich nations.

Napoleon, and so many other driven men could not stop their quest for bigger and bigger empires of various types and thus there empires collapsed. More is never enough. America is only paying for it's empre by selling our childrens futures to Chinese bond holders. If we can't make foreigners pay for our empire the cost of the empire will break us. If we could make the foreigners pay for our empire it would be taxation without representation for them and there will be rebellions.

What enemy would Napoleon attack? Attacking Iran would not accomplish anything. The only reliable way to beat an insurgency is to use genocide as my forefathers did to the native Americans and as the Turks did to the Armenians. We can set up a friendly government in Iraq if we kill all of the Iraqis, but are we willing to do that? Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism and we have no useful targets on which to unleash our awsome military.

Notes re: Nirakar


The neocon praise of democracy does not fit with their hostile behavior towards democratic movements so I believe that Realpolitik outranks idealism in neocon circles. Sometimes I wonder if neocons are using a different definition of the word democracy than I am using.

I like that. Just a couple notes in consideration of the above:
• Democracy cannot be delivered at gunpoint; it's like aiming a weapon and saying, "Cooperate, damn it!" People will tiptoe, be dishonest, and the center simply cannot hold in the face of such an abysmal lack of confidence. Or, as a marker in a cemetery in Chicago reads, "Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty".

• Neoconservative realpolitik defines democracy according to a simple idea: "You have the right to cooperate peacefully as we indicate".

• The neoconservative persuasion, like any political assertion, holds itself the best among options; thus, any choice of the people that does not meet with the neoconservative standard is considered antithetical to democracy, which is equally defined as the right to choose to either adopt the "best" way (e.g. the neoconservative way) or be considered a threat.

I suppose I should also note, of the remark that "people are not ants," we see that problem carried over from the disgruntled liberals who crossed the line: the neoconservative vision of the world counts us as numbers; we might as well be ants. We might consider the question in with Max Weber in mind: Is recognition of "economy" a tool that serves the human endeavor, or do humans exist to support "the economy"?

I think this comment has about as much usefulness as 'i think the sun is responsible for all the heat in the solar system'.

So then basically my statement is so obviously true?

Neo-conservatism is really neo-Sovietism in the sense that they both believed their ideology to be the best and military force (violent revolution) is how to achieve the ultimate goal of world domination. People who think that spreading democracy is all good and flowery forget that democracy needs liberalism to work, and in Iraq we put the cart before the horse. There are no liberal revolutions in Iraq, in the Middle East, in most of the world. The US going around masquerading as if she was Gods gift to humanity and she knows better then the ignorant brown people of the world giving them civilization, freedom, and democracy, did I mention neo-liberalism? All these things were touted by the Kremlin, freedom from the bourgeoisie, true democracy, and the highest form of civilization known to man, the communist civilization. Just like the Soviet Union the US is spending her way to a quick grave, incurring debt like mad, increasing a increasingly useless military, a burdensome toll taken on social programmes to pay for all this nonsense, jingoistic idealism (not even nationalism anymore, like the USSR), and tackling an enemy which she does not know, comprehend, or even see. America is fighting a war against an idea, good luck America you’ll need every ounce.

My definition of a neocon is a conservative with foreign ambitions. Neocons do not always adhere to the traditional conservative tenets of small government, fiscal responsibility, and isolationism if they get in the way of foreign dominance. Hence, George W. Bush's bloated deficit and big government (the Patriot Act). He tries to cover it all up by lowering taxes to appease his paleoconservative base and waving distractions such as the Federal Marriage Amendment. But paleoconservatives have every right as liberals to be displeased at the Bush administration.

Neo-conservatism is really neo-Sovietism in the sense that they both believed their ideology to be the best and military force (violent revolution) is how to achieve the ultimate goal of world domination. People who think that spreading democracy is all good and flowery forget that democracy needs liberalism to work, and in Iraq we put the cart before the horse. There are no liberal revolutions in Iraq, in the Middle East, in most of the world. The US going around masquerading as if she was Gods gift to humanity and she knows better then the ignorant brown people of the world giving them civilization, freedom, and democracy, did I mention neo-liberalism? All these things were touted by the Kremlin, freedom from the bourgeoisie, true democracy, and the highest form of civilization known to man, the communist civilization. Just like the Soviet Union the US is spending her way to a quick grave, incurring debt like mad, increasing a increasingly useless military, a burdensome toll taken on social programmes to pay for all this nonsense, jingoistic idealism (not even nationalism anymore, like the USSR), and tackling an enemy which she does not know, comprehend, or even see. America is fighting a war against an idea, good luck America you’ll need every ounce.



And what was Saddam doing killing, torturing, molesting and invading other countries around him?

None of those being the justification for the invasion...so thanks for proving the innate idiocy of this war. Saddam was weak and his regime posed no threat, meanwhile Iran and NK are developing or have nuclear weapons and increasingly deadly missiles. So decide who do you care more about the Iraqi ppl or your own asses? Secondly what does Saddam have to do with all this, this is about neo-conservatism. The fact that you have TOTLALLY changed the conservation shows that my analysis is correct, neo-Soviets.

I do wish all those sick enough of the major parties as to walk away would offer some better solutions than carrying a chip on their shoulder,...
It's not a chip, fair sir.

It's a message: I can do for myself every bit as good as what you, and your politics, would have me believe can be done for me -- if only I submit.

Were it otherwise, you wouldn't now be asking me for idea and performance enhancement assistance.

The shoulder chip is not actually mine, is it?

Undie-sided,
From what I heard...
I was there. You are irrelevent.

nirakar,

I deny that Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union.
You can't even spell and punctuate.

This post is a ad hominem

I was there. You are irrelevent.

You were there? There being where, it was a event? Wow was there a conference? Hmmm…your psychosis is deeper then previously imagined.

"Neo-conservatism is really neo-Sovietism in the sense that they both believed their ideology to be the best and military force (violent revolution) is how to achieve the ultimate goal of world domination", Undecided

In a sense this is true, but it is sort of ironic that you have compared neo-cons to the Soviet Union. To truly understand the neo-conservative, you must understand were they began. While Jews as a group, have traditionally swayed towards the left politically, the neo-cons have declared war against radical movements that lead to a revolution. They are in response to the treatment of Jews by both the Nazis (a leftist movement), and the Communists (also leftist), and have developed a system of beliefs dedicated to preventing world tragedies by going on a strong offensive. In other words, the left has failed the Jews, and a preemptive strategy is required in order to stave off a repeat of history.

They are not conservative by the traditional sense, since many would consider an extreme conservative "anti-Jewish". While they believe in a strong preemtive strategy, they still push for many "liberal" notions, including a strong belief in immigration. They almost always have a fervent support for both Israel, and a desire to spread democracy with little regard to the consequences of forcing an ideology. In a sense, they repeat the behavior of the leftist movements that they detest most, which is why I considered Undecided's comparison to the Soviet Union ironic. While Neoconservatism began primarily through Jewish members, it now has followers from many different faiths and backgrounds. With growing fear related to the war on terror, a protectionist or preemptive strategy may become more desirable to those who would have previously rejected it.

Many who follow this doctrine believe that 9-11 was a vindication of the strategy that they promote. They believe radical Islam is a movement out of control that may spread like a disease leading to the atrocities that fascism and communism committed during the last century. Much like the ideology of Israel, they believe a strong offense will prevent future disasters, and this is where the ties between Bush and Neo-conservatives seem strong. Without a doubt, the invasion of Iraq is testimony that Bush has at least some desire to follow the Neo-con's doctrine, which I find frightening.

What I find ironic is how “Jews” always seem to put themselves in positions of being seen as the “manipulators” of gentile nations. The Russian Revolution was predominantly Jewish (Marx was a former Jew as well), and the Nazi’s were scared of a Jewish-Bolshevik within Germany (because communism almost beat the Nazi’s). These Zionists now in the PNAC group are doing the same thing, instead of actually helping Jews they are actually ensuring a longer period of Judeophobia because these strategic moves to protect themselves actually turn out to be perceived badly, and will eventually cause a massive backlash against innocent Jews. Hard times…

Mr. G, Don't you agree that giving Reagan credit for bankrupting the Soviet Union is like giving Clinton the credit for the stock bubble and blaming Bush when the bubble pops?

nirakar,

You can't even spell and punctuate.

That is true, but at least I say something.

I have never understood the flaming culture on the internet and I am curious about it. Perhaps you can explain what makes flamers tick.

I am Dyslexic. There are many types of Dyslexia. I remember things conceptualy rather than visually. I am very pleased with how much my spelling has improved. I love IQ tests and loved the SATs because they say I am in the 98th or 99th percentile, which helps me to not feel shame about my spelling.

I am also a snob like you but my snobbery is for content over style and presentation. Why don't you just say something once and a while.

I know that in the real world presentation is as important as substance and I resent that.

It's not a chip, fair sir.

I was being anatomically polite.

It's a message: I can do for myself every bit as good as what you, and your politics, would have me believe can be done for me -- if only I submit.

Your fear is a product of your own mind, G.

Were it otherwise, you wouldn't now be asking me for idea and performance enhancement assistance.

Actually, I'm just trying to figure out if you have anything brighter to offer than the impersonation of a Freudian complex.

The shoulder chip is not actually mine, is it?

Yours, among others.

You are akin to Anarchists and Communists in a certain sense; the one lacks any proposed solutions and the other proposes absurd solutions--while you give the appearance of lacking any useful input toward solutions to human problems (e.g. Anarchists), you share with both a certain critical incoherence that seems somewhat related to your refusal to cooperate with even the basic conventions of communication. Is it that your solutions are absurd? Well, Rocky Horror, you need peace of mind.

nirakar,
Mr. G, Don't you agree that giving Reagan credit for bankrupting the Soviet Union is like giving Clinton the credit for the stock bubble and blaming Bush when the bubble pops?
I doubt that very few subjectives rise anywhere near a 95%-certainty level.
That is true, but at least I say something.
Sorry, but my verbosity gene is recessive. Everyone here needs more vowels and clues than I find necessary. Not my fault.
I have never understood the flaming culture on the internet and I am curious about it. Perhaps you can explain what makes flamers tick.
It's the Marketplace of Ideas freed from the onerous constraints of physically abusive retaliation.

If words alone can't harm, why fear them? If one fears words, why force your brand of involuntary censure on others who don't?
I am Dyslexic. There are many types of Dyslexia. I remember things conceptualy rather than visually. I am very pleased with how much my spelling has improved. I love IQ tests and loved the SATs because they say I am in the 98th or 99th percentile, which helps me to not feel shame about my spelling.
And sometimes I'm stupid. Still, you are stepping out into the marketplace of ideas where presentation is as important part of persuasion. And you also have to know that online spell-checkers exist for more than one purpose.

So, I'm not going to buy into the victimhood gambit.
I am also a snob like you but my snobbery is for content over style and presentation. Why don't you just say something once and a while.
Since when is my 'style and presentation' devoid of content just because you and the local demographic just can't seem to relate?

Einstein was an idiot because his insights don't make automatic sense to you?

Oh, my. Where can I go with that line of reasoning?
I know that in the real world presentation is as important as substance and I resent that.
So, how is your resentment of using a spell-checker my fault, again?

I deny that Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union. It was going to happen anyway.

But that doesn't mean he didn't do it, does it? That's like saying murdering a man on death row is not murder because he was going to die anyway.

But..

People are not ants, there is a limmit to how much we are willing to sacrifice for the colony. Every year that went by after 1917 Russians lost more and more faith in communism and became more and more out for their own interests and this bankrupted the Soviet Union. Giant corporations (and Communism is essentially a one corporation state) are not as efficient as market competition because the giant corporation relies upon the honesty and intelligence of management to determine which part of their operations are successfull and unsuccessful. In market competition among small corporations and among animals under Darwins theory the weak die and the strong grow management's stupid ideas do not get followed because in small companies bad management is thrown out or the compay folds.

..I do agree with you that the Soviet experiment was doomed to failure from day one. I also agree that small market competition provides the only means of social stability. What's funny is that these opinions are typically neo-conservative and usually labeled euro-centric by Liberals and anti-westerners. Fukuyama pioneered this position in his famous book. Maybe you are more of a neo-con than you think. But anyway, the thing about the Soviets (or any countries) imminent collapse is that there is no guarentee that the successor system is going to be better. Actually it's almost always not because when any regime is ousted it usually happens amid a social collapse and the new regime always has to be brutal to stabilize and also to ensure that the fresh rule is secure. Russians are a people that love to be ruled, and democracy is not something easily integrated into their national consciousness. What the U.S have done in the 20th century is exalt democracy and capitalism as pre-eminent morals in themselves. When Russia collapsed there was a democratic presence ready to take over.

Interesting thing about Russia is that it is worse of now than it was when communism collapsed which I take as support for the idea that it was the growth of corruption rather than Reagans spending that collapsed the Soviet spending.

I don't think Russia is worse-off, that would be near impossible. Many Russians flocked to pay tribute to Reagan after he died, thanking him for helping kill off the old system. Russia's collapse was due to a confluence of reasons, the trigger was the congestion of nationalistic tensions. The system was like a fatally wounded animal that just wouldn't die and everybody suffered waiting for it to die. Reagan put it out of its misery for the good of everyone.

"How do you pacify a hostile, culturally rearward world majority?" Answer: "Leave them alone."

You think so? I think they will be hostile whileever their living conditions don’t meet prerequisites for happiness.

The Islamic extremists do not believe that they started this fight between America and Islamic extremism.

I don’t really consider it important what those whose whole life is fantasy think.


The Islamic extremists do not want "The West" to interfere in the struggles over rulership and culture in the Islamic world.

No they don't but they’re not the ones nor should they be the ones that get to define our policy. Weather you like it or not you live in a world and what happens in parts of it that you don't live in effect you in the parts you do. Instability is the greatest enemy of world peace and a world that conforms to certain standards of law and order is the greatest guaranteer of it. Idealisms aside (shit happend in the world), the relative peace the world had known in the post WW2 era (most peaceful era in History) is attributable to the political accountability that America have enforced. If American had of perused this policy of geopolitical indifference you believe in there would be no U.N, no security, and the global anarchy that has caused the endless warring since right accros history.


The Islamic extremists do not wish to tell Americans whether or not Americans have the right to watch Baywatch but the Islamic Extremists do not want America to tell them whether or not they have the right to ban Baywatch and whether or not they have the right to set their own oil policies.

Maybe they do maybe they don't, but that want to define people in their own countries (those less given too extremism) how to live life. Doesn't the fact that they brutalize their own people merit our concern? We are supposed to be an age that cherishes human rights. And for neo-cons that is only of secondary importance; what’s more important is the fact that the oppressive cultures they chose to embrace cause them to hate westerners in irrational and violent ways. The merits of intervention for the sake of others may be debated endlessly, but there’s no question that some intervention is required for our own mere safety..

The neocon praise of democracy does not fit with their hostile behavior towards democratic movements so I believe that Realpolitik outranks idealism in neocon circles.

True..but idealism is a corruptive, insidious mental infestation that helps nothing.

Disengagement would result in less anti-American terrorism but would in no way address peak oil, or the PNAC goal of creating a world in which no alliance of nations can challenge American will. I think PNAC/neocons are nuts in the same way that Napoleon was a nut. They want to bight off more than they can chew.

Disengagement would just guarantee the subordination of western influence in the world and deliver it to the sort of political forces we see in the non-western world. If America were to ignore life beyond its own borders it would just give rise to a wave of instability that would swamp it


We should have remade Afghanistan before trying to remake Iraq but the neocons were afraid that with every year that passed after 9/11 the ability to sell an invasion of Iraq to the American people would be diminished.

I don't know, I was thinking for a while that Iraq was a mistake but now I'm starting to reconsider. The Islamists wouldn't be fighting so hard over there if they didn't think there was a lot to lose; and they do know there's a lot to lose, because if a democracy emergences in Iraq, it will be a major blow against their hope for a Middle East ruled by Islamo-facists. It looks bad with the violence over there nowday but it's only a few provinces, the majority are stable. If think Iraq will succeed as a democracy and the world will be much better for it.

there was no urgency other than from a PNAC point of view for the removal of Saddam. When Saddam was at his worst, America was supporting him.

No I don't think there was any urgency, but it was a good time to do it and they had a salable pretext. After 9/11 the Bush administration has had a zero tolerance attitude to enemies.


Every reason given for the removal of Saddam do not fit with American motivations as extrapolated from past American foreign policy. Only the PNAC explanation makes sense. PNAC's desire to replace Saddam is really the beginning of an American war against China, Japan, Germany, France, India, Russia, Brazil and the rest of the world. Suddenly the worlds refusal to help makes sense. The UK and the smaller EU states were in a struggle aggainst German/French joint domination of the EU; now our allies start to make sense.

Well France had it's oil ambitions in Iraq. Saddam had promised France oil contracts after the sanctions were lifted, and any removal of Saddane in the meantime would jeopardize. The Russians have a similar story to tell. All the posturing in the U.N by these defiant countries was a load of shit easily disenable to the non gullible. But this all illuminates the truth of the realist (conservative) conception of the world - that all states are power hungry entities bumping up against each other all the time, and if you don't watch yourself you get eaten. The rationalizings given by governments to domestic populations is just contrived fodder for their easy consumption. It's very desirable for the U.S to maintain the uni-polar character of the world, and also for weaker western countries like France if they could only see it. People would do better to look at the volatility of the world and it potential degeneration if Western supremacy is lost instead of brooding over meaningless question like ‘were there weapons of mass destruction’.

The UN was designed to be weak. All politics are corrupt by nature. We need a powerfull redesigned UN to help the world move forward because trying to stay where we are would be disastrous.

True, but I think the only way to have a powerful U.N is to have one led by the United States. America is the only polity capable of upholding and giving credence to the ethos of the U.N.

What happens when organized crime takes up terrorism as blackmail for profit? This is just arround the corner; there is money to be made with apolitical terrorism.

This has already happened. Half of the kidnappings in Iraq are performed by by freelancers getting money from Jihadist money in the Arab Emirates.

We need a unified world to deal with terrorism and global warming. In order to have a unified world we must have a stronger UN and America must be part of the world rather than the ruler of the world.

I agree with you totally. I just think that the part of the world that is supposedly united are really divided. There needs to be a lot of issues worked out, and it’s not all Americas fault.


Napoleon, and so many other driven men could not stop their quest for bigger and bigger empires of various types and thus there empires collapsed. More is never enough. America is only paying for it's empre by selling our childrens futures to Chinese bond holders. If we can't make foreigners pay for our empire the cost of the empire will break us. If we could make the foreigners pay for our empire it would be taxation without representation for them and there will be rebellions.

The notion of empire does not really cut it anymore. Empire was a useful term when all civilizations knew each other as strictly enemies, and civilization prestige was the main political driving force. Now the main force of a more domestic nature. This overlaps into international affairs somewhat but its much less of a global game now. It only is for the U.S who has the responsibility of maintaining global order. The U.S are not imperialists, controlling peoples far and abroad is a burden.

What enemy would Napoleon attack? Attacking Iran would not accomplish anything.

I don't know. I think Iran would be in a lot of trouble though.

We can set up a friendly government in Iraq if we kill all of the Iraqis, but are we willing to do that? Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism and we have no useful targets on which to unleash our awsome military.

No I think democracy has more potential in Iraq than cynics suggest. There are a lot of democratic currents that will flourish if circumstance allows it. At the moment the majority moderates over there complain because Jihadists (most of whom are immigrants who have come to ruin the country, not real Iraqi’s) are making life unbearable. Once the Iraqi police apparatus is trained to kill and weed out Jihadsts I think you'll see the moderates become accustomed to democracy and Iraq will behave somewhat like Turkey.

"When Russia collapsed there was a democratic presence ready to take over.", Vlad

Interesting version of Democracy they have in Russia. When the incumbent candidate gets over 75% of the vote with no campaigning, then you no longer have a legitimate vote.

No free press either, and the centralization of powers. Yes I do agree interesting democratic dictatorship they got there.

"When Russia collapsed there was a democratic presence ready to take over.", Vlad

Interesting version of Democracy they have in Russia. When the incumbent candidate gets over 75% of the vote with no campaigning, then you no longer have a legitimate vote.

Still a long way to go.

No actually its regressing genius, they made it and now they are going backwards...http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/rcain.gif

..I do agree with you that the Soviet experiment was doomed to failure from day one. I also agree that small market competition provides the only means of social stability. What's funny is that these opinions are typically neo-conservative and usually labeled euro-centric by Liberals and anti-westerners. Fukuyama pioneered this position in his famous book. Maybe you are more of a neo-con than you think. But anyway, the thing about the Soviets (or any countries) imminent collapse is that there is no guarentee that the successor system is going to be better.

There are many strains of Republicans/conservatives. I do not think the neocons are for small government. I think Neocons believe in central planning and overestimate the capability of intelligence. I identify more with the Libertarian/ tax rebel side of the Republican Party. The half of the Christian Right who remember that Christ was all about love are OK with me but the portion of the Christian Right that thinks that anger hate and pride are signs of strength are a cancer in America as far as I am concerned. IMO Kleptocracy Dominates both major parties.





I don't think Russia is worse-off, that would be near impossible. Many Russians flocked to pay tribute to Reagan after he died, thanking him for helping kill off the old system. Russia's collapse was due to a confluence of reasons, the trigger was the congestion of nationalistic tensions. The system was like a fatally wounded animal that just wouldn't die and everybody suffered waiting for it to die. Reagan put it out of its misery for the good of everyone.


Russia is worse off than they were under communism. Kleptocracy is a problem in America but it is killing Russia.





Weather you like it or not you live in a world and what happens in parts of it that you don't live in effect you in the parts you do. Instability is the greatest enemy of world peace and a world that conforms to certain standards of law and order is the greatest guaranteer of it. Idealisms aside (shit happend in the world), the relative peace the world had known in the post WW2 era (most peaceful era in History) is attributable to the political accountability that America have enforced. If American had of perused this policy of geopolitical indifference you believe in there would be no U.N, no security, and the global anarchy that has caused the endless warring since right accros history.


Granted the entire history of man is a history of brutality, but if you lived in the third world America power has been as much or more of a negative than a positive for third world people these last fifty years. When we the American people turn our heads away our kleptocrats begin to play and boy have they had fun controlling our policies towards the third world. In the name of fighting communism they used our tax dollars to prop up dictators who put money in their pockets. Now they want to do the same thing with the war on terror. When Bush claims that "the terrorists hate our freedom" he is protecting our kleptocrats from having the idealistic majority of Americans see the mess that the kleptocrats created.




Disengagement would just guarantee the subordination of western influence in the world and deliver it to the sort of political forces we see in the non-western world. If America were to ignore life beyond its own borders it would just give rise to a wave of instability that would swamp it




Neocons and the foreign policy bureaucracy favor action over inaction because they feel more important in the worldview that makes foreign policy important. Disengagement allows people to find their own way to all that is good without feeling dominated. Order always arises but we may not like the order.

I understand why America needed to slow down the spread of communism long enough for people to get a chance to see that it fails before it surrounded us. Fundamentalist Islam has no potential to surround us. We need partners if we want to create paradise on earth for the future generations. You don't get partners by bullying.

Iran is ready to move beyond fundamentalism because they have tried it and it failed. If we bully Iran they will rally around their leaders just as we rallied around Bush when Al Qaeda tried to bully us. In general in any situation ask yourself what Americans would do in the position of the people you are studying and you will be able to predict what they will do because they are much more like us than they are unlike us. We have various strains of conservatives and liberals and the nations like Iran Iraq and India have remarkably parallel strains of the same ideologies. If you knew Iraqi history and then asked yourself how would Americans behave in their situation then you would expect the Iraqis to behave exactly as they are.

The problem that Americans have understanding the world is that Americans choose not to no about their own dirty laundry. Considering how powerful America has been we really have not abused our power as much as might have been expected but we did abuse our power. We have not earned the right to be trusted by the third world.

So I am not saying to ignore the world; I am just saying that it is not in our or the worlds interest for us to try to dominate the world. We know that we have the best way of life and the immigrants prove that the third world also knows we have the best way of life. We know that we do not yet have an answer for our problem with hedonism. The third world wants to become like us but they are shocked by the accompanying hedonism. Christian, Muslim and Hindu Fundamentalism are all reactions to the hedonism of the modern lifestyle.

Democracy is good because it suppresses kleptocracy. If the people want Sharia law a democracy can give them Sharia law; there is no conflict there.

Don't dominate the world; love it; and everything will work out ok in the long run for everyone but the kleptocrats.