| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/1/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:35571 Activity:very high |
1/6 Someone please list possible neocons who post on motd. I'll start.
Remember this is just a suspect list, and they're innocent till
proven guilty:
emarkp (believes the war has made the world safer, preemption, etc)
jblack
williamc
\_ Nope, wrong. I'm not a neocon. I've already stated publicly that
I was against the Iraqi war. I also have stated that I'm a
\_ some neocons, like that fujimoron, are against the war
devout atheist, support universal healt-care, same-sex marriages,
and abortion. I just don't like non-criticial self-rightous
\_ neocons are all secular and mostly atheist, unlike con.
radicalism of the left. It's funny, but a reporter friend of mine
(who is by no means a republican) stated that after having
interviewed a number of people, she found that liberals are
basically "stupid" because they spout off their dogma without
checking facts. Having said that, my offer to help you be
deported to Canada still stands -williamc
\_ Right, and the Other Facilely Labelled Team *ALWAYS* does.
Can you at least try for some objectivity here?
\_ Well, I don't hear libertarians nor conservatives
whining when they lose. They don't threaten to
leave the country. OTOH, very conservative people
I know who belong to a Churcn and are devout
Christians DO put their money where their mouths
are and actually take sabbaticals to 3rd world countries
to spread their faith. I don't agree with their religion,
but I admire their faith. Unfortunately the same cannot
be said of the liberals. I find it somewhat fascinating
that someone like John Kerry can vote FOR the Iraq war
and then claim he's AGAINST it during his campaign
run. And not only that, he actually ALLLOWS the
right to paint him into a corner. The world is hardly
ever black-and-white. Both sides contain valid criticisms
of the other side. However, not practicing what you preach
makes you look very stupid. Let this be a lesson to you
liberals, what comes out of your mouth is considered,
weighed, and judged. If you want to be taken seriously
by the American public, speak seriously, think seriously,
and most important of all, practice what you preach.
Otherwise you will continue to be targets of ridicule.
-williamc
\_ I thought Kerry voted to authorize the use of force
in response to terrorism. Since Iraq HAD little to
do with terrorism directed at us, how would that be
voting for an Iraq war? Granted, he said some stupid
stuff after the vote where he tried to have it both
ways.
\_ Uhm, no, he voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
You're getting his "spin" confused with the actual
vote. If you don't believe me you can go read
the resolution online and see what he voted for.
If he thought that the resolution stated otherwise
then shame on Kerry for not actually reading
the resolution before voting for it. Sorry, you
can't have it both ways. What you vote for is what
counts, not what you say after the vote.
\_ He voted to agree to allow the President to take
action in Iraq. That's not the same as authorizing
the invasion.
\_ Wrong point. Kerry voted to give Bush the
authority to go to war if he exhausted all
other options to disarm Iraq. Bush didn't.
Specifically he didn't fulfill section 3b of
the resolution. Nor has he performed any of
section 4.
\_ So if I happen to get a job in Canada, will you pay my
relocation costs even if I don't become a Canadian citizen
and am not moving for political reasons? This sounds like
a potentially sweet deal. How does one qualify for the
Williamc Canadian Fellowship?
\_ Nope, the conditions of the Alec Baldwin Fund are as follows:
\_ Nope, the conditions of the James Baldwin Fund are as follows:
1) We pay you to relocate to Canada
2) You have to sign an affadavit that you will renounce
your American Citizenship and never return to the U.S.
or any of its territories.
3) You need give us documented proof that the U.S.
Government has received and accepted your renouncement
either in the form of an official document from the
INS or other State Dept. office.
4) You need to submit your cancelled American passport
to us.
Failure to meet these terms will disqualify you.
Thanks for playing. -williamc
\_ Devout atheist?
\_ Did *anyone* move to Canada, France, or some other paradise of
neo-liberalism?
\_ No.
\_ I find it somewhat ironic that you're looking towards making a
blacklist of people and refuse to sign your own post. Perhaps
you should put up or shut up.
\_ Being a neo-con is a crime?
\_ Restored. When someone can tell me what a neocon is, I'll let you
know if I'm one. -emarkp
\_ As far as I know, the standard left-wing definition of
neocon is just "evil." So I guess the question is, are you
evil?
\_ well I don't care about politics but this is time for shameless
self-promotion. You can find past posts and definitions here:
http://csua.com/?entry=12748
Political posts go in endless & pointless circles so why not just
read past posts and not create any more trash? thanks.
\_ It was a rhetorical request. The definition isn't exactly
settled. The wiki lists:
- militant anticommunism: yep
- more social welfare spending: nope
- sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda: nope
- being more inclined than other conservatives toward an
interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is
sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy
and international law: yep
So what does that make me? -emarkp
\_ You are a conservative. What I would call a "rightist"
conservative, to be exact. This discriminates you from,
say, libertarian conservatives.
\_ Hmm. What about if I add this? I believe we should
drill in ANWR but also that we should put a huge
boatload of money into researching nuclear fusion for
power generation and hydrogen for power distribution.
And I bike to work. -emarkp
\_ People called me a neocon before. Heh. I love how the motd
meaning of 'neocon' drifted from 'hawkish jew' to 'believes
Iraq war was a good idea.' I always thought neocons were people
who wanted to drill for oil in Alaska. -- ilyas
\_ I never saw "hawkish jew" and "neocon" is a set including some
but not all of "believes Iraq war was a good idea". Neo = new
and "con" is conservative. It's for people, like say David
Horowitz, who were liberals (or radicals, in his case) and are
now conservatives. I'd like to see where this "standard left wing
definition" appears. I've only heard it from people who are not
left in the least, like the poster above. -- ulysses
\_ I am sorry, I don't know whose fault it is exactly,
but the 'neocon' label has been hijacked and misused to
such an extent, that it's really kind of laughable to use
this word seriously. In my opinion. -- ilyas
\_ I respect your opinion and certainly the poster above
has provided a perfect example of misuse (or at least
erroneously broad use). I don't believe the term has been
as badly hijacked as that. The most common misuse I see is
right here by one or more posters who never sign their
names so who can say? -- ulysses
\_ Wiki suffers from some of the same problems as the motd
does. There was a /. article on this very subject
recently. -- ilyas
recently. People seem to use wiki as a 'mainstream
authoritative source' these days. -- ilyas
\_ I can categorically state that I am not now and never was a
member of the Communist Party, er, I mean neocon.
\_ Conservative = Small government, lower taxes mainly; family values
Neocon = Everything that happened in Afghanistan, Iraq
\_ See the wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29
\_ http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html. |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.com/?entry=12748 I must have been too slow and missed it before motd purging. However, how is this different from just plain conservative (at least the "what they believe") part? htm I would define neocon as someone who agrees with this set of principles. Buchanan would probably be satisfied with the term "traditional conservative". Both are poor choices to represent the mainstream of the respective movements. Anyway, Stalin is neither a liberal nor a real communist, actually. html Key to the neocons utter disdain for any and all governmental social init iatives is the absolutist terms in which they have defined success, term s under which no other public or private program in the history of manki nd could be ruled a success. We have allowed them to describe all social initiatives as failures based upon the single fact that the problems ad dressed by those programs continue to exist. We hold no other program to this standard for the simple reason that it is foolishness to do so. Th ey say that the War on Poverty was an abject failure because the poor st ill exist, as though the millions of lives made better, the multitudes o f children better fed and better housed and better educated made zero im pact on their lives. They say that we have thrown millions at these prob lems to no effect - the poor are still there. We have thrown trillions a t the military over recent decades, and there is still war and rumors of war, strife all over the globe. Is the military thus a failure which sh ould be defunded and thrown upon the ash heap of history? We have thrown trillions at healthcare, building hundreds of hospitals and clinics, tr eating millions of patients. Should we redirect all these monies, since healthcare clearly does not permanently solve the problem of illness? Th is is the neoconservative standard by which they judge all social progra ms. Just as the dollars spent on healthcare made millions of lives bette r, longer, richer, and more fulfilling, so did the dollars spent on soci al programs. The fact that people still fall into poverty, like the fact that people still fall ill is a constant of human existence. But it is a continuing need, just as defense spending and healthcare spending are expected to continue. We cannot fill every hungry childs belly just as w e cannot cure every sick child or prevent every crime or every war - but we maintain our vigilance on all these fronts as a civilized and sane s ociety. Every time you hear or read a neoconservative decrying social pr ograms with a dismissive sniff as an experiment which has obviously fail ed, bring this up. Demonstrate the falseness of the premise so as to lay this relentless attack upon the decency of our society to rest. The bel oved market being sold as a panacea for all of our problems by the neoco ns is absolute snake oil, as morally and intellectually bankrupt a notio n as has ever taken root in western thought. The market does a magnifice nt job of maximizing profits and selecting products and manufacturers, b ut it can and should be expected to do nothing more. It cannot maximize human virtues or provide social justice - it is simply the wrong tool fo r the job. A shovel is a wonderful tool for digging a trench, but it can not and should not be expected to be useful in painting a house. All of this is simple common sense, but the relentless attack of the neoconserv atives whose assumptions are never challenged or debated in the press ha ve allowed this false assumption to take deep root in our national polit ical system of beliefs. Let us step back, examine the obvious truth, and plunge re-energized into this important fight. Let us take back the deb ate on honest terms as we struggle to take back our democracy. And the n eocons would gladly and smugly watch them die in the ditch. Only we libe rals stand between our fellow man and the imposition of a truly vicious neofascist system of government. We are the boy with his finger in the d ike, holding back a flood of hatred, callousness and greed that threaten to swamp the nation we so love. It is time to recognize the importance of what we do, and time to mobilize to fix the dike. Throw off the impli cit hatred of social Darwinism and proudly take up the charge laid upon us by every major religion on earth: we are our brothers keeper. We will be judged by our treatment of the least among us, and it is our duty an d our privilege to take up this burden. A rising tide does lift all boat s, but drowns those shackled in the tidal flats by the chains of poverty . It is the common-sense goal of liberalism to ensure that everyone at l east has a boat, that everyone has the basic necessities to have a chanc e to make it. I, for one, am proud to uphold the only truly compassionat e political philosophy. html Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be re liably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through pree mptive military action. Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dan gers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting thr eats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Huss ein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr Most neocons share unwavering su pport for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency i n a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocr acy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocon s advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Ir aq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral i nstitutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats t o global security. The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jew ish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted w ith what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970 s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist . By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in Presiden t Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting t he Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as Ame rican complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of cente r What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative? Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke rank s to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remain ed more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stand s have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored dtente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confr ontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s. Tod ay, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention a nd so-called nation building. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to for ce regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neoco ns believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported te rrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Mi ddle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in th e isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences. Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons grea tly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s. But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and I srael's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq we re deemed provocative and extremist by the political ma... |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29 socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "n ew wave" of conservative thought and political organization. Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" polit ics than those who subscribe to them; Critics of the term argue that the word is ov erused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues. Though every such neoconservative has an individ ual story to tell, there are several key events in recent American histo ry that are often said to have prompted the shift. Some of today's most famous neocons are from Eastern European Jewish immi grant families, who were frequently on the edge of poverty. New Left in America, which popularized anti-Sovietism along with anti-capitalism. The New Left became very popular among the childre n of hardline Communist families. The current ne oconservative desire to spread democratic capitalism abroad often by for ce, it is sometimes said, parallels the Trotskyist dream of world social ist revolution. American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the Publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Int erest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goals to spread American idea ls of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish thes e objectives. John Foster Dulles) began to become associated with thes e neoconservative leaders. Influential periodicals such as Commentary, T he New Republic, The Public Interest, and The American Spectator, and la tely The Weekly Standard have been established by prominent neoconservat ives or regularly host the writings of neoconservative writers. edit Neoconservatism as a "Jewish" movement One of the most controversial issues surrounding neoconservatism is its r elation to specifically Jewish intellectual traditions; in the most extr eme form of this view, neoconservatism has been regarded by some as prim arily a movement to advance Jewish interests. aken as a whole, neoconservatism is an excellent illustration of the key traits behind the success of Jewish activism: ethnocentrism, intelligence and w ealth, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness." Leo Strauss, a philosophy professor who taught se veral of the putative founders of the neoconservatism, as "the quintesse ntial rabbinical guru with devoted disciples". Marxism, neo-conservatism uses arguments that appeal to non-Jews, rather than appealing explicitly to Jewish interests. MacDonald argues that no n-Jewish neo-conservatives like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Donald Rumsfeld a re examples of an ability to recruit prominent non-Jews while neverthele ss preserving a Jewish core and an intense commitment to Jewish interest s: "it makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespeople for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince." htm) Significantly, he believes that neo-conservatism's commitment to mass immigration is un characteristic of past conservative thought and is identical to liberal Jewish opinion. Support for such regimes was based primarily on their usefulness, however, which could at times be impaired by their undemocratic natures. Hence, the US could turn against them if circums tances changed. In the days that followed, however, with the widespread popular re fusal to accept Marcos as the purported winner, turmoil in the Philippin es grew. The Reagan administration then urged Marcos to accept defeat an d leave the country, which he did. In this sense, the neoconservative foreign policy makers were different t han some of their more traditionalist conservative predecessors. While m any from the old school believed that America's allies should be unquest ionably defended at all costs, no matter what the nature of their regime , many neocons were more supportive to the idea of changing regimes to m ake them more compatible and reflective of US values. The belief in th e universality of democracy would be a key neoconservative value which w ould go on to play a larger role in the post-Cold War period. Some criti cs would say however, that their emphasis on the need for externally-imp osed "regime change" for "rogue" nations such as Iraq conflicted with th e democratic value of national self-determination. Most neocons view thi s argument as invalid until a country has a democratic government to exp ress the actual determination of its people. For his own part, President Reagan largely did not move towards the sort of protracted, long-term interventions to stem social revolution in the Third World that many of his advisors would have favored. In general, many neocons see the collapse of the Soviet Union as having o ccurred directly due to Reagan's hard-line stance, and the bankruptcy th at resulted from the Soviet Union trying to keep up the arms race. They therefore see this as a strong confirmation of their worldview. edit The comeback of neoconservatism under George W Bush Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their raison d'tre f ollowing the collapse of the Soviet Union. Weekly Standard, Max Boot argued that "The most realistic re sponse to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role." He cou ntered sentiments that the "United States must become a kinder, gentler nation, must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchan an's phrase, 'a republic, not an empire'," arguing that "In fact this an alysis is exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insu fficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more e xpansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation." Ame rican Enterprise Institute (AEI), an influential conservative thinktank in Washington that has been under neoconservative influence since the el ection of Reagan, argued in his AEI piece "The Underpinnings of the Bush doctrine" that "the fundamental premise of the Bush Doctrine is true: T he United States possesses the meanseconomic, military, diplomaticto r ealize its expansive geopolitical purposes. Further, and especially in l ight of the domestic political reaction to the attacks of September 11, the victory in Afghanistan and the remarkable skill demonstrated by Pres ident Bush in focusing national attention, it is equally true that Ameri cans possess the requisite political willpower to pursue an expansive st rategy." The doctrine also states t hat the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adver saries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equa ling, the power of the United States." Paul Wolfowit z Neoconservatives perhaps are closer to the mainstream of the Republic an Party today since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Penta gon than any competing faction, especially considering the nature of the Bush Doctrine and the preemptive war against Iraq. Nevertheless, many o f the prominent people labeled as neoconservatives are actually register ed Democrats. At the same time, there have been limits in the power of neoconservatives in the Bush administration. isolationist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by support for significantly increased defense spending, challenging regimes deemed ho stile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for fre e-market policies abroad, and ensuring that the United States remains th e world's sole superpower. Neoconservatism has influenced the conservati ve agenda in the United States on such issues. edit Details Neoconservatives and Israel The neoconservatives also support a robust American stance on Israel. The neoconservative-influenced Project for the New American Century called for an Israel no longer dependent on American aid through the removal of major threats in the region. Pat Buchanan, have accused them of putting Israeli int erests above those of America. In turn these critics have been labeled a s anti-Semites by many neoconservatives (which in turn has led to accusa tions of professional smea... |
| www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security. The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative? Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored dtente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s. Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences. Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s. But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill. Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants. Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary. |