Enter stage right Big Brother USA into the European theatre, champion of weak and poor countries all over the globe, proudly serving the planet for as long as somebody needed some heavy lifting and heavy spending done....
Exit stage left one Mr. Winston Churchill, who can now relax and get some sleep.
Exit stage left one Mr. Winston Churchill, who can now relax and get some sleep.
xpanda said:
I just need to give you one: the overwhelming support Churchill gave the Jews before and after the establishment of Israel would put most Neo-Conservatives to shame. There's a lot of other similiarities between Churchill and the Neo-cons (peace through strength, America as the leading defender of liberty, believe comprimise/negotiation with dictators is useless, willing to make moral judgements in foreign affairs), but the the Zionist position Churchill took early on makes him the first Neo-con.
First, your neocons have an overwhelming love of Israel, not Jews. Which is not to say they are anti-Semites (they are not) but that the 'Jewish condition' holds nowhere near the gravity for them that Israel does. It is why the neocons and Rapture nutters have made such excellent bedfellows. It is also why the overwhelming majority of American Jews are not diehard supports of either Israel or the neocons.Shotgun said:
Second, being pro-Israel is hardly enough to qualify as a neocon.
Allow me:
1. aims for empire
2. use of propaganda
3. use of religion to unify (though it is imperative that they themselves not be religious -- see Leo Strauss' commentary on this)
4. preventive war okey dokey
5. Pax Americana; militarily, economically, culturally, and technologically.
Your neocons have tons more in common with Churchill's enemies than they will ever have with Churchill himself.
Oh, and all that little blurby stuff you put in brackets is complete bollocks.
I thought I could just crawl into bed without commenting on this stuff, but apparently I can't. Need to *****.
You write:
Using America as the leading defender of liberty. Again, prove it. Liberty, by all intents and purposes, relies very heavily on liberal democracy. They don't like liberal democracy. Democracy, maybe, but not the liberal version. They wish to see more gov't controls on individual freedom in the US, so how can they defend liberty abroad? These men are statists. Don't kid yourself that they think smaller gov't is a good thing.
Not negotiating with dictators is simply a matter of what suits them at what time. But this is American history and not specific to this group.
Willing to make moral judgements in foreign affairs? What does that mean, 'moral' judgements? What about all the immoral judgements or the just plain bad judgements? What does morality have to do with neoconservatism at all?
You write:
I would like to put the onus on you to prove that the neoconservatives stand for any of this at all. Prove to me that they are aiming for 'peace through strength' (which of course means 'down the barrell of a gun') rather than 'perpetual war.' I don't see anything in their documentation other than some fluff to indicate that peace is their ultimate goal. Pax Americana is their ultimate goal. If such a state is peaceful, it is only a side-product, not the goal itself.
Using America as the leading defender of liberty. Again, prove it. Liberty, by all intents and purposes, relies very heavily on liberal democracy. They don't like liberal democracy. Democracy, maybe, but not the liberal version. They wish to see more gov't controls on individual freedom in the US, so how can they defend liberty abroad? These men are statists. Don't kid yourself that they think smaller gov't is a good thing.
Not negotiating with dictators is simply a matter of what suits them at what time. But this is American history and not specific to this group.
Willing to make moral judgements in foreign affairs? What does that mean, 'moral' judgements? What about all the immoral judgements or the just plain bad judgements? What does morality have to do with neoconservatism at all?
X, you sure have a negative attitude towards the neo-cons don't you? 
Since I'm reading your Friedman book you have to read "Rise of the Vulcans" by James Mann...it's a pretty straight foward book about the history of Bush's war cabinet.
The US has invaded 2 countries since 2001. Rather than setting up a strongman like the US did in the past, Bush is pushing elections. He is doing the same for the Palastinians, and pushing a more open society among the rest of the Mid-East countries. The neo-cons, since winning an internal battle in the Reagan White House to abandon Marcos in the Phillipines, will forsake 'stability' in pursuit of ideals. They would rather have no deal than a deal that would keep regimes like North Korea,Iran (or Arafat) in power. They forced election reforms onto South Korea, the Phillipines, and Taiwan, as well as invading Panama to get rid of Noriega. Forcing open elections isn't the best way to build an empire is it?
There's a lot more detail on the neo-cons ideas here: Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley (who just took Rice's old job) were in charge of writing this plan...it details the new national security strategy for the US since 9-11.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
Since I'm reading your Friedman book you have to read "Rise of the Vulcans" by James Mann...it's a pretty straight foward book about the history of Bush's war cabinet.The US has invaded 2 countries since 2001. Rather than setting up a strongman like the US did in the past, Bush is pushing elections. He is doing the same for the Palastinians, and pushing a more open society among the rest of the Mid-East countries. The neo-cons, since winning an internal battle in the Reagan White House to abandon Marcos in the Phillipines, will forsake 'stability' in pursuit of ideals. They would rather have no deal than a deal that would keep regimes like North Korea,Iran (or Arafat) in power. They forced election reforms onto South Korea, the Phillipines, and Taiwan, as well as invading Panama to get rid of Noriega. Forcing open elections isn't the best way to build an empire is it?
There's a lot more detail on the neo-cons ideas here: Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley (who just took Rice's old job) were in charge of writing this plan...it details the new national security strategy for the US since 9-11.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
This could turn into quite a long thread ...
You're a quick study.
It's on my Christmas list already.
Right. One more or less related to self-defence, the traditional reason for attacking another country unless you're aiming to expand; and the other not related to self-defence, though certainly related to a combination of strategic military outposts and to scaring the crap out of the people in the region.
"It is better to be feared than be loved." -- Machiavelli, one of Wolfowitz' favourites.
(I would like to address the individual election reforms you speak of, especially invading Panama [nothing remotely altruistic about that invasion] but it will take too long. I did notice, however, that you left out the most obvious part of the neocons' work during the Reagan years, namely engaging Russia in an arms race. And since when is 'forsaking stability' a means to peace?)
Forcing "open" elections is absolutely the best way to build an empire if you yourself have "open" elections. In the words of the PNAC (arguably the most influential of all the neocon think-tanks on foreign policy), the goal is:
By invading nations for strategic purposes have they not become exactly that which they purport to revile?
The 2002 NSS is what made me sit up and take notice of what the US is up to in the first place. I can't remember now, but I ended up stumbling on it one day and nearly fell off my chair. It eerily echoes the Wolfowitz doctrine written in the early '90s, which was leaked to the NYT and caused a huge uproar. Such an uproar, in fact, that Bush I abandoned it. It is the blueprint for 'preemption' (in quotes because in practice it has come to mean 'prevention'.)
On foreign policy, Clinton had it right. Neoliberalism (though something I don't love) is a more common-sense approach to internationalism with the US at the helm. Economic and cultural interdependence is the most realistic and humane path to global peace. Forcing nations into submission will create the precise opposite effect you are hoping for, as inevitably those of us on the other side of your border will see ourselves as being oppressed to some degree or another. The insurgency in Iraq is one such example.
Reading for you:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Note, that it was written in 2000, before "the entire world changed" on 9/11.
Shotgun said:X, you sure have a negative attitude towards the neo-cons don't you?
You're a quick study.
It's on my Christmas list already.
Right. One more or less related to self-defence, the traditional reason for attacking another country unless you're aiming to expand; and the other not related to self-defence, though certainly related to a combination of strategic military outposts and to scaring the crap out of the people in the region.
"It is better to be feared than be loved." -- Machiavelli, one of Wolfowitz' favourites.
(I would like to address the individual election reforms you speak of, especially invading Panama [nothing remotely altruistic about that invasion] but it will take too long. I did notice, however, that you left out the most obvious part of the neocons' work during the Reagan years, namely engaging Russia in an arms race. And since when is 'forsaking stability' a means to peace?)
Forcing "open" elections is absolutely the best way to build an empire if you yourself have "open" elections. In the words of the PNAC (arguably the most influential of all the neocon think-tanks on foreign policy), the goal is:
Project for the New American Century said:
By invading nations for strategic purposes have they not become exactly that which they purport to revile?
The 2002 NSS is what made me sit up and take notice of what the US is up to in the first place. I can't remember now, but I ended up stumbling on it one day and nearly fell off my chair. It eerily echoes the Wolfowitz doctrine written in the early '90s, which was leaked to the NYT and caused a huge uproar. Such an uproar, in fact, that Bush I abandoned it. It is the blueprint for 'preemption' (in quotes because in practice it has come to mean 'prevention'.)
On foreign policy, Clinton had it right. Neoliberalism (though something I don't love) is a more common-sense approach to internationalism with the US at the helm. Economic and cultural interdependence is the most realistic and humane path to global peace. Forcing nations into submission will create the precise opposite effect you are hoping for, as inevitably those of us on the other side of your border will see ourselves as being oppressed to some degree or another. The insurgency in Iraq is one such example.
Reading for you:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Note, that it was written in 2000, before "the entire world changed" on 9/11.
xpanda said:
Reagan completely slipped my mind; his (and others like the Pope) moral judgments about the Soviet Union was a key part in the USSR's downfall. Detente negotiated with the Soviets from a position of weakness. The neo-cons, by rebuilding our national psyche as well as military and economic strength, were able to overwhelm the Soviets when it came to arms talks. Stability was thrown out the door when it came to freeing Eastern Europe
xpanda said:
The British empire didn't have open elections to build their empire. Open elections, by its definition, is contrary to empire-building. Ask the Russians how the open elections in the Ukraine is helping to rebuild its empire.
xpanda said:
The Vulcans book talks a lot about the Wolfowitz paper (it was actually just a draft) that was leaked in 1992...the reason for the uproar was because the paper wanted the US to block the emergence of any country from competing militarily with the US. The Bush administration got skittish because it was during an election year, but Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons certainly embraced it. The final paper (released under Cheney's name) basically said the same as the first but toned it down a bit. I don't think pre-emption was mentioned in it.
xpanda said:
So what's your opinion on that article? At first glance it seems to reinforce what Cheney and Wolfowitz are saying...am I missing something?
My opinion on the article I linked to? Well, obviously I don't support the idea of Pax Anybody At All so, well, I hate it. (There are bits in there about monopolising space, preemption, securing access to vital resources [especially Persian Gulf oil], and preventing the rise of any other nation, including your allies, either militarily, economically or culturally. Last I checked, being a Republic had sweet diddly all to do with empire.)
It's well after midnight and I've just returned home from probably the worst date of my life. Former Yank-- I shoulda known better. I'm tired and need to pass out .. I'll get to the rest of your comments tomorrow.
It's well after midnight and I've just returned home from probably the worst date of my life. Former Yank-- I shoulda known better. I'm tired and need to pass out .. I'll get to the rest of your comments tomorrow.
'Blind' date:
Him - 5'7" in loafers
Me - 5'11" in heels, which I was wearing.
Good start.
Him - snapped his fingers at the waiter (three times,) left less than 10% as a tip
Me - worked in the restaurant industry for 13 years
Beauty.
Him: hates Bush, but (as it turns out) only because he doesn't like Laura
Me: deer caught in the headlights
Him: apparently has never heard of toothpaste, tried to kiss me
Me: suddenly a lesbian
Bad bad bad date.
Him - 5'7" in loafers
Me - 5'11" in heels, which I was wearing.
Good start.
Him - snapped his fingers at the waiter (three times,) left less than 10% as a tip
Me - worked in the restaurant industry for 13 years
Beauty.
Him: hates Bush, but (as it turns out) only because he doesn't like Laura
Me: deer caught in the headlights
Him: apparently has never heard of toothpaste, tried to kiss me
Me: suddenly a lesbian
Bad bad bad date.
