What is a "Neo-Con?"

[Dave Schwartz]

This term, "Neo-Con" has me interested. When I searched on Google I found this description at Wikopedia:

Neoconservative: Definition and views
According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism[6]:

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, politically allied with religious conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture.
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.


My question is, "Do the people on this board who consider themselves or are considered by others to be neo-cons feel this is an accurate description of themselves?


Please note that this question is submitted respectfully; to gather some knowledge; not to provoke meaningless attacks from one side or the other, (or the other, or the other... How many sides are there, anyway?).


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[46zilzal]

A new version of the Henry Gondorf: a confidence man. Spewing out crap to a gullible audience.

Just go to the Project for the New American Century and you will find a HOST of them. World domination: the old idea that has never worked Ghengis Khan, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. etc.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[GaryG]

Hitler was a neocon??

[46zilzal]

Hitler was a neocon??
have no idea. Wanted to conquer the known world like the others listed.

[PaceAdvantage]

have no idea.

Aw, come on, you have SOME idea....you're a SMART guy!

Now, can't we give Dave some answers he was looking for? You're turning this thread into something Dave did not want....

Be intellectually HONEST for a change....

[46zilzal]

The group who are most associated with that title, The Project for the New American Century, is the one referenced. Period

that is how THEY define themselves there.

[GaryG]

Dave, it has become a catch phrase used by many liberals to include all of those with conservative views. It is used by several posters on this board. I personally am more closely aligned with Goldwater philosophically. Maybe an old con or something.

[Secretariat]

Dave,

I think the Wikipedia article is accurate in this case. Just taking that small part of the article you posted:

"1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits. "

This is quite true. Where it differs from traditional conservatism is it pays no credence to a balanced budget. For example Newt Gingrich and the 1994 Congress talked about a balanced budgt amendment and fiscal responsibility. The neo-conservative has a more important agenda than worrying about that due to number 3 below in particular. Newt is in no way a neo-conservative. Levi Strauss esposed a lot of the tenets of the early neo-conervative movement if you choose to read him.

"2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, politically allied with religious conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture. "

This is where neo-conservatism makes it statement with a long association to Judeo Christian values. They don't really believe in a seperation of church and state, but look for ways to create faith based programs with the government's participation. There is much more emphasis on "morality" via religion as oppsoed to the old school Chamber of Commerce Republican who looked more as government who got in the way and preferred less government. The old conservatives lauded states rights, but neo-conservatives prefer a strong federal government and federal judiciary if it involves what they consider "moral" or "religious" values.


"3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military. "

Here is where the neo-conservatvies get themselves into the most trouble. One component missing here and PNAC and esposed so well by Wolfowitz, and that is the creed of "exporting democracy" even if it must be done militarily and no matter if it leads to fiscal budget deficits.

One additional component of the foreign policy of neocons is the tying of "Holy Lands" of Israel to both a Jewish and Christian legacy (while ignoring the Muslim tie and history to Palestine). This was inadvertently revealed after 911 when GW accidentally said the word crusade which was quicly removed form his speeches. Because of the strong neocon tie to religion it fits in with creating massive miltiary deficits on behalf of religious decisions no matter the cost.

For example Afghanistan pretty much unfies Americans from both sides, but Iraq doesn't. Why is that? Where does that division come from? From three major reasons. 1. Exporting democracy militarily 2. Oil 3. national security for israel. Only oil is a business interest. The other two relate to neo-conservatism objectives, and not the 911 attack. And one could argue that oil is a grab for financial power using the zealotry of some neo-conservatives such as Feith and Wolfowitz by people like Cheney.

[Tom]

Bush is on opposite sides of several of those definitions.
He must be an enigma-con.

I belive in many conservative principles, but do not consider myself a conservative anymore.

I think of myself now as an American...I embrace both conservative and liberal ideas on some things.

The real world conservatives and liberals, I think, blend together, both embracing the same things, but neither admitting to it.

I don't think I know anyone who meets Dave's definitions in pratice. Certainly not Bush.

[Secretariat]

I don't think I know anyone who meets Dave's definitions in pratice. Certainly not Bush.

Bush meets every one of those definitions.

[Tom]

Bush meets every one of those definitions.

"world government is a terrible idea,"

Not this one. he is in the process of sell out American in favor of a North American Union. I think he is the worst threat to our sovereignty since King George ( the first one).

"slight acceptance of the welfare state,"

He signed the largest entitlement bill in decades with medical.

"protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military."

He has refused to protect our borders, and has handcuffed outr military with his moronic rules of engagment. As a Commander n Chief, he is an embarrassment and a wimp.

You could describe him as random more than neo con.

[Lefty]

Dave, I consider myself an old conservative not a new one.

[Light]

A neocon is an A-Hole.

[DJofSD]

A neocon is an A-Hole.

Not unexpected -- considering the source.

Dave, neocon is one of those words you might get from a modern day Dumpty from "Through the Looking Glass" -- it means exactly what a liberal wants it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.

[JustRalph]

A neocon is an A-Hole.

Why you are still here is beyond me.


Thank God somebody invoked Barry Goldwater............that is a conservative. And a real man.

Neocon? Dave, that boat has sailed. The Liberals are defining it........ I think they are like the Dinosaurs........nobody has really seen one.......but somehow we know they existed somewhere?

[bigmack]

It's current usage too me, is completely misguided. Anyone who wants to know the actual definition can readily find it through a viable search engine.

It's contemporary use is now being held hostage by the "usual suspects" as you might find in the encampment heralded by the Lights and the Zillys. Push comes to shove and it has a discernable anti-Semitic bite within current "leftfield" conversations.

It also plays well for an abbreviated stamp of disapproval for impressionable youth who long to "fight the power" as it's a handy catch phrase understood by few, though the sound of it, Neocon, has the phonic equivalent of Klingon. I guess that means they're bad.

[Dave Schwartz]

It appears, then, the reality is that whatever the real definition may be, it is used more as a derogatory label than a statement of one's position.

Further, it would appear that nobody is likely to step forward and proudly say, "I am a neo-con," even if their belief-structure agreed with the three points in the wiki article.

Thank you for the well-thought answers.


(IMHO, people who cannot answer a simple question without resorting to insult have no place here. Personally, I'd vote you off the island.)



Regards,
Dave Schwartz


PS: Mack, you are just plain funny. Thanks.

[Tom]

I like being called a neocon, because I know the libs mean bad by it, and that means I am right if they don't agree with me. I use lib in the same way. When I call you a lib, it is because of TOS! :eek:

[DJofSD]

First of all, who orginated the term? In what context?

Do the "members of the club" define themselves as neocons or is it a perjorative term used by the opposition?

[Tom]

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005616.html

[DanG]

I belive in many conservative principles, but do not consider myself a conservative anymore.

I think of myself now as an American...I embrace both conservative and liberal ideas on some things..
Salute Tom, and I couldn’t agree more…

My second glass of wine is raised to you my friend! :ThmbUp:

[Indulto]

As a word, it doesn't appear very useful, but how about as an acronym?

N-E-O-C-O-N

Need (to) Exploit Opportunities (to) Control Oil-rich Nations

[DanG]

Neocon? Dave, that boat has sailed. The Liberals are defining it........ I think they are like the Dinosaurs........nobody has really seen one.......but somehow we know they existed somewhere?
Hardly a liberal Pat Buchanan uses the term constantly when principally referring to Cheney / Wolfowitz for example. A “Neoconservative” is meant to describe a vigorous hand on foreign policy and federal regulations thought to maximize corporate success.

Obviously where someone like Buchanan (A borderline protectionist) parts company with the “Neo” crowd is in vigorous foreign policy, or as Pat has described current attempts at…”nation building”.

[DJofSD]

I'll follow DanG's lead -- a tip of the Dancing Bull zin to Tom.

So neocon means any one that does not agree with my political position.

[Dave Schwartz]

I began this thread with the intention of being educated, be it by liberal or conservative.

Do you realize that with the exception of a few well-read and articulate people (such as Sec), the great majority of the leftish people here appear unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion? Amazingly, with rare exception, I have found the same to be true in my daily interactions with people in the physical world.

For people who are supposed to be so into peace and love, you guys appear to have a lot of hatred and anger.


Thanks again to those who took the time for meaningful response.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


PS: Great link, Tom. And we should all be Americans first.

[Secretariat]

It appears, then, the reality is that whatever the real definition may be, it is used more as a derogatory label than a statement of one's position.

Further, it would appear that nobody is likely to step forward and proudly say, "I am a neo-con," even if their belief-structure agreed with the three points in the wiki article.

Thank you for the well-thought answers.


(IMHO, people who cannot answer a simple question without resorting to insult have no place here. Personally, I'd vote you off the island.)


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


PS: Mack, you are just plain funny. Thanks.

Dave,

I think there are many people who proudly declare I am a neoconservative. And I beleive the three primary things you posted define a neocon succinctly.
I think that is often perceived as a derogative term but in reality like the term liberal it simply espouses a philosphy that you agree with or disagree with. I disagree with it a lot.

I posted before you should read Levi Strauss to understand neoconservatism. I must have been thinking of blue jeans. I meant Leo Strauss, the father of the neo-conservative movement. If neo-conservatism yanks your chain, then read up on the guy a bit.

Here's a start form an op-ed that tries to treat the guy in a non-partisan way.

http://www.opednews.com/lower_leo_strauss_and_jefferson.htm

"Founding Father of Neocon Philosophy Leo Strauss and Jefferson's Impending Death

Even the national press has sounded the alarm about the "Straussians." The Bush administration, particularly its foreign policy team, has been and is still heavily influenced by neoconservative "intellectuals" who are themselves under the influence of the teachings of Leo Strauss. These include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Abram Shulsky of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, Richard Perle of the Pentagon advisory board, and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council.

Strauss, a refugee from Nazi Germany, came to America in the late 1930s and was particularly interested in political philosophy and the study of tyranny. He taught at the University of Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s during the Cold War, when capitalism went on a global manic binge and liberalism died a silent death with its conversion to "liberal" capitalism (an oxymoran) and away from socialism (Death of the American Politic, BushWatch, August, 2003).

Much has been written recently about Strauss and his ideological influence on the Bush administration, and opinion varies from seeing Strauss as a loyal defender of Democracy to seeing him as a dangerous foe of Democracy. He is neither. He is a would-be philosopher whose Old World fears and prejudices took him, the political right wing and American democracy backward instead of forward. Strauss, like most conservative Americans, simply did not understand Jeffersonian democracy at all.

Even as the Bush administration takes refuge in Straussian ideas, it remains the Bush administration who is responsible for implementing any action based on those ideas. It seems more likely the case that the Bush administration is simply "using" Straussian ideas to promote it's own agenda, as it likewise "uses" Old Testament JudeoRoman attitudes and ideas for nothing but it's own ends."

[Raida]

Neo-Con's, are persons who don't march to likes of Michael Moore, the Pied Piper of the liberal cause, or Rosie ODonnell, the baby doll of the libs, or their spokesperson Alex Baldwin.

[Lefty]

neo means new and most people it's applied to are not new conservatives at all but old ones. I think the left uses it to imply neonazi.

[46zilzal]

from a PBS website
This is not the "origin" but:

The website of the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) is backed by people who clearly represent a new type of "conservative".

Where "neo" = "new".

Just like I quoted. Do I agree with them. Nope.
word hate was not suggested or implied.

I don't much like USC's football team much unless they are playing outside the Pac 10. Same degree of dislike here.

"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. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

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 détente 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. Neocons share no such reluctance. 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."

[kenwoodallpromos]

I am not one, but the web talks about neocons being liberals who woke up.

[PaceAdvantage]

The Democratic party needed something to combat the "Liberal" label that had become a pejorative since the days of Ronald Reagan.

They finally found one in Neo-Con.

Whatever...

[PaceAdvantage]

"world government is a terrible idea,"

Not this one. he is in the process of sell out American in favor of a North American Union. I think he is the worst threat to our sovereignty since King George ( the first one).

"slight acceptance of the welfare state,"

He signed the largest entitlement bill in decades with medical.

"protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military."

He has refused to protect our borders, and has handcuffed outr military with his moronic rules of engagment. As a Commander n Chief, he is an embarrassment and a wimp.

You could describe him as random more than neo con.


Good points Tom. Sec has no comeback....must mean he agrees....

[skate]

good question, but to me, it depends on which way the wind is blowing.

when a person labels me Neocon, fine, but give me a specific. on what issue?

if we include Barry Goldwater is neoconish, then Hillary could also be Neoconsishly.

i like the question

[46zilzal]

one of my favorite Neocon quotes:"The message is that there are no 'knowns'. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say, well that's basically what we see as the situation ..."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, June 6, 2002

This one proved he didn't know much.

[skate]

i love:kiss: that Quote.

[Indulto]

…My question is, "Do the people on this board who consider themselves or are considered by others to be neo-cons feel this is an accurate description of themselves?

Please note that this question is submitted respectfully; to gather some knowledge; not to provoke meaningless attacks from one side or the other, (or the other, or the other... How many sides are there, anyway?).Self-fulfilling prophecy?It appears, then, the reality is that whatever the real definition may be, it is used more as a derogatory label than a statement of one's position.

Further, it would appear that nobody is likely to step forward and proudly say, "I am a neo-con," even if their belief-structure agreed with the three points in the wiki article.

Thank you for the well-thought answers.

(IMHO, people who cannot answer a simple question without resorting to insult have no place here. Personally, I'd vote you off the island.)Insults are in the mind of the beholder. IMO it should be enough to be able to vote people off one island. Is it neoconish to want to vote people off multiple boards?I began this thread with the intention of being educated, be it by liberal or conservative.

Do you realize that with the exception of a few well-read and articulate people (such as Sec), the great majority of the leftish people here appear unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion? Amazingly, with rare exception, I have found the same to be true in my daily interactions with people in the physical world.

For people who are supposed to be so into peace and love, you guys appear to have a lot of hatred and anger.

Thanks again to those who took the time for meaningful response.

… And we should all be Americans first.DS,
Perhaps you could summarize, specifically, what you have surmised from that august group who by your standards provided “meaningful” responses?

Do you consider your last statement meaningful? Should it be interpreted to mean that there are posters here who are NOT Americans first because they may not agree with whatever your final understanding of what a “neocon” is, and who may not even know whether or not you consider yourself one?

We can’t agree to disagree if we don’t even know what our respective positions are.

With no insult intended to anyone, it is clear to me that, as a label, “neocon” is as meaningless and derogatory as those weapons of mass distortion, “liberal," “conservative,” "left," and "right."

[Secretariat]

Good points Tom. Sec has no comeback....must mean he agrees....

lol...Since I was orginally responding to an intelligent post by Dave in his inquiry to where the term neocon orginated, somehow you arrived at the determination that since I didn't respond to whatever Tom is rambling about that I somehow agreed with him. Ok, you've baited me to address Tom's post.

By the way, simply because someone says they are an American that espouses liberal and conservative views doesn't make them someone who really espouses liberal and conservative views. Tom has never esposed a liberal position on this board that I've read. Even when he disagees with Bush he simply chooses a different hardline Republican position - certainly not a liberal one. Because I agree with Newt Gingrich in a Balanced Budget amendment does that make me both a liberal and a conservative. WE have Bush who dechares he is a Uniter not a Divider, but in fact has done nothing but divide and polarize. He espouses compassionate conservativism, but then turns a blind eye to the increasing poverty and a median wage that can't keep up with inflation. We can all say we're Americans. That's not what this thread was begun about.

OK, enough of that. On to the claims of Tom's posts.

"Not this one. he is in the process of sell out American in favor of a North American Union. I think he is the worst threat to our sovereignty since King George ( the first one)."

Well, first of all neo-conservatives have no problem with free trade - as opposed to fair trade, and doesn't pose a risk to Israel. - Hence, the opening of markets with commie North Vietnam under Bush and the pushing of CAFTA by this administration. Bush has done nothing to ever aid unions in this country. Ask them. Bush is in favor of globalization if it favors cheaper labor for business ,and especially involves cheap south of the border labor. Hence, the allowing of mexican truckers to deliver Chinese goods directly across our highways. Cetainly something the AFL-CIO has been highly critical of. The exporting of democracy via military force to Iraq has long been a proponent of the neocon philosophy to aid in the security of Israel. Reid Feith, Perle or Wolfowitz. This is something Ronald Reagan certainly never pursued.

Tom states,

"He signed the largest entitlement bill in decades with medical."

He did this due to pressures from the pharmaceutical compnaies. If you noticed generally his business decisions revolve around three major industries - military industry, oil industry or the pharmaceutical industry. We're not just talking corporate welfare. GW loves that. WE're talking about a Prez who refuses to neogitate for lower Medicare prices for prescription drugs to actually benefit seniors, and in fact has threatened to veto such legislation. If you remember dems' wanted the prescription drug benefit ADDED to Basic Medicare not farmed out to pharm companies to make massive profts which is exactly what happened. So corporate welfare? Neocons love it.

Next Tom states: "He has refused to protect our borders, and has handcuffed outr military with his moronic rules of engagment. As a Commander n Chief, he is an embarrassment and a wimp."

His rhetoric has been EVERYTHING is done for national security. Patriot Act, and the restrictions of personal liberties to protect Americans. Every foregin policy speech is tinged with reminders of the dangers of from abroad and the need for increasing military expenditures. Pure neocon. But I think you're referring to immigration and the southern border. Well, there you have free trade business interests and the need to maintain Spanish votes which have surpassed the African American vote in numbers. It is a difficult balancing act. And when it comes to cheap labor, South and Central amercian are important to free trade, and don't have a large threat to our nationa lsecurity in terms of armaments and terrorism compared to the Mid-East where AIPAC wields tremedous influence especially with Neocon hawks like Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz. As to commander in cheif, he wears flight suits, and lands jets on aircraft carriers and says he is the decider. It doesn't mean he has to be a "good" commander in chief. He certainly thinks he is one.

If you're actually interested in reading about neo-conservatism, read the Leo Strauss post I linked to.

[lsbets]

Neo-con origionally referred to those who left liberalism, and sometimes communism, and embraced conservative ideology with hints of their former beliefs mixed in. They abandoned the isolationism that marked conservatism under Taft and embraced an interventionist foreign policy. In recent years, neo-con has become the buzzword for the wacko left as they try to create the boogeyman trifecta of Bush, the neo-cons, and Israel.

[Indulto]

Neo-con origionally referred to those who left liberalism, and sometimes communism, and embraced conservative ideology with hints of their former beliefs mixed in. They abandoned the isolationism that marked conservatism under Taft and embraced an interventionist foreign policy. In recent years, neo-con has become the buzzword for the wacko left as they try to create the boogeyman trifecta of Bush, the neo-cons, and Israel.The oil campanies and military contractors make it a pick place all clean proposition. :lol:

[Tom]

Sec, once again, you totally missed every point I made, chosing instead to twist my words and spin it to fit your little agenda.
Have at it. Play your little games with words.
What you fail to graps is that your so called lib leaders do not embrace liberal positions either. they are traitors and are playing politics with our national security and with our troops lives. Pelsoi and Reid should swing together on the gallwos for outright treason, and thorw that nappy headed ho Louise Slaughter in there too.

What a piece of work you are!

[Dave Schwartz]

Indulto,

I will not be baited back into this thread, but I will answer your questions before going.

Insults are in the mind of the beholder. IMO it should be enough to be able to vote people off one island. Is it neoconish to want to vote people off multiple boards?


I quote from Mr. Light:
"A neocon is an A-Hole."


There is an example of an insult. Seems pretty clear to me that this board could do nicely without anti-social people such as Mr. Light.

That is what anti-social means, after all. I quote from Wiki again:

"Anti-social behaviour is that lacking in judgement and consideration for others, ranging from careless negligence to deliberately damaging activity, vandalism and graffiti for example. Someone behaving in an anti-social manner may be a manifestation of an antisocial personality disorder."




Perhaps you could summarize, specifically, what you have surmised from that august group who by your standards provided “meaningful” responses?


The Mr. Light's quote, blending anatomy and politics, is a perfect example of "meaning-less."


What I have learned is precisely what has been discussed here at length. Two points, really.

1. There is a formal definition of Neo-Con.

2. The left-most of our society uses Neo-Con as an insulting label.


Apparently, #1 & #2 have very little to do with each other.


I have had my original question answered to my satisfaction so I will be on my way.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Indulto]

Indulto,

I will not be baited back into this thread, but I will answer your questions before going.

... I have had my original question answered to my satisfaction so I will be on my way.:lol:
I wish I were so easily satisfied. :ThmbUp:

[Light]

Dave

What would you call someone who tortures,kills,mames,rapes,lies,and destroys your life or your loved ones for their own selfish goals. This is the game a neocon plays. It is no wonder you have to ask what a neocon is, for you truly have no idea of how low a form of life a neocon occupies. Calling neo-cons A-Holes is being too kind.

[Indulto]

... What would you call someone who tortures,kills,mames,rapes,lies,and destroys your life or your loved ones for their own selfish goals. This is the game a neocon plays. It is no wonder you have to ask what a neocon is, for you truly have no idea of how low a form of life a neocon occupies. Calling neo-cons A-Holes is being too kind.Your referring to suicide bombers as Hole-Y makes you two of a kind.

[46zilzal]

this may explain things http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17194.htm

The most important development within the neocon movement in the 1990s was William Kristol’s founding, in 1997, of a unipolarist think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Closely related to the American Enterprise Institute ideologically and even physically and financially, PNAC differed primarily in focusing entirely on foreign policy. In its “Statement of Principles,” PNAC called for “American global leadership,” asking whether the United States has “the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests.”

With the new administration in place, neocon commentators such as Krauthammer became even more explicit and exuberant about the use of America’s power for imperial ends. Mocking Clinton for being concerned to be “a good international citizen” and praising Bush for understanding that “the U.S. can reshape, indeed remake, reality on its own,” Krauthammer said: “America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to reshape norms . . . and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.”

Driving home his main message, Krauthammer added that Americans needed to face up to the responsibilities entailed by the fact that they are now “undisputed masters of the world."

World domination: an idea as old as the hills.

[GaryG]

Dave

What would you call someone who tortures,kills,mames,rapes,lies,and destroys your life or your loved ones for their own selfish goals. If I may answer for Dave who has left the building....you call them a muslim extremist. Your turban is visible again...

[Light]

Yeah,Yeah. What you fail to understand is a neocon is a product of American culture,just like Nazi's and suicide bombers are culture specific.They all lead to the same thing...death. Just like all religions lead to the same thing...God.

But whats amazing is neocons and suicide bombers,dont see the similarity amongst themselves and consider the other wrong for doing the same thing they are doing. A negative cannot cancel a negative in a non mathematical equation. Darkness cannot dispel darkeness. You need Light to dispel darkness.

[Light]

A neocon and a suicide bomber are both afflicted with the same disease. They just deal with it in their own cultural and class specific way.

[Tom]

The difference, and why am I not suprosed you fail to get it?, if the targets. Neocons do not target innocent civilians and do not start the shit. They react to it, and they morn the loss of innocent life as collateral damage, but accept it becasue the wack-jobs need to be stopped. Homacide bombers rejoyce in death of innocents. Neocons arae willing to go the enemy face to face and deal with him, while homciade bombers are complete cowards who are afraid to face thier enemies. They prefer to strap one on and go after his wife and children, who will not fight back. Neocons try to rebuild and bring order to the mooslim chaos - to give people the right to live free and make thier own choices. The leaders of the homacide bombers fear freedom more than anything. They strive to divide, to destroy, to tear down, to force themselves and thier will upon innocent people. Neocons try to help them stand up and claim thier own lives. Not always the best way, but at least they try. The neocon makes the fatal error by judging mooslim nations as being rational. The only reason there is so much violence in Iraq today is the mooslims do not want to live in peace with others. They want their own kind to prevail and the rest of the people to die. My suggestion is to back the Kurds, who appear rational and where our allies all along - give them the oil and protection and allow the sunnis and shiites to have thier wishes - and kill each other off. Win-win-win-win situation.

[46zilzal]

The difference, and why am I not suprosed you fail to get it?, if the targets. Neocons do not target innocent civilians and do not start the shit.
An unprovoked attack on Iraq is not starting something?

Danger to the world? Come on

[Tom]

Unprovoked?
Hardyly.

They fired on US airplanes repeatedly. An act of war.

They violated the terms of cease fire from the Gulf War...in itself, more than enough reason to resume action.

I could go on, but those two reasons alone are more than enough justification.

[46zilzal]

shot at planes...a real reason to wipe out thousands of them huh?
you mean like this?
Navy Missile Downs Iranian Jetliner
By George C. Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 4, 1988;
A U.S. warship fighting gunboats in the Persian Gulf yesterday mistook an Iranian civilian jetliner for an attacking Iranian F14 fighter plane and blew it out of the hazy sky with a heat-seeking missile, the Pentagon announced. Iran said 290 persons were aboard the European-made A300 Airbus and that all had perished.

"The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.

amongst other reasons, no wonder the folks from Iran are kind of pissed at the west.

[GaryG]

no wonder the folks from Iran are kind of pissed at the west.Well a lot of us folks from the west are kind of pissed at them too!

[46zilzal]

why? Have they attacked anyone?

[GaryG]

why? Have they attacked anyone?You are denser than I thought, you are nothing but a troll and a freaking waste of time....good night now.

[skate]

Sec, once again, you totally missed every point I made, chosing instead to twist my words and spin it to fit your little agenda.
Have at it. Play your little games with words.
What you fail to graps is that your so called lib leaders do not embrace liberal positions either. they are traitors and are playing politics with our national security and with our troops lives. Pelsoi and Reid should swing together on the gallwos for outright treason, and thorw that nappy headed ho Louise Slaughter in there too.

What a piece of work you are!

beeeBeautiful tom, all i have to do anymore is skip the secism post and wait for your responsible answer.

life is good!

at least once per week, i recall your Quote "and while im at it".:lol: might be the middle of the nite.:D

i guess it's like these girls, while covered in mud, telling you "don't play in the mud".:bang:

[46zilzal]

The clowns at the helm never seem to learn from history.

[skate]

i love the one that our UN Ambassador, years ago, Reagen (Days) maybe, seems Irans accusation that "the USA shot down One of their war planes.
wrong!
Our ambassador says "NO" we shot down TWO of your planes.

i need one of those days, right now.

[Lefty]

zilly, we have also freed thousands of them, and they had free elections. Isn't that good? As for Iran they have threatened both Israel and the U.S. and they are arming terrorists in Iraq.
And exactly why are you so pissed at the west? Why are you ever so anxious to defend our enemies and condemn us? You pretend to have no side in the matter, which is bad enough, but you continually defend the enemy. Hmmm...

[46zilzal]

Not defending or promoting either side. Would rather peace was the byproduct and not sabre rattling.

Just leave people alone.

[Lefty]

zilly, your posts say different. Don't recall you ever criticizing the enemy just the U.S. Don't know why you libs just don't understand you only get piece through strength and not by rolling over and being run over by the enemy.

[46zilzal]

zilly, your posts say different. Don't recall you ever criticizing the enemy just the U.S. Don't know why you libs just don't understand you only get piece through strength and not by rolling over and being run over by the enemy.
you're starting to talk like the rutabaga now......

Iran and Iraq ran over whom?

[Secretariat]

Sec, once again, you totally missed every point I made, chosing instead to twist my words and spin it to fit your little agenda.
Have at it. Play your little games with words.
What you fail to graps is that your so called lib leaders do not embrace liberal positions either. they are traitors and are playing politics with our national security and with our troops lives. Pelsoi and Reid should swing together on the gallwos for outright treason, and thorw that nappy headed ho Louise Slaughter in there too.

What a piece of work you are!

As I thought. You're not really interested in where the term neocon originated or the tenets of the neocon philospohy which was Dave's intent in the beginning of this thread. Instead, we're back to your games and silliness.

[Lefty]

truth is, zilly, you're an enemy sympathizer. You and the ones like you. I always know what you're going to say, before you say it.
Iraq tried to run over Kuwait. We stopped them. There was credible intelligence and boasts by Saddam that they were trying to build a nuclear device. They fired at planes, broke 17 U.N. sanctions. And Saddam funded homicide bombers. You say we need to look at history? Ok, look at it and you'll see the U.S. is only still a free democracy because of its strength.

[JustRalph]

Just leave people alone.

yeah, that worked so well in WWII

[Tom]

The clowns at the helm never seem to learn from history.

Very true.
We should have treated Baghdad just like we did Dresden and Hiroshima. That is how you win wars. You totally devestate your enemy. you don't beat him, you destroy him and his infratstructure. You go all out and don't stop until you get unconditional surrender.

Ah, the good old days, when men were men and sheep were nervous.:kiss:

[Tom]

yeah, that worked so well in WWII

46 should go to Poland and talk to people.
Infomation flow into Canada is so lacking.......

I worked with a guy who had the tatoo on his forearm....came so close to the ovens it wasnt' funny. I could arrange a phone call for Zilly...maybe he should hear this guy's experrience with that kind of crap.
People like 46 give hope and power to people like Adolph, Sadamm.