Interesting Article on Neocons...

[Ion]

...
As I mentioned in my second post, I was taking bets on what Ion's response would be...
...

Well, my response pointed out your hypocrisy of whining about bizarre attacks when you just did one bizarre attack -that I quoted-.

(And you misspelled 'bizarre' in English, never mind learning French -an official language in Canada-)

The illiteracy in the education of this wannabe debater...

Also my response has this:

...
France looks after France, like U.S. looks after U.S..

During the American Revolution, France helped America and looked after France.

In the context here, it's not a bad thing for the entire world that France opposes U.S. neoconservatives, given the world damage that the U.S. neoconservatives are doing.

On the contrary:

it's a good thing.

Down with the U.S. neoconservatives.

If it takes France to put down the U.S. neoconservatives, that's fine.

Deal with it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, my response pointed out your hypocrisy of complaining about bizarre attacks when you just did one bizarre attack that I quoted.

Well, from the looks of things, my criticism was right on the money... I predicted that you would ignore the content of the post and resort to repeating the same tired statement, and I was right.

Just as you have many times in the past, you have shown a total lack of ability to respond to content posted by others. I suggest you go back and read the posts of people like Crossbow and Tricky... they may be on your side on this issue, but they actually know how to handle important issues.

As for you, well, last time you "criticized" me you suggested that I was from Israel, which was totally bizarre and made no sense.

So, there is no hypocrisy here.

(And you misspelled 'bizarre' in English, never mind learning French -an official language in Canada-)

The illiteracy of this wannabe debater...

Who really gives a f*ck whether a poster makes mistakes in spelling or grammar? Most of us are more interested in actually posting useful content rather than proofreading our posts.

 

[Ion]

Well, from the looks of things, my criticism was right on the money...
...

Depends:

"...right on the money..." of lying people like Wolfowitz?

Maybe "...right on the money..." of people who are lied to.

Let me tell you a joke, inspired by the reality:

- why do neoconservatives have big noses?

- because the air is free.

 

[glsunder]

Since no one mentioned it, wikipedia has an entry on neocons.

 

[peptoabysmal]

There he is in Sudan with United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, urging the Sudanese government to rein in militias and end a humanitarian crisis. Next, he's in Asia, conducting the highest-level meeting that's been held in two years with a North Korean official.

The real question IMO, is did these talks have any effect whatsoever on the situations in the Sudan or NK?

 

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
As for you, well, last time you "criticized" me you suggested that I was from Israel, which was totally bizarre and made no sense.

Yeah, he did that to me too. More specifically, he said: "Instead of polluting U.S., shut up now and quietly go to your Israel." He's devolving into racial stereotyping and blatant antisemitism (a funny thing to do over the internet where you can't even see who you're debating and generally don't know anything personal about them). Obviously Ion's trying to offend us, but I have to wonder about what Ion thinks of other board members if he thinks his behavior is acceptable to anyone here.

 

[Ion]

I get a kick from pretenses like this:

...
...Obviously Ion's trying to offend us, but I have to wonder about what Ion thinks of other board members if he thinks his behavior is acceptable to anyone here.

given that the 'sensitive', 'civilized' and 'offended' neoconservatives here attack Iraq based on falsehood WMDs, kill thousands and loot oil.

Hypocrites, aren't they?

Busted by the world.

 

[Ziggurat]

Better watch out, Ion, or I'll zap you with my powerful jooo mind beams and drain all your blood to turn into oil to fund my Zionist master plan of world domination.

What a maroon.

 

[Ion]

Better watch out, Ion, or I'll zap you with my powerful jooo mind beams and drain all your blood to turn into oil to fund my Zionist master plan of world domination.
...

I am not the right person to talk to about this, but your buddy Wolfowitz sure is.

Here, you are only expected to pretend to be 'offended' that killing one Iraqi out of every 500 is not considered 'liberation' of Iraq.

 

[Mike B.]

As I recall, I first heard the term Neo-Conservative in the 1980s. At that time they referred to ex-liberals who were disillousioned with "big government" solutions and wanted a more free market approach. They generally were still very liberal on social issues though like abortion and gay rights.

The term is essentially meaningless now. It just means someone who was pro-Iraq war.

 

[Ladewig]

Today's definition of a neocon is based primarily on attitudes towards foreign policy. Neocons believe that any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat should be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The U.S. can work through multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations, to eliminate the threat, but must never be constrained from acting (militarily) in its best interests whenever necessary.

Neocons:
-R. Reagan funding "Star Wars" anti-ballistic missle technology despite U.S. treaties forbidding such action.
-GW Bush liberating Iraq.

Not neocons:
-R. Nixon visiting China to open relations.
-D. Eisenhower condemning Britain, France and Israel for invading the Suez Canal.
-GHW Bush liberating Kuwait and not invading Iraq.

 

[Grammatron]

Today's definition of a neocon is based primarily on attitudes towards foreign policy. Neocons believe that any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat should be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The U.S. can work through multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations, to eliminate the threat, but must never be constrained from acting (militarily) in its best interests whenever necessary.

Neocons:
-R. Reagan funding "Star Wars" anti-ballistic missle technology despite U.S. treaties forbidding such action.
-GW Bush liberating Iraq.

Not neocons:
-R. Nixon visiting China to open relations.
-D. Eisenhower condemning Britain, France and Israel for invading the Suez Canal.
-GHW Bush liberating Kuwait and not invading Iraq.

Couple of things:
1) GHW technically did invade Iraq
2) Does that make Clinton a neocon?

 

[demon]

Two more rats...oops, I meant neocons...jump ship...

quote:
Fukuyama Withdraws Bush Support

Famous academic Francis Fukuyama, one of the founding fathers of the neo-conservative movement that underlies the policies of US President George W. Bush's administration, said on July 13 that he would not vote for the incumbent in the November 2 US Presidential election.

In addition to distancing himself from the current administration, Fukuyama told TIME magazine that his old friend, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should resign.

In 1997, Fukuyama together with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush, signed a declaration entitled 'The New American Century Project'. That declaration set the groundwork for the neo-conservative movement.

Fukuyama began to distance himself from the administration during the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The tension between the two came to a head prior to the invasion of Iraq. Fukuyama opposed the war.

Fukuyama is still angry at the Bush administration since they refuse to admit to the mistakes they have made. Fukuyama had warned that after the war, Iraq would be dragged into an internal conflict and would export terror to the world.

Fukuyama said that because of those reasons he could not vote for Bush in the upcoming elections. He added that he has an important place among the right wing and could affect the outcome of the elections; however, he explained that he would not carry out any studies in that direction because he is not eager to fight with 'old friends'.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040714&hn=10372
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
It is perhaps in light of experiences like these that Milton Friedman, dean of free-market economists, said a couple of years ago that his advice to former socialist countries 10 years earlier had been to 'privatise, privatise, privatise.' 'But I was wrong,' he added. 'It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatisation.' The cost of learning this lesson was high.

The 11 September attacks underlined the fact that the lack of governance in poor and troubled parts of the world like Afghanistan could have profound security consequences for the developed world. This has led to the ironic result that George W. Bush, who said when he was running for the presidency in 2000, 'I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building', has embarked on major nation-building exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq in his first term. The American experience in both countries has underlined another unpleasant truth: while the US has the ability to reach around the world militarily and unseat regimes, it does not have a corresponding capability or the institutions to provide them with strong governance.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1253530,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------