Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Interesting Article on Neocons...
- Thread starter Hutch
- Start date
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
First off, claiming that neocons have a preference for America acting alone is complete and utter rubbish. They have a distaste for international institutions, but not for real allies. It's also absurd to suggest that neocons prefer not to use diplomacyat all - they believe diplomacy is less effective than others (particularly leftists) do, but that doesn't mean they think it's useless or even that it's not preferable in cases where it can be used successfully.
But of course, we still have to wait and see wether or not diplomacy will work in Sudan. The article is basically claiming that the plethora of Powell's trips shows the power of multilateral diplomacy. This is absurd on its face. The number of trips only shows an effort being made, we will have to wait and see what the results are. And it is those results, or lack thereof, which will indicate the usefulness of diplomacy, not the number of trips Powell makes.
On a somewhat related note, there seems to be an unquestioned assumption among some critics that Iraq is an unmitigated failure. But if it is not a failure (and many, including me, think that overall it was a success), then statements like "if you look at the people staffing the administration, they have changed remarkably little given the debacle in Iraq" don't even make sense.
This may be one of the most fair and balanced treatments around, but it's still not very fair or balanced. Or even very insightful.
But of course, we still have to wait and see wether or not diplomacy will work in Sudan. The article is basically claiming that the plethora of Powell's trips shows the power of multilateral diplomacy. This is absurd on its face. The number of trips only shows an effort being made, we will have to wait and see what the results are. And it is those results, or lack thereof, which will indicate the usefulness of diplomacy, not the number of trips Powell makes.
On a somewhat related note, there seems to be an unquestioned assumption among some critics that Iraq is an unmitigated failure. But if it is not a failure (and many, including me, think that overall it was a success), then statements like "if you look at the people staffing the administration, they have changed remarkably little given the debacle in Iraq" don't even make sense.
This may be one of the most fair and balanced treatments around, but it's still not very fair or balanced. Or even very insightful.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
I've seen the term tossed around lately, but what or who is a "neocon"?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Technically speaking,
Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
- neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun
- neoconservative adjective
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=neoconservative&x=0&y=0
Sometimes used in reference to political ideas advocated by groups like PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Also used occasionally to imply "jooos" (you know, the kind with mind-control jooo-beams that secretly control the government).
So basically, what neoconservative means depends slightly on who is talking.
Edit to add: the article seems to be refering to advocates of a PNAC strategy. And if you want to know more about PNAC, I strongly suggest you read their own position papers. There's a lot of left-wing conspiracy theories going on regarding PNAC, and that isn't a good place to start.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Can you give an example of a person(s) who is a "neocon"?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are often called neocons. And they were both part of PNAC. By the way, here's their summary page if you want to know more about PNAC:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Can you explain what they consider 'real allies' ?Ziggurat said:
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Well, IMHO, there are three types of "Conservative" thoughts in regard to Foreign Policy (note, I am not speaking of Domestic or Social conservatives, just the Foreign Policy)
Number one is the "Old Line" Conservatives who tend to follow George Washington's 'No entangling alliances' credo and would prefer that the US stay out of the world's business as much as possible. I think Pat Buchanan might be taken as the most notable current spokesman for that area.
Number two is the 'Cold War' Conservatives who believe in containing and confronting evil (i.e., Communism) but prefer to do it in small doses or by covert means (see Chile) and use other countries troops to do the heavy fighting (for example, Korea and Vietnam were both begun under Democratic leadership, while Ike, Nixon and Reagan/Bush only intervened when the opponent was small potates (Grenada, et. al.) or supported countries/organizantions that did the fighting with our support (Afghanistan, Nigarauga). In the only major fight engaged in by a Republican president (Gulf War 1) a coalition including substantial Arab support was put together. Powell and Poppy Bush represent this type of Conservative.
Number three is the "Neo" Conservatives. While Ziggy gives some idea, let me present mine. Basically it is a "muscular" conservatism that sees the US in the rare role of being able to dictate policy with no other power able to confront it effectively. That power should be used to see that American 'values" (and that is not a good word, but I cannot think of another right now) are circulated around the world so that trouble spots, both those that are active and those that may be problems in the future, are nuetralized. The idea is to bring about a world that the US does not have to fear attack or competition for the foreseeable future.
Wofolitz (sic) happens to be the most vocal at this time
Again, most everyone has their own POV on this. this happens to be mine.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
England, Australia, and Poland are examples of real allies (there are other countries as well). When we asked for help, they stepped forward. France is an example of a country that is only nominally an ally. In many cases it actively works to undermine our interests.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Earthborn said:
Was said by a diplomat long ago (Metternich??)--"There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests."
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Ziggurat said:
Read they decide what is to be done, and the allies had better agree one hundred percent, or they are out.
Given that they are the only people with the genius to create a new world in their image, I guess that means war, or ass lickers like John Howard agreeing with everything they say. Even if what they say happens to change dramatically every few months. It's WMD, ok. No, it's about the people of Iraq. No problem.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Ion said:
Spoken like a true individual who knows nothing about history or world politics.
France's history of "turning its back" on the U.S. (and other countries) goes back many years, and predates "neoconservatives". Some examples include: withdrawing from NATO during the cold war, interference in Canadian/Quebec affairs, and French nuclear tests (when other western nations had long since stopped such tests.)
Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering to respond. Using my amazing psychic powers, I can predict that any response to my post will be either A) irrelevant and not on topic with my post, B) a bizzare personal attack, or C) Both. Anyone want to take bets about what the result will be?
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Segnosaur said:
Nah, just sounds like a normal smart-a@@ remark to me..
Of course the French could mention the minor fact that they were the decisive factor in our winning Independence (remember Yorktown?) and we thanked them by making peace with the British behind their backs. Again, no permanent friends, only permanent interests, and all of the above examples could be made out to be in the best interests of France
Well, since the topic is neo-conservatives and their wrestling for foreign policy control with more 'Old School' conservatives and you turned in into an attack on France, I guess A could apply...but I would never do B--bizzare possibly, but never personal
So C is null.
And I never bet unless the game is fixed, I am in on the fix, and the fixer is a close personal friend.
So if I ever offer to bet you real money, keep your hand away from your pocket.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Hutch said:
Nah, just sounds like a normal smart-a@@ remark to me..
If it were anybody else I'd consider it a normal smart-*ss remark.
I guess you don't know Ion (the person I was responding to) at all.
Ion is an individual who is either unwilling or unable to carry on a reasoned debate. Unlike some of the more intelligent posters here (such as Crossbow or Tricky, who make it a point to respond to points that you might bring up even if I might disagree with some of their opinions), all Ion seems to do is come back to one point over and over again, regardless of the arguments that are presented.
Hutch said:
I was trying to keep my examples to within the past half century.
And yes, no country should totally ignore its own interests for the sake of its allies; its just that France seems to be the extreme version of that.
Hutch said:
Well, since the topic is neo-conservatives and their wrestling for foreign policy control with more 'Old School' conservatives and you turned in into an attack on France, I guess A could apply...but I would never do B--bizzare possibly, but never personal
So C is null.
And I never bet unless the game is fixed, I am in on the fix, and the fixer is a close personal friend.
So if I ever offer to bet you real money, keep your hand away from your pocket.
Actually I was referring to Ion specifically. Your responses are actually very reasonable.
(As for attacking france, others brought up france long before I did. However, as a Canadian, we have special reasons all our own for disliking France... "vive le Quebec Libre!" and all.)
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
c0rbin said:
Out of favour with the US. And if you don't like the US, you hate the US, and if you hate the US.....
Regarding:
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.
watch the hypocrite:Segnosaur said:
As for:Segnosaur said:
France looks after France, like U.S. looks after U.S..Segnosaur said:
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.
SezMe
post-pre-born
How does French
Oh, regards your bet, if this is the first response, don't apply for the prize.
constitute an example of their turning their back on American interests?Segnosaur said:
Oh, regards your bet, if this is the first response, don't apply for the prize.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
RSSchlueter said:
It doesn't.... But if you look at my initial post in this thread, I said it was a way that France was turning their back on the U.S. And other countries, Canada being the other country.
RSSchlueter said:
As I mentioned in my second post, I was taking bets on what Ion's response would be. (Please see my earlier response for more information.) Guess I should have clarified that more.