NationStates Jolt Archive

I think the title explains it enough. Is anyone here a Neocon like myself?

What's a neoconservative?

What's a neoconservative?

A supporter of huge government at home and militarism and expansion abroad. A person who is not conservative at all, but calls himself one. Examples: Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, William Buckley, Bob Dole, Norm Coleman, and the vast majority of today's Republicruds.

Neo-Cons are basically fanatics, they wish to use military power to dictate terms to the whole world. They wish to control commerce on the Internet to name one thing. Their kook doctrine can be found if you look up "Project For A New American Century" They are basically the equal to Muslim fundamentalist, but only from an American perspective. They don't care how much in debt they put the country to basically build a Pax-America (Neo-Rome, same difference). In other words, they're a bunch of really dangerous people.

Liberal used to mean someone who believed in personal liberty (same root word, see?), but today means a democratic socialist.

Conservative used to mean someone who believed in old-fashioned values, but today means a fascist. Now, I know that term gets thrown around a lot, but it's actually valid in this context. Fascism was a form of government in which personal liberties were tightly restricted, but free enterprise was promoted... however, the government was a partner in business, so much so that business didn't get done without the government taking part, and it was hard to tell where the division was.

Just a couple examples to test to see if the neocons really are fascists:

1) Restricting personal liberty? Patriot Act, anti-abortion, sending troops to war on false pretenses, restriction of information, propagandists, crowd control - check.

2) Partner in business? Halliburton, Alaskan oil, refusing Kyoto, rollback of environmental regulations, government monies to religious efforts - check.

I agree with some Neconservative ideas, but I think that the term is greatly misleading. There's nothing conservative about it at all. I think that military action to prevent gross violations of human rights is justified. I think that
foreign governments like Saddam Hussein's have no right to committ genocide without facing serious international consequences. I support the US efforts to build infrastructure and democracy in Iraq.

However, unlike most others who support these ideas, I am on the centre-left and I am very liberal. I think there is little point in the belief in liberalism and belief in human rights if one is not prepared to fight for them. I think that neocons who are socially conservative are moronic hypocrites.

It's a pity that the international community was unwilling to support the Iraq war. I would like to see European powers using their militaries to push the cause of human rights and democracy in countries governed by murderous dictators. But that's unlikely to happen!

I'm terribly sorry, but what you all said to what a Neoconservative is is all wrong. Please refer to The Neocon Reader as a guide to understand what Neoconism really is.

I'm terribly sorry, but what you all said to what a Neoconservative is is all wrong. Please refer to The Neocon Reader as a guide to understand what Neoconism really is.
Err, we can't very well all go out and buy the book, so perhaps you could sum it up for us?

Neocon: The type of person most likely to be stereotyped, misunderstood, and otherwise irrationally discredited by the left.

I agree with some Neconservative ideas, but I think that the term is greatly misleading. There's nothing conservative about it at all. I think that military action to prevent gross violations of human rights is justified. I think that
foreign governments like Saddam Hussein's have no right to committ genocide without facing serious international consequences. I support the US efforts to build infrastructure and democracy in Iraq.

However, unlike most others who support these ideas, I am on the centre-left and I am very liberal. I think there is little point in the belief in liberalism and belief in human rights if one is not prepared to fight for them. I think that neocons who are socially conservative are moronic hypocrites.

It's a pity that the international community was unwilling to support the Iraq war. I would like to see European powers using their militaries to push the cause of human rights and democracy in countries governed by murderous dictators. But that's unlikely to happen!

You've taken a leaf from Thomas Paine's Book. I forget the qoute, actually, but it's somethig about fighting for the liberty of others.

Neocon: The type of person most likely to be stereotyped, misunderstood, and otherwise irrationally discredited by the left.
Half of the people who responded are on the "right".

We need some clear definitions of terms for the forum. Anyon want to help wriet them?

They don't care how much in debt they put the country to basically build a Pax-America (Neo-Rome, same difference). In other words, they're a bunch of really dangerous people.

Actually they care very much how much debt the country has. They oppose public spending on social welfare projects, not for the sane reason that many people oppose them (they'd prefer it if the government saved money and didn't charge much taxes), but rather they actually want the poor and working class to be as poor as possible and the middle class to be as small as possible so that the upper class can more easily exploit them.

Because of this it doesn't matter to them if the government cuts public spending to save money, or because it has wasted all of its money and has nothing left. Grover Norquist put it best when he said "I don't want to abolish government, I just want to shrink it to the size that I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub."

Because so many people are aware that raising taxes and public spending is beneficial to society if done in a rational way, the neocons have switched their strategy on cutting government spending. Bankrupt the USA. Bush is doing that by getting rid of lucrative taxes that only affect the richest Americans who can most easily pay them, and wasting money on useless harmful wars. That's why the deficit rose into the trillions under Reagan and Bush Sr. then stopped under Clinton and then almost doubled under Bush Jr.

Half of the people who responded are on the "right".

We need some clear definitions of terms for the forum. Anyon want to help wriet them?

Not gonna happen. The definitions are so varied and political that they really don't exist.

Neocon: The type of person most likely to be stereotyped, misunderstood, and otherwise irrationally discredited by the left.

Not really. They tend to be misunderstood by people on the right who think that they're decent human beings trying to make the world a better place.

Of course it is rather difficult to have the right idea about Neocons. We're so used to thinking of demonstrations of good and evil as essentially being selfish goals versus humanitarian ones.

The sort of comic-book super-villany that the neo-cons indulge in is just so far outside of normal day-to-day experience that we tend not to recognize it for what it is.

For example, most people think that it would be insane to actually try to plunge the country into innsurmountable debt, so it must simply be that Bush is a sort of lovable goof who isn't good with numbers. Gomer Pile put in charge of the vault. But they don't fully realize how much seven trillion dollars is. A stack of hundred dollar bills that totalled a trillion dollars would reach half again from here to the moon. People don't waste that sort of money through incompotence, only through design. So we have a president that's trying to destroy the country and people on the right don't recognize that, so people on the right misunderstand neo-cons, people on the left merely underestimate the evil that they represent.

Actually they care very much how much debt the country has. They oppose public spending on social welfare projects, not for the sane reason that many people oppose them (they'd prefer it if the government saved money and didn't charge much taxes), but rather they actually want the poor and working class to be as poor as possible and the middle class to be as small as possible so that the upper class can more easily exploit them.

Because of this it doesn't matter to them if the government cuts public spending to save money, or because it has wasted all of its money and has nothing left. Grover Norquist put it best when he said "I don't want to abolish government, I just want to shrink it to the size that I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub."

Because so many people are aware that raising taxes and public spending is beneficial to society if done in a rational way, the neocons have switched their strategy on cutting government spending. Bankrupt the USA. Bush is doing that by getting rid of lucrative taxes that only affect the richest Americans who can most easily pay them, and wasting money on useless harmful wars. That's why the deficit rose into the trillions under Reagan and Bush Sr. then stopped under Clinton and then almost doubled under Bush Jr.

1) No. That's an assumption and utter bullshit as well. I care as much as anyone about the poor, and I think that welfare is a good thing, for those who are unable to work, IE mentally handicapped, physical handicapped, injured, etc. THe welfare system is abused, plain and simple. People think that they can avoid getting a job and let the government take care of them. I don't think so. I prefer the "teach a man to fish" part of that old cliche.


2) Do you like paying taxes? I highly doubt it. No one does. It's stealing from my hard earned money is what it is. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? They were smart enough to get adecent enough education to get a higher paying job. Why couldn't the poor have been? It's not that hard. Get good grades, study in school, go to college, get a job. Not that difficult.

I agree with some Neconservative ideas, but I think that the term is greatly misleading. There's nothing conservative about it at all. I think that military action to prevent gross violations of human rights is justified. I think that
foreign governments like Saddam Hussein's have no right to committ genocide without facing serious international consequences. I support the US efforts to build infrastructure and democracy in Iraq.

However, unlike most others who support these ideas, I am on the centre-left and I am very liberal. I think there is little point in the belief in liberalism and belief in human rights if one is not prepared to fight for them. I think that neocons who are socially conservative are moronic hypocrites.

It's a pity that the international community was unwilling to support the Iraq war. I would like to see European powers using their militaries to push the cause of human rights and democracy in countries governed by murderous dictators. But that's unlikely to happen!

That's horseshit and propoganda. Do you ware loafers? Because if you have the intelligence required to tie a pair of shoes I am forced to conclude that you are full of **it.

Saddam did not commit genocide. He used harsh means to put down a rebellion. Just like we blew up the Davidian compound under Clinton. Also, it was with weapons we gave him.

The US does not invade foreign countries to promote human rights. If we cared about human rights as a nation we would put economic sanctions against American corporations that bribe foreign governments to oppress their people forcing them to work for slave wages by poisoning their land. Refineries where people have to wash tar from their bodies with diesel (you can imagine the incendiary results in an oil refinery) would be abolished. Water would be re-recognized as a human right, not a human need. We would not allow corporations working in our name to hire mercenary squads to drive indigenous people from their lands so that we could plunder their resources.

The US government could effortlessly turn around the lives of hundreds of millions of people living under horrific military dictatorships overnight if it wanted to. It wouldn't even have to fire a shot. Just tell Coke, Bechtel, Nike, Dole, etc. that they can't do business in the USA if they're going to prop up facist governments. It doesn't give a damn and you're a fool if you think that Iraq was a humanitarian war.

Not gonna happen. The definitions are so varied and political that they really don't exist.
Damn, you're right.

1)
2) Do you like paying taxes? I highly doubt it. No one does. It's stealing from my hard earned money is what it is. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? They were smart enough to get adecent enough education to get a higher paying job. Why couldn't the poor have been? It's not that hard. Get good grades, study in school, go to college, get a job. Not that difficult.

It has to do with the ability to pay. A poor person earning 25,000 a year will suffer considerably more from a 25% tax rate because they need a larger amount of that income to support themselves/family. A wealthy person who earns 1,000,000 a year can afford a 25% tax much more easily because there is a considerably larger amount of disposable income.

That's horseshit and propoganda. Do you ware loafers? Because if you have the intelligence required to tie a pair of shoes I am forced to conclude that you are full of **it.

Saddam did not commit genocide. He used harsh means to put down a rebellion. Just like we blew up the Davidian compound under Clinton. Also, it was with weapons we gave him.

The US does not invade foreign countries to promote human rights. If we cared about human rights as a nation we would put economic sanctions against American corporations that bribe foreign governments to oppress their people forcing them to work for slave wages by poisoning their land. Refineries where people have to wash tar from their bodies with diesel (you can imagine the incendiary results in an oil refinery) would be abolished. Water would be re-recognized as a human right, not a human need. We would not allow corporations working in our name to hire mercenary squads to drive indigenous people from their lands so that we could plunder their resources.

The US government could effortlessly turn around the lives of hundreds of millions of people living under horrific military dictatorships overnight if it wanted to. It wouldn't even have to fire a shot. Just tell Coke, Bechtel, Nike, Dole, etc. that they can't do business in the USA if they're going to prop up facist governments. It doesn't give a damn and you're a fool if you think that Iraq was a humanitarian war.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm (http://http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm)

Right. He didn't commit genocide at all.

1) No. That's an assumption and utter bullshit as well. I care as much as anyone about the poor, and I think that welfare is a good thing, for those who are unable to work, IE mentally handicapped, physical handicapped, injured, etc. THe welfare system is abused, plain and simple. People think that they can avoid getting a job and let the government take care of them. I don't think so. I prefer the "teach a man to fish" part of that old cliche.

That's because you buy into propoganda. I like to take Republicans' at their word. Their word when they think liberals aren't listening that is. Grover Norquist did speak the quote I mentioned, and his belief is very much that of the neo-cons. Why do you think they speak so favorably of de-regulation? Do you think it's because they favor civil rights? Of course not. Otherwise they'd be promoting personal liberty as well. But they don't. They talk a good game about freedom, but they seem to define it as "living in America," as opposed to any actual state of liberty.

2) Do you like paying taxes? I highly doubt it. No one does. It's stealing from my hard earned money is what it is. Why should the rich be taxed more heavily? They were smart enough to get adecent enough education to get a higher paying job. Why couldn't the poor have been? It's not that hard. Get good grades, study in school, go to college, get a job. Not that difficult.

You mean like Paris Hilton? George W. Bush? They worked hard to pull themselves up by their bootstraps did they? Most people who get rich in this country get rich by having rich friends, not by being intelligent and hard working.

Quite simply, the rich should be taxed the most because they have the money. Taxing people who have no money makes no sense, that's where deficits come from.

Your arguments are based on an entierly specious fallacy i.e. that people who have money get it because they somehow deserve it. If I pull off a bank heist through perfect planning do I deserve to keep the money? I earned that money through intelligence, risk-taking, and ambition. By your logic anything you get that can be traced to a quality that has a positive sounding synonym deserves a reward. "He wasn't beating his wife, he's a firm lover." "He wasn't cheating on his taxes, he was pioneering accounting innovation." "He wasn't waging an atrocious war of choice, he was liberating Iraq."

Isn't the term neoconservative an oxymoron? Neo means new conservative wants to keep things the same (the good ol' days). The new good ol' days doesn't. The two just don't seem right together.

It has to do with the ability to pay. A poor person earning 25,000 a year will suffer considerably more from a 25% tax rate because they need a larger amount of that income to support themselves/family. A wealthy person who earns 1,000,000 a year can afford a 25% tax much more easily because there is a considerably larger amount of disposable income.

I know that. That's why the tax rate should be flat, if not damn near close to flat.

I'm terribly sorry, but what you all said to what a Neoconservative is is all wrong. Please refer to The Neocon Reader as a guide to understand what Neoconism really is.

Link?

Anyway, I have a sneaking suspicion that none of the people who defined Neocon here are Neocons. Until I can find someone who actually considers themselves a Neocon I can find no real definition besides: "Something derogatory to call the more powerful members of the GOP." If they acted differently they would still be called Neocons by their foes. That's the answer, pure and simple.

And just as a sideline about the genocidal stuff: yes, Saddam did do a little genocide, mostly either involving Kurds or a huge swamp he drained. Yes, there is much more in countries the current administration ignores than there ever was in Iraq. Most modern dictators do genocide, and Saddam was onluy middling in that respect. If we had actually wanted to stop genocide we'd be going into Sudan, for example.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm (http://http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm)

Right. He didn't commit genocide at all.

a) your link goes to the microsoft website. Is that some sort dadaesque joke about both the neo-cons and microsoft being "more evil than satan himself?"

b) Ok, someone in the world disagrees with me. Not really a surprise. I notice that nothing in that report contradicts anything I said. Yes, he used chemical weapons. Chemical weapons that we gave him. We didn't care if he used chemical weapons. We cared that he invaded Kuwait because there are oil companies there that make us a lot of money. He invaded, not because he is an imperialistic megalomaniac, but because they were angle-drilling his country's oil.

I never said Sadam was a nice guy, only that we don't really care that he isn't. If we did care about human rights violations we'd start punishing the corporations that violate human rights all over the world with our blessing. A move that would not cost a single American soldier's life. Not even a single spent bullet. Yet we don't. Don't you wonder why?

I know that. That's why the tax rate should be flat, if not damn near close to flat.

Please, I look forward to hearing how you derive that from what you were replying to.

And just as a sideline about the genocidal stuff: yes, Saddam did do a little genocide. Yes, there is much more in countries the current administration ignores than there ever was in Iraq. Most modern dictators do genocide, and Saddam was onluy middling in that respect. If we had actually wanted to stop genocide we'd be going into Sudan, for example.

There's no such thing as a little genocide. Genocide is an effort to wipe out an entire race. Rwanda was a genocide. Darfur was a genocide. Northern Iraq was not a genocide. It was a civil war. One that we provoked by the way.

There's no such thing as a little genocide. Genocide is an effort to wipe out an entire race. Rwanda was a genocide. Darfur was a genocide. Northern Iraq was not a genocide. It was a civil war. One that we provoked by the way.

I was more referring to the marsh Arabs than to northern Iraq. The marsh Arab stuff, while not as organized as Hitler or even Darfur, probably compare in intent (note not scale though) to the stuff in the former Yugoslavia. In any case, there were definitely better genocides to fight than whatever was happening in Iraq.

That's because you buy into propoganda. I like to take Republicans' at their word. Their word when they think liberals aren't listening that is. Grover Norquist did speak the quote I mentioned, and his belief is very much that of the neo-cons. Why do you think they speak so favorably of de-regulation? Do you think it's because they favor civil rights? Of course not. Otherwise they'd be promoting personal liberty as well. But they don't. They talk a good game about freedom, but they seem to define it as "living in America," as opposed to any actual state of liberty.
You missed the point. We care every bit as much as anyone else about the poor, they just rely too heavily on the government.


You mean like Paris Hilton? George W. Bush? They worked hard to pull themselves up by their bootstraps did they? Most people who get rich in this country get rich by having rich friends, not by being intelligent and hard working. Paris Hilton doesn't deserve to be where she is today. She's done nothing but rely on her family fortune. Bush went to both Harvard and Yale. Why don't you get into harvard and Yale. Bush deserves to be where he is. He may not be the best President, but at least he's worked his ass off to get where he is today.

Quite simply, the rich should be taxed the most because they have the money. Taxing people who have no money makes no sense, that's where deficits come from. I realize that they have the money. But it's not like they just sit around and the money gets handed to them. THey deserve the money they earn.

Your arguments are based on an entierly specious fallacy i.e. that people who have money get it because they somehow deserve it. If I pull off a bank heist through perfect planning do I deserve to keep the money? I earned that money through intelligence, risk-taking, and ambition. By your logic anything you get that can be traced to a quality that has a positive sounding synonym deserves a reward. "He wasn't beating his wife, he's a firm lover." "He wasn't cheating on his taxes, he was pioneering accounting innovation." "He wasn't waging an atrocious war of choice, he was liberating Iraq." Don't take me out of context. That's not what I meant. Of course they don't deserve the money. Way to twist my words. Good job. Oh, and refer to my above link. Saddam killed thousands upon thousands of his own people.

Bold added by me.

Isn't the term neoconservative an oxymoron? Neo means new conservative wants to keep things the same (the good ol' days). The new good ol' days doesn't. The two just don't seem right together.

Well, conservative means wants things to stay the same, but if things change out from under you, but you don't change, then you don't want things to change anymore, you want them to go back to the way they were before they changed. But you yourself have not changed.

Let's say I really liked goth in the 80's. Then in the 90's goth turned into depressing techno. My tastes don't change, but somehow I'm not goth anymore.

Same deal with the conservatives. They didn't change, but they realize that if they keep things the same, it will never be what they wanted when they got started. Neo-Con's are trying to bring back the gilded age of the turn of the last century because they've been opposed to this "new fangled" social security for 70 years. Once you want to preserve stuff that died a century ago, "conservative" just doesn't do you justice.

a) your link goes to the microsoft website. Is that some sort dadaesque joke about both the neo-cons and microsoft being "more evil than satan himself?"

b) Ok, someone in the world disagrees with me. Not really a surprise. I notice that nothing in that report contradicts anything I said. Yes, he used chemical weapons. Chemical weapons that we gave him. We didn't care if he used chemical weapons. We cared that he invaded Kuwait because there are oil companies there that make us a lot of money. He invaded, not because he is an imperialistic megalomaniac, but because they were angle-drilling his country's oil.

I never said Sadam was a nice guy, only that we don't really care that he isn't. If we did care about human rights violations we'd start punishing the corporations that violate human rights all over the world with our blessing. A move that would not cost a single American soldier's life. Not even a single spent bullet. Yet we don't. Don't you wonder why?

I have no idea why it did that. Weird. And if you read the report, I think you'd notice that he did commit genocide. And you're right. We should stop corporations from violating human rights. We don't cause we're too focused on the war.

"snip"

Ok, just a few refutations: On the first point: now you're missing Domici's point. He's not saying you don't care, he's saying the people you follow don't care.
Second:Bush didn't exactly work his ass of in Harvard and Yale. Just because he went there doesn't exactly mean he did everything the people who had to get in on their own merit did. Anyway, the point is that status isn't mobile enough to say that everyone's status is justified.
Third: I think you have to understand something: Taxes are not a punishment ! This isn't an issue of deserving or not deserving, its an issue of how able one is to help others.
Fourth: You did say earlier they deserved the money, but whatever, if you now think differently that's cool.

Well, conservative means wants things to stay the same, but if things change out from under you, but you don't change, then you don't want things to change anymore, you want them to go back to the way they were before they changed. But you yourself have not changed.

Let's say I really liked goth in the 80's. Then in the 90's goth turned into depressing techno. My tastes don't change, but somehow I'm not goth anymore.

Same deal with the conservatives. They didn't change, but they realize that if they keep things the same, it will never be what they wanted when they got started. Neo-Con's are trying to bring back the gilded age of the turn of the last century because they've been opposed to this "new fangled" social security for 70 years. Once you want to preserve stuff that died a century ago, "conservative" just doesn't do you justice.

Alright I get where you going but shouldn't they have gone for a new word. The neoconservative word itself is an oxymoron.
Conservative is a term that is subject to the test of time and locale. For example, conservative as you said are people who don't want things to change. So a conservative in Russia wants the soviet system back. While over here they would be the most socialist leftist people you can get. Same goes with George Washington, in his time he was a revolutionary, far liberal, forcing change to happen at gunpoint, but compare him to todays standard, owned slaves etc etc, insanely conservative.
The conservatives out today should be the ones calling themselves neocons not the ones who want to go back to how it was a century ago. They should go by classic republicans. Classic republicanism just fits their agenda better then neoconservatism.

You missed the point. We care every bit as much as anyone else about the poor, they just rely too heavily on the government.

You as a person may. The neo-con politicians don't. They know what the results of their policies are. Increased poverty and increased exploitability of the working class. Remember the phrase "revenue neutral tax adjustment?" Do you know what that means? It means instead of getting 100 dollars from a guy with a million, get 10 dollars from 10 people who each have 11.

Paris Hilton doesn't deserve to be where she is today. She's done nothing but rely on her family fortune. Bush went to both Harvard and Yale. Why don't you get into harvard and Yale. Bush deserves to be where he is. He may not be the best President, but at least he's worked his ass off to get where he is today.

Bullshit. Bush went to Harvard and Yale as a legacy. Do you know what that means? It means that no matter how bad his grades were they had to accept him as long as he could pay. Which he could, not because he worked really hard at a series of summer jobs, but because he had a rich father.

His own business professor has been interviewed several times, and when asked about his performance he said, "we didn't really grade people like him, you just signed up and if you didn't do any work you got your 'C' and we graduated you." When he graduated he tried to go the the law school of Texas University for his advanced degree, but they rejected him for bad grades, so he went back to the Ivy Leagues, again, as a legacy. He did not work his ass off to get where he was. He didn't even work to get where he is. His father handed him every job he ever had, and he failed at every business that he ever ran.

I realize that they have the money. But it's not like they just sit around and the money gets handed to them. THey deserve the money they earn.

But in many cases they don't actually produce anything. Do you deserve to be rich just because you were born with so much money that you can live off the interest? To some degree or another that's what our upper class is composed of. Either people who can literally live off their bank account, or those who own businesses that other people do all of the work for. Those of them who do work do so as a hobby.

Despite what you think, the money does indeed just get handed to them.

Don't take me out of context. That's not what I meant. Of course they don't deserve the money. Way to twist my words. Good job. Oh, and refer to my above link.

Actually, that's exactly what you meant, you just don't know it. The people who make the most money in this country are not those who are smart enough to work cleverly with the system, but those who are powerful enough to manipulate the system to suit themselves.

For example I live near a construction development that was strawberry fields for years. The guy who is finally putting houses there did not do so because he was the first guy to see the potential in the property. He waited until his friends were in office so that they would give him the tax breaks that would make his new expensive, and shitty, houses really lucrative.

Saddam killed thousands upon thousands of his own people.

Again, it was a civil war. We told his enemies, the Kurds, that if they attacked we'd attack with them, then we didn't. He fought back with the chemical weapons we gave him to defend Iraq against his enemies. We did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we did it for economic ones.

Alright I get where you going but shouldn't they have gone for a new word. The neoconservative word itself is an oxymoron.
Conservative is a term that is subject to the test of time and locale. For example, conservative as you said are people who don't want things to change. So a conservative in Russia wants the soviet system back. While over here they would be the most socialist leftist people you can get. Same goes with George Washington, in his time he was a revolutionary, far liberal, forcing change to happen at gunpoint, but compare him to todays standard, owned slaves etc etc, insanely conservative.
The conservatives out today should be the ones calling themselves neocons not the ones who want to go back to how it was a century ago. They should go by classic republicans. Classic republicanism just fits their agenda better then neoconservatism.

I suppose I should have pointed out that I agree with you, despite seeing the logic of the phrase neo-con.

I think they should call themselves what they really are. Reactionary facists.

There's nothing conservative about it at all. I think that military action to prevent gross violations of human rights is justified. I think that
foreign governments like Saddam Hussein's have no right to committ genocide without facing serious international consequences. I support the US efforts to build infrastructure and democracy in Iraq.


Yes. Because the US invaded Iraq due to human rights abuses, lack of democracy, and an infrastructure deficit. I am sure China must be next on the list then.

A supporter of huge government at home and militarism and expansion abroad. A person who is not conservative at all, but calls himself one. Examples: Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, William Buckley, Bob Dole, Norm Coleman, and the vast majority of today's Republicruds.

Absolutley right. Neoconservatives are not conservative, rather people who use the Republican party loyalty to push big government onto everyone. Its fairly rediculous, and needs to be stopped by educating people about real conservatism.

I'm paleo-conservative. I am not a damned fascist neo-con. Bastards ruined the Republican party AND distorted the word conservative.

That's horseshit and propoganda. Do you ware loafers? Because if you have the intelligence required to tie a pair of shoes I am forced to conclude that you are full of **it.

I use laces.

Saddam did not commit genocide. He used harsh means to put down a rebellion. Just like we blew up the Davidian compound under Clinton. Also, it was with weapons we gave him.
Halabja poison gas attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) - 5,000 killed

Anfal Campaign against Kurds, 1986-89 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal) ~182,000 civilians killed

Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War) - over 1,500,000 killed - this includes hundreds of thousands of civilian populations deliberately targeted

Invasion of Kuwait, 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Persian_Gulf_War#Casualties_During_the_War) - over 2,300 civilians killed

There is also the matter of Saddam personally taking over $6 billion that was due to be spent on t, mostly children, die due to the sanctions and Saddam's corruption.

Hussein's sons and heirs, Uday and Qusay, were even more brutal and sadistic than he, and during the 1990s they carried out their own private little reign of terror.

See also: Human Rights in Hussein's Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq)

To say that Saddam did not commit genocide is dishonest. What's your real agenda?

I also condemn all the support given by the US and other countries to Saddam in the past. Impeach Rumsfeld.

The US does not invade foreign countries to promote human rights.
I agree. I don't think that the motivation for the Iraq war was human rights (it was oil), but I support it for humanitarian reasons. The US isn't perfect, but it's surely better than Saddam Hussein.

If we cared about human rights as a nation we would put economic sanctions against American corporations that bribe foreign governments to oppress their people forcing them to work for slave wages by poisoning their land.

Refineries where people have to wash tar from their bodies with diesel (you can imagine the incendiary results in an oil refinery) would be abolished. Water would be re-recognized as a human right, not a human need.

We would not allow corporations working in our name to hire mercenary squads to drive indigenous people from their lands so that we could plunder their resources.
I agree, I agree, I agree. I would like to see the US Government doing these things. I feel that later in this century there will be another uprising against increasingly rampant and unacceptable corporate power. But that's not what we're talking about.

The US government could effortlessly turn around the lives of hundreds of millions of people living under horrific military dictatorships overnight if it wanted to. It wouldn't even have to fire a shot. Just tell Coke, Bechtel, Nike, Dole, etc. that they can't do business in the USA if they're going to prop up facist governments.
I agree. The hypocrisy of the US Government is truly shocking. I also call for an end to abuses in Guantanamo Bay.

It doesn't give a damn and you're a fool if you think that Iraq was a humanitarian war.
It wasn't a humanitarian war, but its results are humanitarian, which is why I support it. Why can't I be in favour of both the Iraq war and regulation of corporate abuse? I can think for myself; I don't have to take a side, Domici. When Bush does something I agree with, I support it; when he does something I don't agree with (which is more often) I bash him for it.

A supporter of huge government at home and militarism and expansion abroad. A person who is not conservative at all, but calls himself one. Examples: Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, William Buckley, Bob Dole, Norm Coleman, and the vast majority of today's Republicruds.
I don't think I'd consider Reagan, Nixon or Dole as Neocons. Reagan was more of on old-school conservative and Dole is a moderate. I don't know what the hell I'd consider Nixon. The rest -- yeah. Neocons.

Neo-Cons are basically fanatics, they wish to use military power to dictate terms to the whole world. They wish to control commerce on the Internet to name one thing. Their kook doctrine can be found if you look up "Project For A New American Century" They are basically the equal to Muslim fundamentalist, but only from an American perspective. They don't care how much in debt they put the country to basically build a Pax-America (Neo-Rome, same difference). In other words, they're a bunch of really dangerous people.

"Neo-cons are basically fanatics." I'm a liberal, myself, and I find a good deal of the current U.S. administration's policies reprehensible. This sort of moralizing of political principles, however, is precisely why the American Democratic Party can't win an election.

There's an ironic failure to understand why other voters might legitimately share the ideals of these "fanatical" neo-cons, except maybe to assume that they're too stupid to think/vote "correctly." I know a good many Democrats who talked seriously about a failure of democracy when the 2004 elections failed to produce the "correct" result.

These facts need to be examined empirically, not morally. If Democrats can't empathize with or understand the vast policital center well enough to avoid such normative statements as these, how can they ever expect to gain the kind of support needed to win elections?

The entire group is way too self-serving and 'father-knows-best' for my blood.

While I acknowledge that Iraq is better off without Saddam than with, I have to put blame for Saddam at the feet of those who enabled him to be the dictator he was: Reagan, Bush Sr, Rummsfled, Wolfowitz, Cheney etc. Notice most of those are neoconservatives. It was in their interest to have Saddam around as a foil to Iran while the US was busy 'defeating communism' (what a farce that was) and it was in their interest to remove Saddam to help GWB get re-elected and pay back wealthy GOP supporters (and reward cronies like Halliburton), and thus keep those same dirty neo-cons in the seats of power. I also cannot help but be worried by the number of pigeons coming home to roost - created by the US themselves (OBL, Saddam, etc.).

I also despise the integration of the religious right with the former republican party. The combination of big bucks with one-issue uneducated voters with a sense of moral superiority is dangerous.

As well, the hypocracy involved by the neo-conservatives is simply astounding to me as an outsider. Clinton lying about a blow-job is impeachable, but Bush lying about going to war is ok? Having the VP violate trade sanctions using is former company (setting up offices in Tehran) while CEO is ignored, but the Clintons losing money in property investment is worthy of investigation (by another neo-con, no less).

All that anyone need do to see who are the big players just needs to take a long step back, and watch who benefits from the policies and actions of this current US administration.

I fear for what the US is becoming.

I use laces.


Halabja poison gas attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) - 5,000 killed

Anfal Campaign against Kurds, 1986-89 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal) ~182,000 civilians killed

Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War) - over 1,500,000 killed - this includes hundreds of thousands of civilian populations deliberately targeted

Invasion of Kuwait, 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Persian_Gulf_War#Casualties_During_the_War) - over 2,300 civilians killed

There is also the matter of Saddam personally taking over $6 billion that was due to be spent on t, mostly children, die due to the sanctions and Saddam's corruption.

Hussein's sons and heirs, Uday and Qusay, were even more brutal and sadistic than he, and during the 1990s they carried out their own private little reign of terror.

See also: Human Rights in Hussein's Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq)

To say that Saddam did not commit genocide is dishonest. What's your real agenda?

I also condemn all the support given by the US and other countries to Saddam in the past. Impeach Rumsfeld.


I agree. I don't think that the motivation for the Iraq war was human rights (it was oil), but I support it for humanitarian reasons. The US isn't perfect, but it's surely better than Saddam Hussein.


I agree, I agree, I agree. I would like to see the US Government doing these things. I feel that later in this century there will be another uprising against increasingly rampant and unacceptable corporate power. But that's not what we're talking about.


I agree. The hypocrisy of the US Government is truly shocking. I also call for an end to abuses in Guantanamo Bay.


It wasn't a humanitarian war, but its results are humanitarian, which is why I support it. Why can't I be in favour of both the Iraq war and regulation of corporate abuse? I can think for myself; I don't have to take a side, Domici. When Bush does something I agree with, I support it; when he does something I don't agree with (which is more often) I bash him for it.

You're entirely correct. Bush's reasons for the war may have been a bit shaky at first, but look at the outcome. Look at the outcome in the middle east. Who the hell know how many more thousands of people Saddam Hussein would have killed? And, really, what's the point of believing in Human rights if you're not going to fight to bring those rights to others?

North Korea Should be next. Kim-Jong is just as big a human rights abuser as Hussein.

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with paleoconservatism. Neocons favor globalization, Zionism (to a great degree), religious fundamentalism, and more government intervention. They have NOTHING to do with real conservatism.

Neocons favor globalization, Zionism (to a great degree), religious fundamentalism, and more government intervention.

Please explain the "Zionism (to a great degree)" part.

Bush's reasons for the war may have been a bit shaky...

Understatement of the Century award goes to Haloman.

It seems to me Domici is the only one with his head screwed on here. I assume Domici has some sort of qualification in politics, and is using it very effectively. Well, I have a masters in media studies, and can shed a little light on most of your bias. All the horrible stories you hear about sadam? The heroic tales of troops in Iraq, guess what, they're covered by AMERICAN newspapers, the government denies the Right To Publish, if the newspaper says something too dangerous. American government bombed a childrens hospital last year, because they thought Sadam was hiding in a building nearby, so thought it best they bomb all the buildings around it as well, just in case. We also provided the weapons for sadam, and Bin Laden carried out his terrorism using the training he recieved from the American Military. Yes, Sadam murdered raped and corrupted, but america also mass media attacked the name of iraq, murderedm raped and corrupted, in the name of oil. Yet George W. Bush's justification was that he thought iraq had weapons of mass destruction... Hmmm... a ban that has been in place for 11 years, yet only when oil prices rise 22%, does he decided he wants to invade iraq, and why doesent america invade Korea, " to liberate them" who we pretty much know have weapons of mass destruction? And korean citizens endure some of the worst treatment in the world. America could stop exploitation of any kind in a heartbeat, but they stand to lose alot from that, and now the EU is growing, America will not cut income.

Iraq war a just war? A humanitarian war? Bollocks.

A supporter of huge government at home and militarism and expansion abroad. A person who is not conservative at all, but calls himself one. Examples: Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, William Buckley, Bob Dole, Norm Coleman, and the vast majority of today's Republicruds.

Reagan was not a neocon...don't let your dislike of the right seep into your intelligence.

Please explain the "Zionism (to a great degree)" part.

There is a large Jewish backing in the neoconservative movement. Christians also support Israel to fulfill Biblical prophecies.

North Korea Should be next. Kim-Jong is just as big a human rights abuser as Hussein.
Kim makes Saddam look like small potatoes. Forget Iran; it must be either him or Sudan.

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with paleoconservatism. Neocons favor globalization, Zionism (to a great degree), religious fundamentalism, and more government intervention. They have NOTHING to do with real conservatism.
Actually when your real, "non-interventionist" conservatives were in government in the America of the 1920s, religious fundamentalism was so powerful that even alcohol was illegal.

Reagan was not a neocon...don't let your dislike of the right seep into your intelligence.
Whoa... RB's dislike of the Right?
Roach Busters is rather far right-wing himself, if I'm remembering correctly...

I'm paleo-conservative. In otherwords, I am a real conservative and adhere's to strict or less liberal interpretation to Constitutional outline. I generally take a "original intent" approach to many issues. I consider myself a patriot in the original or classical Revolutionary American sense. I know what a damned dirty neo-con is.

A supporter of huge government at home and militarism and expansion abroad. A person who is not conservative at all, but calls himself one. Examples: Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, William Buckley, Bob Dole, Norm Coleman, and the vast majority of today's Republicruds.

True.

Neo-Cons are basically fanatics, they wish to use military power to dictate terms to the whole world. They wish to control commerce on the Internet to name one thing. Their kook doctrine can be found if you look up "Project For A New American Century" They are basically the equal to Muslim fundamentalist, but only from an American perspective. They don't care how much in debt they put the country to basically build a Pax-America (Neo-Rome, same difference). In other words, they're a bunch of really dangerous people.

True.

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with paleoconservatism. Neocons favor globalization, Zionism (to a great degree), religious fundamentalism, and more government intervention. They have NOTHING to do with real conservatism.

True.

Liberal used to mean someone who believed in personal liberty (same root word, see?), but today means a democratic socialist.

Conservative used to mean someone who believed in old-fashioned values, but today means a fascist. Now, I know that term gets thrown around a lot, but it's actually valid in this context. Fascism was a form of government in which personal liberties were tightly restricted, but free enterprise was promoted... however, the government was a partner in business, so much so that business didn't get done without the government taking part, and it was hard to tell where the division was.

Just a couple examples to test to see if the neocons really are fascists:

1) Restricting personal liberty? Patriot Act, anti-abortion, sending troops to war on false pretenses, restriction of information, propagandists, crowd control - check.

2) Partner in business? Halliburton, Alaskan oil, refusing Kyoto, rollback of environmental regulations, government monies to religious efforts - check.


True. And due to the change in politics, "classical liberalism" now means personal liberties/civil rights as opposed to this whole socialism business

Neocon: The type of person most likely to be stereotyped, misunderstood, and otherwise irrationally discredited by the left.

Bullshit. It isn't just the left that recognizes the neo-cons as fascists. It is real conservatives and independents who believe in the original intent of the Constitutional Republic and can no longer see the Republican party as the party it used to be. It is a party highjacked. The hijackee's are what we call the neo-con fascist threat. You know to little of principles, morality, or politics. This is why you misunderstand why you are criticized. We DON'T CARE about your positions on abortion or gay marriage. We only want you to adhere to consitutional outlines and conservative principles. Such as using the Constitutional method for declaring war on Iraq, and knowing how to manage taxpayer money, as well as keeping personal liberties ensured by our Constitution intact.

All of which you idiots have failed to do. You aren't misunderstood. We KNOW about the bullshit you are pulling because WE STAY INFORMED. We are not democrats. We are former Repubicans, independents, and people who know what this country was founded on and for. All that the left has done is recognize that a lot of former Republican allies are disgrunted with the new fascist threat on the Republican party

I am not a hypocrite, so therefore I am not one.