's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Is there a neo-conservative plot? (longish w/ article link)(54 posts)

Is there a neo-conservative plot? (longish w/ article link)128
Mar 24, 2003 12:32 PM
Not one for conspiracy but I just happened to be Googling 'neo-con. ideology' earlier (Purely for the sheer enjoyment of it).
While admitting that definitions are a moving target and difficult I wondered if this administration could fairly be called neo-conservative.
Czar (I think) has made this assertion and I was about to ask him why he thought BushII is neo-con, thought neo-c were a bit more liberal on the 'social-morality/change is ok/government is not evil' issues.

Then coincidentily a collegue links me to this article (I don't read this paper), but found the article interesting. Basically outlining "the plan" of the neo-cons to rule the world.

What seems alarming, is that if you carry out the reasoning, couldn't the paranoid "Jewish plot" emerge? I understand a small goup of mostly Jewish intellectuals, dissillusioned with the Dems hard left turn in the 60/70's, "went conservative" in the Wilsonian sense that it was time to export our idealism and throw democrat-capitalism on those 'backward peoples' of the world, later to be termed new(old left)conservatives: i.e big gov is good so long as you're the government.

Anyway, not a political/history lesson (nor would I be capable) but I thought some of this interesting "in light of current imbedded events"
Clarification: Bush is not a Neo-Con. . .czardonic
Mar 24, 2003 12:43 PM
. . .but many of the people who have insinuated themselves into his administration are, and Bush himself is very suggestible.
Sure there's a neo-con plot. They cheerfully admit it.OldEdScott
Mar 24, 2003 1:01 PM
I don't know when this article was written, but just this weekend Richard Perle was quoted as saying (paraphrase): "Since we're in the neighborhood, we might as well take care of our other problems in the region, Syria, Iran and others ..."

It's really pretty chilling what these folks want. That's one reason I opposed our policy toward Iraq -- Iraq is just an excuse to get this whole reshape-the-world/American Empire idea into bloody play.
Don't worryKristin
Mar 24, 2003 1:22 PM
As soon as it becomes painfully obvious to the rest of the world that the US being a greedy evil empire then they'll blow us to smitherines.
Policy SummaryJon Billheimer
Mar 24, 2003 3:17 PM
For a concise summary of the neo-con "conspiracy" and Bush's policy flip-flop since taking office check out the following link to a news story: analysis/realitycheck030317.html
Dead link. nmKristin
Mar 25, 2003 7:31 AM
It linked after a short wait when I tried it. nm128
Mar 25, 2003 7:52 AM
That's just friggin scaryKristin
Mar 25, 2003 8:39 AM
How much farther from the foundating principles of this nation can you get? I supose if we start mass murdering everyone who isn't white, then we could get a little farther than we have in the past. But holy friggin crap!! When I read the first article I thought, "They're exagerating and trying to create hype." But I did a little more digging and these guys are power-crazed for sure--not to mention arogant. I try not to throw out my opinions as if they are fact, but this group is really way off base and it could bring down somthing that took 2 century's to build.

I don't claim to know much. I'm a Christian, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't know exactly who God is. But I know who He is not and these people are deluded if they think they know God and are on God's side. Goodness gracious we won't last as long as the Romans did if we don't turn things around.
what's the issue?DougSloan
Mar 25, 2003 8:37 AM
Is a goal of democracy, freedom, and capitalism all of the world a bad thing, or just the way of going about it? (yes, sincere question)

A goal? Yes. A dream? No.Kristin
Mar 25, 2003 8:52 AM
Martin Luther had a dream. And he fought an honorable fight. He didn't try to force anyone through shear brute force to embrace his ideals. He just fought his a$$ off and sacrificed his life for something he believed in. He had a dream and he fought for it with all of his energy. His actions are commendable.

To invade foreign lands and impose our idealogies onto others by force is neither humble or good natured. It can only be motivated by greed or fear. Would you raise your son the way we are approaching Iraq? To attempt to force him to be what you want him to be, instead of guiding him the best way you know how so that he can wisely choose his own path? (The most painful task of parenting.) If we Americans go around trying to make others think and behave just like we do, it will be the undoing of us. This kind of tactic has always failed throughout history.
Mar 25, 2003 9:35 AM
Not sure how to respond. Sometimes force is the only way to secure freedom. Where would we be without the American Revolution, French, Civil War, stopping Germany twice, etc. Preaching and passive resistance might be effective for slow, relatively minor civil changes, but won't do much to oppose people like Hitler or Hussein. I think the pacifist approach to people and regimes like them is a little naive, almost to the point of being irresponsible and dangerous, on an international level.

Countering Hussein isn't the same as teaching a child. But, following the analogy, if Luke were murdering people, building pipe bombs in the garage, and breaking into the neighbor's house, I'd probably use a little force to stop him, if I needed to. He would be obviously past the point of "wisely choosing his own path."

A fundamental principle of mine is that freedom is good. If we can free oppressed people, anywhere, that's not a bad thing. Maybe some in our culture have pushed the "tolerance" message a little too far. Maybe some things should not be tolerated, at least when oppressed people did not choose them.

People, Saddam Hussein is an evil person. I'll make no apology for saying that. He is a bad as it gets. Why can we get really worked up about a guy who blows up a building here and kills 150 people, yet seemingly tolerate for the sake of political correctness a guy who kills 10,000 people a year, mistreats his own people, and threatens to create weapons to kill maybe even millions if he could? To me, that is just plain warped thinking.

Yes, there are other bad governments in the world. We can't go after them all, for various reasons. Does that mean we should do nothing, though? Again, I think Mr. Czar has repeatedly said, "Just because you can't do everything, does that mean you should do nothing?"

I think removing SH is not only morally defensible, is morally mandated. If doing so also helps to improve the region or other parts of the planet too, then great.

Great post. Amen brother. nmNo_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 10:25 AM
Ack. This is gonna give me a head acheKristin
Mar 25, 2003 10:29 AM
Good response. I'm not sure yet if we agree or disagree on these things. I think, perhaps, that we disagree about what we believe the reasons for this war are.

"Sometimes force is the only way to secure freedom"
Yes. But I would say that they are a way to defend freedom, not a way to impose freedom. Have the Iraqi kurds even asked for our help?

"American Revolution, French, Civil War, stopping Germany"
These wars were all different. They were either fought to defend a freedom someone else was threatening or were fought to establish freedom on behalf of the people doing the fighting. I'm talking about a real threat here. Hiltler was close to owning all of Europe before we weighed in. Sudams threat is only theoretical. And no one has made a solid case that we are in this war because of a heartfelt concern for the Iraqi citizens. As a matter of fact, the major proponents to this war in Washington have an agenda that includes American world dominance. Something I don't believe in and can not support.

In the end, I believe that the only reason the American citizens will tollerate this war is because the end result at least looks humanitarian. A murdering dictator will be dead--we hope. But I fear that many American's have given into a sort of denial by which they believe that these are the reasons we are at war. As I read and listen, I don't believe that is the case.

Point well taken about young Luke...lets hope he never builds pipe bombs. However, Sudam hasn't really posed an active threat. He built weapons, yes. But so has every other nation on the planet. He hasn't used them on anyone but his own people. Appauling as that is, that is still not why we are at war with him.

Go check out the New American Century homepage. Its pretty obvious that the agenda of many of the primary minds behind this war is American dominance and not freedom and democracy for all. I think they would support freedom and democracy as long as America gets the biggest slice of the pie.
I believe Kristin is talking more generally aboutOldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 10:32 AM
the Neo-Conservative 'cabal' (their own term) that sees Iraq as just the wedge in the door to many, many such wars to impose our will on other countries.

I think the mistake many folks make in supporting the war is to support it as an isolated act. As an isolated act, it's defensible. Good folks, good patriots, can in good conscience say, yeah, it's time to get rid of the guy.

But there's a larger, hidden context. You have to read obscure neo-Con journals to get most of it. And they're very plain. This is the opening shot of a new policy of worldwide war and empire building, and it's scary as hell and frankly unAmerican.
Mar 25, 2003 10:42 AM
Sigh. Why can't I squeeze my thoughts into one simple phrase like that?
I believe it's even more of a mistakeNo_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 10:50 AM
to do things like believe everything you read and to fall into the *conspiracy theorist* mindset. To believe this *hidden context* is a governing factor. To not believe there are ways taking advantage of particular circumstances and to think only Americans are capable of this type of behavior.

Fact remains, if Saddam didn't try to take over a couple of his neighbors, lose those battles, agree to do something and then not for 12 years, the *hidden context conspiracy theorist* would take their angled perspective to other places and mold their theories around some other thing.

If things don't work out in a way such that the conspiracy theorists think, they'll re-mold their ideas in another manner. If they continually refine their ideas as days and years progress and they mold them in such a way that as certain issues are resolved, their perspective is something in the same line as what happens, they'll say *I told you so.*
Have you actually been to the website?Kristin
Mar 25, 2003 10:53 AM
Its written by these people in pretty plain English. Its not a conspiracy theory if its true.
Have you actually been to the website?No_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 11:00 AM
Yes. This is just a new conspiracy theorist movement. Forms of this type of thing will always be around. A particular perspective and angled viewpoint must be adopted, sort of a leap of faith, to be a *believer*. You'll not find too many realists being *believers*.

See *fact remains* paragraph in my post just above. What if the facts were not the case? This whole part of the conspiracy theorists notions would have to be deleted.
Hold on a sec ...OldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 11:33 AM
These guys are very open about what they want. They include Cheney and Rumsfeld. They have a vision of the future they advocate openly, and the president has, openly, bought into it.

This is no spooky JFK assassination/conspiracy stuff. It's the express foreign policy of the United States! Doesn't require 'belief.' Just requires taking a look.
No conspiracy, or obscure journals.Just look at Kristens link128
Mar 25, 2003 11:10 AM
I didn't know they were so express, and explicit in their aims. But there it is. (and if Dan Quayle is on board, hey it's gotta be a homey family value.)

Doesn't the question then become sort of an objective judgement: our way is better than theirs, we have a right to impose it, and it will be a good fit? The West is the best in many respects (said with massive humility- but easily defensible), and if 'they' drag us into a fight we gain the right (so are the nc's on to something here? Ahead of the curve?), but it appears our brand of market democracy won't really work in the Middle East. And of course some will say there is nothing objective.
While I might support an agressive ad campaign to reach the neo-con ends: peace, love and profit hegemony, I'm not sure I would award the contract to Helliburton. (I'll bet some poor schlep in sandals and a beard could do a better job)....
I did and I don't get what you all seeNo_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 11:48 AM
Like I said, it takes a leap of faith. No I didn't read every single stupid article but I found no hard cold fact, no videotape evidence, no citings of express quotes. I see a few *writers*, one from the L.A. Times which in my opinion is just about as credible as the National Enquirer writing with a particular angle. It is one thing to accept out of context snippits of a firm belief in the way we do things and a hope to offer the same freedoms and benefits we have to others, and entirely another to be such a fanatic as to craft an entire take the world over theory on behave of Powell and others. That is ridiculous.
Seriously, my friend ...OldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 11:55 AM
I'm not just blowing smoke up your butt here. It IS crazy, but it IS what these people EXPRESSLY SAY THEY WANT, and these people are represented at the highest levels of government (Cheney, Runsfeld) and Bush has developed a brand new foreign policy that agrees with their premises and furthers their aims.

DO you believe Pat Buchanan? You seem like a Buchanan kind of guy (no criticism at all -- I like Pat, in a strange way).
Mar 25, 2003 12:05 PM
Not at all. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Not even close to the far right, though in comarison to my neighbors, they would likely consider me a full bore right winger because they are so socially leftist.
You can lead a horse to water. . .(nm)czardonic
Mar 25, 2003 12:07 PM
but he won't be forced to believe an L.A. TimesNo_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 12:09 PM
staff writer. LOL
Nor Buchanan. Nor the Neo-Cons <i>own words</i>.czardonic
Mar 25, 2003 12:12 PM
You are obviously a very discerning person.
Mar 25, 2003 12:24 PM
As I've said, it's one thing to have a firm belief in the way one does things, and to hope and attempt to bring freedom and prosperity and the American way to others and entirely another to have some Enquirer type craft out of context a conspiracy to take over the world.

Doesn't take a discerning person to figure out just how ridiculous that is.
I guess you know what you know. With anOldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 12:34 PM
iron head like that, I guess there's no point in further discussion.
Mar 25, 2003 12:43 PM
just don't offer a site that has all it's articles written by a whopping 8 writers from worthless rags like the L.A. Times and the Washington Post and tell me that's it's the god's honest law around here. That site is full of editorials and that's all it is. Did you notice that those whopping 8 writers, with really 4 doing most of the work seem to believe they are all specialists in all the following realms they all write on. It's hard to imagine that anyone can be an expert on one of these subjects, let alone all. The subjects are:

Defense and National Security
Iraq/Middle East
East Asia
Global Issues

Wow, sounds like Robert Kagan is such a know it all, maybe he should be president, perhaps the L.A. Times rag writer should be in charge of national security.

Show me some good hard quotations, nothing out of context, show me some good hard videotape evidence of some of what you're saying and of course, I'll look at and weigh it accordingly, just like I did with what I got.
Gentlemen, I think I can clear this up.czardonic
Mar 25, 2003 12:55 PM
I don't think that No_sprint disputes the substance of the Neo-Con plan to re-shape the Middle East. Rather, he doesn't share the suspicion that these Neo-Con fellows want to "take over" the region. Instead, he believes that their aim is to spread freedom and democracy.

Personally, I think that such a belief requires its own leap of faith, since "American friendly regime" has proven to be synonymous with neither freedom nor democracy.
You're kind of on the right trackNo_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 1:19 PM
I never said I believed in their aim to spread freedom and democracy, only that I understand and hear what they say, which is they have a firm belief in the American way and a desire to spread that. It's hard to argue that it's not a better way than to rule or be ruled with a heavy hand, under the threat of death.

I for one can wholeheartedly say I am a firm believer in the American way. I also ambitiously offer to those who don't like it here or like something else better, go, please go. I emphatically promise that should I ever like someplace else better than where I'm at, I will be there.

I have made no leap of faith in my political beliefs, I'm far too much an analyst and realist.

I do not, just because 1 or 4 or 8 rag writers who have joined together say something, believe that it's the god's honest truth.
Oh my god, are you smoking crack?Kristin
Mar 25, 2003 1:02 PM
LOL. I feel like screaming. The site I posted is the HOMEPAGE of this organization. It has nothing do do with any paper or reporter. I can't tell if you:

A) Are pretending not to understand because you think its funny
B) Have not opened the link
C) Are a product of the Chicago Public Schools and don't actually know how to read
D) Are delusional
E) Are lacking some brain cells

This is taken from the website, which again, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LA TIMES.

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

William Kristol, Chairman"

Here is the site again:

This is my last post on the subject. Time for an afternoon debauchery.
Nobody home in Kristin's headNo_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 1:10 PM
That site is comprised of maybe 10 people, most of whom are writers, yes, that is what they do. They are columnists at the Washington Post and the L.A. Times.

Just because it's on the web doesn't mean it's more than 10 people who decided to write a bunch of articles and publish it on the web.
Who said it was a horde of people?czardonic
Mar 25, 2003 1:14 PM
So what if it is a couple dozen people trading hair-brained ideas. When those couple dozen include the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and several influencial presidential advisors, you can't pretend that the group is insignificant.
Czar, czar ... Give it up. The man is just beingOldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 1:19 PM
deliberately obtuse. No one is really that hammer-headed. He's just messing with our minds.
Towel thrown in. (nm)czardonic
Mar 25, 2003 1:27 PM
Not me. nmNo_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 1:27 PM
Obviously not. I must be stupid. nmKristin
Mar 25, 2003 1:51 PM
You don't need to get your panties ruffled and personallyNo_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 1:59 PM
attack me, like Czardonic does.

I do get the feeling you are what you called yourself after that last post.

I choose not to believe the word of a few Enquirer type writers. Thankfully, the type of thinking exhibited on that stupid site is regarded by most similarly to me. If it weren't, it wouldn't be so obscure.
OK dude. Here it is.OldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 2:05 PM
Sorry. Premature posting. Dude: HERE it is.OldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 2:11 PM
Here's the deal. Kristin is a lot smarter than you are. These are not obscure people, this is not Enquirer-type writing, nothing close, this is knowledge that is loose in the world that people have, you are being slightly INSANE in your relentless usage of 'rag writers' to describe reporters for the LA Times and the Washington Post, and the pure fact is, if you want to insist on a semi-psychotic Know Nothingness in your discussions here, that's absolutely fine and dandy. But the fact is -- the FACT is -- Kristin in the smart person in this one-way dialogue you have conducted.
Back on the pipe again?No_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 3:00 PM
If you want to call me stupid for not accepting as the god's honest truth the writings of a whopping 8 guys, most of which is done by about 4 guys, who happen to be pres and secretary of their obscure little website, that's completely up to you.

If you want to call me names for requesting some more credible and cited material that is a bit more than out of context he said/she said type heresay and editorialism, so be it.

I have another word for it. Cautious intellectualism.
Like I say ...OldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 1:15 PM
Would you believe him asOldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 12:12 PM
one conservative writing about other conservatives?
Global capitalism will not work.bnlkid
Mar 25, 2003 9:03 AM
With global democracy, and capitalism there won't be any third world countries left to get cheap labor from. That is the very heart of capitalism.(def. "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.") The lower the cost of labor, the great the profit(in theory). I agree that global democracy might be a nice thing, but that doesn't necessarily equate to global capitalism. In theory, communism(def. "A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.") could work if implemented properly. For some reason this country things of communism as a bad thing. It might be for this country, but may be perfectly suitable for other countries. Communism is about community. A dictatorship could work with the right person involved. A dictator does not necessarily have to ignore the people. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, but are considered our Allies. So is Kuwait.

Sorry for the long winded opinion from someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Doug, I am surprised at your faith in Big Government. . .czardonic
Mar 25, 2003 10:45 AM
. . .and especially the notion of Big Government coercing people into what is "best" for them. Would you tolerate that kind of intrusion into your own affairs?
I'll say this, freedom is always good. nmDougSloan
Mar 25, 2003 10:47 AM
To which I'll say, freedom is always a good cover. nmczardonic
Mar 25, 2003 10:51 AM
I'll take it any way I can get it nmDougSloan
Mar 25, 2003 10:54 AM
But what if I don't want to be free?Kristin
Mar 25, 2003 10:56 AM
Don't I have the right to live in bondage if that is my will? Who are you to tell me that I can not be controlled and manipulated and used as a pawn for the benefit of others? ;-)

(There is a sincere point in there somewhere.)
He didn't tell you anything. nm.No_sprint
Mar 25, 2003 11:01 AM
Then bring on the Iron Fist of Liberty. (nm)czardonic
Mar 25, 2003 11:03 AM
StrangeloveJon Billheimer
Mar 25, 2003 4:26 PM
The kind of Strangelove thinking exhibited by No Sprint and Doug in my opinion is the supreme testament to the effectiveness of cultural propaganda and conditioning. It is beyond incredible that someone can read the pronouncements of the senior policy makers of the United States government and write them off as the ramblings of of tabloid journalists. And it is this kind of willful blindness which will mortally subvert the American dream, in my opinion.

Maybe you guys don't get it, but virtually the entire rest of the world does.
You mean lying rag newspapers etc etc etc etc etc?OldEdScott
Mar 25, 2003 5:43 PM