How do we as honest God fearing loyal Americans feel about this new group of policy makers in Washington D.C.? Are they good or bad for our country and the rest of the world?
Well if you are God fearing and a loyal American then you are overjoyed with Neo-conservatives, since these are basically people who came to their senses and left the liberal Democratic side for a morally upstanding Conservative side.
Uh.... OK For the first few posts at least, let's say that only people who know what a neoconservative is can post, OK? After that, of course, the more the merrier.
Who does not know the definition?????? You read too many DNC newsletters film maker. You may need to clarify which part of this movement you actual want comments on instead of showing your ignorance.
Mea Culpa You are right. In retrospect, my question was far too broad and I apologize for that. In the scope of my question, lstlÕs answer was actually appropriate, so my flip answer was out of line and again, sorry. President Bush has surrounded himself with neoconservatives in his cabinet and in senior policy making positions in his administration with some of them being, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, Vice President Scooter Libby, the vice presidentÕs chief of staff Richard Perle, past-chairman and still-member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board William Kristol, editor of theWeekly Standard and founder of Project for a New American Century (PNAC) Bill Luti Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense These and many other neocon Bush administration members are currently in charge of American foreign policy especially as it relates to Iraq and terrorism. The neoconservative movement has a longstanding agenda characterized in some circles as strong central government and empire building. Their foreign policy philosophy is aggressive and very dependent on a powerful military for preemptive strikes against those nations that stand in the way of the economic interests of the U.S. Some of their critics have complained that they have put the interests of Israel before those of our own country. Others see the mid term outcome of their agenda to be a state of perpetual war for the U.S. with us invading one small country after another until they have established liberal democracies in all of the most troubled areas of the world beginning in the middle east. Anyway, these are the guys making our foreign policy at present. Here are a few web pages with differing views about them and what they are about from both conservative, and moderate perspectives. The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html Milwaukee Journal Sentinel http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131523.asp Utne Reader http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2004-02/articles/11118-1.html As you will see, across the board there is real concern about what is currently going on with neocon policies in our government. Is neoconservatism as a policymaking part of our foreign policy a good thing or a bad thing? Should we be concerned or not?
Don't you hate it when you try to start a string about a subject you know nothing about? That's the potential pitfall of being a virgin to original thought and taking the risk of posting or reciting verbatim what you have been told. You risk that the original poster or *thinker* didn't know what they were talking about either. I don't believe neo-conservatives are necessarily bad for the US, I believe ex-Ford administration individuals or appointees/nominees are bad for the U.S whether in the executive branch or the judicial branch.
Rabble about neo-conservatives and their conspiracies for world domination are the nothing more than the World Leftist Political Front hyperventilating and panicking because they pretty much know their time is over. The neo-cons foreign policy may seem a tad bit aggressive to today's "do everything with UN approval" left-of-center internationalist, but if you look farther back than 1950 for historic precedent, it's not that bad, and in fact, may be quite good for the world in the long run. Mostly the neo-cons foreign policy ideas came about because of disillusionment with the way things were going. You remember when the Berlin Wall fell and when Gorbachev resigned? Wasn't that the end of the Cold War, the end of the world being divided into armed camps? Wasn't everything going to be just peachy keen after that, with democracy and freedom everywhere and everyone being happy and getting ahead? Didn't exactly turn out that way, did it? In fact, in a lot of the world, the Cold War's end made things worse, not better (see Somalia and Afghanistan). Neo-conservatives were once liberals. Listen to John Lennon's song "Imagine." They wanted to imagine that world. They wanted it to be this beautiful place, where no one starved, everyone got along, and everyone was happy as a clam. Oh, and the U.S. would be thanked and lauded for ending all the gravest threats to that happy world (Nazism, Communism, etc., etc.) When they didn't get that perfect world, they became disillusioned. And when that imperfect world started blaming America for it's imperfection (something that was getting bad long before 9/11), they got good and angry, because neo-cons tend to be pretty patriotic and believers in the inherent good of America. So before 9/11, they started to sit down and meet and find out what went wrong and how to fix it. They concluded that the only way to make the world perfect and spread democracy and end the suffering of people who don't have democracy was for America to do what it had always been reluctant to do; become the world's policeman, the avenging angel of democracy and the oppressed. They did not know how they would go about doing this though. Reformiing and democratizing the Middle East and Africa, where most of the world's despotic misery lies, seemed like a losing proposition all around. Where would they begin and how would they do it? The answer of course, came on 9/11. Suddenly, the game became far more serious, because they saw that America was still not completely immune from outside threats. This wasn't something that maybe could be great if it were done, this was now something that HAD to be done. And they saw that Ameri-hate had begun to reach disturbingly high levels in many parts of the world, especially the Middle East. So, the logical place to start would be too put an end to whatever threats to American security and interests there were in the Middle East, then begin the long process of democratizing and liberalizing the region. Thus, our strikes against Afghanistan (to eliminate Al-Qaida's main bases) and Iraq (to eliminate Saddam Hussein, the only reason America maintained a military presence in the Middle East). The theory goes something like this; a stable, democratic, liberal, allied-with-America Iraq, right in the heart of the Middle East, will cause the destabilization and fall of radical Islamic govt's. in Iran and Saudi Arabia (who will soon show their true colors) and the remaining dictatorship in Syria. Then, it's domino theory in reverse; they'll all become liberal democracies. All this depends on making sure Iraq gets off the ground well though. Neo-cons only believe in freedom. Why then, are internationalists and the World Leftist Political Front so afraid of them? Simple; the neo-cons are not afraid to use brute force to achieve their dream. They learned the lesson of Hitler at Munich; dictators and insane ayatollahs understand only one thing; violence. They aren't afraid of pieces of paper, words, international agreements, weapons inspectors, or UN Resolutions. They are afraid of cruise missiles, M-1 tanks, carrier battle groups, and Marine snipers. The neo-cons reliance on and belief in force to do good work is born out of their dissillusionment with the United Nations and internationalism. Once ardent believers in both as the only way to achieve world peace and happiness, they quickly realized that the UN is nothing more than a pit of Ameri-hating vipers and self-interested politicians. When Libya can chair the International Human Rights Commission, the system ain't working like it's supposed to. So they believe now that America and the free nations of the world should take matters into their own hands, and strike down evil wherever it exists and drive it from this world once and for all. Are these realistic and achievable goals? I don't know; they are quite ambitious. Some say democratizing and liberalizing the Middle East and Africa is impossible. Of course, they said the same thing of Japan and Russia at one time. One thing is for sure; the neo-cons are tired of talking and they are tired of waiting. They want their perfect, free, and completely safe world, and they want it NOW. I know if I were a dictator, anywhere in the world, I would be very careful not to run afoul of the U.S.
Your question was not too broad. But one category you might add is "fear them." Neocons have been advocating using America's huge military superiority to take advantage of the world instead of using it for right and justice. Anyone who thinks Iraq is not largely about oil, is fooling himself/herself. We invade Iraq but leave Nigeria, the Sudan and other countries alone that abuse and murder their own citizens in much higher numbers than Saddam ever did. But oil had nothing to do with it? Yeah, sure. No other country in the world except Saudi Arabia has larger PROVEN oil reserves in the ground than Iraq does. The neocons lied to invade and conquer Iraq, and if Bush is re-elected, the lesson they will take with them into the next four years is, "we can do it again." You could wake up four years from now and find America in a state of semi-permanent occupation of one or two other countries.
Jetstorm, you are a dangerous and ignorant fanatic. We did NOT invade Iraq out of pure reasons. The "cover story" that we are on a crusade to spread democracy around the world is ludicrous. Remember that Bush actually invaded because he claimed Saddam was a dire imminent threat to attack America with bio, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and was working hand-in-hand with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida to help them do it also. Now we just wanted to "save" the oppressed Iraqis, or we are on a great mission to spread "democracy" to the world at the point of M-16s. Even if you are naive enough to believe Jetstorm's idiotic claptrap, do you actually think democracy can be forced on societies that have great majorities of people living in desperate poverty? Do you realize what kind of money it would take for America to even attempt to do such a thing? Furthermore, the claim now that the invasion of Iraq was to spread democracy is an admission that Bush lied when he told the American people why we had to go to war there. So thank you Jetstorm for admitting that your leader is a liar. We are going to be running half a trillion dollar budget deficits for the forseeable future as it is. With the neocon plan you might as well double that. And the neocons plan to do it without the help of the world, just with American taxpayers funding it. Remember, it is YOUR money these neocons plan to send to foreign countries for the next twenty years. Right wingers like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney do NOT invade countries because they want to save a bunch of Arabs. They invade countries because those countries have something they want.
