A NeoCon(servative)ic View of the State of the World

Great Debates
21

It’s amazing to me that people like you not only have the ability to work a modern computer (it’s probably an Apple though since the chaos of a ‘right’ click probably eludes you), but that you are allowed to vote and drive a car.

Hussein slaughted tens of thousands, SLAUGHTERED TENS OF THOUSANDS, with poison gas. Just read a page of what Iraq was like. I picked that one randomly. Pick any other one, I dare you. And tell me that this a-hole deserved anything more than ANY reasonable person would wish upon him.

I’ll agree with anyone that claims that GW’s of “imminent threat” are bogus if they’ll admit that this f-cker had to be taken down on humanitarian causes.

Seriously, are you really that anti-Republican that you would have allowed those atrocities to continue under some guise of “internal sovereignty”. Would you really think that the French and Germans (who were bankrolling his government) after 50 years of pseudo-democracy really know what it means to be free?

CRIMINY!!!

22

Here’s a goodern: Neoconservatism Wikipedia

and the Neo Con quiz

23

I’m still trying to figure out what 1stChristian meant when s/he said “the duty of same to spread its gospel”. What is the gospel?

24

What!? Pseudo-democracy?

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

25

This is a strikingly odd bit of rhetoric. The implication is that there’re some conditions where you would not agree abut what kind of threat Iraq was presented as.
Personally, I don’t think that “had” as in “this f-cker had to be taken down on humanitarian causes,” is appropriate. Should may be a better word. “Had” certainly is not the right pne. Obviously, since Husseins brutality was not an abrupt, overnight development, the US and the rest of the world was able to muddle through despite hussein’s grip on power.
Should may be a better word.
However, old fashioned and conservative as I am, I’m of the bent that there should be compelling national interests before we engage in gargantuan, military, foreign policy ventures. The old fashioned streak in me finds moral outrage to be a quaint but insufficient motivation to guide the ship of state.
Much of Hussein’s atrocities were perpetrated with US knowledge and oblique support. Our executive branch cut corners and looke the other way to provide the means to acquire arms, loan guarantees, precursors to chemical weapons and other Christmas goodies. So the idea that Husseins atrocities somehow make it so that the US “had” to take him down seems oversimplistic analysis. YM obviously, V.

If you don’t like vanilla then you must love chocolate, no?

Oddly enough, despite what you may’ve heard, there were more than these two otions available to the US. It is a false notion that the only two choices available to the the World’s hyperpower were either go into Iraq the way that we did or to allow "those atrocities to continue under some guise of “internal sovereignty”. "

26

I started a response to James Carroll but on preview…

…what SimonX said.

27

Cynic, now really, honest, don’t you hear, read, see it, when every statement from those fundamentalists, i.e., al-Qaeda et al states the same thing: crush the christian crusaders? How they, here, in USA, and in their countries, preach openly not to allow any ‘western foreigner’ in their places? You really wanna tell me you don’t know about this? What more do you need? An official declaration of war? Which BTW, is there for you to read in any of Osama’s et al speeches/preachings.

presidebt, gospel and duty - the honorable duty to spread the word about positive principles, in this case, those of democracy.

28

Al Qaeda != Islam.

Please provide some evidence that the world religion of Islam, as a whole, was either responisble for 9/11 or that all Muslims have ever concertedly declared war on the west.

This really isn’t even worthy of debate.

How can a religion declare a war anyway? Maybe you should define what you mean by Islam.

How would you go about “spreading the word” of democracy, btw? And what if someone doesn’t want to hear it?

29

I said ‘the fundamentalists’. But, it’s quite clear that it’s catching fire w many out there, so much so, that Pakistan forbade inciting preaching in the madrasa(s) (the religious Islamic schools in the country).

spreading the word on dem - well, it happens now in Afganistan and Iraq. Some are taking heed and some, not. The ones who do, are in the majority and at the helm of the country, the others are insurgents, just like the Oklahoma boy or the others like him, here. Did I mention the fall of the Communist regimes? Isn’t that a clear cut ex. of the power of preaching dem? In Prag, then, in 1990, I believe, people stood in the main sq and just shook their car keyes. The gov resigned in days. Now they have a dem there, after what is remembered now as the “Velvet Revolution”. More ex’s? No need, I think.

Do you think that it’s lost on them that in a dem women vote and work and travel and have fun outside their homes, w/o the veil on their faces? That girls go to school, once forbidden in Afganistan? I think not.

30

**No, the difference was whether the US had proven Hussein to be a credible threat to the US. They had not. The UN needed to see some real evidence that Hussein had the abilty to hurt the US in order to authorize Bush’s cowboy games. No such evidence was forthcoming and no such threat ever existed.
**

No, the UN required the US to show that Iraq was not cooperating with 1441, thus invoking the “serious consequences” clause. The US did demonstrate this, or more accurately Hans Blix did, but then France and Germany didn’t want to invoke the “serious consequences”. Perhaps if they had been willing to define the consequences they could have backed the US into a corner, but they decided instead to take a totally unhelpful stance of appeasement, thus making a mockery of 1441. They further demonstrated their idiocy by recommending an alternative plan that involved UN peacekeepers instead of a US invasion. When Iraq rejected the plan, France dutifully withdrew it.

**Europe was right that Bush had failed to prove that Iraq was an imminent threat.
**

I don’t recall Europe ever asking Bush to prove this, and furthermore I haven’t heard any European statesman want it proven now. This “imminent threat” meme is mainly the hobgoblin of leftist American minds.

It didn’t matter that Hussein was a bad guy.

It mattered that Milosevic was a bad guy, it mattered that Noriega was a bad guy, it should have mattered that there were some pretty bad guys in Rwanda. This idea of yours that taking out genocidal tyrants is not justified may be in accordance with international law, but not with any kind of morality as I know it.

The same applies to non-democracies as well, btw.

To the extent that a non-democracy is really just the ruling elite defending themselves, not the people. The people are victimized the same whether by a foreign invasion or by the leaders that were forced on them.

**The “Prime Directive” which the US has already agreed to is that no aggressive acts shall be committed against the sovereignty of any other nation except in self-defense. This “pact” was ratified by Congress and therefore represents the will of the people within this democracy.
**

It represents law, but I would daresay it does not represent the will of the people. Public opinion is generally overwhelmingly against any restraints on US actions or policies that are not imposed by our own government. And as has been pointed out on another thread. International law is just like any domestic statute: it can be overridden by simple majority vote in Congress.
Which it was in the case of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and the war resolution of 2002.

Oddly enough, despite what you may’ve heard, there were more than these two otions available to the US. It is a false notion that the only two choices available to the the World’s hyperpower were either go into Iraq the way that we did or to allow "those atrocities to continue under some guise of “internal sovereignty”. "

Actually, those were the only two choices. There was no way Hussein’s savagery towards Iraqis would end without an invasion by some foreign force. What do you think of the no-fly zones? Operation Provide Comfort? Invasions of Hussein’s sovereign territory, violations of international law? Probably. But no one in their right mind could protest these efforts that saved thousands of non-Sunni Iraqis.

31

It should be clear as daylight and as logical as 1 + 1 = 2, that the Prime Directive isn’t worth the paper on it is written, or the oxigen spent uttering it. It may be a good policy w apes, not w humans.
The ones who endorse it as a positive policy here and now, are totally mistaken. They show insensitiveness and utterly lack compassion, a forgotten art w the libs.
What their position implies, is, “Look at the sufferings and the oppression and the corruption, all on the back of innocent people, and do nothing!”
Why?
B/c “You do not interfere”, no matter how loud the screams of the tortured, how faint the growls of the hungry and how deep the implorings of the oppressed, men, women and chilfren.

32

The stated reason for the invasion was imminent threat via WMDs. Any alleged violations by Iraq of UN Resoloutions are for the UN to deal with as a complete body, not for the US. Bush is not the sheriff and he does not havethe authority to unilaterally (and arbitrarily) go around enforcing resolutions whenever it serves his political purposes. It’s also contradictory to try to enforce UN Resolutions (which is NOT what Bush said he was doing…that was just an extra piece of shit he threw at the wall that didn’t stick) by violating the UN Charter.

Either the US is going to recognize the UN as an authoritative body or it isn’t. We can’t say that Iraq has to conform to UN authority but the US doesn’t.

But hey, if we’re going to be enforcers for the UN, then shouldn’t we be invading Israel?

33

Would you support the forced removal of illegal Israeli settlements from Palestinian land?

34

No, It was clear that those such as George Bush the father, myself, Scocroft and a number of others repeatedly pointed out that we could’ve instigated regime change in manners other than what we did.
Since there’s at least one other option, to say that no other options exist isn’t truthful.

FWIW, I believe that the bulk of and the worst of Hussein’s atrocities occurred during GHWB’s and Reagan’s admins. The sanctions, no fly zones and inspections did have effects on the Iraqi Baathist regime.

35

It would seem that since the Taleban, the Mujahedin, and Qaeda all recieved the beneits of Pakistan’s intel sevices. Pakistans ISI helped fund and found the Taleban and helped funnel funds, arms, training and equipment to those who’d become Qaeda.

Since the connection between the “fundamentalism” that you mention goes back in history for more than a decade, it would seem that the more recent development, that “Pakistan forbade inciting preaching in the madrasa(s)”, is not a sign that " it’s catching fire w many out there", rather that it’s being dampened in its former hot bed.

No, it isn’t clear cut. A number of historians want to discuss things like military and diplomatic efforts, economics and various realpolitik endeavors. Some of these historians feel that these more easily identifiable actions and processes had signifigant effect.
If the “power of preaching dem” is defined broadly enough then one could include any number of affairs under its umbrella. Of course this is true of many overly broadly defined phrases.

That was quite something. Too bad this example hasn’t been followed more often in the world.

It’s not at all clear how democracy is related to these social choices.

36

I found the term confusing at first too. Now I just dislike it. It seems odd to me that people may have turned to “conservativism” before I was born, but still have the neo stuck in front of them, while I’m just a conservative since I was never a socalist (or liberal etc) even though I’ve only been old enough to vote since 1996. There has to be a better qualifier than one meaning “new” to explain their views… I wonder what the latin term for “to turn to” is.

37

According to this document, U.S. Constitution Article VI, it does seem that all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
IANAL, nor a Supreme Court Justice, but it seems to me that the intent here is that hefty considerations should be weighed when choosing what treaties we ratify. It also seems to me that the intent shown in the US Constitution is that the treaties that we have made as a nation are serious matters. It’s like a way of codifying the idea that America’s word is its bond.
Given these, I say that whatever treaties we’ve entered into, as the supreme law of the land, are worth more than the paper they are written on, and the oxygen spent uttering them.
YMMV.

I see that one can make this inference. I’m not so sure that there’s an implication along the lines of what you stated, though.

The endorsement is in terms of honoring our country’s word, bond and laws. Even though you may disagree with the importance of honoring these assets of American credibility in these specific ways and instances, surely you do advocate rendering our obligations to any newly onerous treaties null and void through due process of law rather than through a strategy of disregard, correct?

This is part of the reason why the Iraq war was endorsed in terms of the threat to the US from Iraq.

If Iraq was an imminent threat to the US then the war is not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of "preemption “Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike.”

As we all know, “For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.”

IMHO, one could make the case that the need to “adapt the concept of imminent threat” as laid out in the National Security Strategy Chapter V*, led to the actual adaptation the “concept of imminent threat,” in the national security strategy of the USA to include the threat presented by “rogue states and terrorists” and thus a change in what qualifies as preemption.
If Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US then the war may’ve been an example of a “preventive war”. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."

(Or did you, (1stChristian), just whooshed me, skip the metaphor and begin to talk about Star Trek instead?)
** elfkin477**, Greek tropo is used sometimes. But wold you call them tropo-cons or tropo-libs?

*(“We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries [,“rogue states and terrorist”]”)

38

Cynic, now this would be a debate: if the settlements are legal or not. B/c I think they are legal. This land is Israeli by definition.
I know you’ll laugh at that, but for me and many others it’s true and valid. I’d be grateful if you could just consider it.
The people were exiled, but they never, never forgot their birthplace, their homeland. Not turning it into a religious issue, which I loath regarding this sub, just to make the pt that they never forgot it, the Jews in every morning prayer, for 2k yrs, daily said, in every place they lived: “If I forget thee, Jerusalem, may my right be forgotten”. Who can say now that the Jews forsook their ancestral homeland? No one! One may say that this is rendered invalid, utterly valueless, but no one can deny the tie between the Jewish nation and the land of Israel, aka Palestine. Now here’s an argument which the willing will consider. Not in vain does Arafat in his insolence express his belief and confidence that the Jews were never there and that the Temple Mount was never Jewish. He knows perfectly well where the right right stands and w whom.

Simon, I am aware it sounds paradoxical, but laws are man made. When things go wrong, they can be changed and this, indeed, is the duty of sensible people. You’ll agree w this. Now, the NeoCons state that instead of being polite and die, be resolute and live. I’d say that democracies, now, are deep in this dilema. America solved it by being resolute and impolite, when faced w “Be nice and die or be resolute and live”. I applaud it and fully agree w it. The dilema of course, is presented by the danger of the terrorists, drug kingpins, rogue states and, we’ll live to see it, cesessionists of every kind and size. This dilema is a nightmare which the futurists say will be w us for the next 2-3 hund’s of yrs.
This is a clear and imminent danger. What do you suggest? To wait until the law has its say? I would die for it, honestly and sincerely, but I’m afraid I’ll die before it. I for one, chose.

Never confuse Love w Like. I may not like you, but I love you. You're my neighbor.
39

By WHAT definition. Because you can steal something, that makes it yours?

Ancient history is ancient history. It’s irrelevant now. The Israelis agreed to defined borders for their new “homeland” and they violated that agreement. Ancient history cannot justify bulldozing Palestinans off of land that is rightfully theirs.

By your logic, American Indians would have a right to recalim the entire US by violence. Those settlements in israel are illegal and they are despicable. Even most Israelis think they have to be removed. They certainly do not deserve protection from the Israeli miltary.

How can a mountain be Jewish?

It doesn’t matter who controlled it 2000 years ago. That was then, this is now. Ancient claims mean nothing. Everybody doesn’t get to go back and occupy whatever piece of land their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago. What an absurd idea.

It may also interest you to know that the archaeological evidence shows that there was no time in history when all of Palestine was a wholly Jewish state. The united kingdom of David and Solomon is mythology not history.

40

Mythology for you, Cynic, History for me. And I bake my cakes and make my bed from the History I know and live for.
Steal? We? The Jews/Israelis? From whom? From ourselves? Then we are not guilty of anything.
What you do know about the Palestinians and how they ever got there? What do you know about the sufferings of the Jews? What do you know about being persecuted b/c you are just what you are? Nothing!! Y o u know n o t h i n g!! So just step aside and let the ones affected to decide for themselves and just don’t, ever, interfere. Don’t impose ideas born out of sheer ignorance about the subject matter on the ones affected by it. This is pure and clear arrogance, something, I assume, you are so basically against. Admit it and leave honorably.

Never confuse Love w Like. I may not like you, but I love you. You're my neighbor.