That’s a better answer than “it’s the right thing to do”. Still nonsense obviously and not responsive to my question, which as a reminder focussed on:
Still though, I’m merely asking and summarizing, not debating. More or less. I’m not the one with insights into the neo-con mind.
And here we see a prime example of what led to the much publicized recent intelligence failures…someone reading an explanation and seeing only what they want to see.
Did you even read the rest of my post, sevastopol? The US didn’t send any aid to Israel until Carter’s Camp David peace agreement. We now send them aid as a result of that peace agreement.
As for why neocons attach a special level of importance to Israel, I have to ask the same question of you. Why does Israel loom so large in your mind? Why do you nurture this special dislike of Israel as opposed to, say, Burma?
Foreign policy doesn’t get written and re-written in a vacuum, using only today’s cost-benefit calculations. There is a historical component to it. And a human component to it. The US has closer ties with Canada than with Mexico. Why is that, do you think? Could it be our (mostly) shared language, culture, and history? Why is it so surprising and revolting to you that Jewish people feel a similar tie to Israel?
And do you even check to see if facts exist before just pulling them out your ass? Why take part in a debate if all you are going to do is spout misinformation?
Ironically, this is the #1 reason given for antipathy to the US- US foreign policy, specifically foreign policy re Israel.
It’s dramatic irony that you’d say, “…I don’t know that supporting Israel does hurt us that much.”
This antipathy toward the US isn’t really because these countries “don’t tend to be liberal democracies.”
The US is friendly (a little too friendly IMHO) with a number of countries that do not “tend to be liberal democracies.” This demonstrates that the lack of a tendency toward liberal democracy does not always correspond with a country or region not ‘liking us anyway.’
Since there’s not even a sure correspondence, it seems unlikely that it’s meaningful or useful to ascribe ME antipathy toward the US to a lack of this tendency toward liberal democracy.
On the contrary, those who actually make up the ME cite American foreign policy as the source of their antipathy.
Perhaps you are right about their motivations and they are wrong.
Generally, though, the relations between countries proceed based on the intersts of the governments in question rather than on the basis of the exisence of tendencies toward liberal democracy. The idea of this sort of litmus test havuing much influence international politics is overly simplistic, unrealistic and unrealist.
Again, do you have a reason why we shouldn’t support Israel? Do you think we should support someone else? Should we support no-one? What alternatives do you propose?
Many people are blinded by party labels into lumping people together which really don’t fit. Much of the root of the division between old-line conservatives and the neos is that the latter don’t think in terms of immediate, concrete benefit to the US; rather they think in rather idealistic terms about using American power to advance democracy and freedom.
It is very idealistic and, one could argue, tremendously naive. In fact, I for one would say that.
But it seems like many on the left are unwilling to even allow good motives, and instead insist with an infantile mania that anyone with an R after their name is evil. Or Jewish, which is worse.
I thought I new what a neocon was before reading this thread. I thought I’d go to t the dictionary, look up neocon, and it would read “see Bush, George W.” Now I’m not sure. Now I want to know exactly what the definition of a neocon is and what are the core values. What differentiates neocons from traditional conservatives? What on earth are paleocons? Are there neandercons?
Why? Are American neocons go-it-alone unilateralists? If so, why do they think that way? In this modern world, what could be stupider than that kind of thinking? Seems they have more in common than I thought with moronic paleocons like Buchanan (who wants the U.S. to pull out of the UN entirely).
How do you get ‘go-it-alone unilateralist’ from ‘The administration wouldn’t have worried so much about getting UN approval’? Those two things aren’t the same, BG. One means we WANT to go it alone with no help…the other means that if we are balked by the UN we will make our own decision and see who else we can get on board with us. They don’t equate.
As to equating Buchanan and the isolationists with neocons, thats nuts…they are almost exact opposites (as opposite as you can be and still be in the same ‘party’), at least from a foreign policy perspective. Buchanan and the isolationists want us to withdraw from the UN and ALSO from pretty much the world. They want us to go back to a pre-WWI US foriegn policy of strict neutrality and let the world take care of itself. No more over seas troops, no more monetary handouts to other nations, no more involvement of the US in anything but trade.
Neocons want just the opposite…they want to use US power (military and economic) and influence to make the US stronger and the help establish and nurture democracies in other countries. They feel (at least I THINK they do) that democracy is the ultimate stabalizer for peace in the world and its there goal to spread it (forcefully if necessary) throughout the world. Those two things are almost exactly opposite.
In addition, as has already been stated, the (purist) neocons aren’t as concerned with the paleocon ‘traditional’ quasi-religious/moralistic issues, nor are they adverse to things like larger government or deficits…they aren’t fiscal conservatives in other words. Of course, the actual people who are labled ‘neocon’ are just that…people…and they cross between the various lines depending on the issues. I have no idea exactly what GW is, but he’s certainly not a neocon in the strict sense. He’s more like a paleocon (at least in the quasi-religious/moral issues) who has some neocon issues as well (and he’s certainly no fiscal conservative by any measure).
-XT
The wikipedia entry was linked earlier in the thread.
A difference in degree, x, not in kind. The one is the first step down the path to the other – and the Bush Admin has already leaped over all those intermediate steps and committed us to a full-speed-ahead unilateralist fuck-the-world foreign policy. Are you suggesting that this, too, is not genuine neocon thinking?
I know that, x, I was using hyperbole to make my point. And what makes you think neocons and paleocons are still in the same party? Are you aware that Pat Buchanan has turned his back on the Pubbies and started his own America First Party? It’s marginal for now, but if Bush gets another four years, I think he can expect to see a lot of his party’s paleocon base draining off in Buchanan’s direction.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Is “neoconservative” a term that people self-identify with, or more of a term that some people use to label other people with whom they disagree? Is there a “neocon” newsletter, periodical or some sort of association that puts out position papers? Who gets to decide what a neocon policy is and, for that matter, who can wear the label “neocon”?
Oh, really? Since occupying Iraq, the Bush Admin has shut down at least one leading dissident newspaper; rejected demands that the Interim Government be an elected one, and installed a government of what amount to U.S. appointees which obviously lacks any legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people; and awarded no-bid sweetheard reconstruction contracts to Halliburton, etc. – contracts which the Interim Government and any succeeding government are expressly barred from repudiating or altering. That’s not “free-market” economic policies, it’s economic imperialism, plain and simple.
Now, you might deny that the Bush team is a “real” neocon administration, and maybe it isn’t. But I haven’t heard of Bill Kristol or any other leading neocon thinker publicly criticizing any of these abominable, dishonest, and anti-democratic decisions. You know something I don’t?
Good example! Now please tell us why the neocons are right on this point and the business conservatives are wrong. Do you really think U.S. economic pressure would get the stubborn Chinese government to yield on any of these points?
(Bill Clinton also said the U.S. should sanction China – when he was running for president in 1992. And then when he became president he reversed his position. I’ve always wondered why.)
Apparently, some embrace the label, some reject it. From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)):
Well, I’m no conservative (either paleo or neo…possibly fiscal, but thats another matter) so I can’t speak for them, but no, I don’t think that Bush’s policies were necessarily neocon policies or ‘genuine neocon thinking’. Certainly I don’t think the execution was what the neocons would call ideal.
Also, I think you are playing up the unilateralist aspects too much. The Bush administration did make at least a token effort (and I think actually more than just a token effort) to enlist the UN and get it on board before we invaded Iraq. A true unilateralist wouldn’t have even bothered. In addition, its not like we went it alone even after they failed to get the UN on board. Again, not the action of a unilateralist IMO. More like hard core pragmatism. They tried to get the UN et al on board, failed, and moved on with whoever WOULD join.
Hyperbole is always difficult for me to detect for various reasons I won’t go into. As far as party goes, I DO think that the majority of the paleo-cons are still onboard with the Republican party…a party supposedly currently controlled by the neocon faction. So, that would make them ‘both in the same party’. There really isn’t a viable alternative 3rd party for the quasi-religious/moralist paleo’s out there that I’m aware of (America First Party isn’t anywhere close to a ‘viable alternative’ as its barely on the radar), so they are kind of stuck with the Republicans, even if the party has de-emphasized them recently.
Yes, I’m well aware that Buchanan split from the 'Pubs and established his own party. There was quite a bit about that in the past election, especially in Florida, no? 
However, I think the majority of the paleocons (and even the isolationists which is really another subfaction separate from the others) are still in the Republican party. I don’t see the America First Party draining off significant numbers of either paleo or isolationist conservatives to be honest…certainly nothing like Naders draining off of left wing conservationists anyway.
THis all might chance as the Republicans continue to de-emphasize (and rightly so IMO) the quasi-religious/moralist positions near and dear to the paleocon crowd, but so far a major Nader type splinter faction hasn’t really emerged that is going to draw enough of them off to make a real difference. Perhaps someday…but not this election. Then again, perhaps someday a non-nutball Ross Perot will emerge and sieze the center from BOTH parties and spank them hard. I can dream anyway…
-XT
Buchanan ran on the Reform Party ticket in 2000 (essentially, he used Perot’s centralizing rules to hijack it), and founded the America First Party afterwards.
Glad I could amuse you anyway with my ‘pragmatic’ comment. 
Well, ok…I stand corrected in the details, I wasn’t really thinking about this too hard. Buchanan in fact left the party with his following to join Ross Perot’s old party and get their nomination. Doesn’t change what I was saying. He didn’t really draw off a significant number from the Republicans last time, nor is he likely too this time…I’ve hardly even heard anything about him and his party this time in fact. Certainly less than Nader.
-XT
No, he isn’t. But we haven’t heard the last of him. Wait until 2008.
BTW, the Wikipedia also provides a list of prominent neoconservatives (so-called):
And a list of prominent neocon institutions and publications:
Does anyone on this thread care to dispute the classification of any of these persons, think-tanks or publications as “neoconservative”? If so, please explain your reasoning.
The error is truly named, but it’s your error. Your explanation was largely why the US has a history of military aid to that part of the world. My question on the other hand, was directed to the large increment in importance the neo-cons peculiarly assign. My summary then, included only that part of your answer which was relevant to the question.
It’s not me that raises the issue. Observe Capt A’s early posts in this thread. Does he or she refer to support for Taiwan, the Balkan republics or Panama as a pillar of neo-con faith? Likewise which country merits a heading in Wikipedia’s entry on neo-cons?
Minds are moved to inquiry. There’s nothing rancorous about it.
We aren’t concerned with ethnic ties. We are concerned with paid officials of the US administration charged with forming foreign policy. One might expect that the only principle is to better the condition of the United States. In the case of the neo-cons, it’s hard to reconcile the ideology with that principle.
I would your grace would take me with you: whom means your grace?
Anon, hasn’t it been a selling point of the Right that they are comfortable doing evil? The other interesting debate on this forum (if I may be so bold) talks of new Bush voters. What it intimates, is that the man is unafraid to act as if the struggle is for dominance between Christian world and Muslim. The oppresive weight of Liberal Media means he cannot articulate the view publicly. But people know what he means. The D’s by contrast are mired in moral distinctions, nuances of culpability and by nicety of conscience, cannot act like they should to show who’s boss.
Substantiating quotes:
Irony:
Captain Amazing’s response to Wikipedia: I think it’s reasonably accurate
And:
Are you suggesting, sevastopol, that some Americans who did not vote for Bush in 2000 will vote for him this year, because they see him as leading a Christian crusade against Islam and they are so insane as to welcome that?
If so, who are these “new Bush voters”? Christian conservatives? I think Bush got most of that vote in 2000.