Terrorists and Neo-Cons: Two Sides of the Same Coin

The BBQ Pit
1

As I sit at my desk working for a contractor employed by a defense contractor, watching all these long-time defense industry asswhipes sucking off the American taxpayer’s tit and slapping each other’s back like they just won the fucken lotto, I often wonder why we cannot find a tall arab hiding in a cave with all the high tech weapons and surveillance equipment we have. Then it hit me…

You ever notice that in American history you always have a group that acts as boogie man? It is interesting to note that all of these boogie man groups have something in common, they are all “something-ists”

First came the Loyalists of the Revolution (Death to the British)
Then came the Papists (those Marian bastards)
After which came the Secessionists (Johnny Reb and the boys pre-Red state)
Then the Socialists (God damn the working man)
Then the Anarchists (Sacco and Vanzetti for example)
The Fascists (Hitler and the gang)
Who were replaced by the dreaded Communists (our allies before)
Who were in turn replaced by the Terrorists (Hip, hip, hooray for the British)

Now judging from all the trillions of dollars made by pitting us against the communists, don’t you think that an awful lot of people have something to gain by coming up with a convincing “ist” to pit our nation against in recent years? I’m not saying Neo-Cons and MIC (Military Industrial Complex) rigged 9/11 but do they really want to find Bin Laden now that they have him as a foil?

I mean, think about it. The MIC always needs a new boogie man. They all of a sudden have one. Politically, BU$HCO needed something against which to define itself and it got it in the Terrorists. What is their big hurry to find him or the other top terrorists? Even if they do, I think our foreign policy is making it so that we have an enemy in the Muslim world for years to come. We will be forever capturing the next #3 in the terrorists network. It is my belief that Bin Laden and the terrorists need the Neo-Cons and their buddies just as much as they need the terrorists. It seems to me that they are a symbiotic dyad that collapses once one is removed.

So the question is,** does the ideological and political impetus of the Neo-Con movement vanish once the Terrorist threat ceases to exist or vice versa? **Maybe this argument is not entirely fair but it is indeed fun to imagine the one desperately needing the other in order to function. Personally I would love to see Bin Laden dead but for some reason I do not believe this whole mess is going to be resolved soon, that is, get ready for a intergenerational conflict.

P.S. I don’t make the weapons of war at work, I’m merely subcontracted out to do tech-support for different DSL router companies. However, I really don’t like my low pay going to help support these corporate welfare shit-stains. Pray for my acceptance to law school…

2

You forgot the Freemasons. Their opposition spawned one of the most succesful minority parties in the history of the federal government.

3

Freemasonists? The pattern fails to hold in this one instance. Therefore your entire argument is ruled invalid. :wink:

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Hard for some regimes to exist without and enemy. They define themselves by their opposition to “the other”.

4

I agree with the general thrust of your OP but “no” is the answer to your specific question.

The ideological impetus of the Neo-con movement is megalomania and selfishness. Terrorism is the present bogeyman. If it didn’t exist, another would be sought.

As to “vice versa”, Muslim terrorism predates the Neo-cons, so there is no reason to think it is dependant upon them.

5

Judging from the posts I’ve seen so far, I never thought you’d be the type to suck at the public teat under the auspices of evil defense contractors. Shame on you! And shame on anyone involved in working to make our soldiers more protected! I’m truly pissed now. How could we let this happen America? :confused:

Douchebag

6

Congratulations, Highwayman. (Note that that thread preceded the election).

7

Dear Highwayman,

Please define that word you used in the OP, “neo-conservative”. I know what I mean when I use that word, but I have no idea what YOU mean when you use that word.

A short history of the neoconservative movement–from your perspective of course–would be helpful. Could you please provide one?

Thanks,
Lemur

8

It’s not just the MIC, nor is it just Bushco. Governments, both leftist and rightist, throughout history, have always needed a “them” to blame. “They” are great for rallying support at home. Did Bushco engineer 9/11? Very unlikely. Did they take advantage of it? Most certainly. It was a gift that fell right into the lap of the Pubbies. Would the Dems, had they been in power, done the same? Not in the same way, surely, but you can bet they’d have used it to their advantage somehow.

9

Right. If I recall correctly, the so-called “War on Terror” has always had, rightly or wrongly, broad-based bi-partisan support. It can be pretty persuasively argued that the “War on Terror” actually started with the failed rescue attempt of the hostages held by Khomeini in April 1980. And who was our president then and ordered this operation?

An odium; that’s the term you’re looking for. Not to be confused with odeum.

10

Yeah, the odiums. They caused all the problems. I hate them so much. I wish they’d all go back to Odia where they came from.

11

Wouldn’t that be “Odi-ists”?

12

Ah, the odia. They are an odious bunch. Do we owe them one iota of anything? Surely, at least an ode to the odia is not too onerous a task?

13

One would think.

14

Really? How? Was it an attempt to git the terr’ists, or just to rescue our people? What war was begun over it? In what way was it part of a war of liberation? May I also remind you that the Reagan administration actually provided weapons to those self-same terr’ists, while lying to Congress about it.

This concludes our special update, “UncleBeer: Liar or just moron?”
We report, you decide.

15

The choices are not exclusive.

16

I guess that would explain DeLay’s disdain for jurists.

17

Because Operation Eagle Claw was the first use of the group assembled to fight international terror and recently certified “operational” after running a series of hostage rescue exercises. That group being Delta Force. Also coming directly out of the failed rescue mission was USSOCOM, the Special Operations Command. The USSOCOM charter tasks that command with destroying international terrorism.

18

When it comes down to it, they have no ideology distinct from libertarianism or some branches of conservativism. The “Neo-Con” movement is nothing more than several intellectuals who left the Democrat party because they felt the Dems were hopelessly unrealistic andor immoral in their foreign policy. The Neo-Conservatives (originally intended as an insulting appellation by the Democrats) believe they have a hard road ahead, but believe it to be the best possible course. Quite a number of them were agnostic Jewish intellectuals.

19

I for one am quite sick of this “terrorism” boogyman. I say they won a long time ago.

20

Okay, here we go.

Lemur I hope to God that you are truly interested in knowing this because it would be a gigantic waste of my time to use the old “hoping he’s not clear on the definition” semantic argument on me. I do know a few things as I am fairly well read. However, I will leave you with a number of websites so that you may learn just want a Neoconservative is. I should clarify that a distinction should be made in the original post between the actual Neo-Con (as philosophy or history) proponents and those that use this philosophy as a blueprint for conducting foreign affairs (id est, our president and his henchmen). Notice that Wolfowitz is one of those in both categories and is an example of the philosophy manifesting itself into political reality. Originally, a neoconservative is someone who at one time could have been a liberal but for whatever reason now believes that being politically conservative is the way to go. The movement gels under the University of Chicago philosophy professor Leo Strauss. Neo-Cons seem to spring from the post Cold War paranoia of “because we are on top everyone is gunning for us”. In other words projecting power should be done ostentatiously and preemptively as a demonstration of our national will. However there is also a proviso to this cavalier attitude: The United States can wield power unilaterally but any “world” government should be viewed with suspicion. The U.N. has served our purpose when it was set up by us to condescendingly demonstrate our “one world democratically existing together” philosophy to the Soviets but is now held in contempt. Also, Neo-Cons would seem to advocate the old foreign policy device of building-up stronghold nations from which to dominate a region. Remember the Shah of Iran? Neo-Cons are different from the old traditional conservatives (who I think are more legitimate) in that they do not regard government entitlement programs with the same disdain.

So, armed with this philosophy, which is guiding our foreign affairs right now, George Bush was successful (or so it would appear) in melding this with emerging and old conservative values. You know, old thyme religion, tax cuts (albeit hypocritically), and a misguided sense of patriotism. All of which, along with taking as policy several key issues such as a pro-life stance, was able to associate himself with these “traditional” Republican values to become something electable. It’s hard for me to believe that people are that stupid to believe that the Republicans are historically the “stronger” party. It all began in Grenada I guess, the huge conflict that it was. However, the truth of the matter is that Democrats are the most bellicose. An old Republican saying was “Elect a Democrat, go to war.” Image manipulation is a powerful tool.

Now the question is if we did not have this “war” on “terrorism” would George Bush, himself guided in foreign policy by neoconservatives, cease to be electable? I know this is a moot point after the last election but humor me. Without this war would neoconservatives have an ear in which to whisper? As this is the defining aspect of the Bush presidency, does this country give a shit enough about the “culture of life” and other BS the Republicians are shoveling to elect someone like him again? Bush is what he is and that is a Republican in name but with a slightly twisted foreign policy and a love for big government. Are Bush and the neoconservatives going to define the Republican party forever afterward? It’s my bet that Republicans drop Bushie and Neos like a hot rock after 2008. I’m curious to see how it will play out.

As far as the original question is concerned I think that I have answered it. Neoconservatism is most felt in the area of foreign policy. Without an enemy, that is “terrorism”, its influence dissipates. George Bush is defined by his foreign policy and was re-elected on it. Without the terrorism and neoconservative reaction to it, Bush really doesn’t have anything remarkable about his presidency unless you consider his “reform” of Social Security a triumph. I think that the tougher question is whether terrorism continues without Bush and the Neo-Cons? How intertwined is the neo-conservative outlook with globalism?

Lemur866, I hope this answers your question and is informative.

As far as me being a douche, I think that a douche goes someplace nice and I do not consider my work someplace nice.

And another thing, I am pro-America in every way that you could possibly comprehend. The enemy of my country is my enemy. I am from the American warrior caste (if there ever was one), as a direct relative of mine has been in every American war. The men and women in green are my heroes because, for whatever reasons politicians send them to war it is of no consequence. The men and women who wear the uniform go for one reason only and that is to protect our freedom.