US Neoconservitism

The Corinthian

Very interesting and slightly disturbing (for one such as I who is not a citizen of the Empire) feature on the Neoconservitive movement and agenda in the USA.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

What do neoconservatives believe?

"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

That the man widely considered its "godfather" was originally a Trotskyite is actually quite amusing. A bright future for young Éomer here then

mike65

That the man widely considered its "godfather" was originally a Trotskyite is actually quite amusing.

I've heard it said before that a number of leading neo-cons are ex Trots, it seems the gap between far left and far right is very narrow indeed.

Mike.

TomF

http://www.memefirst.com/000004.html#more

Look at this page for a hilarious report on a public interview of Paul Wolfowitz, US Deputy Secretary of Defense and (shock, horror) reputed neo-conservative.

It reads to me as though many of the frequent posters on this board could have been in the audience: "The audience, beside itself, forgets how to form even simple sentences with verbs and instead lets out single-word yelps such as Pinochet, Palestine, Rwanda, Oil, Imperialist, napalm and sweatshops. Like a bunch of five-year-olds with lisps, they hiss every time Wolfowitz’s name is mentioned."

The Corinthian

Originally posted by TomF
It reads to me as though many of the frequent posters on this board could have been in the audience

The same could be argued for many of the neoconservitive supporters who are frequent posters on this board. Seeing though as you’ve brought up the topic of ‘useful idiots’...

Were I an American, I would quite probably be neoconservitive. Of course I’m not, I’m a European, and so to support a doctrine of apparent supremacy by a foreign power, from which I am almost completely disfranchised from, would make little sense to me. So, why do some Europeans do exactly that?

Harold Macmillan’s old advice that we should "be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans", when discussing the rise of post-War American power, seems to have been taken to heart by some to a level where there seems to be a blind faith in the actions and motives of the US. And why not, after all? They did see us right in World War II (depending on which side you were on that is) and the Cold War (again, depending on which side you were on). Surely they have everyone’s best interests at heart.

But nonetheless, I can’t shake that feeling that many of these ‘wise Greeks’ would be better described as ‘new Puerto Ricans’...

PH01

I'd put those Neo-cons and Al Qaeda folks in the same boat. I'd make sure to sink it or blow it up so the world would be a better place.

sovtek

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Were I an American, I would quite probably be neoconservitive. Of course I’m not, I’m a European, and so to support a doctrine of apparent supremacy by a foreign power, from which I am almost completely disfranchised from, would make little sense to me. So, why do some Europeans do exactly that?

The only Americans neoconservatives cater to are a small minority of wealthy sociopaths. The Europeans that go along with this might be explained by the ever present human tendency to suck up to power.

sovtek

Originally posted by TomF
http://www.memefirst.com/000004.html#more

Look at this page for a hilarious report on a public interview of Paul Wolfowitz, US Deputy Secretary of Defense and (shock, horror) reputed neo-conservative.

It reads to me as though many of the frequent posters on this board could have been in the audience: "The audience, beside itself, forgets how to form even simple sentences with verbs and instead lets out single-word yelps such as Pinochet, Palestine, Rwanda, Oil, Imperialist, napalm and sweatshops. Like a bunch of five-year-olds with lisps, they hiss every time Wolfowitz’s name is mentioned."

One thing I noticed about that very objective peice is that after deriding the protestors ad naseum the author then failed to even paraphrase questions from the audience.

Sand

I thought the authors treatment of the audience was hilarious - lefties have so much bile for the likes of Bush and co that they do often lose coherent thought in their outpourings of hatred:)

Reading up on the neo-cons its interesting to see what their actual policy is behind the "Neo-Nazis" hate. Whats wrong with a superpower like the US actively encouraging democratic reform of tyrannical states, confronting potential enemies with pre-emptive strikes before they become a serious problem - one of the Neo-Con lads being interviewed there said that in the war on terrorism milatary operations must go hand in hand with bringing about an end to oppressive regimes in the middle east and further afield, fighting terrorism whilst also removing its causes. Who disagrees with that?

Probably the biggest indicator is that a Neo-Con would have used milatary force to prevent the massacre at Srebinica. The UN let it occur.

And people ask why anyone who isnt American wouldnt have a problem with neocon idealogy.

P.S. I took that little quiz they had to determine whether your political views were in sync with neo conservatism - Good news, Im not ( I was never a left winger to begin with so I guess thats the cause ), Im a realist ( always knew it myself:p ).

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
I thought the authors treatment of the audience was hilarious - lefties have so much bile for the likes of Bush and co that they do often lose coherent thought in their outpourings of hatred:)

Some do, on the other hand you should see/hear some of the hateful bile and agression when someone speaks out against Bush or the war in my home town.
One reason you might have this well balanced viewpoint on liberals is reading alot of peices like the one mentioned above.

Reading up on the neo-cons its interesting to see what their actual policy is behind the "Neo-Nazis" hate.

I'd hazard a guess that Zionist hate is ok by them.

Whats wrong with a superpower like the US actively encouraging democratic reform of tyrannical states, confronting potential enemies with pre-emptive strikes before they become a serious problem - one of the Neo-Con lads being interviewed there said that in the war on terrorism milatary operations must go hand in hand with bringing about an end to oppressive regimes in the middle east and further afield, fighting terrorism whilst also removing its causes. Who disagrees with that?

I need only to point out neocon opinion regarding Israel to show the blatant hypocrisy in their so called strategy.
Then you have the obvious inent of reaping benefits from Iraqi natural resources and state owned entities.

Probably the biggest indicator is that a Neo-Con would have used milatary force to prevent the massacre at Srebinica.

I guess they just weren't aware of the massacres in the DRC for the past 5 years.
How gung ho they were to send troops to Liberia.
Then there's the neo cons who were quite happy to do business with Saddam in the first place.
When you look at the regimes neocons decry, they often have supported them sometime in the past.

The UN let it occur.

And people ask why anyone who isnt American wouldnt have a problem with neocon idealogy.

US intelligence and NATO are also implicated in that little incident

bloggs

Many neo-cons are fundamentist christians, and regard Islam as evil. They also regard the Israelis as almost American, so if they are going to take sides it you can get who it will be with. I think the situation of neocons and Israelis running America (which i think is the current setup) a very worrrying regime.:(

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
fighting terrorism whilst also removing its causes. Who disagrees with that?

Quite a lot of people actually. The net terrorist activity in the world has been increasnig steadily since the attacks of September 11th and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Indeed, other than the NeoCons assertion, there seems to be little to no evidence that what they want to remove are the causes of terrorism.

Indeed, many people have tended instead to side with the belief that the US aggression will lead to even more terrorism.

Not only that, but the logic isn't even applied evenhandedly. Most of the connections from September 11th point a fniger firmly bask towards Saudia Arabia being a source of money and people for terrorism, and yet Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked as the "source".

At the same time, Pakistan went from being a rogue nation ruled by a tyrant to being a friend and close ally of the US, simply by agreeing to co-operate in helping them stomp Afghanistan.

So exactly what makes a "root cause" for the NeoCons? It reads more to me that a root cause is "anyone who's a thorn in the side of the US, and who's small enough to actually beat".

What evidence do they even have that these root causes are indeed whats behind it all? (Let me guess - its 100% certain, but they can't show it to us....again).

I agree fully that the root causes of terrorism need to be tackled. I agree fully that terrorism must be dealt with.

I disagree with the neocon assessment that its dictators, tyrants, and religious extremists who entirely make up these root causes, and would further question the methods in which they choose to deal with these (and terrorism in general) as well as the manner in which they choose which tyrants are allies and which are "causes".


jc

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand
Whats wrong with a superpower like the US actively encouraging democratic reform of tyrannical states

September 11th 1973. Go look it up. And as for that statement, well, the joke is on you my friend if you believe that.

The Beer Baron

Harold Macmillan’s old advice that we should "be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans", when discussing the rise of post-War American power, seems to have been taken to heart by some to a level where there seems to be a blind faith in the actions and motives of the US

Echomadman was saying that to me recently- re the Old Europe rhetoric- this is no doubt the exact same thing Greece was saying about Rome way back when.

I know a meme when I see one- and while I'm anti-US foreign policy I have to admit that the Eurocrats that decry it too are no better.

as for that Wolfowitz article I think the writer was perfectly justified in pummeling the "beardie lefties" with prose.
I do so detest those Ché Guevara t-shirt sorts, who as the article said, decided to invoke Godwin's Law and had nothing better to contribute than shouting "Seig Heil!", "Nazi!" "Hate Crimes!" "You big bad meanie who clubs baby seals!"
Having a lot of leftist leanings (then again I also have fascist leanings but n'mind that) I find such "protest" entirely counterproductive. I'm sure to someone like Éomar such people make his blood boil.

In other words- to the author I totally endose his stance on these "nitwits" - givvem hell!

At the same time, Pakistan went from being a rogue nation ruled by a tyrant to being a friend and close ally of the US, simply by agreeing to co-operate in helping them stomp Afghanistan.

How long to do you give that one?
US is, AFAIK, totally out of Saudi Arabia now and has begun complete militarisation of Iraq with UN barking at their heals.
Now the talk is of Syria (a threat to both a US-held Iraq and Israel) and Iranian nukes- nukes which were built with or supplied by Pakistan.

US is at war with Pakistania.
Us was never at war with Afghanistania.

Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia- is one of the major AL Q host-nations.
Plus it's one that's KNOWN to have a nuclear arsenal.
Meanwhile China seem to be playing the US at its own game, arming both Pakistan and India with fighters and teasing them with the prospect of alliances.

Sitting on the fence it seems.
And no doubt looking @ the North Korea situation closely...
...sh1te! I sound liek a Neocon now!
:eek:

Ajnag

Sand your argument is not all that different from the colonist arguments from the turn of the century.Basicly what your saying circa 1800 would essentially be that British exploitation of Ireland was ok on the basis that they said back then as it is now by the more extreme neo-cons ;supposedly civilising us Irish savages.Realist? lol

oh yeah and I must point out the excellent work in afghanistan, One oil pipeline, a few thousand dead civilians, only kabul is secure while the rest of afghanistan is going to ****, yea the neo-cons sure have provided a bright democratic terrorist free and secure country.Oh and as for saddam, wmd and osama umm yeah... they got them real good :rolleyes:

Éomer of Rohan

And to those who would invoke Harold MacMillan and his quote I have this to say. 146 BC. Go and look up what happened to the Greeks because of their involvement with Rome. You want to make comparisons - compare THAT.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from the Beer Baron
I do so detest those Ché Guevara t-shirt sorts, who as the article said, decided to invoke Godwin's Law and had nothing better to contribute than shouting "Seig Heil!", "Nazi!" "Hate Crimes!" "You big bad meanie who clubs baby seals!"

I agree with Godwin's law at least - and that particular invocation is something over which BOTH left and right are as guilty as one another.

As for the clichéd Che Guevara t-shirts et al....he was a bloody Stalinist and a failed, incompetent revolutionary - anyone who goes around wearing such a t shirt is either politically ignorant and pretentious or just thick.

There are many ways to make a point - and one of them is protest. There are just as many ignorant people on the left as there are on the right - they just have different ways of showing it. For example, those on the right go into politics and end up getting appointed to important positions and those on the left try writing for the Guardian or turn up to political demonstrations armed with annoyingly pacifist posters wanting to 'ban the bomb.'

To be fair, I have no problem with the make-up of left wing protests recently since they are getting better and more politicised but if we were going to ban stupid and ill-informed people from politics then we'd be left with about 5 percent of the population of Britain.

Sand

US intelligence and NATO are also implicated in that

Pfft,,,reaching arent we?

Theyre only involved in that US and UN intelligence failed to understand the serbs intentions ( the web pages distinction, not mine ) and that NATO warplanes didnt go in to drive back Serb ground forces. Why not? Becuase the French general in command of the UN forces refused to call them in - one way or the other he seemed determined to make sure the safe zones fell to the serbs.

Oh yeah, Washington has the blood of Srebinica on their hands. :rolleyes:

One reason you might have this well balanced viewpoint on liberals is reading alot of peices like the one mentioned above.

Nah, its reading a lot of opinions/rants Ive seen around here and in other places. Some of you lads should listen to yourselves sometimes - and in case liberals arent afraid of painting their opponents as fascist neo nazi bastards ( or neo cons as theyre also known ) so who are they to complain when the mirror is held up:)

I need only to point out neocon opinion regarding Israel to show the blatant hypocrisy in their so called strategy.

Well, Israel *is* a democracy and thus it does fit in with their views to support it against the tyrannical states around it. Now matter how much sharon is despised he will be elected or rejected by a democratic vote in Israel.

I guess they just weren't aware of the massacres in the DRC for the past 5 years.How gung ho they were to send troops to Liberia.
Then there's the neo cons who were quite happy to do business with Saddam in the first place.
When you look at the regimes neocons decry, they often have supported them sometime in the past.

Well, the Neo cons attention has been one would imagine been taken up with the Middle East primarily since 9/11 2001. Criticisng the current administration for not cleaning up the UNs messes in DRC is certainly allowable. Certainly the US should be taking the lead in ending such regional conflicts seeing as the UN is such a failure.

Liberia is a case of the US apparently not wanting to send in troops until a peace deal - which saw the departure of the rather unpopular pesident - was done. And the commitment of Nigerias peacekeepers as the main force, regional peacekeeping seems to be another of their ideas. If the US had sent in troops so close to, and yet before a deal, it may have endangered the deal and sucked troops into fighting there. The risk/reward doesnt add up does it?

As for Saddam Neocons were the ones calling for the UN mandate to be extended to finish Saddam off in 1991. As for the Reagan era, Saddam was seen as the lesser of two evils, a shield protecting their Saudi allies from Iranian fundamentalism. Now perhaps Saddam would have won without their help, or maybe Iran would have won and then would have threatened the entire Middle East. I dont agree with the decision to help Saddam to the extent with which they did but I can understand why they saw a victorious Iran as being even more dangerous.

Quite a lot of people actually. The net terrorist activity in the world has been increasnig steadily since the attacks of September 11th and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Whats the figures on that? As states gradually begin to understand that they will be held to task if they alllow terrorist groups to operate or recruit in their territory do you feel they will be more or less wiling to allow Al Queda to base themselves as they based themselves in Afghanistan. Al Queda have gone from the law of the land in Afghanistan to skulking in caves.

Indeed, other than the NeoCons assertion, there seems to be little to no evidence that what they want to remove are the causes of terrorism.

They believe the root cause of terrorism to be the undemocratic nature of the terrorits home countries - by democraticising them you bring about greater prosperity and less oppression - and hopefully less terrorism. Afghanistan and Iraq have rough years ahead of them but they will be democraticised - certainly with a civil war ended in Afghanistan and a tyrant toppled in Baghdad theyve a better chance than before.

Indeed, many people have tended instead to side with the belief that the US aggression will lead to even more terrorism.

Groups like Al Queda cant be reasoned with. They cant be ignored. They cant be treated like ordinary crinimals or a conventional army. They have to hunted down and killed. Simple as that. Removing the causes of terrorism will not be a task done overnight. But Al Queda will continue to operate in the meantime - what else can be done with them other than find and kill them wherever they are? A purely reactionary or defensive strategy is not workable - there are too many targets to defend, to many borders to guard.

Not only that, but the logic isn't even applied evenhandedly. Most of the connections from September 11th point a fniger firmly bask towards Saudia Arabia being a source of money and people for terrorism, and yet Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked as the "source".

The reasons for Afghanistan being attacked are well known. You can take your pick for why Iraq was attacked but lets cut off the liberals and say oil before they rant on about it. Doesnt bother me.

Saudia Arabia hasnt been attacked but it has been a close US ally in the region so they apparently feel they can talk the Saudis round to their way of thinking.Certainly relations between the US and the Saudis have steadily decreased to the point where the Saudis are apparently thinking about developing their own nuclear shield. It cant be said theyre ignoring the Saudi connection.

September 11th 1973. Go look it up. And as for that statement, well, the joke is on you my friend if you believe that.

Neo Cons werent running the show were they? And like I said whats wrong with the US encouraging democratic reform of tyrannical states?

Sand your argument is not all that different from the colonist arguments from the turn of the century.Basicly what your saying circa 1800 would essentially be that British exploitation of Ireland was ok on the basis that they said back then as it is now by the more extreme neo-cons ;supposedly civilising us Irish savages.Realist? lol

No. I dont think the neocons belive that arabs and others are stupid dumb savages. Though Ive seen a few liberals remakrs that arabs arent ready for democracy or some such which sounds a bit similar to my ears.

I think neo cons believe it is in the US interest to have democratic states rather than dictatorships as allies. The experience of Saddam and Iraq is a case in point. Now this viewpoint is one which should be encouraged in that it means the US is likely to bring down tyrants rather than support them which is something wed all like to see and something we all agree the UN is pretty useless for.

Now I personally belive that democracy is a good thing, and I belive a lot of the problems of the third world are caused by tyrannical governments. Therefore, if the neo cons are likely to go about toppling a few of these tyrants and building up democrat government in their place they get a big thumbs up.

Sparks

Well, the Neo cons attention has been one would imagine been taken up with the Middle East primarily since 9/11 2001.

You'd imagine wrong, since the PNAC crowd and their plans for a "minfest destiny" in the Middle East predate the WTC attack by several years.

The Beer Baron

As for the clichéd Che Guevara t-shirts et al....he was a bloody Stalinist and a failed, incompetent revolutionary - anyone who goes around wearing such a t shirt is either politically ignorant and pretentious or just thick.

Yeah- that or a Rage Against the Machine fan.

For example, those on the right go into politics and end up getting appointed to important positions and those on the left try writing for the Guardian...

Who's articles get systematically shreded by the Times every time they pull a statistic outa their arse. :rolleyes:

To be fair, I have no problem with the make-up of left wing protests recently since they are getting better and more politicised but if we were going to ban stupid and ill-informed people from politics then we'd be left with about 5 percent of the population of Britain.

Heh

Really though- does it not irritate you, as an intellectual and an ardent proponant of Socialism (as I know you to be), to see its tennants being misrepresented by both the letters to the Guardian-type "Smoke Salmon Socialists" as well as the Ché Guevara T-shirt wearing punks, or worst of all- those dole-monkey "Socialists" who accost people in the street?

Surely, as a man whom I deem socially responsible, it must also vex you as much as it does responsible Peace protestors or Anti-Globalisation demonstrators when anarchistic elements incite riots, damage property lay waste to storefronts and vandalise Shannon-based US aircraft.

These elements are active in Socialist circles too, are they not. And surely, not only would you wish to distance yourself from them- but find yourself increasingly angered by them as they give whichever movement they decide to latch onto, a bad name.

It happens, has happened and I dare say shall continue to happen.

Would you not rather recruit keen and intelligent people to your cause than to have a hoard of halfwits carrying out destructive acts in the name of Socialism? Or at the very least- label themselves thusly?

Just a thought.

The Beer Baron

Now I know why you're called Sand- because you have your head in it. (or has someone already beat me to that juvenile wittisism)

Where do I begin- where where where!

Certainly the US should be taking the lead in ending such regional conflicts seeing as the UN is such a failure.

The US, it seems, has made that choice already- they basically call the UN a failure simply because it failed to agree with them on the issue of an Iraqi invasion.
The UN isn't perfect, but then nothing is.
The US however, is brash and arrogant and was resolute in their justification for invasion (non-existant WMD's) as well as a complete and bloodless victory (now they're crawling back to the "failure" UN.)

Being as the US pretty much created the United Nations- and indeed are host to their headquarters- I would say the United States - the great defender of Democracy is the failure.

And just tell me, where's their sucess?
Where? Where's this freedom? Where's this creation of great western Democracy? And where the hell are these Al Queda links and Weapons of Mass destruction that I've been hearing about for the last million years (or so it seems)

Sucessful there were they?

Sand I know you to be clever and adroit at arguing your case, however in this instance I feel like hitting you with the baseball bat of enlightenment but I must moderate my voice or instead have my voice moderated.

Sand- did I mention the reason is most probably oil? bwahaha- well remind me to do so.

Now I personally belive that democracy is a good thing, and I belive a lot of the problems of the third world are caused by tyrannical governments.

Tyrannical goverments? Oh please! Turn off the damn A-Team theme tune and look at what's really going on- you think that were 3rd world countries to adopt the benevolant model of western democracy that everything would be ok?

Or would you concede that the major problem with the 3rd world is exploitation by rich countries, like the US- and others. By tarrifs, by tied aid, by sanctions and by meddling either by economic or martial means.

How can you be a proponant of that- which, to my ears- is evidently what you are.

Éomer of Rohan

There are some very interesting points put forward there Beer Baron. Let's see if I can deal with them.

Quoted from the Beer Baron
or worst of all- those dole-monkey "Socialists" who accost people in the street?

I laughed at this one. See those dole monkey socialists who accost people in the street, well technically I am one. SP run stalls in as many major cities as possible - in Belfast this normally consists of a petition against the capitalist wrong-doing of the hour and handing out leaflets and selling the paper, which for Ireland is the Socialist Voice.

Moreover, those dole-monkey socialists have more political knowhow and intellectual ability than you plus me squared. Peter Hadden, currently the SP secretary for Northern Ireland was educated at Leeds University (I think it was Leeds - but definitely ONE of the Universities in England) and is a giant of the movement in Northern Ireland - yet every wednesday at 11 and every saturday, he is out with the rest of us, handing out leaflets and having street discussions with anyone who wishes to stop by the stall. Who do you think are the better suited to political leadership? Those who wear suits and go to the right dinner parties or those who have exactly the same qualifications but aren't afraid to talk to the working man or woman without bodyguards?

Quoted from the Beer Baron
Surely, as a man whom I deem socially responsible, it must also vex you as much as it does responsible Peace protestors or Anti-Globalisation demonstrators when anarchistic elements incite riots, damage property lay waste to storefronts and vandalise Shannon-based US aircraft.

Er, well truth be told I laugh my ass off on a lot of occasions - for example the mohawk someone gave to Winston Churchill's statue a few years back. Alright, so I disagree with the vandalisation of the property of small business holders in the streets where anti-globalisation violent anarchist groups challenge the police just to create damage but some of them are genuinely intelligent people. I know a couple of Anti-Fascist Action lads who would also call themselves anarchists - and they didn't buy their way through university, they just don't believe in the transitional structures of Marxism. They believe that a direct challenge to the authority of the ruling class must be made whereas socialists intend to wait until the ruling class are in chaos due to some economic disaster and then with their comrades across the world, make their move together.

This 'responsible' lark is a way for capitalist commentators to pave over the problems in the system which cause people to behave the way they do. I get incredibly angry with the 'system' but I don't feel the need to have a riot about it at G8 summits - it all just proves that there are underlying problems and some people don't have the discipline to deal with them the way we here do - it doesn't necessarily reflect on their intelligence.

As for recruiting people and of what intelligence, well it all depends on your outlook. I will talk politically to anyone as my friends will attest

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand

Well, Israel *is* a democracy and thus it does fit in with their views to support it against the tyrannical states around it. Now matter how much sharon is despised he will be elected or rejected by a democratic vote in Israel.

Considering that being a citizen is contingent upon being Jewish, that it is a democracy is highly debatatble.
One could call it a theocracy and probably be correct.
Also consider that it arrests "militants" (read teenagers throwing rocks) and holds them indefinetly, often without trail for years.
If that's a democracy, then please, give me a dictator.

Well, the Neo cons attention has been one would imagine been taken up with the Middle East primarily since 9/11 2001. Criticisng the current administration for not cleaning up the UNs messes in DRC is certainly allowable. Certainly the US should be taking the lead in ending such regional conflicts seeing as the UN is such a failure.

...or various other conflicts and genocides in Africa...then there's Latin America.

Liberia is a case of the US apparently not wanting to send in troops until a peace deal - which saw the departure of the rather unpopular pesident - was done. And the commitment of Nigerias peacekeepers as the main force, regional peacekeeping seems to be another of their ideas. If the US had sent in troops so close to, and yet before a deal, it may have endangered the deal and sucked troops into fighting there. The risk/reward doesnt add up does it?

As opposed to that oft repeated "reward" of a "democratic" Iraq. Might there be any other...?

As for Saddam Neocons were the ones calling for the UN mandate to be extended to finish Saddam off in 1991. As for the Reagan era, Saddam was seen as the lesser of two evils, a shield protecting their Saudi allies from Iranian fundamentalism.

Installing a repressive Shah against the overthrown (and democratically elected) Moussadhe might have something to do with those "fundamentalists" coming to power in the first place.
Then we arm and support a ruthless dictator and encourage him to invade.
10 years later we tell him we won't interfere if he invades Kuwait...and by golly didn't he just go and do it.
Then we bushwack him (no pun intended).
Sound like any other geopolitical conflicts the US has been involved in the past few decades.
After having to get rid of several leaders that we initially supported, one would think that the US government is either very stupid and incompetent or very cynical and repressive.
Hey as long as I got my DVD and SUV, then what's the problem.

Now perhaps Saddam would have won without their help, or maybe Iran would have won and then would have threatened the entire Middle East.

With what?

dont agree with the decision to help Saddam to the extent with which they did but I can understand why they saw a victorious Iran as being even more dangerous.

An Iran that the CIA helped create!

Al Queda have gone from the law of the land in Afghanistan to skulking in caves.

Who seem to be able to keep the country in chaos outside of Kabul, along with the Taliban and the recent "allies" of America and Britian.

They believe the root cause of terrorism to be the undemocratic nature of the terrorits home countries - by democraticising them you bring about greater prosperity and less oppression - and hopefully less terrorism.

You obviously can't force a country to be a democracy. Which would then undermine the whole premise of less oppression.

Afghanistan and Iraq have rough years ahead of them but they will be democraticised - certainly with a civil war ended in Afghanistan and a tyrant toppled in Baghdad theyve a better chance than before.

Actually the former warlords of Afghanistan seem to be warring with each other and vying for power. You also have the very real possibility of a civil war in Iraq if the bombings of certain ayatollas of late are any indication. It's probably the reason America and Britian allowed Saddam to send attack helicopters to the Shiite strongholds and muder them after the Gulf War, after the "no fly zones" were setup. It kept a strong shiite majority from taking power.

Groups like Al Queda cant be reasoned with. They cant be ignored.

Sounds kinda like Maggy refering to the IRA. How wrong was she?

They cant be treated like ordinary crinimals or a conventional army. They have to hunted down and killed.

Well that's worked in every case in history so we must have a winning strategy here.

Simple as that. Removing the causes of terrorism will not be a task done overnight.

Especially when the countries espousing the war on terrorism are carrying out acts of terrorism.

But Al Queda will continue to operate in the meantime - what else can be done with them other than find and kill them wherever they are?

Make sure that they don't have a huge recruiting base from the countries we are terrorising.

A purely reactionary or defensive strategy is not workable - there are too many targets to defend, to many borders to guard.

Which contradicts your above stated MO for getting rid of them.

The reasons for Afghanistan being attacked are well known. You can take your pick for why Iraq was attacked but lets cut off the liberals and say oil before they rant on about it. Doesnt bother me.

When the only real acheivement was getting a pipeline contract for Unocal then one has to seriously wonder.

Saudia Arabia hasnt been attacked but it has been a close US ally in the region so they apparently feel they can talk the Saudis round to their way of thinking.Certainly relations between the US and the Saudis have steadily decreased to the point where the Saudis are apparently thinking about developing their own nuclear shield. It cant be said theyre ignoring the Saudi connection.

I guess that's why the Bush admin tried to block evidence of Saudi Arabias possible complicity in 9/11 (not to mention their own) and the head of the 9/11 commision is a business partner of Bin Ladens brother-in-law.

Neo Cons werent running the show were they? And like I said whats wrong with the US encouraging democratic reform of tyrannical states?

Some of them were and are now in high ranking positions in the Bush regime (despit some being convicted of federal crimes).

No. I dont think the neocons belive that arabs and others are stupid dumb savages. Though Ive seen a few liberals remakrs that arabs arent ready for democracy or some such which sounds a bit similar to my ears.

I haven't seen any liberals remark that they (arabs) aren't ready for democracy, but that you can't force a country to be a democracy.

I think neo cons believe it is in the US interest to have democratic states rather than dictatorships as allies. The experience of Saddam and Iraq is a case in point. Now this viewpoint is one which should be encouraged in that it means the US is likely to bring down tyrants rather than support them which is something wed all like to see and something we all agree the UN is pretty useless for.

I guess that's why the US has supported so many repressive regimes and tried to veto UN resolutions condeming some of them.

Now I personally belive that democracy is a good thing, and I belive a lot of the problems of the third world are caused by tyrannical governments.

I beleive democracy is a good thing as well. It's why I beleive the only way it's going to be achieved in America is by "regime change".
Of course the problems of the third world being solved by democracy would ignore all the exploitation by the first world that keeps that from happening.

Therefore, if the neo cons are likely to go about toppling a few of these tyrants and building up democrat government in their place they get a big thumbs up.

That's rich considering that they supported the overthrow of a democratic government in Venezuela just a year ago.

Sand

The US, it seems, has made that choice already- they basically call the UN a failure simply because it failed to agree with them on the issue of an Iraqi invasion.

Well seeing as the blame for *any* crisis or disaster worth mentioning - hell someone even tried to lay Srebinica at their door - is thrown the way of Washington dont you think theyve a right to go about and get involved with or without the UN. Even if they dont theyll still be blamed for it anyway. The U.N.s a failure because people have stopped even considering it a player, its a failure because its such a sad sick joke in its leadership and its pathetic failures to take even the simplest action to protect those who relied upon it.

And just tell me, where's their sucess?

Democratic Europe, Japan, South Korea, Kosovo and indeed NATO ending the previous bitter conflicts in Yugoslavia with the *gasp* interventionist use of milatary force ( someone grab that diplomat, hes about to faint!!!!).

Thats of the top of my head.

Where? Where's this freedom? Where's this creation of great western Democracy? And where the hell are these Al Queda links and Weapons of Mass destruction that I've been hearing about for the last million years (or so it seems)

Well as for the WMD and Al Queda, theyre called the "The Exscuse". Personally I never really cared if it was true or not, the world minus Saddam is a better place. Neo Cons wanted to go in cos they hated Saddam and wanted to open up Iraqi oil or some such ( like they couldnt have just bought it....oh no) - thats grand. They lied to you, to accomplish a greater good. Build a bridge, and get over it. And as Bonkey predicted before the liberation, if anyone criticises it now Wolfiwitz and co will simply say something along the lines of "So you want us to give Iraq back to Saddam? Thats the end result of your logic? ".

And as for the creation of the great western democracy.... I invoke the nice parable about the guy building a house. Until the house is built its useless and a waste of resources, whats the point in building the damn house doesnt it cost a lot etc etc......

Sand- did I mention the reason is most probably oil? bwahaha- well remind me to do so.

No, I already jumped well ahead of that tiresome, ill thought out reasoning. Like I said, Im not too bothered *why* exactly they invaded Iraq. So far, it doesnt seem to be to abduct and torture to death Iraqi citizens so its got to be an improvement over Saddams benevolent rule, outside of whacky left land anyway.

Tyrannical goverments? Oh please! Turn off the damn A-Team theme tune and look at what's really going on- you think that were 3rd world countries to adopt the benevolant model of western democracy that everything would be ok?

OMFG, youre right. Obviously the way to economic prosperity is military backed dictatorships and their cliques looting the nation of its resources and cash to bump up their Swiss bank balances.

Doh. I have now learned my lesson and will never again believe that democratic, accountable government will be more successful at not sending their country down the toiliet.

Or would you concede that the major problem with the 3rd world is exploitation by rich countries, like the US- and others. By tarrifs, by tied aid, by sanctions and by meddling either by economic or martial means.

Im entirely in favour of free trade - actual honest to goodness free trade. Unfortunately that makes me an evil imperialist bastard it seems. Something to add to my C.V. along with evil Nazi bastard.

They believe that a direct challenge to the authority of the ruling class must be made whereas socialists intend to wait until the ruling class are in chaos due to some economic disaster and then with their comrades across the world, make their move together.

Eomer youve got to read The Stone Canal by...Iain Banks I think. Its a SF novel but its got a nice sarcastic view of the Socialist attempts to take over the world:)

Considering that being a citizen is contingent upon being Jewish, that it is a democracy is highly debatatble.

One would certainly not view it as wholly eglatarian, but it is a democracy. Thought religious extremist views do enjoy support and articulation by political parties it would certainly not be correct to describe it as a theocracy, in my opinion anyway - that would imply some religious institution was in direct control.

If that's a democracy, then please, give me a dictator.

Only so long as its me. You can be in charge of the secret police. We need a good socialist type there:)

Installing a repressive Shah against the overthrown (and democratically elected) Moussadhe might have something to do with those "fundamentalists" coming to power in the first place.

Indeed, and the crusades might have something to do with the birth of fundamentalist Islam viewing the Christian west as the enemy but it doesnt really affect the here and now does it?

With what?

Soft cuddly childrens toys.

An Iran that the CIA helped create!

No, as Ive demonstrated France, England and Germany and to a lesser extent Spain are all responsible for the birth of fundamentalist Islam. Damn them and their crusade medllings!

Well that's worked in every case in history so we must have a winning strategy here.

Are you Neville Camberlains foreign policy advisor reborn? Obviously the winning strategy there was to give Hitler everything he wanted and apologise profusely for Versailles and the humiliation of Germany. Then Im sure he wouldnt have enacted the most terrible holocaust the world has seen outside of communist Russia.

Make sure that they don't have a huge recruiting base from the countries we are terrorising.

An incredibly long term project which will go well beyond the scope of Bush's presidency or even that of his immediate successors.

Look at Ireland and Britian, even *today* 80 years on theres still a healthy undertone of hate underneath the "friendly rivalry" which of course was the IRAs main recruiting tool.

Its a worthy goal, which must be undertaken for long term success but it will *not* do anything to protect US and other western civillians in the short run.

Or do you think that the hate which motivated terrorist attacks like 9/11 is so whimsical and childish that it can be somehow "turned off" in a few weeks of profuse apologies for sins of the father, real and imagined?

Which contradicts your above stated MO for getting rid of them.

How? The current strategy at least allows the US to take the iniative and choose when and where the battles will be fought - something the terrorists enjoyed in 9/11.

I guess that's why the US has supported so many repressive regimes and tried to veto UN resolutions condeming some of them.

And youre against them removing support for, and actually deposing aforementioned regimes why exactly?

That's rich considering that they supported the overthrow of a democratic government in Venezuela just a year ago.

Didnt they go by the U.N. line there? That it was a purely internal matter, sovereignity blah blah blah. Hell if the boys from Brazil took over Venezeula the UN would still be mumbling the same ****e by its own policies of non-intervention.

Oh, Im sure theyd issue a harshly worded resolution though or something to really scare them.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Democratic Europe, Japan, South Korea, Kosovo and indeed NATO ending the previous bitter conflicts in Yugoslavia with the *gasp* interventionist use of milatary force ( someone grab that diplomat, hes about to faint!!!!).

Europe already had a long tradition of liberal and democratic values so it’s a poor example.

Japan, on the other hand, is admittedly a good example. Most would accept that the US did a fairly good job there.

As for South Korea - don’t make me laugh. As PJ O’Rourke described it: “Actual South Korean experience with democracy, by the way, consists of one thirteen-month period between the April 1960 overthrow of strong man Syngman Rhee and the May 1961 military coup by General Park Chung Hee.” Democracy in South Korea remains a fragile experiment to this day.

Kosovo is not a democratic state, last time I checked. Neither were many of the other former Yugoslav states up until recently, and most of those that did become democratic, did so without foreign assistance.

What you fail to grasp is that not everywhere that the US has chosen to influence has become democratic, and not everywhere that managed to become democratic needed US help.

They lied to you, to accomplish a greater good. Build a bridge, and get over it.

The end justifies the means?

One would certainly not view it as wholly eglatarian, but it is a democracy. Thought religious extremist views do enjoy support and articulation by political parties it would certainly not be correct to describe it as a theocracy, in my opinion anyway - that would imply some religious institution was in direct control.

Then you would have to accept Iran, amongst other nations, as a democracy. After all you can’t bend the rules for one ‘democracy’ and not for another just because you don’t like them.

No, as Ive demonstrated France, England and Germany and to a lesser extent Spain are all responsible for the birth of fundamentalist Islam. Damn them and their crusade medllings!

Stop with the drugs Sand.

Are you Neville Camberlains foreign policy advisor reborn? Obviously the winning strategy there was to give Hitler everything he wanted and apologise profusely for Versailles and the humiliation of Germany. Then Im sure he wouldnt have enacted the most terrible holocaust the world has seen outside of communist Russia.

Wasn’t Hitler only invading to save those poor Germans in the Sudetenland from Czech oppression? Or Poland due to the imminent thread of Polish militarism?

Who exactly is being appeased again?

Nonetheless, would it be possible to return to a discussion on the ideology and history of Neoconservitism? More interesting than simply hearing another tired ‘The War was good/evil’ debate.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
and indeed NATO ending the previous bitter conflicts in Yugoslavia with the *gasp* interventionist use of milatary force

Ah yes - that was where the nation was systematically bombed into the ground, predominantly by Americans who at the same time were making speeches that the intention was to rouse the public into removing their ruler themselves at which point the bombing would stop...

So let me see....bombing a nation in order to bend its people's will into doing your bidding in order to make the bombs stop falling on civilian targets.

Could you remind me why this is :

a) A good success
and
b) Not a perfect example of terrorism?

Yes, the latter may seem anti-American, but it's something I was reading a bit about recently, and except for the historical fact that WW2 somehow made arial bombardment exempt from being a warcrime (because both sides used it and therefore the Allies couldn't really stand up and blame the Axis for using such horrific tactics), there seems to be little distinction between what the US did to the Yugoslavian people and what the US is calling terrorism today.

I believe that while it is easy to say "bad dictator removed == good", the underlying issues are not so simple. If you want to remove it to that simplistic a level, then I guess nuking or carpet-bombing Baghdad to remove Sadddam would be classifiable as a good thing too. Now I don't expect anyone to accept such a suggestion as being anything less then absurd, but all that does is prove that there are limits to what is and is not acceptable action.

I have seen no-one suggest anywhere on these boards that they are not glad to see Saddam gone. What they are saying is not in this way. Your defence, oft-repeated, basically seems to boil down to "yes, but Saddam is gone and thats a good thing", as if someone had disagreed with that. People are disagreeing with teh methods used, and the perceived agenda behind it all. Whether or not the perception of the agenda is correct doesn't matter, as no-one can actually prove what the agenda is either way, and so there will always be disagreement at that level.

I have no problem with the US wanting to remain the premier power in the world today - economically, poltiically, and/or militarily. I do have a problem with many of the ways that they would appear to express that want, as do many others. Saying "but Saddam is gone and thats good" means nothing to me - I agree with the notion that its good. I'm withholding judgement on how gone he is. Saying "Saddam is gone and Iraq is a better place" is - to me - not yet true. Especially not when we hear of the escalating problems from that allegedly small-almost-to-the-point-of-insignfiicance group of dissenters within the nation.

Milosovic was a bad guy too....but I'm still convinced that a bombing campaign that was at least partially targetting civilian resources which lasted 3 months and who's sometimes-stated intention was to "convince" the Yugoslav public into taking action was not the right way to remove him.

So, while you can see it as a shining success of the US promoting democracy, I'd be somewhat more judgemental and ask at what price does democracy become too expensive? Exactly where do we draw the line? At what point does the cost to a people outweigh the advantages of giving them the future you want them to have???

If someone came into a hospital with an infection in their big toe, would it be considered a "good thing" for the doctor to (seemingly arbitrarily) decide that the solution was to amputate the whole leg? Yes, there are probably rare scenarios where that will be necessary, but by and large it would be considered excessive, potentially to the point of negligence. Saying "but your toe doesn't hurt any more" is small consolation. Saying "but the last time we let the UN doctor have a look instead of the US doctor, he took off the leg too" doesn't make it any better.

And finally saying "but the leg was gonna die anyway. Trust us, and no, you can't see the medical charts" is the final nail in the coffin for me.

The UN at least looked into the fiasco that was Kosovo, which is why we know so much about what happened, who screwed up, and what was done wrong.

When's the last time the US held such a show of accountability for one of its fsckups?

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
So, while you can see it as a shining success of the US promoting democracy, I'd be somewhat more judgemental and ask at what price does democracy become too expensive? Exactly where do we draw the line? At what point does the cost to a people outweigh the advantages of giving them the future you want them to have???

Where you draw the line depends on your political disposition with regard to democracy, your opinion of the dictatorship and whether you think overall project will succeed (among other factors). I don't think there is a logical method of knowing exactly where the line should be drawn.

Possibly the most attractive position to take is that no intervention should be undertaken under any circumstances. This avoids the problem of drawing the line in the first place.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Where you draw the line depends on your political disposition with regard to democracy, your opinion of the dictatorship and whether you think overall project will succeed (among other factors). I don't think there is a logical method of knowing exactly where the line should be drawn.

Agreed.....but thats the area that so many people never seem to include in their reasons for supporting or opposing an action....the explanation of why the current steps are acceptable. We just get a Punch-and-Judy of both sides (supporters and critics) arguing their seperate points. The supporters say its good because of A, B, C. The detractors say its bad because of X, Y, and Z. Very few seem willing (or able) to explain why A, B and C carry more weight then X, Y, and Z, or vice versa. Instead, we just see attempts to re-interpret things in a more favourable light to whoever happens to be maknig their argument at the time.

Possibly the most attractive position to take is that no intervention should be undertaken under any circumstances. This avoids the problem of drawing the line in the first place.

Actually, then you've already drawn the line and said "doing anything is too expensive".

jc

The Corinthian

I had a few drinks with a diplomat of my acquaintance recently and the topic of PNAC and the Neoconservitivc movement came up. After two minutes of painful and apologetic caveats pre-empting that he was about to say something very politically incorrect, he finally came out with an observation; the leading Neocons are almost all Jews. Not just that, but all are strong supporters of the Israeli Likud party.

From this he further observed that while neutralizing such regimes as Iraq, Syria or Iran may be in US interests to one degree or other, they are particularly in Israel’s interests. All this might lead one to ask who’s foreign policy are the Neocons serving?

Just thought I’d throw that one out there

sovtek

Originally posted by The Corinthian

From this he further observed that while neutralizing such regimes as Iraq, Syria or Iran may be in US interests to one degree or other, they are particularly in Israel’s interests. All this might lead one to ask who’s foreign policy are the Neocons serving?

Just thought I’d throw that one out there [/B]

I have seen settlers, on camera, say things like "we run America".
Now "Tawk amongst ya'selves...I'll give yew a tawpic"

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

neo cons believe it is in the US interest to have democratic states rather than dictatorships as allies

Utter rubbish Sand. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly shining examples of democracy- nor are Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia- yet all are staunch US allies. The neocons believe in democratic allies when it suits them, and in totalitarian allies when it suits them. There are no principles at the core of their policy except American power.

As for your comment about Al-Qaeda- if you're naive enough to think that killing 1,000 Al-Qaeda terrorists means the global figure goes down by 1,000- then you obviously haven't read into the history of paramilitary/terrorist groups.

Their recruitment thrives on political, civil and most of all military oppression. Put them all together and you have a wellspring of bad feeling to recruit from. The "cracking down" approach will only go so far, as Israel has discovered for 2 generations now. The misdirection of the neoconservatives in the current administration is breathtaking- their protection of their old Saudi oil buddies stood out the most. Not to mention that over half of the world's madrasas are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia- our allies and not in Syria, Iran, Iraq or indeed any of the Axis of Evil nations.

Countries that foster the most terrorism are granted favoured trading status, whereas countries that are far lower on the scale of terror are threatened, bullied and pushed down the road to nuclear weapons because our government doesn't like them too much. Isn't the most effective means to combating terrorism to set aside distaste in favour of logical action? I mean, even putting aside the basic human decency of not spitting on 9/11 families by rewarding the nation that harboured, sponsored and tolerated their plans- the obligation must be to a political solution, not simply creating more recruits everywhere you go.

Personally I never really cared if it was true or not, the world minus Saddam is a better place

Yeah, and if we tortured criminals for better conviction percentages our streets would be safer. Also, if we had on the spot executions I'm sure that would save on trial, prison and rehab costs. The ends can't justify the means or we no longer live in a moral society. The fact that Saddam is gone does not excuse the breakdown in international law and the huge recruiting poster for terrorism. The presence of foreign fighters on a large scale is a new and worrying trend.

Sure, foreign fighters have taken up causes before (mujahadeen in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Nigeria)- but in each and every instance of this happening previously, the US government has armed and financed their operations. Covert and military logistical support is the lowest common denominator of help, but we didn't stop there. This is the first time a NATO country's intervention has been met with foreign fighters.

To call the military action a success is a mistake- it is far too early to tell. Personally, I very much doubt that if the British were unable to pacify the tiny area of South Armagh with upwards of 70,000 troops, then I don't see the "coalition" doing it with less than a platoon per square mile. Time will tell, but it looks to me like a brutal, but undoubtedly ordered civic society is well on its way to becoming a fractured and failed state like Afghanistan.

The coalition has now resorted to hiring members of the old regime, particularly members of the feared intelligence network(Mukhabarat) and even the fanatical youth wing(Amn al Khas), whom Qusay headed while the regime was in charge. That smacks of cuddling up with General Rashid Dostam (yes, the genocidal maniac) in Afghanistan. So much for allying oneself with democracy, eh Sand?

Hobbes

Originally posted by sovtek
I have seen settlers, on camera, say things like "we run America".
Now "Tawk amongst ya'selves...I'll give yew a tawpic"

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.


Btw, Saddam has not gone from the world. He is still very much around, as is OBL until such time they can prove otherwise.

Von

Originally posted by Sand
Eomer youve got to read The Stone Canal by...Iain Banks I think. Its a SF novel but its got a nice sarcastic view of the Socialist attempts to take over the world:)

Er, no it's definitely not an Iain Banks book. Are you sure you've read it? Most people remember who wrote the books they've read.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Personally, I very much doubt that if the British were unable to pacify the tiny area of South Armagh with upwards of 70,000 troops, then I don't see the "coalition" doing it with less than a platoon per square mile. Time will tell, but it looks to me like a brutal, but undoubtedly ordered civic society is well on its way to becoming a fractured and failed state like Afghanistan.

It was more like 25,000 troops max throughout the whole of NI actually, plus about 12,000 RUC plus loyalist paramilitaries versus about 800 (?) active IRA people.

dahamsta

Totally off-topic, but I have to ask: Is Sand a troll? I find it difficult to believe anybody could be that coherent (as in spelling, grammer, etc) and that stupid (as in surely nobody could be stupid enough to believe this rubbish) at the same time. This is a genuine question.

adam

Vader

Reading up on the neo-cons its interesting to see what their actual policy is behind the "Neo-Nazis" hate. Whats wrong with a superpower like the US actively encouraging democratic reform of tyrannical states, confronting potential enemies with pre-emptive strikes before they become a serious problem - one of the Neo-Con lads being interviewed there said that in the war on terrorism milatary operations must go hand in hand with bringing about an end to oppressive regimes in the middle east and further afield, fighting terrorism whilst also removing its causes. Who disagrees with that?

This was the most interesting single quote I found on this thread but it belongs in the humour forum.
Encouraging democrtatic reform is great, but the US doesnt. Sadly most of the dictators in the world since 1950(Im excluding Africa because I havent studied african political history in detail) came to power with the support of the US.

Also, how has the US removed the causes for terrorism?

sovtek

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I had a few drinks with a diplomat of my acquaintance recently and the topic of PNAC and the Neoconservitivc movement came up. After two minutes of painful and apologetic caveats pre-empting that he was about to say something very politically incorrect, he finally came out with an observation; the leading Neocons are almost all Jews. Not just that, but all are strong supporters of the Israeli Likud party.

From this he further observed that while neutralizing such regimes as Iraq, Syria or Iran may be in US interests to one degree or other, they are particularly in Israel’s interests. All this might lead one to ask who’s foreign policy are the Neocons serving?

Just thought I’d throw that one out there

This kinda backs up somewhat your friends assertions.

sovtek

Originally posted by Hobbes
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.

Thats definetly going in my signature.

Hobbes

Originally posted by sovtek
Thats definetly going in my signature.

Actually after posting it..

I orginally saw the post on an Israili news site (as well as all the anti-israili sites), long time ago.

I checked for the source again and found it had vanished. After much searching I can't find where it orginally came from. Of course one side claims it is from Sharon while the other claims it's all fabricated.

It may also be somewhat out of context via translation without the whole argument it was based on. However judging from Sharons actions over the last couple of years alone I could well believe he said it.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

It was more like 25,000 troops max throughout the whole of NI actually, plus about 12,000 RUC plus loyalist paramilitaries versus about 800 (?) active IRA people.

Odd, I heard the 70,000 figure (at the height of the troubles) on a fairly recent C4 news programme. No matter, even with 25,000 troops on the ground that's roughly a reinforced company per square mile of territory. Compare that with less than a platoon per square mile in Iraq. My point was merely to illustrate that if a successful occupation could not sustain order in N. Ireland, where there is no language barrier, nowhere near as inhospitable environmental conditions in Iraq- then the prospects for coalition success must naturally be pessimistic.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Were I an American, I would quite probably be neoconservitive. Of course I’m not, I’m a European, and so to support a doctrine of apparent supremacy by a foreign power, from which I am almost completely disfranchised from, would make little sense to me. So, why do some Europeans do exactly that?

I don't see why the ideology can't be transposed to Europe. There are European conservatives so why not neo-conservitives. Obviously this would involve promoting European interests rather than US ones, but in the fashion of the US neocons. So far Europe has not acted in this way but this is likely because political union has not yet advanced to the stage where there could be a large European army.

Would anyone be in favour of such a development?

Vader

My basic understanding of neocon philosophy is that: we are the strondest country in the world, are ideals and beliefs are the best in the world and thus we shouldnt be ashamed of of using our power to influence and protect the world.

Am I understanding it correctly ( I'm adressing any neocons/americans on boars)?
How is this any different to any major world power's veiw from any time in history eg British empire, Nazi Germany,USSR?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by SkepticOne
I don't see why the ideology can't be transposed to Europe.

Oviously the two reasons why it cannot be transposed to Europe is because Europe is nether a cohecive political body and neither is it a major military power.

On the former, the European Union is still a collection of nation states that have their own agendas and, more importantly, foreign policies. Some, such as the UK and Poland are ardently pro-US - Europe’s wise Greeks if you will. Some, such as France and Germany (so-called old Europeans), are highly sceptical of US motives and strongly opposed to the idea of a US dominated World. Then there are nations such as Ireland that will attempt to play both sides of the fence. Additionally some, such as Ireland or Sweden have a strong history of neutrality, while others do not.

In short, it would make consensus on any military policy difficult, if not impossible.

Secondly, there is no European Military - there are a number of embryonic military bodies (to which, I’m told, Ireland has contributed a total of three officers), but no European military as such. Whatever militaries do exist in the constituent nations are often small as well as being poorly trained and equipped.

Will this situation change? On the face of it no. Given this, it’s foolish to try to predict future history.

On a side note, Europe did have her own neocon movement once - the nineteenth century. It was a period euphemistically sometimes called la belle epoch, between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the start of the First World War - a century where Europeans went forth and brought civilization to all those funny dark people in Africa and Asia. Whether they liked it or not. And if they didn’t, the Europeans had gatling guns which were far more effective in battle than native spears, arrows and sharpened mangos.

Omnia mutantur et nihil mutantur, I suppose...

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Oviously the two reasons why it cannot be transposed to Europe is because Europe is nether a cohecive political body and neither is it a major military power.

That is why I said "So far Europe has not acted in this way but this is likely because political union has not yet advanced to the stage where there could be a large European army."

What it means is that the idiology would manifest itself in a different way. The European equivalent of a neocon would be a right-wing integrationist and would advocate further development of the ERRF.

Cork

Originally posted by SkepticOne
The European equivalent of a neocon would be a right-wing integrationist and would advocate further development of the ERRF.

I think that a common EU army or foriegn policy will not be foreseeable. They are now 25 countries in the EU. In the post Iraq situation - the EU is devided.

The whole Berlin / Boston debate is a crucial issue in the EU.

The UK and Ireland are much closer to Boston (IMO).

DadaKopf

We may be close to Boston, but are we close to Washington? I honestly don't think so.

The Boston/Berlin argument was a cultural and economic comparison, as well as some unimaginative alliteration. But are we that close to America politically? I very much doubt it.

We're too tied up in the Gordian knot of cross-Atlantic politics to actually owe more or less allegiance to any side.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dahamsta
Totally off-topic, but I have to ask: Is Sand a troll? I find it difficult to believe anybody could be that coherent (as in spelling, grammer, etc) and that stupid (as in surely nobody could be stupid enough to believe this rubbish) at the same time. This is a genuine question.

adam

I find Sand's views to be eminently rational and considered. Although he's a bit too soft on terror for my liking.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I had a few drinks with a diplomat of my acquaintance recently and the topic of PNAC and the Neoconservitivc movement came up. After two minutes of painful and apologetic caveats pre-empting that he was about to say something very politically incorrect, he finally came out with an observation; the leading Neocons are almost all Jews. Not just that, but all are strong supporters of the Israeli Likud party.

From this he further observed that while neutralizing such regimes as Iraq, Syria or Iran may be in US interests to one degree or other, they are particularly in Israel’s interests. All this might lead one to ask who’s foreign policy are the Neocons serving?

Just thought I’d throw that one out there

So is this another reason to hate neocons, or another reason to hate Jews?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
I think that a common EU army or foriegn policy will not be foreseeable.

Indeed. As I pointed out it would be foolish to attempt to foresee Europe’s future in this regard. Foreseeing the dramatic nature of the collapse of communism in the early eighties would have been just as impossible. Anything can happen.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So is this another reason to hate neocons, or another reason to hate Jews?

Cheap shot, Biffa. You’ve had no problem criticising other ethnic groups in the past yourself, so it’s a little hypocritical of you to chastise anyone for doing likewise. No one should be above criticism.

You’re growing far to politically correct in your old age, Biffa...

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You’re growing far to politically correct in your old age, Biffa...

Now that's a cheap shot.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So is this another reason to hate neocons, or another reason to hate Jews?

Obviously it's a reason to speak out against what the neo-cons are doing along with the Israeli and American government.
To try and connect anti-semitism with opposition to Israel and America is a tired strategy with their apologists.
A newer one is to paint anyone who criticizes Bush as a "Bush hater" and suggest that they are somehow irrational.
It, like the former tired strategies, will be debunked again and again. Unfortunetly, like Bush, his apologists will repeat something so often as to make it fact.

Sand

Apologies for the long delay in replying. I was having my connection upgraded.

Corinthian

Europe already had a long tradition of liberal and democratic values so it’s a poor example.

Do you really think that is true of Europe in 1945? Id disagree but its a side issue so lets not write a book about it.

Corinthian

The end justifies the means?

No, Im not comftable with that philosophy. Its obviously false that you can do *anything* to achieve some particular goal, no matter how worthy the goal and remain justified. Look at the palestinians. An absolutely just cause - but I dont let that confuse me as to the evil of their terrorism.

In this particular case if you had to lie to people and tell them they were under threat when they werent to motivate them to throw down someone like Saddam and give Iraqis a chance at a genuine representitive government then its more an indictment of the people who had to be lied to in my eyes.

Corinthian

Then you would have to accept Iran, amongst other nations, as a democracy. After all you can’t bend the rules for one ‘democracy’ and not for another just because you don’t like them.

Iran is....tricky:) On the one hand youve an elected President and an elected Parliment. On the other hand youve a religious Leader who is not elected by the people but has a wide range of duties and powers and appears to "outrank" the elected President, who had a constitutional directive under article 4 of the Iranian constitution to ensure that no laws made by the elected parliment are in any way contradictary to Sharia - Islamic religious law and has the Regime Expediency Council which examines any laws which the elected parliment makes and has the power to wholly reject any law it does not believe to be in accordance with Sharia - this is an unelected body, appointed by the Leader.

I wouldnt quite call Iran a theocracy but it is fair to say the Islamic clergy have a direct role in lawmaking - Would you happily describe Italy as a democracy if any and all laws made in it had to be okayed by the Pope and his Cardinals first, regardless of public opinion?

Iran though is not clear cut, there is grounds for hope that internal reformers can liberalise the government and reduce the level of human rights abuses and misconduct by the government.

Corinthian

Stop with the drugs Sand.

Just making the point that if you ( It was Sovtek I was talking to though) want to dig back through history looking for people to blame you can go back as far as you want. Hell, I didnt even go to colonial times did I?

Bonkey

Could you remind me why this is :

a) A good success
and
b) Not a perfect example of terrorism?

Well, sure thing Bonkey.

Without getting into terrorism/milatary action *again* , lets allow that NATO was targeting milatary targets and wasnt actually attempting to find and bomb as many childrens parties, discos, coffee shops, and shopping centers as they could.

And given the fall of Milosevic that answers A.

Bonkey?

So, while you can see it as a shining success of the US promoting democracy, I'd be somewhat more judgemental and ask at what price does democracy become too expensive? Exactly where do we draw the line? At what point does the cost to a people outweigh the advantages of giving them the future you want them to have???

We draw the line at common sense. Afghanistan was easy to topple, so was Iraq - both regimes were toppled extremely easily. Now some maniacs are now arguing that this means that an attack against North Korea is now on the cards - this is clearly wrong. It would be far, far, far more difficult and devastating to attack North Korea. Hence you do not do it - you use other means for that particular problem.

Bob?

Utter rubbish Sand. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly shining examples of democracy- nor are Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia- yet all are staunch US allies. The neocons believe in democratic allies when it suits them, and in totalitarian allies when it suits them. There are no principles at the core of their policy except American power.

Pakistan became a US ally a few hours after they decided Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. The undemocratic nature of it and Saudia Arabia demonstrate exactly why they are not allies on which the US can rely - see Iraq. A lot of Bin Ladens support comes out of Pakistan, a lot of anger is generated by the regime there and with the US seen beside the regime they become an easy target of the anger, the same - even moreso - in Saudi.

Id imagine theyre keeping Pakistan sweet because they have to follow Bin Laden into its territory, where he enjoys a lot of support. As for the Saudis the honeymoon is over last I heard.

Bob?

As for your comment about Al-Qaeda- if you're naive enough to think that killing 1,000 Al-Qaeda terrorists means the global figure goes down by 1,000- then you obviously haven't read into the history of paramilitary/terrorist groups.

Youve not been reading have you? Killing Al Queda is the short term action, eroding their support is quite clearly a long term misson - which will have to be taken up by the next few administrations at least.

Unless of course youve another idea of how to deal with 1000 fanatical, well led and utterly murderous fundamentalists who have a proven ability to pentrate the US and undertake large scale terrorist attacks inflicting thousands of casualties with only 19 men and box cutters in the here and now?

Von

Er, no it's definitely not an Iain Banks book. Are you sure you've read it? Most people remember who wrote the books they've read.

1-0 to Von. And they said all his weekends of memorising books titles and authors wouldnt pay off.

Dhamasta?

Totally off-topic, but I have to ask: Is Sand a troll? I find it difficult to believe anybody could be that coherent (as in spelling, grammer, etc) and that stupid (as in surely nobody could be stupid enough to believe this rubbish) at the same time. This is a genuine question.

Genuine answer - No.

Vader

This was the most interesting single quote I found on this thread but it belongs in the humour forum.

Now this really hurt coming from you, given your opinion of the IRA.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Do you really think that is true of Europe in 1945? Id disagree but its a side issue so lets not write a book about it.

I didn’t say it was true of 1945; only that Europe already had a long tradition of liberal and democratic values. The Middle East has not.

No, Im not comftable with that philosophy. Its obviously false that you can do *anything* to achieve some particular goal, no matter how worthy the goal and remain justified. Look at the palestinians. An absolutely just cause - but I dont let that confuse me as to the evil of their terrorism.

In this particular case if you had to lie to people and tell them they were under threat when they werent to motivate them to throw down someone like Saddam and give Iraqis a chance at a genuine representitive government then its more an indictment of the people who had to be lied to in my eyes.

So the end doesn’t justify the means except for when it does, is what you’re saying. As for when it is acceptable, you seem to define this as when a group (such as a well-meaning oligarchy) decides that a lesser evil is acceptable because of the good it will bring.

Iran is....tricky:) On the one hand youve an elected President and an elected Parliment. On the other hand youve a religious Leader who is not elected by the people but has a wide range of duties and powers and appears to "outrank" the elected President, who had a constitutional directive under article 4 of the Iranian constitution to ensure that no laws made by the elected parliment are in any way contradictary to Sharia - Islamic religious law and has the Regime Expediency Council which examines any laws which the elected parliment makes and has the power to wholly reject any law it does not believe to be in accordance with Sharia - this is an unelected body, appointed by the Leader.

All democracies have undemocratic institutions and policies. The Irish Senate and the British House of Lords are two that spring to mind. Numerous laws exist that will also ride roughshod over democratic rights, for reasons of national security.

I wouldnt quite call Iran a theocracy but it is fair to say the Islamic clergy have a direct role in lawmaking - Would you happily describe Italy as a democracy if any and all laws made in it had to be okayed by the Pope and his Cardinals first, regardless of public opinion?

Yet not too long ago our ‘priest ridden’ isle held immense influence over Ireland. DeValera even sought the advice of the clergy when drafting the constitution. Should we have had a regime change then?

Iran though is not clear cut, there is grounds for hope that internal reformers can liberalise the government and reduce the level of human rights abuses and misconduct by the government.

Students are today demonstrating and rioting to force change in Iran. Thirty years ago, our parent’s generation we doing much the same in the West.

Nonetheless, I’d consider either Iran or Israel (to which the comparison was made) to be both democracies - just not very Western ones - Iran for the reasons already mentioned and Israel for its theocratic approach to citizenship (and associated rights).

Just making the point that if you ( It was Sovtek I was talking to though) want to dig back through history looking for people to blame you can go back as far as you want.

Fair enough.