Neoconservatism (Neo-Cons)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2014 3:38 AM GMT
    OK, attack! GWOT, the ones behind 9/11 icon_wink.gif discuss

    What? No free will?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

    Friction with moderate conservatives

    Many moderate conservatives oppose neoconservative policies and have sharply negative views on it. For example, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke (a libertarian based at CATO), in their 2004 book on neoconservatism, “America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order",[101] characterized the neoconservatives, at that time, as uniting:

    … around three common themes:
    1.A belief deriving from religious conviction that the human condition is defined as a choice between good and evil and that the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter.
    2.An assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it.
    3.A primary focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas interests.

    In putting these themes into practice, neo-conservatives:
    1.Analyze international issues in black-and-white, absolute moral categories. They are fortified by a conviction that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement is tantamount to defeatism.
    2.Focus on the "unipolar" power of the United States, seeing the use of military force as the first, not the last, option of foreign policy. They repudiate the "lessons of Vietnam," which they interpret as undermining American will toward the use of force, and embrace the "lessons of Munich," interpreted as establishing the virtues of preemptive military action.
    3.Disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the State Department and conventional country-specific, realist, and pragmatic, analysis. They are hostile toward nonmilitary multilateral institutions and instinctively antagonistic toward international treaties and agreements. "Global unilateralism" is their watchword. They are fortified by international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue.
    4.Look to the Reagan administration as the exemplar of all these virtues and seek to establish their version of Reagan's legacy as the Republican and national orthodoxy
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Sep 15, 2014 11:11 AM GMT
    Mere sidenote here...

    Douglas Murray has written an excellent book on neo-conservatism with the brilliantly unoriginal title of "Neoconservatism: Why we need it".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2014 3:48 PM GMT

    Because they are Neo-Cons icon_mad.gif


    Bush/Cheney Created Conditions that Led Directly to ISIL
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/bushcheney-created-condit_b_5820916.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Sep 15, 2014 4:31 PM GMT
    scruffLA said
    Because they are Neo-Cons icon_mad.gif


    Bush/Cheney Created Conditions that Led Directly to ISIL
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/bushcheney-created-condit_b_5820916.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

    Of course they did. Along with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I'm somewhat at a loss to understand why the Country didn't rise up and punish the Republicans for leading us into a disastrous war that never did have a reasonable rationale. And for killing more American men than Osama did. Not to mention the tens of thousands maimed or mentally harmed.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Sep 15, 2014 4:48 PM GMT
    Ann Coulter is a Neocon. (barfs) Enough said.

    ....I think the consensus is in on this virulent and dangerous ideological stance. It's as silly as EXTREME liberals who think pacifism works against ISIL/ISIS and Al Qaeda. Extremism is repugnant.
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Sep 15, 2014 11:42 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidAnn Coulter is a Neocon. (barfs) Enough said.

    ....I think the consensus is in on this virulent and dangerous ideological stance. It's as silly as EXTREME liberals who think pacifism works against ISIL/ISIS and Al Qaeda. Extremism is repugnant.


    I think she does a great disservice to the ideology of neo-conservatism. She rarely attempts to back up her profoundly illogical statements with concrete arguments or facts...her resolution to "the war on terror" is: "Invade muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert everyone to Christianity" - I mean come on, that's just never going to be a practical solution to what is a profoundly nuanced and complicated issue.

    Whilst Christopher Hitchens would adamantly deny it, I'd say his Iraq position is neocon. In fact, I'd say he provides one of the most brilliant and compelling cases for intervening/invading (depending how you look at it) Iraq.

    Douglas Murray is also a good neocon.

    It's not a totally junk ideology by any means. It's actually quite an interesting one, and I'd prefer a neocon to a con any day.