![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 21:44:53 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote: It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem to control most of its policies. Of course 9/11 created the ideal opportunity for them to break through, and the rest of the administration looks distinctly weak, so it wasn't overly difficult. You should note that in a presidential system (as opposed to a parliamentary), that the executive branch is quite distinct from the legislative--which passes the laws that enable the executive to act. While the president can certainly set policy direction, it takes considerably more cooperation to generate huge shifts in emphasis than in a parliamentary government. 9/11 created a sudden awareness that we could no longer depend upon our isolation and broad oceans to defend us from world terrorism. If you'd like to point out some members of the administration that look "distinctly weak" I'll be happy to comment. (And maybe contrast them to some of their predecessors in the previous administration.) There is no way most of its policies can be described as conservative. Conservativism in America has certainly evolved. No disagreement at all there. If there is a predominent concept in the current iteration, it isn't so much unilateralism (which was thrust upon us by lack of support from allies who had benefited from fifty years of American defense), but a moralistic perspective which (unfortunately) tries to impose a basic form of Christianity on the nation. That's our domestic debate and doesn't have a thing to do with the "neo-con" movement. Exploding budget deficits? It is very difficult to budget for wars that are thrust upon a nation (unless of course, like Belgium, you establish a policy of neutrality--I really liked your history lesson in a previous post in which you described a 1940's Belgium ignoring the rise of Hitler and depending upon France for your defense!) Increased tax burden on the middle class? When the lowest 40% of wage-earners in America pay ZERO federal tax and the top 5% of wage earners bear more than 40% of the total federal tax burden, it is difficult to avoid having those who pay the most tax reap the greatest benefit from a tax cut. As for "increased tax burden on the middle class" I'd have to say you are simply mouthing something you've heard, since the "middle class" got a tax cut at the beginning of the Bush administration. A huge segment of lower wage-earners got their taxes zeroed and mid-level income workers saw their rates dropped by several percent. If there is an increase for the middle class, it will come as the tax cuts of the '01 legislation expire in the coming years. The Bush administration has been lobbying to extend the cuts or make them permanent. Entering foreign military adventures of their own volition? After months of seeking assistance, after 18 UN resolutions, after a unanimous vote of the Security Council.... Oh, and have you noted how effective appeasement of the jihadists has been in Russia and France? Expanding the power of the government? Examples? Don't quote the PATRIOT act, unless you can give me an example of some liberty that has been lost. No real conservative administration would indulge in such policies. These are the kind of policies true conservatives accuse liberals of, often without good reason, but indeed many neo-cons are former liberals. The few policies that can be described as traditional conservative mostly relate to "family values" such as opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Actually those policies are referred to as "social" conservative rather than "traditional". Neither social nor traditional conservatives equate with neo-cons. As a political movement the neo-cons cannot and should not be described as traditional liberal or traditional conservative. A conservative wants to decrease the power of the government; a liberal wants to increase it to use it to cure the ills of society. Generally true. No disagreement here at all. Except to note that to win elections both liberals and conservatives have to become moderate to gain support of the non-ideological. Neo-conservatives want to increase the power of the government simply because they believe that a nation should be "strong" and therefore its government should be both powerful and unfettered in its use of that power. That is, both internally and externally, what this administration has done. Ah yes. Now we get to it. Clearly you wouldn't like to see a strong America. How terrible that would be. You'd much rather see a strong Europe with a federal military capable of keeping you secure. Their "new American century" is one in which the world's only remaining superpower has a destiny to rule, much as the Romans once did, and enforce a "Pax Americana". These people are nationalist and, in the defence of their policies, populist. They also have distinctly manicheist and authoritarian streak, but like most far-right movements they can't be caught having much in the way of actual policies. Our far-right is distinctly moderate when viewed from the total spectrum of political thought displayed in most European parliaments. And, what is wrong with us being nationalist? I'm quite proud to call myself an American first and a globalist about fifth or sixth on my list of affiliations. And, I hope my government remains populist (even when I disagree) because that is the nature of imperfect democracy. While the name "neo-conservative" is a largely American invention, the phenomenon is not limited to the USA. Aimilar political movements are surfacing in many Western democracies. Except that there such movements are described as "extreme right" as (with a few unfortunate exceptions) kept from gaining power. There you are stretching you interpretation of neo-conservatism. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem to control most of its policies. Of course 9/11 created the ideal opportunity for them to break through, You need to go back farther than that, to Watergate. The Nixon humiliation beheaded the Republican foreign policy establishment while the McGovernite take-over of the Democrats drove hard-line foreign policy Democrats into retreat. With the Carter presidency cementing a new, dovish Democratic foreign policy paradigm, (although there were signs toward the end of the Carter presidency that Carter was beginning to resurrect them), these people began turning to the drifting Republican Party, allying behind former Democrat Ronald Reagan, who was not highly regarded by the Republican establishment at all. Reagan's administration sucked numbers of Democratic Party hard-line foreign policy apparatchiks into its bureaucratic Republican bulk. In retrospect, the destruction of the Nixon administration, and with it the pragmatic foreign policy typical of "real" Republicans (who tend to be businessmen, organization men, men in gray flannel suits--certainly not firebrands), detente, which the Truman-Kennedy-Johnson foreign policy people abhored, was a disaster for the dovish clique of Democrats. Between appeasement and war is detente. The proponents of detente had been discredited. That left appeasement, which Americans have limited tolerance for and which Carter used up very quickly. So you get the firebrands--tear down this wall, evil empire, axis of evil... If you don't like it, blame the crowd who destroyed Richard "Ping-pong diplomacy" Nixon. Their "new American century" is one in which the world's only remaining superpower has a destiny to rule, much as the Romans once did, and enforce a "Pax Americana". Or the British. Or whomever. Great powers shape their world. Now, if Kerry wins, we will get back the "neoliberals" of the Clinton presidency, who have a world vision that is, in some ways, very much like that of Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. These guys are just as patriotic as the neocons--after all, President Clinton and his people were fond of referring to America as "the indespensible nation"--but they have a wider vision of American power, one based more on economic power than military power. Then Secretary of Commerce Mickey Kantor bragged in 1996, "trade and international economics have joined the foreign policy table." The "neoliberal" (or, perhaps, paleoconservative) expectation that securing a world open to trade and investment will enable America to do good even as it does well fits squarely in with the theories of pre-FDR Republicanism. In President Clinton’s succinct formulation, "trade, investment, and commerce" will produce "a structure of opportunity and peace." For neoliberals, international arms limitations, multi-lateral military agreements, cutting trade deals, reducing tariffs, protecting property rights, and running interference for American private enterprise—the entire package gilded with the idiom of globalization and earnest professions of America’s abiding concern for democracy and human rights—constitute the heart of foreign policy. In other words, you don't have to go around blowing people up to ensure and expand America's power. But what about when people go around blowing you up? There, the neo-liberals (and paleo-conservatives) don't have a good track record. Enter the neo-conservative (paleo-liberal?) who speaks of missile gaps (Kennedy), windows of vulnerability (Reagan), and, in the incarnation of G.W. Bush, says to militant muslim fanatics: "Your god promised you 72 Virginians if you died? Well, here we are, ready to rock and roll. Chris Mark |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Name the "neoconservatives" that occupy *any* *key* positions. Please. Time to put your money where your (overworked) mouth is. It is of course pretty hard to judge what people's real opinions are, and there is no such thing as a "neo-conservative party." Some people described as neo-conservatives even prefer to deny that there is such a thing at all, which does not make it any easier. However, fortunately there is Kristol's "Project for a New American Century", which is as close to a formal neo-con organisation as one is likely to get. The people who signed the "manifesto" of the PNAC are the closest we have to "card-carrying neo-conservatives", and they include Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz. Other signatures are, interestingly enough, those of Quayle, Fukuyama and Kagan, and that of Jeb Bush; but not that of George Bush. It is unlikely that many woukld really classify Cheney, or for that matter Rumsfeld, as "neoconservatives", especially as both have been plain ol' conservatives for many, many years. Wolfowitz is not what I would call in a "key position" in Bush's cabinet (he is not a cabinet level official in the first place). It is true that "core" neocons such as Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, and Armitage, are not really in the top posts; Thanks--then you admit spoke incorrectly when you alluded to so many "key positions" being in the hands of "neoconservatives". Brooks but considering the left-wing background (and relative youth) of many neocons that does not come as a surprise. Neocon "converts" who always have been loyal party men as well have the best cards in this administration. Other neocons are of course not really interested in active politics, retired (Kirkpatrick) or discredited (Perle). Probably Condoleezza Rice should also be considered a neocon, despite her occasional support for Powell. -- Emmanuel Gustin |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... While the president can certainly set policy direction, it takes considerably more cooperation to generate huge shifts in emphasis than in a parliamentary government. This seems a pretty curious argument to me. These days, a president with a majority in Congress can do almost whatever he wants. In a parliamentary government, a leader has to take much more account of backbenchers who may choose to send him or her home on any bad day (except if he really has a huge majority, such as Blair has) or even may be the leader of a coalition government, which requires a lot of compromise and negotiation. If you'd like to point out some members of the administration that look "distinctly weak" I'll be happy to comment. How about George W. Bush? Nice enough fellow, so we are told, and as far as is known, not an actual neo-con. Not very knowledgeable about the world outside the USA; The danger of relying upon partial impressions and media pundits has apparently befallen you. You have, IIRC, already said you were unwilling to read Frank's new book, but a perusal of it would shed a different light on Bush's leadership abilities and his knowledge (and willingness to listen to others). and not very capable of expressing political ideas without shooting himself in the foot. He has indeed been known to flumox his wording; which to some is a bit refreshing, and less remindful of the polished know-it-all-tell-you-what-you-want-to-hear politician types. Claimed to make his own decisions -- but at least some of his supposed underlings have a record of hiding very important facts from him, and he didn't fire them. Not sure about that (you have proven quite adept at making such accusations and then backing off from them when specifics are requested, such as your erecent "key positions" occupied by "neocons" statement). Again, you can read Franks' accounts of his briefings to the President, and his conversations with him in regards to major decisions--but you don't want to bother with getting a first hand account, do you? Or take Powell, for example. A good officer, I suppose; and a honest man, but a weak politician. He is known to oppose the neo-cons on many issues, but he still lets them walk all over him. Worse, his foreign policy ventures have been less than successful. Send Powell to the Middle East and he comes back with a deal that isn't one and is shot to pieces the next day. it isn't so much unilateralism (which was thrust upon us by lack of support from allies who had benefited from fifty years of American defense), Sorry, but that is nonsense. After 9/11, the Allies of the USA were fully willing to consider this attack on the USA as an attack on themselves as well (which in many ways it was, anyway) and to activate NATO to deal with the problem. yeah, just so long as it did not require them to really go out of their way in handling the root problems (the UK, Italy, Canada, Netherlands, Poland, and non-Euro Australia excepted). Otherwise, it has usually involved only token deployments, and then with with lots of strings attached. However, at that point the USA decided unilaterally on a policy that many of its allies considered to be extremely foolhardy, and insisted that we had a suicide pact -- that somehow we have an obligation to jump in the deep as well. A "suicide pact"? What you really meant was to say that you are fine with being a staunch ally--that is, until you are actually required to put your collective butts on the line, at which point it is no longer an alliance, but a "suicide pact"? Sorry, but no way! In an alliance, the decisions are made together, in cooperation and consultation; and nobody can object against the USA having a say commensurate with its size and its efforts, but that is not the same as blind obedience. Ever heard of "unity of command"? The neocons are not above muttering dark threats and throwing insults when someone in Europe dares to disagree with them. Just as some Euros are likewise capable of those same mutterings when others *dare* to defy their own edicts (witness Chirac telling the eastern Euros to "shut up"?). Washington should do well to remember that European heads of government are accountable to their own electorate, and despite whatever Tony Blair says, they would be seriously negligent in their duty if they accepted foreign policy dictates from the White House. Our dictate is that we are going to go wherever we have to go to stomp on threats--you can either join us or sit on the sidelines. Your country made its own call--any splinters yet from those bleacher seats? Brooks snip |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
These days, a president with a majority in Congress can do almost whatever he wants. You need to pay much more attention to U.S. governmental activity if you want to comment on it. That statement above is absurd unless the majority you're talking about is 2/3, which the Republicans don't currently have. Send Powell to the Middle East and he comes back with a deal that isn't one and is shot to pieces the next day. At least he tried. How come no Belgian officials head off to Isreal or Palastine to solve the problem? Pretty easy to sit on the sidelines and critique the players, try getting in the game. and nobody can object against the USA having a say commensurate with its size and its efforts Hogwash! The U.S. say is equal to that of Belgium, UK, Poland, The Czech Republic, etc., etc. Our "say" is much, much smaller than our contribution. The neocons are not above muttering dark threats and throwing insults when someone in Europe dares to disagree with them. I can't believe this "neo-con" thing has spread to Europe. I know it makes it easier for you to *not* think about issues but you have to understand it makes you look foolish. This "evil neo-con" thing is convenient for both generalization and demonation, but since its an invention of people trying to do this, you might want to stay away from the term in any discussion in which you hope to come off as rational. Washington should do well to remember that European heads of government are accountable to their own electorate, and despite whatever Tony Blair says, they would be seriously negligent in their duty if they accepted foreign policy dictates from the White House. I'm glad you graps that, now remember it goes both ways. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ow about George W. Bush? Nice enough fellow, so we are
told, and as far as is known, not an actual neo-con. Not very knowledgeable about the world outside the USA; and not very capable of expressing political ideas without shooting himself People with even lower IQ levels would be even more suitable for US Presidents job. There are not many fundamentel differences between Geoerge W. and Kerry.but George W. will get reelected no matter what,only because if Kerry gets elected he may replace some,not all only some,"Ordo Ab Chao" people in pivotal positions and this is an unacceptable risk for some. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are not many fundamentel differences between Geoerge W. and Kerry.but
George W. will get reelected no matter what,only because if Kerry gets elected he may replace some,not all only some,"Ordo Ab Chao" people in pivotal positions and this is an unacceptable risk for some. I must also add,if Kerry cannot give assurances to Ordo Ab Chao people OBL will probably be " captured" a couple of weeks before election. If Ordo Ab Chao people receive assurances from Kerry OBL "capture" will be delayed till at least December,in this case George W.will probably have to go back to Texas. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So this election, to a very real extent, is a face-off
not between Republicans and Democrats, but between hard-line foreign policy T-K-J Democrats--the Bush people--and the accomodationist C-C Democrats--the Kerry people. "Whose party was it in New York last week, anyway? Bush, Cheney, Miller, and McCain mentioned Franklin Roosevelt a total of seven times and Harry Truman twice--always favorably. John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton, speaking in comparable slots at the Democratic convention, mentioned Truman not at all and Roosevelt a grand total of once,... So the break between the World War II/Cold Warrior Democrats and the post-Vietnam Democrats is complete. This is, after all, the core of Bush's foreign policy.... It could establish the Republicans as a real majority party--as the Roosevelt-Reagan party, as the Truman-Bush party...." So writes William Kristal in the Sept. 13 edition of Weekly Standard. Complete essay at: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...uofdm.asp?pg=1 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thelasian wrote:
Oh I see - so you "understand" military operations better than the commander of the 82nd Airborne. No genius, better than you and the reporter who wrote the story. And you claim - without an iota of evidence - that when Maj Gen. Swannak said that, he was referring only to Baghdad. Go back, look at the transcript of the interview and you'll see the discussion was about the 82nd ABs area of responsibility and not Iraq as a whole. Well, how do you know? Because I'm familiar with the interview and the way it was twisted by the press. Like I said, pretty much every IRaqi dissident group had an office or a center of operation in Iran, and for many years too. Say it all you want, that doesn't make it so. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
George W. Bush Abortion Scandal that should have been | Psalm 110 | Military Aviation | 0 | August 12th 04 09:40 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |