[Lerkfish]

for three years now. Here is a short timeline:
--AT first, they deny neocons exist and say I'm crazy
--then I provide the links and they say I'm paranoid
--They say, ok, neocons exist, but there's none in the administration, and I need to wear a tinfoil hat
-- I point out wolfowitz, cheney, perle, rumsfeld and others ARE neocons and ARE in the administration...they say I'm a conspiracy nut
-- Then they say, ok, those guys are neocons but do I honestly think they exert undue influence over Bush? and by the way, I should adjust my medication.
-- I point out that Bush himself says he doesnt' read the paper and gets all he knows from his inner circle, which are all neocons. They say you're like chicken little, the sky is falling! the sky is falling!
-- Then they say, ok, those guys are neocons and they might exert SOME influence, but there 's no way the PNAC goals of world domination are part of the administration's plans, and that NEXT I'll be saying Bush is the easter bunny.
-- I point out a side by side comparison of the PNAC manifesto and Bush's last SOTU speech, and they say SO WHAT? So what if the neocons have taken over the republican party, I happen to agree with regime changing the middle east. and by the way, people like you are committing treason for disagreeing with the president.
-- Then Ridge starts issuing bogus terror alerts And then I say: you guys are crazy
-- then the swiftboat liars appear, and they say Kerry planned to get the medals 30 years ago in order run for president now, And I say: you guys should wear tinfoil hats
-- Then there is talk of suspending the elections and I say: you guys are paranoid
-- Then the administration outs its own CIA double agent, allowing terrorists to escape and I say people like you are committing treason.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

-- Then the administration outs its own CIA double agent, allowing terrorists to escape and I say people like you are committing treason.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
for three years now. Here is a short timeline...

heh.

[chris v]

I admire you Lerk, but man, you're a glutton for punishment.

Bring on the naysayers! Make the pie higher! Put food on our children!

Nucular! Nucular!

[BRussell]

The thing about the "they're neocons" argument is that it isn't an argument. It's no different than saying "they're libruls!" Well? It just depends on your definition of neocon (or liberals), and in the end it doesn't really matter anyway, because it's the policy that people disagree about, not membership in some group.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by chris v:
I admire you Lerk, but man, you're a glutton for punishment.

Bring on the naysayers! Make the pie higher! Put food on our children!

Nucular! Nucular!

I"m only telling it like it is: unfortunately in this political climate, honesty is asking for punishment.

[Zimphire]

BTW, your timeline is faulty. Who is this "They" ?

I don't personally know anyone that would agree with your points above that aren't left wingers.

I would say you were being paranoid and deluded. IMHO of course.

[chris v]

You are one of "Them," Zim. "We" know that.

CV

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris v:
You are one of "Them," Zim. "We" know that.

CV

One of what? The people that started agreeing with Lerk's delusions?

"neocons" is just another 2 cent term that the left have came up with to compare the right with silliness.

It goes up there with the misuse of the word "homophobe"

[chris v]

Oh, grow a goddam sense of humor, boy. I was funnin' you.

Go ahead a report abuse, though, you humorless bastard.

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
One of what? The people that started agreeing with Lerk's delusions?

"neocons" is just another 2 cent term that the left have came up with to compare the right with silliness.

It goes up there with the misuse of the word "homophobe"

LOL! I rest my case.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris v:
Oh, grow a goddam sense of humor, boy. I was funnin' you.

Go ahead a report abuse, though, you humorless bastard.

CV

Hard to tell who was funnin who when you cannot see facial expression. And your post wasn't "reportable"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! I rest my case.

Tell me Lerk. How did my post rest your case about the above?

I am waiting for you to tell use who "they" is. From what I see, these "they" are a made up group. Because in here I have seen none of this.

You are sometimes called "crazy" because you come up with crazy conspiracies Lerk. That isn't a "neoncon conspiracy" as it hasn't only been us "neocons" that have pointed it out.

I am also curious as to what you mean when you say "neocon" so we aren't in confusion.

Thanks.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
One of what? The people that started agreeing with Lerk's delusions?

"neocons" is just another 2 cent term that the left have came up with to compare the right with silliness.

It goes up there with the misuse of the word "homophobe"

..and the phrase "anti-semitism"

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
One of what? The people that started agreeing with Lerk's delusions?

"They" are the people who do not agree with Lerk and are therefore against him. For all that people accuse the neocons of seeing things in black and white, the accusers tend to be no better.

"neocons" is just another 2 cent term that the left have came up with to compare the right with silliness.

More or less. About a year ago, I started looking for a clear definition of exactly what a neocon is. So far I've found none, leaving the best synonym I can think of to be "bogeyman".

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And your post wasn't "reportable"

Though, him calling you a "bastard" is. FYI.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
..and the phrase "anti-semitism"

Naw, I only use it when the shoe fits. Go look how many people I have actually called anti-semitic in here.

Now, look how many leftists have called ANYONE that has a conservative leaning "neocons"

I think even phoenixboy added "nazi" in the middle as well.

Now we have MM's "hatriot"

I wonder what the political correctness police would think of that.

I am still waiting on Lerk to tell me who "they" are, and what "neocon" means to him.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
for three years now. Here is a short timeline:
--AT first, they deny neocons exist and say I'm crazy
--then I provide the links and they say I'm paranoid
--They say, ok, neocons exist, but there's none in the administration, and I need to wear a tinfoil hat
-- I point out wolfowitz, cheney, perle, rumsfeld and others ARE neocons and ARE in the administration...they say I'm a conspiracy nut
-- Then they say, ok, those guys are neocons but do I honestly think they exert undue influence over Bush? and by the way, I should adjust my medication.
-- I point out that Bush himself says he doesnt' read the paper and gets all he knows from his inner circle, which are all neocons. They say you're like chicken little, the sky is falling! the sky is falling!
-- Then they say, ok, those guys are neocons and they might exert SOME influence, but there 's no way the PNAC goals of world domination are part of the administration's plans, and that NEXT I'll be saying Bush is the easter bunny.
-- I point out a side by side comparison of the PNAC manifesto and Bush's last SOTU speech, and they say SO WHAT? So what if the neocons have taken over the republican party, I happen to agree with regime changing the middle east. and by the way, people like you are committing treason for disagreeing with the president.
-- Then Ridge starts issuing bogus terror alerts And then I say: you guys are crazy
-- then the swiftboat liars appear, and they say Kerry planned to get the medals 30 years ago in order run for president now, And I say: you guys should wear tinfoil hats
-- Then there is talk of suspending the elections and I say: you guys are paranoid
-- Then the administration outs its own CIA double agent, allowing terrorists to escape and I say people like you are committing treason.

You just summarized the internet and how pointless all forums are.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The thing about the "they're neocons" argument is that it isn't an argument. It's no different than saying "they're libruls!"

You know, I never thought about it that way, but you've got a really good point there. I still think my bogeyman comparison is pretty apt, though. "Go to bed, little Timmy, or the NEOCONSERVATIVES will get you!"

Well? It just depends on your definition of neocon (or liberals), and in the end it doesn't really matter anyway, because it's the policy that people disagree about, not membership in some group.

I'm not sure of that, to be honest. It looks to me as though most people don't even really care all that much about the policy anymore. Ask a conservative why someone's a liberal, or ask a liberal why someone's a neocon, and you'll get pretty much the same response: "Because they're eeeeeeeeeeevil!" It's not much more than a slightly less-mature version of the children's game "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Spliffdaddy]

Yet another bi-weekly thread saying the same thing that he's said a hundred times before.

There's a reason nobody pays attention to these conspiracy theories. Posting them over and over does nothing but make us worry about the sanity of the person that posts them.

We hear you, already.

We just aren't buying it.

But that won't prevent yet another thread next week relating to the very same neocon conspiracies.

If the neocons are so damn good that world domination is within their grasp - then more power to 'em - they must know what they're doing in order to dupe billions of people - except for one.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

There's a reason nobody pays attention to these conspiracy theories. Posting them over and over does nothing but make us worry about the sanity of the person that posts them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

[LoganCharles]

Speaking of conspiracy theories:

Originally posted by Crippled Lerkfish on 07-28-2004 07:10 PM:

this will short & with typos --i have one arm in sling due to auto aacisent, not used to hunt-n-peck typing

we should look at what they fear the most 9and we can determine this by what issues have the most virulent right wing PR pogroms:

Then but a couple short weeks later this:

Originally posted by Healed? Lerkfish on 08-11-2004 08:06 PM :
for three years now. Here is a short timeline:
--AT first, they deny neocons exist and say I'm crazy
--then I provide the links and they say I'm paranoid
--They say, ok, neocons exist, but there's none in the administration, and I need to wear a tinfoil hat
-- I point out wolfowitz, cheney, perle, rumsfeld and others ARE neocons and ARE in the administration...they say I'm a conspiracy nut
-- Then they say, ok, those guys are neocons but do I honestly think they exert undue influence over Bush? and by the way, I should adjust my medication.
-- I point out that Bush himself says he doesnt' read the paper and gets all he knows from his inner circle, which are all neocons. They say you're like chicken little, the sky is falling! the sky is falling!
-- Then they say, ok, those guys are neocons and they might exert SOME influence, but there 's no way the PNAC goals of world domination are part of the administration's plans, and that NEXT I'll be saying Bush is the easter bunny.
-- I point out a side by side comparison of the PNAC manifesto and Bush's last SOTU speech, and they say SO WHAT? So what if the neocons have taken over the republican party, I happen to agree with regime changing the middle east. and by the way, people like you are committing treason for disagreeing with the president.
-- Then Ridge starts issuing bogus terror alerts And then I say: you guys are crazy
-- then the swiftboat liars appear, and they say Kerry planned to get the medals 30 years ago in order run for president now, And I say: you guys should wear tinfoil hats
-- Then there is talk of suspending the elections and I say: you guys are paranoid
-- Then the administration outs its own CIA double agent, allowing terrorists to escape and I say people like you are committing treason.

Now my question is: Do collar bones heal this quickly? A quick search at this site: http://www.sportsinjuryclinic.net/cy...lefracture.htm
states that healing time is 4 to 8 weeks which means your arm should still be in a sling thus disabling you from typing concisely.

Regardless if you are trully injured then the time you took to "hunt-n-peck" this latest rant must of been very time consuming.

[Zimphire]

The first post reminded of the time Ca$h messaged me on AIM drunk.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It just depends on your definition of neocon (or liberals), and in the end it doesn't really matter anyway, because it's the policy that people disagree about, not membership in some group.

actually no, it depends on what these so called "politicians" purport to be about, and what their real "agenda" is.

in my book, it is important that a military superpower doesn't dictate, or act unilaterally under the guise of "liberating" other countries or "defending itself".

unless of course you are against freedom, pro fascism, pro sycophant/authoritarian culture and "zionist" (neocon definition) religious indoctrination.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

heh

I'd pay to hear him say that word

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
About a year ago, I started looking for a clear definition of exactly what a neocon is. So far I've found none, leaving the best synonym I can think of to be "bogeyman".

It's very strange that you battled so to find a definition of neocons! This is not a secret underground organisation. Richard Perle was on French television the other night giving an hour long interview on the Neocon movement. What it is where it comes from etc. I can't imagine why you had difficulty finding information about them. You can get other, more aggressive accounts of what the neocons are but if you want a rather bland middle to right of center account, there is a series of articles on the Neocons on the website of the
Christian Science Monitor

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream ...

Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What I find so strange is that many of the people that are going to vote for the Republicans either don't know what the Neocons stand for or deny that they even exist! Many of them have never been the PNAC website or know what the AEI is. There's an interactive test over at the CSM website which you can use to find out if you're a neocon. If you fail the test, you shouldn't be voting Republican.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The thing about the "they're neocons" argument is that it isn't an argument. It's no different than saying "they're libruls!" Well? It just depends on your definition of neocon (or liberals), and in the end it doesn't really matter anyway, because it's the policy that people disagree about, not membership in some group.

I think his point is that people he disagrees with aren't allowed to be appointed to positions in government, or to have opinions that might be influential in the public realm. Therefore he will slap an eeeevil sounding name on them. We could all play that game because of course it is much easier to throw names around than to debate policies rationally.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Speaking of conspiracy theories:



Then but a couple short weeks later this:



Now my question is: Do collar bones heal this quickly? A quick search at this site: http://www.sportsinjuryclinic.net/cy...lefracture.htm
states that healing time is 4 to 8 weeks which means your arm should still be in a sling thus disabling you from typing concisely.

Regardless if you are trully injured then the time you took to "hunt-n-peck" this latest rant must of been very time consuming.

I still have my sling, but the orthopedic physician has me trying to use it for short periods to gradually get ready for returning to work.

but is this relevant? Oh...I get it....you think I'm lying about my injury. I wish that were true. I still can't sleep anywhere but the recliner without a lot of pain. I am taking vicodin and flexeril. the crack in my collarbone is in and unfortunate place, close to where the joint is between the shoulder blade and collarbone...in other words the point of the shoulder. What this does is limit my movement above parallel to my shoulder (my wife still has to help me put on a shirt and my sling)...for example, I can't take my left arm and raise my hand high enough to scratch the top of my head, but I can scratch my chest or lower. Since the keyboard is lower, as long as I keep my elbow relatively stationery, it doesn't cause sharp pain to type, ALTHOUGH it does make my arm tired to do so.
I spent all of yesterday trying to simulate as close as possible my normal work day...which is being on the computer. I timed it and kept myself busy on various message boards that I frequent. I purposely didn't take my pain pills or my muscle relaxer pills. I was able to do it, but I had to double up on the vicodin to compensate for the soreness and fatigue.
When I sleep at night, I have a leather recliner, two pillows and two quilts. I have to use my right hand to place the pillow on my left side so it will support my left shoulder that's in a sling. then I extend the footrest of the recliner, use my right arm to drape one quilt around my legs, and keep the second quilt within reach. Then I grab the second quilt for my torso, and then grab the second pillow for behind my head.
Every four hours the pain pill wears off, and I usually wake up and have to get a pill, and then the elaborate process of getting back into the recliner.
Last night, I tried to sleep in the bed, but because the crack is on the joint, I cant' sleep on my left side, and if I sleep on my right side, gravity pulls the shoulder towards my neck, and this makes it too painful to sleep.

Now, arent you glad you were so interested in my personal life and the extent of my injury? I could continue if you'd like.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


I think his point is that people he disagrees with aren't allowed to be appointed to positions in government, or to have opinions that might be influential in the public realm. Therefore he will slap an eeeevil sounding name on them. We could all play that game because of course it is much easier to throw names around than to debate policies rationally.

I object to the neocon agenda and mission. We've been through this before. the nomenclature is irrelevant to my objection.

[SimeyTheLimey]

It seems like there is a certain Roy Cohn, Richard Nixon quality to this. If a group of people are out there who have a set of ideas, then there must be a secret conspiracy and a subversive agenda. Are you now, or have you ever been a Neocon?

We have an election. Leave the conspiracies and name calling out. Ideas and policy positions are not "agendas." Debate the issues, present alternatives. Let the voters decide which group of idea-holders to put in charge.

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
-- then the swiftboat liars appear, and they say Kerry planned to get the medals 30 years ago in order run for president now

The Heinz Candidate

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It seems like there is a certain Roy Cohn, Richard Nixon quality to this. If a group of people are out there who have a set of ideas, then there must be a secret conspiracy and a subversive agenda. Are you now, or have you ever been a Neocon?

We have an election. Leave the conspiracies and name calling out. Ideas and policy positions are not "agendas." Debate the issues, present alternatives. Let the voters decide which group of idea-holders to put in charge.

LOL! you're always the same, Simey. trying to shape the debate into a mode you accept.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Leave the conspiracies and name calling out.

I'm very confused about your references to name-calling and using "evil-sounding" names. What is wrong with calling someone a "neo-con"? It's a term that not only accurately describes their position on most issues but it's the term Wolfowitz and Cheney and Perle and a host of others use to describe themselves!

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Troll:
It's a term that not only accurately describes their position on most issues but it's the term Wolfowitz and Cheney and Perle and a host of others use to describe themselves!

*SMACKDOWN*

[sanity assassin]

To say that we should just let the voters decide, is to conclude, for many, that we allow the possibility of underhand policies by the leaders of our nations. That we should just lert them be without questioning. There has been more than enough data to come to the conclusion that Bush and his cohorts should not be left unchallenged in their goals.

It's by their actions that drives certain people to make bold claims, and in which those claims seem to have more than a basis in truth.

If one finds it insulting to be associated with the term 'neocon', then maybe the truth is hitting home a little too close.

The Bush Admin. is anything BUT for the people, and if we see that, then anything is possible as to what they are capablre of doing. It's gotten to the point in which suspicion ifeven those most basic ideas that they espoused, are being called into question.

It only takes a few generations of having to stand by and live under such dictatorships that the people will rebel, in spirit, and by actions. This is happening by means of virtually the mss protests, and doubtful feelings in non-US countries already.

In my country (Scotland), I honestly don;t know anyone who buys into these wars, Bush's words. There is such scepticism around. You might say that Bush is doing this with a level of foresight that somehow most of us don;t see, but I'll choose to doubt that based on what I can deduce about these maniacs in the Whitehouse.

Lerkfish, very concise and good post.

[sanity assassin]

The term 'neocon' is self-evident in its use to describe the gangof thugs Bush surrounds himself with. Not only do thet attribute the term to themselves, but by means of their actions, their agenda, it's obvoious that what it means to be a neocon, is pretty much what they are.

Question is, is it a good thing to have these people in power? No, it's not. Are we just being a little sensationalist in what we conceive Neoconian policy to be? No, we're not. Do we have the right to be utterly suspicious of them? Yes, we do.

Christ, I'm at the point I don't believe a word about Bin Laden that Bush has put out. I don't believe a thing they say as to justification for what they are doing in the world.

If I was still in the military, I'd be ashamed to be fighting under these pretences.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Troll:
... There's an interactive test over at the CSM website which you can use to find out if you're a neocon...

Whadda ya know: I'm a realist, just like I've always said I am.

Oh, and I'm voting Republican, too.

Maury

[davesimondotcom]

If there could only be more BRussells and Millenniums there would be much more thoughtful debate on this board. Nuff said.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
If there could only be more BRussells and Millenniums there would be much more thoughtful debate on this board. Nuff said.

and more Trolls and sanity assasins as well.

[Spliffdaddy]

Call me a neocon.

'cause it's better than being a liberal.

[ebuddy]

Lerk, if your basic suppostion is that the NEO-CON is really simply an Imperialist, does this include Clinton? Read some of the speeches Clinton gave in Germany prior to our actions within the UN in Yugoslavia. Your eyes may be opened a smackeral wider.

Name for me a faction that is not imperialistic? Human nature is imperialistic. The world community will occur. There is simply no way around it. It will either occur with the US as weakened, or the US as strengthened. As a biased American, I'd like to see us emerge within a Global Community as strengthened. The disagreement is how to achieve that strength. I believe the immense blessings we Americans enjoy are due solely to a superior legislative process that affords greater opportunity for all. Evidenced by our poorest among the richest globally. It is no wonder that our borders are so porous, you cannot stop the mass attempts of those who wish to be a part of this. Democracies are less likely to war against one another. Two or Three superpowers will come to a head. It is unavoidable. Will we be one of them? I believe our actions in the next 2 to 3 years will be an integral part of the answer to that question and centers on our posture Globally. (i.e.; democracy abroad.) Kerry BTW; is no different. A fellow Skull&Bonesman would send MORE troops in to Iraq to hasten the affair and his International policy differs very little from Bush's currently. Don't believe me? Read up. The Neo-con is located smack-dab in the center of the political arena, a location Kerry is running head-long towards. Clinton, no different. Don't be fooled by the political "end-around" that would have you believe thieves only exist on one side-while thieves steal your belongings from the other.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Call me a neocon.

Je vois le probleme que ce terme pose. Hehe les mes, c'est pas le mot francais qu'on utilise! Moi, je ne pense pas que t'es un con ... meme si on se se pose parfois la question!

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Call me a neocon.

hey, like bob marley said "who the cap fit..."

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
A fellow Skull&Bonesman would send MORE troops in to Iraq to hasten the affair and his International policy differs very little from Bush's currently. Don't believe me? Read up. The Neo-con is located smack-dab in the center of the political arena, a location Kerry is running head-long towards. Clinton, no different. Don't be fooled by the political "end-around" that would have you believe thieves only exist on one side-while thieves steal your belongings from the other.

Good post. It is well-known that Clinton flirted with the Neo-cons for a while and Yugoslavia is the example. I don't agree with your Kerry analogy though.

The Neo-cons have suffered a crushing blow politically with the failure of their Iraq policy and it's doubtful Kerry would turn to any of them. In fact, one of the only positive aspects I can see of a Bush victory is that it will probably be the nail in the coffin of the neo-con movement. It will probably be sweet justice for this Administration to have to deal with the mess that Iraq has become. If Kerry wins, they hand the hot potato that they started cooking to the democrats and blame them when anything goes wrong.

But getting back to your Kerry point. Kerry isn't in favour of sending more troops to Iraq because he wants to create a new American century and secure American hegemony (the task the neo-cons set out to achieve). Almost everyone (even some neo-cons) realises that those aims can no longer be achieved. We will be lucky if Iraq ceases to be an inspiration for resistance to American imperialism. It is highly, highly unlikely that the invasion and occupation of Iraq will inspire American-style institutions and American-friendly, terrorist-bashing, US product purchasing Arab states to sprout all over the Middle East. Kerry wants to send more troops to Iraq so that they can stabilise Iraq so that US troops can get out of there. He isn't interested in the grand imperial ideals that the neo-cons hoped to achieve. If you read his speeches he's saying exactly the opposite. In fact he's preaching the humble America that George Bush spoke about before he took office.

[LoganCharles]

I'm a neo-con in ideology. And proud of it. There is nothing wrong with establishing democracy. Over 60% of Iraqi's want it. Unfortunately the sun and sand must really get to a smaller percentage of the people who just assume blow themselves up than to live a free life.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Healed! Lerkfish:
LOL! you're always the same, Simey. trying to shape the debate into a mode you accept.

Re-read your posts.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Re-read your posts.

heh. the irony is heavy. like a freight train on yer little toe.

[Troll]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I'm a neo-con in ideology. And proud of it. There is nothing wrong with establishing democracy. Over 60% of Iraqi's want it. Unfortunately the sun and sand must really get to a smaller percentage of the people who just assume blow themselves up than to live a free life.

Being a neocon isn't about establishing democracy. The neocons' primary focus is on ensuring that the US remains the sole superpower and dominates the planet for the next 100 years. The neocons believe that they can achieve that in the Middle East by regime change and they believe that they can control the strategic region of the Middle East best if the governments there are democracies. But if the neocons are bringing sun and sand to oppressed people, it's not because they care. It's because they believe that if people have "sun and sand"TM American power will be enhanced. Neocons only want to bring sun and sand to places that have strategic value, places that enhance their global domination. Which is why they have had a plan for Iraq for a number of years and have yet to publish one for Zimbabwe.

World peace is a by-product of American domination in their eyes, not an end in itself. They certainly have no objection to achieving world domination through violence even if it means pre-emptively attacking countries that might in future pose a threat to their dominance.

If you do the test, you'll see that Neoconservatives:

* Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
* Share unwavering support for Israel
* Support American unilateral action
* Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
* Promote the development of an American empire
* Equate American power with the potential for world peace
* Seek to democratize the Arab world
* Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I'm a neo-con in ideology. And proud of it. There is nothing wrong with establishing democracy. Over 60% of Iraqi's want it. Unfortunately the sun and sand must really get to a smaller percentage of the people who just assume blow themselves up than to live a free life.

What if the people don't really want democracy? Especially as they don't even have a clue as to what it is, and how to go about achieving it. Middle Eastern cultures and values are completely different from ours and we have no business forcing our cultures and values on them. If the tables were turned, you would be just as upset if someone were trying to force their culture on you, via military might. As to your assertion that 60% of Iraqis want democracy, that's just plain wrong. They want peace, and to be left alone to run their own affairs. That's something altogether different than democracy.

What this is really all about is global domination by American corporations, and throwing the term "democracy" around as a shield for imperialistic activity.