[Zimphire]

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ip...es_14804.shtml

IRAN’S NEO-CONSERVATIVES POISED TO TAKE CHARGE OF POLITICAL AGENDA

In response to deepening domestic and social challenges, a neo-conservative movement is fast gaining influence in Iran, and now appears poised to take charge of shaping the country’s political agenda. This new force in Iranian politics features a blend of old-style devotion to the principles of the 1979 Islamic revolution with new-found pragmatism on nagging domestic issues.

[BlackGriffen]

Those are as similar to the American Neocons as the UK Democrats are to American ones.

Or did one of your possessed friends tell you different?

BlackGriffen

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Those are as similar to the American Neocons as the UK Democrats are to American ones.

Or did one of your possessed friends tell you different?

Read the article: Zimph wasn't the one to pull out the N-word this time. Once again, we see "Neocon" used for "People who don't agree with me because they are eeeevil"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Read the article: Zimph wasn't the one to pull out the N-word this time. Once again, we see "Neocon" used for "People who don't agree with me because they are eeeevil"

Thank you. Griffen is just being a fanboy. Ignore him.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Thank you. Griffen is just being a fanboy. Ignore him.

Good read! Here is what I like the most:

In sharp contrast to the older generation, however, the neo-conservatives seem unfazed by globalization issues and express a willingness to tackle the country’s myriad social and economic problems, especially unemployment. Iran’s old conservative guard, which is dominated by clerics, has largely avoided confronting the country’s daunting economic dilemmas.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Read the article: Zimph wasn't the one to pull out the N-word this time. Once again, we see "Neocon" used for "People who don't agree with me because they are eeeevil"

I'm well aware of that, Mill. What I said was that the same word can mean different things in different contexts. If anything, the Iranian neoconservatives seem like compromisers, unlike the extremist neocons in America. It was Zimpy who was mistakenly equating the two. I just asked him if he happened to have some "inside" information.

Also, why would the American neocons, who named themselves, use the word as a synonym for evil? I'm curious where you got this strange misconception.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Thank you. Griffen is just being a fanboy. Ignore him.

Would that make you Lerkfish's biggest fan?

BG

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Also, why would the American neocons, who named themselves, use the word as a synonym for evil? I'm curious where you got this strange misconception.

I have yet to see anyone describe themselves as a neocon. Even if they did, I doubt they would use it as a synonym for evil; that's just the connotations given to it by people who don't agree with them.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I have yet to see anyone describe themselves as a neocon.

what???????

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I have yet to see anyone describe themselves as a neocon. Even if they did, I doubt they would use it as a synonym for evil; that's just the connotations given to it by people who don't agree with them.

I concur, where did this neocon thing come from anyways?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
what???????

Oh, I've seen plenty of people describe other people as neocons. But finding an someone who actually uses the name for himself is another matter entirely.

[PacHead]

Troll posted in another thread, that members of the Bush administration call themselves neocons.

I'd like to see him/her/it backup those allegations.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Troll posted in another thread, that members of the Bush administration call themselves neocons.

I'd like to see him/her/it backup those allegations.

ehrrmmm...he alread did. i think he posted like four or five different links on it.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I have yet to see anyone describe themselves as a neocon. Even if they did, I doubt they would use it as a synonym for evil; that's just the connotations given to it by people who don't agree with them.

”You might want to look here. Just one example of the birth of the current neocon movement. A lot of people here seem to like to toss popular words like "liberal," "conservative," "neocon," etc., without necessarily understanding what they mean. They just make blanket condemnations of one side or the other, because it's easier and more convenient to their position.

"Irving Kristol, a former Trotskyist and "godfather" of neoconservatism, describes his early Old Left views in his Memoirs of a Trotskyist. As a student during the economic turmoil of the 1930s and early 1940s, Kristol was a proud member of the Young People's Socialist League, a Trotskyist group that hoped for a permanent revolution that would envelop the globe in the socialist ideal. In his autobiographical Reflections of a Neoconservative {my emphasis}, he describes his early views as a “romantic passion” in which society was guided by an “intellectual and moral elite."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
”You might want to look here. Just one example of the birth of the current neocon movement. A lot of people here seem to like to toss popular words like "liberal," "conservative," "neocon," etc., without necessarily understanding what they mean. They just make blanket condemnations of one side or the other, because it's easier and more convenient to their position.

"Irving Kristol, a former Trotskyist and "godfather" of neoconservatism, describes his early Old Left views in his Memoirs of a Trotskyist. As a student during the economic turmoil of the 1930s and early 1940s, Kristol was a proud member of the Young People's Socialist League, a Trotskyist group that hoped for a permanent revolution that would envelop the globe in the socialist ideal. In his autobiographical Reflections of a Neoconservative {my emphasis}, he describes his early views as a “romantic passion” in which society was guided by an “intellectual and moral elite."

Irving Kristol and the other neoconservatives like Jeane Kirkpatrick have nothing to do with the group that people are calling neoconservatives now. The point about being a neoconservative was that they made the transition from being part of the left to being part of the right. That's the "neo" bit.

None of the people who have lately aquired the name were part of that group, nor did they make any similar ideological trek. Most of them are for the most part conventional conservatives. In the case of people like Rumsfeld, very conventional. His mentor was Jerry Ford. Several of the others came to prominence under Reagan.

What sets them apart is that individually they absorbed some of the ideas about democracy promotion, soft power, and transnationalism that have been floating about the foreign policy community for the last few years, married it up with a traditional realist understanding of the place of force in international relations, and applied it in a forward-thinking way to the Post Cold War world. That neither deserves a sinister name, nor opprobrium.

[BlackGriffen]

Let's see, there's Reflections of a Neoconservative by Irving Kristol (Publisher: Perseus Books Group; (October 1, 1983) ), for starters. Then there's The Neoconservative Imagination by Christopher Demuth and William Kristol, chairman of PNAC, (Publisher: American Enterprise Institute Press; (March 1, 1995)).

Then you have this interesting denial, that sounds exactly like some posters here:

Of course, the conceit of the piece is that there is a cohesive "neoconservative" movement. And precisely because that is not the case, journalists, pundits and policy analysts have felt free to label virtually everyone and anyone they (typically disagree with) as being neoconservatives.

Sounds kind of Baghdad Bob like, until you realize he is only denying their cohesiveness, not their existence.

The American Enterprise Institute seems far more open about it's neoconservatism. To whit:

_
Since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, neoconservatism has been an intellectual undercurrent that surfaces only intermittently and one whose meaning is glimpsed only in retrospect. It has flowered again of late, and President George W. Bush and his administration seem to be at home in the political environment created by neoconservatism's renaissance.
[...]
Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Again, admitting existence, but denying cohesiveness.

That should do, for now.

BlackGriffen

[djohnson]

Yet "neoconservatism" remains virtually undefined. A recent three-part National Review series aimed to debunk the view that some conspiratorial group of "neoconservatives" exists, yet there is clearly a group of people, consistently labeled "neoconservative," who share a unique viewpoint that strays - at least somewhat - from traditional conservatism.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
ehrrmmm...he alread did. i think he posted like four or five different links on it.

We must be talking about different threads, 'cause I didn't see any links in the thread I was reading.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Irving Kristol and the other neoconservatives like Jeane Kirkpatrick have nothing to do with the group that people are calling neoconservatives now. The point about being a neoconservative was that they made the transition from being part of the left to being part of the right. That's the "neo" bit.

None of the people who have lately aquired the name were part of that group, nor did they make any similar ideological trek. Most of them are for the most part conventional conservatives. In the case of people like Rumsfeld, very conventional. His mentor was Jerry Ford. Several of the others came to prominence under Reagan.

What sets them apart is that individually they absorbed some of the ideas about democracy promotion, soft power, and transnationalism that have been floating about the foreign policy community for the last few years, married it up with a traditional realist understanding of the place of force in international relations, and applied it in a forward-thinking way to the Post Cold War world. That neither deserves a sinister name, nor opprobrium.

All you've pointed out is that Rummy wasn't a founding member, but by your own admission, he has adopted the neoconservative positions.

Just like you don't have to be Jewish to be Christian anymore.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Let's see, there's Reflections of a Neoconservative by Irving Kristol (Publisher: Perseus Books Group; (October 1, 1983) ), for starters. Then there's The Neoconservative Imagination by Christopher Demuth and William Kristol, chairman of PNAC, (Publisher: American Enterprise Institute Press; (March 1, 1995)).

Then you have this interesting denial, that sounds exactly like some posters here:


Sounds kind of Baghdad Bob like, until you realize he is only denying their cohesiveness, not their existence.

The American Enterprise Institute seems far more open about it's neoconservatism. To whit:

Again, admitting existence, but denying cohesiveness.

That should do, for now.

BlackGriffen

This is just ridiculous. Yes, people like Irving Kristol existed. He called himself a neocon, and nobody disputes that. It is true also that the later people like Wolfowitz exist. Nobody would deny that. If it makes you happier, he isn't a figment of your imagination.

The question is whether there is a cohesive group. The answer is not really. They know each other, and they have signed letters together. No doubt they even talk to each other. And in true Washington fashion, their lives have intersected professionally at various times. But this plot nonesense is just absurd. This is McCarthyite crap.

Now, if all you want to do is slap a silly name on people that you decide belong together in a group, that's different. Childish, but different. It's on the same level as calling someone "feminazis."

[CreepingDeth]

KarlM, what was that paper again? Some small little rag? What horseshit.
I label myself neocon as a joke. Since republics are not teh evil, and since I'm a conservative, and the liberals have claimed our time period, why not?

The article demonizes religion and small government. I saw postmodern in the article and I shuddered. The liberalism of old—100 years ago—is not the liberalism of today. Same for conservatism. Many people, including these morons who wrote that article, put LBJ on a pedestal for his socialist policies. As for FDR, he was closer to Mussolini than to Lenin.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is just ridiculous. Yes, people like Irving Kristol existed. He called himself a neocon, and nobody disputes that. It is true also that the later people like Wolfowitz exist. Nobody would deny that. If it makes you happier, he isn't a figment of your imagination.

The question is whether there is a cohesive group. The answer is not really. They know each other, and they have signed letters together. No doubt they even talk to each other. And in true Washington fashion, their lives have intersected professionally at various times. But this plot nonesense is just absurd. This is McCarthyite crap.

I don't recall every calling them a conspiracy, or a plot. A group doesn't have to be cohesive to act in a concerted fashion. Isn't that the basis of classical conservative capitalist though: each person doing his own thing yields the best results for the group?

Point being, they are a group that has consistent ideals and goals. That they don't actually have planning meetings is a detail of little import, IMHO.

Now, if all you want to do is slap a silly name on people that you decide belong together in a group, that's different. Childish, but different. It's on the same level as calling someone "feminazis."

Naming a group after its founder is hardly silly. Feminists never called themselves "feminazis," but the founder of neoconservatism called himself a neoconservative. Calling them Kristolites, as it is tradition to name a movement after its founder (Christians, Trotskyites, Maoists, Buddhists, etc), is probably out of the question because there are too many famous "Kristols." So, we give the movement the name that the founder of the movement gave it. Calling them "neocons" is no more insidious than calling conservatives "cons" and liberals "libs."

BlackGriffen

[CreepingDeth]

So is Marxist out of the question? *wink* *wink*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I don't recall every calling them a conspiracy, or a plot. A group doesn't have to be cohesive to act in a concerted fashion. Isn't that the basis of classical conservative capitalist though: each person doing his own thing yields the best results for the group?

They aren't a group except that you are labeling them a group. It's a fallacy to think that deciding a number of individuals are a group makes them a group.

What you have here are a number of individuals with some ideas in common. Some of them are in government, and some of them aren't. Some of their ideas have been influential, and no doubt some have not. To the extent that they have been successful in influencing government policy it is really more accurate to simply refer to Bush Administration foreign policy than a label like "neocon."

The foreign policy that has lately been dubbed "neocon" has very little to do with anything Kristol would have recognized. It's firmly post Cold War. The classical neoconservatives were cold warriors. Their anticommunism was what alienated them from the left in the first place. Nor are there any real roots that join this set of individuals to the traditions of Kristol's generation. The only real link is traditional conservativism. Well, if just being a traditional conservative is enough to link you to any other group of conservatives, then it all becomes arbitrary. You might as well call Wolfie et al "Nelson Rockefeller Republicans" for all the accuracy of calling them neocons.

[Troll]

There isn't a membership list for liberals or conservative and neo-conservatives are no different. Well, actually, that's not quite true, since there are 4 or 5 key neocon thinktanks and groups that pretty much everyone who espouses neoconservative ideas belong to. I've posted the link to the Christian Science Monitor enough times already, but here it is again. You can find a list of the relevant groups and periodicals and website there.

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

That sets out the information simply. If you need a list of Neocons, here's one:

Elliott Abrams (PNAC)
Richard Armitage (PNAC)
John David Ashcroft
William J. Bennett (PNAC)
Jeffrey Bergner (PNAC)
John Bolton (PNAC)
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Eliot A. Cohen
Paula J. Dobriansky (PNAC)
John Doolittle
Douglas Jay Feith
David Frum
Francis Fukuyama (PNAC)
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Newt Gingrich
Bruce P. Jackson
Michael Johns
Robert Kagan (PNAC)
Zalmay Khalilzad (PNAC)
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Henry Kissinger
Charles Krauthammer
Irving Kristol
William Kristol (PNAC)
Michael Arthur Ledeen
Jay Lefkowitz
I. Lewis Scooter Libby
Richard N. Perle (PNAC)
Daniel Pipes
Norman Podhoretz
Howard Raines
Peter W. Rodman (PNAC)
Karl Rove
Donald H. Rumsfeld (PNAC)
Gary J. Schmitt
William Schneider, Jr. (PNAC)
Harlan Ullman
Vin Weber (PNAC)
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (PNAC)
R. James Woolsey, Jr. (PNAC)
David Wurmser
Meyrav Wurmser
Robert B. Zoellick

Simey and Zim are, I think, Common Sense Conservatives which is why I find it confusing that they support this Administration. I think part of the reason they do is because they confuse the Administration's motives. Iraq and the shifting of troops for example are quite old neoconservative ideas. They are not a response to terrorism.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They aren't a group except that you are labeling them a group. It's a fallacy to think that deciding a number of individuals are a group makes them a group.

What you have here are a number of individuals with some ideas in common.
[...]

And that is sufficient to label them as a group. Just as most Christians are not really in a group, by your narrow definition. Most liberals aren't a group, by your definition. Neither are most conservatives. Why, the whole system of political classification breaks down if you eliminate the common sense "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" rule.

BlackGriffen

Edit: fix omitted "not"

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
KarlM, what was that paper again? Some small little rag? What horseshit.
I label myself neocon as a joke. Since republics are not teh evil, and since I'm a conservative, and the liberals have claimed our time period, why not?

The article demonizes religion and small government. I saw postmodern in the article and I shuddered. The liberalism of old—100 years ago—is not the liberalism of today. Same for conservatism. Many people, including these morons who wrote that article, put LBJ on a pedestal for his socialist policies. As for FDR, he was closer to Mussolini than to Lenin.

I love your clear, concise method of discussing things.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
And that is sufficient to label them as a group. Just as most Christians are not really in a group, by your narrow definition. Most liberals aren't a group, by your definition. Neither are most conservatives. Why, the whole system of political classification breaks down if you eliminate the common sense "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" rule.

BlackGriffen

Edit: fix omitted "not"

Why not just call them "members of the Bush foreign policy team?"

You know why. Because "neocon" sounds more sinister.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They aren't a group except that you are labeling them a group.

They are definitely 3 or 4 groups. Between The Project for A New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, you have 90% of the people on that list I supplied covered. Those people have all signed key documents put out by those organisations and they all meet and discuss public policy positions.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I love your clear, concise method of discussing things.

I love that your arguments are always crutched up on links.

[Troll]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
And that is sufficient to label them as a group. Just as most Christians are not really in a group, by your narrow definition. Most liberals aren't a group, by your definition. Neither are most conservatives. Why, the whole system of political classification breaks down if you eliminate the common sense "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" rule.

As for neocon 'sounding sinister', I say

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why not just call them "members of the Bush foreign policy team?"

You know why. Because "neocon" sounds more sinister.

Or how about, by your own admission, the fact that they're not all members of the Bush foreign policy team. Hell, not all members of the Bush foreign policy team were neocons, either. Collin Powell, supposedly the chief of Bush's foreign policy team, isn't. Neither was George Tenet. I don't think Condi Rice is a neoconservative, either.

At least, I don't think that they were.

BlackGriffen

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I love that your arguments are always crutched up on links.

Nanananana! You're a riot. You're going to make a fine storm trooper someday.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
There isn't a membership list for liberals or conservative and neo-conservatives are no different. Well, actually, that's not quite true, since there are 4 or 5 key neocon thinktanks and groups that pretty much everyone who espouses neoconservative ideas belong to. I've posted the link to the Christian Science Monitor enough times already, but here it is again. You can find a list of the relevant groups and periodicals and website there.

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

That sets out the information simply. If you need a list of Neocons, here's one:

Elliott Abrams (PNAC)
Richard Armitage (PNAC)
John David Ashcroft
William J. Bennett (PNAC)
Jeffrey Bergner (PNAC)
John Bolton (PNAC)
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Eliot A. Cohen
Paula J. Dobriansky (PNAC)
John Doolittle
Douglas Jay Feith
David Frum
Francis Fukuyama (PNAC)
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Newt Gingrich
Bruce P. Jackson
Michael Johns
Robert Kagan (PNAC)
Zalmay Khalilzad (PNAC)
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Henry Kissinger
Charles Krauthammer
Irving Kristol
William Kristol (PNAC)
Michael Arthur Ledeen
Jay Lefkowitz
I. Lewis Scooter Libby
Richard N. Perle (PNAC)
Daniel Pipes
Norman Podhoretz
Howard Raines
Peter W. Rodman (PNAC)
Karl Rove
Donald H. Rumsfeld (PNAC)
Gary J. Schmitt
William Schneider, Jr. (PNAC)
Harlan Ullman
Vin Weber (PNAC)
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (PNAC)
R. James Woolsey, Jr. (PNAC)
David Wurmser
Meyrav Wurmser
Robert B. Zoellick

Simey and Zim are, I think, Common Sense Conservatives which is why I find it confusing that they support this Administration. I think part of the reason they do is because they confuse the Administration's motives. Iraq and the shifting of troops for example are quite old neoconservative ideas. They are not a response to terrorism.

I'd dispute this list. It lumps together hard core realists like Kirkpatrick orZbigniew Brzezinski with people like Wolfowitz or Kagan. Henry Kissinger, for example, does not belong on any list with Richard Pearl. Their ambitions, methodologies, and worldviews have very little in common.

It's also kind of dumb putting a domestic operative like Karl Rove or William Bennett on the list. They aren't known for being foreign policy thinkers.

[CreepingDeth]

No, I'll be too busy running my own business. You can take your social engineering literature and shove it. There's always time to start la revolutíon, Che.

And since you seem to deem me some fascist, who was the head of the SA? Radical gay man, Ernst Röhm. And since I'm such a homophobe, what would I be doing there? And why would I be at a Workers' Party meeting, too.
Please, refrain from the nazi stuff.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Or how about, by your own admission, the fact that they're not all members of the Bush foreign policy team. Hell, not all members of the Bush foreign policy team were neocons, either. Collin Powell, supposedly the chief of Bush's foreign policy team, isn't. Neither was George Tenet. I don't think Condi Rice is a neoconservative, either.

At least, I don't think that they were.

BlackGriffen

Ah, so you mean because I have some ideas in common with (say) Wolfowitz, then I must be a neoconservative too? Glad to know I am part of a plot. It is bound to make my life more interesting.

Personally, I lump you all in with the rest of the liberal world. Everyone from Howard Dean to Jaques Chirac. All part of one happy family, with no need to distinguish between any of you.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ah, so you mean because I have some ideas in common with (say) Wolfowitz, then I must be a neoconservative too? Glad to know I am part of a plot. It is bound to make my life more interesting.

Personally, I lump you all in with the rest of the liberal world. Everyone from Howard Dean to Jaques Chirac. All part of one happy family, with no need to distinguish between any of you.

Getting a little desperate, aren't we? I never said there was a plot. God, I just got déja vu, I must be repeating myself.

Also, there's a difference between "some ideas," "most," and "actively working to implement a set of foreign policy goals."

What did any of this comment have to do with my statement that not all neocons are on Bush's FP team, and not all of Bush's FP team consists of neocons?

BlackGriffen

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ah, so you mean because I have some ideas in common with (say) Wolfowitz, then I must be a neoconservative too? Glad to know I am part of a plot. It is bound to make my life more interesting.

Personally, I lump you all in with the rest of the liberal world. Everyone from Howard Dean to Jaques Chirac. All part of one happy family, with no need to distinguish between any of you.

*March*March*March*

[R.Lee]: Congratulations, Maggot, you are now on o-fficial member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy! Here's you black helicopter, minority-oppressor 2000 stick, and cookies!
The helicopter uses advanced proletariat oppression signals that break the workers' hearts with your cold, evilness. Congratulations! You are to report to the Pentagon at 0500 hours to discuss with other conspirators the plan to take over small, innocent countries and kick puppies!
*March*March*March*

We're all one big happy family!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
"actively working to implement a set of foreign policy goals."

Golly! What a terrible, terrible thing for members of the foreign policy community to do! Oh the horror! Actually having ideas and wanting to implement them. How dare they?!

Time to reelect nice safe drones like Madeline Albright. People who can be trusted not to ever have an original idea. Other, I suppose, than teaching Kim Jong Il the two step.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Golly! What a terrible, terrible thing for members of the foreign policy community to do! Oh the horror! Actually having ideas and wanting to implement them. How dare they?!

Time to reelect nice safe drones like Madeline Albright. People who can be trusted not to ever have an original idea. Other, I suppose, than teaching Kim Jong Il the two step.

Perhaps you need to take a break, Simey. I know needed to take one last night. You're getting rather shrill.

I agree, there's nothing sinister in trying to implement foreign policy goals, prima facia. The goals are what is sinister in this case. Mentioning that there's an entire influential faction behind these goals is nothing more than pointing out the seriousness of the likelihood of the policies being implemented.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Perhaps you need to take a break, Simey. I know needed to take one last night. You're getting rather shrill.

I agree, there's nothing sinister in trying to implement foreign policy goals, prima facia. The goals are what is sinister in this case. Mentioning that there's an entire influential faction behind these goals is nothing more than pointing out the seriousness of the likelihood of the policies being implemented.

BlackGriffen

You see, there you go again. Faction. That's just a scare word. What you have here is just a bunch of individuals with some ideas that coincide, and others that don't. Some of them are in a position to implement them, others aren't.

If you disagree with the policies that these individuals espouse, then you are free to criticize them, or better yet come up with positive alternatives. But focusing on the individuals and on drawing semi or completely fictitious lines between them is pretty weak.

[CreepingDeth]

What are we talking about now?
I think we should talk about the OP now, not some "list" of neocons, or whatever they wanna call em.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
[B]Getting a little desperate, aren't we? I never said there was a plot. God, I just got déja vu, I must be repeating myself.

Also, there's a difference between "some ideas," "most," and "actively working to implement a set of foreign policy goals."[/v]

And if they're "actively working to implement a set of foreign policy goals", as you say, then that's a plot. To deny that you're calling it a plot is just playing the lawyer.

Also, you might not want to bring the PNAC into it too much. You might find people who agree with most or all of their goals who don't fall into the neoconservative label.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You see, there you go again. Faction. It's just a bunch of individuals with some ideas that coincide, and others that don't. Some of them are in a position to implement them, others aren't.

What else do you call a group of people working in concert toward a goal, even if they aren't centrally organized/cohesive? The certainly seem to fit the definition of a faction (from Merriam-Webster):

• a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : CLIQUE
• party spirit especially when marked by dissension

If you disagree with the policies that these individuals espouse, then you are free to criticize them, or better yet come up with positive alternatives. But focusing on the individuals and on drawing semi or completely fictitious lines between them is pretty weak.

Well, because of the way our electoral system works, it is also necessary to tie the ideas to the people, so that the people can make a clear decision on who to vote for.

Also, it hasn't been "us" who has been insisting that the faction doesn't exist. Because that is the point of contention, that is what we end up discussing most of the time.

I'll try to give a broad overview, though:

• I have no desire whatsoever to see the U.S. be the most powerful nation in the world forever, or even for the next century. Being the strongest is fine, but being the strongest at the cost of a sense of international community is too high a price. Instead of trying to shoulder the burden of world hegemon by ourselves, alliances should be strengthened and allies encouraged to increase their defense spending so we can, hopefully, decrease ours (some).
• Democracy in the Middle East is a fine goal. Insisting that the be pro American is a complete contradiction to that goal, though. Trying to impose a democracy is even more counter-democratic. The ideal of self determination should be, first and foremost, honored. To that end, we should stop propping up pro-USA strong men in countries where their populations resent them.
• To that end, foreign policy is tied to domestic policy. Because our foreign oil dependence is what ties us to such strongmen, we need to invest heavily in attaining energy independence, ASAP. Fusion, solar, wind, wave, thermal depolymerization, etc should all be heavily invested in with a goal of workable implementations in no less than a decade. Theoretically, it's doable given sufficient investment.
• Terrorism is indeed a problem, but it should be handled with precise actions using law enforcement and special forces for surgical strikes whenever possible. Intelligence, especially human intelligence, is absolutely critical for this strategy to work, though, and that requires both diplomacy and a reform of our intelligence community. Invading other nations should be limited to extreme cases like Afghanistan. Resort to sanctions and surgical strikes otherwise.
• Israel - I'll leave that one off for the moment. Suffice it to say, I prefer a more neutral and measured approach to the situation.

Again, that's just a broad overview, and I believe entirely contradictory to the neocon position.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And if they're "actively working to implement a set of foreign policy goals", as you say, then that's a plot. To deny that you're calling it a plot is just playing the lawyer.

Also, you might not want to bring the PNAC into it too much. You might find people who agree with most or all of their goals who don't fall into the neoconservative label.

Nope, a plot implies a central organization, which is what PNAC and AEI deny.

BG

[CreepingDeth]

So does that mean it's a governmentally funded neocon conspiracy plot, or a neocon conspiracy plot by rich people, or a jointly funded neocon conspiracy plot…or what?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
What else do you call a group of people working in concert toward a goal, even if they aren't centrally organized/cohesive?

Millennium is right. You are accusing them of being a plot.

Well, because of the way our electoral system works, it is also necessary to tie the ideas to the people, so that the people can make a clear decision on who to vote for.

If that is all you want to do, then why not just call them "Republicans" or "Bush." Nobody is going to see "neocon" on any ballot.

And how exactly is anyone going to vote against people like William Kristol?

Also, it hasn't been "us" who has been insisting that the faction doesn't exist. Because that is the point of contention, that is what we end up discussing most of the time.

If you use inaccurate, misleading and prejudicial language about your political opponants, it is going to be contested. I'm sure a group of liberals would object if Limbaugh wanted to call them Feminazis too. It would probably be hard to have a meaningful conversation as long as he insisted on using the term. If you want to discuss foreign policy intelligently and without the contention, then drop the imflammatory conspiracy theories and labels.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Millennium is right. You are accusing them of being a plot.

Nope. They're a faction, not a plot. Quit putting words in my mouth. I'm sorry if you can't see the distinction.

If that is all you want to do, then why not just call them "Republicans" or "Bush." Nobody is going to see "neocon" on any ballot.

Maybe because, gosh, not all Republicans are neocons? I wouldn't even go so far as saying all neocons are Republicans, because many of them could be Libertarians or some such for all I know.

Here's what I'm doing:

• Identifying a group by their ideas and goals
• Naming that group the same thing that the ideological founder of the group did
• Pointing out the the group is an influential faction
• Denouncing said group's ideals

If you use inaccurate and prejudicial language about your political opponants, it is going to be contested. I'm sure a group of liberals would object if Limbaugh wanted to call them Feminazis too. It would probably be hard to have a meaningful conversation as long as he insisted on useing the term. If you want to discuss foreign policy intelligently and without the contention, then drop the imflammatory conspiracy theories and labels.

No conspiracy theory here. I'm also not sure why you consider the label "neoconservative" inflammatory. It's no more inflammatory than the overly broad "liberal," or much abused "conservative." Neocon is no worse than the shortened "lib" or "libby," either.

You also conveniently ignored my points about foreign policy, belying your desire to have an intelligent discussion. It seems you would much rather rant about "conspiracy theories" and "paranoid plots" than discuss the issues.

I can also tell that you're much too emotionally attached to this issue. Your type-o rate has gone through the roof, as evidenced by the underlined words. Is your lover a member of the neoconservative faction or something? That is, does he work in one of the four think tanks aligned with that ideology? Perhaps he just works for a prominent neoconservative?

I don't mean to pry, I'm just trying to find the motive for your apparent, seemingly almost personal, emotional involvement in this issue.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Is your lover a member of the neoconservative faction or something?

Whoa! Crossing ----------(line)----------------->

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Whoa! Crossing ----------(line)----------------->

Very well, my apologies, I won't ask again.

I was just trying to get to the heart of your motivations on this issue, is all.

BG