[Millennium]

I'd like to run a little experiment/game. Namely, an honest question to everyone here: "Why would someone become a neoconservative?"

To make this interesting, I would like to set up a small list of prohibited words from the discussion. If you've ever played the game "Taboo", the concept is similar: define it without using the most common descriptors. As such, the following ten words may not be used to describe the neoconservatives or their opposition:

• Evil
• Hate
• Power
• Control
• Brainwash
• Terror
• Greed
• Empire
• Compassion
• Responsibility

These seem to be the most common words heard when talking about neoconservatives, whether talking in a positive or negative sense. But what happens when trying to describe them in other terms? That's what I'd like to see.

[Spliffdaddy]

I became a neoconservative when I realized they're doing the most effective job of controlling the world.

Whatever they're doing, I hope they continue to do the same great job they've always done - because I'm mighty damned happy with the way things are going in my life.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I became a neoconservative when I realized they're doing the most effective job of controlling the world.

Whatever they're doing, I hope they continue to do the same great job they've always done - because I'm mighty damned happy with the way things are going in my life.

"Control", number four on the list of forbidden words. Sorry.

[SimeyTheLimey]

To raise the stock value of Alcoa.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
"Control", number four on the list of forbidden words. Sorry.

dammit.

You didn't leave any words to show affection for neocons.

I just noticed that.

[Sven G]

"Why would someone become a neoconservative?"

Let's see... Maybe because s/he didn't manage to get an "influent" position in other ways, in the current context?

(OK, "influent" essentially means "power", of course - but I didn't use that word! )

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'd like to run a little experiment/game. Namely, an honest question to everyone here: "Why would someone become a neoconservative?"

To make this interesting, I would like to set up a small list of prohibited words from the discussion. If you've ever played the game "Taboo", the concept is similar: define it without using the most common descriptors. As such, the following ten words may not be used to describe the neoconservatives or their opposition:

• Evil
• Hate
• Power
• Control
• Brainwash
• Terror
• Greed
• Empire
• Compassion
• Responsibility

These seem to be the most common words heard when talking about neoconservatives, whether talking in a positive or negative sense. But what happens when trying to describe them in other terms? That's what I'd like to see.

I'm interested why, if neoconservatives don't exist, or do not exert undue influence, merely mentioning them sends every republican aboard into defensive posture? This requires a tedious process of first proving existence and then pedogologically going step by to step to demonstrate their policies, their influence, and their nature. During this process (which must repeat every time), anyone who acknowledges their presence or influence endures endless onslaughts.

Again, if there is nothing to them, why does this one topic elicit such defensive response?
If the defensive persons does not acknowledge their existence, then why the need to be defensive?

to the question:

why would someone become a neoconservative? (without using your forbidden list:

Someone might do so who considers the ends justify whatever means. Someone who feels america is uniquely deserving to achieve those ends, under america's terms. Someon who operates under an illusion of basic superiority. Someone who does not blanche at the means, no matter how extreme. There are specific people who have labeled themselves "neoconservatives", and there people that appear to adhere to the same ends, whether self-labeled or not. In the end, a neoconservative, in my opinion, is dangerous because of the naivete of their ideals, which tend to consider american in a vacuum, without considering either the consequences of their goals, nor that there will be any resistance from their allies or enemies. They are also dangerous because at present, no one runs for office as a "neoconservative", but they end up in highly influential positions regardless. In that way, it is making an end run around the wishes of the voters, Republicans especially. It would make a great deal more sense to me that the MOST upset group would actually be republicans, yet the opposite appears to hold true.

I say make it an actual political party, so that voters at least have the opportunity to reject their philosophy, instead of voting first for a certain philosophy, only to have advisors counsel the president into a completely different one. Of course, that can happen anyways, but there are some philosophies which are valid and non-dangerous and others which are not.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Millennium:
"Why would someone become a neoconservative?"

someone would become a neoconservative because he or she blindly believes in a manifest destiny for all of mankind, and furthermore thinks that this manifest destiny has to be "achieved" by the us and israel.

/edit

the term "achieve" here involves just about all the "negative" terms blacklisted by the initiator of the game.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
dammit.

You didn't leave any words to show affection for neocons.

I just noticed that.

I tried to use the most common words I could find in descriptions. I've found that most of the words commonly used to describe neocons are very negative, whether used to describe the neocons themselves or to describe their opponents. That didn't leave much room for positivity.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm interested why, if neoconservatives don't exist, or do not exert undue influence, merely mentioning them sends every republican aboard into defensive posture?

For the same reason many Mac users take instinctive offense -even if just for a second- when their platform is referred to as "MAC".

Again, if there is nothing to them, why does this one topic elicit such defensive response?
If the defensive persons does not acknowledge their existence, then why the need to be defensive?

If there is no such thing as a big-government liberal, then why do Democrats get so offended when people speak of them? It's exactly the same concept. The term "neoconservative" is loaded with connotations of not just insult, but outright hatred. It's as close to a slur as you could get for a political party, exactly like the other side's use of "big-government liberal".

why would someone become a neoconservative? (without using your forbidden list:

Good job avoiding them, too, but there's another problem which I'll explain in a moment:

Someone might do so who considers the ends justify whatever means. Someone who feels america is uniquely deserving to achieve those ends, under america's terms. Someon who operates under an illusion of basic superiority. Someone who does not blanche at the means, no matter how extreme.

What you have described is Machiavellian politics. Although neoconservatives might well be Machiavellian, the term is still a little too generic. What are the "ends" neoconservatives want to achieve, and what are the "means" they are not above using to ensure that achievement? Why would people agree with these?

There are specific people who have labeled themselves "neoconservatives", and there people that appear to adhere to the same ends, whether self-labeled or not. In the end, a neoconservative, in my opinion, is dangerous because of the naivete of their ideals, which tend to consider american in a vacuum, without considering either the consequences of their goals, nor that there will be any resistance from their allies or enemies.

What are these "ideals" which are so naive? It is difficult to judge the naivete of an ideal without knowing what it is.

They are also dangerous because at present, no one runs for office as a "neoconservative", but they end up in highly influential positions regardless. In that way, it is making an end run around the wishes of the voters, Republicans especially. It would make a great deal more sense to me that the MOST upset group would actually be republicans, yet the opposite appears to hold true.

There are many non-partisan political movements which nevertheless align themselves with a political party. Why no outcry over these others? There are movements which align themselves with the Democrats as well, yet no one gets terribly upset about these.

I say make it an actual political party, so that voters at least have the opportunity to reject their philosophy, instead of voting first for a certain philosophy, only to have advisors counsel the president into a completely different one. Of course, that can happen anyways, but there are some philosophies which are valid and non-dangerous and others which are not.

Fascinating. What makes a philosophy "invalid"? Given that, does "neoconservatism" fall into this category? How, and why? How can any philosophy be invalid in a relativist environment?

For that matter, are you so certain that the two philosophies are different? What do you see as the differences between neoconservatism and the Republican party platform?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'd like to run a little experiment/game. Namely, an honest question to everyone here: "Why would someone become a neoconservative?"

To make this interesting, I would like to set up a small list of prohibited words from the discussion. If you've ever played the game "Taboo", the concept is similar: define it without using the most common descriptors. As such, the following ten words may not be used to describe the neoconservatives or their opposition:

• Evil
• Hate
• Power
• Control
• Brainwash
• Terror
• Greed
• Empire
• Compassion
• Responsibility

These seem to be the most common words heard when talking about neoconservatives, whether talking in a positive or negative sense. But what happens when trying to describe them in other terms? That's what I'd like to see.

Don't we all want what's best for us, our families and our country? The neo-cons clearly believe that the implementation of their ideas will create the best possible outcome for at least the next 100 years. Primarily they are interested in themselves, their families and their country but they also believe that what's good for them will be good for the world. They look at the world and they say, "Since we became a superpower, our lives have been quite good and have consistently improved. Since we won the Cold War, they have got even better. If we want our lives to stay this good, we need to make sure that we remain a superpower, preferably the only one. We have a unique opportunity given our dominant position to affect the outcome of global events. We need to think about how we use our dominant position to our advantage."

They look at the way the US is being governed and they say, "We have the best military in the world and we only use it to defend other people's interests. It is a tool that we should use, since we have it, not only to defend our interests, but in the pursuit thereof. Our government tries to gently persuade people to accept our forms of government and it tries to avoid conflict on important issues that pose a threat to our domination. It is too passive. What we actually need to do is to face conflict, pre-empt it if necessary. We need to use everything we have to maintain the international status quo. We shouldn't let the world tie our hands behind our backs by conceding authority to international law and organisations. To stay dominant, we need to be above those things. Not only because it will be good for us, our children and our country, but for everyone. Our dominance has been good for democracies all over the world so when they are all democracies, our domination will be good for all of them. Everyone will be happy."

There are good and bad aspects of all policies and the people on either side don't have an intrinsic defect. Some ideas may sound good on the surface and turn out to be bad in practice. I don't think the neo-cons suffer from an inherent personality defect. I just think the neo-con's ideas are a load of hogwash. You might like their ideas and you are welcome to. What concerns me is that many Americans simply don't recognise or (in the case of certain people whose names we shan't mention) refuse to recognise, that there has been a shift in the Republican Party since the last elections and that today a vote for the Republican Party is a vote for neo-conservative ideas.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Troll:
Don't we all want what's best for us, our families and our country? The neo-cons clearly believe that the implementation of their ideas will create the best possible outcome for at least the next 100 years. Primarily they are interested in themselves, their families and their country but they also believe that what's good for them will be good for the world. They look at the world and they say, "Since we became a superpower, our lives have been quite good and have consistently improved. Since we won the Cold War, they have got even better. If we want our lives to stay this good, we need to make sure that we remain a superpower, preferably the only one. We have a unique opportunity given our dominant position to affect the outcome of global events. We need to think about how we use our dominant position to our advantage."

They look at the way the US is being governed and they say, "We have the best military in the world and we only use it to defend other people's interests. It is a tool that we should use, since we have it, not only to defend our interests, but in the pursuit thereof. Our government tries to gently persuade people to accept our forms of government and it tries to avoid conflict on important issues that pose a threat to our domination. It is too passive. What we actually need to do is to face conflict, pre-empt it if necessary. We need to use everything we have to maintain the international status quo. We shouldn't let the world tie our hands behind our backs by conceding authority to international law and organisations. To stay dominant, we need to be above those things. Not only because it will be good for us, our children and our country. But because at the end of the day our system and our domination makes us happy will therefore make other people happy too."

There are good and bad aspects of all policies and the people on either side don't have an intrinsic defect. Some ideas may sound good on the surface and turn out to be bad in practice. I don't think they suffer from an inherent personality defect. I just think the neo-cons ideas are a load of hogwash. You might like their ideas and you are welcome to. What concerns me is that many Americans simply don't recognise or (in the case of certain people whose names we shan't mention) refuse to recognise, that there has been a shift in the Republican Party since the last elections and that today a vote for the Republican Party is a vote for neo-conservative ideas.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
"Control", number four on the list of forbidden words. Sorry.

[christ]

Originally posted by Millennium:
"Why would someone become a neoconservative?"

Because that someone knows what is right for others, and they wish to ensure that what they know to be right is imposed on all of those others, whether those others like it or not.

It is the same reason that most politicians become politicians, only the 'what is right' (and the degree of imposition) changes from ideology to ideology.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Don't we all want what's best for us, our families and our country? The neo-cons clearly believe that the implementation of their ideas will create the best possible outcome for at least the next 100 years. Primarily they are interested in themselves, their families and their country but they also believe that what's good for them will be good for the world. They look at the world and they say, "Since we became a superpower, our lives have been quite good and have consistently improved. Since we won the Cold War, they have got even better. If we want our lives to stay this good, we need to make sure that we remain a superpower, preferably the only one. We have a unique opportunity given our dominant position to affect the outcome of global events. We need to think about how we use our dominant position to our advantage."

They look at the way the US is being governed and they say, "We have the best military in the world and we only use it to defend other people's interests. It is a tool that we should use, since we have it, not only to defend our interests, but in the pursuit thereof. Our government tries to gently persuade people to accept our forms of government and it tries to avoid conflict on important issues that pose a threat to our domination. It is too passive. What we actually need to do is to face conflict, pre-empt it if necessary. We need to use everything we have to maintain the international status quo. We shouldn't let the world tie our hands behind our backs by conceding authority to international law and organisations. To stay dominant, we need to be above those things. Not only because it will be good for us, our children and our country, but for everyone. Our dominance has been good for democracies all over the world so when they are all democracies, our domination will be good for all of them. Everyone will be happy."

There are good and bad aspects of all policies and the people on either side don't have an intrinsic defect. Some ideas may sound good on the surface and turn out to be bad in practice. I don't think the neo-cons suffer from an inherent personality defect. I just think the neo-con's ideas are a load of hogwash. You might like their ideas and you are welcome to. What concerns me is that many Americans simply don't recognise or (in the case of certain people whose names we shan't mention) refuse to recognise, that there has been a shift in the Republican Party since the last elections and that today a vote for the Republican Party is a vote for neo-conservative ideas.

I don't want a country (the US) that seeks to impose it's way of life on other countries, whether it benefits us or not. That is why I dis-like many of the stated "neo-con" goals. You can be sure if some ultra left-wing group started espousing simialr ideas--usually the only difference is in the means of implementing them--then I would be as opposed to that group as well.

The United States is NOT the greatest country in the world--There is no such country. And to think that what we have here is so great that we must impose it on others stinks of the greatest hubris imaginable.

[BlackGriffen]

My guess would be frustration, or impatience born out of an excessive idealism. They genuinely want to make the world a better place, they just turn to what I feel are unacceptable means to do so.

American hegemony, for instance, is a goal because they believe it to be the best way to bring peace. This ignores that economic ties seem to be a far better way to maintain stability (ie people should be very unlikely to go to war if it's economic suicide to do so).

I may comment more later.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Fascinating. What makes a philosophy "invalid"? Given that, does "neoconservatism" fall into this category? How, and why? How can any philosophy be invalid in a relativist environment?

One example is when it fails according to its own measuring stick. The neoconservative (sorry, Simey, Troll won ) faction is implementing its policy right now. So far, their plan has produced results counter to their goals.

Then it's also possible to question goals, but that's another post.

For that matter, are you so certain that the two philosophies are different? What do you see as the differences between neoconservatism and the Republican party platform?

Nobody outlines the difference better than Bush himself.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

you completely hamstring anyone who participates in your game by limiting their word choice (in a transparent attempt to reshape the ability to respond), and then you dissect and detract everything they say...fun game. do we get to used the "forbidden" word to rebut your dissection? what is the purpose of this excercise?

Originally posted by Millennium:
For the same reason many Mac users take instinctive offense -even if just for a second- when their platform is referred to as "MAC".

two points, one: that doesn't offend me. Two: you're assigning ownership of the term to the group. In other words, your comment is working under the assumption that the people being defensive belong to the group in question (not sure that's what you meant to do). I'm not saying anyone here is a neoconservative. As far as I know, most of the people who get defensive are republicans. Are YOU saying they are neoconservatives? If they were or not is irrelvent to me personally.

Originally posted by Millennium:
If there is no such thing as a big-government liberal, then why do Democrats get so offended when people speak of them? It's exactly the same concept. The term "neoconservative" is loaded with connotations of not just insult, but outright hatred. It's as close to a slur as you could get for a political party, exactly like the other side's use of "big-government liberal".

one: I have never claimed there wasn't a big-government liberal, or even several of them, I have no idea. Two: I don't get offended if people use the term. If they are referring to me, they're wrong, but I am not offended. Three: again, you are assigning ownership of the term "neoconservative" to the same people being offended. Why do you keep doing that? Four: I do not consider "neoconservative" to be an offensive term. I find their policies offensive in and of themselves, but that' irrelevant to the term. I DO hate policies of hegemony, if that makes you feel better. But I would hate those policies if any other group proposed them. I think the concept that American should "lead" the world, by force if necessary, a very dangerous concept. You guys use "liberal" as if it meant "scumbag", but that's your problem-- the connotation is on your end. I do not consider "liberal" to be a slur in and of itself.
Are you saying neoconservatives are a political party? I'm not going that far, myself. I think they are a small group of unduly influential people whose aims I disagree with..strongly.

Originally posted by Millennium:
What you have described is Machiavellian politics. Although neoconservatives might well be Machiavellian, the term is still a little too generic. What are the "ends" neoconservatives want to achieve, and what are the "means" they are not above using to ensure that achievement? Why would people agree with these?

What are these "ideals" which are so naive? It is difficult to judge the naivete of an ideal without knowing what it is.

It was the best I could with the swiss cheese vocabulary you required. You forbid a great host of words and then accuse me of not expressing myself clearly enough.....think for a moment..why would that be? OH YEAH because you set it up that way intentionally.

Originally posted by Millennium:
There are many non-partisan political movements which nevertheless align themselves with a political party. Why no outcry over these others? There are movements which align themselves with the Democrats as well, yet no one gets terribly upset about these.

If I disagree with their aims, I get equally upset. I don't agree with PETA, but their aims do not negatively affect the safety of the world, and I feel that the severity of the threat neocons pose justifies the severity of my outrage. That explains why I get upset. But that still doesnt explain why you're defensive of only the term "neoconservative".

Originally posted by Millennium:
Fascinating. What makes a philosophy "invalid"? Given that, does "neoconservatism" fall into this category? How, and why? How can any philosophy be invalid in a relativist environment?

For that matter, are you so certain that the two philosophies are different? What do you see as the differences between neoconservatism and the Republican party platform?

I cannot answer under the rules of the game(OBVIOUSLY), because I would have to use your forbidden word list (which is exactly your intention, to filet people like me at will, while removing our ability to express ourselves.)

You know, when I first read your post, I thought "Good, maybe we can get some adult, rational debate on the issue. I'll play by the rules and maybe we can be civil.
Instead, you follow up with this scathing dissection and I realize you're just shaping the debate into a form that makes you feel artificially smug.


What is your intention with this game?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you completely hamstring anyone who participates in your game by limiting their word choice

For once I must disagree. I think this is quite a good way of focussing the debate. I read that and I thought, "So that's why he's a moderator."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Troll:
For one I must disagree. I think this is quite a good way of focussing the debate. I read that and I thought, "So that's why he's a moderator."

Oh, agree, I initially applauded the first post as well...but when he responded to my post thusly:

If there is no such thing as a big-government liberal, then why do Democrats get so offended when people speak of them? It's exactly the same concept. The term "neoconservative" is loaded with connotations of not just insult, but outright hatred. It's as close to a slur as you could get for a political party, exactly like the other side's use of "big-government liberal".

I changed my mind, because I felt it was unnecessarily accusatory to me. therefore I read the rest of the post with that in mind. However, if I had not, unfortunately he asks some valid questions, but I still feel the "rules" prohibit me from adequately or honestly replying...for example, how can you explain your objection to hegemony without using the words "power" or "control"? Honestly, the list precludes discussing essentially what is my largest objection. I have not called them evil, but dangerous. I have said they are naive, but to explain that naivete I must employ words that have the same meaning as "power" or "control".

[greenamp]

Neocons and liberals can be likened to two hyenas fighting over the same rotten carcus.

The fued between neocons and liberals is nothing more than two distinct minorities fightng for control over the vast majorities.

The only difference between the extreme right and the extreme left is the civil rights they seek to infringe.

I have more

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I changed my mind, because I felt it was unnecessarily accusatory to me. therefore I read the rest of the post with that in mind.

It was not my intent to be accusatory. However, I believe that my question is valid: why is it wrong for Republicans to become upset when people speak of "neoconservatives", but not wrong for Democrats to become upset when people speak of "big-government liberals"? In the end, they become upset based on exactly the same principle: being dismissed because of an ideology they don't even have.

However, if I had not, unfortunately he asks some valid questions, but I still feel the "rules" prohibit me from adequately or honestly replying...for example, how can you explain your objection to hegemony without using the words "power" or "control"? Honestly, the list precludes discussing essentially what is my largest objection. I have not called them evil, but dangerous. I have said they are naive, but to explain that naivete I must employ words that have the same meaning as "power" or "control".

Then use them. Even in the original Taboo game, synonyms are allowed, just not direct derivatives. I apologize for not providing enough context as far as that is concerned.

That said, there is a lot of anger in your posts. You yourself recognize this several times in this very thread. You're not alone by any means; it is exceedingly rare that anyone describes neocons, whether positively or negatively, without becoming angry. But that anger also clouds the message; it is difficult to describe someone while angry without sounding like a zealot.

My goal with this post was to try and get an explanation without all the anger that everyone -not just you- feels when describing this topic. It seems I have failed in this, and I sincerely apologize for that. If you would like to set up a similar post describing some other group, or with a different set of words, then feel free to do so.

Why do I want an explanation without the anger? I've been reading up on these people called "neoconservatives" in an attempt to figure out what they're all about, I find myself agreeing with many of their goals, as described by themselves and by others (even the ones who describe their goals in a negative light). This is not just some knee-jerk or brainwashed response; I've had to give a lot of thought to this, and a fair amount of it has not been pleasant. I do not see them as some kind of great light of hope, but I do see them as close to the least of a long list of evils.

But the outrage people feel -both for and against them, and even within them; they have a lot of anger too- gives me pause. They are clearly hated by a lot of people. I don't mean simple disagreement, either; what I've seen from others towards them is real hate: a sense that these people called neoconservatives are a scourge that needs to be driven from the face of the Earth. That's a rare thing with political ideologies; it goes way beyond the endless bickering of party-centric politics. Even your suggestion that they become a party, Lerk, is done in the hope that they will be driven out of any chance of any kind of power.

I want to find out what makes people so angry. I want to learn why these people are as hated as they clearly are. But I've found that an angry person usually isn't very good at discussing the subject of their rage; people talk best when they're calm, even about things which make them mad. So I tried to strip out "anger words" to see if I could make some headway. This seems to have failed, and for that I am genuinely sorry.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It was not my intent to be accusatory. However, I believe that my question is valid: why is it wrong for Republicans to become upset when people speak of "neoconservatives", but not wrong for Democrats to become upset when people speak of "big-government liberals"? In the end, they become upset based on exactly the same principle: being dismissed because of an ideology they don't even have.

How is pointing out the policy origins of the Bush administration dismissing all Republicans?

That, and when have board posters accused each other of being neoconservatives? I admit, I've asked Simey if he was affiliated, but that was out of curiosity about his apparent emotional intensity on the issue.

BlackGriffen

[daimoni]

.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Fascinating. What makes a philosophy "invalid"? Given that, does "neoconservatism" fall into this category? How, and why? How can any philosophy be invalid in a relativist environment?

Well I'd say because the neocons don't believe in "relativity".

Example: Everything is their way. Where it seems libies are more into letting people have choice. Neocons tend to believe in raw capitalism. I don't care if the regulating of some opressive corporation interfers with the REAL model of capitalism. The fact is if a corporation is too powerful it needs to be severly regulated so it doesn't exert its power to control the majority. ....But thats just the way I see it.

I want to find out what makes people so angry. I want to learn why these people are as hated as they clearly are.

Well if they're hated so much maybe its because the majority aren't all rich business owners out to rip off other people. I've seen just as much hate coming from the neocons too though if not more.....Or maybe people don't really hate them that much but they just use this forum as a place to vent much condenced anger that therefor seems like "hate". People can't usually talk about political issues with peopl of the opposeing party without screaming and yelling. Forums get rid of the scraming and yelling and give a place where people can either have a civilized conversation or flat out walk over someone else's views, giving personal insults, and never have to worry about teh consequences from people they don't know.

people don't hate thier friends for haveing opposite views, but, the views of people they know it real life that they disagree with... they can project disagreement here.

ps Im not going to fix the spelling typos because the computer is very slow for some reason.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I've been reading up on these people called "neoconservatives" in an attempt to figure out what they're all about, I find myself agreeing with many of their goals, as described by themselves and by others (even the ones who describe their goals in a negative light).

I realise that the neo-cons are Americans and that are going to propose policies that serve Americans (and Israelis apparently) to the exclusion of everyone else. So I fully understand that I can't have an intrinsic problem with them proposing to shape the world to serve them better. However, not only do I think the neo-con policy is bad for me (although moving to America is always a possibility) but I think that their policies bad for Americans and doomed to fail.

People do not want to be told how they should be organised, whose culture they should adopt, which system will make them happiest. People don't want to be means to someone else's success. People will resist anyone that interferes with them even if the intervention is ostensibly for their own good. They will become terrorists. And if anyone should understand this, it is America. America was founded on that reality. Neo-con ideas look a lot more similar to the ideas the founding fathers fled from than those they set out when they arrived.

I believe that neo-con policies are doomed to fail because the basic premise of neo-con policy is inherently flawed. They assume that the reason for the US's success is its global dominance. Which doesn't explain how the US became dominant in the first place! Neo-cons say that the US needs to retain its strategic and military advantage, that it needs to be less collective in its actions and more bold in "leading" and shaping the world if the US people are to retain their way of life.

I believe that the US has been succesful for its IDEAS and that those who respect the US still respect it for its ideas rather than its power. I believe that the US's greatest power is not its military or it status as hegemon but its ideas. US citizens have good lives not because their army is the strongest in the world or because the US is the sole superpower. What makes Americans happy and what will make the rest of the world happy is individual freedom, human rights and mutual respect irrespective of comparative power (call it liberty, equality and fraternity). The promotion has to be consistent with the ideas themselves. As France learned in Algeria, you can't force people to be free, equal and fraternal. Imposition of those ideas is inconsistent with the ideas themselves. "American" ideas will, I believe, take root gradually in all corners of the world because of the intrinsic value inherent in those ideas. A policy that runs counter to those ideas will undermine US power going forward and achieve precisely the opposite of what the neo-cons want. I think Iraq is evidence that neo-con policies are achieving the opposite of what they were supposed to. Project that on a larger scale and I believe it spells the end of the American century rather than prolonging it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Well I'd say because the neocons don't believe in "relativity".

And thus, the logical fallacy of relativism: everything's valid as long as it agrees with us.

Example: Everything is their way. Where it seems libies are more into letting people have choice.

In what way? It seems to me that most of their policies are all about choice. Not all of them, perhaps; after all, one could see them imposing a particular model of capitalism, but this policy itself is all about opening up as many choices as possible for all people.

That's one thing I've noticed about the neocons: they don't seem to be the Bible-thumping moralists which often characterize American conservatism (even the traitor Ashcroft isn't one of them). They don't get into that game. If they did, I would find that to be very worrisome indeed; in fact I'd see it as a deal-breaker. But as a matter of giving the alleged devil its due, they do not appear to go there.

Neocons tend to believe in raw capitalism. I don't care if the regulating of some opressive corporation interfers with the REAL model of capitalism. The fact is if a corporation is too powerful it needs to be severly regulated so it doesn't exert its power to control the majority. ....But thats just the way I see it.

If it's just the way you see it, then how can it be a fact?

Well if they're hated so much maybe its because the majority aren't all rich business owners out to rip off other people.

You assume that all rich business owners are out to rip off other people. This is not true.

I've seen just as much hate coming from the neocons too though if not more...

How so? Honest question: I don't doubt you could find something you see as hateful, but I'd like to see it. I'm not entirely sure I would see it as hateful, but let's have a look.

Or maybe people don't really hate them that much but they just use this forum as a place to vent much condenced anger that therefor seems like "hate".

If it were only this forum I could see that, but the invective I've seen is much more widespread, and not restricted to the Internet at all.

People can't usually talk about political issues with peopl of the opposeing party without screaming and yelling.

I don't know about that. It's difficult sometimes, particularly on issues where one side or the other feels they have a personal stake, but this is what debate is supposed to be about: discussing things calmly.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That said, there is a lot of anger in your posts. You yourself recognize this several times in this very thread. You're not alone by any means; it is exceedingly rare that anyone describes neocons, whether positively or negatively, without becoming angry. But that anger also clouds the message; it is difficult to describe someone while angry without sounding like a zealot.

I have tried to respond to this several times, and my browser crashed...LOL, I had a really detailed response, but in the interest of brevity, I just want to say : no problem on the limited vocabulary, and glad that its not ironclad
secondly, I disagree with representing my posts as filled with anger. Not a lot of them are...I'm aware of about two in the past few days. However, I have purposely and pointedly ignored nearly 40-50 personal assaults to me within those threads, some extremely vicious or attempting to ridicule me rather than the points I was making.

I am just intrigued that you single ME out by name and publicly to express your distaste at my "anger" posts, yet you protect the identity of "others", who proportionally (about 50 to 2) have been attempted to harrass me at every turn...they get a buy.

If anyone is too angry about neocons obviously it would be (name removed), and he spared no expense to trash me personally along the way. I could provide links if you prefer.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:

Where it seems libies are more into letting people have choice.

To me, it appears to be the opposite. Several American Liberals (not to be confused with other regions definition) have acted against free speech, and are apparently willing to damage property and deny service. Some even send television stations lawyer letters to scare them into not running the opposition's paid-for advertisements.

The appearance is that Liberals are content to have people choose, provided they approve of the choice.

[CreepingDeth]

Come on, throw the little Marxists a bone! How can you describe a neocon without evil!?

[daimoni]

.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Come on, throw the little Marxists a bone! How can you describe a neocon without evil!?

Sez it all.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sez it all.

"Ya wanna wear the daddy pants?"

Love that movie.

So, I guess everyone loses: this board can't describe the stance of a neocon without those dirty words.

I'll try communist: Someone who wants to eliminate private property and to nationalize business.

MacNN, you try.

[christ]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Come on, throw the little Marxists a bone!

Who would these people be?

Is it your contention that anyone that isn't a neocon is a "little Marxist"? Or that anyone that dislikes neocons is a "little Marxist"?

Why "little"?

Come on, be clearer.

Its no fun to argue with someone that lacks clarity of thought or expression.