PDA

View Full Version : What's the most accurate label for the 'neo-cons'?


Volcana
Aug 21st, 2006, 05:00 AM
I suppose you have to know a bit about the noe-cons to answer that. Here's the neo-con 'Bible' if you will. Only it isn't a book, it's a think-tank.
The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm)

The link deliberately goes to articles from 1997-2000, just so you have easy access to articles espousing the current conflicts in the Middle East. 9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Neither did Osama bin Laden. Invading Iraq, followed by the overthrow of most of the governments in the Middle East, has been neo-con doctrine for a decade.

vogus
Aug 21st, 2006, 05:24 AM
I suppose you have to know a bit about the noe-cons to answer that. Here's the neo-con 'Bible' if you will. Only it isn't a book, it's a think-tank.
The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm)

The link deliberately goes to articles from 1997-2000, just so you have easy access to articles espousing the current conflicts in the Middle East. 9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Neither did Osama bin Laden. Invading Iraq, followed by the overthrow of most of the governments in the Middle East, has been neo-con doctrine for a decade.


overthrow of governments? :confused: I thought the neo-cons just wanted to nuke the Middle East.

tennisbum79
Aug 21st, 2006, 05:42 AM
Thank you for posting the infamous website, The New American Century.
It is well documented that Mr Bush lacks intellectual curiosity, but I am just wondering if candidate Bush had ever heard or read the New American Century position papers before he interviewed Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, Peerle and co for the vaious positions in his adminstration.
Have always been puzzled, that a man of his background and means, never visited Europe, Asia or Africa during his years at Yale.

vogus
Aug 21st, 2006, 05:52 AM
Thank you for posting the infamous website, The New American Century.
It is well documented that Mr Bush lacks intellectual curiosity, but I am just wondering if candidate Bush had ever heard or read the New American Century position papers before he interviewed Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, Peerle and co for the vaious positions in his adminstration.
Have always been puzzled, that a man of his background and means, never visited Europe, Asia or Africa during his years at Yale.


well, Bush probably figured that he is never going to make know-it-all critics like you happy no matter what he does, so why should he bother trying?

tennisbum79
Aug 21st, 2006, 06:02 AM
well, Bush probably figured that he is never going to make know-it-all critics like you happy no matter what he does, so why should he bother trying?

I don't think that is a well thought out answer.



Are you saying because he foresaw he would be criticized regardless of what he does, it drove him to being uncurious about history in general and political history of the middle east in particular?


But I am sure you are not serious.

vogus
Aug 21st, 2006, 06:25 AM
I don't think that is a well thought out answer.



Are saying because he foresaw he would be criticized regardless of what he does, it drove him to being uncurious about history in general and political history of the middle east in particular?



But I am sure you are not serious








i wasn't really serious. My point is merely that there is nothing Bush could ever do to make certain elements of the orthodox left happy. He could give in to everything they demanded, and he would still be hated. I personally don't find Bush that conservative. For a Republican he is not bad. Reagan was much worse. But Bush has become a punching bag of the orthodox left in a way that Reagan seemed invulnerable to.

tennisbum79
Aug 21st, 2006, 06:36 AM
i wasn't really serious. My point is merely that there is nothing Bush could ever do to make certain elements of the orthodox left happy. He could give in to everything they demanded, and he would still be hated. I personally don't find Bush that conservative. For a Republican he is not bad. Reagan was much worse. But Bush has become a punching bag of the orthodox left in a way that Reagan seemed invulnerable to.

I think every president, Republican or Democrat, get criticized.
I just happen that Clinton harsh criticism from the right was largely without merits and petty, whereas the Bush criticism (from all quarters, not just the left) is very valid and on matter of war, credibilty of the nation foreign policy (and therefore it credibilty).

Volcana
Aug 21st, 2006, 07:17 AM
I think the 'war-radicals' describes them a bit better than 'neo-cons'.

For a 'pure-blood' conservative (as opposed to those in the USA who used 'conservative as a cover or anti-Black White Supremacy), spending blood and treasure in an aggressive action is ALWAYS anethema. Conservatives were isolationists. Unlike the Rumsfeld-Feith-Bush-Cheney-'war is the solution to all problems' crowd, a conservative, a true blue, dyed-in-the-wool, Barry Goldwater conservative, would hae rejected both the Bush domestic and foreign policies.

RVD
Aug 21st, 2006, 10:13 AM
Thank you for posting the infamous website, The New American Century.
It is well documented that Mr Bush lacks intellectual curiosity, but I am just wondering if candidate Bush had ever heard or read the New American Century position papers before he interviewed Rumsfeld, Wolfwitz, Peerle and co for the vaious positions in his adminstration.
Have always been puzzled, that a man of his background and means, never visited Europe, Asia or Africa during his years at Yale.Yes, it's a fact that Bush not only knew of the PNAC Doctrine, but also had intimate knowledge of it from daddy.
See, this 'Bible' was shopped to daddy Bush and Clinton, and both shot this piece of Imperialistic plan down knowing full well the consequences of such an endeavor. But Bush being...well...Bush, saw an opportunity to demonstrate to daddy that he was.... erm... capable of more than driving drunk, shooting up, and crashing cars.

Isn't it interesting that every single author/contributor of PNAC that once worked within the administration, no longer does? I find that quite telling. They left Georgie holding this stick of dynamite. :tape:

As to Volcan's question...

I heard a very apt description over the radio of Ne-Cons that fits perfectly:

REGRESSIVES! :worship: