posted 07-31-2003 12:03 AM
quote:
Blindly supporting most if not all of the Bu$h administrations machavellian troskyite policies CERTAINLY defines you as a NEO-CON.
Oh…does it really?
Let’s see if I’m actually a neocon…as Mech defines it. I’ll take each definition of NeoCon, that Mech offered in another thread, one by one and see how my own personal philosophy stands up.
“1. They agree with Trotsky (Commie) on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.”
I don’t know really what Trotsky believed…I’ve heard the name before, but I don’t even really know who the guy was. How can it be said that I agree with his philosophy? And revolution against what? If we are talking about revolting against the onset of communism currently being brought forth by the Democrat party, then yes, I guess I’d be for “permanent revolution” but I don’t know what type of revolution Trotsky is referring to here. If he is referring to the communist revolution, then I’m against that, as I just got through saying, and have 180 degree opposite views. I also believe that violence is only necessary as a last resort, much along the lines of thinking of the founders of this country which was behind the addition of the second amendment.
“2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.”
Hmmm…by Middle East, are we talking about Palestine VS Israel here? Or are we talking about Iraq, Iran, Libya Saudi Arabia, etc.? As far as Palestine goes, I’m all for the idea of the US not interfering with stopping Israel from doing what it needs to do, and that’s completely take out the Palestinian government. Short of that, I’m for the new terrorist preventative fence they are building. The currently mis-named territory of Palestine is nothing but a terrorist breeding ground ruled by evil, sick people intent on brainwashing their young population to blow themselves up to kill the most innocent Jews. Women and children are the favored targets. These kinds of tactics are the very definition of war. Israel has the same war that the US is currently fighting…the war against terrorism, and NO GRIEVENCE justifies attacks such at those being waged by the government sponsored suicide bombings of the Palestinians. This is a war between two states or countries, and the US should not restrict Israel in anyway. The US should take off the handcuffs and let Israel do what it needs to do. Yes, I am for letting Israel take over the area currently known as Palestine. I’m for the elimination of all terrorist states.
“3. They believe in "PREEMPTIVE" WAR to achieve desired ends.”
I think most wars that the US has fought have been pre-emptive in nature, in that we did not wait until the foreign country attacked us on the mainland. WWII was pre-emptive in nature, by this definition. Now that we live in a nuclear world where terrorists are capable of using WMDs, I’d say the war on terrorism MUST be pre-emptive, because waiting for the end result to occur first….a mushroom cloud….is unthinkable. In fact, the current war on terrorism is really not pre-emptive, to be technically accurate. We were attacked first on 9-11. Using every means to prevent another 9-11 may be termed pre-emptive, but it is also the only responsible course for a nation under attack to take. We are using every means available to wipe out terrorism at it’s sources, and deprive it of the money that feeds it. Yes, in this sense then, I am for pre-emptive action. To act otherwise, to ignore the threat, would not only be suicidal, immoral and irresponsible, it would be exactly what Clinton did to create the conditions that allowed 911 to occur.
“4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means�that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.”
Nope….this is currently the Democrat/liberal/ leftist philosophy, not mine. Conservatives in general do not believe the ends justify the means. Let me give you one specific and current example. Democrats believe it is perfectly appropriate and acceptable to lie and attack their political opponents in order to drive down the opponents credibility by the weight of the false or unproven accusations alone, even if those accusations are not based in truth or reality. This is a perfect example of how the ends justify the means philosophy is currently being practiced by the majority of the mainstream press and the leftist radicals that now constitute the majority of the Democratic party.
Demonize your opponent….Say anything to destroy his credibility, even if the accusations are unproven or untrue or preposterous. Say ANYTHING to win. Say ANYTHING to gain back power. Moral correctness doesn’t matter so long as the ends are achieved. Hence, the ends justify the means….The Democratic playbook is right out of the Communist manifesto, and Karl Marx‘s philosophy. Conservative ideology differs severely from this tact in that truth must be the basis for all our reasoning and actions, at least to the best of our ability to know the truth. If we accuse a political opponent, it must not be a specious charge. There must be some truthful basis behind the accusation. Conservatives work from a moral frame work. There are moral rules for conservatives that a true conservative must abide by. The ends do not justify the means, because truth and morality and basic human decency guide the path to achieving the ends in conservative philosophy. These rules do not apply to Democrats, however. For Democrats, the ends do truly justify the means.
“5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.”
Of course…the welfare state is the first tenet of socialism. Conservatives are directly opposed to socialism. We believe the best state of man is having the ability and opportunity to provide for yourself, not have government provide it for you. Conservatives therefore seek to provide the citizen opportunities and abilities to achieve each individual’s unlimited potential. A welfare state, by contrast, severely limits each individual’s potential and locks them into a cycle of poverty. This is where Democrats recruit most of their voting base, by the way…from a population that is dependent upon government welfare. This is the essence of socialism, and the condition the Democrat party seeks to create to ensure their power and voter base. More accurately, it is the essence of communism because the Democrat elites do not live by the same conditions of poverty, they seek to inflict on those who mindlessly support them. It is a case of the dumbed-down oppressed, supporting the oppressors.
“6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.”
We believe in spreading capitalism and Democracy (for lack of a better term) and freedom, but only if other countries seek it. Freedom cannot be enforced or inflicted. We believe as the founders of the constitution believed, that freedom is the natural inherent yearning of mankind. The American system of government is the greatest form of government ever invented by mankind, so we have no objections for other nations copying it. In fact, we encourage it. American conservatives do not engage in imperialism or colonialism as the British did, however, if we are forced to intervene in a war or threat situation, such as Iraq, we must first foster a Democratic government, or the cycle of oppression and instability and world threat will continue.
“7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.”
Absolutely not. The conservative philosophy is based on truth. This is an appropriate statement for the left however. As I said, the left believes that the ends justifies the means. Lies are an acceptable means to achieve power for the left, as represented by today’s Democratic party.
“8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.”
Again…just the opposite. Conservatives believe in limited federal government and powerful local or state government. We believe that the only areas that the federal government should be powerful are those functions mandated in the US constitution. The US military, for example, needs to be the most powerful military in the world. Conservatives are actually true constitutionalists.
“9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.”
Again, this is another philosophical tenet of the left. Conservatives are quite open about how we believe society should be run, and our objective is to spread these thoughts among as many ordinary people as possible. We believe in winning the battle of ideas, through the process of logical persuasion, ideas that benefit everyone, and those ideas must be shared and discussed. Just listen to the hundreds of conservative radio talk shows out there to verify that I am stating the truth. Conservatives are very open with their ideas, and try to persuade others to see the logic in them. That means sharing these ideas and thoughts with as many people as possible. The left, on the other hand, can only enforce their ideas on others through stealthy means, because those ideas are not generally accepted by the majority. That’s why the left believes in a living constitution and legislating from the bench or judiciary. The believe in laws by fiat or decree. This is why a person identifying themselves as a liberal cannot win elections. The majority of the people are repulsed by leftist or liberal ideas. Liberal ideas must be FORCED on a population by a group of elites. This is the essence of communism. This is the essence of the current Democrat party.
“10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.”
Absolutely. Conservatives believe that they must stand by principal and what is right, or we stand for nothing. To ignore the acts of a dictator who kills millions of his own people and remain “neutral” on that is unacceptable to a conservatives. Conservatives must stand on moral principal…..They act when US interest is threatened.
“11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.”
I don’t know who Leo Strauss is…Is he that guy who invented the popular cotton jean clothing?….
“12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.”
Not at all. We encourage other countries to become free democratic societies….But this cannot be enforced. We do believe however, that the yearning for freedom is the inherent nature of mankind.
“13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.”
It is acceptable when America is threatened….and we are being threatened by pure evil as embodied by terrorist groups and Saddam Hussein. Conservatives generally believe force is only acceptable when national interest is at stake however. Bosnia, Somalia, and Liberia…and Haiti…are examples of areas where conservatives believe force should NOT be used, and the US should not be involved because there is no definitive national interest concern. The statement that “force should not be limited to the defense of our country.” would be appropriate for leftists however, who object to the use of force for the defense of America, but are routinely perfectly happy to use force where America can‘t win or where no national interests are at stake.
‘14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.’
Nope….conservatives generally believe that 9-11 resulted from a gutting of our intelligence and military by the Clinton administration. Attacks on the US result from showing weakness and a lack of resolve. Terrorist only respect one thing…and that’s strength. Conservatives believe in peace through strength and decisive action. If someone were to attack us, we hit them back 1000 times over as a means of future deterrent. If a government attacks us, then their government can expect to be destroyed. Reagan proved that the policy of peace through strength is the only one that works as a deterrent in preventing foreign attack. I don’t believe that the 9-11 terrorists would have ever even considered attacking us, if they knew it would result in the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq, the disassembling of Al-Queda and a semi-permanent, strategically overwhelming American presence in the middle East. The left does not understand the policy of deterrence, that weakness and lack of resolve and character such as that which Bill Clinton displayed, only gives the green light for attack. Bush put a stop to that. That’s why he needs to be re-elected if this country is to survive. I think the last words of the Hussein boys was something along the lines of… “I think this is truly the end…this president is different than Clinton”….
“15. They dislike and DESPISE LIBERTARIANS (therefore, the same applies to all strict Constitutionalists.)”
Not at all…Conservatives are fairly strict constitutionalists, but we realize we live in a political reality of socialist incrementalism that the liberals have slowly been indoctrinating within society for the last forty years. Conservatives tend to be realists and we recognize that we cannot just reverse the damage liberals or leftist have done to this country over such a long period of time. We must use a careful tactic which I call reverse incrementalism. We must bring back conservatism a little bit at a time. I think Bush recognizes this reality as well…That’s why he is so willing to compromise with the left, (and too much) in my opinion. He’s trying to get conservative policies passed incrementally a little bit at a time, by compromising with some of the leftists like Teddy Kennedy, in order to prevent gridlock. I think the philosophy is “a little bit of something, is better than nothing at all”.
Strict libertarians and constitutionalists however tend to be so idealistic that their policies won’t pass in the current political reality. Remember, Bush has to deal with almost 50% Democrats in the Senate and the house who are constantly fighting him, attempting to undermine him and seek his destruction at the expense of the US if necessary (ends justify the means, remember?). It’s easy to be idealistic when you don’t have to deal with the reality. Bush can’t just wave a magic wand and make the encroachment of the left go away. He must be very tactful….That being said however, underlying the conservative realist, lies the heart of a libertarian and strict constitutionalist mixed in with rules governed by morality. Conservatives do not dislike Libertarians because we share most of the same philosophy….it’s just that conservatives recognize that libertarian idealism has little chance or surviving in reality. That’s why Ron Paul became a Republican.
“16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.”
Not true at all. Conservatives do not endorse attacks on civil liberties. We seek to protect them….but the first step is providing national (Homeland) security. If we allow ourselves to be destroyed by a terrorist attack (oh say, while Congress is in session) or to be invaded by a foreign enemy, then all bets are off as far as civil liberties go. Just look at Iraq during Saddam’s reign and tell me how many civil liberties you saw there. Look at Red China and tell me how many civil liberties those people have. Thus, the first step in protecting civil liberties is to insure that we prevent foreign attack and invasion and the fall of our Republic. This means beefing up national security agencies….a necessary trade-off, or civil liberties are a moot point.
“17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the LIKUD PARTY.”
Not unconditionally at all. Conservatives support victims of terrorist attacks, such as what Israel is undergoing with Palestinian suicide/ homicide bombers. In fact, we have too many conditions on Israel, as it is. I think what we should do is just remove all conditions and let Israel do it’s thing and take out the terrorist territory/government currently referred to as Palestine. Palestinian policy of terrorist suicide bombing has not only voided their right to statehood in my opinion. It has voided their right to exist as a government. Israel should take em out. The US should not interfere. I’m all for not handing out foreign aid as well, by the way. I do believe foreign aid (giving foreign governments US taxpayer money) is unconstitutional and should stop. We should not give any money to Israel and we should not give any money to Palestine or any other nation on Earth for that matter. We should adopt a laisez faire attitude, and let Israel do what it needs to do to defend itself…just as we reserve the right to defend ourselves against terrorism….
I didn’t exactly meet your definition of NeoCon…did I Mech? In fact, I believe I revealed many of the intentional misperceptions of conservatives here. I say it’s intentional because I do believe this was a propagandist piece to attribute some of the philosophy that guides liberals, to conservatives. The ends justified the means has always been a philosophical foundation of the left….certainly not conservatives. That’s why I believe what you have here is a propaganda piece, and you’ve bought into the propaganda.
I certainly do not meet the definition of NeoCon by your own definition provided here.
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 
posted 07-30-2003 04:43 PM
posted 07-30-2003 05:46 PM
posted 07-30-2003 05:52 PM
posted 07-30-2003 06:07 PM
posted 07-30-2003 08:46 PM
posted 07-30-2003 11:21 PM
posted 07-31-2003 12:03 AM
