RSS Feeds
How neo are the neocons?
1.
Imperialists works for me. The core of neocons ideology is a militaristic foreign policy. The real principle behind the occupation of Iraq was to instill some reaganesque fantasy of" the country on the shining hill". Of course if they polled say the top 20000 experts on the Mideast they would have struggled to find one percent that liked their chances. But of course they didn't.
Goldberg is pulling our leg on with the Feith Quote. Bushs' entire war council signed a letter to Clinton in the early nineties begging him to conquer Iraq and instill a western Democracy.
2. Be honest. The misadventure that the neocons got us into was solely about Israel. Sadam invaded Iran with our support. He invaded Kuwait and was allowed to leave relatively unscathed. He made the ultimate mistake in given the relatives of the suicide bombers $25,000. At that point in time, Israel was reeling. That is why we invaded Iraq. Did Cheney want oil; maybe. Did Bush want to avenger his father; probably. Did the neocons wanted to protect Israel and will Liebermann influence McCain to invade Iran, yes. The American Enterprise Institute and the AIPAC runs this country’s foreign policy.
3. "...democratization didn't rank very high among the Bush administration's early priorities." No duh...that's cause they didn't give a crap about Democracy unitl the WMD's they tried to sell us didn't pan out...Talk about revisionist history, I have no idea why the LA TImes still has this hack writing when everything he said before and during the Iraq war has proven false or completely wrong...now we have to listen to him rewrite history so he doesn't sound like such an idiot in the first place...
4. Vietnam was about spreading democracy, it was about stopping Communism. In Vietnam, like in Iraq, we backed the wrong corrupt leader, Diem, which ultimately led to the failure of our feeble attempts to "democratize" the country. al-Maliki is perhaps a less competent, more corrupt version of Diem, but he will fail, too.
5. Neocons make lousy historians. They simply dismiss the truth out-of-hand and expect sane people to believe them. How dumb do they think we is?
6. Previous posts have slammed Jonah enough. I'll just add that we didn't fight WWI or WWII 'in defense of democracy', we fought it in defense of our friends and allies - who happened to be democracies. So-called fact-based conservatives should take note of the difference.
7. Utter tripe, bollocks and bs.. Grotesquely reconstructing and rehabilitating mythology to suit reactionary political troglodites. Typical Goldberg.
8. Then let us promote it in Burma and Tibet as well and stop messing around with indigenous democratic movements that are not in our energy interests.
9. If the best cure for neoconservatism of today is the neoconservatism of old which was about domestic affairs and the dangers of overreach, then I agree we need to stop today's neoconservatives - who are obviously wrong and offbase. And as for promoting democracy....give me a break....the US fights now to 'protect our interests' which of course are primarily economic and corporate.
10. Promoting democracy is one thing. Forcing democracy at gun point is quite another story.
Submitted by: R Keith Gargus
2. Be honest. The misadventure that the neocons got us into was solely about Israel. Sadam invaded Iran with our support. He invaded Kuwait and was allowed to leave relatively unscathed. He made the ultimate mistake in given the relatives of the suicide bombers $25,000. At that point in time, Israel was reeling. That is why we invaded Iraq. Did Cheney want oil; maybe. Did Bush want to avenger his father; probably. Did the neocons wanted to protect Israel and will Liebermann influence McCain to invade Iran, yes. The American Enterprise Institute and the AIPAC runs this country’s foreign policy.
Submitted by: Ransome
3. "...democratization didn't rank very high among the Bush administration's early priorities." No duh...that's cause they didn't give a crap about Democracy unitl the WMD's they tried to sell us didn't pan out...Talk about revisionist history, I have no idea why the LA TImes still has this hack writing when everything he said before and during the Iraq war has proven false or completely wrong...now we have to listen to him rewrite history so he doesn't sound like such an idiot in the first place...
Submitted by: CurtisTheCurtis
4. Vietnam was about spreading democracy, it was about stopping Communism. In Vietnam, like in Iraq, we backed the wrong corrupt leader, Diem, which ultimately led to the failure of our feeble attempts to "democratize" the country. al-Maliki is perhaps a less competent, more corrupt version of Diem, but he will fail, too.
Submitted by: Woundedduck
5. Neocons make lousy historians. They simply dismiss the truth out-of-hand and expect sane people to believe them. How dumb do they think we is?
Submitted by: Boots
6. Previous posts have slammed Jonah enough. I'll just add that we didn't fight WWI or WWII 'in defense of democracy', we fought it in defense of our friends and allies - who happened to be democracies. So-called fact-based conservatives should take note of the difference.
Submitted by: Dave
7. Utter tripe, bollocks and bs.. Grotesquely reconstructing and rehabilitating mythology to suit reactionary political troglodites. Typical Goldberg.
Submitted by: Forge
8. Then let us promote it in Burma and Tibet as well and stop messing around with indigenous democratic movements that are not in our energy interests.
Submitted by: Arun
9. If the best cure for neoconservatism of today is the neoconservatism of old which was about domestic affairs and the dangers of overreach, then I agree we need to stop today's neoconservatives - who are obviously wrong and offbase. And as for promoting democracy....give me a break....the US fights now to 'protect our interests' which of course are primarily economic and corporate.
Submitted by: David Bearden
10. Promoting democracy is one thing. Forcing democracy at gun point is quite another story.
Submitted by: Ed
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT