Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
What a bunch of spinelss cowards.

However this article did reconfirm my belief in neoconservatism as it was defined

"the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"

What better foreign policy goal is there?

I'd agree that they're spineless cowards - this is the theoreticians of neoconservatism trying to keep their hands clean and disowning the practitioners of neoconservatism.

But, if that's the definition, Clinton would certainly qualify, and there would be a case to be made for Carter as well. I think that's a definition that says nothing.

[Penske_Account]

I had a dream about him. I think this is a sign. We will win tomorrow. And America will win. Hallelujah!

Godspeed Spanky!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
and there would be a case to be made for Carter as well.

umm, crashed a helicopter in a desert to get our hostages out, not for any great moral reason or to do "good."

do you mean boycotted the Olympics? technically not the military.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
umm, crashed a helicopter in a desert to get our hostages out, not for any great moral reason or to do "good."

do you mean boycotted the Olympics? technically not the military.

Lust in his heart, yes???

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
CAFTA? He busted his derriere to see that pass.

How so?

eta: Doha round, anyone?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
umm, crashed a helicopter in a desert to get our hostages out, not for any great moral reason or to do "good."

do you mean boycotted the Olympics? technically not the military.

He advocated military solutions in, among other places, Afghanistan and Nicaragua, and had a foreign policy explicitly focused on doing good. Remember Zbignew Brezinski? Zbig probably sounded more like today's neocons than anyone else in the 70s and 80s.

The point was not that Carter was a neocon (I wouldn't consider him such), but that the definition was ridiculous. FDR and JFK easily meet it as well.

So how would people define neocon in a meaningful way? Looking back at the last six years, just what have they contributed to the discussion that is both new and useful and stands up to six years of experience?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
He advocated military solutions in, among other places, Afghanistan and Nicaragua, and had a foreign policy explicitly focused on doing good. Remember Zbignew Brezinski? Zbig probably sounded more like today's neocons than anyone else in the 70s and 80s.

The point was not that Carter was a neocon (I wouldn't consider him such), but that the definition was ridiculous. FDR and JFK easily meet it as well.

So how would people define neocon in a meaningful way? Looking back at the last six years, just what have they contributed to the discussion that is both new and useful and stands up to six years of experience?

Ty@50 might answer, "Our ultimate victoury in Iraq! Freedom and democracy! Mission accomplished!"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ty@50 might answer, "Our ultimate victoury in Iraq! Freedom and democracy! Mission accomplished!"

Ty@51 would tell you to watch this quick, before Fox has it taken down.

You'd think your BFF could just find a way to share the sock's log-in with you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This seems like a good day for people to do a little prognosticating over on the thread for such things.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You'd think your BFF could just find a way to share the sock's log-in with you.

cite please?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How so?

eta: Doha round, anyone?

The Unions and the Dems put up a strong push to defeat it and he invested a lot of political capital to get it through. How many times in recent years has a president actually gone to capital hill and made the rounds to get a bill passed. If they do that and the bill goes down they would look like an idiot. Bush took that chance for CAFTA. What other bill has Bush done that for? How many bills did Clinton do that for?

The Doha round is stalled because of European intransigence on the CAP. Until they are willing to compromise on the CAP, the third world will not move forward, and they shouldn't. The US has been pushing harder on Doha than anyone else.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So how would people define neocon in a meaningful way? Looking back at the last six years, just what have they contributed to the discussion that is both new and useful and stands up to six years of experience?

JFK was a committed Cold Warrior. Carter was not until the invasion of Afghanistan, and then he saw the light but it was too late.

The word neocon really only applied until after the Cold War. Until then everything was focused on defeating the Soviet Union.

The definition is correct "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"

The key word there is tough. Tough meaning using military force.

Bush I leaving Saddam in power was not a neocon move.

Clinton bombing Serbia was a neocon move.

Not doing anything to help Bosnia or Rwanda was not a neocon move and Clinto says he regrets not doing more.

The anti-neocons only want the US to do stuff that that is in our "strategic interest". Invade Iraq only to destroy WMDS and get oil. Necone reason - regime change. To a real Neocon whether or nor Iraq had WMDs was irrelevent. The point was to get rid of Saddam.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
JFK was a committed Cold Warrior. Carter was not until the invasion of Afghanistan, and then he saw the light but it was too late.

The word neocon really only applied until after the Cold War. Until then everything was focused on defeating the Soviet Union.

The definition is correct "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"

The key word there is tough. Tough meaning using military force.

Bush I leaving Saddam in power was not a neocon move.

Clinton bombing Serbia was a neocon move.

Not doing anything to help Bosnia or Rwanda was not a neocon move and Clinto says he regrets not doing more.

The anti-neocons only want the US to do stuff that that is in our "strategic interest". Invade Iraq only to destroy WMDS and get oil. Necone reason - regime change. To a real Neocon whether or nor Iraq had WMDs was irrelevent. The point was to get rid of Saddam.

Of course, back in the day, Clinton was engaging in "nation building" directly contrary to the conservative spirit.

I love revisionist history.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Unions and the Dems put up a strong push to defeat it and he invested a lot of political capital to get it through.

When I said, "how so?," I was looking for some sort of amplification, not repetition. In what way did Bush spend political capital on CAFTA?

Let me give you an alternative hypothesis. Bush and the GOP like free trade as an issue because it is important to big business (read: $$$$) and lets them draw distinctions in this regard with Democrats (read: deny Dems $$$$). So there are advantages on the GOP side to keeping the issue alive and to forcing votes along party lines, rather than with big bipartisan majorities.

OTOH, there are few advantages to the GOP to making deals that actually promote free trade in a big way, for two reasons. One follows from what i just said -- if they give big business what they want, they lose the issue. Better to keep things simmering. This reason is secondary to the second, which is that entering into free-trade agreements with countries that really matter -- e.g., Doha -- will require the country to make politically unsavory deals -- i.e., to piss Americans off. The majority will benefit, for reasons you and I agree on, but the minority speaks loudly and throws around the $$$$.

Bush and the White House have been utterly unwilling to spend the political capital that it would take to enter into real free trade agreements with major impact, as opposed to a handful of minor Caribbean countries without the clout to demand anything from us. They just won't take the hit. One sign of the White House's disinterest in Doha was replacing the U.S. chief negotiator in the fina stages of the talks, and bringing in someone without any pull on the Hill.

The Doha round is stalled because of European intransigence on the CAP. Until they are willing to compromise on the CAP, the third world will not move forward, and they shouldn't. The US has been pushing harder on Doha than anyone else.

No one who follows this issue believes this for a second. I'm not saying that it all falls on the U.S., but it's ridiculous simply to blame the Europeans. Your perspective on free trade plainly derives from GOP happy talk rather than from experience with the business community's perspective. If you want to open your eyes, try following the coverage of something like Doha from a pro-business perspective of a source like the Financial Times, who's readers are more interested in free-trade policy than in carrying Bush's water.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Of course, back in the day, Clinton was engaging in "nation building" directly contrary to the conservative spirit.

I love revisionist history.

Conservatives hate nation building. Neocons support it. George Will and many Republicans (including John McCain) flipped out at Clintons bombing of Serbia, because with Kosovo we were interfering with the internal politics of a sovereign nation and the US has no strategic interest in Serbia. All true, but irrelevant arguments to a Neocon.

Of course the far left didn't like it because to them war is always wrong.

Conservatives rationalize Afghanistan because they supported Al Queda. Neocons didn't need Al Queda as an excuse to go in (the Taliban was the only excuse they needed). Conservatives use oil, the war on terror and WMDs as an excuse to invade Iraq. Neocons don't need an excuse (Saddam provided all the excuse they needed). Many conservatives, like Buckley, Buchanan and others were against Iraq because they didn't believe we had strategic interests.

Again the liberals were against it because they are against all wars.