man i need you start investigating all the conspiracies in the stock market. start investigating the plunge protection team and naked shorting!
Noones attacking Iran or Syria. . Iran recently signed a hush hush deal with russia to buy 250 Sukhoi-30 MKM's long distance fighter bombers.plus 20 refulling tankers which will give the sukhois a long distance capebale range.. deal would probaly be worth around 20 billion dollars.thats why the us is now rearming the saudis and the jordanians in case of a iranian attack. Sure thats still no match for the united states, but it gives iran enough power to be able to destroy the Shipping route in the strait of hormuz where some 70% of the worlds oil goes through.
Not sure what this does for you. By definition a neoconservatives doesn't see the US as an empire. If you read the wiki entry you posted you'll even see that specific distinction argued by a neoconservative with a conclusion opposite your own. Seeing America as the world's only Superpower isn't unique to neoconservatism. A realist would see the same unipolar world. You're missing the point of having the strongest military, which is so that we can protect and spread liberal democracy. While protecting our energy supply is important, it is not the goal of a neoconservative. The goal is to have a world in which everyone enjoys a liberal democracy. That goes back to the democracies don't fight democracies position. We'll be in a safer world if we have more of it, so taking down a despot is a step in the right direction. A conspiracy to kill your own citizens and invade another country for your strategic interests is not in line with the neoconservative belief system. That's much more in line with a Machavellian/Realist position where our national security/interests trump all other concerns. A clearer example of this might be the intervention in Bosnia - there were no strategic or national interests involved. That's why you had many conservatives against the interventions while you had neoconservatives FOR the intervention.
i think most throw around the word neocon with not much true understanding of what it means...they just regurgitate what they here elsewhere
I think both you and Rhester are partially right. Neoconservatives do believe in spreading liberal democracy but in terms of it serving US interests. So while not pursuing empire exactly they are interested in pursuing US hegemony. A world of liberal democracies like France that don't go along with US interests isn't in the interests of Neoconservatives.
I've read as much as I have had time to read about the origins of the neo-conservatives. They began as liberals/democrats who started to embrace the 'conservative' view of foreign policy especially with regard to military intervention on the behalf of perceived US interest internationally. But that is too simplistic. There are plenty of resources that explain the policies and goals of neoconservatives. "There is a vital distinction between being powerful--even most powerful in the world--and being an empire. Economic expansion does not equal imperialism, and there is no such thing as "cultural imperialism." If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein? America is not an empire, and its power stems from voluntary associations and alliances. American hegemony is relatively well accepted because people all over the world know that U.S. forces will eventually withdraw from the occupied territories." Kagan makes the point here that world dominance or global hegemony by the United States does not equate to an American empire. The reason he is defending the neocon position against such an accusation is because you cannot 'spread' democracy by military force. To think that US forces will eventually withdraw from those places that are strategic to US interests is certainly not reality. They will not withdraw from Iraq and they will not withdraw from South Korea or Germany or Turkey or any other place that they WANT to be. Kagan doesn't want to call US world dominance an empire because the old idea of empire is purely military occupation as was the case with every Empire from the Babylonians to Rome to Britain. Today empire has to do with 'control'. Vital global control of core economic resources, control of military superiority and control of technologies. For the US to dominate it must be positioned to protect its vital interest globally which would include energy, technology and military capability. Because of our superior technology our military can dominate without occupation. Except in those regions where our occupation is strategic to protect our advantage or a strategic interest such as oil. Whatever we controlled by economics, politics and persuasion in the middle east must have shifted in the minds of the neocons because we invaded and occupied Iraq in direct alignment with their goals. The neocon would have all governments aligned with US interests and all strategic resources aligned with US dominance. I am not saying it is right or wrong either.
Have you seen this new one: 911, Ripple Effect? http://www.911rippleeffect.com/index_hi.html It was released in early July 2007: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9127706080717077488 I haven't seen the whole thing, but it seems technical.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Neoconservatives want to spread liberal democracy for itself (ie because its a laudable goal) and also because it would serve US interests. But not necessarily in the way you insinuate. IMO it would serve US interests because of the belief that democracies don't fight other democracies, instability is caused by despotism, terrorism is caused by the lack of a rage outlet (which democratic reform provides), democracies are more environmentally responsible, democracies have more open economies, etc etc. So in the end they would much rather have a French democracy than a despotic regime.
The difference between a democracy and communism is that communism has one state party, democracies have two.
If Neo-Conservatism isn't seeking an American hegemony why is the seminal document of Neo-Conservatism called "Partnership for the New American Century"? Your argument that Neo-Conservatives embrace the idea of spreading liberal democracy out of purely altruism belies the basis of why they push that idea in the first place. Also interms of the argument that democracies don't fight democracies that is not true. The democractically elected governments of Israel fought the democractically elected government of Lebanon. Their was a democractically elected government in the Palestinian territories that still advocated the destruction of Israel. The very founders of Neo-Conservatism have rejected the idea of democracy when they find it doesn't serve US interests so yes their belief is that democracy is good but only to the extent that it serves US interests.
Technically, the democratically elected government of Israel fought Hizballah, a group holding positions within the government of Lebanon, but no more the government of Lebanon than the Progressive Party is the government of Vermont.
Preserving our status as the sole superpower and empire are not the same thing. And I'm not sure who decided that was the seminal document of neoconservatism. Aside from that, it is possibly the most misquoted document in history (see earlier debate in this thread). That isn't my argument. As I explained in the post you quoted there is an intersection between what is best for everyone (democracy) and our own interests (democracy). People who claim neoconservatism is only about US interests are ignoring the neoconservative record. They were staunch advocates for intervention in Bosnia where there was no oil and no national interest, they have advocated pressure for democratic reform in the central asian republics which directly contravenes the neocon oil grab in central asia theories since it's driving those countries toward China and Russia and away from us. Generally, it is true. If you look at all the wars fought in recorded history only a handful were between democracies. A country being democratic means it is extremely unlikely to wage war on another democracy. Btw: Israel wasn't fighting the democractically elected government of Lebanon, but rather a nondemocratically formed subnational group. I'm not sure where you're getting that from but here's Irving Kristol's take: AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing. Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy. Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3000&R=785F27881
Possibly not the seminal document but certainly one that is very influential to Neo-Conservative thinking. In practical terms it is which is where I think the neo-conservative rhetoric hasn't produced results they might intend. The other issue though is that neo-conservatives in power though have shown far less enthusiasm towards pushing democractic reforms when it hasn't favored US interests. For instance I don't recall a huge neo-conservative push against Turkmen Basho after he allowed US forces to base out of Turkmenistan. Your quote though shows that this isn't always the case. Hezbollah was a legitimately elected part of Lebanon's government and Israel also attacked Lebanese military installations and personel as part of that conflict. I don't even have to read all that to respond. Let me ask you then why aren't neo-conservatives supporting the democractically elected Hamas led government instead of Fatah who lost the election or the democractically elected Chavez Admin.? Sure you can cite neo-conservatives writings but in practice they don't act that way.
Simply not true. I gave a couple of examples of neoconservatives pushing when it wasn't necessarily in US strategic interests (pushing for Central Asian reform) and the intervention in Bosnia. Other examples would be pushing for democratic reform in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither of which is necessarily in our strategic interest unless you believe, as neoconservatives do, that democractic reform is a good solution to terrorism and a good end unto itself. What you're attempting to do is to say that because the neoconservative agenda hasn't trumped ALL decisions then it is not actually the neoconservative agenda. That's silly since the neoconservatives don't control the whole agenda and again that's where these claims of the neocon cabal start to fail to match up with reality. I guess you chose not to read about that either: The United States and Turkmenistan continue to disagree about the country's path toward democratic and economic reform. The United States has publicly advocated industrial privatization, market liberalization, and fiscal reform, as well as legal and regulatory reforms to open up the economy to unhindered foreign trade and investment, as the only way to achieve prosperity and stability. U.S. criticism of the Government of Turkmenistan’s crackdown against perceived sources of political opposition after the November 2002 motorcade attack led to a marked downturn in bilateral relations between the Governments of the United States and Turkmenistan. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35884.htm The United States maintained a multi-pronged strategy to support the development of democracy and human rights in the country. Throughout the year senior US officials urged the government to promote democratic reform at every opportunity in bilateral meetings with President Niyazov and other senior officials, as well as through multilateral institutions and public statements. Senior officials regularly reiterated the message that respect for human rights is the highest priority of the US Government. The United States regularly advocated on behalf of individual cases of abuse and coordinated closely with other diplomatic missions and international organizations. The United States funded a wide range of programs designed to strengthen civil society and respect for human rights. During the year the United States used public statements and a range of speaker and exchange programs to convey the importance of freedoms of information, media, and speech. The United States funded seven speakers, including an expert on Islam in America; the author Paul Theroux, who spoke about the importance of self-expression; and a criminal justice and law expert. The United States brought two local journalists to the United States on the Edward Murrow Journalism program and supported programs by US Government exchange program alumni and civic groups that highlighted the importance of media freedom and freedom of speech. In addition to regularly scheduled speakers, a US official addressed 40 state library professionals and administrators on the need to provide public access to government information. The US Government again supported a Model United Nations conference in Ashgabat for more than 100 youth from each of the country’s five provinces, as well as one national and multiple regional debate tournaments. During the year American Corners collectively attracted more than 48,500 visitors. However, in the spring outreach was hampered when the government closed the American Corner in Turkmenbashy and three Internet Access Training Program sites in Dashoguz, Balkanabat, and Ashgabat’s National Library. US efforts to reopen all sites continued throughout the year. Despite these pressures, programming in the remaining four American Corners, the American Center in Ashgabat, two Internet Access Training Program sites, and the Alumni Resource Center in Ashgabat continued to expand, which provided citizens a critical link to the outside world by offering access to independent sources of information. Outreach in Turkmenbashy continued in a local polyclinic’s classroom, with the help of alumni of US Government exchange programs. The remaining Internet Access Training Program centers supported the Global Connections and Exchange Program, an information technology training program for teachers and students, after the host government rejected efforts to implement the program in state schools. The program trained approximately 81 teachers and 300 students during the year. The United States opened an enlarged Information Resources Center with high-speed Internet, which had registered more than 1,400 users by the end of the year. The center used its conference space to accommodate partner organizations’ and individual programs, including efforts by state teachers to provide Internet and computer training to their students. US English-language programming and outreach expanded significantly during the year, providing essential support to democracy programming by providing local audiences access to print and electronic materials in English. Moreover, the US Government’s first resident English Language Fellow, based at the staterun Azadi World Languages Institute, was able to reach audiences usually barred from interaction with US officials—teachers and current students. Although the United States continued to urge government officials to register NGOs throughout the year, the Ministry of Justice registered no new NGOs. US-funded civil society development programs supported a network of four Civil Society Support Centers that provided training seminars, technical support, information resources, networking opportunities, and professional services to NGOs and grassroots activists to build their capacity in the civic sector. The United States also provided direct legal support and services for NGOs through the network. US-funded civil society development programs focused on grassroots community development and advocacy. During the year these programs implemented 133 community projects with funding from the US Government. To promote the rule of law, a US-funded program supported the Legal Resource Center at Turkmen State University. Since January 2004, the center has organized training programs on the country’s labor legislation, the development of its criminal legislation, legal guarantees of women’s rights, and the development of civil legislation. More than 1,500 students participated in extracurricular activities during the year, and more than 3,700 visited the center’s facilities and benefited from access to legal information via the Internet. The civil law clinic operating at the university, which was one of the first clinics in the country, provided individual consultation on both civic and criminal legal issues and promoted legal, professional, and ethical standards through seminars and workshops for law faculty and students. Program staff provided ongoing training to clinic staff attorneys on managing a student-run clinical program and addressing practical and pedagogical issues surrounding clinical legal education. US-funded programs continued to sponsor student participation in national moot court competitions. A program developed in cooperation with Turkmen State University offered young people the opportunity to learn about the law and basic principles of human rights and democracy. Law students involved in the program learned techniques for teaching primary and secondary school students about their rights and responsibilities under the law. The program’s objective was to sensitize students at a young age to the ways in which the law can help solve critical family, social, and political issues. The program effectively promoted practical skills and enhanced the legal knowledge of law student participants and provided legal information to members of the general public. In addition, a Fulbright conference drew more than 110 citizens and highlighted rule of law and criminal justice, international relations, and education. The United States promoted respect for human rights through diplomacy and programs. The United States actively supported efforts to gain access to all prisoners, including those detained following the armed attack on President Niyazov’s motorcade in 2002. The United States also advocated for improved treatment of relatives of those implicated in the 2002 attack, and urged the government to cease systematically harassing them. The United States continued to promote the rights of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities through programs. The US Government funded a ground-breaking program that offered training to communities, NGOs, and activists for dealing with family abuse. A US program funded training for youth and the disabled on their rights under international and domestic law. The United States continued to monitor the government’s compliance with its international obligations on freedom of movement. The government formally lifted its exit visa regime in 2004 to avoid Jackson-Vanik sanctions; however, it continued to maintain a “black list” of individuals barred from international travel. During the year the United States raised individual freedom of movement cases with the government, advocated on behalf of relatives of prisoners, and strongly urged the government to allow a noted author to travel to the United States to receive an award. The United States continued to urge the host government to respect religious freedom. As a result of US efforts, the government further reduced harassment of minority religious groups. In addition, scholars from the United States conducted two outreach meetings on the topic of “Islam in America.” The meetings attracted representatives from the Council of Religious Affairs and individual Imams from all five provinces. http://turkmenistan.usembassy.gov/shrd2006.html It is almost always the case, which is all that is necessary. Hezbollah was had no legitimate authority to act on its own to attack another state. Since you claim to have insight into the beginnings of neoconservative thinking, it would seem relevant to read what the 'father of neoconservatism' has to say one might think. But I guess you can spout off about something and then just refuse to read or ignore something that contradicts you. Neoconservatives support Israel because it was for a very long time the only democracy in the Middle East, whereas Hamas has for a very long time announced its stated intention to destroy Israel. It therefore is fairly consistent for Neoconservatives to support a democracy against an outside threat, as you could have seen if you'd bothered to read the Kristol quote. You site their writings, I show you're wrong, you claim we should ignore their writings. I point out their actions, you ignore them. Quite a discussion.
