Although lefties try to use the saying as a dirty word, I am very impressed with “Neo”.
It reminds me of Keanu Reeves from the Matrix movies, where he can fly, dodge bullets, and learn skills in amazingly short times.
Everytime I hear “Neo” it makes me think of him and reminds me that the Agent Smiths of our world are really out to get us….
So while some spit out the words like a swear, I view it as a badge of honor.
Neo-Conservatism is an over-used word these days…its essentially lost any meaning, just as the insult towards PMSH about being Bush Jr. is so tired and irrelevant as to be meaningless.
To me, what Neo-Conservatism represents is PNAC (Project for a New American Century). They were the ones who back in 1996 believed there needed to be a some major event in the world to energize America into taking the reigns of power following the Cold War, specifically naming Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as threats. They then drafted a letter to Clinton in 1998 to remove Saddam from power, in the hope of fostering a democracy there as an example to all other Arab nations in the middle east, empowering the people of those nations to choose their destiny and overthrow their rich oil-enabled rulers. The signatories for that paper were largely the same people who composed Bush’s cabinet, or received special appointments, such as Paul Wolfowitz who now heads the World Bank.
Suddenly 9/11 happens and we invade Iraq for no discernible reason (this is said with hindsight, since the path to Iraq was led by a combination of lies/incompetence and/or willful ignorance). The belief that America needs to lead the world, or have control, or police the world, or interfere in every nations business is the essential goal of PNAC. It is to ensure America’s global dominance for the next century.
Now, I believe 100% that America’s “benevolent hegemony” following the Cold War was something that benefitted the entire world. However, as time marches on, America is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This is what a neo-conservative is to me…someone who believes in spreading American culture, democracy, and their brand of “freedom” to other nations whether their people want it or not, through whatever means they have at their disposal.
I disagree with barjebus’s analysis of neo-conservativism in the USA. He bases it on a theory of an agenda of American hegemonic supremacy. I disagree with such a psychological definition of a political and economic theory.
Neo-Conservativism is not about the nation as an individual, with a psychological emotion of wanting dominance. It’s a political and economic theory of smaller govt, free market (ie, Friedman) rather than a statist model of govt. With regard to foreign affairs, it’s protectionist, focuses on the sovereignty of the state rather than the loss of sovereignty by assuming the dominance of the UN.
If we want to focus on an agenda of world domination, then, this can be found within the undemocratic structure called the UN – a body of corruption that seeks to overthrow all and any rights of people to self-govern themselves. A body that ignores human rights, funds and enables corruption. It is interesting when disasters strike in the world, the people in those regions don’t ask: When is the UN coming? [They know the UN won’t come]. Instead, they ask; When is the US coming to help?
The theory of neoconservativism promotes one mode of govt vs another. democratic vs communist. Go deeper and the conflict is between self-rule and local democratic vs statist democratic or socialist rule. Neoconservativism rejects statist governments, the big top-down social engineering modes of govt of the Liberals, Democrats, etc.
The rise of Islamic fascism in the ME, which was being exported to the West, set up an ‘efficient cause’ for a foreign policy based on reducing the root cause of Islamic fascism: tribal dictatorships in the ME. This has nothing to do with neo-Conservativism.
bar baby
“””””” This is what a neo-conservative is to me…someone who believes in spreading American culture, democracy, and their brand of “freedom” to other nations whether their people want it or not, through whatever means they have at their disposal.””””””
funny who, when discussing WW2, the lefties always like to point out americans isolationist position at the start of the war
also funny how it was USA that rebuilt Germany and Japan
could it be that the USA’s intentions are just what she says they are, and you are just narrow minded and willfully ignorant of facts?????
and just as an after thought, could it be that there were actually WMD found (or evidence there of) in Iraq, and that for some unknown reason they have not (except it an obsure opinion piece) reported for reasons unknown (I’m not saying they were, just that I did read such a obscure opinion piece, and that has raised sum consideration for me)
BJ: imagine your life if you were to give up anything related to “American Hegemony” whether you liked it or not.
Hope you enjoy the Soviet Gulag.
GYM,
How on earth are able to correlate this centuries events with WW2? In WW2, the U.S. was attacked by Japan in a surprise attack on their home soil. In this case we’ve got dubious to nil evidence regarding Iraq’s involvement in 9/11. The U.S. invaded Iraq to overthrow a dictator, its as plain as that. That is not isolationist. That is proactive interference.
Ok WMD’s, lets look at that. They have not been found, lets get that clear. Hindsight is 20/20 though right? The only problem with that is many many many people in the Pentagon and other departments admitted to being pressured by their leaders to fabricate or embellish information regarding Iraq. Now. Lets just pretend they do have WMD’s. What does it matter? The U.S. SOLD the means to DELIVER WMD’s against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80’s. The European Union sold them tons of chemical weapons with which to exterminate Iran’s youth/soldiers and the Kurds. How about North Korea? They have actual nuclear weapons and we don’t invade them.
So to summarize that little rant: the U.S. sold chem weapons to Iraq. They sold them the means to deliver them. Then a decade down the road they need someone to blame and someone to take peoples eyes off the domestic crisis following 9/11. It just so happens that half of the cabinet for Bush has vehemently been pushing that Iraq, specifically Iraq, be invaded and Saddam overthrown to foster democracy in Iraq to help stabilize the Middle East. Right there you’ve got motive and opportunity, the rest speaks for itself. WMD’s as a justification, tenuous links to the 9/11 hijackers (15 were Saudi Arabian sheesh).
Doug,
I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy American hegemony. Without it Canada couldn’t have such a crappy military or have as much clout as we do on the world stage. Being the neighbor to the worlds largest economy is a boon that has made Canada one of the wealthiest nations on earth.
Now, what I’m getting at here is that hegemony worked well in the 90’s following the Cold War. Someone needed to step in and guide the world. The time has come where new players are rising, such as China, India, the EU. To act so unilaterally on such a wide range of issues just pisses people off and is no longer a solution. Nobody is going to stand for the U.S. to just go around interfering anymore…the time of American hegemony is slowly passing, and while nobody doubts American strenght, its time they join their peers.
You may be right, but let’s not hope so. America is the last bastion of all the principles that have brought us to where we presently are. If we turn the corner, the life of our descendants will resemble a new Dark Ages.
” Nobody is going to stand for the U.S. to just go around interfering anymore..”
Yea ??????
And, who is gona stop us ?
,
barjebus – you still aren’t examining your axioms. You take it as ‘given’ that the US has a psychological agenda (and only individuals have psyche’s) to dominate the world. I think your theory of hegemony requires proof – both that it was an axiom of the US govt and also, that it’s an axiom of neoconservativism.
You are ignoring the meanings of neo-conservativism that I supplied, namely, a rejection of a statist political system(Big Govt)in favour of self-rule and sovereignty. You are ignoring that the rise of neoconservativism coincided with the rise of the UN as a system of governance, with the UN considering that it, not the sovereign state, alone had the right to make decisions about the foreign affairs of any nation.
And kindly remember that the UN, like the Soviet Union, is not a democratic system.
As for WWII, the US was in the war, actively, long before Pearl Harbor, making and shipping supplies to the UK. And your notion that a war can be declared if and only if another nation attacks your land base, ignores modern reality.
The US was being attacked by Islamic fascists. Islamic fascism is not based in any one nation; it is a militant ideology against political and economic democracy. So, your supposition that the US should not have defended itself against Islamic fascism by removing a dictator and enabling democracy to emerge within the midst of Islamic fascist territory, is illogical.
The WMD was, quite probably, valid (he had plenty of time to remove his previously used biological gas, etc) but I think we all know that it was a more understandable idea to put before people than the much harder-to-grasp notion of enabling democracy as the key strategy to counter fascism.
WMD are easier to understand and most of the population doesn’t understand the operating infrastructure of either democracy or fascism. (For example, how many people insist that fascism is a ‘rightwing theory’?!).
I think you are totally and completely wrong with your theme of hegemony (a favourite term of the left, by the way). Reality is not the same as hegemony. Reality, which is a free individual, an ideology of merit-based entrepreneurship and innovation, a rich ecology, etc, enabled the US to dominate the world, economically and politically, in the postwar era.
Now, China (and India) are emerging out of peasantry to become part of the world economy. I think that the US can maintain itself, both economically and politically, in such a global world and doesn’t need to move into, as you do, the psychological.
Perhaps you think that the US helping out in all the various natural disasters is ‘interference’. The UN, of course, does nothing other than ‘study’ the situation and steal donations.
By the way, does it bother you that China is ‘interfering in Africa’? That the ME is ‘interfering’ in Europe? That the UN is ‘interfering’ in other areas? That France is ‘interfering in a host of francophone countries? Do you seriously think that only one country in the world sets up self-serving links and connections with other countries?
Again, I think you have a distorted and biased view of economic and political realities.
“In this case we’ve got dubious to nil evidence regarding Iraq’s involvement in 9/11. The U.S. invaded Iraq to overthrow a dictator, its as plain
as that.”
I’ve never believed that the Iraq war and Saddam’s removal had anything to do with 9/11. Wasn’t it due to his refusal to cooperate on numerous occasions with the UN over weapon inspections? Maybe someone else can elaborate on that a little more. I remember reading somewhere that the UN had laid an ultimatum down that he either cooperate or face removal. However, since the UN never had the intention of actually acting out that ultimatum, US congress voted that action must be taken since the UN wasn’t doing its job. US congress approved of the war and Saddam’s removal. Politicians in both parties had been talking about it back in the 90’s.
“Lets just pretend they do have WMD’s. What does it matter? The U.S. SOLD the means to DELIVER WMD’s against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80’s. The European Union sold them tons of chemical weapons with which to exterminate Iran’s youth/soldiers and the Kurds.”
That’s how war and politics work. Sometimes you work together with a lesser enemy to fight a larger enemy. If you’re teaming up with another country, then it’s not in your best interest to let them go in ill-equipped. What Saddam did with the weapons after the Iran/Iraq war can’t be solely pinned on the US.
chairman kaga – I don’t agree with your suggestion that the US was carrying out the task of the UN because the UN had no intention of ever doing anything to Hussein. [Or anywhere else for that matter; the UN’s record of stopping genocides, wars, famines, and anything…is about zero. Its record of corruption, however, is very high.]
For the USA to take on the UN’s task was a terrible price to pay, and I think there’d have to be some deeper reasons to sacrifice young Americans than wish to do the work of a corrupt international institution.
So, I maintain that it was to take out a dictator, who was weak by virtue of his small tribe, and by virtue of already being sanctioned by the international community – in order to enable democracy to emerge in the ME. Democracy is the answer and the only answer, I think, to Islamic fascism.
Islamic fascism has emerged because of ME tribalism, a political system that effectively rendered the majority of the population ‘peasants’ and unable to participate in the political and economic life of their nation.
Islamic fascism was threatening the West, including the US – and that was before 9/11. Clinton wasn’t doing anything about such attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole, etc.
I agree with you completely about the WMD and the arms that were sold to Hussein by the US, to protect that area against the ambitions of Iran. What is right in one era won’t work in another era, and I agree, that Hussein’s later use of these weapons can’t be pinned onto the US
ET,
I think dominate is too strong, control is a better term. The reason I choose that term is that if there’s something that America does not approve of, or dislikes, it is far less constrained than any other nation on earth to simply intervene and make its desires a reality. My apologies for anthropomorphizing the U.S..
As to Neo-Conservatism being the anti-thesis of big government, that is absolute ludicrous. If you want small government go libertarian. If you want neo-conservative agendas look only to PNAC, Irving Kristol, and Leo Strauss. Neo-Cons have been described as “Liberals who have been mugged by reality”. Their roots stem from support of socialist and left wing agendas during the great depression who eventually divorced themselves from the left. Their beliefs generally stem from a view that Western civilization is pretty much the awesomest thing on earth. Their goal is to spread democracy abroad in the same manner that comintern, or the neo-comintern desired the overthrow of governments who were not ideologically communist.
I’m not saying that you must be attacked on your soil to be justified in going to war, what I’m saying is that the U.S. had no real justification (in terms of international laws regarding war), and the ones they did throw out there as justification were fabricated or misleading.
I do agree that Islamic fascism threatens America. However I do not believe even for once single second that Iraq had anything to do with it. If you want Islamic Facism, look to Saudi Arabia, look to Egypt, look to Iran. Egypt has a long long long history of Islamic radicals, as does Saudi Arabia (thats where the U.S. recruited those tens of thousands of Jihadists to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, remember?). Iran had a _revolution_ based on radical Islam, and hate of the U.S.. And then there’s Iraq, who has always acted purely in self interest. No action that Saddam Hussein has ever taken has ever been in anything but self interest. The invasion of Iran, then Kuwait both were simply to make himself richer. Your assumption that defending against radical Islam must start in a nation whose leader quite obviously is not an Islamist is laughable.
I seriously do not care if he had WMD’s. Why? Because he was given them by western nations, and they were chemical in nature. Woooo big deal, chemical weapons. They’re not exactly hard to come by, and they were sold to Iraq by America and her allies. It is the _highest_ level of hypocrisy to use that as the basis of an invasion, and if it was so obvious they had them in large enough numbers to threaten anyone, then why didn’t they just bomb them to oblivion?
I think you’re missing my meaning of hegemony. I don’t mean it in a negative way. I mean it in a positive benevolent manner. The U.S. has led the world post-cold war in all matters regarding the economy, international action militarily, human rights, eliminating poverty, the military, everything. What I’m saying is that they are now trying to continue doing business and acting as they always have, but their relevance has diminished, and everyone knows it but them.
I agree that every nation will act in its own best interest when it comes to interfering in other nations. What I’m pointing out is that America’s latest foray into interference, specifically Iraq, has lost them a great deal of good will from the rest of the world. What does that matter in real terms? Not too much…but what I am warning against is using up that good will to such a point that no one is willing to work and act together on important initiatives or issues when the time comes for multi-lateral action.
Trust me, I’m not some lefty hate the imperialist U.S., I’m simply describing what Neo-Conservatism really is to you. This isn’t just my “opinion”, regarding the topic, it is that stated desires and ideology of a host of famous Neo-Conservatives. You can google anything that I’ve said to see that it is true.
“What does a tenured radical do when the most obvious “hegemony” in town is, in fact, his own?”
Nice turn of phrase Kate.
Next these radicals will be counting our farts.
Hi gang.
An interesting note in respect to neo-cons relative to the definition surrounding the Project for a New American Century is that a lot of the neo-cons weren’t really conservative.
If you have been following the press down here, you will have learned that a lot of “pundit conservatives” or “elite conservatives” have been jumping ship and sympathizing with the Obama presidential campaign.
Some of the names are Peggy Noonan, Colin Powell, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, and Kathleen Parker, as well as others in their general educational and cocktail circuit society.
The idea has been that these folks have been pushing the Republican Party to get broader and more inclusive, and now that it has been tortured to become so, they are finding Barack Obama an alluring character.
So it would seem that a lot of neocons were never actually conservatives, but in fact part of a large affection group composed of the right and left who went to the same universities, live in the New York – Washington corridor, attend the same cocktail parties, and have perjorative opinions of conservatives in the heartland. It is said that they have always been more interested in addressing themselves to policy considerations than the motives that drive ordinary conservatives.
As conservative Americans begin to reconstitute, there will not be a place for the above-mentioned. They will have excluded themselves.
Think of Richard and Emily Gilmore in the TV show “The Gilmore Girls”. They are Republicans, but they would rather be caught dead than associated with an ordinary working stiff out here “clinging to guns and religion”.
As far as American hegemony goes, frankly it would be a relief if we could wake up one morning and not have half of the countries in the world screaming and pleading with us to intervene militarily and financially on their behalf. Being a super-power is a very rough job on all of the citizens who have to put aside domestic concerns on a regular basis so we can do the heavy lifting somewhere else in the world.
barjebus – opinions are not ‘truth’; they are opinions and may have validity – or no validity.
With regard to war, I don’t think that there is any Law, international or not, that states that a war is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’. Such a description simply doesn’t apply to war. War is a military action that is the decision of a nation’s govt (whether that govt be a dictatorship or democracy). Period.
Again, you are ignoring that the rise of neo-conservativism is correlated with the rise of the UN, with its intention of acting as the ‘de facto’ world government, removing sovereignty from individual nations. Neo-Conservativism emphasizes national sovereignty vs statism, which emphasizes the UN multilateral decision-making. The focus is on national sovereignty; this is what I meant by local govt with regard to foreign affairs. With regard to the internal political structure, I think that N-C is in favour of small-scale or local govt.
I don’t agree with your view of Iraq – and if you reject Iraq as playing any role in the strategy of defeating Islamic fascism, then, why do you think that the US moved into Iraq?
Again, my view is that Islamic fascism was/is understood as a very real threat against western civilization. It is not an action carried out by a nation vs another nation; and therefore, the old preWWII views of war as between nation-states simply doesn’t apply in this conflict. It isn’t a nation-vs-nation conflict.
The strategy against Islamic fascism is basic: enable democracy in the ME. It is NOT to attack the enclaves of Islamic fascism in such places as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc, for that would do NOTHING to enable democracy in the ME.
Since the strategy is basic: enable democracy in the ME, then, you have to understand that attacking Iraq, – which was already on the international black list and sanctioned – which was already weak because of its years of sanctions – and freeing the people from a dictatorship, and enabling them to have a democracy was a vitally important and reasonable action.
It inserted a democratic state, in an Arab country, which had been run within a tribal political structure. To have achieved this in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which were NOT sanctioned, which are NOT weak, which are tribal but not run as dicatorships, would have been extremely difficult.
Remember, the strategy to defeat Islamic fascism is not to shoot them all; they’ll just reemerge like bowling pins. The strategy is to disable the infrastructure that enables fascism – and that structure is tribalism. So, you insert democracy ‘from the periphery’..and like an algae in a pond, watch it spread.
This new political and economic mode of democracy will diffuse, will spread, to those other states, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc, which cannot justify remaining tribal while one Arab nation in their midst, moves into democracy.
I don’t think you understand the different strategy required to defeat an ideology rather than a nation.
the actual strategy to instill democracy in iraq may have been the result of popular opinion vs a well laid out plan. The first thing was to take the fight over there, and iraq was the obvious place to touch down.
Agreed on your definition of opinion, and I will concede that yes N-C is highly nationalistic (being that they often want to spread their own ideals and values to other nations), and was partially the result of the U.N.
I believe the U.S. has attempted to subvert the U.N. as a vehicle for its mission (if you consider their ideology a “mission”), but that hasn’t always worked out so well. It did for the Korean war because the Soviets were boycotting them, but since then they often don’t get their way.
As to Iraq I believe used 9/11 as a catalyst and/or justification for invading Iraq under the cover of various lame excuses. Why? To spread democracy to the Middle East as PNAC has repeated written since the early 90’s. They have always believed Iraq was a promising target to create a ME democracy. A large reason why Islamic Facism thrives in the ME is due to so many puppet states being propped up by the U.S.
Now, I’m not trying to blame the U.S. for the worlds problems, I’m just stating arguments from Islamists themselves here. Men like Sadat, various Pakistani leaders, the Saudi royal family, the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, are all men who have been puppets in one way or another of America. For the U.S. it is far easier to deal with a self-interested dictator than any other form of government so there’s absolutely no incentive to overthrow the guy until he becomes rabid like Saddam was. The Saudis continue their disgusting rule only because of America. Sadat stayed in power and was given generous support to ensure he stayed away from the Soviets. The Shah of Iran was seen as exceedingly greedy and was selling away Iran’s future along with its oil.
Now, take leaders whose rule has been enabled by the U.S., add in some personal greed of their leaders which keeps 20% of the population in poverty or unemployed, throw in some religious radicalism from a violent religion, and what do you have? Islamic Facism. Islamic Facism will always exist, but do you think that a free, enabled middle class is very likely to carry out regular suicide bombings?
The gist of this is that we both agree on the fact that the U.S. will never piss off these dictators so long as they generally co-operate. We both agree democracy _is_ key to solve the ME’s problems, but my serious annoyance is that its been lies all along by the U.S.. First it was WMD’s, then it was tenuous links to 9/11, then it became about keeping terrorists from attacking the U.S. by killing them in Iraq (you have no idea how sick and tired I am of hearing people claim that if they weren’t killed in Iraq that they’d be blowing themselves up on American soil), and then finally to spreading “freedom” whatever that means. Its never been about informing the population at large in America, its always been about deceiving them, which of course is EXACTLY what Leo Strauss believes when it comes to running government. The people are stupid, and great people don’t need to explain themselves to the sheeple.
I understand the strategy that you’re talking about, dismantling tribalism, etc. but does the U.S. have the right to simply remove one system of government and impose a new one on the people? Obviously Saddam was a tyrant and the world is a better place but it is exactly that hubris that disgusts the rest of the world. WHY is it so important for the U.S. to create a stable ME? Israel has shown that they can take care of themselves when it comes to war, and they keep a close watch on the progress of Nuclear weapons in the region and have bombed any plants that got too close to actually making a working bomb. The U.S. hasn’t shown as avid an interest in any other nation that they hope will become a democracy…so why the ME?
Dare I say oil, and other geo-strategic interests? We come full circle with the realization that those dictators need to be replaced, and that the old system of relying on those greedy oil tycoons to keep their people in line is no longer working. It all comes back to American self-interest.
I guess this comes down to a question of realism…do you believe in the ends justifying the means? I do occasionally…in this case, time will tell but I truly do not like how it was done, or implemented, or the level of competence shown at destroying Iraqi good will towards the U.S. following the invasion. It was poorly planned, executed, and thought out. If Iraq stays a democracy and it spreads to other nations creating a stable middle east and a growing middle class, then excellent, the ends may have justified the hundreds of thousands dead…I’m inclined to believe it won’t justify it.
Any congruence between bar baby’s opinions and reality is entirely accidental… and temporary. Like the campus radical under discussion, he likes to move the goal posts.
Nobody cares a damn about your opinion of neocons. We’re busy trying to reign in the monster government you idiot liberals have insisted upon these last 40+ years, before it eats us.
barjebus – a few comments
Do you seriously support the ‘mission’ of the UN, which is to remove control by citizens over their own nation’s actions? That’s anti-democratic. The UN is a corrupt, non-democratic totally unaccountable body; why do you support it?
Which puppet states in the ME are propped up by the US?
Are you saying that SA, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, are puppet states of the US? I don’t think so.
You say that a self-interested dictator is far easier for the US to deal with than any other form of govt. That means that the US can’t get along with any democratic state, which makes its collaboration in Iraq, with the UK, with Australia, with the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark and so on, rather strange.
Is the US unable to get along with Canada?
Really? The Saudis are able to continue to rule only because of America? Is your suggestion that the US should invade SA and take out the enormous Royal Family and its military and economic might? How many US soldiers would die for that?
You don’t understand the cause of Islamic fascism. You actually suggest that the cause of Islamic fascism is the US! That’s quite an astonishing statement. What’s your analysis?
Islamic fascism is caused by tribalism. I don’t think that you understand it, as a political and economic structure. It is suited only to small, no-growth non-industrial economies and becomes cancerous in a large population industrial economy. That’s what happened with the ME; it moved into a form of industrialism after the world wars, and didn’t change its socioeconomic and political infrastructure.
This tribalism is what has led to the more than 20% in poverty and unemployed. These countries haven’t developed a middle class economy. They have had exponential population growth, the rural population has moved to the cities. But, they haven’t educated the people; they haven’t developed a middle class economy; they haven’t empowered the people politically and economically. Result – fascism. A free, enabled middle class won’t carry out bombings.
No, we don’t agree. I don’t agree with you that the US will never ‘piss off these dictators’. I think that the US wants the whole region to move into democracy and enable a middle class. That will stop the fascism.
That’s strange – you say that you are uninformed. But I’ve read a lot of articles about the role of democracy in the ME, the agenda of the US to spread democracy. So, I don’t feel that this agenda is hidden.
You simply don’t understand the situation. You ask – why the ME? Because it is the source of islamic fascism! And this fascism wasn’t being dealt with by the ME nations. Instead, they were exporting the anger by making it anti-west, rather than anti-Iraq, anti-SA, anti-Egypt, anti-Iran, etc.
The US most certainly isn’t imposing democracy. It is freeing the people so that they can themselves develop democracy and be empowered as a people. Rather than being run by a dictator or tribe. You don’t understand that tribalism is a mode of political organization that is OK ONLY in small populations. It’s not a matter of choice.
You don’t CHOOSE to organize as a tribal system. It’s only a viable system in a small, nonindustrial economy. You don’t CHOOSE democracy. Democracy is a necessity in a large population, industrial economy, that requires growth, innovation..ie, a free-thinking middle class. These structures aren’t matters of choice.
Oil has zilch to to with the US agenda. But, oil DOES have to do with the ME ability to remain tribal. You see, oil enabled the ME to remain tribal by enabling the dominant tribe to remain in power, as a military dictatorship. The SA also used religious fundamentalism as part of their tribal domination.
The result of repressing a large non-rural population – is fascism. You don’t understand this.
Hundreds of thousands dead? Do you mean those people killed by Hussein? Do you mean those people killed by the spread of Islamic fascist attacks in the west and in Indonesia and Africa?
I wasn’t aware that the Iraqi people had any goodwill for the US before the invasion. They have a lot now, and are now, emerging as a self-governing people ready to take democratic charge of themselves. Rather than being ruled by one tribe and its leader.
The ‘ends justifying the means’ is an empty statement that can be moulded to fit anything. So, I don’t use statements like that.
My point is based on a knowledge of societal infrastructures, eg, the difference between the infrastructure of tribalism and of democracy. Which structure functions best? It depends on the size of the population and the economy. A multimillion size population, which requires an industrial economy requires democracy. It’s not a matter of choice. Why? Again, because such an economy requires a free-thinking, innovative, economically flexible middle class and that’s only possible in democracy.
The refusal of the ME oil-funded states to modernize, move out of tribalism, had led to Islamic fascism – and this fascism had moved into destructive actions against the West. The West had no choice but to act to preserve its people from these attacks. Rather than a full-scale war against the entire tribal ME, the US and its allies chose to take out one tribal dictator, already sanctioned by the international community, and enable democracy.
I completely approve of this strategy and applaud Bush for doing it.
No, I don’t think that Islamic fascism is due to the US. It’s due to an out-of-date political infrastructure: tribalism.
Way too many years ago I listened to a well known Christian speaker as he gave his opinion on neo-conservatives. He distilled the philosophy as being a liberal who doesn’t want to spend any money.
In his following remarks was a gem I have held on to; he said that the neo-conservative social philosophy is the most dangerous out there. A liberal holds that while societal norms must change a direct result in the belief in Darwinian Evolution society must also provide succor to those who by experimentation fall onto hard times. A true conservative believes that society norms have an intrinsic value and that those very norms help prevent people from falling into the afore mentioned traps. However one of those norms is that we are our brothers keeper and must look after those who can not look after themselves
Neo-conservatism holds that the individual must muck his own way in life like the liberal but when ensuing hard times come society has no obligation to help the unfortunate person.
Although lefties try to use the saying as a dirty word, I am very impressed with “Neo”.
It reminds me of Keanu Reeves from the Matrix movies, where he can fly, dodge bullets, and learn skills in amazingly short times.
Everytime I hear “Neo” it makes me think of him and reminds me that the Agent Smiths of our world are really out to get us….
So while some spit out the words like a swear, I view it as a badge of honor.
Neo-Conservatism is an over-used word these days…its essentially lost any meaning, just as the insult towards PMSH about being Bush Jr. is so tired and irrelevant as to be meaningless.
To me, what Neo-Conservatism represents is PNAC (Project for a New American Century). They were the ones who back in 1996 believed there needed to be a some major event in the world to energize America into taking the reigns of power following the Cold War, specifically naming Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as threats. They then drafted a letter to Clinton in 1998 to remove Saddam from power, in the hope of fostering a democracy there as an example to all other Arab nations in the middle east, empowering the people of those nations to choose their destiny and overthrow their rich oil-enabled rulers. The signatories for that paper were largely the same people who composed Bush’s cabinet, or received special appointments, such as Paul Wolfowitz who now heads the World Bank.
Suddenly 9/11 happens and we invade Iraq for no discernible reason (this is said with hindsight, since the path to Iraq was led by a combination of lies/incompetence and/or willful ignorance). The belief that America needs to lead the world, or have control, or police the world, or interfere in every nations business is the essential goal of PNAC. It is to ensure America’s global dominance for the next century.
Now, I believe 100% that America’s “benevolent hegemony” following the Cold War was something that benefitted the entire world. However, as time marches on, America is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This is what a neo-conservative is to me…someone who believes in spreading American culture, democracy, and their brand of “freedom” to other nations whether their people want it or not, through whatever means they have at their disposal.
I disagree with barjebus’s analysis of neo-conservativism in the USA. He bases it on a theory of an agenda of American hegemonic supremacy. I disagree with such a psychological definition of a political and economic theory.
Neo-Conservativism is not about the nation as an individual, with a psychological emotion of wanting dominance. It’s a political and economic theory of smaller govt, free market (ie, Friedman) rather than a statist model of govt. With regard to foreign affairs, it’s protectionist, focuses on the sovereignty of the state rather than the loss of sovereignty by assuming the dominance of the UN.
If we want to focus on an agenda of world domination, then, this can be found within the undemocratic structure called the UN – a body of corruption that seeks to overthrow all and any rights of people to self-govern themselves. A body that ignores human rights, funds and enables corruption. It is interesting when disasters strike in the world, the people in those regions don’t ask: When is the UN coming? [They know the UN won’t come]. Instead, they ask; When is the US coming to help?
The theory of neoconservativism promotes one mode of govt vs another. democratic vs communist. Go deeper and the conflict is between self-rule and local democratic vs statist democratic or socialist rule. Neoconservativism rejects statist governments, the big top-down social engineering modes of govt of the Liberals, Democrats, etc.
The rise of Islamic fascism in the ME, which was being exported to the West, set up an ‘efficient cause’ for a foreign policy based on reducing the root cause of Islamic fascism: tribal dictatorships in the ME. This has nothing to do with neo-Conservativism.
bar baby
“””””” This is what a neo-conservative is to me…someone who believes in spreading American culture, democracy, and their brand of “freedom” to other nations whether their people want it or not, through whatever means they have at their disposal.””””””
funny who, when discussing WW2, the lefties always like to point out americans isolationist position at the start of the war
also funny how it was USA that rebuilt Germany and Japan
could it be that the USA’s intentions are just what she says they are, and you are just narrow minded and willfully ignorant of facts?????
and just as an after thought, could it be that there were actually WMD found (or evidence there of) in Iraq, and that for some unknown reason they have not (except it an obsure opinion piece) reported for reasons unknown (I’m not saying they were, just that I did read such a obscure opinion piece, and that has raised sum consideration for me)
BJ: imagine your life if you were to give up anything related to “American Hegemony” whether you liked it or not.
Hope you enjoy the Soviet Gulag.
GYM,
How on earth are able to correlate this centuries events with WW2? In WW2, the U.S. was attacked by Japan in a surprise attack on their home soil. In this case we’ve got dubious to nil evidence regarding Iraq’s involvement in 9/11. The U.S. invaded Iraq to overthrow a dictator, its as plain as that. That is not isolationist. That is proactive interference.
Ok WMD’s, lets look at that. They have not been found, lets get that clear. Hindsight is 20/20 though right? The only problem with that is many many many people in the Pentagon and other departments admitted to being pressured by their leaders to fabricate or embellish information regarding Iraq. Now. Lets just pretend they do have WMD’s. What does it matter? The U.S. SOLD the means to DELIVER WMD’s against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80’s. The European Union sold them tons of chemical weapons with which to exterminate Iran’s youth/soldiers and the Kurds. How about North Korea? They have actual nuclear weapons and we don’t invade them.
So to summarize that little rant: the U.S. sold chem weapons to Iraq. They sold them the means to deliver them. Then a decade down the road they need someone to blame and someone to take peoples eyes off the domestic crisis following 9/11. It just so happens that half of the cabinet for Bush has vehemently been pushing that Iraq, specifically Iraq, be invaded and Saddam overthrown to foster democracy in Iraq to help stabilize the Middle East. Right there you’ve got motive and opportunity, the rest speaks for itself. WMD’s as a justification, tenuous links to the 9/11 hijackers (15 were Saudi Arabian sheesh).
Doug,
I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy American hegemony. Without it Canada couldn’t have such a crappy military or have as much clout as we do on the world stage. Being the neighbor to the worlds largest economy is a boon that has made Canada one of the wealthiest nations on earth.
Now, what I’m getting at here is that hegemony worked well in the 90’s following the Cold War. Someone needed to step in and guide the world. The time has come where new players are rising, such as China, India, the EU. To act so unilaterally on such a wide range of issues just pisses people off and is no longer a solution. Nobody is going to stand for the U.S. to just go around interfering anymore…the time of American hegemony is slowly passing, and while nobody doubts American strenght, its time they join their peers.
You may be right, but let’s not hope so. America is the last bastion of all the principles that have brought us to where we presently are. If we turn the corner, the life of our descendants will resemble a new Dark Ages.
” Nobody is going to stand for the U.S. to just go around interfering anymore..”
Yea ??????
And, who is gona stop us ?
,
barjebus – you still aren’t examining your axioms. You take it as ‘given’ that the US has a psychological agenda (and only individuals have psyche’s) to dominate the world. I think your theory of hegemony requires proof – both that it was an axiom of the US govt and also, that it’s an axiom of neoconservativism.
You are ignoring the meanings of neo-conservativism that I supplied, namely, a rejection of a statist political system(Big Govt)in favour of self-rule and sovereignty. You are ignoring that the rise of neoconservativism coincided with the rise of the UN as a system of governance, with the UN considering that it, not the sovereign state, alone had the right to make decisions about the foreign affairs of any nation.
And kindly remember that the UN, like the Soviet Union, is not a democratic system.
As for WWII, the US was in the war, actively, long before Pearl Harbor, making and shipping supplies to the UK. And your notion that a war can be declared if and only if another nation attacks your land base, ignores modern reality.
The US was being attacked by Islamic fascists. Islamic fascism is not based in any one nation; it is a militant ideology against political and economic democracy. So, your supposition that the US should not have defended itself against Islamic fascism by removing a dictator and enabling democracy to emerge within the midst of Islamic fascist territory, is illogical.
The WMD was, quite probably, valid (he had plenty of time to remove his previously used biological gas, etc) but I think we all know that it was a more understandable idea to put before people than the much harder-to-grasp notion of enabling democracy as the key strategy to counter fascism.
WMD are easier to understand and most of the population doesn’t understand the operating infrastructure of either democracy or fascism. (For example, how many people insist that fascism is a ‘rightwing theory’?!).
I think you are totally and completely wrong with your theme of hegemony (a favourite term of the left, by the way). Reality is not the same as hegemony. Reality, which is a free individual, an ideology of merit-based entrepreneurship and innovation, a rich ecology, etc, enabled the US to dominate the world, economically and politically, in the postwar era.
Now, China (and India) are emerging out of peasantry to become part of the world economy. I think that the US can maintain itself, both economically and politically, in such a global world and doesn’t need to move into, as you do, the psychological.
Perhaps you think that the US helping out in all the various natural disasters is ‘interference’. The UN, of course, does nothing other than ‘study’ the situation and steal donations.
By the way, does it bother you that China is ‘interfering in Africa’? That the ME is ‘interfering’ in Europe? That the UN is ‘interfering’ in other areas? That France is ‘interfering in a host of francophone countries? Do you seriously think that only one country in the world sets up self-serving links and connections with other countries?
Again, I think you have a distorted and biased view of economic and political realities.
“In this case we’ve got dubious to nil evidence regarding Iraq’s involvement in 9/11. The U.S. invaded Iraq to overthrow a dictator, its as plain
as that.”
I’ve never believed that the Iraq war and Saddam’s removal had anything to do with 9/11. Wasn’t it due to his refusal to cooperate on numerous occasions with the UN over weapon inspections? Maybe someone else can elaborate on that a little more. I remember reading somewhere that the UN had laid an ultimatum down that he either cooperate or face removal. However, since the UN never had the intention of actually acting out that ultimatum, US congress voted that action must be taken since the UN wasn’t doing its job. US congress approved of the war and Saddam’s removal. Politicians in both parties had been talking about it back in the 90’s.
“Lets just pretend they do have WMD’s. What does it matter? The U.S. SOLD the means to DELIVER WMD’s against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80’s. The European Union sold them tons of chemical weapons with which to exterminate Iran’s youth/soldiers and the Kurds.”
That’s how war and politics work. Sometimes you work together with a lesser enemy to fight a larger enemy. If you’re teaming up with another country, then it’s not in your best interest to let them go in ill-equipped. What Saddam did with the weapons after the Iran/Iraq war can’t be solely pinned on the US.
chairman kaga – I don’t agree with your suggestion that the US was carrying out the task of the UN because the UN had no intention of ever doing anything to Hussein. [Or anywhere else for that matter; the UN’s record of stopping genocides, wars, famines, and anything…is about zero. Its record of corruption, however, is very high.]
For the USA to take on the UN’s task was a terrible price to pay, and I think there’d have to be some deeper reasons to sacrifice young Americans than wish to do the work of a corrupt international institution.
So, I maintain that it was to take out a dictator, who was weak by virtue of his small tribe, and by virtue of already being sanctioned by the international community – in order to enable democracy to emerge in the ME. Democracy is the answer and the only answer, I think, to Islamic fascism.
Islamic fascism has emerged because of ME tribalism, a political system that effectively rendered the majority of the population ‘peasants’ and unable to participate in the political and economic life of their nation.
Islamic fascism was threatening the West, including the US – and that was before 9/11. Clinton wasn’t doing anything about such attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole, etc.
I agree with you completely about the WMD and the arms that were sold to Hussein by the US, to protect that area against the ambitions of Iran. What is right in one era won’t work in another era, and I agree, that Hussein’s later use of these weapons can’t be pinned onto the US
ET,
I think dominate is too strong, control is a better term. The reason I choose that term is that if there’s something that America does not approve of, or dislikes, it is far less constrained than any other nation on earth to simply intervene and make its desires a reality. My apologies for anthropomorphizing the U.S..
As to Neo-Conservatism being the anti-thesis of big government, that is absolute ludicrous. If you want small government go libertarian. If you want neo-conservative agendas look only to PNAC, Irving Kristol, and Leo Strauss. Neo-Cons have been described as “Liberals who have been mugged by reality”. Their roots stem from support of socialist and left wing agendas during the great depression who eventually divorced themselves from the left. Their beliefs generally stem from a view that Western civilization is pretty much the awesomest thing on earth. Their goal is to spread democracy abroad in the same manner that comintern, or the neo-comintern desired the overthrow of governments who were not ideologically communist.
I’m not saying that you must be attacked on your soil to be justified in going to war, what I’m saying is that the U.S. had no real justification (in terms of international laws regarding war), and the ones they did throw out there as justification were fabricated or misleading.
I do agree that Islamic fascism threatens America. However I do not believe even for once single second that Iraq had anything to do with it. If you want Islamic Facism, look to Saudi Arabia, look to Egypt, look to Iran. Egypt has a long long long history of Islamic radicals, as does Saudi Arabia (thats where the U.S. recruited those tens of thousands of Jihadists to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, remember?). Iran had a _revolution_ based on radical Islam, and hate of the U.S.. And then there’s Iraq, who has always acted purely in self interest. No action that Saddam Hussein has ever taken has ever been in anything but self interest. The invasion of Iran, then Kuwait both were simply to make himself richer. Your assumption that defending against radical Islam must start in a nation whose leader quite obviously is not an Islamist is laughable.
I seriously do not care if he had WMD’s. Why? Because he was given them by western nations, and they were chemical in nature. Woooo big deal, chemical weapons. They’re not exactly hard to come by, and they were sold to Iraq by America and her allies. It is the _highest_ level of hypocrisy to use that as the basis of an invasion, and if it was so obvious they had them in large enough numbers to threaten anyone, then why didn’t they just bomb them to oblivion?
I think you’re missing my meaning of hegemony. I don’t mean it in a negative way. I mean it in a positive benevolent manner. The U.S. has led the world post-cold war in all matters regarding the economy, international action militarily, human rights, eliminating poverty, the military, everything. What I’m saying is that they are now trying to continue doing business and acting as they always have, but their relevance has diminished, and everyone knows it but them.
I agree that every nation will act in its own best interest when it comes to interfering in other nations. What I’m pointing out is that America’s latest foray into interference, specifically Iraq, has lost them a great deal of good will from the rest of the world. What does that matter in real terms? Not too much…but what I am warning against is using up that good will to such a point that no one is willing to work and act together on important initiatives or issues when the time comes for multi-lateral action.
Trust me, I’m not some lefty hate the imperialist U.S., I’m simply describing what Neo-Conservatism really is to you. This isn’t just my “opinion”, regarding the topic, it is that stated desires and ideology of a host of famous Neo-Conservatives. You can google anything that I’ve said to see that it is true.
“What does a tenured radical do when the most obvious “hegemony” in town is, in fact, his own?”
Nice turn of phrase Kate.
Next these radicals will be counting our farts.
Hi gang.
An interesting note in respect to neo-cons relative to the definition surrounding the Project for a New American Century is that a lot of the neo-cons weren’t really conservative.
If you have been following the press down here, you will have learned that a lot of “pundit conservatives” or “elite conservatives” have been jumping ship and sympathizing with the Obama presidential campaign.
Some of the names are Peggy Noonan, Colin Powell, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, and Kathleen Parker, as well as others in their general educational and cocktail circuit society.
The idea has been that these folks have been pushing the Republican Party to get broader and more inclusive, and now that it has been tortured to become so, they are finding Barack Obama an alluring character.
So it would seem that a lot of neocons were never actually conservatives, but in fact part of a large affection group composed of the right and left who went to the same universities, live in the New York – Washington corridor, attend the same cocktail parties, and have perjorative opinions of conservatives in the heartland. It is said that they have always been more interested in addressing themselves to policy considerations than the motives that drive ordinary conservatives.
As conservative Americans begin to reconstitute, there will not be a place for the above-mentioned. They will have excluded themselves.
Think of Richard and Emily Gilmore in the TV show “The Gilmore Girls”. They are Republicans, but they would rather be caught dead than associated with an ordinary working stiff out here “clinging to guns and religion”.
As far as American hegemony goes, frankly it would be a relief if we could wake up one morning and not have half of the countries in the world screaming and pleading with us to intervene militarily and financially on their behalf. Being a super-power is a very rough job on all of the citizens who have to put aside domestic concerns on a regular basis so we can do the heavy lifting somewhere else in the world.
barjebus – opinions are not ‘truth’; they are opinions and may have validity – or no validity.
With regard to war, I don’t think that there is any Law, international or not, that states that a war is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’. Such a description simply doesn’t apply to war. War is a military action that is the decision of a nation’s govt (whether that govt be a dictatorship or democracy). Period.
Again, you are ignoring that the rise of neo-conservativism is correlated with the rise of the UN, with its intention of acting as the ‘de facto’ world government, removing sovereignty from individual nations. Neo-Conservativism emphasizes national sovereignty vs statism, which emphasizes the UN multilateral decision-making. The focus is on national sovereignty; this is what I meant by local govt with regard to foreign affairs. With regard to the internal political structure, I think that N-C is in favour of small-scale or local govt.
I don’t agree with your view of Iraq – and if you reject Iraq as playing any role in the strategy of defeating Islamic fascism, then, why do you think that the US moved into Iraq?
Again, my view is that Islamic fascism was/is understood as a very real threat against western civilization. It is not an action carried out by a nation vs another nation; and therefore, the old preWWII views of war as between nation-states simply doesn’t apply in this conflict. It isn’t a nation-vs-nation conflict.
The strategy against Islamic fascism is basic: enable democracy in the ME. It is NOT to attack the enclaves of Islamic fascism in such places as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc, for that would do NOTHING to enable democracy in the ME.
Since the strategy is basic: enable democracy in the ME, then, you have to understand that attacking Iraq, – which was already on the international black list and sanctioned – which was already weak because of its years of sanctions – and freeing the people from a dictatorship, and enabling them to have a democracy was a vitally important and reasonable action.
It inserted a democratic state, in an Arab country, which had been run within a tribal political structure. To have achieved this in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which were NOT sanctioned, which are NOT weak, which are tribal but not run as dicatorships, would have been extremely difficult.
Remember, the strategy to defeat Islamic fascism is not to shoot them all; they’ll just reemerge like bowling pins. The strategy is to disable the infrastructure that enables fascism – and that structure is tribalism. So, you insert democracy ‘from the periphery’..and like an algae in a pond, watch it spread.
This new political and economic mode of democracy will diffuse, will spread, to those other states, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc, which cannot justify remaining tribal while one Arab nation in their midst, moves into democracy.
I don’t think you understand the different strategy required to defeat an ideology rather than a nation.
the actual strategy to instill democracy in iraq may have been the result of popular opinion vs a well laid out plan. The first thing was to take the fight over there, and iraq was the obvious place to touch down.
Agreed on your definition of opinion, and I will concede that yes N-C is highly nationalistic (being that they often want to spread their own ideals and values to other nations), and was partially the result of the U.N.
I believe the U.S. has attempted to subvert the U.N. as a vehicle for its mission (if you consider their ideology a “mission”), but that hasn’t always worked out so well. It did for the Korean war because the Soviets were boycotting them, but since then they often don’t get their way.
As to Iraq I believe used 9/11 as a catalyst and/or justification for invading Iraq under the cover of various lame excuses. Why? To spread democracy to the Middle East as PNAC has repeated written since the early 90’s. They have always believed Iraq was a promising target to create a ME democracy. A large reason why Islamic Facism thrives in the ME is due to so many puppet states being propped up by the U.S.
Now, I’m not trying to blame the U.S. for the worlds problems, I’m just stating arguments from Islamists themselves here. Men like Sadat, various Pakistani leaders, the Saudi royal family, the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, are all men who have been puppets in one way or another of America. For the U.S. it is far easier to deal with a self-interested dictator than any other form of government so there’s absolutely no incentive to overthrow the guy until he becomes rabid like Saddam was. The Saudis continue their disgusting rule only because of America. Sadat stayed in power and was given generous support to ensure he stayed away from the Soviets. The Shah of Iran was seen as exceedingly greedy and was selling away Iran’s future along with its oil.
Now, take leaders whose rule has been enabled by the U.S., add in some personal greed of their leaders which keeps 20% of the population in poverty or unemployed, throw in some religious radicalism from a violent religion, and what do you have? Islamic Facism. Islamic Facism will always exist, but do you think that a free, enabled middle class is very likely to carry out regular suicide bombings?
The gist of this is that we both agree on the fact that the U.S. will never piss off these dictators so long as they generally co-operate. We both agree democracy _is_ key to solve the ME’s problems, but my serious annoyance is that its been lies all along by the U.S.. First it was WMD’s, then it was tenuous links to 9/11, then it became about keeping terrorists from attacking the U.S. by killing them in Iraq (you have no idea how sick and tired I am of hearing people claim that if they weren’t killed in Iraq that they’d be blowing themselves up on American soil), and then finally to spreading “freedom” whatever that means. Its never been about informing the population at large in America, its always been about deceiving them, which of course is EXACTLY what Leo Strauss believes when it comes to running government. The people are stupid, and great people don’t need to explain themselves to the sheeple.
I understand the strategy that you’re talking about, dismantling tribalism, etc. but does the U.S. have the right to simply remove one system of government and impose a new one on the people? Obviously Saddam was a tyrant and the world is a better place but it is exactly that hubris that disgusts the rest of the world. WHY is it so important for the U.S. to create a stable ME? Israel has shown that they can take care of themselves when it comes to war, and they keep a close watch on the progress of Nuclear weapons in the region and have bombed any plants that got too close to actually making a working bomb. The U.S. hasn’t shown as avid an interest in any other nation that they hope will become a democracy…so why the ME?
Dare I say oil, and other geo-strategic interests? We come full circle with the realization that those dictators need to be replaced, and that the old system of relying on those greedy oil tycoons to keep their people in line is no longer working. It all comes back to American self-interest.
I guess this comes down to a question of realism…do you believe in the ends justifying the means? I do occasionally…in this case, time will tell but I truly do not like how it was done, or implemented, or the level of competence shown at destroying Iraqi good will towards the U.S. following the invasion. It was poorly planned, executed, and thought out. If Iraq stays a democracy and it spreads to other nations creating a stable middle east and a growing middle class, then excellent, the ends may have justified the hundreds of thousands dead…I’m inclined to believe it won’t justify it.
Any congruence between bar baby’s opinions and reality is entirely accidental… and temporary. Like the campus radical under discussion, he likes to move the goal posts.
Nobody cares a damn about your opinion of neocons. We’re busy trying to reign in the monster government you idiot liberals have insisted upon these last 40+ years, before it eats us.
barjebus – a few comments
Do you seriously support the ‘mission’ of the UN, which is to remove control by citizens over their own nation’s actions? That’s anti-democratic. The UN is a corrupt, non-democratic totally unaccountable body; why do you support it?
Which puppet states in the ME are propped up by the US?
Are you saying that SA, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, are puppet states of the US? I don’t think so.
You say that a self-interested dictator is far easier for the US to deal with than any other form of govt. That means that the US can’t get along with any democratic state, which makes its collaboration in Iraq, with the UK, with Australia, with the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark and so on, rather strange.
Is the US unable to get along with Canada?
Really? The Saudis are able to continue to rule only because of America? Is your suggestion that the US should invade SA and take out the enormous Royal Family and its military and economic might? How many US soldiers would die for that?
You don’t understand the cause of Islamic fascism. You actually suggest that the cause of Islamic fascism is the US! That’s quite an astonishing statement. What’s your analysis?
Islamic fascism is caused by tribalism. I don’t think that you understand it, as a political and economic structure. It is suited only to small, no-growth non-industrial economies and becomes cancerous in a large population industrial economy. That’s what happened with the ME; it moved into a form of industrialism after the world wars, and didn’t change its socioeconomic and political infrastructure.
This tribalism is what has led to the more than 20% in poverty and unemployed. These countries haven’t developed a middle class economy. They have had exponential population growth, the rural population has moved to the cities. But, they haven’t educated the people; they haven’t developed a middle class economy; they haven’t empowered the people politically and economically. Result – fascism. A free, enabled middle class won’t carry out bombings.
No, we don’t agree. I don’t agree with you that the US will never ‘piss off these dictators’. I think that the US wants the whole region to move into democracy and enable a middle class. That will stop the fascism.
That’s strange – you say that you are uninformed. But I’ve read a lot of articles about the role of democracy in the ME, the agenda of the US to spread democracy. So, I don’t feel that this agenda is hidden.
You simply don’t understand the situation. You ask – why the ME? Because it is the source of islamic fascism! And this fascism wasn’t being dealt with by the ME nations. Instead, they were exporting the anger by making it anti-west, rather than anti-Iraq, anti-SA, anti-Egypt, anti-Iran, etc.
The US most certainly isn’t imposing democracy. It is freeing the people so that they can themselves develop democracy and be empowered as a people. Rather than being run by a dictator or tribe. You don’t understand that tribalism is a mode of political organization that is OK ONLY in small populations. It’s not a matter of choice.
You don’t CHOOSE to organize as a tribal system. It’s only a viable system in a small, nonindustrial economy. You don’t CHOOSE democracy. Democracy is a necessity in a large population, industrial economy, that requires growth, innovation..ie, a free-thinking middle class. These structures aren’t matters of choice.
Oil has zilch to to with the US agenda. But, oil DOES have to do with the ME ability to remain tribal. You see, oil enabled the ME to remain tribal by enabling the dominant tribe to remain in power, as a military dictatorship. The SA also used religious fundamentalism as part of their tribal domination.
The result of repressing a large non-rural population – is fascism. You don’t understand this.
Hundreds of thousands dead? Do you mean those people killed by Hussein? Do you mean those people killed by the spread of Islamic fascist attacks in the west and in Indonesia and Africa?
I wasn’t aware that the Iraqi people had any goodwill for the US before the invasion. They have a lot now, and are now, emerging as a self-governing people ready to take democratic charge of themselves. Rather than being ruled by one tribe and its leader.
The ‘ends justifying the means’ is an empty statement that can be moulded to fit anything. So, I don’t use statements like that.
My point is based on a knowledge of societal infrastructures, eg, the difference between the infrastructure of tribalism and of democracy. Which structure functions best? It depends on the size of the population and the economy. A multimillion size population, which requires an industrial economy requires democracy. It’s not a matter of choice. Why? Again, because such an economy requires a free-thinking, innovative, economically flexible middle class and that’s only possible in democracy.
The refusal of the ME oil-funded states to modernize, move out of tribalism, had led to Islamic fascism – and this fascism had moved into destructive actions against the West. The West had no choice but to act to preserve its people from these attacks. Rather than a full-scale war against the entire tribal ME, the US and its allies chose to take out one tribal dictator, already sanctioned by the international community, and enable democracy.
I completely approve of this strategy and applaud Bush for doing it.
No, I don’t think that Islamic fascism is due to the US. It’s due to an out-of-date political infrastructure: tribalism.
Way too many years ago I listened to a well known Christian speaker as he gave his opinion on neo-conservatives. He distilled the philosophy as being a liberal who doesn’t want to spend any money.
In his following remarks was a gem I have held on to; he said that the neo-conservative social philosophy is the most dangerous out there. A liberal holds that while societal norms must change a direct result in the belief in Darwinian Evolution society must also provide succor to those who by experimentation fall onto hard times. A true conservative believes that society norms have an intrinsic value and that those very norms help prevent people from falling into the afore mentioned traps. However one of those norms is that we are our brothers keeper and must look after those who can not look after themselves
Neo-conservatism holds that the individual must muck his own way in life like the liberal but when ensuing hard times come society has no obligation to help the unfortunate person.