That's a distinction with no consequence, and this is indicative of your attitude on this entire thread. What makes him not neoconservative is precisely what makes him not conservative. It's not his foreign interventionism that makes the difference; it's his domestic interventionism. You may honestly not understand why this is, but I honestly can't understand how you can't see this.
You said neoconservatives want to do things not for nat'l defense
Wrong. Specifically wrong, as I've acknowledged to you that they may in fact entertain that notion.
but "to make things better in other countries", "because of how other governments treat their own people", "because we're our broter's keeper", and the like.
These things are the means to the end (national security), if they happen to believe that these means do in fact advance that end. Whether they do or not is not essential to the definition of neoconservative.
Your point seems to be that if two different people are pursuing the same end (in this case national security), the difference in their approach does not rise to the level of an ideological difference. But it most certainly can. An American conservative and a European fascist may both believe in law and order, but their approaches are very different, and most people would recognize it as an ideological difference. The latter would cross lines that the former, as a matter of principle, would not.
Argh. Lemme just splain it this way and I'm not gonna mention Clinton again.
When you describe "neocons" in broad terms ("interventionist"), I think "Clinton, maybe"
When you place the additional constraint "they gotta be conservative", ok, duh, that removes Clinton - but it also removes everyone else - so I think "ain't no such thing"
Understand now? either "Clinton types" (if no need to be con) or "ain't no such thing" (if need to be con). You haven't shown otherwise
[You said neoconservatives want to do things not for nat'l defense { but "to make things better in other countries" } ] Wrong.
It's not wrong, you've said this, look it up, I'm not gonna argue w/you about what you've said if you're gonna lie about it
These things are the means to the end (national security), if they happen to believe that these means do in fact advance that end. Whether they do or not is not essential to the definition of neoconservative.
yes it is, you've said many times that neocons want to do things "to make things better in other countries", not for national security. "neocons" have different ends than "national security", they have "brother's keeper" type ends. Hey, I'm just going by what you've said
Your point seems to be that if two different people are pursuing the same end (in this case national security), the difference in their approach does not rise to the level of an ideological difference.
Whoa, here you're starting to backtrack, as if suddenly you acknowledge/grant that "neocons" have the same ends as cons.. (nat'l defense, direct threats) but then if that's true (suddenly, after 300 posts) then what's the difference?
just strategy!
Big deal! You don't like what you perceive as "neocon" strategy, you think it's wrong, not an effective/good way to pursue nat'l defense.
News flash: I don't give a rat's ass, tell your spiel to someone who does.
I'm really getting damn sick of this and I think I'll let you have the last word for why "neocon" is so essential to the English language and a hot-damn great word despite the fact that apparently nobody on earth besides you (not even the original self-described neocons) knows what the hell the frickin word means. buh-bye