Why the Neoconservatives Just Keep Winning

The Daily Star ^ | 7/31/03 | Michael Young

[rmlew]

It's evident our attempt to police the Gulf has unintended consequences. Some of us learn from that, and want to avoid enmeshing the United States in a war of civilizations with Islam. To you that is a "problem".
The War is inevitable as long as the Islamists are intent on uniting the Islamic world and conquering the rest of the world through immigration and warfare. The only question is do we fight when our enemies are disunited or when they are strong?
Unlike Neocons who think that Democracy can change a culture war, many paleos understand a civilizational war. Unfortunately, they fear its reprocussions and try to wish it away.

I've always likes this quote by Churchill:
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

[af_vet_1981]

Neo-cons are NOT conservatives as I understand the Goldwater variety of the breed.

• Goldwater was a loser
• Bush is a winner

[af_vet_1981]

PS: Many neo-cons are registered Democrats, for example Richard Perle.

• Neo-cons number in the millions.
• You cited one example and extrapolated that to many
• Your logic is faulty

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Pretty much all of it.

[af_vet_1981]

Neo-con, in the minds of lots of paleo-cons, means "Jew." Thus, the hatred.

Or Neo-con, in the minds of lots of paleo-cons, means "lover of Zion."

[Destro]

The writer is an American--they just outsourced from America. In addition these English papers appeal to the large (mostly Christian) Lebanese dispora in the States.

[CWOJackson]

Of course he sold out, pat was never America first, he's always been pat first.

Paleo-con/neo-con...pat's just a plain old con. But then he does have his patsie-cons.

[CWOJackson]

"I just wish more people knew that's what you advocate."

Your problem is more people did figure out what pat advocated.

[Pelham]

your protestations that you didn’t support "da joos war on islam"

That must have been the little voices in your head saying that. Better take your meds.

[Pelham]

The War is inevitable as long as the Islamists are intent on uniting the Islamic world and conquering the rest of the world through immigration and warfare.

The Islamists are hardly in a position to conquer the world through warfare. Mighty Iraq spent 10 years banging away at Iran, and neither of these two powerhouses had much to show for the effort. Granted Iraq did roll over Kuwait, and maybe that is what has you neocons worried about imminent Islamist world conquest.

Islamic immigration into the West is a real problem, but in the US that's only become a problem because the US has embraced Pollyannish neocon immigration policies since 1965- an immigration policy proposed by Senator Ted Kennedy and signed by LBJ, which gives some idea of the root of neocon beliefs. Paleos have long pushed for immigration restriction, but neos refuse to abandon the utopian immigration dream bequeathed them by Lyndon Johnson.

Had we not followed this neocon nonsense, the 9-11 hijackers wouldn't have had their convenient American forward base from which to take their time to hatch their plot.

[Pelham]

Back to your idee fixe, I see. You should get help for that.

[CWOJackson]

Help? Naw, I stopped listening to people like pat von hindenberg, the gas bas who couldn't, long ago. But feel free to follow him and his ilk all you want.

[rmlew]

I wrote:
"The War is inevitable as long as the Islamists are intent on uniting the Islamic world and conquering the rest of the world through immigration and warfare."
Pelham responded
The Islamists are hardly in a position to conquer the world through warfare. Mighty Iraq spent 10 years banging away at Iran, and neither of these two powerhouses had much to show for the effort. Granted Iraq did roll over Kuwait, and maybe that is what has you neocons worried about imminent Islamist world conquest.
First they unify the Muslim world. The reality is that revolutions sweep that reagion. In 620, Islam was a small sect and Arabs were a bunch of small tribes. In 20 years, they conquered the Persian Empire and 1/2 of the Byzantine Empire.
In 1950, the post Colonialist Husseini Kingdoms were secure across the region. 10 years later, Pan-arab nationalists controled Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, while the remaining Kingdoms were paying them off.
Today, without US support, Egypt Algeria and the Gulf Kingdoms are a bullet each away from Islamist control.

Islamic immigration into the West is a real problem, but in the US that's only become a problem because the US has embraced Pollyannish neocon immigration policies since 1965- an immigration policy proposed by Senator Ted Kennedy and signed by LBJ, which gives some idea of the root of neocon beliefs. Paleos have long pushed for immigration restriction, but neos refuse to abandon the utopian immigration dream bequeathed them by Lyndon Johnson.
If you think that LBJ was a neocon you have no understanding of the term.

Many neocons are blind to the problems posed by immigration, claiming that assimilation will work. Many paleocons choose to bury their heads and ignore the threat of Islamism.
The Muslims cannot take over the US. They are a few generations from being a plurality in France, the Netherlands, and parts of Scandinavia. (this is assuming that Turkey does not join the EU, in shich case the floodgates are truly opened)