The above are selected quotes. Follow article source link to the intro and you'll find the various realted topic links which make up the full article.
1 posted on
08/28/2003 7:35:29 AM PDT by
u-89
To: u-89
I took the quiz and they labeled me a "realist". Along with Powell and Ike. Ack.
2 posted on
08/28/2003 8:51:09 AM PDT by
Mr. Bird
To: u-89; sittnick; ninenot; JohnGalt
For the sake of future FR conversation, this article is a good starting point on what term means what, not infallible by any means, but a good starting point.
Start at the end with Max Boot (with whom I am utterly unfamiliar), the "self-described neo-conservative." His heroes: Wilson and Kissinger. Wilson????? Wilson was a schizophrenic politico with support from Klansmen like McAdoo on the one hand and grand visions of the League of Nations on the other. Wilson was an internationalist and no sort of conservative. Kissinger, Mr. Detente???? Mr. SALT???? I don't think so. Not a conservative but another internationalist. I will tell you out of the gate that if the ONLY alternatives were internationalism, more properly speaking "globaloney" and isolationism, then isolationism is number 1 with a bullet (you should pardon the expression) on this week's top 40. Fortunately, isolationism is a very distant second when outpaced by interventionism (on US terms when we feel like it for reasonable causes).
To Walter Russell Mead of the, ahem, Council on Foreign Relations, and no mere member but a frequent spokesthing, this conservative and most whom he knows would undress at high noon in the public square (offending public taste as well as public morals) before aiming for democracy in the Middle East. A conservative must be at least a skeptic on globaloney agendae and probably its outright enemy in 90%+ of cases. Given the wild popularity of the looney tunes led by Muhammed el Rootie Kazootie and his legion of child butchers by homicide bombings of school buses, I am not eager for Middle Eastern "democracy" any time soon. I miss the Shah of Iran. He was a far better model.
Michael Ledeen can call himself whatever he wants to call himself. He shifts around so much that he probably doesn't know what he is. In any event his quote is his opinion on what history has been and not what he thinks it SHOULD have been.
Donald Kagan will probably take Robert Kagan to the woodshed if he reads that nonsense about "liberal internationalism" much less the support for Lieberman/McCain.
As to other points, benevolent hegemon, perhaps. Empire???? No! Favor forcing regime changes? You bet! Remaking East Kaboomistan in the American image??? No! Rebuiilding East Kaboomistan with American money???? Absolutely not!
Conservatives and neocons favor a robust American military AND the willingness, yea, the eagerness to use America's unrivalled military strength reactively but preferably pre-emptively in interventions where desireable. Paleos do not. Paleos and conservatives do NOT favor nation-building, nor the abuse of the military and its personnel as social workers in Haiti or Kosovo or anywhere. Neoconservatives may favor nation-building. The old folks did work for LBJ and the Great Society in the pre-communist, pre-pervert Democrat Party and it would be in line with LBJism as reflected in his goofier Vietnam speeches. None of these groups favor empire.
Aggression and NOT appeasement and NOT containment (other than temporary while busy elsewhere) are indeed the conservative policy toward states and movements hostile to US interests and have been since Pearl Harbor and ever will be. High tech weaponry, reconfiguration for rapid deployment, greater flexibility, preventive strikes: Absolutely. Not limited to the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia, either.
3 posted on
08/28/2003 9:27:04 AM PDT by
BlackElk
( We're off to hunt the RINOs, the RINOs who want to rule Oz! Becuz, becuz, becuz.....)
To: u-89
Neocon.
6 posted on
08/28/2003 10:00:03 AM PDT by
Chancellor Palpatine
("What if the Hokey Pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
To: u-89
Bump
10 posted on
08/28/2003 10:06:14 AM PDT by
St.Chuck
To: u-89
On and on about the "neo-con" label, never asking the selected "neo-con" if he or she is one. A lefty stab at trying to demonize that which it doesn't understand.
The historical parallel is simple, but unsatisfactory to lib pundits. The parallel is Liberal, Kennedy, Johnson, etc.
11 posted on
08/28/2003 10:10:13 AM PDT by
Shermy
To: u-89
A bunch of leftists attack neocons. Nothing new. It was leftists who definde the term neconservative.
As for the article, it oversimplyfies neconservatism as ne-Wilsonianism. It ignores the domestic elements.
14 posted on
08/28/2003 10:24:26 AM PDT by
rmlew
("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
To: u-89
Damn, I guess I'm a Neocon.
To: u-89
Neoconservative
Neoconservatives
- Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
- Share unwavering support for Israel
- Support American unilateral action
- Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
- Promote the development of an American empire
- Equate American power with the potential for world peace
- Seek to democratize the Arab world
- Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan
_________ That's interesting.
![](http://home.swbell.net/rdbrown3/3__hr_rdb3.jpg)
18 posted on
08/28/2003 10:38:05 AM PDT by
rdb3
(They've read all the books but they can't find the answers...)
To: u-89
Neoconservatives and Their Blueprint for US Power Alex 'royal pinhead' Jones is BIG on toutiong this angle these days ...
20 posted on
08/28/2003 10:57:56 AM PDT by
_Jim
(Resources for Understanding the Blackout of 2003 - www.pserc.wisc.edu/Resources.htm)
To: u-89
I'm really flattered. My golly we take our American values around the globe and we're shocked the rest of the world hates us. Like I give a damn. Our country's mission is to make sure another 9-11 is kept well and far away from our shores. If that means being a "benevolent hegemon," so be it. No one else is certainly capable of keeping the peace, making short work of our enemies, and keeping America secure for generations to come. America as always is still truly, "the last, best hope of mankind."
36 posted on
08/28/2003 4:56:34 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: u-89
I took the quiz and they labeled me a NEO-CON! Am i the only one who found that the none of the possible answers were hawkish enough???
43 posted on
08/28/2003 7:47:24 PM PDT by
chudogg
(I)
To: u-89
I love these investigative exposes that both educate and entertain.
CSM's September expose: Dance Fever Blistering Denny Terrio or Adrian Zmed? Who put the meat into Motion?
Coming in October - "Club Bludgeoning" Could that be Dr. Ruth Westheimer being the stone cold diva shakin her moneymaker on the floor for the East Village hepcats rattling like a blender full of croquet balls on "puree"?
Coming in November - Three's Company's Untold Story: Grab the children and run: Randy insatiable nymphomaniac Mrs. Roper lives upstairs and Pig humping horny lizard Larry lives next door. Somthin's gotta give. Towels. Lots of towels.
December - Supersize my Diet Coke and No Ketchup on the Cheesburger Kiddie Meal for my Young Lady friend CSM follows Scott Ritter and his companion on a luncheon date at the Fairfax Burger King Restaurant.
This Neocon stuff is so damn boring.
The use of 'neocon' in a historical context is presently a sure sign of idiocy.
"The Monitor asked a leading US foreign policy expert, Walter Russell Mead, to place neoconservative beliefs in historical context.
- "..in the early part of the [19]th century when it was clear that the British empire was not going to be as strong and the Unisted States was growing. And you had people like [James Polk and John Q Adams] and others beginning to think ... "What if America is going to become an imperial nation? What does that look like?" "
We've been struggling with 'empire' ever since 1812. Our view has never changed since the children of the Founders- we will act as is in our best interests.
54 posted on
08/30/2003 8:12:11 AM PDT by
mrsmith
To: u-89
Just like I thought...I'm a Realist.
Of course this was obvious to me based on one pertinant (To Free Republic) fact...
I know that McClintock, just like Simon, can't win in California and the "RINO Screamers" are the TRUE "RINOs" around here.
To: u-89
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power forcefully if necessary to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. At least "Neo-Cons" despise Saudi Arabia and would topple their government, make the House of Saud camel-jockeys once again, and give us $1.25 gas again. Right now an "American Empire" sounds like a good idea if we can start by re=subjugating the Muslim world first.
To: sphinx; Toirdhealbheach Beucail; curmudgeonII; roderick; Notforprophet; river rat; csvset; ...
If you want on or off the Western Civilization Military History ping list, let me know.
71 posted on
09/01/2003 1:52:25 PM PDT by
Sparta
(Sending the UN back to Iraq is like sending the Taliban back to Afghanistan)
To: Cathryn Crawford
ping
72 posted on
09/01/2003 1:52:43 PM PDT by
Sparta
(Sending the UN back to Iraq is like sending the Taliban back to Afghanistan)
To: u-89
"Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. "
I have NEVER heard anyone 'speak' or even hint at such a thing. Methinks this maroon has his head up his commie arse!
I wonder if he could point to any such 'speak'?
79 posted on
09/01/2003 3:24:48 PM PDT by
lawdude
(Liberalism: A failure every time it is tried!)
To: u-89
I was most likely a neoconservative but I have to say that the answers were not specific enough. For some of the questions I would have picked differently had there been some added limits.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson