|
Clintons and Neocons
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
Barack Obama is apparently a Neocon as well.
| quote: | "The concepts are not contradictory, they are complementary."
"Pakistan's democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists," he said. "The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we're going to be and the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East. We keep on making this mistake."
"If we simply prop up anti-democratic practices, that feeds the sense that America is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks," he said. "And that's going to make us less safe." |
go figure. the principles of establishing Democracy in place of totalitarian regimes is a universal in it's reach across party lines.
from some dudes blog. >LINK<
| quote: | On Pakistan, Democratic candidates sound like neocons
As usual, I will let other people deal with the political implications of the debate tonight, and focus solely on issues related to foreign policy.
1.
A couple of days ago I wrote that "It's safe to assume the topic [of Iran] will not be absent from tomorrow's debate either, even if it is overshadowed by Pakistan."
This prediction proved to be correct as far as Pakistan is concerned. Iran, however, got much less attention. Quite amazing for an issue that just two weeks ago seemed like the most pressing of all.
2.
But the even more amazing thing about the Pakistan chapter of the debate was the extent to which the Democratic candidates sounded almost like ? well ? neocons.
Consider their praise for democracy and their insistence that the Bush administration should be pushing Pakistan's President to allow elections in Pakistan to move forward. Consider the talk about how democracy in countries like Pakistan contributes to America's national security (Clinton). Consider their practical dismissal of the danger attached to a destabilized Pakistan (Dodd was the exception, saying that "When you take the oath of office (for the presidency) January 20th, you promise to do two things: protect and defend the United States and protect yourselves from enemies foreign and domestic.")
Consider all their statements and you?ll reach one of two conclusions:
Either everything is politics, and when Bush does A (avoids pushing the Pakistani President) the Democrats must say B no matter what; or, as much as the Democrats want to deny it, the Bush years did influence the way they think about the world.
3.
Remember the days when Democrats were criticizing Bush for the blunder of pushing for elections in the Palestinian territories? Can you imagine what would be the result of a similar blunder in Pakistan?
4.
Apparently, the Democratic candidates still believe that threatening the voters with another Bush war (in Iran) can work to their benefit. This belief holds even though there are many conflicting polls showing that the American public is far from certain where it stands on the issue.
According to a recent Zogby poll, when asked how supportive they would be of a US military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, 52% of respondents said they'd support an attack.
In a recent Gallup poll, 46% of respondents said the U.S. should take military action against Iran if U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work, while 45% said they shouldn?t.
However, when CNN asked respondents if they would favor or oppose U.S. military action in Iran, only 28% said they would favor an attack.
The secret in the polls is in the wording of the question, and in the context of the Presidential debate it is in the framing of the issue.
In all the polls, Americans expressed their hope that the diplomatic process will be exhausted prior to any decision on a military strike. They also expressed apprehension at the possibility of Bush rushing to make a decision.
Consider there two statements:
Barack Obama (Americans want diplomacy): "we have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there".
John Edwards (Americans don't trust Bush): "When the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she [Clinton] voted with Bush and Cheney".
5.
Regarding her Revolutionary Guard vote, Clinton gave the same answer she was giving two weeks ago. For some reason, this time it worked better. Maybe the other candidates felt that they can't benefit more from this issue than they already did. Anyway, I thought she was convincing when she insisted that her vote will help "getting to the diplomatic table with both carrots and sticks."
6.
Bill Richardson says he will pursue a two state solution and support security for Israel and a Palestinian state. He also said he would be willing to consider territorial adjustments if elected. He says all of this as if thought it were totally different than what the Bush administration is trying to do this very month. |
|
|
|
| Krypton |
Uh, that article acts as if the neocons thought of the idea for free elections in Pakistan...:rolleyes:
I'de hardly call democrat proposals "neocon"... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Uh, that article acts as if the neocons thought of the idea for free elections in Pakistan...:rolleyes:
I'de hardly call democrat proposals "neocon"... |
| quote: | | "If we simply prop up anti-democratic practices, that feeds the sense that America is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks," "And that's going to make us less safe." |
doesn't get more Neocon than that. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
doesn't get more Neocon than that. |
Um, he was talking about the $10 billion we've given the undemocratic regime in Pakistan. We have propped up Masharaff despite his unpopularity amongst the people, his firing of SUPREME COURT JUDGES, he cancelled the damn constitution! So how is Obama, by stating we should not be propping up non-democratic leaders, how is that neocon? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| Democracy promotion is not necessarily a bad idea, in fact it's a quite reasonable idea. The problem is in its implementation. Neocons favour democracy down the barrel of a gun for those opposed to US policy. Israeli concerns also take preference over their democracy-promotion (see Palestine and Hamas). I wouldn't even have a problem with neoconservatism if it wasn't so selective, and hence hypocritical, or if they used other means to promote democracy. |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Barack Obama is apparently a Neocon as well.
go figure. the principles of establishing Democracy in place of totalitarian regimes is a universal in it's reach across party lines.
from some dudes blog. >LINK< |
That doesn't have anything to do with my 1st point, Obama is just an inexperienced pretender and no one knows where he stands . Whether Pakistan is a democracy or not and it isn't and far from it doesn't have anything to do with this point and the reason it's supported by american imperialists |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Democracy promotion is not necessarily a bad idea, in fact it's a quite reasonable idea. The problem is in its implementation. Neocons favour democracy down the barrel of a gun for those opposed to US policy. Israeli concerns also take preference over their democracy-promotion (see Palestine and Hamas). I wouldn't even have a problem with neoconservatism if it wasn't so selective, and hence hypocritical, or if they used other means to promote democracy. |
Implementation is just as they imagined unfortunatelly but they never imagined to be exposed beliving all too much in their military superiority , real or perceived
As for democracy, here again neocons took the page from the nazis who claimed to be fighting "communists" among others while invading, occupying and killing millions, in reality they are all for power grab
The problem is that neocon intentions are hidden by the media and they don't state them openly and behind their talk and bluster of freedom which every totalitarian ideology professes , one can see that their main motivations are only american imperialism and zionist nationalism and this extends further afield than palestinians but into iraq,iran,syria etc as well into their military support for fundamentalist muslims that can't threaten israel and their designs on energy resources in the middle east |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
The problem is that neocon intentions are hidden by the media and they don't state them openly |
Oh, they're pretty open about it.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/s...fprinciples.htm
| quote: | American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
|
|
|
|
| erdega |
that reads like a neocon "mein kempf", only full with euphemisms and double language. That's the only thing separating neocons and their "liberal" pals who never admit to anything and generally have more discipline to shut up. When Chaney recently suggested not to withdraw from Iraq or to attack because of danger to Israel , he was lambasted and ignored since then because Israeli lobby doesn't want this obvious quip to be spoken publicly
As for neocon goals, They wanted to make US army a purely offensive tool for their zionist nationalist programs and they did it with large help from their "liberal" zionist colleagues . One time US got attacked on 9/11 they wouldn't even put the ground troops let alone confront al qaida. Using that 9/11 to attack Israel neighbors and in order to establish Israeli supremacy in the middle east seems to be the priority
here is something more about their intentions, such as announced by them
http://us.altermedia.info/zionism/t...st-aei_449.html
AEI Mission Statement
• To safeguard the welfare and security of Jews in the United States, in Israel, and throughout the world.
• To strengthen the basic principles of pluralism around the world, as the best defense against anti-Semitism.
• To enhance the quality of American Jewish life by helping to ensure Jewish continuity and deepen ties between American and Israeli Jews. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
that reads like a neocon "mein kempf", only full with euphemisms and double language. That's the only thing separating neocons and their "liberal" pals who never admit to anything and generally have more discipline to shut up. When Chaney recently suggested not to withdraw from Iraq or to attack because of danger to Israel , he was lambasted and ignored since then because Israeli lobby doesn't want this obvious quip to be spoken publicly
As for neocon goals, They wanted to make US army a purely offensive tool for their zionist nationalist programs and they did it with large help from their "liberal" zionist colleagues . One time US got attacked on 9/11 they wouldn't even put the ground troops let alone confront al qaida. Using that 9/11 to attack Israel neighbors and in order to establish Israeli supremacy in the middle east seems to be the priority
here is something more about their intentions, such as announced by them
http://us.altermedia.info/zionism/t...st-aei_449.html
AEI Mission Statement
• To safeguard the welfare and security of Jews in the United States, in Israel, and throughout the world.
• To strengthen the basic principles of pluralism around the world, as the best defense against anti-Semitism.
• To enhance the quality of American Jewish life by helping to ensure Jewish continuity and deepen ties between American and Israeli Jews. |
Joos...the neverending scapegoat for all thats wrong with the world.
if for some miracle oil plunged to $25 bbl and oil producing nations like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or Iran revenue tanked, chaos would insue and they'd blame the Joooooosssss. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Joos...the neverending scapegoat for all thats wrong with the world.
if for some miracle oil plunged to $25 bbl and oil producing nations like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or Iran revenue tanked, chaos would insue and they'd blame the Joooooosssss. |
Why would it? That would make no sense whatsoever. And the poster you quoted did not mention the word Jew once, other than in a quote about the AEI. You're the only one bringing Jews into the equation when everyone else is referring to Zionists and as we all perfectly know, Zionism most certain does not equal Jew... |
|
|
|
|
