Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (105721)	7/16/2003 2:25:35 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<Perhaps you could describe for me what you call a NeoCon ideology.> The American Enterprise Institute website is the neocon thinktank. I've read a lot there, on the principle of "know your enemy". How it works out in practice (which is quite different from the theory, in much the same way as Marx's writings bear little relation to what Stalin created), can be found in the current Administration (except for Powell, who is a Realist, not a NeoCon). Otherwise, all the top Administration officials are neocons. To me, the ideology means: 1. unilateralism (=dissing, ignoring, destroying every international organization and treaty that limits in any way the freedom of action of the U.S.) 2. War as the First Resort for all foreign problems; if war isn't possible then some other form of coersion or violence is always to be preferred to negotiation or compromise. 3. a massive increase in military spending 4. negotiation = appeasement; the only communication with other nations, is giving orders or threats. 5. Mostly, these are Cold Warriors, using the same methods with a new enemy. And their goal is not containment, but to invade the enemy's homeland, control it, and remake it in our image. 6. A monopoly on the use of force in international relations, by the U.S. 7. For domestic U.S. consumption, they create an elaborate Mythology, to show that all this violence is for the benefit of the foreigners. They go on and on, about how we are going to re-make other nations into liberal democracies, with free markets that create prosperity and freedom. None of this will be done in fact. Oh, perhaps they will go through the motions, something to convince the credulous, but there will be no substance behind it. What the foreigners will get, is a boot on their neck, and a hand picking their pockets. 8. they loudly proclaim their Christianity, while doing the precise opposite of what Christ told us to do. 9. they loudly proclaim their patriotism, while doing the precise opposite of what the Founding Fathers had in mind. 10. They are imperialist. Their goal is to give the U.S. sovereign power over as much of the earth as possible. We won't formally annex any territory, as that would mean extending the rights of our Constitution to foreigners. Rather, the vast areas dominated by our soldiers and multinational companies, will be populated by subjects, not citizens. As in Guantanomo, our government will exercise sovereign power, without any of the restrictions on government power imposed by the Constitution.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (105721)	7/16/2003 2:32:17 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<That's really stupid stuff> I know, it sounds way "over the top". It sounds like something so bizarre, it can't be true. Yet I get it from Bush's own words, as reported in an Israeli newspaper. This passage has been widely re-quoted, and I haven't seen any denials from the White House: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you can help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."- Bush, speaking to Abbas haaretz.com.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (105721)	7/16/2003 2:51:40 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<who in the US admin says there will be no elections in any of those places?> Oh, they don't come right out and say "We don't believe in democracy; we hate elections." Neither did Stalin. Rather, the NeoCons (like the Cold Warriors before them) just don't make it a priority. They set conditions that can't happen. They don't allow elections, until they are sure of the results. They only allow "responsible" people and parties in their supervised elections. They define any anti-American groups as terrorists, and outlaw them. They destabilize elected governments that make the "wrong" choices. There are many ways, to create a gloss of democracy, while killing the substance. In Afghanistan, we chose to walk away, and allow the warlords to re-arm and sieze 90% of the country. We could have chosen differently. In Kuwait in 1991, we had total military control of that tiny nation. We chose to re-install the Emir. We could have made him a powerless figurehead, and held elections for a government that derived its powers from the people, but we decided not to. Who would have stopped us? Who could have? Sure, the Emir holds elections. So did Stalin. So does Castro. And, in Iraq, we promised elections quickly, and now (according to today's news), they may be held in 2004. Or later. Not before. And we're already saying who we will, and won't, let win the election.