What do neoconservatives believe? "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. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster. Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
The neocon agenda endangers us all, directly through the violent upheaval it has spurred on in very short order, and indirectly by way of other corrupt regimes which may decide to model the hypocritical example of the US and UK governments. But only the American and British people have the power to demand from within that their respective experiments in democracy survive the neocon agenda, which is playing out as much in Britain as it is in the United States. All the world has witnessed the lies and the supreme arrogance of both the US and UK governments these past few years. We have all witnessed, in cerebral numbers provided in print if not in person or graphic detail, the tragic deaths of tens of thousands of individual human beings killed by way of our governments' illegal war of aggression in Iraq. We have all seen the plunge into the immoral, inhumane and, thus, criminal abyss of officially sanctioned torture, state-sponsored kidnappings and disappearances (officially known as "extraordinary renditions") and indefinite detentions of individuals imprisoned for years without charge or due process of law. We now know beyond any doubt—as the majority of the world's politically aware knew before the start of the war, despite the onslaught of rhetoric spewed by politicians to quell dissent and the continual drumbeat of the corporate media-delivered propaganda craftily packaged as if to deliver us from the evil that is, apparently, commonsense—that this war could only have been sold to the American and British people were we to be bombarded by our own governments' criminal lies. And, sold it was, rolled out and marketed as would a psychologically researched, high-end advertising campaign of an immoral corporation which seeks to maximize shareholder value through the plying of harmful products, practices or byproducts. Yet, when democratic representation exists in name only, corrupt politicians, like their corrupt corporate executive counterparts, will continue to rule, as we the people rue, the day. In an article entitled, "Indicting America," written by former chief UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, and published on the 29th of October by Information Clearing House, Mr. Ritter said the following: Void of a major backlash on the part of the American people in response to the deliberate falsification and deceit that has transpired regarding Iraq and the now-debunked case for war, the Libby indictment may prove to be little more than an exercise in damage control. Already senior Republican officials, such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, are calling the Libby indictment a mere "technicality." Right-wing pundits refer to the indictment as the "criminalization of politics," as if lying one's way into an illegal war of aggression is somehow akin to politics as usual. In a speech before the US House of Representatives on the 26th of October, US Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, had the following to say about the neoconservative agenda: We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S.-led regime change—in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: "Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity." This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The "opportunity" refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq. This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad. Please note, in case you missed it, that the above was delivered on the floor of the US House of Representatives by a Republican Congressman from Texas. As these two quotes suggest, there exists an overabundance of information publicly available via both mainstream and independent media, as well as from primary, sources to demonstrate that the neocon movement is, indeed, anti-democratic, out-of-line with traditional Anglo-American political philosophy, and is inherently dishonest in that it relies on a foreign-policy elite which deliberately deceives the very citizenry which such elected representatives and other government officials have sworn oaths to serve. Such Machiavellian deception is justified in their minds because they quite rightly believe that their foreign-policy objectives will not be tolerated, let alone supported, by a well-meaning American (or British) public which, by and large, continues to believe that the history they learned in school is true, and that the United States (or Britain) only goes to war when it absolutely must do so to defend itself from harm, never in outright aggression. There is no shortage of evidence that our respective democracies in the US and UK are in grave danger of a fate worse than being qualified as ostensible; they are very nearly dead. Nor is there a shortage of criminal evidence by which the American and British people can and must demand, not "an exercise in damage control" but, the "major backlash" of the sort Mr. Ritter spoke of, above. Will the American and British people demand—not wish, hope or plead for, but demand—that their ransacked, just-barely ostensible, and corporatized democracies be exchanged for the real McCoy, true democracies built upon solid foundations of truth, law and mutual respect, so that democracy itself may live? Ya know!~?
neocons are oppressed. Often coming from low income families, because some are white, some are brown skinned, some are olive skinned and some have big ol' zits on their foreheads, they often find themselves in a position where they cannot realize their potential, no matter how hard they try. Socially, they are repressed by angry liberals who often resort to name calling and violence towards them. Neocons are good people, they are just misunderstood. Others often take their policies completely "out of context" in order to make them "all" appear as bad people, when in reality, most are peaceful people who just want to live their lives and earn a living like most. neocons can't get a fair deal when it comes to income earning potentials. "The man" continually keeps them down and oppresses them by denying them college benefits and treating "all" of them as bad when in reality, it's only a few tiny minority that think bad things about terrorists. We must not resort to fear and hatred against all neocons, when in fact, it's just a very small minority that actually think the worst of terrorists. Just because a few think the worst, doesn't mean that "all" are bad people. Worst of all, neocons are oppressed by the United Nations. The UN wouldn't let the neocons in on the oil-for-food scandals nor could they get hold of saddam oil vouchers to be bought out with. Oh, the outrage! What has our world come to, that the UN and corrupt allies would keep all that money for themselves? Death to America, Death to Israel, and all that shit /sarc off
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs? The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans. What does a neoconservative dream world look like? Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants. Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
You shouldn't post hatred of the oppressed people if you don't have a plan to solve the issue. It's just a few tiny minority neocons that are bad people
i do not feel you can really disagree with what i have posted here if you think there is any part is not fair or accurate please let me know i am just copy and pasting and i will be glad to show you the source article and we can post a comment in objection. article that i am using is what you might consider a fair minded website i don't think they would be unfair
i see that you are still here so let me put the link to the original article it really is good reading. make sure you post a response after you check it out http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
Liberals often rely on "feelings" Just enjoy the sarcasm, pizzaman. I'm sure it seems familiar, in some *small* way
Maybe later. Really just have a little time tonight, not looking to get wrapped up in another all day/all night debate/argument/love fest for those who want to kill the kaffir. Far too much work going on, which is why I haven't been around much in the last few days. Wished I earned as much posting as I did coding websites and/or multimedia work, but sometimes a brother's gotta earn the bacon
it seems that neoconservetive is based on liberalism my friend like bush's healt care policy federal defecit, imigration and so on you seem to always miss the forest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative in the documentory section there is a link to Adam Curtis, The Power of Nightmares (BBC) in this site there are three movies please look at one it is about an hour each atleast look at one it is about start of terrorism and neocon movement i liked the first one it has interviews with a lot of famous neocons and it is mainly about their start and successes hopefuly it will make you think out of the box a little