This site just knocked my socks off. Will comment more once I've explored it--what a goldmine of information.

<a href='http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm' target='_blank'>Click it here</a>

Don't you get it, JBR?

Anything written or talked about overseas does not apply to us because we're Americans and everyone knows Americans can do no wrong. Everyone loves us because we're so good and they love us so much that they're jealous.

All that British, French and German crap doesn't carry any weight around here, only American rhetoric. In the latter category, there are two distinct forms:
1. Truisms, as stated by our illustrious Bush Administration or its lackeys, i.e. Fox News, or
2. Revolutionary fervor, as spouted by the evil one Hillary and her demon, John Kerry.

Those foreigners can talk all they want about us over here, but if they had any sense at all, they would have been born Amurkan. :laugh:

I think its intellectually dishonest to compare neo-conservatives to fascists.

Neo-conservatives, at their most fundamental, believe that liberal democracy is the only legitimate socio-economic system in the world.

Now, people may not agree with that ideology or their tactics (I don't), but since liberal democracy is inherently antithetical to fascism, comparisons in such regard are immature and sophomoric.

Most people still don't understand the ideology as it exists today, which is why there is so much fear out there about it.

Most neo-conservatives actually used to be Democrats. Cheney, the so-called mastermind, is in fact a recent convert to the ideology. People like Wolfowitz had prominant jobs back in the CARTER administration, and their fundamental point then was that the Realist tradeoffs we were making during the cold war to support fascist regimes like Chile and and totalitarian regimes like Iraq were coming back to bite us. They believed that the primary goal of our foreign policy was the export of democracy, not the export of capitalism at any expense.

They flocked to Reagan in the 1980's because they felt they could have more influence over the GOP, and after 20 years, they have attained it. But the odd thing is that these guys actually were writing papers in the early 1980's AGAINST supporting Iraq and Saddam. Their rejection of Realism is actually what marks their most radical departure from American Foriegn Policy dogma. And oddly, its Realist paradigms by which they are judged most harshly by the LEFT.

If being on the left means supporting human rights and democracy, and using American power towards accomplishing those ends, and I believe it should, then leftists should respect and admire the intentions and motivations of neoconservatives, even while opposing their tactics and policies.

The Neo-conservative movement has always been at odds with the GOP Foreign Policy establishment, which is precisely what makes its ascention now such a coup and a fascinating story to political observers such as myself.

Again, the biggest problem with these guys is that their ideological zeal is not tempered by tactical or strategic considerations, not that there is a problem with their zeal itself. The spread of democracy is still a good thing, we just need to be better advised in how we accomplish that.

Yes, I get it, Dio. And I'm quite sure, underneath that sardonic wit of yours, that you get it too.

I only wish a few neocons on the board would get it. . .

Re: the Nazi underpinnings of neoconservatism. . .

"Hodgson points out:-

"Beginning in the late 1960s this group did develop a cluster of ideas and attitudes that were characteristic of what evolved into an identifiable neoconservative movement. It was to have an immense effect on the form American conservatism took in the 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps the absolutely fundamental neoconservative idea was the need to reassert American nationalism or patriotism or "Americanism" or "American exceptionalism": the idea that American society, however flawed, is not only essentially good but somehow morally superior to other societies." ‡



"This belief has been deeply ingrained in the United States since the Revolution. It was strong in the American colonies before the Revolution. It has origins in the Puritanism of the English Revolution in the seventeenth century, and it has religious overtones, in the idea that it is the destiny of the United States to "redeem" a sinful `-   world, as well as nationalist ones. Indeed, it has sometimes been called a "secular religion." It is found in every corner of the country geographically and in Americans of every ethnic origin and social class, even among many black Americans."





 ‡  Note: The Neoconservative conviction  that American society is "innately morally superior"  is one of the marks of  the fascist and imperialist nature of Neoconservative thought. 



A somewhat similar view of the superiority of British British society and moral values marked the high point of British Imperialism and perhaps it is more than a coincidence that some Neoconservatives talk in terms of taking up "the White Man's Burden" in the Third World.

---------

So which part of "fascism" didn't you understand? How is that link intellectually dishonest?

joebordenrebel Wrote:Yes, I get it, Dio. And I'm quite sure, underneath that sardonic wit of yours, that you get it too.

I only wish a few neocons on the board would get it. . .

Re: the Nazi underpinnings of neoconservatism. . .

"Hodgson points out:-

"Beginning in the late 1960s this group did develop a cluster of ideas and attitudes that were characteristic of what evolved into an identifiable neoconservative movement. It was to have an immense effect on the form American conservatism took in the 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps the absolutely fundamental neoconservative idea was the need to reassert American nationalism or patriotism or "Americanism" or "American exceptionalism": the idea that American society, however flawed, is not only essentially good but somehow morally superior to other societies." ‡



"This belief has been deeply ingrained in the United States since the Revolution. It was strong in the American colonies before the Revolution. It has origins in the Puritanism of the English Revolution in the seventeenth century, and it has religious overtones, in the idea that it is the destiny of the United States to "redeem" a sinful `-   world, as well as nationalist ones. Indeed, it has sometimes been called a "secular religion." It is found in every corner of the country geographically and in Americans of every ethnic origin and social class, even among many black Americans."





 ‡  Note: The Neoconservative conviction  that American society is "innately morally superior"  is one of the marks of  the fascist and imperialist nature of Neoconservative thought. 



A somewhat similar view of the superiority of British British society and moral values marked the high point of British Imperialism and perhaps it is more than a coincidence that some Neoconservatives talk in terms of taking up "the White Man's Burden" in the Third World.

---------

So which part of "fascism" didn't you understand? How is that link intellectually dishonest?

Its just simplistic. It isolates certain characteristics of the ideology and ignores others which are mutually exclusive from fascism, it also ignores the evolution of the ideology which has come to embody a REJECTION of fascism and in particularly the Realist foreign policy framework which has held court in the U.S. establishment for decades, in which we supported fascist regimes as a weapon during the Cold War. Its sophomoric.

Look, the argument rests on the notion that neoconservatism assumes the superiority of its framework, and has that in common with Nazism. But in fact all ideologies have that in common. Marxism believes in the inherent superiority of the proletariat. Left-liberalism believes in the inherent superiority of state control over markets.

If the argument is that an ideology is equatable to fascism because it professes that its framework is superior, then all ideologies have that in common.

But to stop there is foolish. There are so many differences as to make the comparison absurd. The F word is thrown around by left-wingers as much as the C word is thrown around by right-wingers. Rarely are the comparisons on either side accurate.

If you want your positions to be taken seriously, you should take the edge off a bit and realize that just because someone has a different opinion than you, doesn't make them fascist. And it also doesn't make them naive or ignorant for not knowing they are fascist.

Isn't your misreading of the passage quoted "simplistic"? Or is it "sophomoric"?

Or is it just lazy?

To jog your memory:

"‡  Note: The Neoconservative conviction  that American society is "innately morally superior"  is one of the marks of  the fascist and imperialist nature of Neoconservative thought."

To extrapolate "one of the marks" into "the" mark of the fascist nature of neoconservative thought seems to strain credulity. But then, I'm assuming you're a neocon. It then follows, logically, that logic might elude your lazy mind.

Nevertheless, fear not. I am here to help those who are willing to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Below is a list of fourteen marks which characterize fascist societies. See if the comparison between fascism and neoconservative thought becomes a bit more clear to you.

Heil Uber Alles!

------------------
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.



For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.



Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.



1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.



2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.



3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous

I'm not a neoconservative. I sympathize with the notion that we must act to change the contemporary political and social culture of the Middle East in order to win the war on terror. I believe this, because consistant with my LIBERAL ideological roots I believe that culture is determinant.

You too, believe that culture is determinant. After all, Im sure you lapped up Bowling for Columbine, which takes exactly that position as its philosophical framework. For some reason, you just don't believe that culture is determinant in the middle east--only in the U.S.

Terrorists aren't some roving band of thugs that we can eliminate one by one until they are killed. It isn't a law enforcement battle, its a battle of ideas. And we needed to do something bold in order to make a dent in that ideological brick wall which prevents the values of freedom from taking hold in the region.

I've no time to explain it to you because I doubt you are interested in anything which might cause you to think critically of leftist orthodoxy. That said, if you are interested, consult anything written on the subject of Iraq's role in the war on terror by Paul Berman (especially him), Christopher Hitchens, Bernard Lewis, or Fouad Ajami. Committed liberals all, each one supporting the Iraq war for the exact logic I've begun to introduce here. And each one can explain it on better terms than I.

So, please, I invite you, to expand on your body of knowledge. You can only get so much reading Mother Jones and Chomsky. I don't know how much you will enjoy the above, however. It isn't glib and it isn't rife with banal hyperbole...it actually requires you to think logically and critically. Consider yourself forewarned, this may be a new experience for you.

OUGwave Wrote:Terrorists aren't some roving band of thugs that we can eliminate one by one until they are killed. It isn't a law enforcement battle, its a battle of ideas. And we needed to do something bold in order to make a dent in that ideological brick wall which prevents the values of freedom from taking hold in the region.

First of all I'd like to preface my criticisms with the following disclaimer:

OUGwave, you are a wonderful addition to this forum because you do not resort to non-sequitors, ad hominems and you argue in your posts, which is what good debate must include--good arguments. I do, however, have some criticisms for some of your statements posted in response to JBR, aka Stalin.

I think, first of all, the causes of terrorism are usually situations in which ideology drives the recruitment process. It drives the process in conjunction with widespread unemployment and usually oppression at the authority of ruling party or parties in the terrorists' home lands. That does not in any way clearly show that terrorists have an ideology--it merely represents a root cause.

And, of course, terrorism is as old as the earth and humanity itself. It is not some new phenomenon that developed in the latter portion of the 20th century.

Terrorism, in the contemporary world, must be dealt with as a law enforcement endeavor. Romans combatting terroristic Huns, Goths, Magyars, Tartars, etc would be more of a military endeavor because terrorists of the age were using a military tactic against a superior armed force in the Roman military.

Terrorism today, on the other hand, is a law enforcement endeavor because the vast majority of nations today are nations of laws. In order to fight terrorism as a war does several things, mostly, it gives the terrorist exactly what they want. The only way to fight terrorism militarily, moreover, is to adapt to the terrorists' tactics and that is to propagate terror in the hearts and minds of the terrorists themselves. To do so would violate our national and international laws, and doing so would bring the allies to the level of the terrorists.

Terrorist organizations today, for the most part, are seeking reactions. They are not attacking merely to force ideology upon the world's masses, in fact, I doubt very seriously the groups such as Al-Quayder and Hezbollah have a well-defined and distinct ideology, unless their ideology is the perpetual seeking of violent reactions from the civilized nations of the world.

Without violent reactions the terrorists would not get valuable press time, which aids their recruitment process. This is much different than terrorism of the 1950s that purported an ideology such as pan-Arabism, for example, or neo-Nazi nationalism of people like Rockwell, or even another example, the ideology that the caucasian race is superior to "heathen" races as purported by the Ku Klux Klan.

Al-Quayder attacked us on 9/11 in order to secure a response from the U.S.--a military response. This is elemental to that group's survival. Without violence, a war if you will, there would be no reason to recruit more and more terrorists. They attacked when they did because they knew Bill Clinton was unlikely to respond in the manner that the current president responded. They knew GW Bush would respond with decisive force and that is exactly what the terrorists wanted.

On the leveling of civilized, law-bound societies and terrorism, this is being played out more and more in media pundancy. Scarborough, for example, was proclaiming last night that using terroristic tactics on terrorists, i.e. torture, was permissable because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as combatants in a military organization. Wouldn't this relegate the U.S. torturer to the level of the terrorists themselves?

To do so would violate the very principles in law that civilized societies hold dear, it is the very reason cited for responding militarily--to preserve our law-bound civlization. When we violate our own principles, the terrorists have succeeded.

What should be done, instead, is infiltrate these organizations to root them out of their holes. To do so would require fomenting alliances with other para-military groups to seek their cooperation. Many of these para militaries are border-line terrorists themselves. To forge ahead with infiltration would require a uniquely difficult task because Westerners, for the most part, would need to familiarize themselves with wholly foreign cultures. It would also require the infiltrators to live as an Arab in a economically, socially and legalistically desolate nation. It would take years to accomplish, yet this is exactly how the FBI has succeeded in damaging the influence and credibility of the mafia, Cosa Nuestra or the "mob."

Terrorism is a law enforcement problem, most of all, because the terrorists are state-less combatants. Militaries are more well suited for fighting other armies, not bands of criminals.

Terrorism is not a battle of ideas, battles of these sorts are fought on college campuses, the clergyman's quarters and in the think tanks' board rooms. Terrorism is a simple battle for the supremacy of the law.

joebordenrebel Wrote:This site just knocked my socks off. Will comment more once I've explored it--what a goldmine of information.

<a href='http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm' target='_blank'>Click it here</a>

:laugh: