I am against hurtful name-calling. Childish bastards.

If by "seized the reigns of American power" means "voted into a majority by the American citizens," then you would be right.

They'll shut up next year when Bush loses the election. I mean, he can't expect to be President when everything he touches turns to shiat - economy, Iraq, corporate confidence, foreign policy, environment, etc.

With Mars being at it's closest, it's no wonder this is Flame War Wednesday.

Yeah, Bush is sunk. After all, the economy only grew 2.4% last quarter, the stocks are only at a 18 month high, and he's removed only 2 brutal anti-American terrorist supporting regimes.

What a horrible, horrible record.

oh good, the christian science monitor, a bastion of nonbiased publications.

If by "seized the reigns of American power" means "voted into a majority by the American citizens," then you would be right.

Voted into power by the supporters of our future Christian Theocracy. Good times ahead.

Nobody voted for Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. We thought we were in for some Colin Powell non-nation-building goodness, but instead it's even better. Wheeeeeeee!

If by "seized the reigns of American power" means "voted into a majority by the American citizens," then you would be right.

Er, didn't Bush get voted in on Electorial College technicalities? Didn't Gore acually get a higher number of votes?

Not trying to divert this into another Florida 2000, but you might wanna pay attention to how you phrase things. Or, as a Republican, are you too damned right about everything to bother with coherence?

Sigh. I know everybody is so sick of this now (hey, I'm even sick of it, and I'm a sucker for arguing) but I watched The Crucible last night and I'll be dammed if one of the Puritan leaders didn't sound a whole lot like George W.
Argh. Why my country? Whhhyyyy?

/disclaimer: not meant as flamebait. If you love him, good for you.

oh good, the christian science monitor, a bastion of nonbiased publications.

Actually, the Christian Science Monitor is one of the best newspapers in the world. If you'd bothered to read the link, you'd see that they report on neocons by interviewing neocons! And without loaded questions or sneakily edited answers -- you'd be hard-pressed to claim anything in their reporting is particularly slanted in any direction. They don't just reprint the AP, Reuters, NYT wire reports, they actually hire people to go out and research and write their own stories!

the burninator.

w.

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.

Umm, Neocons ARE theocratic.

Jammer211: removed two brutal regimes are replaced them with... ? Barely suppressed anarchy, it sounds like. And unemployment still sucks. Also made most of the world hate us more.

The problem with removing brutal regimes just because they're brutal is that there's so many more of them out there. Though I'm sure that's fine with the Neocons, more targets for US bombs, they think.

/cracks beer and sits back to enjoy ensuing American left vs. right mega-flame war.

Xian. That's cool, I thought it was from China at first.

shiat, lemme get some marshmallows and them I'm ready to flame.

As a Jewish person, I could really do without being associated with these lunatics.

From one of the article links:
"'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."

Eek. Eek eek eek eek.

They need to use smaller words so Bush can understand

The day that the rest of the world collectively asks us (or even a simple majority) to act as a "benevolent global hegemon" is the day that it will be okay to do so.

BTW check out http://www.antiwar.com/

I agree with almost every word of that article... I guess that makes me a psychotic neocon!

That said, the part I disagree with relates to Israel/Palestine. Don't care about that one at all...

Pole of Justice:

To loosely quote a Doonesbury that I saw recently:

Radio Guy Number 1: You not what the trouble with you liberals is? You actually care about fairness. You actually take the time to consider other points of view. We conservatives, we know we're already right so why bother? By not considering other points of view we're unencumbered by doubt so we roll you guys every time.

Radio Guy Number 2: Hmmm. You may have a point there.


Radio Guy Number 3: See only a loser would admit that.

The AntiWar guy, Justin Raimondo, is a bit of a looney. I thought he was kind of a badass, until I realized he chilled with Pat Buchanan and wrote a bunch of articles asking, "What did Israel know before 9/11?"

*Sigh* No one learns from history. The best way for a country to survive is to be more powerful militarily than the rest. Liberal also fail to realize stuff cost money and if they want those social programs paid for, that someone is going to have to pay for it. California learned this. They also forget who pays all the axes - the people that have stuff. The people that have stuff are conservatives because everything is working out for them and they don't want change. The people that want change are the ones that don't have anything - go figure. The ones that don't have anything want the ones that do to give it to them. Now why would they do that?

Hmmm, what was my point. Oh yes, liberal fail to realize people are different and greedy and lazy and do what ever is best for them. Basically liberals are dumb but occasionally make some good points. (rare, doens't happen much anymore)

I like how they fail to mention democrats wanting to oust Saddam during the 90's. Remember 5 years ago when all the naysayers of today were screaming about saddam?

How come all the anti-war sites look like they're run out of somebody's shoebox while the neo-con side just oozes professional Web developer slickness? No really, it's an interesting point to ponder. I'm personally creeped out by much conservative ideology, so I'm not suggesting the stock "well, because only poor schmucks are anti-war" response. It's just interesting.

Nope, I'm not going to get involved in another flame war. Nope, won't do it. Unh uh(sp).

F*ck. Ok, one question. Why do Liberals have to use the term "neocon"? I mean, is conservative just too mainstream that you have to label everyone on the right a "neoconservative"?

Just curious.

Bildo,

It's not a dis. It's a term neocons use for themselves, to distiguish from don't-get-involved-overseas conservatives.

Like Communism, the ideals behind Neoconservatism (at least how it is defined here) are compelling enough that they must be attempted. They, like Communism, might also fail; but establishing secular democracies in the Middle East might be the only forseeable solution to the ignorance that pervades there.

If that fails, the US, Israel, and other western countries targeted for being free will stand for it no more. If terrorism against innocent civilians continues -at the rate it is- for another 10 years, talk of nuking Palestine or Tehran might not be so unthinkable.

See? Bush isn't arrogant. He's just humbly following the will of guys who are probably way smarter than him.

Crazy as muthafukkas, but definitely way smarter than him.

Well, mentat, this is Fark. For every 20 conservative rants that have about the same grasp on reality as your average mental patient, there are 2 well-thought out, balanced observations of the right, and 1 liberal nut-job rant. We just got the well-thought out article this time.

The best part about this article is that now the Rightwingers are forced to scream "bias!!".... and it's the Christian Science Monitor!!! HA!!!!!!!

paradroid:

Thanks.

I'm conservative. I support the global war on terror. I have never considered myself "neo-conservative".

hmmmmmmmm.

As a non-American, somebody hand me the 'scary'-tag please?

Dude, everyone's acting like this article is attacking neoconservatives. It's not. It's just describing what they say they stand for. You all should check out the Weekly Standard sometime, it's crazier than Michael Jackson.

Uh... Bildo.. you're not originally from Mass., are you?

"The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals"

Ok, now I'm confused.

F*ck. Ok, one question. Why do Liberals have to use the term "neocon"?

get a grip, man -- neocons called themselves that. they call themselves that because they are NOT traditional conservatives (which means isolationist, cut taxes, cut spending, stop immigration, etc). George W Bush is a neocon, but his father is a conservative. His father's goal was to get as little involved in foreign affairs as possible (George Washington's warning, remember? i doubt it.). George W's goal is to be as involved as possible and using our strength to strong-arm the world into the mold we envision for it.

Conspiracy much? or do you just blame liberals for everything you dislike until proven otherwise?

It seems to me that 9/11 drove the anger level in the US to a point to where then "neocon" message would be better received, in a similar way the Likud party gained increased popularity in Israel during the latest (2000-present) round of fighting with the Palestinians. In the meantime, traditional conservatives who vehemently oppose interventionist foreign policy have seen the republican party totally hijacked by these neocons, while the democrats have moved further left as a response to the neocons.

/said neocon too much

Alright fark! Yes! Yes! Yes! This is great! Yes!

See, as a liberal, I don't need to go overseas and kill a lot of people to get excited. All it takes is a little truth telling and I'm a happy guy.

Nazis envision a world in which Germany is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that Germany has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, Germany would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create socialistic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to Germany or its interests. In the Nazi dream world the entire Middle East would be rid of Jews in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for Germany; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong German leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

"voted into a majority by the American citizens,"

errr is gore now president?

As a non-American, I just want to say that I would find global American hegemony a form of dictatorship as my vote would have no effect on it. No matter how flawed a democracy is, it's better than even a benevolet dictatorship. Right?

Estream is my flame war hero.

I admit that was extreme - it was simply how that paragraph occurred to me when I read it.

paradroid :
"Dude, everyone's acting like this article is attacking neoconservatives. It's not. It's just describing what they say they stand for.:

And in the process shining a light, a very bright one, on their twisted agenda. And did I mention, telling the truth. Yippee!