Serious question: What exactly is wrong with neo-conservatism?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

I've always been VERY much against neo-conservative goals like "Pax-Americana" and democratization of the mid-east.

But if you think about it, wouldn't the world be better off if the mid-east was democratized? Obviously theres a lot of US "imperialist" interests in it (oil, etc), but what if they succeeded? Wouldn't a free middle-east be a noble goal?

Clearly there is much to be argued, including the problem of the means necessary to achieve such "noble" goals. But what is wrong with the overall goal of transforming the mideast?

This is more of a discussion thread than anything--I'm still ferociously anti-neocon, and I feel that they're destroying American foreign policy (and even the American political system as a whole), but wouldnt a "free" mid-east be better for us, AND the victims of un-democratic mid-east regimes?

[sujan]

1. ha!

'free middle east'


ROFL

[SeveneightyWhoa]

3. Why is that funny?

As liberals, shouldn't we be encouraging a progression towards democracy for the sake of these people, rather than hampering it? Isn't a regressive, totalitarian government WRONG?

[RichM]

14. It's funny because you actually swallowed all that jive about "free" and

"democracy." Don't you understand? Those are just code words. When Bush talks about bringing "democracy and freedom" to the Middle East, he means, "bomb them, kill them, occupy their land, & steal their oil."

The bit about "democracy and freedom" is just for, as they say, domestic consumption.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

24. I know what Bush says is a lie.

But from reading a lot of the neo-con material (ie. Weekly Standard, AEI), it does seem as if these people truly do want to democratize the mid-east.

Of course, that may be a secondary effect of the first priority, which is their imperialistic endeavors, but it does appear to actually be one of their goals. I really want to see what kind of "democracy" Iraq becomes, if they indeed are allowed to choose their own government within the next decade (which is appearing more and more unlikely by the day!), or if a 2000-like election takes place, complete with an "Iraqi Supreme Court" and imported Diebold voting machines, electing Ahmed Chalabi.

It's obvious that these people will LIE, LIE, and LIE, and that they cannot be trusted for shit.

I dunno--I just think that everyone deserves to truly live under a democratic government, and the neo-cons seem to be the only advocates of a "free" mid-east (obviously they're not quite in it for the freedom-spreading). Nobody else is up to the challenge.

Should the Dem President in '04, be it Kerry, Clark, or Dean, take active, non-militaristic steps, to achieve "democracy" in the mid-east?

[sujan]

sorry but

bombing civilians to 'free' them is not really my idea of freeing them. Change has to come from within, and it will. I am sure the people in mideast are quite capable of bringing about that change when enough of them take that charge.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

39. Don't be sorry!

I'm quite compatible with that viewpoint!

[Mairead]

46. That was more or less Rich's point: what they *say* is wonderful

but what they do is install puppet dictators. As John Foster Dulles said 50 years ago, we seem to have problems getting people to voluntarily buy into our policies, namely that the rich should plunder the poor. For some reason, they don't seem to like that idea, so we have to be sure they have a 'democracy' that prevents them from resisting.

[Walt Starr]

48. Since WWII, not one single nation bombed by the U.S. ever gained

democracy.

Not one.

All the U.S. has ever done was set up puppet totalitarian regimes that spew the U.S. line.

The Shah in Iran
Saddam Hussein
The Taliban in Afghanistan
Pinochet

The list goes on.

Even Castro is a direct result of U.S. interference. Battista was a brutal dictator propped up by the U.S. and Castro was the people's answer to him and us.

[maggrwaggr]

16. by violently shoving it down their throats?

I mean, what's your point? By bringing "democracy" to Iraq we've killed thousands of their people, destroyed thousands of their homes, maimed many more thousands including a whole LOT of cute little children, destroyed their infrastructure and last but not least stealing their oil.

Ah, but with this we bring the gift of Democracy! Well I won't mind my two kids being blown to bits by your cluster bombs, no sir! It's all just GREAT. THANK YOU KIND AMERICANS!

Give me a fucking break, pal.

[caledesi]

37. Exactly. You can't force democracy on people just like you

couldn't force communism on people. It has to come from within. There is a socio-cultural aspect that is totally ignored by this misadminisration. All the US should be is models of democracy, in which other countries admire us and wish to be like us. If they don't, well that is their perogative. Sometimes, this whole "force democracy" on different countries is similiar to Christian fundamentalism...trying to "convert" people. It doesn't work. Their culture and religion is very much intertwined.

We are now being viewed as imperalistic and ethnocentric and those concepts are difficult to debate in view of what is going on in Iraq.

Iraq doesn't want a f*cking McDonalds. Don't you get that?

These people have been around for 6000 years & they are supposed to instantly gravitate to our thinking? I think not.

The scariest thing to me is that this debacle in Iraq, and I do call it a debacle could have grave consequences: East against West. Remember this. There are 6 billion, count them 6 billion Muslims in the world and about 17 million Christians. You do the math.

edit: forgot stuff.

[not systems]

40. 6 billion Muslims and 17 million Christians.

You are incorrect about your numbers but damn,
I'm out numbered 6.017 billion to one.

Agree with your point about the "forced democracy" idea
being like a religious "conversion" spree kind of
like a "crusade".

[maha]

2. Combination of idiocy and various character disorders.

It's the only explanation that makes sense.

[JackSwift]

4. Bringing people freedom from the barrel of a gun

isn't something you can do. People need to assert their own freedom, occasionally from the barrels of their own guns.

[Hieronymus]

5. What's wrong with neo-consrevatism?

You mean besides that they're Nazis?
As for what's wrong with transforming the Middle East, what was wrong with Hitler wanting totransform us? or the Middle East transforming us? You know just bomb hell out of us and occupy us.

[KissMyAsscroft]

6. Well...

It is a pipe dream, that's what is wrong with the idea.

Freedom is something people give to themselves. They take the power, like Americans did. Look at American history, that tells you all you need to know about "freedom" being forced down your throat.

That, and America doesn't want them to be free. We just want their natural resources, water, and cheap labor. We want to install puppet governments that do not care about their citizens.

It is an unrealistic and tainted goal that will backfire.

[Maccagirl]

12. Exactly

The neo-cons aren't the least bit interested in the people of the Middle East and their "freedom" or "democracy" The only people they care about are themselves.

[Mountainman]

7. It is not your job to tell the rest of the world how to live!

You remind me of the white settlers who "gave" Christianity and culture to the Native Americans. Your problem is that you don't see any worth in anything but your own narrow view of things.

These people have a culture and religion and a future all their own and the don't need you sticking your nose into their lives!

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. Why is it that one of the oldest society/civilization's on the planet isnt

already so? What was so different between the folks of the Tigris, Euphrates and Jordan river valleys and the citizens of Rome and Athens? My answer to your question is yes, Perhaps the world WOULD be better off. But one has to question what it is about that society that has precluded that particular style of government from taking hold over all these centuries.

[Mountainman]

15. No, the question is why the hell should it?

The only thingI can think about your statement is that you are a cultural elitist. You have no respect or understanding of the other peoples of the world. You are the ingredients of the ugly American

[SeveneightyWhoa]

27. Except that...

...I'm Canadian!
Hahaha.

Keep in mind that, like I said in my initial post, I despise neoconservatism.

[A HERETIC I AM]

31. I AM A CULTURAL ELITEST??????

lol....wow.....thats pretty funny. Perhaps i wasnt lucid enough. I noticed my posts got a little long winded so i was trying to keep it short. You are right. Why the hell shoudl they? after all, tribalism and barbaristic patriarchy in the name of a desert war god seemed to have suited them pretty well. BTW, I lived in Athens, Greece in the '60's and every so often, a fellow herding his goats would come through the neighborhood. Just doing his thing. A goat herder. in the suburbs. I also lived in Australia in the mid'70's. In Alice Springs. Many of the local Aboriginals lived in the Todd River. on blankets. on the sand. DOWNTOWN. hey...it was their river. they had been living their forever. The Alice just grew up around them. So, no, i dont suppose i have any sensibilities at all for other cultures. Ugly American? lol....i wonder if you call them "Freedom Fries"

[Old and In the Way]

9. Democracies aren't bestowed, they happen when people overthrow

tyranical regimes, I think. OK, we restored democracies after WW2...but Germany was a Republic before Hitler.

Iraq is pretty unique in that it is a relatively new country that was arbitrarily created in the 20th century. There are no functioning democracies in the ME and I think that has as much to do with their social/religious traditions as anything.

Interestingly, Iraq had a progressive, secular society in the 70s/80s and had the best chance of cutivating the conditions for Democracy before we started playing geo-politics there.

Personally, I think this administration could give a rat's ass about democracy and the Iraqi people. What they really want is stabilization that will allow their corporate benefactors to get in there and make huge profits "rebuilding" Iraq and keeping the oil spigot in the control of US corporate interests.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. If it were a Democracy that might be one thing. But remember that....

...WE have not been living in an elected representative Democracy since December 12, 2000.

Therefore, how can you take the word of those who do not respect America's Democracy, to export it to the world.

The reality of the PNAC "vision" is not global democracy, but global corporate driven fascism with each country led by a puppet dictator who is affiliated with both the corporations and PNAC. This is obviously the case in Afghanistan where Hamid Karzai, a UNOCAL employee is now "President" and PNAC signer Zalmay Khalizad, also a UNOCAL consultant, was the Fraudministrations "special envoy" to Afghanistan.

Ahmad Chalabi, who will likely soon be the installed leader of Iraq is likewise a PNAC puppet (not to mention a bank robbing felon whom his Jordanian neighbors would love to extradite)

[SeveneightyWhoa]

11. Totally.

I understand where everyone's coming from--it WILL backfire. But do you seriously think, after so many years, that people will finally rise up and overthrow their government? Is that even possible?

It seems as though that dream, of the people rising up and turning a regime into a democracy, is about as wacky as the neo-con dream.

So are we all okay with undemocratic governments in the middle east? Or is there a better way for America to try and kickstart the process?

Or is it a liberal position that we simply NOT interfere with other governments and let what happens happen?

[BurtWorm]

18. America is not in a good position to "kick start the process"

and wind up with liberal democracies in the Middle East. We should focus on building mutual respect between the people of the US and the people of the Middle East. We should not draw up road maps and impose them on nations. That's just reheated colonialism.

[maggrwaggr]

19. They think we'd be better off Muslim

so should they invade us and make us all muslim?

there's not one whit of logic to what you're saying.

[Old and In the Way]

20. When the last drop of oil is pumped from the ME in about 80 years

(or less)....no one is going to care what the people of the ME want to do with their sandlot.

Maybe that'll be a good thing for the people there....

[RichM]

21. Watch out for sentences like that there "kickstart the process" one --

Or is there a better way for America to try and kickstart the process?...

- This shows you have accepted the idea that it's up to America to tell everyone how to live, & to be the wise power putting all the little ignorant slobs & heathens on the right path. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US is not the 'good guy' -- it is a very ugly & ruthless predator. All this bull about "democracy" is just a mask. The US doesn't give a hoot about democracy, neither here, nor abroad. What it wants is obedience and cheap labor & resources.

[Darranar]

43. Partially agreed...

This shows you have accepted the idea that it's up to America to tell everyone how to live, & to be the wise power putting all the little ignorant slobs & heathens on the right path.

You think the people of the Arab states enjoy being brutalized and tyrannized by abusive dictators?

As for:

The US is not the 'good guy' -- it is a very ugly & ruthless predator. All this bull about "democracy" is just a mask. The US doesn't give a hoot about democracy, neither here, nor abroad. What it wants is obedience and cheap labor & resources.

I agree.

[Eloriel]

22. It's undoable anyway

There are three main political groups. The ones in the majority (by something like 60%) are the fundamentalist Muslims. If they started with a representative democracy that we forced on them, they'd have it turned to a theocratic Taliban-style regime in not much time at all.

It's undoable.

Eloriel

[bpilgrim]

23. change has ALWAYS come from PEOPLE rising up

even recently so i don't understand why you think it would be any different now...

i agree with applying diplomatic and economic incentives to nude that region in that direction but certainly not from an agressive military one.

just look at our record at supporting democratic regimes for the past 60 years and you will lose ALL confidence in our plans for 'democracy' in the me.

it sure sounds good though and THAT is all the neoCONs really care about the sound-byte

peace

[maggrwaggr]

28. "set up free elections or we'll kill you and burn your cities!"

sort of a silly notion, don't you think?

[bpilgrim]

41. even that won't stop us... remember saddam offered the same deal * said NO

Saddam offered to hold elections to avoid war with US - Taipei Times - Nov 7, 2003
Saddam seen to have backed Iraq peace envoys - MSNBC - Nov 7, 2003
Iraqi peace feelers were dismissed by Bush officials - San Jose Mercury News - Nov 7, 2003

more...
http://news.google.com/news?q=iraq+offers+peace+before+war&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&sa=N&tab=nn

peace

[solinvictus]

13. As a liberal minded paleo-conservative

Neo-conservatism supports globalization of the economy via GATT, WTO, NAFTA,etc. This amounts to economic treason as it erodes national sovereignty while insuring the flight of manufacturing jobs in our nation. This is fine with neo-cons, however, who value cheap consumer goods, cheap labor, and robust sales over all else. Neos also love to tout the benefits of the "free market" and screech about social spending by the government. At the same time, their preferred industries are seeking tax credits or direct funding from the public coffers.
An example is the prescription drug industry, a neo-con favorite. This industry lobbies to keep the average American from buying affordable drugs abroad, thus interfering with the entire notion of a market economy and insuring a captive monopoly that can charge any price. At the same time, the industry states that it can not lower consumer costs because of the capital expenditure for research and development. This would be a valid argument except for the fact that public money already pays for R&D. So, as you can see, we first subsidize their research for a drug through taxes and then must pay a high price due to the lack of competition. This is the essence of neo-conservatism.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. They spend more on advertising

than on R&D anyway.

[solinvictus]

29. Ads

Exactly, all the vague "Ask your doctor about Dihexadril" without even identifying what the drug is supposed to treat. Then the disclaimers "may cause diarrhea, nausea, uncontrolled urination, nosebleeds, cardiac arrest, homicidal urges, scabs. Do not use if you're pregnant, near someone who's pregnant, or if you intend to leave your home." It's ridiculous that consumerism has taken hold in the healthcare industry as well.

[bpilgrim]

17. the problem is as old as empire...

forcing your 'nobel' values on the other peoples of the world with an often pointed to mandate from hevean no less at the tip of a spear their rehortic designed only to cloak their true intentions of resource exploitation.

it really is an old story but if you would like an analogy of a recent empire that tried it in their region look at japan's program to do esentially the same thing we are claiming to do with an asian flair called 'the greater east asia co-prosperity sphere'

http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/coprospr.htm

disastorous consequense are likely our fate as well if we emabark on such a course.

peace

[FrenchieCat]

25. What's wrong is that they smell like....

doodoo......Since they can't do sh*t right, why should they be taking over the world?????:thumbsdown:

[LoneStarLiberal]

30. Keeping My Reply Strictly to Foreign Policy...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

One of the fundamental principles that you find throughout history is that no matter how noble the intention, people who are conquered and forced to "accept" the intentions at gunpoint rarely see the nobility in them or the positive aspects of them until the guns are put away or the conquerors are put away.

The problems in the Middle East cannot be solved by enforcement of the horse-and-cart model of constitutional design and then free elections.

We won't be seeing any elections in Iraq any time soon. Want to know why? Because it's virtually devoid of any sense of democratic political culture. The people who will step in to fill that void of political culture are the Islamists and Islamic fundamentalists. Sure, we can have free elections in Iraq in the next year, but they will be won by the very kinds of people we are scared shitless of ever having legitimate power.

You simply don't manufacture political culture overnight, box it up, and ship it over to the Middle East to be unpacked. It's a gradual learning process that takes time if it is to be successful. And since most of the Middle East has such an impressive contemporary history of authoritarian rule with a prime dislike for political dissent, the learning process is going to be bumpy and tough.

Sure, a politically open Middle East would be great. But it would also mean a fundamental re-thinking of our relationship with Israel. Political freedom in the Middle East isn't going to change the anti-Semetic tenor of discourse on "the Zionists." How will we respond if a democratic Egypt and a democratic Syria heed their peoples' wishes to invade Israel?

[ant]

32. I agree with you

Wouldn't a free middle-east be a noble goal?

Believe it or not, I do think there are neo-cons (Wolfowitz, for instance) who are sincere when they say this is their goal. I really believe that this is what some of these people are after.

I just disagree with them that war was/is the best way to achieve that.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. No they want to install Chalabi

rape Iraq of it's oil and get someone who won't say anything about Israel's occupation of the west bank. These people don't have a good record where democracy is concerned. Look at Chile. You also know they are lying because they claim the Philipines as there model. They don't even like Democracy in this country.

I think the people of the middle east can create a democracy on their own. If they can't then the US can't either. Tom Friedman is a goofball if he believes these people are liberal and progressive.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

34. Oh, its beyond imagination that war is the right way to achieve their goal

Everything the neocons try to do (war, instill fear, propagandize, connect their goals to 9/11, and LIE, LIE, LIE) is complete madness and should qualify as treason.

Basically, I'm wondering whether their stated goals are worthwhile and noble, or a waste of time. You've all made your opinions clear.

I'm curious--do average conservatives think we should democratize the mid-east through military means? Or is this just a far right neo-con agenda?

[Classical_Liberal]

36. It's a neocon thing

Average conservatives don't typically worry about other contries. I do but I won't be lead by these hypocrites in the Bush administration.

[KissMyAsscroft]

35. I believe they are doing it for American dominance

In their mind, it's us or them across the world.

They want to take control and steal their resources.

It's just sold as "freedom"

It's all about American dominance

[camero]

38. Because it is not our call

Something about the soveriegnty of countries and the right of self-determination. We should accept that. If countries want to change, thier people will overthrow thier government. The neo-cons are about nothing but World Conquest. American Empire will go the way of the Roman Empire.

[Darranar]

42. Two reasons:

A. That's an excuse. The "humanitarian" stuff is pure propaganda to justify the exploitation of the people of the Middle East.

B. War is not at all the best tool to achieve such a goal. Why don't we stop supporting our despotic puppets over there?

[Darranar]

44. Addition...

It's an excellent idea to democratize the Middle East. But it has to be done right.

Here's how:

1. Reduce oil comsumption. Oil money is the driving power behind brutal governments in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

2. Eliminate all aid. Get rid of military aid to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Remove our troops from the region.

3. Get a humanitarian aid package in there ASAP, to help repair the infrastructure devestated by the despotic misrule of the region.

[Q]

45. The Bushies use 'Democracy'...

...as the rationale for invasion and occupation. The same type of rationale is used for putting non-violence drug users in prison while calling it 'justice'.

- You can't shock and awe a country to rubble, kill thousands of innocents, occupy their country and THEN say after the fact that it was all about spreading democracy.

[PVnRT]

47. Neo-conservatism = imperialism

Plain and simple. They are not interested in "freeing" anyone - if so, why were they so against doing anything about Bosnia? Why do they cower away from North Korea? Why do they not give a flying rat's ass about Sub-Saharan Africa? Because there is no economic interest in any of those places.

When you are fighting wars solely for economic purposes, when you seek to exploit another country for financial gain, that is imperialism. And this is exactly why neo-conservatism is wrong.

I'm all for self-determintation - but is it our place to force it on countries unilaterally? No, it's not. That's ostensibly why the U.N. was created. That is the big reason that neo-cons hate the U.N. so much - they do things multilarterally that they would prefer the U.S. do alone, so that they can reap all of the profits themselves, instead of the citizens of the countries they are supposed to "freeing."

[Selwynn]

49. What's wrong is that it has nothing, zero, zilch to do with democracy..

The neo-conservative agenda of empire has everything to do with consolodating wealth and power and nothing to do with freedom and democracy. One look at Iraq should tell you that. If we, the most powerful nation in the history of the work were trule committment to "freedom" in Iraq, it would have looked a lot different.

No, "freedom and democracy" is the code word for a campaign of ruthless self-interest, tyranny and domination - its wrong becasue it is evil, immoral, hurtful and exploitative.