The three pillars of NeoConservatism

Originally posted by: DestinoOscuro~LK~

You missed one.

Greed.

The idea that you should not help your fellow man because it isn't your problem. The idea that profits matter more then any negative impact on other involved.

Originally posted by: cimat1984

What about non-liberal leftists like me?

Originally posted by: TwistedLefty

Originally posted by: DestinoOscuro~LK~

You missed one.

Greed.

The idea that you should not help your fellow man because it isn't your problem. The idea that profits matter more then any negative impact on other involved.

total bs
should read- whaaa whaaa people who have more than me want me to earn my own and won't share whaaa.
capitalism > all
handouts create dependance on handouts.

Originally posted by: DestinoOscuro~LK~

Originally posted by: TwistedLefty

Originally posted by: DestinoOscuro~LK~

You missed one.

Greed.

The idea that you should not help your fellow man because it isn't your problem. The idea that profits matter more then any negative impact on other involved.

total bs
should read- whaaa whaaa people who have more than me want me to earn my own and won't share whaaa.
capitalism > all
handouts create dependance on handouts.

You are correct capitalism > all
I agree as I am not a socialist.

Handouts create a dependance on hand outs.
Only if you structure them incorrectly. For example instead of handing out money offer job traning and child care. It's an incentive based approach much like tax cuts and breaks for business growth.

Originally posted by: cimat1984

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0410-07.htm

The first is that they act out of fear. They are motivated by fear of terrorist bands, armed by Islamic states, wielding weapons of mass destruction, even though this is politically, technologically and militarily highly implausible.

What expert using what experience and information would come to the conclusion that terrorists using WMD is highly implausible? After what they got away with in this country, and what they have continued to get away with throughout the world for the past neary 40 years; I'm not so quick to believe that their motivation to kill regardless of they die is implausible.

There is an element of hysteria in this fear, as there was a quarter-century ago when Washington convinced itself that a victory by peasant insurgents in Vietnam would lead to world domination by "Asian communism" and to the isolation and destruction of the United States.

That's a rather broad statement, though ultimately I understand the point regarding irrational fear. Truman convinced himself. Not Washington as a whole. That'd be like me saying "All Greens are man fanatics" even though in reality only you are . Seriously though, Truman started it by assisting the French in their ever yearning desires for colonialization of Indochina and Johnson kept it going. Heck, his whole administration ignored truth and fact and as a result of their incompetence, 57,000+ Americans were killed. That would be a more factual and specific reference to that time period.

Second, they are naive. Krauthammer says it is "racist" to think that "Arabs" can't govern themselves democratically. The problem in the Middle East is not "Arabs." The problem is a powerful historical culture that functions on categories of value absolutes and religious certainties hostile to the pragmatic relativisms of Western democracy. Military conquest and good intentions will not change that.

Prior to World War II before Britain and France got out of control in the Middle East; there was never any military conquest by the US. In fact, for nearly 150 years in that area of the world, it was nothing BUT good intentions. And many Middle Eastern countries accepted it with open arms. The real problem was countries trying to colonialize the Middle East. Even the League of Nations participated in this; and the UN is nearly an exact replica of that. Middle Eastern countries can and have governed themselves for ages; since Biblical days and even before. But with the connectivity all countries have with each other today; you simply cannot allow someone elses problems spill out of the bottle here. That is exactly what created the Islamic Revolution 37 years ago. So islamic extremism since then has become a 'world problem'; and has seriously been underappreicated in terms of priority. Had the United Nations tackled this when it started, as it should have; we'd not likely have the hostilities we have today imo.

Finally, the neoconservatives are fanatics. They believe it is worth killing people for unproved ideas. Traditional morality says that war is justified in legitimate defense. Totalitarian morality justifies war to make people or societies better.

Your definition of neo-conseravtive would sound to me like some redneck out 'yonder' with his grandpappy's shotgun. I don't know anyone elected to Washington right now who would realistically constitute as a "neo-conservative". Additionally, war is not defense. It is offense. Defending is a part of war yes, but war is an aggressive action to eliminate whatever 'threat' is present. In this case, we are 'at war' with (as a whole mind you) the Islamic Revolution. This would include several countries that are in the Middle East where this initiated from. Because the United Nations (as it should have imo) did not act on the Islamic Revolution when it started; it's almost like a free-for-all... countries being attacked by 'terrorists' respond. I really don't see any end to the 'war on terror' until one of three things happens.

a) The United Nation grows a backbone and actually enforces its charter; in essence, punishing countries who sponsor or harbor terrorists and their activities. Ultimatley leading to the demise and death of the Islamic Revolution

b) The United Nations Security Council is liquidated and a org within the UN is established on a much more specific scale guided and fully enforced by the UN Charter and associated SOPs in dealing with hostile nations.

c) The UN continues to do nothing, as they have for 37 years, and those countries being attacked must act on their own for defense of their citizens.

************************

Fear, naivete, fanaticsm. That about sums it up.

Inaction & stupidity about sums it up.

Originally posted by: Coba|t

pheirce, since you're so knowlegeable about liberals, please, give me YOUR definition of what a liberal is.