|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans | |||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Didn't most neocons start out as radical leftists?
They liked the idea of permanent revolution. At least most of the original neocons were far left liberals. they were called "neo" conservatives as a joke, but they took to the name and made it their own. It's like the hippies grew up and became yuppies, scary yuppies. I like this movie about them: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/bbc_warparty.rm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Yes, but it limits candidates from buying commercials 60 days before a primary and 30 days before a general election but it doesn't limit the media from doing their own commercials because they don't have to buy their time.
You're right. McCain/Feingold is a miserable failure. Not to mention it doesn't work anyway. But limits on what candidates can say should at least be as strict as limits on what people can say in advertisements for products. You can't overtly lie about your product in an ad.But you can lie all you want, mislead, misdirect, all you want in a political ad. {the voice of Yakoff Smirnoff}"In Russia it was called propaganda. But in America it's free speech! What a country!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
I watched the video about neocons that gnojek posted and found it very interesting. So what is the neocon agenda? I believe their primary agenda is on foreign policy and the role of the US in world affairs. This was the focus of the video.
The AEI basically says things like "We think that America should lead the world toward democracy." Vague statements like that. What they mean is "There aren't enough countries out there that American corporations can practically own so we are going to influence the highest powers in government to craft a situation that requires US military occupation of certain areas, thus opening these and surrounding areas for exploitation." What is the AEI, who runs it, where does it get its money? Just a moment...
quote:Yes, no institutional positions on policy!! Basically it's like what Tim Robbins said in Team America:"Team America is financed by the corporations. The corporations sit in their corporation buildings and are all corporationny....and they make money. Yeah."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
No, they chose to be UBL's body guards and unlawfully attack Coalition troops using TERRORISM!
I'm sorry, this is funny.Especially how you capitalized TERRORISM!!!!! That's awesome. Ok, some foreign soldiers are firing guns into your town.You have guns and explosives left over from 30 years of civil war. What do you do? I'll bet you'd call it .... TERRORISM!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Again, they chose to engage in unlawful warfare, volunteered to be UBL's body guards, and highjack US planes to fly them into buildings. It was thier choice.
Man, you are a riot. First off, most of the folks at Gitmo are from Afghanistan.They were mostly just locals who wanted to fight off the invading infidels. They did not fly planes into buildings and never met UBL. And please tell me what a LEGAL war looks like?Not like the Iraq war, surely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
They should be charged with a crime and tried.
Do you think they are guilty before being proved innocent? Some of them could very well be innocent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Is this your opinion or is it a quote from someone else? At any rate, I don’t understand how this statement is applicable to the AEI. Your own video link suggest that many people at this Washington think tank are neocons and have strong opinions on the best direction for US foreign policy. But how does that policy directive tie into US corporate expansionism or exploitation? OK, is this not obvious to you? Just a moment...
quote:This translates to me as "damn a-rabs are sitting on OUR oil!" They are very in favor of CAFTA:Just a moment... quote: Who's really against CAFTA?http://www.stopcafta.org/ quote: quote: One example of what CAFTA could do:Alternet.org - 404 Not Found quote: 'member who worked for Harken? Anyway, this is one example of corporate expansionism and exploitation supported by the AEI. Another example is the Iraq war, but I just don't have time to get into that one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
hehe on another board I got another guy to admit that we owe our freedom to terrorism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
You confuse challenges of confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism with damn a-rabs are sitting on OUR oil!"
Why should the American Enterprise Institute be dealing with "confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism"? Shouldn't that be done by a military/intellegence/law enforcement "think tank"? Not an economic/capitalist "think tank". To me when they say in their mission:"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom--limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, a strong foreign policy and national defense" This means that they are looking at ways the military can open up markets in foreign lands. This is basic colonialism.
I know it’s easy to equate Arabs with oil and the corporate quest for oil as the only real foreign policy goal of the US. But Arab-Islamic fanaticism and it’s eventual realization in terrorism does not translate into the tired shallow assessment that the US is only interested in Arab oil.
Then why are we (the West) even there militarily?I'm not talking about post 9/11. I'm talking about the past 100 years. The west has had some form of military presence in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Why would we give a damn about some brown people in the desert?We don't, we care about what they are sitting on. This has led to clashes and growing animosity between the "2" sides.It has just escalated in the past decade. It's ultimately all about oil no matter how you look at it.
You equate the CAFTA with US corporate expansionism and exploitation.
Because that's what the effect of CAFTA will be.
CAFTA is basically the same as NAFTA,
Exactly, and under NAFTA thousands of American jobs went to Mexico.Whole plants shut down to moved to Mexico. Everybody's happy except the workers that got laid off and the towns that lost their largest employer and tax base. After 10 years, NAFTA has proven beneficial to all countries involved
When you say country, what do you mean?It's been beneficial to certain US corporations and the Mexicans in the new factories. These jobs had to be taken from Americans. The US sugar industry is actively lobbying against CAFTA because they stand to loose substantial government subsidies.
Central American farmers are also very opposed because the price of their produce will plummet and they will be SOL. Since these countries economies depend largely on agriculture what do you think the effects might be?
NAFTA was a Clinton era initiative that has proven successful.
For certain US corporations and the Mexican provinces where they located their new factories, sure.
To characterize CAFTA as nothing more than US corporate greed and exploitation is a short sighted view that does not acknowledge the benefits accrued from NAFTA.
Can you list a few of these benefits?A few examples will do. Free trade agreements are not about US corporate expansionism.
What else could CAFTA possily be about?
Corporations in all countries involved benefit from the agreement that’s why CAFTA is being considered because NAFTA was a success.
Corporations and their stockholders will surely benefit.US corporations can take advantage of lax central american regulations in some areas, or sue the governments for billions whenever the regulations (mainly environmental) appear to conflict with CAFTA. It’s really your misguided rhetoric that's wrong. It’s ridiculous to suggest that US corporations own other countries and that US foreign policy in areas of military occupation exists for the sole purpose of corporate exploitation.
The couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head are Firestone practially owning Liberia and pretty much harvesting rubber in the early 20th century (through the 1930s) using slave labor and Chiquita pretty much owning Honduras and harvesting bananas with labor that were practically slaves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Oh yes, and when this is all done, when everyone has agreed to live in harmony and democracy, when exactly will Jesus come to kill all nonXians and establish his kingdom on earth?
I'm sorry, but that's totally awesome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Why can't you delete posts?
This message has been edited by gnojek, 07-19-2005 12:52 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024