If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
What is a Neocon?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I often see reference being made to neocons, especially by those who harbour deep hatred for the Amnerican government.
What is a neocon? Visionaries?
What is a neocon? Visionaries?
0
Comments
It refers to deeply evil, dehumanised, selfish, violent and dangerous people.
Oh and Rich Kid, I'd recommend watching The Power of Nightmares from the BBC2 if you ever get a chance, a really interesting perspective on the rise of neo-conservatism and islamic fundamentalism
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html
or alternatively the top link under Google
http://www.merchandisemart.com/neocon/
What else do you need to know?
Oh, just in case you didn't know ( :rolleyes: ) they also part of the Republican movement.
That just about covers it.
But I didn't really have to explain that did I?
Because there is as much chance of you not knowing what the term neocon referred to as you going to Heaven.
But hey, I appreciate you creating this thread anyhow. I haven't been Rumsfeld-bashing for ages...
I found this link, which surprisingly comes from that grub-sheet the Guardian
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0331-27.htm
It goes further in stressing a lack of obligatory accountability to the citizenry as well, which it deems no better than chattel to be lied to, manipulated and even sacrificed in order to further the intents of power for its own sake.
This ideology is not exclusive to either of the two principal parties in the US and indeed finds adherents from both sides of the aisle. However they may seem opposed on a few social or cultural issues, they are inseparably linked in their allegiance to:
1. the interests of their corporate financiers above their token allegiance to any supposed civic consitutency; and
2. their subscription to the rule of "might makes right" rather than the universal and consistent principle of the "rule of law" (which has no real meaning in their poli-speak since they consider themselves above its precepts).
There are other aspects to the Neocon camp, such as a predominant, if not unanimous, adherence to Zionism (another anachronistic colonialist-era ideology which has no place in a modern world), but the key architect is Strauss (who in fact was one of Paul Wolfowitz's professors in university).
If you are inclined to do some reading, I will once more (having suggested it previously) point out the Brzezinski book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" as a source for gaining an insight into just how flagrantly presumptuous and grasping these ideologues truly are.
Why doesn't the Zionist element deserve to be point 3. rather than an add on?
it's mere rhetoric...basically he's calling neocons deeply evil, dehumanised, selfish, violent and dangerous people. ain't that right aladin
Where do I start spoilt child? Where do I start?
Did the general political poles shift L-R or did the support for Israel shift from L-R. If it's the latter, and Wolfowitz and co. might otherwise have been neolibs, that would explain the anti-semitism that often accompanies chat about neocons - but is some criticism of the Jewish element warranted?
You've got some cheek saying that. Its exactly the things that you always don't do. Fucking troll.
Seconded. he's a complete waste of your time.
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=1348725&postcount=36
On why no one should respond to the idiot.
George Bush and co.
They hype up unreal threats to gain and maintain power. Like the old Soviet Paranoia thing. The Soviets wern't stupid enough to Invade the USA.
But the USA was stupid enough to invade Korea and Vietnam.
Er didn't North Korea attack first and the US never invaded Vietnam, but went to the aid of the South Vietnamese, who were being attacked by a terrorist group supported by a neighbouring state.
And the North Koreans only attacked the south... not the USA. The only reason for the war was a war of ideologies, and that is never a good reason for war.