12-02-2005 15:02									#241
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Where does it say anything about realism?

The militant anti-communism part. Nixon was the ultimate realism and he was making detente with the communists (better for US interests).

Read the next paragraph as well:

Over the past quarter century, the neocons have sought, with increasing success, to rid the Republican Party of its isolationists, its anti-imperialists, and its realists. The younger neocons, such as William Kristol (son of Irving) and Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter), have promoted a new right-wing internationalism that holds that America should be both a global cop and a global missionary for freedom.

	12-02-2005 15:08									#242
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Why is a realist either an imperialist or an isolationists? This is a question for those of you who can't recognize one.

edit: last sentence is not clear. this isn't a question directed at Imran, although he can answer.

	12-02-2005 15:09									#243
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: The anti-realism is a smokescreen.

Seeing as how Neo-Conservatism really began as a political movement in response to Nixon and Kissinger's detente, I'd say anti-realism is at the core of Neo-Conservatism.

	12-02-2005 15:15									#244
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I see it this way. Traditional conservatives are basically *******s, sometimes Machiavellian, but really just the inheritors of the old ruling class mentality. They wish to preserve a hierarchical society, but they do not really have any great ideology and tend towards pragmatism when pressed. They don't hate the poor, they just think that they should know their place. In America it is somewhat different with the emphasis on success and wealth and mobility, but it isn't too different.

Neocons are not the same thing at all. They are like the Inner Party in Nineteen-Eighty-Four: accomplished practitioners at doublethink. They share the Inner Party's dictum: to preserve the infallibility of doctrine at all costs, even though they themselves cannot be said to believe it. Hence the refusal to admit facts that conflict with their view. A traditional conservative would attempt to deal with conflicting facts in a practical way (by compromise, diplomacy, rethinking of goals), the neocons just pretend that the facts that don't suit them do not exist.

	12-02-2005 15:17									#245
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Seeing as how Neo-Conservatism really began as a political movement in response to Nixon and Kissinger's detente, I'd say anti-realism is at the core of Neo-Conservatism.

It doesn't matter what it was then. It is what it is now. It's no accident that many of them are former left wing extremists - the same tendency afflicts many on the left.

It's now postmodern politics. That is the best definition of neoconservatism you could wish for: postmodern politics.

	12-02-2005 15:18									#246
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Why is a realist either an imperialist or an isolationists? This is a question for those of you who can't recognize one.

They are both, depending on the circumstances. Realists believe that the international system is anarchical and no state can really trust another. That means that no supranational organization can govern the actions of individual states. It assumes that all states act in their own self-interest and their primary goal is to preserve security. Also they believe relations between states are based on relative power. They also believe that states are inherantly agressive and territorial expansion is only controled by other powers (balance of power or hegemony flows from this theory, depending on what type of realist you are).

So they can be imperialist or isolationist as the situation demands. Imperialist in some cases (to gain more power), isolationist in others (perhaps to perserve security)

	12-02-2005 15:19									#247
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As I said: I don't think they are realists in any sense of the term.

	12-02-2005 15:19									#248
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: The anti-realism is a smokescreen. Seeing as how Neo-Conservatism really began as a political movement in response to Nixon and Kissinger's detente, I'd say anti-realism is at the core of Neo-Conservatism.

That's not what your article says, Imran. I go hmmm when you mention Nixon and Kissenger, but I can see detente not being popular. However, the article says it started as a rebellion against the left going progressively more loonie, doesn't it?

	12-02-2005 15:21									#249
	Tired of ads?

quote: However, the article says it started as a rebellion against the left going progressively more loonie, doesn't it?

If you mean the left actually starting to want to do something substantial about race problems, militarism and imperial adventurism, then yes.

	12-02-2005 15:22									#250
	Suffering from ads?

No, I mean going loonie, like by having a future senator and presidential candidate testify to Congress that American troops were the new Mongols.

	12-02-2005 15:23									#251
	Remove this text

You know I seem to remember from my world politics class that realism is more of a theory of how world politics works. Don't realists believe that everyone is truly a realist?

	12-02-2005 15:24									#252
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: They are both, depending on the circumstances. Realists believe that the international system is anarchical and no state can really trust another. That means that no supranational organization can govern the actions of individual states. It assumes that all states act in their own self-interest and their primary goal is to preserve security

I don't think they really are like that in practice. In practice it's a bunch of rich people's representatives trying to stop the world's poor from taking what's theirs.

	12-02-2005 15:25									#253
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Kid: I see you are fond of Wikipedia, so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations

Oh, and interstingly:

quote: Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Preferences will vary from state to state, depending on their culture, economic system, or type of government.

Seems to speak to neo-conservatism doesn't it?

quote: However, the article says it started as a rebellion against the left going progressively more loonie, doesn't it?

For Kristol and the 5 or 6 others of the old, old guard, but it didn't begin as a 'movement' (as opposed to just a philosophy.. which is why I was specific to say movement) until the mid 70s.

	12-02-2005 15:26									#254
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: No, I mean going loonie, like by having a future senator and presidential candidate testify to Congress that American troops were the new Mongols.

That's an extreme comparison, but My Lai certainly justifies that label, and we know that My Lai was but the tip of the iceberg.

	12-02-2005 15:27									#255
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

No, we don't.

	12-02-2005 15:28									#256
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious You know I seem to remember from my world politics class that realism is more of a theory of how world politics works. Don't realists believe that everyone is truly a realist?

Almost every IR theory is about how world politics works . Liberals claim that Realists misrepresent how world politics work and it works like they say it does. Realist theory pushes balance of power or hegemony in order to secure soveriegnty.

	12-02-2005 15:29									#257
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The wikipedia article says that they have their origins with the disillusionment of the Great Society. Honestly I'm at a loss as for why they were considered left wing. I think it's because the Republican party had so many isolationists among them.

	12-02-2005 15:31									#258
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

It could be because they were a bunch of former TROTSKYISTS! I wouldn't exactly call that right wing thought .

	12-02-2005 15:32									#259
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Plus, the 60s were the years in which people finally woke up to the bullshit they'd been taught.

You had a lot more people from much more diverse backgrounds going in to higher education, and the methods of control (class solidarity, tolerance of deviants as "eccentric") could no longer work. Mass media also helped people realize that their governments and traditional authorities were lying sacks of ****.

Of course this is massively overstated. It was largely restricted to university students and a lot of people who went to university in the 60s were apolitical. But there were enough to make a large noise and it is no surprise that the political right's war on the liberal arts dates from this time.

Heaven forbid that anyone be told the truth about the conquest of the New World or even consider that "our" (meaning "their") side ever possessed anything other than the noblest of motives.

	12-02-2005 15:34									#260
	Remove this text

quote: No, we don't.

Denial is a wonderful thing NYE. Just like Nixon's denials of his illegal saturation bombing of Cambodia. Just like the hush ups of troops fragging their own officers, etc.

	12-02-2005 15:38									#261
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I'm surprised that anyone would still want to defend the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war of aggression against all the Vietnamese people, a people who had been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years.

It involved terrible atrocities like the carpet bombing of civilians, forced relocations, napalming villages and free fire zones. And it accomplished precisely nothing apart from the deaths of some Americans, the poisoning of the countryside and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.

	12-02-2005 15:42									#262
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It could be because they were a bunch of former TROTSKYISTS! I wouldn't exactly call that right wing thought .

You might ask yourself why you take people who have been so many God damn things for their word? How can you say what they believe in?

	12-02-2005 17:48									#263
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The problem imho, with these kind of discusion is that it comes down to semantics(sp?), and too many shades of grey.
The Neo-cons have become more open, and wether its actualy correct or not on who is and who isn't a real neo-con, actualy doesnt matter in the real world.

what matters most is that whomever supports the current political ideology of the bush administration deserves to be tared with the same brush. Its roots lie in the Neo-con agenda period.
These people are dangerous to world security, and will cause decent amercians such a backlash from around the world that it may force the hand to put us all in a 'them or us' confrontation(and as americans you will find yourselves progresivly isolated - traditional allies may well desert you).

At heart i think this is what they(neo-cons) want. A winner takes all scenario. The irony of this is that there probably wont be much left worth 'winning'

We should not play these childish games.

	12-02-2005 19:09									#264
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

sorry for the double post, but this kinda helps in the arguement in one way http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4259575.stm.
Fear is on the political agenda, and that comes from neo-con doctrine as a way to further this agenda. Is Donald Rumsfeld a Neo-con or a realist thingy-ma-jig? He sure sounds like he wants to spread fear around, as he did all through the 60's+70's with what the CIA admitted were false claims against the soviet unions capabilities(see my linked thread below for details).

So i dont really care what he calls himself. He is the danger by what he endorses with his words and postion and actions

	12-02-2005 19:16									#265
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

last one:

and when you add this into the mix i hope all the "but what about 911!!!!" crowd(about which i'm with the victims of that one - not taking part in that slightly distastefull thread about 911 recently imho) will think about all the possible little connections

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4255755.stm

	12-02-2005 19:51									#266
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

* DinoDoc decides to give Imran something to do other than argue with morons over what the definition is and get to how the theory works

How do you respond to the charge that by going into Iraq we have needlessly tied down our Armed Forces (weakening our ability to deal with other threats) and we have severely weakened our hand in dealing with Iran?

	12-02-2005 21:17									#267
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc How do you respond to the charge that by going into Iraq we have needlessly tied down our Armed Forces (weakening our ability to deal with other threats) and we have severely weakened our hand in dealing with Iran?

Show me a Neocon that believes this and will tell you that American values are more important so invading Iraq was the better thing to do. Every Neocon will argue that invading Iraq was the best thing for the US.

	13-02-2005 00:18									#268
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc * DinoDoc decides to give Imran something to do other than argue with morons over what the definition is and get to how the theory works How do you respond to the charge that by going into Iraq we have needlessly tied down our Armed Forces (weakening our ability to deal with other threats) and we have severely weakened our hand in dealing with Iran?

It's actually a good criticism. Frankly, I think the administration has bungled the entire setup and planning of the war. If we could have done it with more allies and a better plan to secure the country, I think we may have seen less of our military tied down there. Of course, that is all speculation (what I believe would happen may not actually happen at all).

I do think we have a problem in dealing with other military threats, but I guess my answer is if Iraq works out (if the administration doesn't **** it up), then it's worth it. It may not be that consoling of an answer, but it's what I can tell you.

As for dealing with Iran, one of the problems is that we haven't worked with the reformers. Iran is an interesting case. It actually DOES have a lot of democratic processes, but with an executive above it which holds all the cards. In some ways it is similar to Turkey, which has the army playing a similar role, though the Ayatollah's meddle much more. I guess with Iran, I would have come at it with a whole different way. I don't think the Iraq invasion by itself would have weakened our hand with Iran, if it wasn't for everything else.

Frankly, I'm not sure I actually answered your questions sufficiently, but it's a good starting point I guess. Perhaps in the end, I really like the theory, but in my heart of hearts realize that it is more difficult in practice.

	13-02-2005 09:03									#269
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I don't think that Rumsfeld is a neocon because at heart he seems to be a decent man.

	13-02-2005 09:04									#270
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker is UR defending the US?

No