|
|
#41
10-29-2007, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't know anything about information clearing house. What's so bad about them? [/ QUOTE ] Look at the home page. Any moron who isn't an unabashed hypocritical propogandist wouldn't associate anything he wrote with them. [/ QUOTE ] do you realize that informationclearinghouse is REPRINTING texts published elsewhere? the specific article borodog just linked to first appeared in 1997 in the rothbard-rockwell report. would this source be more respectable?...... OOOPS! here it is also in the FREE REPUBLIC website!! HOLLA 
|
|
#42
10-29-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda
[ QUOTE ]
This forum could use more serious Zeno posts. I'm using "more" as an adjective, not an adverb. [/ QUOTE ]this forum could use more andyfox posts- edit adverb is better
|
|
#43
10-29-2007, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda
"an impossible and perpetual task"
Exactly journalist Walter Lippman's criticism of the Truman Doctrine at the beginning of the Cold War. The parallels abound.
|
|
#44
10-29-2007, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda
Integrity and principle are not my watchwords. It's what people do that matters to me, not what they say about what they do.
|
|
#46
10-29-2007, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda
Things are rarely black and white. The architects of American Cold War policy did fear the Soviets and what their godless authoritarianism would mean for the world. They also feared what it would mean for their wallets.
But the myth of American isolationism is exactly that, a myth. Study of virtually any American war will show the duplicity and fallaciousness of our leaders' justifications for that war. One reads, for example, with incredulity of Americans' surprise at how Cuba "fell" into our hands with the defeat of Spain in 1898; yet America had coveted and actively pursued acquisition and domination of Cuba since 1776 (and before). And then, of course, we are shocked, SHOCKED, when Cubans "turn" on us for an alignment with our avowed enemy. And lest readers of this forum think this is ancient history, it's not ancient to Cubans (or Iranians, or Vietnamese, or Guatemalans, or Nicaraguans, or . . . ). The embargo on Castro follows a straight line back to the idea that we know what's better for Cubans than they, benighted natives of the enervated tropics, could ever know for themselves.
|
|
#47
10-29-2007, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "How convenient for the neo-conservatives that 9/11 came along" I believe that the war in Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 and that 9/11 was an excuse, not the reason, for the war. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. [ QUOTE ] That said, are you implying anything beyond that with "how conveient"? [/ QUOTE ] Not in the slightest. As we both agree, some sort of justification would have been manufactured or maneuvered to, just like the last 50 US military interventions. It's just that Osama bin Laden served them up the perfect justification for perpetual war on a spent-uranium platter. [/ QUOTE ] The timing seems a bit odd, perhaps. In Iraq, the justification for war now extends to keeping the peace and democratic nation-building, likely an impossible and perpetual task, considering the various Iraqi factions' animosities for each other and their struggles for power. It also worth noting that bin Laden merely took the lukewarm war Islam was already waging against the West, and made it hotter. The recent stages of this war have been building for a few decades, but truthfully, since the time of Muhammad Islam has always been at war against the West, albeit in widely varying temeratures. The West, though, has only sometimes been at war with Islam. What disturbs me most about the whole scenario is the Neo-Cons' faith in America's ability to rapidly transform the Middle East and to remake it in a Western democratic image. In simple terms, it just "ain't gonna happen." Yet the Neo-Cons would have us waging war there in perpetuity, eternally in search of an ephemeral goal, and at ever-increasing expenses, losses, and debts. In sum, I think it is fair to say that the Neo-Cons are well into the process or ruining America - and I do mean literally ruining, both economically and otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] " ... the operative principles dictating U.S. support and hostility in the Third World have been business criteria first, military convenience second, and any humanistic considerations third and thus effectively irrelevant. In fact, they are less than irrelevant -- they are in conflict with the first two criteria, and therefore ... humanizing forces [become] 'threats'." - Edward Herman, economist and media analyst
|
|
#49
10-29-2007, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "How convenient for the neo-conservatives that 9/11 came along" I believe that the war in Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 and that 9/11 was an excuse, not the reason, for the war. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. [ QUOTE ] That said, are you implying anything beyond that with "how conveient"? [/ QUOTE ] Not in the slightest. As we both agree, some sort of justification would have been manufactured or maneuvered to, just like the last 50 US military interventions. It's just that Osama bin Laden served them up the perfect justification for perpetual war on a spent-uranium platter. [/ QUOTE ] The timing seems a bit odd, perhaps. In Iraq, the justification for war now extends to keeping the peace and democratic nation-building, likely an impossible and perpetual task, considering the various Iraqi factions' animosities for each other and their struggles for power. It also worth noting that bin Laden merely took the lukewarm war Islam was already waging against the West, and made it hotter. The recent stages of this war have been building for a few decades, but truthfully, since the time of Muhammad Islam has always been at war against the West, albeit in widely varying temeratures. The West, though, has only sometimes been at war with Islam. What disturbs me most about the whole scenario is the Neo-Cons' faith in America's ability to rapidly transform the Middle East and to remake it in a Western democratic image. In simple terms, it just "ain't gonna happen." Yet the Neo-Cons would have us waging war there in perpetuity, eternally in search of an ephemeral goal, and at ever-increasing expenses, losses, and debts. In sum, I think it is fair to say that the Neo-Cons are well into the process or ruining America - and I do mean literally ruining, both economically and otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] " ... the operative principles dictating U.S. support and hostility in the Third World have been business criteria first, military convenience second, and any humanistic considerations third and thus effectively irrelevant. In fact, they are less than irrelevant -- they are in conflict with the first two criteria, and therefore ... humanizing forces [become] 'threats'." - Edward Herman, economist and media analyst [/ QUOTE ] This sounds like Chomsky EDIT: didn't see Luxoris' post...
|
|
#50
10-29-2007, 08:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda
[ QUOTE ]
"Edward Herman, economist and media analyst and Chomsky pal and confederate 'nuff said [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand this willful ignorance. Just because he is associated with Chomsky his argument is automatically false?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
