Posted on 08/25/2004 6:42:06 AM PDT by A. Pole
Nothing remains stagnant. "Change" is always a constant.
"Change" can be either positive (constructive) or negative (destructive).
Luddites oppose constructive change.
Neocons oppose constructive change by undermining technological development with cheaper, antiquated technologies that are operable by unskilled slave labor.
Same was with the criticism of Communism. So?
Well, if we don't fill the vacuum as much as possible, maybe the Chinese PLA will do it... or the Caliphate, or the EU army... who knows???
But if we're gonna be bitching that some of the architects of the current US foreign policy are pro-choice or favor homosexual marriage, we should be getting ready our red flags with the 5 stars to welcome the "liberating" army.
Shut up!!!
Make it 1913. And that in 1914 Serbia were left alone. The world without WWI and WWII, without Lenin and Hitler would be a very different place.
My definition: Liberals who really really like to blow things up so much that it estranges them from pacifistic liberals.
There is no maybe - United States WILL NOT fill the vacuum - at most it will go bankrupt trying. Capisti?
"You can hold yourself back from the sufferings of the world, that is something you are free to do and it accords with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could avoid". (Franz Kafka)
"Neocons tend to blame their oponents of anti-semitism based on the fact that many neocons are Jewish. It is the tactic inherited from their Communist past when the anti-communists were slandered the same way."
This is true, and I think it's despicable how on this forum anti-neocons are called anti-Semites by some. I supported the war myself, but I don't see how you can deny that neocons are simply hawks looking for which party has a better deal on foreign policy.
PS: Their call for attacking Syria immediately after the Iraq War proves that they're absolutely reckless and that their thoughts on foreign policy should be disregarded by the White House. End of story.
What charmingly discreet way of putting it! ;o)
There are many examples.
One that particularly stands out is steel production.
Contrary to political rhetoric, the United States' steel industry is the most technologicly advanced in the world. Domestic producers are highly productive when measured on a tons/employee basis, and they do so while being subjected to stringent health, safety and environmental regulations.
Neocons, however, have been adament that our domestic industry shut down and consolidate this "excess" global capacity.
The luddites prefer the higher profits they can obtain by operating antiquated, pollution-belching technology that's acquired cheaply on the global market.
1. Who are the "neocons luddites" involved with US steel production, and how are they responsible for its rapid decline?
2. Why would a US steel company, as you said a world leader, purchase cheap equipment and then operate polluting equipment, despite the fact that they already have stringent enviornmental regulations?
It also appears that you are suggesting that Neocons are against global trade?
Well, Alexander the Great differs from George Bush in a couple of major respects:
1) Alexander started from the West, not the south;
2) He personally led his troops across Asia; and
3) Alexander didn't have to worry about PRChina.
There may be some others.
I love that Buchanan logic in action...
Sort of like George Washington, eh...
Forgotten by some is the fact that the Communist leadership (perhaps gone in Russia, but VERY much alive and well in PRChina) had a plan.
The plan was quite simple: spread US forces thin by fomenting problems all over the globe, then watch the USA exhaust its military and financial resources.
On cue, the apple drops.
You don't have to be a Commie to appreciate the plan's elegance, simplicity, and viability. Actually, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than building a bunch of missiles and navies.
Economy-minded types, those Commies.
Keep up with the times, F-A R; they've added Iran to the list of "next up" targets.
The luddites prefer the higher profits they can obtain by operating antiquated, pollution-belching technology that's acquired cheaply on the global market.
And, by the way, they also managed to raise the price of steel along the way, by "rationalizing" elements of American steel production right out of business.
The next victim may well be NuCor, hailed only 10 years ago as the 'salvation' of US steel industry...
Snow, Bush Economic Team Want to Cut Steel Tariffs
Presidential Advisers Urge Bush to Drop Steel Tariffs
Bush Gives European Union and WTO Victory on Steel
2. Why would a US steel company, as you said a world leader, purchase cheap equipment and then operate polluting equipment, despite the fact that they already have stringent enviornmental regulations?
Domestic steel producers were not in favor of the Bush Administration's policies.
These policies were implemented for the benefit of the transnational automotive manufacturers (GM, Ford, DCX, Toyota and VW) over the objections of our most modern, efficient and advanced steel manufacturers.
Nucor chief says tariffs must stay
It is the large, transnational corporations who are pulling the administration's puppet strings to orchestrate the demise of our industrial infrastructure. They view the American Middle Class as merely a consumer market to plunder, a labor market to subjugate and a taxpayer base to shoulder the entire burden.
Not to mention a friggin' nuisance on the roads leading to Door County.
You are equating elimination of tariffs and encouraging free trade as anti-progress? I have nothing against the US steel market in any way, but, if they cannot stay competitive with the international market, why should we support them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.