Exit neocons, stage left

AFF Brainwash ^ | Aug 22, 2004 | Timothy P. Carney

[Willie Green]

The next victim may well be NuCor, hailed only 10 years ago as the 'salvation' of US steel industry...

Yes, Nucor rightfully deserves accolades for being one of the most technologically advanced, productive and environmentally clean steel producers on the face of the planet.
Yet they may fall victim to the two-pronged attack orchestrated by the neocon globo-luddites.

1. Their profitability is undermined by cheap imports.
2. The Administration encourages their customers to move offshore.

The Administration has proven time and time again that it is a worse plague on America's industrial infrastructure than anything that could be imagined by Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Kruschev, Mao, etc. etc. etc.

[Willie Green]

You are equating elimination of tariffs and encouraging free trade as anti-progress?

Yes.
When enacted while retaining the economic shackles imposed by federal regulatory agencies
these trade policies become a tyrannical act of economic war waged against our own domestic industries.

It's similar to sending a prizefighter into the ring, hogtied, blindfolded and handcuffed to be beaten by a dozen thugs armed with bricks, ballbats and chains.

Dante reserved the lowest depths of hell for traitors.
Neocon luddites are worthy of such condemnation.

[ninenot]

See my post #55.

PRChina is waging BOTH wars--economic and military-by-proxy--at the same time.

And doing quite well, by the way.

[Shryke]

Would de-regulating steel result in profitable US Steel?

[French-American Republican]

"Keep up with the times, F-A R; they've added Iran to the list of "next up" targets."

I'm well aware of it. As though another war in the next few years is even feasible. The neocon intellectuals would do better to go home to the University of Chicago where they can make all the outlandish plans they want.

[Willie Green]

Would de-regulating steel result in profitable US Steel?

Please elucidate.

[Modernman]

And should! The world is too big to be "filled" by United States. Realistic policy is not to be everything for everyone - it is to participate in or manage multipolar balances.

We're not a hyperpower because we want to be. We're a hyperpower because no other nation on the planet has the ability and/or the willingness to play a stabilizing role.

We're stuck with interventionism until other nations step up and do their part.

[A. Pole]

Very true:

Dante reserved the lowest depths of hell for traitors.

[ninenot]

We're stuck with interventionism

Really?

Why?

More to the point: cui bono?

That is, for the benefit of WHOM?

[Modernman]

That is, for the benefit of WHOM?

For our own benefit. And for the benefit of our various allies around the world.

We can withdraw from the world and hope for the best. The effects will be even worse than in the 1930's and 1940's. China will fill the gap and dominate the Western Pacific. Islamic fundamentalism will continue to spread. Nuclear war between India and Pakistan will become even more likely.

In the long-run, though, isolationism is just wishful thinking.

[A. Pole]

We can withdraw from the world and hope for the best. The effects will be even worse than in the 1930's and 1940's.

One should not be arrogant about being supreme and "indispensable nation". The pride comes before the fall.

[Modernman]

One should not be arrogant about being supreme and "indispensable nation". The pride comes before the fall.

At this point, the US is an indespensible nation. We would love for other nations to step up and pick up their fair share of the burden, but that isn't really happening (except for some exceptions).

That's the status quo. We'd love for it to change, but you have to play the hand you've been dealt.

[rdb3]

At this point, the US is an indespensible nation. We would love for other nations to step up and pick up their fair share of the burden, but that isn't really happening (except for some exceptions).

I must agree.

What you are doing here is engaging in hardcore reality. Power abhors a vacuum. So the real question is, if not us, then who? One way or the other it will be someone.

You know this, of course. But realists and idealists have a hard time agreeing on anything.

$710.96... The price of freedom
VII-XXIII-MMIV

[Amalie]

Point taken, but still doesn't answer the question of fighting the battle for the culture. I am not saying never fight battles outside of our continent; just don't abandon the ideals and vigilence that keep our own Marxist wannabes in check. Thanks

[Valin]

Why can't they stop whining?

Everybody's got to have a hobby and this is theirs.

[sinkspur]

Any reason all the people Carney just happens to take on are Jewish?

[Valin]

Yes, but it's not 1913. It's 2004.

[Torie]

Why do some folks hate it so, that some other folks that are social moderates, think America should and must have a muscular foreign policy, and for this election, think that mandates a vote for Bush irrespective of some other less seminal issues at the moment? What's wrong with them?

[Texasforever]

how exactly does one define a NeoCon?

In far left and right circles it equals JEW.

[A. Pole]

Any reason all the people Carney just happens to take on are Jewish?

I guess it is because many of neocons are Jewish. So?