Skip to comments.IRAQ AND THE NEOCONS' PSEUDO-REALITY
Posted on 09/06/2002 9:06:38 AM PDT by JohnGalt
click here to read article
Therefore, I have absolutely no use for the "ideology über alles" crowd. And I'm sure that the "ideology über alles" crowd has no need for me, either.
Therefore, let us go our separate ways in peace. There's no other solution.
Earth to bonehead - Saddam has fired scuds at a nearby nation that has nuclear weapons. That nation is Israel.
Additionally, Saddam is not the entire problem within Iraq. The problem was the Baath Marxist Socialist Party which gave Saddam the ability to assume dictatorial power. That party game into power by killing its legitimate opposition within the previous goverment.
This line is a classic: "There is no strategic vision, no cost-benefit analysis, no consideration of risks, and no definition of victory. This is frivolity on par with the behavior of Europe's leading statesmen in July 1914."
Even if Iraq were Islamist, it is not the main threat to the US in the region.
How does this vaunted Iraqi/Saddam Hussein tolerance square with the assaults on Assyrian Christians and Jews in Iraq? Or the Kurds, for that matter. Either you're an agent of the Iraqi Secret Police, or you're a "useful idiot." In either case, you're no lover of the truth.
It is currently the main threat to US Armed Forces within the region. Those armed forces would be the pilots enforcing the UN mandated NO-Fly Zones. After enforcing these zones for over 10 years, its time to come to the conclusion that they have not worked and they put US armed forces at risk. The Baath party and its Marxist Dictator must go.
Seeing as how those scuds were armed with conventional warheads, and were not weapons of mass destruction, I fail to see your point.
The no-fly zones are not UN mandated, but unilaterally imposed by the United States. They are a violation of international law and do nothing to advance US interests.
Nonsense. Pat Buchanan was one of the loudest voices calling for concrete action to bring down communism. He was also the one of the biggest oppenents of Detante within the Nixon Administration.
The ideologues pushing Detante were the country-club/Rockafellar Republicans, like Bush I, who are not to be confused with Paleocons.
Under President George W. Bush the "other people" in the foreign policy establishment are guided by globalism's twin brotherby the neoconservative ideology that seeks and justifies unabashed American hegemony. Both strains strikingly analogous to their doctrinaire Marxist roots, and both are deeply inimical to the traditions and values of the American Republic. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States' federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints.
This is an example of the kind of feverish writing that turns people off "paleoconservatism." The habit of calling everyone who disagrees with oneself "Marxist" is a sign that one doesn't have very strong arguments. As with leftists calling people fascist, the effect is to wear out the meaning of the word. When people indulge in this "everybody is a Marxist but us" it's a sign that they've stopped thinking and making distinctions in favor of just emoting.
It may be that the traditions of the Republic have been lost or are being lost. But I don't trust Chronicles to really tell me what those traditions are. Washington crushed the Whiskey rebellion. Adams fought a "Quasi-War" with France and brought the war home with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson struck at the Barbary Pirates without a declaration of war, and strangled our own shipping with the Embargo. Madison went to war with Britain, in part because the "War Hawks" wanted Canada. Monroe cast two continents under our imperial "protection." I'm not saying that we should be ashamed of our history. And I'm not saying that nothing has changed over two centuries, or that we should fight this war. I'm just saying that "Chronicles" has a simplistic and distorted view of history and of the realities of international relations. It's emotionally satisfying, but disproven by historical experience.
The fact that this brilliant, well-reasoned, well-written, non-hysterical article is featured in a marginal American publication--- Chronicles Magazine-is damning evidence of the brutal monoculturalism of America's Ruling Elite; of the totalitarian mindset of the Last Remaining Superpower on Earth--the myth of the "far right" and the "far left" notwithstanding.
We have become what we beheld in the Cold War.
But thanks again for the refreshing drink....
This is a less-than-cheap critique. I wonder why you chose to distill a long, melancholy, well-written article into a tiny feverish red cape to wave before the inevitable charging bulls on this forum?
Are you contending that the root of the neo-conservatism is NOT marxism?
And then--even cheaper than the cheapest bargain-basement shot--you ream the source of the article. Aren't you the least bit concerned that a fine, entirely admissable argument like this finds no other outlet in they-hate-us-because-we-are-so-free America than The Chronicles?
Personally, if you want to see the main sponsor of terrorism, simply take a look at our "friends" in their Kingdom in the middle of the Arabian peninsula. Of course we can never touch them, unless we want oil to go to $100 a gallon at the tank.
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.