Skip to comments.
Neoconservatives Push For A New World Order
Knight Ridder News ^
| 05-04-03
| DICK POLMAN
Posted on 05/04/2003 7:29:30 AM PDT by Brian S
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
1
posted on
05/04/2003 7:29:31 AM PDT
by
Brian S
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: Brian S
Repeal NAFTA & GATT
3
posted on
05/04/2003 7:48:20 AM PDT
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: Brian S
A relatively small, dangerous group of very rich people whom with nothing else to challange them, have appointed themselves to influence and guide the direction of the government...
Although they would be "anathema" to the patriots that fought for and founded this great country, it must be somewhat exciting to be part of that group...Beats playing golf every day of the week...
4
posted on
05/04/2003 7:52:33 AM PDT
by
Iscool
To: Iscool
I have met Richard Perle,Wolfie, and worked in Ronald Reagan's/Cap Weinberger's Pentagon. These are serious people looking to improve the world via freedom. They can play the game of golf but choose to play a different game. I find your criticism to be unfounded. This neocon label really should go away. I'm surprised at your apparent insight into what might be anathema to the founders. Perhaps you could elucidate further on why this might be true. The four people I mentioned are not about removing freedom, American Style, from anyone. In fact it would be quite the contrary.
They are not self appointed and have earned the privelege to have an opinion about the way forward. Mind you, it is only an opinion. They do not control the levers of executive action (except for RR) but rather have played a role in shaping the opinion for a final decision by the Chief Executive. I have personally witnessed Geo. Schultz (RR's SecState) trump Cap Weinberger on policy issues. Even now Colin Powell stands in counterpoint to Rumsfield. There are no existing hegomonies in the executive branch, nor in the legislative branch. The judiciary seems to be in a quandary, a quagmire of dissent, one might say.
What alternative to the current process would you advocate?
5
posted on
05/04/2003 8:14:21 AM PDT
by
Movemout
To: Brian S
"In his office the other day, he grinned without smirking." Strange, but I find myself grinning and smirking these days. I wonder if that makes people like Pol Dickman angry?
To: Iscool
A relatively small, dangerous group of very rich people whom with nothing else to challange them, have appointed themselves to influence and guide the direction of the government... Dangerous? What's "dangerous" about killing terrorists and eliminating regimes that fund and encourage them?
What's your alternative, bub?
7
posted on
05/04/2003 8:25:48 AM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: Brian S
We make it easier on everyone, ourselves included, when we aim for the fulfillment of the (non-evil) desires of other people.
Even if we are interested in promoting US security or "happiness", our goals must still include making people of other nations happy.
Life's not a one-way street.
8
posted on
05/04/2003 8:31:49 AM PDT
by
syriacus
(Our tagline composers are assisting other customers. Your input is important to us. Enjoy the music)
To: Brian S
The neocons have been "useful idiots" so far in justifying the thrust to secure the Middle East oil fields for Anglo-American interests. However, if democratic governments were actually installed in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, they would likely pursue the self-interest of those populations and not the interests of the US and UK.
So democracy in the Middle East isn't going to happen.
To: Iscool
A relatively small group of rich people appointing themselves to guide and influence the direction of government...actually sounds a lot like the men who founded this country.
10
posted on
05/04/2003 8:40:22 AM PDT
by
general_re
(Ask me about my vow of silence!)
To: Movemout
As the article states,
(The neocons care little about domestic policy; they think globally) this group cares little if at all about the future of the United States, as a sovereign nation outside of Washington D.C...
Although I support the war on terrorism outside of the United States, I believe the Homeland Security initiative is a total farce...And I suspect this group was influential in that mess also...
What can I say? I'm a Barry Goldwater Republican...
11
posted on
05/04/2003 8:51:32 AM PDT
by
Iscool
To: general_re
A relatively small group of rich people appointing themselves to guide and influence the direction of government...actually sounds a lot like the men who founded this country.Yes it does...But it seems the founders had a different direction in mind...wouldn't you say? (And what happened to your vow of silence?)
12
posted on
05/04/2003 8:56:35 AM PDT
by
Iscool
To: Iscool
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." --David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That wherever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government
--Jefferson Declaration of Independence (1776)
To: Iscool
But it seems the founders had a different direction in mind...wouldn't you say? We know that after the fact, but the people who sent them off to the Constitutional Convention had only the vaguest idea of what they'd get out of it - they simply had some faith in the notion that those men were acting in everyone's best interests. Their faith was well-placed - do you think ours would be less so?
And what happened to your vow of silence?
Haven't you seen that AOL commercial with all the monks IM'ing each other? ;)
14
posted on
05/04/2003 9:03:26 AM PDT
by
general_re
(Ask me about my vow of silence!)
To: Iscool; rmlew; Yehuda; Kaafi; yonif; Chipata
Geez, I am surprised you haven't mentioned "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion". Are you saving that for your next post?
15
posted on
05/04/2003 9:07:45 AM PDT
by
Cacique
To: Iscool
What can I say? I'm a Barry Goldwater Republican. Goldwater was a small government, anti-Communist, nationalist Republican. ...And he was NOT an isolationist. Iow, he fits the profile of most "neocons." Perhaps we can dispense with the ridiculous and intentionally provocative labels and discussion issues instead.
16
posted on
05/04/2003 9:12:09 AM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Mr. Mojo
discussion = discuss
17
posted on
05/04/2003 9:12:46 AM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Iscool
What can I say? I'm a Barry Goldwater Republican...Goldwater's running mate was Curtis LeMay. LeMay had no qualms about using American military power to influence other countries to adopt less malignant and anti-democratic governmental processes.
But maybe you're referring to Goldwater not in his golden-age, but in his dotage--you know, the pro-sodomy and gay marriage Goldwater.
To: general_re
A relatively small group of rich people appointing themselves to guide and influence the direction of government...actually sounds a lot like the men who founded this country.They were Christians and patriots.
To: Trickyguy
I thought they were Masons?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson