What is a neo-con?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Neo-con 101 There is also a link to a quiz to determine if you are a neo-con.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rehmwa 2]

I'm not going to read the link. I'm just waiting for the glorious entertainment that will be Amazon's response. All other definitions will pale in contrast.

this is going to be great

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ryoder 1,590]

A neo-con is a liberal who just got mugged.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[NCclimber 0]

I'm a realist

Quote

Realist

Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

[SpeedRacer 1]

dammit, I can't get the quiz to work! when I click on the link to get the results I get a 404.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[NCclimber 0]

I got that, too.

I hit the back button and all my answers were still there. Hit "quiz results" button a 2nd time and it worked.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I started this thread because I've occasionally run into people here who either don't know what a neo-con is, or think it's just a pejorative label & doesn't mean much, or whatever.

Here's another link which explains the Neo-con manifesto in their own words:

http://www.newamericancentury.org

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Para_Frog 1]

If you're under 30 and a conservative, you have no heart...

If you're over 30 and a liberal, you have no brain.

- Unknown

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[Amazon 7]

Quote

From the Article

What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.



But I would add to that.....

AS LONG AS THEY NOR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS DO NOT HAVE TO BE PART OF THAT PROJECTION OF POWER

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

AS LONG AS THEY NOR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS DO NOT HAVE TO BE PART OF THAT PROJECTION OF POWER

Have any past Presidents forced their children to participate in military involvements?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Have any past Presidents forced their children to participate in military involvements?

They Also Served
As with TR's sons in World War I, all four of FDR's sons -- James, Elliott, Franklin Jr., and John -- served in the military in World War II. However, unlike his cousin TR, whose beloved son Quentin was killed in action, FDR saw all of his sons return home, having survived their service.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/tguide/f_roosevelt_dk.html


Not so long ago," they write, "the sons of presidents, bankers and oilmen regularly served. ... Now, however, not one grandchild from those powerful dynasties [the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Sulzbergers, the Bushes] serves."

In 1956, 400 out of 750 in Princeton's graduating class went into the military. In 2004, it was 10 out of 1,100. And Princeton led the Ivy League. Only 5 percent of today's Congress are veterans, and only seven have a child serving in the military.

As Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer point out, much of the upper class in America believes that service is not for "our kind." A wealthy friend of Schaeffer's told him, "I'd be horrified if my son volunteered."

In contrast to Vietnam, Americans of all classes profess great trust and pride in their military, even as they've soured on the current war. But that doesn't mean that they'd serve. I know. I, too, became a member of the military family when my son became an officer in the Navy. When he applied to the ROTC, a friend said to me earnestly, "Can't you stop him?"



http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=1407


Right back at you Mister NC

[NCclimber 0]

Did they have to serve? Or did they volunteer?

I ask because I frequently hear hear stupid claims about Bush et al should send their children to fight in Iraq. Military service is voluntary.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Not so long ago," they write, "the sons of presidents, bankers and oilmen regularly served. ... Now, however, not one grandchild from those powerful dynasties [the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Sulzbergers, the Bushes] serves."

In 1956, 400 out of 750 in Princeton's graduating class went into the military. In 2004, it was 10 out of 1,100. And Princeton led the Ivy League. Only 5 percent of today's Congress are veterans, and only seven have a child serving in the military.
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=1407

What is your point?

Does this have anything to do with Neo-cons?

[Amazon 7]

In earlier times it was EXPECTED.... with great rewards come great responsibility.

[shropshire 0]

[SIDE-BAR]

<< with great rewards come great responsibility.>>


I love that... do you think that anyone lives that value anymore?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

In earlier times it was EXPECTED.... with great rewards come great responsibility.

Tell it to the young people in your family and community.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Tell it to the young people in your family and community.

I did... and he did

Many of my younger cousins are serving or HAVE served.



Most of the NEO-CONS..... want all the rewards....but are not willing to take the responsibility that patriotism requires.

[Para_Frog 1]

...And I don't want them, nor do I want the liberal douchebags not willing to dirty their hands with the blood of freedom under my command.

My men volunteered. I don't want someone under me by coercion or compulsion.

I want meat-eaters willing, eager even, to do the bad things that must be done. So that those who choose not to retain that option.

I have no problem with fighting so others don't have to. And they shouldn't be openly ridiculed for it. I don't want my daughter to go into harm's way, but if she does...daddy's gonna show her how to win BIG.

But when people bitch and whine about things they refuse to change first hand...just consider the source.

Been doing it for years and years.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Most of the NEO-CONS..... want all the rewards....but are not willing to take the responsibility that patriotism requires.

It seems that a very small, very vocal minority keep making that claim over and over and over....

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I love that... do you think that anyone lives that value anymore?

That is one thing I do respect about your royals.

They do live it.
Perhaps the Heir may not be in a rush to go into really nasty places.. but the Spare.. The Duke of York... sure has.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070517-1101-royals-military.html

Military service in Queen Elizabeth II's immediate family:
QUEEN ELIZABETH II: In 1945, then-Princess Elizabeth joined the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service and reached the rank of junior commander and was trained as a driver.



PRINCE PHILIP: Joined the Royal Navy in 1939; saw active service in the World War II, rising to the rank of Lieutenant.
PRINCE CHARLES, Spent six months in 1971 learning to fly jet aircraft and obtaining his Royal Air Force wings and entered the Royal Navy; qualified as a helicopter pilot in 1974; joined 845 Naval Air Squadron and in 1976, took command of his own ship; holds the rank of vice admiral in the Royal Navy, lieutenant general in the army and air marshal in the Royal Air Force.

PRINCESS ANNE: Holds a number of honorary titles in the British and Commonwealth armed services.

PRINCE ANDREW: Served for 22 years in the Royal Navy as a helicopter pilot, seeing active service during the Falklands Campaign of 1982.

PRINCE EDWARD: Spent three years in the Royal Marines as a University Cadet but, after graduating from Cambridge, decided to leave to pursue a career in theatrical production.

PRINCE WILLIAM: Entered the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2006 to begin his training as an army officer; plans to join the Household Cavalry, with the aim of becoming an armored reconnaissance troop leader.

PRINCE HARRY: Graduated from Sandhurst as an army officer in 2006; joined the Household Cavalry as an armored reconnaissance troop leader

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It seems that a very small, very vocal minority keep making that claim over and over and over....

Look to your Administration... they are the poster child for this....

Personally I think those who do have something or someone to lose to military adventures are not as quick to resort to using the military... unlik our CURRENT leadership.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems that a very small, very vocal minority keep making that claim over and over and over....

Look to your Administration... they are the poster child for this....

Personally I think those who do have something or someone to lose to military adventures are not as quick to resort to using the military... unlik our CURRENT leadership.

"My administration"? LOL Classic Amazon... like it's some how mine, but not your's.

Do you think past "war" presidents let the participation of their offspring determine how best to pursue the war effort? "Juniors in that theater... we'd better retreat so he doesn't get shot".

This whole "chickenhawk" business of elected leaders (and their advisors) not having the right to deploy troops, unless they served and are willing to make their children serve is some of the dumbest shit I hear... getting repeated ad nauseam, like it's a legitimate point.

It's a pretty safe bet our next President will not have served. Will you use that against them, if they deploy troops?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

This whole "chickenhawk" business of elected leaders (and their advisors) not having the right to deploy troops, unless they served and are willing to make their children serve is some of the dumbest shit I hear... getting repeated ad nauseam.

Just like the "Hitler" trick...it's an easy way to silence the opposition and poison the argument.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Just like the "Hitler" trick...it's an easy way to silence the opposition and poison the argument.

Nah these guys incompetence points more towards Mussolini's brand of fascism.

[Para_Frog 1]

Here you two...

Fascism

Liberals constantly comparing ANYTHING in the U.S. to fascism is an insult to anyone who suffered under real fascism.

Try your heroes: Castro, or Chavez, or Il. (That would be Fascism kiddies)

You wouldn't know real oppression or human rights violations if they slapped you in the face.

But talking point parroting is much more entertaining than education, so do continue...

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member