Pax Americana? or Pox Neocona?

Couldn't both be true at the same time?

And, it's not just (or even primarily) "the left" saying such things. But, you've bought into the Republican propoganda, and therefore automatically think it's just liberals who are against the president's policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's practically everyone who believes in anything more than the a Republican majority.

 

Think for myself? Or agree with the French, Germans, Belgiums, Vatican, liberal Democrats, and Libertarians?

 

Here are some - Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Bill Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Donald Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Douglas J. Feith.

Perle and Kirkpatrick were STAUNCH anti-Communists in the Reagan Administration who stood for a strong defense and a strong unapologetic position for America in the world. I'll proudly count myself in such fine company.

KenH,

CMG has asked before and I don't know if he ever got an answer: exactly how is it that these "neo-conservatives" are neo-Jacobins?

 

Ken, please stay away from David Icke. He's a nut case.

 

David Icke is a nutcase.

He used to be a goalkeeper for Norwich and then became a football commentator.

Things went a bit wrong for him when he appeared on a chatshow in the UK (Wogan) and claimed to be the son of God, he predicted that Chile would fall into the sea and that various other disasters would occur - none of which did.

Since then he has concentrated on exposing "the truth" - this truth, in case you are interested, is that there is a reptillian race that can shape-shift into human form by drinking the blood of human babies. Members of this race include the Bush family, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. I am not joking, this is what he believes.

He has written several books that explain the above and how Bush staged 9/11 in order to usher in the New World Order and the rule of the Illuminati - you can find some of them at amazon. Be sure to check out his website - http://www.davidicke.com

 

although, like Ken, I don't see what Mr Icke has to do with the article he posted

 

Yes, Icke thinks he's the Son of God. Perhaps we should crucify him then... actually that's kind of already happened when he went on 'Wogan' ; the classic moment there was when Terry Wogan said "they're laughing at you, not with you."

Icke stands about as much chance of saving a soul as he did of saving a goal when he was goalie for Coventry City and Norwich

But I'm curious as to what he has to do with KenH's article - I admittedly only skim-read it but couldn't see his name mentioned...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I'm amazed that it didn't make it into any of the administration's speeches as claims about Iraq!

 

Um...........sorry: NO.

We went there for only one reason.

 

KenH,

From the cited article:

[T]he ideology of American empire...regards America as founded on universal principles

Does this make me and other conservatives neo-Jacobins who believe Alexander Hamilton when he wrote that "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."?


Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric.

And you would argue that you and PA Jim are no less true believers and prone to moralistic rhetoric. There is nothing wrong with that. Does this mean that you and PA Jim have been neo-Jacobin infiltrators of the Constitution or Libertarian Parties?


They demand, among other things, ‘‘moral clarity’’ in dealing with [the Soviet Union]

would have been an excellent paraphrase of Ronald Reagan. It should also be a principle guiding our approach in dealing with terrorists and terrorist states. Do you disagree with that? For myself, I sure hope that we do.


They see themselves as champions of "virtue".

As do most conservatives.


There are similarities between the advocates of the ideology of American empire and the ideologues who inspired and led the French Revolution of 1789.

If the above are similarities, then I would posit that Reagan and the Founding Fathers were also neo-Jacobins. A ridiculous statement.


The Jacobins, too, claimed to represent universal principles which they summed up in the slogan "liberte, e'galite', et fraternite."

Again, the Jacobins aren't the only ones who claimed to represent universal principles. By this reasoning, Jesus was also a neo-Jacobin.


The dominant Jacobins also wanted greater economic freedom. They thought of themselves as fighting on the side of good against evil...

Is Milton Friedman now also a neo-Jacobin? The Libertarians (both small "l" and big "L")?


Similarly, foreign policy expert Robert Kagan writes of his fellow Americans: ‘‘As good children of the Enlightenment, Americans believe in human perfectibility.

On this point, I would have to agree, they are wrong, if in fact they believe this, but the neo-conservatism of the 1970's and 1980's, as exemplified in the journal The Public Interest, I don't believe came anywhere close to claiming human perfectibility.


those principles as ‘‘rational and everywhere applicable’’ and thus as monopolistic. Greater dedication to ‘‘American principles’’ would by definition increase, not reduce, the wish to dictate terms to others.

These are some incredible leaps of logic. Regarding principles as universal doesn't make them monopolistic. And it certainly doesn't imply a wish to dictate those principles to others.


As Soviet communism was crumbling, it seemed to people of this orientation increasingly realistic to expect an era in which the United States would be able to dominate the world on behalf of universal principles.

I would argue that as Soviet communism was crumbling, it was a natural impulse, not "Jacobin" or even, gasp, "neo-Jacobin", to understand that there is now one superpower, which is the United States and that we should use that position of power for good and to restrain evil regimes and centers of power.


Behind the argument that the United States and its values are models for all peoples lurked the will to power, which was sometimes barely able to keep up ideological appearances.

OK, now, the will to power or universal moral principles?


As if not to appear immodest, he wrote: ‘‘Our goal in the global game is not to conquer the world, only to influence it so that it is hospitable to our values.’’ Later he urged, ‘‘Remember this about American Purpose: A unipolar world is fine, if America is the uni.’’

Because the statement doesn't square with his own agenda to mis-state their views, Mr. Ryn labels Wattenberg's statement as disingenuous. In a unipolar world, would it be better if someone else were the "uni". For myself, I'm glad it's America. Better than Islam. Better than China. And much better than France or Germany.


‘‘Where our cause is just and interests are threatened, we should act—even if . . . we must act unilaterally.’’ A quote Ryn attributed to Charles Krauthammer.

"Then conquer we must when our cause it is just." Sounds like that neo-Jacobin document we sing as the National Anthem.

I've been through about half of the article so far and still find it incorrect at least, and dishonest at worst, to label the views of such old-style conservatives as Perle and Kirkpatrick as neo-Jacobin.

 

KenH,

Part II (continued reading of the Claes Ryn article):

President Bush’s rhetoric began to take on a neo-Jacobin coloring, as when he spoke of the ‘‘axis of evil,’’ a phrase coined by neoconservative David Frum.

Yes, there's a neo-Jacobin term. We must be careful of using such terms to describe our enemies, especially when those enemies are, yes, evil. Sounds too much like describing Germany and Japan during WWII.


Already on the morning after the attacks, when it was still not clear who was responsible, the Washington Post carried an article by Robert Kagan calling for sweeping countermeasures. The U.S. Congress should, Kagan insisted, declare war immediately on the terrorists and any nation that might have assisted them.

It seems to me that regardless of who the enemies had been who had carried out such a brutal attack on our country sweeping countermeasures would have been, and in fact were, appropriate. And, if you haven't noticed, there were and are lots of Americans who think that we should declare war on the terrorists.


The situation required that America act with ‘‘moral clarity and courage as our grandfathers did [responding to the attack on Pearl Harbor]. Not by asking what we have done to bring on the wrath of inhuman murderers. Not by figuring out ways to reason with, or try to appease those who have spilled our blood.’’

Do you really disagree with this statement??


[President Bush] has presided over a massive push for a vastly more intrusive role for government in the daily lives of U.S. citizens.

Would you please demonstrate how the PATRIOT Act has imposed more intrusion by government? Not even the ACLU, when pushed, could do so, according to a recent news report.


In fairness to a politician who is not also an intellectual and a historian, war has its own logic, and it may be premature to draw definitive conclusions about the [P]resident’s statements and actions in the wake of 9/11, which was an act of war.

Well, it was nice, and honest, of Ryn to admit this. Maybe now, we can actually declare war on those who attacked us. But that would be too neo-Jacobin of us.


In mid-September 2002, President Bush sent to the U.S. Congress the [P]resident’s annual statement on strategy, the National Security Strategy, which gave clear evidence that he was abandoning his earlier calls for a more ‘‘humble’’ U.S. foreign policy.

If anyone thinks that the proper response to 9/11 was a more humble U.S. foreign policy, he has his head in the sand.


The report calls for possessing such overwhelming military power as to discourage any other power from challenging American hegemony or developing weapons of mass destruction.

Not a bad plan. The closest Western alternatives to the U.S. as "the uni", besides Great Britain, being France and Germany, I'm glad it's us. Given that the more likely challenges are likely to come from such as North Korea, China, and militant Islam, yes, we should be in a position to discourage them from challenging us, because if they challenge us, and we are not in a position to respond, a vacuum then exists, a vacuum they would quickly fill where possible. And, as I've said before, once our allies perceive our backing out of our leadership role in the world, they will take notice of the changed balance of power and ally themselves with such evil regimes. As I've also said before, if we isolate ourselves in the world, we will find ourselves isolated and alone--and threatened.


It overturns the old doctrines of deterrence and containment.

You might go back and read some history of the Reagan Administration. Bush doesn't overturn those doctrines, Reagan did. And guess what, the Soviet Union wasn't contained, it was transcended.


In explaining the report [ National Security Strategy of the United States of America ], a senior administration official said that besides leading the world in the war against terrorists and ‘‘aggressive regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction,’’ the United States should preserve the peace, ‘‘extend the benefits of liberty and prosperity through the spread of American values,’’ and promote ‘‘good governance.’’

Is there something wrong-headed or evil about promoting American values and good governance?


But neither president followed any sustained, consistent strategy. By contrast, the Bush Doctrine as set forth in the National Security Strategy

Bush 41 also published a National Security Strategy of the United States of America, as I think did President Clinton.


Reservations expressed in Europe and elsewhere about American unilateralism and global aspirations

Pardon me, but I could not give a dime over [German] or [French] reservations. And why would anyone with an isolationist view care either, for that matter?


It seems to the proponents of the ideology of American empire that, surely, America the virtuous is entitled to dominate the world.

It "seems" that way to anyone not following the argument. It is not that we are entitled to, it is that we are placed in such position by the reality of the demise of our former "main enemy" and that, now in such position, we should use it for good.


As Ronald Reagan preached, the idealistic utopians and the well meaning are responsible for some of the world’s worst evils. Self-righteousness blinds one to one’s own sins.

This statement simply demonstrates the ignorance of Mr. Ryn about Reagan's realism, which was not simply that utopianism was responsible for evil, but that there are evil utopians who must be resisted. Remember, it was Reagan who spoke of the United States as a "shining city on a hill", a rather utopian concept, it seems to me.

 

There is no question that there are some disturbing signs coming from the present administration when it comes to Iraq and any further action that may be instigated in that region. Bush seems to be of the Christian reconstructionist persuasion. He has said, among other things, that his goal is world peace. Scripture says that this will never happen until Christ comes again. However, the anti-christ will bring a false, but very believable peace when he comes. The anti-christ will "appear" much more Christian than what most would probably believe.
Just something to think about.

In Christ's Love

Joe Elliott
http://members.aol.com/joe4jesus/index.htm

 

Did anyone notice that the administration is getting us warmed up to accept the US bailing out of Iraq before presidential elections?

The plan seems to be to declare victory and evacuate.

Only problem is, with Saddam gone, Al-Quaeda and shiite radicals are in the driver's seat.

It appears that the security of the United States is about to take a back seat to political realities.

 

No, it's the Democrats who want to cut and run. Especially Howard Dean--whom the conservatives seem to prefer to Bush. Bush himself is not going to cut and run as Napoleon did when he got to Moscow and found himself without supplies. Bush is going to stand and fight. The question is what will the Democrats do. They will probably fold their tents and fade into the pre-dawn like Arabs.

 

CMG,

According to lots of folks here, the biggest thing the Democrats have going for them is that they're not Bush. It's not much, but personally I find some small comfort in the vice versa.

 

FTR, you are one hundred percent correct in my book!

Imagine life under the abortionist Dean, who will enact whatever Clinton shied from as well as cut and run in the war. Give me Bush--warts and all. The GOP has not had both houses of Congress and the White House since Eisenhower. Because the mess cannot be cleaned up in a day, some people are wanting to go back to their old political bosses in the Democrat Party and ask the Democrats to take over again.

They say that the third year is the low point for all Presidents. So I guess that this is just politics as usual. Sure I like Judge Moore, but let him run for Governor before he runs for President. The Democrats ain't got nobody right now. It happens to all parties.