Gladiator

The issue I suggested for debate was Your characterization of my definition of Neocons as Evil.

The Neocons did not Intentionally set out to Kill anyone for 9-11-01. Their objective was to Scare Americans. The Neocons incited the Islamic Militants, at least partly, by tormenting the Palestinians. Western intelligence could have done more to stop the money changing hands for the 9-11 project, but the Western Intelligence deliberately winked, and did not rigorously follow up leads.

These are the basic facts. Which do you dispute?

It is not a very complicated consipriacy. Managing Terrorism today is not too complicated.

Rusfeld, in my opinion, did a great job of minimizing Western caualties. The Terrorism in Iraq was getting out of hand,and going on too long, and was losing Republican votes, so Rumsfeld resigned, and the Terrorsim in Iraq was quieted down. Too much Terrorism can be too Scary for properly managing the American Electorate.

The fact that 3000 people died seems to be a reason for you to deny that the Necons had any connection with the events.

You are also avoiding the consequences of the chances that my vision of reality may be accurate.

So what if the Necons were trying to figure out an excuse to attack Iraq long before 9-11-01. Killing was not their purpose. Conquest was their objective. If the Neocons could have thought of a way to avoid caualties and collateral casualties, in the conquest of Iraq, I believe they would have done so.

I suggest you defend the Neocons, not because so many innocents died from their manipulation, but but rather understand their virtues, because substantial efforts were made to avoid injuries and deaths in the Conquest of Iraq.

Neocons are just trying to modernize backward areas, and increase trade, profits and Oil for the West. I believe Neocons are making considerable efforts to minimize caulties, while maximizing the fright value of incidents.

You are saying that Neocons could not do what they are doing, so we should not say Neocons are bad, because if Necons Were doing this, then Necons would be Evil.

Neocons are just being Necons, and they are good at it, and they are trying to be as good-hearted as possible. So what is the problem?

How far did you drive your SUV today? Ralph Nader rides a bicyle. Oil Wars, Mary Caldor, or America's Oil Wars, 2004 Stephen Pelletiere, or The Oil Factor, Behind the War on Terror, books about this time in our history. Have you read them?

..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

1069

Alex Jones- July 25, 2001.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

section eight

The U.S. was and is the largest benefactor to the Palestinians, try again.

Prove it.

That you think these are facts which you assert.

lol ya o.k., seriously where do you people come up with this stuff? First terrorism is good for the Neocons but then to much terrorism is bad, where would the mean lie? :eyeroll:

That and there is no evidence that they had any connections with the events.

No I'm just not taking your unproven and unprovable assertions seriously.

Show me one scrap of evidence of Neocon foreknowledge.


No what I'm saying is that no one looked the other way as you assert, and you have no evidence of any foreknowledge on the part of the "neocons".

section eight

Yay he predicted there would be terrorist acts against the United States in 2001 after there had been numerous attacks by OBL and AQ already, bravo.

And provide evidence that all of those countries warned the U.S. with actionable intelligence before 9-11.

Gladiator

What is your version of the facts?

9-11 was a surprise to the intelligence community?

Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and Donald Rumsfeld are not Neocons?

The Necons did not plan to attack Iraq after the first Gulf War, before Bush took office?

The US took full precuations to try to shoot down the Airliner that hit the Pentagon, before it hit the Pentagon?

The US used all diplmatic channels to attempt to persuade Israel to minimize retalitions against Palestinians before 9-11-01?

The Republicans did not lose Congressional seats in the 2004 election, in which Anti War voter sentiment was becoming impatient with Iraq, and Rumsfeld resigned for some other reason?

Saddam Hussein was not supplying families of suicide bombers against Israel $50,000.00?

Saddam Hussein was not sponsoring suicide missions against Israel, and finding 200 Suicide Vests in a warehouse during the US Invasion was a complete surprise to the Mossad?

Terrorist violence in Iraq did not increase until 2006, and then start to subside, with US payments of substantial bribes to tribal leaders?

What are your facts and your sources?

There are articles that support my version of the facts. I have listed references in other posts. You do not seem intersted in the facts, and you don't seem to be using a search engine yourself, for a balanced view of reality.

What do you believe, the 9-11 report? The 9-11 report was a cover-up written by a Neocon mastermind, to support the idea that 9-11 was a surprise.

What search terms have you used?

What references on the Web support my postion, and why don't you like the references supporting my view of reality?



..

Gladiator

The whole approach of the Neocons in key governmental positions was to downplay the validity of any leads about spectacular Islamic Militant attacks. "Ths intelligence is not Actionable!" is probably an exact phrase used by Neocon leaders, when warnings about islamic militants were received. So your position is that Neocons don't exist?

Fiddytree

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are Jacksonian Nationalists. They are merely allies of the Neoconservatives (or the foreign policy hawks that changed the characteristics of Neoconservatism in the 1990s). Cheney and Rumsfeld have no real notions of idealism. Traditionally, they would be more apt to take a more hands-off approach to the concept of the regime. You could say that they are more interested in the tangible benefits of having a foreign pro-western government that takes whatever shape is necessary.

Now, if we are to take a very broad view of what Neoconservatism means, we could perhaps incorporate them into their own little branch; however, the literature out there to support such a statement is perhaps little to none. It is suspected that a number of people who are similar to Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld will fall back into a more realist camp after the fumes of the Iraq conflict and the War on Terrorism dissipate. Which would almost be similar to what happened to a number of the original Neoconservatives: Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and so on, who somewhat fell back into liberal or the Democratic party whilst many Neoconservatives either moved further right or joined with the GOP in the 1970s and 1980s. The difference is that it is harder to claim Jacksonian Nationalists as Neoconservatives than it was to claim Bell, Glazer, and Moynihan were/are.

Scooter Libby is a Neoconservative; though I haven't done much research into that man at all. From the lack of information I have, I would say that indeed, he was a bit of the idealist academic. So I can't really point to any of his writings or of those who knew him best. The only thing I came across once was a piece written by...I forgot, but it was in response to all of the controversy of Libby's contribution to the Plame scandal. The author took credit for encouraging his friend to become a civil servant, and Libby accepted the new position. Of course, he later states that he would not recommend to any of his other friends to provide civil service, because he believes his friend Scooter was given the rotten end of the deal.

Fiddytree

Yes, many Neoconservatives have been forward about their ideas with regard to dealing with Iraq. However, it is to be stressed that for many of them, China, North Korea, and Iran (lord, if there was one person with the biggest desire to get Iran, it has to be Michael Ledeen) were the big threats. William Kristol and others did think that Iraq should have been finished, but throughout the 1990s, these nations took over on the importance scale.

But, does that mean that many of these Neoconservative intellectuals somehow had power over what was going on? That's a bit of a stretch. For many of them, they are just mouth pieces or people essentially saying "pretty please, Dad!", but Dad has the power and often times denies the request.

What happens often is that people grant Neoconservatives just a bit too much power and influence over the operations of government. Indeed, there are a particular many who are influential in the media and some are influential in the government, but they have to operate through various channels like everyone else. Part of the problem is that there is a psychological fascination with minority groups who have a perception of success, and even more fascination if they are despised minorities. "Neoconservatives hijacked the administration" people claim, but what happened is both that George W. Bush was an impressionable person (there were many groups seeking the President's favor, that's what any administration is like), and was personally persuaded during 9/11 that his administration would take a different role than previously imagined.

Now that the Neoconservative vision has been bruised, you have seen Neoconservative allies and Neoconservatives in the administration disposed of and different tactics applied. But where you see opportunity and gain, and proof of Neoconservative plots against the United States, I see coincidence and an opportunity to prove that their ideas hold merit.

Gladiator

The Neoconservative plot is not against the US, in my opinion. Privacy rights of US citizens have been eroded for phone records, phone tapping, and bank records. But this is to give Neconservatives more power against those who oppose Neoconservative projects.

Conquest and intimidation of backward or troublesome nations by the Western military powers is the aim of Neoconservatives, as I see it. While actions by Neoconservatives are often indirect or covert, this does not mean that Neoconservatives are AGAINST the US.

So as long as a US citizen does not mind paying a little higher taxes for Neoconservative projects, and does not publicly oppose Neoconservative projects, (Joe Wilson, Valery Plame) the average US citizen is not really affected by the Neoconservative movement. Some 40,000 US Citizens die on the highway each year, so the chance of gettting injured or killed in a Terrorist attack engineered by the Neocons is pretty small, compared to the everyday risks of traveling on US roads.




..

1069

If "the average American" happens to be gay, or female, or poor, she is.
On the domestic front, what about their moral agenda? Their anti-contraception, abstinence-only, and anti gay marriage agendas? What about their reprehensible (and 100% Anti-American, since it makes a mockery of the ideal of separation of church and State) union with the fundamentalist christians? What about their constant schemes to further cut aid to and services for the disadvantaged? Do you realize how many Americans are currently without health insurance? Nearly 20%!
Their domestic agenda certainly affects the average American. It's just that, if you're not the current target, you might not necessarily feel it immediately. But that does not mean you won't ultimately be affected. You will. Everyone will.