Neo-Cons: Naive, Stupid, or Just Don't Care ?

[ColdBlooded]

Ushered into power on the back of racists, xenophobes, and religious fanaticals.

Encourage such attitudes with Ultra-nationalist & imperialist war/s (including the particularly sensitive regions of the middle east and south central asia).

And then expresses contempt at the idea that such attitudes adversely affect national/international trade/economics (i.e. U.A.E. ports deal)?

Either they are extremely naïve to assume this wouldn’t happen.

Plane old stupid to not see it coming.

Or

Just don’t care because it takes away attention momentarily from their other “more” heinous crimes.

So which is it?

 

[I AM]

I think it's a combination.

 

[ColdBlooded]

of?

 

[I AM]

All three...

 

[ColdBlooded]

why?

 

[DubbC415]

1) because they think theyre always right

2) cant stand facing anyone elses opinions and cant stand being wrong

3) being right is all that matters to them

 

[I AM]

^That pretty much sums it up.

 

[MaddDogg]

ITS BECAUSE NONE OF THEM SERVED IN THE ARMED SERVICES.

 

[ColdBlooded]

that's why they expresses shock/contempt at the idea that racism, xenophobia, and religious fanaticism could affect national/international trade/economics (i.e. U.A.E. ports deal)?

 

[MaddDogg]

Of course its not the only reason...but you will notice the one person in the administration during the Iraq War who questioned the feasibility of the occupation was Colon Powell who had combat experience in a foreign country and knew a great deal about Iraq. Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bush, Cheney etc. did not have the experience of War and of seeing Iraq through a soldiers eyes. I guess I think its an important point to be made that neo-conservatives dont witness what happens on the ground, just make their desicions based on theory from behind closed dors.

 

[ColdBlooded]

what are you talking about? how would serving in the military make them any more politically astute to the intricacies and domestic ramifications of an international company, run from the middle east, taking over the business of operating ports in the U.S.? Colon Powell would have understood this because he was in the military where Rice does not because she wasn't in the military?

yet, even if your point really has nothing to do with military service and is about making decisions based on theory rather than first hand knowledge, how does that change their ability to realize that racism, xenophobia, and religious fanaticism could affect the ports deal? you need first hand knowledge to understand that racism, xenophobia, and religious fanaticism are more powerful domestic political actors than the "free" market?

 

[I AM]

They have their own agendas that they look out for. They have only self-interest, they are only trying to retain power when they probably are starting to realize they are losing it.

 

[MaddDogg]

To clarify I was refering to the military posture of neo-conservatives and not the UAE port deal. You'll have to exuse me but your post wasnt the best written and was also titled "Neo-cons: Naive, Stupid or Just Don't Care" and I assumed we were speaking in general rather than about specific cases.

But regarding that deal I don't think this is an "either" "or" issue or simply an issue of neo-conservative policy. Sure a lot of it has to do with domestic xenophobia but you can only fault the neo-conservatives so much and the American people their share as well. Then there is the real threat that something could come through our ports which is unsafe (even though most of the workers at these ports are union American workers it would be a disaster for the govt if it was thru an Arab firm and they let this go thru)...also to fault the government for making a national security into a political matter (the Dems on security the GOP on distancing themselves from Bush in an election yr), the Bush Administration for not even knowing the deal went through, and that Dubai has allowed a couple of things to slip through its ports (ie nuclear technology) to go to a couple places we dont like (ie Iran) and also made a lot of money from countries we dont like (ie Iran) by funneling their money to designated terrorist organizations. This last part may sound like a crock of shit but I just heard it at a Committee of International Relations hearing on Wedsday in congress for what thats worth.

But if I had to chose between stupid or taking away from heinous crimes Id have to side with stupid, although I think better wording would be "lacking coherent, comprehensive policy."

 

[ColdBlooded]

To clarify I was refering to the military posture of neo-conservatives and not the UAE port deal. You'll have to exuse me but your post wasnt the best written and was also titled "Neo-cons: Naive, Stupid or Just Don't Care" and I assumed we were speaking in general rather than about specific cases.

Take some time to read

Ushered into power on the back of racists, xenophobes, and religious fanaticals.

Encourage such attitudes with Ultra-nationalist & imperialist war/s (including the particularly sensitive regions of the middle east and south central asia).

And then expresses contempt at the idea that such attitudes adversely affect national/international trade/economics (i.e. U.A.E. ports deal)?

Statement. Statement. Question?

Was the puncuation too difficult?

But regarding that deal I don't think this is an "either" "or" issue or simply an issue of neo-conservative policy. Sure a lot of it has to do with domestic xenophobia but you can only fault the neo-conservatives so much and the American people their share as well. Then there is the real threat that something could come through our ports which is unsafe (even though most of the workers at these ports are union American workers it would be a disaster for the govt if it was thru an Arab firm and they let this go thru)...also to fault the government for making a national security into a political matter (the Dems on security the GOP on distancing themselves from Bush in an election yr), the Bush Administration for not even knowing the deal went through, and that Dubai has allowed a couple of things to slip through its ports (ie nuclear technology) to go to a couple places we dont like (ie Iran) and also made a lot of money from countries we dont like (ie Iran) by funneling their money to designated terrorist organizations. This last part may sound like a crock of shit but I just heard it at a Committee of International Relations hearing on Wedsday in congress for what thats worth.

Neo-conservatives aren't, in general, xenophobes. They, (in coming to power, maintaining power, and advancing their agendas), just exploit and ferment the american public's (in general) xenophobia. Just like they do religious fanaticism. It's just a means toward their end.

Why would national security not be a political matter?

If rebublicans were free marketers first and xenophobes second this deal would have gone through. Instead it's the other way around.

One would be lead to believe that the neo-cons are attempting to be free market first by threatening a veto. But if one were to believe this was a "don't care" issue and it's just being used to draw attention away from other things one could come to the conclusion that the free market is just another means to an end for the neo-cons which they truely don't believe in. Just as they exploit religious fanatics, they also exploit people that believe the right wing will help push forward the free market agenda.

This last part may sound like a crock of shit but I just heard it at a Committee of International Relations hearing on Wedsday in congress for what thats worth.

Given the source (not you, the committee) it probably is a crock of shit.

 

[MaddDogg]

After reading your post again I still say it is not well written but thats not the issue here.

National Security is not supposed to be a political matter because it is not supposed to be exploited but retained and advanced. You dont use a national security matter to advance your political career. The Dems and some GOPs have used the issue to say Bush is weak on Natl security b/c its the UAE rather than examine the impact it would have on national security which would be slim to none. GOPs are also using it to isolate themselves from Bush policy in an election year.

But to be fair both parties shot down the deal 64-4 in the house not just the republicans.