What is a Neo-Con

Remove all ads!

Whenever I encounter the phrase 'moral clarity', I think of that scene of Goodkind's wherein his 'hero' butchers a bunch of peace protesters, who are armed "only with their hatred for moral clarity".

I love that guy.
[/tangent]

 

He "misoverestimated" it.

 

Amazing! The person with a one-track mind defending someone who changed his mind. How ironic.

The hypocricy of this line is stunning. Of course he's wise because he now agrees with you. He was wandering in the dark jungle that is neo-con thought but now he has had a revelation and he agrees with Ragusa. Lo! the hand of Providence has touched him! It's a miracle! Now if only martaug could be saved from his evil ways... Give me a break!

 

Dins - I think Ragusa made that comment because of the relentless mindset that seems to pervade neocon thinking, as well as the current adminstration's. In the current political atmosphere, which is quite piosoned with spin, people are condemned for changing their minds over a given situation or issue; yet they are condemned just the same for having a "concrete" mindset if they stubbornly refuse to change. Ragusa's point (I think) is that people will make of it what they wish, or what they want to hear, regardless of which position the speaker takes on an issue. The bottom line is that politics has become much too personal, rather than issue driven. I think you "misunderestimated" him.

 

Dinsie,
I do not agree with Fukuyama. But he's intelligent, interesting and a very deep thinker. And on the neo-cons he has first hand info, and that's the simple reason I posted that link. Difference. Sorry.

Chandos,
to me it is preposterous that the flip-flopping line for some passes as an argument. And from what I gather martaugh apparently is convinced that Fukuyama's alleged 'flip-flopping' somehow invalidates what a neo-con can say about neo-cons and their roots. Fancy that: Because he changed his mind, he is sputtering nonsense whenever he opens his mouth now and no longer worth listening to. La la la.

How was that quote by John Maynard Keynes, another person I like to stress I do not agree with (because I know way too little about economy to say that) though I quote him: "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"

Fukuyama, much to the chagrin of his former comrades changed his mind about the Iraq war – an enterprise that for neo-cons aimed on nothing less than transforming an entire region, culture and religion. Treason! He did so for a reason, however, because he argues that his brethren went astray and somehow forgot about the roots of neo-conservatism, namely their traditional scepticism to social engineering. That is a point worth to discuss. In that sense he is perhaps one of the last remaining 'true neo-cons' – in a way it is so that they changed their minds. Now what? But no, Fukuyama flip-flopped, rendering his view invalid, somehow … at least on an emotional basis. He's a flip-flopper! A waffler! Flip, flop *snicker* That's not even an argument. It's the equivalent of a pack of baboons, howling, and throwing excrement.

And indeed, it is much more rewarding to discuss the neo-cons on the merits of Fukuyama's critique, rather than based on what martaugh perceives as his *insert gravitas* 'track record'.

[ October 10, 2007, 20:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

first ragusa, ummm, there is no h in my board name. please pay attention.

1)while at the project for the new american century think tank, he signed and heartily endorsed the organizations letter to then pres clinton recommending the overthrow of the president of iraq, saddam hussien.
2)he was also a signee of that organizations letter to pres bush after the sept 11th attacks strongly urging the removal of saddam. his own personal qoute from the letter was

now after the pres does indeed remove saddam he wants to FLIPFLOP & say that was not what he meant!
as others have stated, you will never change as you are the most one track minded poster here, so this will be my final statement on this

 

martaug,
my pun.

As for Fukuyama: So he was for what before he was against the Iraq war? Hint: Opposing tyranny, regime change in Iraq, removing Saddam, and invading Iraq are not the same thing.

That Fukuyama was all for regime change is one thing, I think he still is, but that does not mean that he thinks that is is to be done by force, and that his bretheren were right in trying, and that doesn't mean that he believes in transforming the Greater Middle East by using military force. What he had in mind was more along the lines of supporting dissidents like Chalabi, or in the Cold War, say, Solidarnocz. How realistic that is is another matter. So where's the flip flopping in this? I certainly can't see it.

And how does that invalidate what he has to say about the neo-conservative movement?

Your approach to Fukuyama reminds me of the bias line you brought earlier in another thread. If you really want to discredit Fukuyama as the messenger on the neo-conservative movement you better start paying attention to him and his arguments, because you can't do it on the cheap.

[ October 11, 2007, 08:53: Message edited by: Ragusa ]