When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[RGBVideo]

I have no problems with the US doing this realpolitik stuff

You should have.
[IMHO disclaimer]
Realpolitik is evil. It means turning a blind eye into all kinds of horrible wacky stuff by using the "this doesn't affect my national interests, therefore there's no reason to interfere" -bs.
[/IMHO disclaimer]

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The problem with the US is it is using a double standard.

I have no problems with the US doing this realpolitik stuff, but I have a problem when it starts accusing other countries from ethical grounds, e.g. human rights violations.

Is there any country that doesn't do this?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by VJ
You should have.

Ideally, yes, though that will require all of us to think globally instead of on a national level.

So, realistically, I much prefer the US to be frank about what it wants to do instead of hiding its intentions beneath a torrent of verbiage.

Originally posted by VJ
Realpolitik is evil. It means turning a blind eye into all kinds of horrible wacky stuff by using the "this doesn't affect my national interests, therefore there's no reason to interfere" -bs.

This is a complicated and difficult issue.

For one thing, there are only limited resources and a country needs to prioritise its tasks.

[Kuciwalker]

is UR defending the US?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boshko
Is there any country that doesn't do this?

Sure. Have you seen South Korea talking about other countries human rights violations? Other than DPRK, perhaps.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by laurentius
So why did your honour let Pakistan have nukes thus almost starting India-Pakistan nuclear war?

China gave them the Nukes when Clinton had them on his sh1t list.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Sure. Have you seen South Korea talking about other countries human rights violations? Other than DPRK, perhaps.

Actually yes. Past Japanese (at great great length) and current Chinese human rights violations as a matter of fact.

[Agathon]

I think Kidicious is right about neo-conservatism.

Of course we are supposed to believe that it is idealistic and so on, but the Straussian influence should be enough to tell you that they don't really mean what they say. In fact, they don't think that mere mortals can handle the truth.

It seems a thinly veiled version of "might is right" to me. Old style realism was actually more honest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

*adds Aggie to the list .

The fact that they show open disdain for Kissinger's foriegn policy should tell you something. As the opposing views of realism and liberalism in IR.

Though I will say that it is a bit amusing that the Communists who always will claim that "Stalin wasn't really communism", will assign all these horrid aspects to Neoconservatism by referencing those who aren't neoconservative (Hell, Bush before 9/11 was probably less neoconservative than the Clinton Administration!).

[monkspider]

Anyone who doesn't think neo-conservatism is based on realpolitik should read some neo-conservative literature, "The Grand Chessboard", various PNAC stuff, etc. Sure, there are are various nicities thrown in here and there about advancing the cause of Democracy and the supremacy of American values, but these ideas are given considerable less attention than, for example, the importance of controlling the oil, natural gas, and minerals of western and central asia and preventing the rise of potential superpowers like China.

Neo-conservatism is at it's heart simply a old school Bismarckian philosophy given a nice Democratic face.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... no. Neo-conservatism is at it's heart simply old school Wilsonian philosophy giving a military force face.

Bush should probably thank his lucky stars that he had some neoconservatives in the cabinet, because they gave him his present reasoning for the Iraqi war, spreading democracy in the Middle East. Neoconservatives don't give a rat's ass about securing the oil or minerals. They do want to prevent China's rise, because well, that would go against the whole spreading democracy thing. Neoconservatives are also pushing the US to go into Sudan to stop the killing, but they are not getting much push with the administration.

Of course people confuse the Bush Administration with Neoconservatism. I've even seen some people try to say that Rumsfeld is a neoconservative .

THE GRAND CHESSBOARD?! Zbigniew Brzezinski, a neoconservative? Are you mad? You couldn't have picked a bigger realist!

It seems the left wants to demonize the word in any way it can. A right wing internationalist movement is a natural enemy to them, I guess.

[notyoueither]

Funny they chose to 'spread the love' first where the oil is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only if you consider Bush a neoconservative president (which I surely do not). It's easier to sell Bush on turning Saddam's Iraq into a democracy, because Bush, obviously, didn't like Saddam. Neoconservatives are telling the administration to go into Sudan to fix that mess. I don't really see any oil there.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... no. Neo-conservatism is at it's heart simply old school Wilsonian philosophy giving a military force face.

Bush should probably thank his lucky stars that he had some neoconservatives in the cabinet, because they gave him his present reasoning for the Iraqi war, spreading democracy in the Middle East. Neoconservatives don't give a rat's ass about securing the oil or minerals. They do want to prevent China's rise, because well, that would go against the whole spreading democracy thing. Neoconservatives are also pushing the US to go into Sudan to stop the killing, but they are not getting much push with the administration.

Of course people confuse the Bush Administration with Neoconservatism. I've even seen some people try to say that Rumsfeld is a neoconservative .

It seems the left wants to demonize the word in any way it can. A right wing internationalist movement is a natural enemy to them, I guess.

Dude, Rumsfeld IS a neo-conservative.. He has contributed voluminously to neo-conservative think-tanks for years.

Immerz dude, you are wrong on this man, I can say that with some authority actually. You really need to read some of the stuff that these neo-conservatives write. Read some of the stuff by Cheney written in the 90's. Total Realpolitk. Read some of the other neo-conservative intellectuals like Brzezinski. I kid you not, they are old-school Bismarckians at heart. Wilsonianism is only a small part of their larger philosophy. I'm not going to get into a big debate on this, just check this stuff when you have the time some day.

[Agathon]

The fact that they show open disdain for Kissinger's foriegn policy should tell you something. As the opposing views of realism and liberalism in IR.

That's because Kissinger was openly pragmatic and realists are relatively straightforward about their beliefs. I've said it before: you can generally reason with a traditional conservative, even if you disagree with them. Neoconservatives hold reason in contempt.

The core of neo-conservatism is duplicity. That's the whole point of Strauss' political philosophy (from my experience with it as a student of Plato, who is the fundamental figure for the Straussians). They think that public politicking is a shame - you tell the mob about values and so on, but at the bottom it's all about power and no more. But the "mob" could never handle this, so "great men" have to tell them lies (this is a spectacular misreading of Plato by the way).

In fact this fits perfectly with what has actually happened - they flapped on and on about spreading democracy and fighting evil, but it's obviously about dominance, securing resources and Zionist chauvinism. It also explains their disdain for the truth: something that has rubbed off on Bush (who is too dumb to be a neocon), and their ability to reiterate discredited claims until they are blue in the face. Facts and truth do not matter to these people, only power it seems.

It's a mistake to look for a "neo-conservative" ideology because there isn't really one. It's all about presenting the image of a firm commitment to something and that's about it. No wonder people find it hard to define - it doesn't exist as a coherent doctrine, it is merely a simulacrum of a political theory.