Nothing for me to respond to in your post. Lets just see if all of you who pretend that your interest is to keep the Clinton v Trump election thread focused on the horse race issues, can do that or whether you and/or others will go on with making your points (regardless of whether they fit the horse race matrix) in that thread!
Show me, here, where I 'derailed' it! Unless you mean I am not supposed to respond to someone who attacks what I have said!
In the meantime, I wrote a long piece in the "Project for a New American Century" thread I started. I will post that piece here for anyone who wants to take issue with any of it. --- For decades, inspired by habits from the cold war, when America had regarded instability as providing an opportunity for the Soviets to fish in troubled waters, US foreign policy often sought to encourage stability and the status quo against forces that might have upset the apple cart. That all changed with the advent of the neocons and their blue print embodied in the Project for a New American Century: a century that was supposed to usher a period of US-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and solidify America’s place as the lone superpower against the rise of any emerging powers elsewhere. Never mind that much of this project was, from its beginning, a ruse by ultra-right wing Zionists whose main inspiration was their dream of a Greater Israel, and a scheme by the their military industrial complex allies to siphon off more trillions of dollars into their coffers: the fact is that the essential blue print from the neocons tenure in the Bush administration still shapes and colors American foreign policy. That is because while the neocons might not have been around during the Obama administration, Israel still pushes for the same policies that were once outlined for Netanyahu in the 1990s by the likes of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith in policy papers such as the Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. And with AIPAC as influential as ever, with its influence felt on both sides of the political isle in Washington and beyond, many of the debates and much of the environment that colors those debates is still under the shadow of the vision and dreams of the neocons. To be sure, not everything (indeed not all that much) unfolded in the way the neocons had imagined or promised and, instead of Pax Americana, we have a Middle East which is a theater of various wars and sub-wars waged by all sorts of powers trying to fill the gap in the power vacuums that have been created. Certainly, Iraq did not become a successful, pro American, democratic oasis to serve as both an example of the advantages of working with the United States, and a reminder of America’s power to dictate its will on those who would be reluctant to follow its lead. Certainly, the so-called 'war against terrorism' did not vanquish the terrorists but instead led to the rise of groups that make Al Queda and Taleban look 'moderate' in comparison. Certainly, Iran’s wings, whether in Lebanon or in Syria, were not clipped; indeed, the reverse: today, Iran’s writ extends through much of the region from Afghanistan to Lebanon, and the once distant dreams of Iranian nationalists such as myself of the Persian empire reborn are now closer to reality than ever. In the meantime, if a rising Iran has also spurred the rise of a Sunni coalition led by the Saudis to counter Iran, leaving much of the region a playground in the cold and hot wars being waged between Iran and the Sunni bloc, the rise of a resurgent Russia looking like it will be taking over the role once occupied by the Soviets is not what the neocons had promised either. Far from being a so-called American Century, with the start of the new millennium, the neocons managed to usher forces that have at once ruined the very promise of America from within, strengthening the means and tools to manage public perceptions and control American political actions, while making America’s place and position in the world less certain than ever before. Sure, even in the wake of hundreds of thousands of lives lost in pursuit of these false promises, and millions more whose lives were irrevocably damaged, and the rise of groups like ISIS which have made Al Queda and the Taleban look tame by comparison, there might be a smug feeling of self-satisfaction among the neocons still. Israel, from their perspective, doesn’t look any less secure than it would have under the promises of Oslo in the environment of the 1990s, which was what initially led them to draw up their plans. They and their allies have certainly become richer; trillions wasted on these projects haven’t disappeared into thin air and have instead lined the pockets of the groups and people who are their allies and who can sponsor their continued mischief. And, frankly, it is not often that a small group of so-called intellectuals can leave as much influence in the course of events as these folks have. For sure, for better and, for millions people already (and to possibly become billions of people), certainly for much worse, these neocons have left their mark in history.
The first post since our deal already is one that has nothing to do with the horse race! But since it is to thank you, and isn't meant to counter the arguments you like to present, I guess its fine and doesn't qualify as derailing! (To be sure, I find the person who posted that message (@The Jitty Slittter) among the more humane and more rationale posters on Bigsoccer, even if I fundamentally disagree with him on a few important points).
But look at that article. It's talking about self-described neocons specifically. Which is something I talked about in this post. Neocons are members of a specific intellectual and foreign policy tradition. People who really are part of that tradition because they identify themselves as part of that tradition can properly be called neocons. Bill Kristol, for instance, is a neocon. But to call, for instance, Hillary Clinton a neocon is just plain false. And, further, that sort of loose usage is frequently loaded up with baggage because of the way that antisemites have appropriated and expanded the term.
Hillary Clinton was definitely not part of the neocons when they emerged. Indeed, at the time, the neocons were busy attacking her husband, Bill Clinton who was allied with another wing of what was then a more divided AIPAC (divided over Oslo). In fact, while there roots of neoconservative ideology go back further, their vision on foreign policy was laid out most vividly in juxtaposition of the vision promoted by those who were supporters of Olso both in Israel and in the US. At the time of Oslo, Rabin had made the point that Israel's security, in the age where its foes had or could acquire missiles, weapons and mass destruction, and the like, rested on peace with its neighbors not and not on haggling over a few kilometer of territory here or there. The early neocons responded to Rabin's point by coming up with a plan that would essentially enlist the US in a taking out all these groups and states that had those missiles and WMDs! That was the blue print charged by the likes of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith for Netanyahu in 1996 in the Clean Break. But things have changed in the interim. With Aipac doing its mission, which is to promote better ties between the US and Israel, and with Israel facing different issues than the divisions at the time of AIPAC and focused now on the same things as the neocons had charted (in particular since Netanyahu is the Israeli prime minister and he was the one who the Clean Break was written for), whether Hillary likes the title or not, she is now in cahoots with the neocons because she panders to AIPAC.
Wait, so only people who were there at the beginning and their offspring can be part of an intellectual tradition? No one previously from the outside can adhere to some or all of that tradition, even temporarily and attain the title membership confers? That's...interesting.
There are a lot of labels that various political figures will reject or run away from but which others will nonetheless apply to them. Sometimes fairly, and sometimes with justification. In case of Hillary, while I won't call her a neoconservative or neocon per se, she is an AIPAC tool and someone who has and will likely continue to pander to the demands of that organization. And at this time and in these circumstances, that means that she is in cahoots with the neocons,whether she likes to admit it or not.
But no one who exhibits the characteristics may be considered one UNLESS they self-identify, or are of the correct familial strain? By the way, many of modern libertarianism's leading thinkers are and were Jewish. So...
You'll have to ask him. You'll probably end up with a 30 paragraph treatise on some unrelated subject, but it will always, always, always find its way back to Zionism.
Christianity was founded by some Jewish folk. I am just saying, we can blame the Jewish people for that shit. I mean neocons. wait I am confused, is it offensive to call Jewish people neocons or is offensive to call neocons Jews?
While I am sure you don't believe that I am against "Jews" generally, and even though I reject any notion that I have anything against Jews based on either their religion (not a fan of any religion really) or their ethnicity, you are absolutely correct that I am anti-AIPAC. Which means that any Jew or anyone else of any other nationality, ethnicity, or religion, that marches to their tune is not on my list of favorites!
Iranian Monitor, I'm surprised you'd legitimize this mockery of a thread, a poor attempt at trolling by a couple of trolls who can't tolorte or handle alternative points of view. Who the ******** are chad and Knave to dictate what you or anyone els can or cannot discuss when the discussions are serious and clearly relevant. Don't even respond to these clowns, or try to appease them by playing their game.