interdictor: Neocons

interdictor (

interdictor) wrote,
@ 2007-09-24 11:07:00

Neocons
Whenever you hear someone whine about the "rules of engagement" for our troops, you're hearing a cry for indiscriminate killing. And the people pushing for a policy of slaughter ostensibly to bring freedom to Iraq (and Iran) are, of course, the pro-war, religionist socialists we know as the neoconservatives. A neoconservative is neither neo or conservative. They are not neo, because central planning has been with us for centuries, and they're not conservative because they have nothing but disdain for freedom and free markets, prefering to turn to the federal government to "solve" problems. I say religionist and not Christian, because while they do pay lip service to some passages in the scripture, they ignore all of the defining themes of Christ's message according to the gospels: love thy neighbor as thyself and turn the other cheek.

I'm not sure where preemptive assaults on Iraq and Iran are found in the doctrine of love thy enemy and turn the other cheek, but I'm sure if Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly put their heads together, they could fabricate something resembling an argument.

What the hell is wrong with people?

Ron Paul needs to win this election.

(Post a new comment)

	jost 2007-09-24 03:16 pm UTC (link)
	Ron Paul needs to win this election. The truth is in here. (Reply to this)

taumeson
2007-09-24 03:50 pm UTC (link)

As a liberal, let me thank you for posting this as a true conservative.

Also, you ever hear of Dominionism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

Basically it's what you get when you mix fundamentalist Christianity with a belief that America should be a theocracy. It's how we got General Boykin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin#Religious_views_and_comments

Don't mean to hijack your post, it's just that I feel that the neoconservative viewpoint stems from the idea of christian dominionism, especially vis a vis the Israel connection.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	jdigital 2007-09-25 03:05 am UTC (link)
	Conservapedia, meanwhile, argues that dominionism is a made-up liberal myth for something that doesn't exist; another in a long list of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia. They can't both be right! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

taumeson
2007-09-25 01:19 pm UTC (link)

oh, i'm certainly not suggesting they're both right.

dominionists don't necessarily call themselves dominionists, fyi.

from religioustolerance.org:

"Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order."

so....that's happening. look at the rise of home-schooled kids, the rise of colleges like Bob Jones U. and Liberty U., and look at the prevalence of kids from those universities in positions of power in the current executive branch of government.

as far as the label of "dominionist", well....just cause some schmuck who hates blacks doesn't label himself as racist doesn't mean you can't apply the label to him appropriately.

["I'm not racist or anything," he said. "It's just, some people I hate, some people I don't get along with. And black people just happen to be the ones because they think they're better than everyone else."]

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)

	phanatic 2007-09-24 04:15 pm UTC (link)
	Whenever you hear someone whine about the "rules of engagement" for our troops, you're hearing a cry for indiscriminate killing. No way you just said that. (Reply to this) (Thread)

taumeson
2007-09-25 01:12 pm UTC (link)

i can't think of anybody i know who would be more qualified to say it.

i think the point is incredibly valid...to restate:

the rules of engagement are written such that you are 100% allowed (and expected) to kill your enemy in many different fashions. if that's not enough for you and you need to whine, well, all you're doing is asking to be let off the hook for killing indiscriminately.

the geneva conventions mention enemy combatants..uniformed members of a country's armed services. the rules of engagement clearly state that you are to kill them. when you can't tell the difference between your enemy and a civilian (any civilian, no matter what country, nationality, race, creed, etc. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED YOUR ENEMY) then you cannot discriminate enough to know who to shoot. ergo, you would be asking to kill indiscriminately.

that's a little stream of consciousness for you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	spellingwitch 2007-10-05 07:19 pm UTC (link)
	Oh you mean like how Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists always make sure to target "uniformed memebers of a country's armed services"? At least when the geneva conventions were followed, soldiers actually called a temporary truce out of respect for things like Christmas. Now we can't even have Christmas trees on government property. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

taumeson
2007-10-05 07:23 pm UTC (link)

1. al-qaeda and other fundamentalists don't pretend to follow the geneva conventions
2. al-qaeda and other fundamentalists aren't considered regular army
3. al-qaeda and other fundamentalists are criminals more than they are the "enemy"
4. are you saying we should stoop to their level? the united states military is well known for being one of the most professional armed forces (if not THE MOST professional armed force) in the world, which is why we need to police ourselves so damn hard and punish those who break the rules. we should never stoop to shooting/torturing people that are not the enemy.

remember, a guilty person isn't the enemy either. they're merely guilty of a crime. an "enemy" is a political creation designed to tell you who to kill during wartime.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	spellingwitch 2007-10-05 07:49 pm UTC (link)
	1. no kidding 2. no kidding 3. um, tell that to New York City - how is a criminal intent on killing you not your enemy?? someone intent on killing you is the most simplistic enemy there is! 4. of course I am not saying that 5? - that statement is such twisted logic I am not even going to bother to respond. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	plain old hypocrisy thepunkpanther 2007-09-24 04:37 pm UTC (link)
	the neo-cons are hypocritical assholes. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: plain old hypocrisy chuckles48 2007-09-24 07:17 pm UTC (link)
	As opposed to the hard-right conservatives, who are "burn down the barn rather than let the horse get away" assholes. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	meatloaf125 2007-09-24 05:19 pm UTC (link)
	Ron Paul? My money's on Barack Obama. -Alex (Reply to this)

	veryunderstated 2007-09-24 07:25 pm UTC (link)
	Ron Paul FTW! I am glad there are actually other people that support him. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	havoknkaos 2007-09-24 09:43 pm UTC (link)
	There are lots of people that support him. (Reply to this) (Parent)

jdigital
2007-09-25 03:03 am UTC (link)

Ron Paul won't win because people on the internet are too lazy to actually vote. The average person will vote for whoever they intuitively feel is the best president.

Criticizing a Christian for not adhering to the teachings of Christ is fruitless. The most vocal Christians and Christian groups in America, largely inclusive of Protestant sects of Christianity, value the four gospels themselves as one of the less important sections of the Bible. Jesus' quite explicit teachings prohibiting divorce and endorsing pacifism are quietly ignored.

(Reply to this)

	eternity_4_life 2007-09-25 03:36 pm UTC (link)
	well said! (Reply to this)

mecurtin
2007-09-26 11:19 am UTC (link)

they're not conservative because they have nothing but disdain for freedom and free markets

But belief in the free market isn't *essentially* conservative. That's why in 19th-century Europe, supporting the power of the free market made you a "liberal" (from the word for "free"), while those who supported the aristocracy were the "conservatives".

"Conservative" means "a supporter of the status quo, one who believes things shouldn't change." The question is, what are you conserving?

In the area of politics, then, a "conservative" must mean someone who supports the power structures we already have. "Free-market conservatives" believe in keeping power with the winners of the free-market system.

But the truly free market as an idea is fundamentally unconservative, because it says that yesterday's winners may be tomorrow's losers. So the current winners in a free-market system will naturally, conservatively, want to make the market less free, to maintain their status quo. Basically, a free market can only be conservative (and give the warm feeling of safety, security, stability, order which is the foundation of conservatism) if it is rigged. "Free market conservatism" was always a contradiction in terms, and the neo-cons are perfectly conservative and upfront about it. They make no bones about wanting to keep power in the hands of the powerful, and that's conservatism in a nutshell.

(Reply to this)

	spellingwitch 2007-10-05 07:20 pm UTC (link)
	And I'm sorry, what does this have to do with NOLA? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	ikilled007 2007-10-05 07:45 pm UTC (link)
	This is my journal... I post whatever I want here. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	spellingwitch 2007-10-05 07:51 pm UTC (link)
	And you are free to do so... I was going to link to it as a good source for NOLA rebuilding/Katrina issues, but not anymore. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	productsrirr 2009-03-11 10:04 pm UTC (link)
	ron paul failed kostes (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs