VIEW
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Neocons on the run
14-Feb-2008
In the post-cold war period, after the collapse of the U.S.S.R when the United States claimed the status of the only superpower and acted as one by unilaterally invading the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, the neocons who were schooled in the art of campaigns against socialism, national liberation and working class struggle in Europe and Asia, found fertile ground in two commanding posts: the administration of George W. Bush and the vast media channels of communication. The primary goals and cause celebre of these hard-core conservatives, who “numbered fewer than 100”, according to Joshua Muravchik, an ideologue in the American Enterprise Institute, was to produce all the justifications and plans for the U.S. war on Iraq and the feasibility of a fast victory to serve as a stepping stone for a U.S. war against Iran.
At the pinnacle of this shock troop stood all those who served in the Republican administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in the conservative media. To lay bare the system of beliefs of U.S. neoconservatism, it is essential to examine the ideas held and the official positions occupied by some of the ringleaders of the group. Among them is Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist-turned politician who has served as a member of the board of advisors of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a contributing editor of the New Republic and Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, a co-signer of the 1998 open letter to President Clinton by the Project for a New American Century and a former editorial board member of the publication The National Interest, founded by Irving Kristol, another neocon ideologue.
The letter raised the specter of Iraq’s possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and drew the conclusion that the “only acceptable strategy” was “removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.” It also argued that in the absence of that, the security of “our friends and allies like Israel, and a significant portion of the world’s oil supply” would be threatened. Charles Krauthammer has held various positions in the administrations of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.
False Prophets
This phenomena cannot be over-stated that neocons received their training during the decades of cold war, supporting corporate domination over laboring classes and the third world countries. After the fall of the Soviet Union when the neoconservative movement lost its core-enemy and fell in disarray, Charles Krauthammer wrote an essay in 1990 Foreign Affairs magazine advocating the direction that U.S. foreign policy must take. That article later on came to serve as a guideline for the neocons’ agenda, which ultimately became an ideological cornerstone for the Iraq war and George W. Bush’s “war on terror.” The article, dubbed as the “Unipolar Moment” put forth the idea that the U.S. should seize the opportunity and unilaterally impose a new world order by imposing its agenda on the world. He argued that in the period following the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union, the main enemies of the U.S. consist of “small aggressive states armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and possessing the means to deliver them.” (Foreign Affairs, Winter 1990-1991).
After 9/11, Krauthammer’s agenda served as the basis of a program for the neoconservative ideologues who gathered around the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which in turn was used as a directive for writing a series of letters to the White House, including the one on September 20, 2001 to President Bush that along with Krauthammer was signed by a group of neocons such as Elliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol and a host of other social conservatives and religious right personalities. Charles Krauthammer, who is currently a regular commentator on Fox News and other right wing channels, this false prophet of the American Century, does not only enjoy war on smaller nations, but he also appreciates torture of defenseless individuals captive in the American dungeons.
In his Dec. 5, 2005 cover story in the Weekly Standard, Krauthammer argued that torture of the foreign detainees in U.S. prisons is not only defensible, but in fact necessary and morally acceptable.
Following the events of 9/11 and prior to the invasion of Iraq, the neocons positioned in the White House, in the State and Defense Department were all on the offense, repeating exuberantly the half-truth catchword that the best defense lies in the pursuit of an offensive strategy, which became the cornerstone of the pre-emptive doctrine. The former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went as far as saying that the U.S. military machine with the backing of an ever larger defense budget is capable of fighting and winning wars not only in one country, but in two or even three simultaneously. The dimming trace of such a grand-standing could be observed today in Senator McCain’s posturing that “we are winning in Iraq”, and advocating that the U.S. must maintain permanent military bases in that country, even when it goes against the will of the people of Iraq. We must assume that is a lesson in American democracy and its sense of international justice.
The glorious though short-lived days of the neocons came fast to an end with the U.S. invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. Soon after the aerial carpet-bombing, the U.S. military machine was met not with a bouquet of flowers, but with an armed resistance, which resulted in high rates of U.S. troop casualties. This encounter was unexpected by the ordinary soldiers who had been lectured by their officers about the just cause of their “mission.” The ever-increasing U.S. troop casualties and the lack of its control over Iraq’s geo-politics, soon gave rise to sharp criticism of Donald Rumsfeld’s military doctrine of a smaller but fast moving army equipped with superior technology. By then there was enough blame to go around between the neo-con officers in the White House, the State and the Defense Departments.
Failure of a Doctrine
Since October 7, 2001, the day the U.S. air force bombarded Afghanistan, about seven years ago, and since March 19, 2003, the horrible day Washington violated the sovereignty of Iraq and bombed the historical city of Baghdad, soon to be five years of brutal occupation, the U.S. policies and their neoconservative architects have come under sharp criticism by the people at home and those abroad. In the process these agents of imperial domination have lost credibility, if they had any, and their lucrative positions in the highest governmental offices and in the corporate media that so enthusiastically supported the annihilation of a 5000-year old civilization in Mesopotamia.
The first and most influential neo-conservative who became a casualty of this doctrine was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who was disgracefully booted by George W. Bush and asked to fade into oblivion, while carrying away tens of millions of dollars which were received as kickbacks from the arms and mercenary contractors. The White House announcement that Rumsfeld was leaving Bush’s cabinet came only one day after the Republican Party suffered major loses in the mid-term election of November 8, 2006.
Less than a month later, the outspoken neocon, John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. was told to evacuate the post and look for a new job. He was more of a slave-driver than a country’s diplomat in dealing with Russia, China and the European community in connection with Iran’s nuclear issue. Bolton became more of a liability to the U.S., which was preparing to shift gears and be more accommodating to the European politics.
The third, but not the least significant, fall of a neoconservative was the ousting of Paul Wolfowitz, another architect of the war in Iraq, from his position as President of the World Bank, for authorizing a $60,000 salary increase for his girl friend, working under his supervision. As deputy secretary of defense from 2000 to 2005, working under Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz helped develop the plan and public rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He was neither liked by the European statesmen who opposed the U.S. war in Iraq, nor by some Republicans who attributed the U.S. loss of credibility to the mischievous plans of the neo-cons. After Wolfowitz lost his job as head of the World Bank, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., once said “that maybe we give Paul Wolfowitz a new job and send him over [to Iraq] as mayor, since the neocons got us in over there.” Wolfowitz is a long-term advocate of “pre-emption” – a military policy to strike first to eliminate a presumed threat, even if the evidence cannot be proven objectively.
During the last year, especially since the U.S. decided to join the European dialogue with Iran on its nuclear program, and almost at the same time gave the signal to Iraq’s government to invite Iran to a tripartite discussion over Iraq’s security and finally the appearance of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report admitting that Iran had suspended its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program in Fall 2003, all in all made the overall atmosphere hostile for the political habitat of the U.S. and the European neo-conservatives. Therefore, this group of reactionary politicians had to either migrate or return to hibernation.
Absolutely there is no doubt among the U.S. political class that the neoconservatives are in disarray, though not yet defeated, and furthermore, the U.S. policies with regard to the Middle East in general and Iran in particular are either in retreat or undergoing deep re-examination. It is not hard to see that Washington’s old plans for a new Middle East – drawn before 2000 with the aim of “regime change” to suit U.S. hegemonic interests – have badly failed.
Neocons on the Exit RampThe latest neocon on line to exit the pressure chambers of George W. Bush’s administration was Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, R. Nicholas Burns, who on January 18, 2008, just 16 days following the publication of the NIE Report, resigned from the third highest-ranking post at the U.S. State Department. Burns, representing U.S. imperialist interests in relation to Iran, made every effort to bring pressure on Russia, China and the major European countries to impose heavy economic, trade and diplomatic sanctions on Iran. But fortunately he was unsuccessful in that regard. Burns, by some mainstream press, is painted as a dove standing up to Vice President Cheney, who dreams of attacking Iran before the end of President George W. Bush’s term. Steve Clemons on www.huffingtonpost.com writes that among many political subjects, “…except perhaps Afghanistan, Nick Burns and Co. have been on one side of constructive efforts to stabilize global affairs and push forward positive ‘American global engagement’- and Cheney’s acolytes have been on another.” So much for good cop-bad cop.
In her piece in the Times on Line, entitled “Decline and Fall of the Neocons”, Sara Baxter writes “If Bush and Dick Cheney, his vice-president, are the last men standing with responsibility for the Iraq war it is only because they are protected by their four-year terms of office. One former Bush stalwart told me: “If we had a parliamentary system, Bush would have lost a vote of confidence and have resigned by now.”
As we all know there are only 10 months left to George W. Bush’s tenancy in the White House and a great majority of Americans, with the exception of a delusional minority symbolized by such militants as John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, are convinced that there is very little chance for the U.S. to win the war in Iraq. “On North Korea, and Iran, with no real options at hand,” writes Charles Krauthammer, an old neo-conservative, “the Bush administration heads to the finish line doing what Senator George Aiken once suggested for Vietnam: Declare victory and go home. With no good options available, those decisions are entirely understandable.”
Now that the neo-cons have been ousted, one by one, from their positions of power, influence and easy kickbacks, the Democratic Party has an easy ride and the base of the Republican Party is left with two unexciting and mediocre figures - McCain and Huckabee - to represent it in 2008. This should be a lesson to the Democratic Party leadership that if it drags its feet, continuing the war and adding to the pain of the American society, next time the people may decide to trash both parties into the dustbin of history and create a non-corporate party.
About the author: Ardeshir Ommani is a writer and an activist in the anti-war and anti-imperialist struggle for many years, including against the Vietnam War. Ardeshir is a co-founder of the American-Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC) which strives to build a movement promoting peace and preventing a U.S.-led war on Iran. See www.progressiveportals.com/aifc, where news and analysis of U.S.-Iran’s relations can be found, along with observations of life in Iran based on recent visits to Iran. Ardeshir helped launch the successful www.StopWarOnIran.org campaign, the very first Iran internet anti-war campaign. In the 1960's, he was a co-founder of the Iranian Students Association (ISA), which contributed to the struggle against the Shah of Iran, a U.S. puppet. Two of his recent articles: “Emergence of a United Front Against Bush" can be viewed at www.mathaba.net and “U.S. Hawks Dive for Cover” at www.payvand.com.
| Recently by Ardeshir Ommani | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| The Great Heist | 6 | May 17, 2012 |
| Boom! | 3 | Mar 01, 2012 |
| Can the U.S. Swallow Syria? | 8 | Feb 12, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
To: Ramin
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 14, 2008 04:47 PM PSTIf you know so much, how come you don't say anything? All you do is make one-liner snide remarks about what other people say? Don't you want to show off your towering intellect? lol
continued to R
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 14, 2008 04:43 PM PSTYou speak from the position of a devoted patriot, as it seems.
So?
Does
hundreds of billions of dollars gone to waste not concern you?
Of course it does. I would have rather had the money spent on something useful.
I bet
you it would if we had to pay it.
Means what?
And of course it's been swept under
the rug and is not receiving the attention it deserves (both in the
mainstream media and in government). Where are we now,
$9,000,000,000,0000 in red?
This is a 20 year old argument we're having. The neocons didn't spend all that on Iraq. I'm going to snip teh rest of this part. I'm not going to debate economics with you.
Is it about "good" vs. "eeeeeevel"? I thinks not.
I take it you've never known anyone who was murdered by an "evil" person? I have. This isn't an abstract debate, for me. It is about good and evil. Very much so.
programmer craig
by Ramin. (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 04:40 PM PSTBoy I am having a good time:
"What I'm saying is that neocons didn't set the stage for what's happened the last 8 years. They've been reacting to events that they had no control over, and that had nothing to do with them." lol, must have been my dad, lol.
This is the master piece:
"They've been reacting to events that they had no control over", lol
To R again
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 14, 2008 04:36 PM PSTWhile I see what you are saying, but it
makes absolutely no difference to the Iraqis who lost their lives, or
those who live in horror, or those whose lives have been destroyed.
Is that true for Iran, as well? More Iranians died during the Iran/Iraq war than Iraqis who have died since the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US. It doesn't make any difference to Iranians who was in power, or what the causes of that war were? Really?
There was no danger of a war between Iraq and Iran while the Shah was in power. So that's a pretty scathing indictment of the IRI, right there. Isn't it? And a solid defense of the Shah. The Shah could have ruled for a thousand years and not killed as many Iranians as died during that war.
Is that really the position you are taking?
The
end result is the same, irrespective of altruistic or non-altruistic
people people being in power. Isn't it?
a) We haven't seen the end result yet.
b) Less altruistic US leadership would have replaced Saddam with another dictator, one they could work with, and the transition of power would have been relatively painless. So, that's one wya that it DOES make a difference. And it's one reason why I don't like neocons.
c) If the neocons had been able to do what they WANTED to do in Iraq, Iraq would be a stable and prosperous democracy right now. So their again, their altruistic (but unrealistic) intentions did make a difference. And not for the better.
We agree on some points and disagree on others.
I disagree with your view about the neo-cons' position. Their position
is verrry clear, and you of course seem not to see it (or may not want
to acknowledge it). They, it seems, are Israel firsters and of the
fanatical kind, not patriots of United States.
It doens't seem that clear to me, actually. Israel and the US are the only two nations directly involved in teh War on Terror, so what you see as a conspiracy, I see as an alliance. No mystery there. We'd be foolsnot to be standing side by side with Israel, under tehse circumstances. Teh next administration will do the same, regardless of who wins the election.
I also disagree with you, as it is clear, about the level of
destruction, lives lost, and ruined lives in Iraq due to this huge
blunder of attacking and occupying Iraq. You threw in Khomeini as a
comparison in it, I didn't undertsand that.
No, not a comparison. It was Khomeini who planted the seeds of global Islamic revolution. Jimmy Carter helped him with that, both in Iran and in Afghanistan when he decided that it would be better to support a resistance that had an Islamic nature, than one without, because tehy'd have mnore support from otehr Muslim countries. tahtw as foolish. Afghanistan had a tribal warlord kind of feudal system at the time. The resistance to the Soveits could have succeeded without bringing Islam into the mix.
What I'm saying is that neocons didn't set the stage for what's happened the last 8 years. They've been reacting to events that they had no control over, and that had nothing to do with them.
I also question why you deferred to Reagan and the cold war to that
comment I made. Are you denying that the treasury was sacked
needlessly, since 2001? (the war, no-bid contracts with out of this
world profit mark-ups, and huge unaccounted sums of money which somehow
have disappeared?).
I'm saying this is a moot point. It's a waste of time to be discussing it. If an old school conservative had been in power, we'd have spent teh money on military hardware and on growing a larger military, instead of earmarking it all for nation building. The money would have been spent, either way. I think strengthening the military would have been a more effective use of those funds, as we would have more options right now than we do, and the money for rebuilding Iraq has been pissed away due to it being dumped into what amounts to a failed state.
I'll continue in another comment.
MRX
by Ramin. (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 04:25 PM PSTNot to be rude but:
"By the way I guaranty that the writer does not know anything about conservetive movment much less neo conservetives!" lol.
You do need to go back to school. And it must be true that every Conservative is an uneducated Democrat. lol
Great Article
by Joe L. on Thu Feb 14, 2008 04:19 PM PSTSince I have become a member here at the Iranian.com I am learning a lot more than any other sites. There is a great sense of freedom of speech in here.
This article is really informative. It's sad to see America being so wrong. We are not used to that. We are used to hear how passionate and free and great we are. Of course if you have asked me or my brothers, we would tell you another story about America. In Alabama State constitution an interracial marriage is still illegal! Imagine that in America. (There are interracial marriages there, not many. The constitution has not officially changed yet. You can sense what kind of a treatment a non white or black could receive in his own country but in a white state)
Americans have realized that the warmongers or Neocons have no shame. They are so stuck in the idea of being right that can't imagine sufferings that they have caused. That image of the United States is about to change. We all had enough and many of us are in shame. Politics is a dirty game but we don't have to be dirty and make excuses for corrupt attitude. We will leave Iraq and hopefully Iraqis will one day forgive us.
Only less than 25% of the population still believes that we should have gone to Iraq (have you wondered why? Crazy, right?). American public in general does not agree with that mentality. The warmongers or Neocons are also a bit divided about the Iraqi issue. Yet what makes me mad about this administration is that they take us for idiots. They have not apologized for lying to us about Iraq and have not said that we made a huge mistake. $1,000,000,000,000 and over 1,000,000 people dead directly or because of our invasion, and these guys come to the podium to defend their mistake. Defend their mistake!! Even media doesn’t buy that anymore. The reporters can’t keep an honest face talking about it. What a mess we have become.
My Iranian brothers, these all are about to change. I just hope that we have learned our lesson not to elect a president who looks and talks as a retard the next time.
Thanks again for this article and love you all.
Programmer Craig, Thanks for
by R (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 03:39 PM PSTProgrammer Craig, Thanks for the response and explaining your views.
"I can think of a few big dogs that are hungry enough to swallow up Iran. Things can be pretty bad when altruistic people with good intentions go off the rails, but they can be a lot worse when the people in power arten't teh least bit altruistic, and don't ahve good intentions".
While I see what you are saying, but it makes absolutely no difference to the Iraqis who lost their lives, or those who live in horror, or those whose lives have been destroyed. The end result is the same, irrespective of altruistic or non-altruistic people people being in power. Isn't it?
We agree on some points and disagree on others.
I disagree with your view about the neo-cons' position. Their position is verrry clear, and you of course seem not to see it (or may not want to acknowledge it). They, it seems, are Israel firsters and of the fanatical kind, not patriots of United States. But what is interesting is that they are in government and have quite an influence in media. Actions, speak much much louder than nice words (as you mentioned of their supposed ideology), their actions and position have been very consistent.
I also disagree with you, as it is clear, about the level of destruction, lives lost, and ruined lives in Iraq due to this huge blunder of attacking and occupying Iraq. You threw in Khomeini as a comparison in it, I didn't undertsand that.
I also question why you deferred to Reagan and the cold war to that comment I made. Are you denying that the treasury was sacked needlessly, since 2001? (the war, no-bid contracts with out of this world profit mark-ups, and huge unaccounted sums of money which somehow have disappeared?).
You speak from the position of a devoted patriot, as it seems. Does hundreds of billions of dollars gone to waste not concern you? I bet you it would if we had to pay it. And of course it's been swept under the rug and is not receiving the attention it deserves (both in the mainstream media and in government). Where are we now, $9,000,000,000,0000 in red? Does this not concern you, as a proclaiming patriot? If people had to pay it now and in the form of taxes, everyone would be up in arms. But since future generations have to swallow that little bill, it seems it doesn't bother you ("it's nothing", "Reagan years", etc"). What's the cost of attacking Iraq to date? Not to mention Americans' lives lost, not to mention tens of thousands of returning soldiers with permanent and major physical and mental injuries for life?
This is why that a nobody I, respectfully, do not respect the majority of politicians (both those who are in government, and those who are in mainstream media who try to edurcate people on how to think and where to stand).
Is it about "good" vs. "eeeeeevel"? I thinks not.
Have a nice day, and enough of my getting in that ugly world of dirty politics.
MRX and Programmer craig
by XerXes (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 03:32 PM PSTآقای مركس چی ميگی تو؟ خودت می فهمی ؟ آدمی ؟
پروگرامر كرگ، آگر نمی تونی اينو بخونی خفه خون بگير بچه اسراعيلی
To: R
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 14, 2008 02:42 PM PSTDoes "progressive" in your application stand for those who want human progress? I'm trying to learn, LOL.
Absolutely. But that's where it gets confusing. "Progress" is a subjective term. Most utopian philosophies are socialist in nature. The neocons believe in a capitalist utopian vision. They really, really did believe in their democracy project. They did (and do) believe that exporting democracy to the places where it doens't exist, along with free enterprise, will solve all the world's ills. And they do believe they have a mandate to try to do this. For the good of mankind. You see, that's another thing neocons have in common with all other utopians - they are elitists. They view themselves as "illuminati", and feel they are the natural caretakers of the ignorant masses.
I don't have anything against utopians. I think a utopia would be a pretty nice place to live. The problem is that utopian philosophies don't really work in the real world. It's contrary to human nature for people to turn control of their own destinies over to a select few. It's also contrary to human nature for an elite class that begins with noble and idealistic goals to stay that way for long, after they have attained power.
Whatever you would like to call them, they have hurt the United
States of America.
I agree. As do most Americans. Which is why there aren't any neocons running for office, this year.
They have also caused the murder of many hundreds of
thousands of inncoent people, and have caused the destruction of many
millions of lives.
I don't agree with that, no. I think the invasion of Iraq was misguided and foolish, and I think teh Bush Administration showed soem pretty remarkable incompetence in Iraq. But they didn't *cause* all that death and destruction, nor all that misery.
I could make a better case that teh Islamic Republic of Iran caused it. Khomeini planted the seeds back in 1979. Or perhaps Jimmy Carter caused it. He did pull the rug out from under the Shah, he did tacitly support Khomeini, he did actively support and even START the mujahedeen resistance against teh Soviets in Afghanistan. Neocons didn't do any of that. The first time neocons had any political power in teh US was year January 2001.
They have also deliberately caused the destruction
of Iraq. Not to mention the sacking of America's treasury.
We have a big economy. They have a long way to go before they can spend as much money as Reagan did during the Cold War.
Such
patriots, and I'm sure they wave the flag very feverishly in front of
people, not to mention the scare tactics as they have learned from
Goebbel's writings (it seems it was force-fed to the public down to the
t). With so-called friends like these, America doesn't need any
enemies, believes-me-you.
What do you think?
I think masoudA is right. Wait until the old school conservatves are back in town :)
(I'm a Libertarian by the way, so I don't much like either one)
Or you could wait until the democrats are in power and see how they handle things. They are pretty good at sellling people out. Always have been. I can think of a few big dogs that are hungry enough to swallow up Iran. Things can be pretty bad when altruistic people with good intentions go off the rails, but they can be a lot worse when the people in power arten't teh least bit altruistic, and don't ahve good intentions.
Mr. Ommani, you said: “In
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 02:13 PM PSTMr. Ommani, you said: “In the post-cold war period, after the collapse of the U.S.S.R when the United States claimed the status of the only superpower and acted as one by unilaterally invading the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq”. Please be honest and answer these questions: Do you approve or condemn the 9/11 terror attacks? Furthermore, please advise what should’ve the U.S done after the Taliban refused to give up UBL when U.S asked them to give him over and avoid a war? Do you think the refusal of Taliban to hand him over was part of the so called “neo con conspiracy plan” also? Also, do you believe the U.S, as a country, has the right to defend itself or not? You said : “Neocons who were schooled in the art of campaigns against socialism, national liberation and working class struggle in Europe and Asia”. How can you justify the welfare system and other socialist program under George Bush Jr? If they are so “anti-workers”, how come they did not dismantle Unions, welfare system and other social programs? You said: “, Charles Krauthammer wrote an essay in 1990 Foreign Affairs magazine advocating the direction that U.S. foreign policy must take. That article later on came to serve as a guideline for the Neocons’ agenda, which ultimately became an ideological cornerstone for the Iraq war and George W. Bush’s “war on terror.” Don’t you remember G Bush saying during his campaign and when he got inaugurated that the U.S will keep a low-key foreign policy ? And what aggressive foreign policy steps did they take between beginning of 2001 and 9/11/2001? Even towards Iraq or Afghanistan? There was no sign, talk or action towards attacking any of those two. Now I don’t agree with the Iraq war, but I think it was a miscalculated move and Bush and his administration should pay the price for their mistakes, rather than thinking it was some kind of a conspiracy (which we Iranians just breathe them!) by so called “neo cons”! You talked a lot about U.S torture and evil and other things, I would really appreciate if you give your honest opinion of how your beloved “socialist” and “worker” regimes such as Cuba, USSR, China and N Korea engaged in torture and oppression or not. Just let us know if they believe they were engaged in them. You said: “Soon after the aerial carpet-bombing, the U.S. military machine was met not with a bouquet of flowers, but with an armed resistance, which resulted in high rates of U.S. troop casualties. This encounter was unexpected by the ordinary”. The sad reality is that they were actually greeted as liberators by many Iraqis, footages and pictures of early days of war don’t lie Mr. Ommani. However, because of the mistakes of the Bush administration and the Iranian and Saudi interference which ignited a civil war, the population rapidly turned against American troops. You said: “enthusiastically supported the annihilation of a 5000-year old civilization in Mesopotamia.”. Do you know what the word annihilation means? Please explain when during that 5000 history where the Iraqi people ever free to decide (in a U.N approved election ) who their government should be. Please name only 1 other instance in that 5000 years old history besides the post war election. And please explain if you consider the right of people to choose their government an unalienable right of all humans. Mr. Ommani, stop beating around the bush. We all know you leftist and socialist problem is not with neo conservatives only, you disregard capitalism and democracy. You believe democracy is an “imperialistic” invention. You’ve been bashing the U.S even at times when great JFK and Jimmy Carter were presidents. But I have news for you: your backward, brutal, oppressing model of socialism and communism has been defeated and it will never come back. You can only find them in museums. So please, like I told your other ultra socialist friends, have the courage and come out and say what you really think. Talk about what you don’t approve of. Or don’t you believe in your own argument? With Regards.
Progammer Craig, Does
by R (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 01:58 PM PSTProgammer Craig,
Does "progressive" in your application stand for those who want human progress? I'm trying to learn, LOL.
Whatever you would like to call them, they have hurt the United States of America. They have also caused the murder of many hundreds of thousands of inncoent people, and have caused the destruction of many millions of lives. They have also deliberately caused the destruction of Iraq. Not to mention the sacking of America's treasury. Such patriots, and I'm sure they wave the flag very feverishly in front of people, not to mention the scare tactics as they have learned from Goebbel's writings (it seems it was force-fed to the public down to the t). With so-called friends like these, America doesn't need any enemies, believes-me-you.
What do you think?
Loool at the article !!
by masoudA on Thu Feb 14, 2008 01:55 PM PSTI agree with MRX1 - Mr. Ommani needs to get a Job - because this one will run out of capital - i.e. Mullah PR funds. I also doubt his real name is Ardeshir.
I also think the programmer craig makes a good point - those of you Islamists who don't even know what a necon is - better pray to god the old conservatives are not around and in charge!!
if you
by MRX1 (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:45 PM PSTpay my tuition why not? I will go back to school again. but unlike the writer who has no job (excuse me except fighting the imperialism!) rest of us have life to live and that includes working hard. By the way I guaranty that the writer does not know anything about conservetive movment much less neo conservetives!
What is a neocon?
by programmer craig on Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:26 PM PSTThe primary goals and cause celebre of these hard-core conservatives, who “numbered fewer than 100”
They aren't "hard-core conservatives". They are utopian progressives.
If you don't understand taht, you understand nothing about them.
Most islamic movements are
by jks (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:10 AM PSTMost islamic movements are surprisingly skewed in their economic outlook against the very (usually poor) popular base that supports them. And many would cut a deal with the Imperialists.
Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism
by Samir Amin
//www.monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm
It doesn't bode well for the author of this article to align himself with the political Islam.
MRX1 Time for you to go to school and get educated
by Alireza Sefati (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:58 AM PSTMRX1 or whatever your real name is.
Ardeshir has put a well put article together along with well documented facts and your short and uneducated comment shows your ignorance. Perhaps time to go back to school?
time for you to get a job!
by MRX1 (not verified) on Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:47 AM PST>Ardeshir Ommani is a writer and an activist in the >anti-war and anti-imperialist struggle for many >years, including against the Vietnam War. Ardeshir >is a co-founder of the American-Iranian Friendship >Committee (AIFC) which strives to build a movement >promoting peace and preventing a U.S.-led war on >Iran.
The above statment tells me yet another bum who lives off of the rest of us, has no job and basically free loader. You best get a job and live neo cons or old cons to people with knouledge.