are you a neoconservative?

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

are you a neoconservative?

Postby TerraFrost » Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:31 am

Take the quiz and find out: ... nQuiz.html

None of the choices, unfortunately, really fit me. Consider the first question.

The US has compelling strategic interests in the region. America must be an "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians. By working with regional partners, the US can help bring about a secure Israel and a free state of Palestine. US efforts in the Mideast help its diplomatic standing in the world immensely.

What good is a "good" diplomaic standing? How do those who have it benifit from it? Do they get more money from exports, are they better able to make treaties, or does the qualitity of life among the nations population improve? I think the answer to all of those is no. So what good is it?

Further, will the US serving as an "honest broker" do any good, anyway? It didn't do any good in the Oslo Accords (ref).

It's an arrogant fantasy to think the US can "bring peace" to the Mideast. US reliance on foreign oil has embroiled it in crisis after crisis there. The people of the Middle East must set their own course.

The Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict was, essentially, resolved with the Dayton Accords in 1995, in which the US acted as a mediator (ref). Whose to say the US couldn't do it, again?

And what does US reliance on foreign oil have to do with it? This reliance hasn't made the US withdraw from Iraq, even though most OPEC nations would like them to. The reason why their opinions are important is because they're more efficient at producing oil than Iraq currently is. A lot of this is probably due to the USs lack of experience with oil However, this reliance also hasn't inspired the US to invade Saudi Arabia. I mean, OPEC, iirc, has limited the amount of oil that the US can buy.

And besides, what does it matter what the USs slant is? A mediator doesn't make the agreements that lead to peace - they simply suggest them. Likewise, all the reliance on oil could do is make some of the USs suggestions less useful.

Recent history shows that Arab countries respect power, not paper treaties that purport to trade "land for peace." In many ways, the road to peace in Jerusalem had to pass through Baghdad. In the wake of America's victory over Saddam Hussein, US negotiators have new leverage to demand steps toward peace. But the US can never tolerate terror. There will be no compromise on Israel's borders or security.

If the USs increased military presence made peace more feasable, then why would US soldiers still be dying?

The US is morally obligated to stop Mideast violence. It's clear there is no military solution to the conflict. In order to broker the peace, the US must be more neutral. This means stop giving billions in aid to Israel, and start condemning its preemptive assassinations of Palestinian leaders.

The US has condemned Israel's assassination attempts (I can find references if anyone desires). Further, what happens when Israel no onger recieves the billions of dollars that they already do? They're military would probably be substantially weakened and yet those who would attack Israel wouldn't. As such, this solution seems like it'd only lead to more death.
Legendary Guard
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Javafrost » Mon May 23, 2005 4:42 am

The answers they offered seemed too long and complex to fit me, too -- some parts of one option I'd agree with and other parts I disagreed with...
it's like they stuck stuff together that didn't match up...

Oh well, I'm probably too old to be neo-anything, anyway.
"Endeavor to persevere." -- Lone Watie, The Outlaw Josey Wales
User avatar
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:08 am

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest