Columnist Charles Krauthammer and the Neo-cons

David2004

Member
Jan 15, 2004
227
25
16
It is frightening to think people like Columnist Charles Krauthammer represent the current administration viewpoints to national and global policies and security. The amount of hate and contempt for others that have a different philosophical foundation to their principles and believes is no different than a fascist. Columnist Charles Krauthammer is a leading national columnist for the neo-cons doctrine of dominance. Speaking in contempt against the United Nations or any other international organizations in behalf of United States domination in a militarily dictatorial role. All is right, disguised in the name of freedom and democracy with the neo-cons taking the religious high road to condom anyone who does not believe in their ways.

The Bush Cheney neo-cons have a clear vision of the corporate military dominance that will dictate international policies regarding international resources as part of United States national security. With many of the Islamic nations being a road bump in this plan. The American Enterprise Institute, one of the bases of the neo-cons use to guide and influence the Bush Cheney administration towards global dominance by military and economic policies.

The corporate greed of a few people is dictating global policies onto the people of the world for what is in the best of there own self-interest. These policies are threatening peace and security throughout the world. The lack of balance in fairness and truth has corrupted the system from within leading the wrong way in many of our policies and actions around the world. Without correcting our domestic policies at home there will be no foreign policies that will bring us security and peace around the world.

The neo-cons, people such as Columnist Charles Krauthammer see no role what so ever for the role of international organizations like the United Nations. Without a balance between universal, national and local interests power there will be no stability or security for the people on either side. As long as we want to dictate policies to our allies and enemy from a unilateral platform from Washington DC for what is in the best interest of a few global corporations. There will be great social, political, and economic unrest destabilizing
 
Your beliefs are what lead to Sept. 11th..
By what you have written you are clearly a communist who would rely on the decisions of others to dictate the policies of The United States... Very similar to having no right to vote at all since the exercise of your franchise would be superceded by unelected international decision making body..
Completely undemocratic which dovetails into your being a communist...
 
:D

look, another good McCarthyite foaming at the mouth about words he doesn't even understand.
 
The amount of hate and contempt for others that have a different philosophical foundation to their principles and believes is no different than a fascist

Yeah the Bush administration is so mirroroed to fascism. Get real find a differentlabel for neo-cons. we preach tolerence to others but we also have the consitution to stand up and defend our views. In defending our views we point out faults in the other sides arguments. That doesn't make us fascist.

Speaking in contempt against the United Nations or any other international organizations in behalf of United States domination in a militarily dictatorial role

Oh yeah the UN is the only thing stoping the world from falling under the "tyranical" rule of the big bad bush administration.:rolleyes: Get real the only problem we have with the UN or any other international orginazation is that we don't need permision or concensous to act in our intersts. You know they (NGO's and the UN and international community) never fail to call on the US for every thing and when a problem accurs in the world the US has to fix it. However, when we want to act we need thier permission. Give me a break.

The American Enterprise Institute, one of the bases of the neo-cons use to guide and influence the Bush Cheney administration towards global dominance by military and economic policies.

Holy shit man were in the world does this come from. The neo-cons have no asparations of global control. To think so is to buy into what ever garbage your reading.

The corporate greed of a few people is dictating global policies onto the people of the world for what is in the best of there own self-interest

Wow this is a totally comunism. There is no hidding it here sorry Bry but Phadras was right this guy is a commy.

Without a balance between universal, national and local interests power there will be no stability or security for the people on either side

actually a strong millitary and the will to use it will keep us safe, at home and abroud.

There will be great social, political, and economic unrest destabilizing

only in the countries who don't follow our lead. i.e terorist countries and the countries who try to proliferate WMD's.:tank:
 
ok, KC,

David may or may not be "communist". Stating that he is does not constitute an argument on your part. I cannot see how it is acceptable in any case to substitute substantive argument for labeling someone with such emotionally laden monikers as "communist" or, conversely, "fascist". (of course, it happens at both ends of the political spectrum. I do not mean to say that only the right engages in such tactics...) You do well to dispute his use of the word "fascist", but then you turn around and do the same thing, calling him "communist". If you disagree with someone, wouldn't it be much more powerful to actually dispute their arguments rather than resorting to a rather childish name calling? IMHO, it would be much more effective to dispute his loosely defended allegations with counter-evidence or providing an alternative reading of the facts he presents.

On the other hand, David doesn't seem to be actually engaged in debate here. It appears that he does alot of cutting and pasting with his barely intelligible posts, and doesn't bother to defend his posts when people do make substantive rebuttals. So, while you do provide an argument as to why you think the UN is neither functional nor beneficial, I wouldn't hold your breath for a rebuttal from Dave either.

For my part, I agree that the UN needs to be overhauled to prevent an overdependence on the US for enforcing their decisions but also to soften the over-representation which members of the Security Council enjoy. On the other hand, a forum in which the international community can discuss their differences on issues that frequently affect many nations, not just one, appears to me both necessary and beneficial. So, while flawed, the UN (IMHO) fills a necessary role, and their decisions regarding the invasion of Iraq should have been respected. The US would have done well to mount diplomatic pressure and consolidate their position rather than rushing to invade on the pretense of neutralizing what most now agree was a less than imminent threat.

actually a strong millitary and the will to use it will keep us safe, at home and abroud.
The indiscriminate use of the military has the effect of destablizing the international community, effect which can only benefit the terrorists we claim we are at war with.
 
You are right to lable the man a "commy" takes from my argument. However, the man is pitting Marxist doctrine to the T. How about I call him a Marxist is that a more appealing and intellectual term. Becasuse as you can see this guy is a Marxist I'm sure even you can agree to this Bry:)

So, while flawed, the UN (IMHO) fills a necessary role, and their decisions regarding the invasion of Iraq should have been respected. The US would have done well to mount diplomatic pressure and consolidate their position rather than rushing to invade on the pretense of neutralizing what most now agree was a less than imminent threat

The UN had it's chance to put the diplomatic pressure on Saddam. They failed from 91-03 they enacted resoulution after resolution. The man did not care. The only thing that brought change was the US army. It was unfourtunate but that man could not stay in power any longer.
 
it is my belief that david uses his post for some sort of school report.....if this is the case...brilliant...but without more from him this will die as do all of his post..a quick death
 
Krauthammer... that's an appropriate name for a Jew

What does this have to do with anything said in this topic. You guys and race. Have you looked at world pop. lalely. Were pretty outnumbered. You better learn to get along.

Don't hate somebody because of the color of thier skin or thier God. Hate them for thier actions or thier words.
you never get a 2nd chance at a first impression
 
May I also note that Charles is a quadrapalegic, a horryfying medical condition which of course is paralysis from the neck down... A condition my late uncle suffered through for 35 years.. Go find someone else to attack.. Geeeez the left is truly insane and heartless..
 
Don't hate somebody because of the color of thier skin or thier God. Hate them for thier actions or thier words.
you never get a 2nd chance at a first impression.

Excellent point.
 
Yeah, it's genius. Sniff, sniff. Political analysis inspired by Barney the Purple Dinosaur. You know, on Sesame Street, color doesn't matter. Big Bird is yellow! Oscar is green! Gordon is black! David is white!

Guess what? Sesame Street doesn't exist. It's lying PBS liberals, and it makes me want to puke that "conservatives" all believe the lies.

Saying race is no more than color is like saying a $100 bill is no different from a $1 bill because they're both green!
 
Originally posted by William Joyce
Yeah, it's genius. Sniff, sniff. Political analysis inspired by Barney the Purple Dinosaur. You know, on Sesame Street, color doesn't matter. Big Bird is yellow! Oscar is green! Gordon is black! David is white!

Guess what? Sesame Street doesn't exist. It's lying PBS liberals, and it makes me want to puke that "conservatives" all believe the lies.

Saying race is no more than color is like saying a $100 bill is no different from a $1 bill because they're both green!

I take it you can't read and somebody else reads for you??

Who said race is no more than color? That was not even discussed. Are you are race baiter??

His statement was very clear to any educated man.

I guess I will repeat it for you. Or better yet, let's put it in bigger words so you can see it.

Don't hate somebody because of the color of thier skin or thier God. Hate them for thier actions or thier words.

Now please tell me will you, where in there does it mention anything about the differences between races? You're trying start something aren't you.

Frankly, I am beginning to think you missed something in what you were attempting to write (I am thinking you might be site-impared).

Saying race is no more than color is like saying a $100 bill is no different from a $1 bill because they're both green!


What does that mean? Cuz it really doesn't make much sense. Or is it just me??? Too much weed in my life maybe.
 
Believe me, man, I completely understand the very decent impulse to, as you say, judge people by actions and not by race. That would seem to be the perfect solution. And I wish it were. But here is why that approach is a near-total failure, and will remain so, in a multiracial society (and world).

The world is made up of many different groups, but the most distinctive, vis a vis each other, are racial groups. This is because they are genetically similar to each other, and dissimilar from others. How so? For hundreds of thousands of years, the different races evolved in isolated climates, each one selected for different abilities and adaptations. Whites became adapted to their environment, which meant for increased smarts, and blacks did not. These genetic differences are deep. In terms of intelligence alone, there are big differences.

So what? So what if most blacks are less intelligent? Shouldn't we still treat people as individuals? Well, no. Because a society is not a collection of individuals, it's a functioning thing that relies on interactions a great deal, almost like an organism. When the members are more alike, the organism is healthy. When they are not, it is unhealthy. Groups will begin to bump up against groups. Yes, individuals have little power, but groups have great power. Blacks in America demand to be treated as a group. And they make demands accordingly. Just how life --- how reality --- works.

The notion that we should judge on individual actions WORKS PERFECTLY WELL and is morally called for in a racially homogenous society. That was the point of the Enlightenment, etc. But in a multiracial society, it's a failure. A black is 50 X more likely to commit murder, but our "one size fits all" criminal justice system must pretend he's like anyone else. That creates HUGE problems. And so on down the line.

Well, that's a start. I think that if you start to look at group realities a little closer, you'll see the picture. Most whites do not think racially because they have not had the need to. Most segregate themselves with other whites, and just assume that what they see on TV about blacks is true. I encourage you to challenge your own thinking on this.

If you seek sources, I can recommend them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top