Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Neoconservatism out of the closet | 79 comments (78 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
My assertion did not exceed Walt's. You only have to survey the prominent Neocons to understand that they are more than supportive of Israel.

But that's not what you were arguing. You were arguing that:

They are Likudniks and that would include both the Jewish and nonJewish Neocons, the latter including Woosley and John Bolton, AIPAC's favorite standby.

In other words, you were claiming that they support Israel and derive the rest of their agenda from that support. Which is bullshit - they have an agenda, and supporting Israel furthers that agenda at the moment.

I support Walt's view over your because he is a Middle East expert and highly learned,

In other words, you're making an argument from authority because you don't have the ability or inclination to make an argument on its merits.

and I know a lot of his references and sources,

Then you need to start sharing them, so the reader can judge for himself. Because the writeups you've linked to so far are exceptionally weak as far as supporting your point goes.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 07:46:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Mearshirmer and Walt's 'The Israel Lobby' may be weak in your own mind, but me thinks that's because you haven't read it. No matter, you're just not familiar with the Neocon cast of characters that go beyond the Kristols and Perles, which is understandable.

So shall we just quit this give and take and agree that we have a disagreement.

by shergald on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 09:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
I'm not saying it's weak on its own merits. I'm saying it doesn't support the case you're trying to make.

And I'm saying that you're relying excessively on a single reference with the associated risk of devolving into argument from authority.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 10:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Mearshirmer and Walt are indeed authorities, but they get their authority from their knowledge of the history of US-Israeli relations.

But it is you that have chosen to contradict Walt's thesis, and you have done so on the basis of the most trivial nonfact, that a Neocon gave Saddam, a nemesis of Israel, chemical weapons. Can it be said that your skepticism is based on a purely isolated event about which you made a false assumption. Why would a Neocon help Saddam if he were Israel-centric, was the conclusion we were to draw, and that was the evidence you provided to contradict Walt.

Weak tea, but since I have neither the time nor inclination to carry this on any further, as I said above, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

by shergald on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 10:16:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
But it is you that have chosen to contradict Walt's thesis, and you have done so on the basis of the most trivial nonfact, that a Neocon gave Saddam, a nemesis of Israel, chemical weapons.

No, that would be not what I based my scepticism on. I base my scepticism on the fact that the neocons have a long history as a coherent group, a history that goes back to the Nixon administration, in which the bulk of the core actors received their political schooling. And that they have a well-defined domestic policy agenda to which Israel by all appearances is entirely incidental.

They are using Israel to further their purposes, not the other way around.

For a thorough discussion of several of the main figures, you can do worse than Dubose and Bernstein's Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, which goes over Cheney's career and, in that process, touches upon most of the core neoconservative figures.

Or you could look into what the people who actually study the neoconservative faction have to say about their motives and agenda. With all due respect to the in-depth knowledge of your totemic authorities about US-Israel relations and the politics of the Near East, if you want to understand the internal power politics of the Beltway, you need to read people who study the Beltway, not people who study how the Beltway deals with a single, fairly minor, policy item.

Can it be said that your skepticism is based on a purely isolated event about which you made a false assumption.

It could be said. It would be wrong, but it could be said. It's a free country, after all.

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that the neoconservatives are a new thing that came into power with Bush the Lesser. I have no idea what gave you that idea, apart from neoconservative agit-prop, but these guys aren't a new and exciting development. They're the Nixon administration in drag.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 05:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
"delusion that the neoconservatives are a new thing that came into power with Bush the Lesser. I have no idea what gave you that idea"

I don't know what YOU that idea from reading my posts. The history of the Neoconservative movement is well known to everyone and to say that 9/11 put it into practice, was never to suggest that it just started with the Bush administration. Silly notion. But that everyone who is a Neocon was or had to be a Neocon before or during the 1970s is fallacious.

by shergald on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 06:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neoconservatism out of the closet | 79 comments (78 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: