posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:04 PM
There apparenty are two types of neocons(ervative), the old and the new. The old Neocons were leftists who didn't like the liberalizing tact that the
democratic party was taking, and who felt that the US should be using its military abilities to liberalize the world and influence and shape the world
(so whereas conservatives are from the right, these guys have switched camps over from the left, and are thus 'neo cons'). This was a small number
Now neoconservatives just means old school conservatives who think that the US should use premption and military intervention to shape the world
around it (whereas conservatives want isolation, they are otherwise conservatives but want intervention, hence 'neo con').
I get the impression that the original neoconservatives are the ones that have had the largest influence on the current neocons (the ones that are
just rightists who went interventionist). Thought clearly there are some people, like Cheney, the real author of the "Bush" Doctrine of premption,
who've been calling for widespread premptive attacks on enemies of the US for a long while.
So there's a real blurring, not so much with respect to actions and end results, but with respect to motivations. The old Neoconservatives wanted
intervention to get a more liberalized world, taking up the 'white man's burden', in a sense, the leftist values of taking care of and providing
welfare to the poor. The current neoconservatives want intervention just to re-shape the world so its more favourable to the US, and the 'other'
category, lets call it militant republicans or radical republicans, just want intervention because its a result of a policy of preemption.
I might be splitting hairs though between new neocons and 'radical militant republicans'.
And when you throw 'globalists' into the mix it get really muddied.