"BUFDRVR" wrote
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
to "con-men".

Ohh, so we're talking about how a word sounds, not what it means? How very
European of you. Now do a google on "Neocon" and tell me who it applies to on
Bush's cabnit. There are people working in positions in the administration that
could be catagorized as "neo conservatives" (what Neocon stands for), but they
don't occupy any cabnit positions and they are certainly the minority. The Bush
administration is simply conservative.

I don't go to a lot of political sites. I'm basically a Republican because the
Democrats have yet to field a team I respect (Since 1970 when I started voting).
I asked Kramer two times what a neocon was, and he didn't reply. I don't think
he knows what it means. About the only thing I found, where the acronym was
used in every paragraph, was some loony juvenile web site (with some pretty old
people running it).

My politics pretty much side with a more liberal agenda than this administration is
putting forward. For example, I am willing to give up 98% of our nuclear weapons,
as we no longer have the stomach to use them, and they cost the same as an F-15E
to keep on alert (1300 of them I believe). I am willing to give up Forces in Korea,
Europe, and the Sinai. With those troops cannibalized into Iraq. I believe we should
move all the forces out of Korea and Europe, and move them to Iraq. The next big
war is either Syria, or Iran, and we will need the armor and airbases. My feelings
about Chechnya and North Korea, are that we (Russians in the first, Americans in
the second) should pull out, wait 9 months, and then use Neutron weapons to
wipe them out, as they cheer in the streets about their victory.

Drugs? Legalize them all, tax them and use the taxes for health care. Having fought
the war on drugs for 10 years (actively), I can say without reservation, it's a war that
cannot be won, and the battles are merely getting more costly every month. If people
want drugs, then I think they should get it at low cost, and safer products to reduce the
overload on city morgues. When we have a squadron of 250 million dollar airplanes
orbiting Central and South America, with almost 30,000 troops in the war, and the
quantity of cocaine is increasing on the streets, then that's the definition of a failed
policy.

Alas, so far neither Bush, nor Kerry have even mentioned nuclear weapons, and the
war on drugs. Every month that Los Alamos stays in operation, is another month of
exporting nuclear technology to China. The troops in the Sinai are invisible, and
people don't even know we are spending billions on them (as a trip-wire).