Talk:Neoconservatism: Difference between revisions
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
This is wrong. Tatcher dispatched a fleet to retake the control of the Falkland Islands, succesfully so, and that certainly was one of the main reasons why the Junta in Argentina lost public acceptance, but in no way were the British directly involved in restoring democracy to the country, nor at any point were their intention to. Checking the source for this claim (note number 25) I got redirected to a news article where the only mention to the conflict in Falklands is that Argentina was defeated before the collapse of the regime, though by the way it is worded, I see how it was misunderstood. To put it simply, Tatcher didn't overthrow Galtieri. [[Special:Contributions/190.31.2.173|190.31.2.173]] ([[User talk:190.31.2.173|talk]]) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
This is wrong. Tatcher dispatched a fleet to retake the control of the Falkland Islands, succesfully so, and that certainly was one of the main reasons why the Junta in Argentina lost public acceptance, but in no way were the British directly involved in restoring democracy to the country, nor at any point were their intention to. Checking the source for this claim (note number 25) I got redirected to a news article where the only mention to the conflict in Falklands is that Argentina was defeated before the collapse of the regime, though by the way it is worded, I see how it was misunderstood. To put it simply, Tatcher didn't overthrow Galtieri. [[Special:Contributions/190.31.2.173|190.31.2.173]] ([[User talk:190.31.2.173|talk]]) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Although Thatcher was sometimes called neo-conservative at the time, it was before the usage of the term had acquired its current meaning. Ironically the neo-conservatives favored the Argentinian side. Thatcher's actions are best understood as defending a [[British Overseas Territory]] from external aggression, and of course she did not overthrow Galtieri and the war was limited to the islands. I will remove the paragraph. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:50, 1 September 2010
Politics C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Historical usage
The most recent version of this article, may 25 2007, says that Carl Schmitt and other Germans were referred to as neo-conservative in the 1930s, and cites a recent English-language book in support of the assertion. One wonders when and in what language they were described with this term ... in the English language in the 1930s? Then better to cite the original source rather than this later book. In some other language? Then the example has no point; the point is to trace the evolution of the phrase.
Headline text
Hillary Clinton
Today's Cato Daily Podcast highlighted the similarities of Hillary Clinton and the neoconservatives.
Here is the link: Cato Daily Podcast July, 30 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson Virissimo (talk • contribs)
Neo-Conservatism Using Liberalism as a guise?
I dont know if this is the place to have this conversation. But it doesnt appear that anybody has given thought to the fact that Neo-conservatives may be using Liberalism as a guise to further their deeply held Realist goals. ie The War in Iraq
"several countries regarded Iraq as an important trading partner and expressed concern before the war that their national interests might be compromised if a newly-established Iraqi government is primarily sympathetic to U.S. interests. These countries were concerned about lost trade and possible loss of investment opportunities in Iraq’s oil sector." - Congressional Research Service http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32025.pdf pg 14
Maybe this type of info could be included in a new section in the article, possibly a section on criticisms of neo-conservatism.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.150.183 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 5 October 2009
List of neoconservatives
Where did the list of neoconservatives come from and how was it decided upon? How is Buckley a neoconservative, given his history of rejecting their position on their main issue, foreign policy? He worked with neoconservatives for the sake of unity and common goals.
I agree with the above comment. Buckley was not a neoconservative. Perhaps that designation is based on the "new right" movement associate with Buckley, which, despite the similarity of labels, is not the same thing as neoconservatism as defined in this article. Erowe1 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And where is this list of neoconservatives anyway? Now that I've added my two cents to the discussion, I can't find it. Erowe1 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Historical Inaccuracy
Quote from the article: "She (Margaret Tatcher) also had a very neoconservative foreign policy – favouring strong actions and favouring democracy – she dispatched a fleet and overthrew Gen. Galtieri in Argentina[citation needed] when he invaded the Falkland Islands,[25]"
This is wrong. Tatcher dispatched a fleet to retake the control of the Falkland Islands, succesfully so, and that certainly was one of the main reasons why the Junta in Argentina lost public acceptance, but in no way were the British directly involved in restoring democracy to the country, nor at any point were their intention to. Checking the source for this claim (note number 25) I got redirected to a news article where the only mention to the conflict in Falklands is that Argentina was defeated before the collapse of the regime, though by the way it is worded, I see how it was misunderstood. To put it simply, Tatcher didn't overthrow Galtieri. 190.31.2.173 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Although Thatcher was sometimes called neo-conservative at the time, it was before the usage of the term had acquired its current meaning. Ironically the neo-conservatives favored the Argentinian side. Thatcher's actions are best understood as defending a British Overseas Territory from external aggression, and of course she did not overthrow Galtieri and the war was limited to the islands. I will remove the paragraph. TFD (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)