Can we agree that having a neocon president is universally bad?

[halik]

Seriously,
can we just make a pact not to ever vote in a neocon? I don't see how someone of that persuasion can be but detrimental to foreign policy... you basically end up with real version of what "America world police" satirized.


Moreover, in the climate where we're at odds with religious extremism, you really can't pull off the "rah rah America fuck yeah" strategy. These people are willing to strap themselves full C4 and go kaboom, anyone with a least bit of intellect will realize that they have the ultimate advantage in any sort of conflict. You can't threaten someone with violence when they're ready to die for their cause and you're not willing to die for yours.

 

[palehorse]

Seriously,
the sky is blue? I think rabbits and puppies are cute. Wood trim is ugly most of the time, but it looks good in a Mercedes. Soccer is fun to play.

Moreover, the early bird catches the worm. I enjoy sleeping in and eating pancakes; but, just because I wear white socks doesn't mean I need to wear sneakers too. I could probably pull off flipflops and socks if I wanted to. You can't expect me to listen to Polka music when you're not willing to listen to funk.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

P&N sure attracts the trolls

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: halik
Seriously,
can we just make a pact not to ever vote in a neocon? I don't see how someone of that persuasion can be but detrimental to foreign policy... you basically end up with real version of what "America world police" satirized.


Moreover, in the climate where we're at odds with religious extremism, you really can't pull off the "rah rah America fuck yeah" strategy. These people are willing to strap themselves full C4 and go kaboom, anyone with a least bit of intellect will realize that they have the ultimate advantage in any sort of conflict. You can't threaten someone with violence when they're ready to die for their cause and you're not willing to die for yours.

Maybe some people haven't noticed, or just didn't pay attention, but not having a neocon for a president in the past didn't alter the activities of the religious extremists.

After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy. Turning the other cheek and relegating the reactions to extremists as police actions failed us, badly. Maybe it's a strategy that you didn't agree with but that doesn't make it wrong. We won't really know what kind of impact Bush's foreign policy decisions will have over the long term anyway at this point so claiming he was detrimental is more of the same old "I hate Bush!" ranting, a rant that is primarily couched in sour grapes and partisanism.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy.

And we didn't get it, and we still aren't with Obama.

We are, again, trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Our response to terrorism is simply to do more of the same that caused the problem in the first place. That is, unfortunately, how our government works.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy.

And we didn't get it, and we still aren't with Obama.

We are, again, trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Our response to terrorism is simply to do more of the same that caused the problem in the first place. That is, unfortunately, how our government works.

You confuse getting change with getting change that YOU agree with. Nor do you have the least bit of proof that your version of change would provide any better results.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy.

And we didn't get it, and we still aren't with Obama.

We are, again, trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Our response to terrorism is simply to do more of the same that caused the problem in the first place. That is, unfortunately, how our government works.

You confuse getting change with getting change that YOU agree with. Nor do you have the least bit of proof that your version of change would provide any better results.

I'd also like to hear bamacre's version of what will "work" and cure the "disease."

 

[theeedude]

Neocons in the 80s are who created, armed, and trained the radical groups that would later become Al Qaeda, so they would fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. So neocons weren't exactly turning the other cheek to extremists, they were supporting them. Like all ideologues, they let their ideology blind them. Afghanistan invasion was pragmatic and justified by the attack. Neocons wanted to attack Iraq first, which should tell you something. Iraq was to be a staging area for neocon plans in the middle east. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but read Project for New American Century and other neocon site publications, and these people really believe in this stuff.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Neocons in the 80s are who created, armed, and trained the radical groups that would later become Al Qaeda, so they would fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. So neocons weren't exactly turning the other cheek to extremists, they were supporting them. Like all ideologues, they let their ideology blind them. Afghanistan invasion was pragmatic and justified by the attack. Neocons wanted to attack Iraq first, which should tell you something. Iraq was to be a staging area for neocon plans in the middle east. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but read Project for New American Century and other neocon site publications, and these people really believe in this stuff.

gee did you watch the VP debates in 04 at all? No need for a vast neocon conspiracy from the PNAC website. Cheney laid it all out their motivations and decision to invade Iraq.

I love how anybody conservative is now labeled a neocon.

 

[OCGuy]

Not any worse than having a leftist be president. Luckily that doesnt look like it will happen any time soon.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy.

And we didn't get it, and we still aren't with Obama.

We are, again, trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Our response to terrorism is simply to do more of the same that caused the problem in the first place. That is, unfortunately, how our government works.

You confuse getting change with getting change that YOU agree with. Nor do you have the least bit of proof that your version of change would provide any better results.

You confuse change with continuing to do the same thing.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy.

And we didn't get it, and we still aren't with Obama.

We are, again, trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Our response to terrorism is simply to do more of the same that caused the problem in the first place. That is, unfortunately, how our government works.

You confuse getting change with getting change that YOU agree with. Nor do you have the least bit of proof that your version of change would provide any better results.

I'd also like to hear bamacre's version of what will "work" and cure the "disease."

Noted toward the end of this thread.

 

[Genx87]

That is very simplistic and seems to disregard all of the other countries that arent over there that are attacked and the general axis of strife between Muslim countries and their neighbors.

Us being over there being the sole reason for their attacks doesnt address half the equation.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy.

And we didn't get it, and we still aren't with Obama.

We are, again, trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Our response to terrorism is simply to do more of the same that caused the problem in the first place. That is, unfortunately, how our government works.

You confuse getting change with getting change that YOU agree with. Nor do you have the least bit of proof that your version of change would provide any better results.

It doesn't really matter anyways. What he wants is not what most of America want and that is all that matters. There is no "right" or "wrong". It is all about representation which he is not getting because there is hardly anyone that agrees with him. That one aspect is the system working.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy.

And we didn't get it, and we still aren't with Obama.

We are, again, trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Our response to terrorism is simply to do more of the same that caused the problem in the first place. That is, unfortunately, how our government works.

You confuse getting change with getting change that YOU agree with. Nor do you have the least bit of proof that your version of change would provide any better results.

I'd also like to hear bamacre's version of what will "work" and cure the "disease."

It's called non-intervention.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
P&N sure attracts the trolls

Explain how neocon president could be beneficial for foreign policy?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy.

And we didn't get it, and we still aren't with Obama.

We are, again, trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. Our response to terrorism is simply to do more of the same that caused the problem in the first place. That is, unfortunately, how our government works.

You confuse getting change with getting change that YOU agree with. Nor do you have the least bit of proof that your version of change would provide any better results.

It doesn't really matter anyways. What he wants is not what most of America want and that is all that matters. There is no "right" or "wrong". It is all about representation which he is not getting because there is hardly anyone that agrees with him. That one aspect is the system working.

Yeah, your system is working alright. Might is right, eh?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Not any worse than having a leftist be president. Luckily that doesnt look like it will happen any time soon.

Well I really don't see the possibility of someone like Hugo Chavez getting elected here, but having another neocon is reasonably likely.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is very simplistic and seems to disregard all of the other countries that arent over there that are attacked and the general axis of strife between Muslim countries and their neighbors.

Us being over there being the sole reason for their attacks doesnt address half the equation.

What other countries that aren't over there, and what attacks are you referring to specifically?

I get the impression you are the one oversimplifying the situation.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: halik
Seriously,
can we just make a pact not to ever vote in a neocon? I don't see how someone of that persuasion can be but detrimental to foreign policy... you basically end up with real version of what "America world police" satirized.


Moreover, in the climate where we're at odds with religious extremism, you really can't pull off the "rah rah America fuck yeah" strategy. These people are willing to strap themselves full C4 and go kaboom, anyone with a least bit of intellect will realize that they have the ultimate advantage in any sort of conflict. You can't threaten someone with violence when they're ready to die for their cause and you're not willing to die for yours.

Maybe some people haven't noticed, or just didn't pay attention, but not having a neocon for a president in the past didn't alter the activities of the religious extremists.

After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy. Turning the other cheek and relegating the reactions to extremists as police actions failed us, badly. Maybe it's a strategy that you didn't agree with but that doesn't make it wrong. We won't really know what kind of impact Bush's foreign policy decisions will have over the long term anyway at this point so claiming he was detrimental is more of the same old "I hate Bush!" ranting, a rant that is primarily couched in sour grapes and partisanism.

What you said implies that 911 happened out of blue and there wasn't anything that caused that sequence of events. You're basically banking off the "they hate our freedom" propaganda rather than looking at the cause of things.

I don't hate Bush, far from it. I do hate ignorant ideology that leads to terrible foreign policy that ultimately leads to things like 9/11. It was things like supporting Taliban in the 80s that gave them the training and U.S. made Stingers (now used in iraq, check the DHL attack video) or the decision to leave our troops in middle east after Desert Storm (yet another new world order attempt) that ultimately lead to the attacks of 2001.

Once you get the historical perspective and actually listen to what the extremists actually have to say, you'll see that the whole conflict is little more complex than "terrists hate our freedum".

 

[Fingolfin269]

OP, please clarify someone who considers himself a moderate... are you referring to all Republicans when you say neocon (as has become common practice here) or are you referring to its true definition?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
OP, please clarify someone who considers himself a moderate... are you referring to all Republicans when you say neocon (as has become common practice here) or are you referring to its true definition?

True definition. I consider myself a Libertarian and vote predominantly Republican.

To me Neocon is someone that's after the "new world order", using military and clandestine operations to further whatever they see as "American values" and so on.

I do firmly believe, however, that the Bush administration is a paragon of a Neocon operation. All the propaganda and word games to change the popular opinion ("cut and run or stay the course", "axis of evil" to frame all discourse into right vs wrong choice) is telling of their true intentions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: halik
Seriously,
can we just make a pact not to ever vote in a neocon? I don't see how someone of that persuasion can be but detrimental to foreign policy... you basically end up with real version of what "America world police" satirized.


Moreover, in the climate where we're at odds with religious extremism, you really can't pull off the "rah rah America fuck yeah" strategy. These people are willing to strap themselves full C4 and go kaboom, anyone with a least bit of intellect will realize that they have the ultimate advantage in any sort of conflict. You can't threaten someone with violence when they're ready to die for their cause and you're not willing to die for yours.

Maybe some people haven't noticed, or just didn't pay attention, but not having a neocon for a president in the past didn't alter the activities of the religious extremists.

After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy. Turning the other cheek and relegating the reactions to extremists as police actions failed us, badly. Maybe it's a strategy that you didn't agree with but that doesn't make it wrong. We won't really know what kind of impact Bush's foreign policy decisions will have over the long term anyway at this point so claiming he was detrimental is more of the same old "I hate Bush!" ranting, a rant that is primarily couched in sour grapes and partisanism.

What you said implies that 911 happened out of blue and there wasn't anything that caused that sequence of events. You're basically banking off the "they hate our freedom" propaganda rather than looking at the cause of things.

I don't hate Bush, far from it. I do hate ignorant ideology that leads to terrible foreign policy that ultimately leads to things like 9/11. It was things like supporting Taliban in the 80s that gave them the training and U.S. made Stingers (now used in iraq, check the DHL attack video) or the decision to leave our troops in middle east after Desert Storm (yet another new world order attempt) that ultimately lead to the attacks of 2001.

Once you get the historical perspective and actually listen to what the extremists actually have to say, you'll see that the whole conflict is little more complex than "terrists hate our freedum".

I like how you build that strawman based on a false attribution of what I believe so you can attempt, and poorly so, to knock it down.

Yes, it is quite a bit more complex than "terrists hate our freedum". It's also a lot more complex than the naive belief that if we left them alone and didn't intervene that they'd leave the US alone. Those who reside in libertopia can't seem to comprehend that though.

 

[nageov3t]

Bush kept us safe from space invasion for 8 years, what more do you want?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: halik
Seriously,
can we just make a pact not to ever vote in a neocon? I don't see how someone of that persuasion can be but detrimental to foreign policy... you basically end up with real version of what "America world police" satirized.


Moreover, in the climate where we're at odds with religious extremism, you really can't pull off the "rah rah America fuck yeah" strategy. These people are willing to strap themselves full C4 and go kaboom, anyone with a least bit of intellect will realize that they have the ultimate advantage in any sort of conflict. You can't threaten someone with violence when they're ready to die for their cause and you're not willing to die for yours.

Maybe some people haven't noticed, or just didn't pay attention, but not having a neocon for a president in the past didn't alter the activities of the religious extremists.

After 9/11 it was time for a change in strategy. Turning the other cheek and relegating the reactions to extremists as police actions failed us, badly. Maybe it's a strategy that you didn't agree with but that doesn't make it wrong. We won't really know what kind of impact Bush's foreign policy decisions will have over the long term anyway at this point so claiming he was detrimental is more of the same old "I hate Bush!" ranting, a rant that is primarily couched in sour grapes and partisanism.

What you said implies that 911 happened out of blue and there wasn't anything that caused that sequence of events. You're basically banking off the "they hate our freedom" propaganda rather than looking at the cause of things.

I don't hate Bush, far from it. I do hate ignorant ideology that leads to terrible foreign policy that ultimately leads to things like 9/11. It was things like supporting Taliban in the 80s that gave them the training and U.S. made Stingers (now used in iraq, check the DHL attack video) or the decision to leave our troops in middle east after Desert Storm (yet another new world order attempt) that ultimately lead to the attacks of 2001.

Once you get the historical perspective and actually listen to what the extremists actually have to say, you'll see that the whole conflict is little more complex than "terrists hate our freedum".

I like how you build that strawman based on a false attribution of what I believe so you can attempt, and poorly so, to knock it down.

Yes, it is quite a bit more complex than "terrists hate our freedum". It's also a lot more complex than the naive belief that if we left them alone and didn't intervene that they'd leave the US alone. Those who reside in libertopia can't seem to comprehend that though.

What you wrote implied that before 911 we had a some sort of islolationist strategy that ultimately lead to the attacks. Afterward, neoconservativism was a "new" strategy, as opposed to the one that that actually lead up to the events... thus my argument. My point is that neocon plans from 2 decades past snowballed into 911 and you're making an argument for more of the same policy.

Where did I mention anything about leaving them alone?