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

[bamacre]

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.

It is rather simplistic. It doesn't need to be complex. And I really don't give a shit what happens over there. I care about what happens here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 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 non-interventionist strategy that ultimately lead to the attacks. Somehow neoconservative was a "new" strategy, as opposed to the one that that lead up to the events.

Where did I mention anything about leaving them alone ?

No, I did not say that. What I said about our policy has been bolded above, for your edification.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It doesn't really matter anyways. What he wants is not what most of America want and that is all that matters.

Yeah, most of America had a hard-on for invading Iraq. :roll:

The truth is, most of Americans have no idea what we do overseas. Not until it effects them, or it's plastered all over the media.

Your argument here is absurd.

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, the system is working wonderfully. :roll:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: 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.

Forget it, they have their heads up the asses of either the Rep's or the Dem's. They are all for intervention and murder overseas, as long as it is their favorite team doing the killing and not the other.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

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.

How about Spain?
How about Russia?
How about India?
How about France?
How about any country on the border of the Muslim world?


It isnt oversimplfying it if one looks at the bigger more complex issue that more than one nation or people is under seige from these religious whackjobs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

What you describe is American Foreign policy since the end of WWII which includes democrat and republican alike.

 

[bamacre]

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".

You're not going to get anywhere with TLC. He's a left-leaning pro-government neo-con.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It doesn't really matter anyways. What he wants is not what most of America want and that is all that matters.

Yeah, most of America had a hard-on for invading Iraq. :roll:

The truth is, most of Americans have no idea what we do overseas. Not until it effects them, or it's plastered all over the media.

Your argument here is absurd.

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, the system is working wonderfully. :roll:

I didn't say the whole system is working perfectly and nor did I say that most Americans "had a hard-on for invading Iraq". All I am saying is that what you want overall is not what America wants.

In terms of representation, I am not certain whether or not America's citizens would have felt better represented by a libertarian president that supports all of your view points more so than they did with Bush. However, I will say that America is being much better represented by Obama than they would have if Ron Paul was elected and that is an example of that part of our system working decently well. I say "decently well" because nothing is perfect. You know that is true. You just don't like it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

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.

How about Spain?
How about Russia?
How about India?
How about France?
How about any country on the border of the Muslim world?


It isnt oversimplfying it if one looks at the bigger more complex issue that more than one nation or people is under seige from these religious whackjobs.

It is oversimplifying when you just rattle of countries without mentioning any details of the attacks you are alluding to. Can you specify at least one specific attack on one country so we can start have a rational discussion about your argument?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

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.

How about Spain?
How about Russia?
How about India?
How about France?
How about any country on the border of the Muslim world?


It isnt oversimplfying it if one looks at the bigger more complex issue that more than one nation or people is under seige from these religious whackjobs.

I'll add to that list:

Sri Lanka
Philipines
Thailand
Many countries in Africa, most famously Sudan

I'll also point out something that I've pointed out numerous times in this forum and get nothing back as a response but crickets from the "stop being interventist" crew. The countries I listed above are not interventionist. So, can any members of that crew please explain why those countries being assaulted by religious extremists (and let's stop pulling punches here, specifically it's Islamic extremists) who want to take complete control and force everyone to comply with their barbarian religious edicts?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
All I am saying is that what you want overall is not what America wants.

Because Americans generally have little to no understanding of our foreign policies. They are sold on bad ideas, like invading Iraq, and have no understanding of the consequences of other actions, like sanctions killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's while Clinton was in office.
The American people have unfortunately become dependent on, and trust that, government "do the right thing" when it comes to foreign policy. American's ignorance is NO excuse for government's actions.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

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.

How about Spain?
How about Russia?
How about India?
How about France?
How about any country on the border of the Muslim world?


It isnt oversimplfying it if one looks at the bigger more complex issue that more than one nation or people is under seige from these religious whackjobs.

It is oversimplifying when you just rattle of countries without mentioning any details of the attacks you are alluding to. Can you specify at least one specific attack on one country so we can start have a rational discussion about your argument?

There isnt a need to discuss specific attacks. All it will devolve into is nitpicking finer details which neither us will know enough about. My point in bringing up the other countries involved is there is clearly more to the story than simple they attacked us because we are over there.

And I'd like you to answer what you think about AQ's stated desire to bring an Islamic "world" govt to power. How does that play into this argument about the reason we are attacked is only because we are over there?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre
You're not going to get anywhere with TLC. He's a left-leaning pro-government neo-con.

Actually, I'm not a neocon in any, way, shape, or form. What's funny about people who so casually toss that label around is that they apparently have little to no clue what a neo-con is or what their plan was. You know what? The original neo-con strategy never called for any invasion of Iraq. The neo-con plan for Iraq was to maintain the status quo and keep Saddam fenced in, which is ultimately what the lefties wanted. Does that make lefties neo-cons? Because they agreed with the neo-con strategy.

In fact, the only reason you even use that term is to attempt to slime people with it, which is really poor form and juvenile behavior at its core.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre
You're not going to get anywhere with TLC. He's a left-leaning pro-government neo-con.

Actually, I'm not a neocon in any, way, shape, or form. What's funny about people who so casually toss that label around is that they apparently have little to no clue what a neo-con is or what their plan was. You know what? The original neo-con strategy never called for any invasion of Iraq. The neo-con plan for Iraq was to maintain the status quo and keep Saddam fenced in, which is ultimately what the lefties wanted. Does that make lefties neo-cons? Because they agreed with the neo-con strategy.

In fact, the only reason you even use that term is to attempt to slime people with it, which is really poor form and juvenile behavior at its core.

According to most of the people who claim to hate neocons. Every president since and including FDR is a fucking neocon. The label has been used so much it means nearly nothing now. Kind of like how people label any liberal a socialist. Do it enough and it means nothing.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, I'm not a neocon in any, way, shape, or form.

You certainly fit the bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: 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.

Forget it, they have their heads up the asses of either the Rep's or the Dem's. They are all for intervention and murder overseas, as long as it is their favorite team doing the killing and not the other.

I understand that. What I don't understand is how nobody in this forum seems to understand the difference between isolationist and non-interventionist. Willful ignorance I guess.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

I disagree with you're implication.

Very few people are evil, but some are. There's no curing that. They hate us because they hate us. They don't want to be understood. They want us dead.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 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.

Great. So I guess Pearl Harbor happened because....what?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, I'm not a neocon in any, way, shape, or form.

You certainly fit the bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Not really. I don't base my views on "defending national interests," which is the basic core value of neoconservatism. My views are based on actions that, imo, will ultimately make the world a better place. If in doing that it serves our national interest as well, so be it, but national interests are not my focus.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

And what, in your opinion, is this disease you speak of? And what is the cure? Diplomacy?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
All I am saying is that what you want overall is not what America wants.

Because Americans generally have little to no understanding of our foreign policies. They are sold on bad ideas, like invading Iraq, and have no understanding of the consequences of other actions, like sanctions killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's while Clinton was in office.
The American people have unfortunately become dependent on, and trust that, government "do the right thing" when it comes to foreign policy. American's ignorance is NO excuse for government's actions.

You are right. Most don't understand our foreign policies. That is why we elect those that we trust and support to handle it for us. Hence, representation. They didn't trust or support Ron Paul enough to elect him. Again, that is an example of that one part of our system working. Just because you don't like the results of that part of the system does not mean it is not working as intended well enough.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Xavier434
All I am saying is that what you want overall is not what America wants.

Because Americans generally have little to no understanding of our foreign policies. They are sold on bad ideas, like invading Iraq, and have no understanding of the consequences of other actions, like sanctions killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's while Clinton was in office.
The American people have unfortunately become dependent on, and trust that, government "do the right thing" when it comes to foreign policy. American's ignorance is NO excuse for government's actions.

You are right. Most don't understand our foreign policies. That is why we elect those that we trust and support to handle it for us. Hence, representation. They didn't trust or support Ron Paul enough to elect him. Again, that is an example of that one part of our system working. Just because you don't like the results of that part of the system does not mean it is not working as intended well enough.

Can you see just how off topic and irrelevant your posts are? I didn't mention Ron Paul, you did. I didn't mention representation, you did. Everyone else here is talking about neocons and foreign policy.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 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.

Fine call me a neocon I disagree with non-intervention. I probably would not have been born if the US hadn't intervened in my old country.

 

[RichardE]

The philosophy of neo-cons is solid, the implementation is sketchy.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

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.

How about Spain?
How about Russia?
How about India?
How about France?
How about any country on the border of the Muslim world?


It isnt oversimplfying it if one looks at the bigger more complex issue that more than one nation or people is under seige from these religious whackjobs.

It is oversimplifying when you just rattle of countries without mentioning any details of the attacks you are alluding to. Can you specify at least one specific attack on one country so we can start have a rational discussion about your argument?

There isnt a need to discuss specific attacks. All it will devolve into is nitpicking finer details which neither us will know enough about. My point in bringing up the other countries involved is there is clearly more to the story than simple they attacked us because we are over there.

I know quite a bit about the details and am ready and willing to learn more, but as you admittedly know little about the complexities of this issue and have no interest in doing so, I obviously can't expect to ever have rational discussion on the subject with you.

Originally posted by: Genx87
And I'd like you to answer what you think about AQ's stated desire to bring an Islamic "world" govt to power. How does that play into this argument about the reason we are attacked is only because we are over there?

Source?