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

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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?

Don't look to me to answer easily Googled questions you uneducated fool.

The Japanese didn't attack us because they're evil.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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.

So you think perhaps some country should invade the US for the purpose of banning abortion? So, you kow, people will be born.

 

[Fern]

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...
-snip-

To play this game with any seriousness, I think you need to state with some specificity what (you believe) the Neocon philosophy is regarding foreign policy. Too much confusion about a "Neocon" is.

Then, please describe the foriegn policy philosophy you prefer.

TIA

Fern

EDIT: I see you later posted this definition, but it's a bit sketchy to me; I don't know what the NWO is?

Originally posted by: halik
-snip-
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.

BTW: Everbody in politics uses "propaganda", so I don't see how that's determinative.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Great. So I guess Pearl Harbor happened because....what?

Really?
Which do you think is more logical:
1.) They attacked use because they are yellow skinned devils who hate america?
2.) They attacked because of the United States embargo on their oil reduced their available fuel supplies leading them to stage an attack on the US to prevent the US from interfering with their wars?
I think that eventually they would have attacked US holdings in the Pacific anyway no matter what we had done.


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.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
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.

Not sure why you are talking about Reagan, but ok.

 

[Kanalua]

I think liberal idealist peanut farmers from Georgia are worse...

OBEY!

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Great. So I guess Pearl Harbor happened because....what?

Really?
Which do you think is more logical:
1.) They attacked use because they are yellow skinned devils who hate america?
2.) They attacked because of the United States embargo on their oil reduced their available fuel supplies leading them to stage an attack on the US to prevent the US from interfering with their wars?
I think that eventually they would have attacked US holdings in the Pacific anyway no matter what we had done.


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.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
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.

Not sure why you are talking about Reagan, but ok.

I'd go with 2, which is really what happened. That being said, we being a sovereign nation have the right to choose our trading partners based on their actions and our interests. However, decisions like that do not justify an attack. We did not restrict them from getting their supplies from elsewhere...

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
I think liberal idealist peanut farmers from Georgia are worse...

OBEY!

Yeah, they contaminate your precious bodily fluids...

OMGSALMONELLAFOODPOISONING!! We should've known!

 

[First]

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.

You don't either and, frankly, the average American is probably more well informed than you think (and more than you, too).

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.

Except your alternatives are bunk, unproven, and extreme wingnut fantasies masquerading as new-age libertarianism. The fact that the U.S. is going through a particularly bad trough of the business cycle does not support your argument, as we've had equally terrible economic crisises with 19th century economics and policies you and Paulbots espouse. Paul is relevant, btw, since you espouse all his beliefs and pimp him in your sig. Just in case you were still confused.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Evan

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.

You don't either and, frankly, the average American is probably more well informed than you think (and more than you, too).

What information you believe he is lacking? Please share the reasoning behind your argument if you have any.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Evan

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.

You don't either and, frankly, the average American is probably more well informed than you think (and more than you, too).

What information you believe he is lacking? Please share the reasoning behind your argument if you have any.

For one, 67% of Americans are against the war in Iraq, and have been for years (06). I don't blame Americans for agreeing to go to war in Iraq (even though I didn't want to), because it was part of a logical build-up to war with WMDs a "certainty" and very poorly researched data presented to the public by the media. The administration played up the tragedy of 9/11 and made out-right false and/or blatant exaggerations. But eventually Americans realized it was mostly bunk.

The "Americans are dumb" line is always funny but rarely represents reality. Americans specialize in what puts food on the table, so they're well informed about those things and sometimes it will unfortunately lead to misinformed decisions about other things (like politics, like the terrible decision of voting Bush into office in 2004, for example). But this idea that Americans don't really know anything about politics is flatly wrong, and the polls show it. Obama being voted in by a landslide shows that they are clearly tired of failed policies, and Obama might not do a good job either, but clearly was the superior alternative. And it's not like bamarce or any of the other poorly informed/educated Paulbot posters here understand American politics/economics/diplomacy that well. Their arguments are purely driven by Internet dogma and Libertarian newsletters, nothing more. They take their talking points from newsletters especially; and I mean that literally, I have seen and used to receive Libertarian newsletters purely out of intellectual curiosity, and it's verbatim (for example, the line about Obama being "no different' diplomatically, is straight from those newsletters).

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan
You don't either and, frankly, the average American is probably more well informed than you think (and more than you, too).

Nothing but insults.

As for the rest of your nonsense, this thread is about foreign policy, not the economy.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Evan

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.

You don't either and, frankly, the average American is probably more well informed than you think (and more than you, too).

What information you believe he is lacking? Please share the reasoning behind your argument if you have any.

For one, 67% of Americans are against the war in Iraq, and have been for years (06). I don't blame Americans for agreeing to go to war in Iraq (even though I didn't want to), because it was part of a logical build-up to war with WMDs a "certainty" and very poorly researched data presented to the public by the media. The administration played up the tragedy of 9/11 and made out-right false and/or blatant exaggerations. But eventually Americans realized it was mostly bunk.

Thanks for proving my point instead of answering his question.

 

[First]

^ You couldn't explain otherwise if your life depended on it.

 

[Kanalua]

in four or eight years we will have a Conservative president...again...at least more conservative than the current president...and then all will be well again....

Carter sure worked out great! FDR's "Raw Deal" made the depression a "Great" one... The Clintons handcuffed intelligence and law enforcement leading to 9/11 (read Osama's fatwas on why he attacked the "paper tiger")... JFK/Johnson lead us down the road to that Vietnam debacle...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Evan
For one, 67% of Americans are against the war in Iraq, and have been for years (06).

Try looking back when the vast majority were sold on idea of invading Iraq, which is what Bamacre refered to. Or can you simply not bring yourself to do that?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Evan
For one, 67% of Americans are against the war in Iraq, and have been for years (06).

Try looking back when the vast majority were sold on idea of invading Iraq, which is what Bamacre refered to. Or can you simply not bring yourself to do that?

People make mistakes and are misinformed at times in their lives, doesn't mean they're always misinformed. I'm sure many young Paulbots here on the net will realize one day they were dead wrong.

 

[kylebisme]

It means they are too stupid to realize they aren't in any position to be backing what they do, just sheep following the herd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=313yC0G4ZcM

 

[First]

^ Point flew over your head.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Duke Kahanamoku
in four or eight years we will have a Conservative president...again...at least more conservative than the current president...and then all will be well again....

Carter sure worked out great! FDR's "Raw Deal" made the depression a "Great" one... The Clintons handcuffed intelligence and law enforcement leading to 9/11 (read Osama's fatwas on why he attacked the "paper tiger")... JFK/Johnson lead us down the road to that Vietnam debacle...

And Bush fucked the nation in the ass without lube.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Evan
For one, 67% of Americans are against the war in Iraq, and have been for years (06).

Try looking back when the vast majority were sold on idea of invading Iraq, which is what Bamacre refered to. Or can you simply not bring yourself to do that?

Keep in mind that what Americans were sold on back then is not what ended up happening. Yes, we were sold on an invasion, but we were also sold on the idea of an approach and goal that involved the defense of our nation. We were not sold on the idea of gradually changing our defensive goals into offensive goals. That's where the problems really started in the minds of most Americans that were for the war back around the time of 2002-04, but stopped supporting it later.

There is little we can do about that. When we elect officials to represent us we expect to be represented. If they fail to represent us properly then all we can do is vote someone else into office. However, at least when Americans elected Bush they were voting for someone which they believed reflected their interests. They did not vote for some libertarian which they KNOW beforehand does not reflect their interests. Bush really sucked, but just because he sucked that doesn't mean we should go and do something retarded like vote for someone that we believe is no good just because they represent a party or belief that is unusual.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Evan
^ Point flew over your head.

Actually I was elaborating on Bamacre's point, but it seems that is way over you read.

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Keep in mind that what Americans were sold on back then is not what ended up happening.

I know, our nation was sold on flagrant lies, like a bunch of sheep.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Evan
For one, 67% of Americans are against the war in Iraq, and have been for years (06).

Try looking back when the vast majority were sold on idea of invading Iraq, which is what Bamacre refered to. Or can you simply not bring yourself to do that?

People make mistakes and are misinformed at times in their lives, doesn't mean they're always misinformed. I'm sure many young Paulbots here on the net will realize one day they were dead wrong.

Hey, I'm still waiting for my burger kid. Do I need to talk to your manager?

 

[mxyzptlk]

oh, 4 more pages to read.. nm

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Keep in mind that what Americans were sold on back then is not what ended up happening.

I know, our nation was sold on flagrant lies, like a bunch of sheep.

You shouldn't be angry at the people for that reason though. It is not their fault.

 

[kylebisme]

It was their choice, so it is their fault. I'm not angry at anyone for that though, just very disappointed.