Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Glorious Freedonia]

I am also proud to be a neoconservative. We are definitely the good guys. We know that human rights are worth fighting for and that tyranny is evil and must be fought. This seems so obvious that I can't believe anyone is against it.

That's not neoconservatism. I agree that intervention is sometimes necessary, but neoconservatism is too extreme, as it involves military recklessness, high spending, and useless wars.

Nobody ever wanted useless wars except for Caligula. Nobody ever argued for military recklessness. Neoconservatism is the belief that totalitarianism must be opposed in every way including military force.

[Americanada]

I'm not a neoconservative, but I occasionally find myself agreeing with neocons. I tend to be a bit interventionist, which is why I believe that our intervention in Libya was justified, and why I believe that we need to intervene in Syria. In this case, "we" is the USA.

Now, I don't support invading dictatorial hellholes just because we suspect they have WMDs, alongside other things that neocons typically support, such as a larger military. I think the military is a fine size at the moment.

We could be spending the money somewhere that's more important then the Military. We should slash off 200 Billion from the budget.

Rather than risking an amount of the 3.23 million people employed by the Department of Defense, how about we act as a Keynesians and recognize that the spending of the DoD is far closer to underfunding than it is to malignant overfunding considering that the later would require it to be close to GDP growth for negative effects to occur considering that we have a fiat currency and the necessary credit-rating to act on it.

The problem isn't that the DoD could be argued to be over-funded in various areas. As a person who likes people's having jobs, I think that cutting the budget of what is literally the world's largest employer might just be poorly thought-out move in an unemployment crisis. If anything, the government as a whole should be providing more jobs (especially in regards to infrastructure considering how well many American bridges are holding-up).

How about we stare-down the Austrian-accented problem in the room and recognize that it is just that deficit hawks are proliferating a mindset where, for all practical purposes, people are trying to avoid starvation by sabotaging each other's access to a practically unlimited supply of food.

I'm not a neoconservative, but I occasionally find myself agreeing with neocons. I tend to be a bit interventionist, which is why I believe that our intervention in Libya was justified, and why I believe that we need to intervene in Syria. In this case, "we" is the USA.

Now, I don't support invading dictatorial hellholes just because we suspect they have WMDs, alongside other things that neocons typically support, such as a larger military. I think the military is a fine size at the moment.

Really, my big problem with neo-conservative ideology is basically similar to my problems with alternative "medicine" in that it is mildly beneficial at best and a life-changing problem at worst that is masquerading as something good.

Still, too large a military is a problem alongside "there is too much food on my plate" in circumstances of a government with a fiat currency and a sufficient credit rating as I explained my opinions on above.

[Glorious Freedonia]

I am also proud to be a neoconservative. We are definitely the good guys. We know that human rights are worth fighting for and that tyranny is evil and must be fought. This seems so obvious that I can't believe anyone is against it.

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan would disagree with you on that part.

I am not sure that Afghanistan ever had any experiences with neoconservatism. I am not sure that the Taliban were totalitarian. They seemed rather theocratic but not really totalitarian. Sad dam Hussein was certainly toppled to a large extent by neoconservatism and the Iraqi people are better off for it. His human rights violations were beyond words.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Ok what does pleb mean?

[Pandeeria]

We could be spending the money somewhere that's more important then the Military. We should slash off 200 Billion from the budget.

Rather than risking an amount of the 3.23 million people employed by the Department of Defense, how about we act as a Keynesians and recognize that the spending of the DoD is far closer to underfunding than it is to malignant overfunding considering that the later would require it to be close to GDP growth for negative effects to occur.

The problem isn't that the DoD could be argued to be over-funded in various areas. As a person who likes people's having jobs, I think that cutting the budget of what is literally the world's largest employer might just be poorly thought-out in a time when unemployment crisis. Please remember that I think that a big problem is that many governments are not providing enough jobs in times of high-unemployment.

Instead, how about we stare-down the Austrian-accented problem in the room and recognize that it is just that deficit hawks are proliferating a mindset where, for all practical purposes, people are trying to avoid starvation by sabotaging each other's access to a practically unlimited supply of food.

I'd rather we cut military spending to 480 Billion USD or we can raise taxes, mainly. We can get plenty of money from implementing a Carbon Tax, and also taxing things like Marijuana and Churches would get us plenty of money without increasing things such as Income or Sales Tax.

As it stands right now, I simply don't like the Status Quo. Student Loans and Debt are increasing at a crippling rate while college fees and tuition is increasing. People are in need of healthcare, and a system that works. Also, we should divert more funds to Unemployment Benefits. You even said yourself that you think a big problem is that governments cannot provide jobs in high-unemployment times, so I assume you'd be for increasing spending on unemployment benefits.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's similar to what would be neoimperialism, really. The furtherment of "democracy" and "freedom" abroad through war and military intervention is hypocritical, flawed, and unethical.

Hypocritical?

Democratic governments believe in the right of self-determination, but the U.S. has only intervened only when it suits its own interests

[Logic and Reason]

I am also proud to be a neoconservative. We are definitely the good guys. We know that human rights are worth fighting for and that tyranny is evil and must be fought. This seems so obvious that I can't believe anyone is against it.

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan would disagree with you on that part.

Who told you that? Are you saying that 100% of the entire population of Afghanistan and Iraq want the US troops out of their country? That implication is quite illogical.

Take a moment to consider Vietnam. We were losing thousands of troops a day, and the American people protested the war to a point where we eventually brought our troops home. Here's what most of those people didn't see: Vietnamese women and children grasping onto helicopters as they left for america and the genocide of millions of people under a newly founded communist regime.

Take a moment to look at our own beginnings as an American nation? What would've happened to us if France wouldn't have been there at Yorktown? There would be no America.

The people of Iraq, as of now, are at war with ISIL, and if we leave, there will be genocide. Now, do I believe that we need troops in Germany and Italy? Absolutely not! It's an assured waste of money and men, but before you start speaking for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, be sure to understand the complexity of the entire situation, and not just the popular opinion.

[The Grim Reaper]

Take a moment to consider Vietnam. We were losing thousands of troops a day, and the American people protested the war to a point where we eventually brought our troops home. Here's what most of those people didn't see: Vietnamese women and children grasping onto helicopters as they left for america and the genocide of millions of people under a newly founded communist regime.

A lot of them were trying to escape /South/ Vietnam. Scores of people defected from the South to the North.

The North reunified Vietnam and has had government continuity up until the present day.

Yes, a number of South Vietnamese were killed upon reunification, but South Vietnam's government, which the USA was defending, was objectively a worse regime.

[District XIV]

Ok what does pleb mean?

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

The Roman working class, essentially.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Take a moment to consider Vietnam. We were losing thousands of troops a day, and the American people protested the war to a point where we eventually brought our troops home. Here's what most of those people didn't see: Vietnamese women and children grasping onto helicopters as they left for america and the genocide of millions of people under a newly founded communist regime.

Are you kidding me? South Vietnam was, quite frankly, a U.S.-backed right-wing government which leader was a sleazebag.

[Americanada]

Rather than risking an amount of the 3.23 million people employed by the Department of Defense, how about we act as a Keynesians and recognize that the spending of the DoD is far closer to underfunding than it is to malignant overfunding considering that the later would require it to be close to GDP growth for negative effects to occur.

The problem isn't that the DoD could be argued to be over-funded in various areas. As a person who likes people's having jobs, I think that cutting the budget of what is literally the world's largest employer might just be poorly thought-out in a time when unemployment crisis. Please remember that I think that a big problem is that many governments are not providing enough jobs in times of high-unemployment.

Instead, how about we stare-down the Austrian-accented problem in the room and recognize that it is just that deficit hawks are proliferating a mindset where, for all practical purposes, people are trying to avoid starvation by sabotaging each other's access to a practically unlimited supply of food.

I'd rather we cut military spending to 480 Billion USD or we can raise taxes, mainly. We can get plenty of money from implementing a Carbon Tax, and also taxing things like Marijuana and Churches would get us plenty of money without increasing things such as Income or Sales Tax.

As it stands right now, I simply don't like the Status Quo. Student Loans and Debt are increasing at a crippling rate while college fees and tuition is increasing. People are in need of healthcare, and a system that works. Also, we should divert more funds to Unemployment Benefits. You even said yourself that you think a big problem is that governments cannot provide jobs in high-unemployment times, so I assume you'd be for increasing spending on unemployment benefits.

Yes, while I support some tax increases (namely ones whose primary effectors will be those who have recovered already, not groups which are still in recovery, so namely the large corporations and, obviously, the wealthy), but it is more about just some personal satisfaction (and, with the carbon tax, an environmental incentive rather than an actual economic purposeful idea). To radically butcher Keynesian economics, you spend low and tax high in good economic times while spending high and taxing low in bad ones.

Really, I just think of overspending (given a fiat currency and a sufficient credit rating) as a benign tumor. Sure, it is ugly, but ugliness is a far better problem than chemotherapy. Sure, I dislike the status quo too, but my main problem is that many people, thanks to the popularization of Austrian economics, many people feel as though the US Federal budget is quid pro quo at this point when, no, that would require an exponentially larger spending to ever reach a point where such a treatment would be necessary. Really, my main problem is that it reeks of Austrian economics since, again, the federal budget isn't quid pro quo. My main problem is that many proposals operate on the same page as Republicans when, realistically, we should be fighting those exact assumptions which are in many cases resulting in underfunding in the first place (see: Sequestration) or at least making it far harder to fight it where it is.

Let me put my mindset on display here. I would rather that people have too much food on their plates than too little food on their plates. Sure, the former would risk obesity, but the former would risk malnourishment. We have more than enough food to ensure that everyone could experience the former problem, so my idea is that risking the former is far better than risking the later. I'd rather risk that the Department of Education has too much money than it has too little money, as is the same for every other department. That, combined with the often subtle acceptance of the "balanced budget" mindset of the Republican Party rather than active countering of it, generally makes me view statements of "we should reduce military spending" always come-off to me more as a part of the problem of dignifying the deficit hawks combined with a bit of what I will call hypocrisy of thinking of it being similar to calling a molehill a "mountain" while standing on an actual mountain.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Ok what does pleb mean?

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

The Roman working class, essentially.

So it is short for plebeian? That makes little sense.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Take a moment to consider Vietnam. We were losing thousands of troops a day, and the American people protested the war to a point where we eventually brought our troops home. Here's what most of those people didn't see: Vietnamese women and children grasping onto helicopters as they left for america and the genocide of millions of people under a newly founded communist regime.

Are you kidding me? South Vietnam was, quite frankly, a U.S.-backed right-wing government which leader was a sleazebag.

The us govt did not like the dictatorship but the dictatorship was anti commie

[Pandeeria]

Are you kidding me? South Vietnam was, quite frankly, a U.S.-backed right-wing government which leader was a sleazebag.

The us govt did not like the dictatorship but the dictatorship was anti commie

Being anti-communist doesn't justify propping up a shitty dictatorship.

[The Grim Reaper]

Are you kidding me? South Vietnam was, quite frankly, a U.S.-backed right-wing government which leader was a sleazebag.

The us govt did not like the dictatorship but the dictatorship was anti commie

So? Doesn't change the fact that South Vietnam were more genocidal and psychotic than the communists.

[District XIV]

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

The Roman working class, essentially.

So it is short for plebeian? That makes little sense.

Yes, it is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

The Roman working class, essentially.

So it is short for plebeian? That makes little sense.

It makes sense if you think that there were only two classes of people.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Are you kidding me? South Vietnam was, quite frankly, a U.S.-backed right-wing government which leader was a sleazebag.

The us govt did not like the dictatorship but the dictatorship was anti commie

It doesn't matter, it was backed because it was anti-communist. That is the point, that we have supported sleazebags but we didn't even know the culture of Vietnam.

In fact, Vietnamese culture was already ripe to accept communism because it wasn't that much of a change from their past culture at all in the spin off Ho Chi Minh was teaching.

We need to remember that, although Ho was a communist, he was a Vietnamese first and foremost, and that his Vietnamese heritage mattered to him rather than being buddies with Stalin and Mao.

[Asyir]

If you took off "more than" I would fully agree with you.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you took off "more than" I would fully agree with you.

I fixed from "more" to "rather"; better?

[Asyir]

If you took off "more than" I would fully agree with you.

I fixed from "more" to "rather"; better?

Better

[Korouse]

To give a fine example of a big military - The U.S.

It can put down whatever shitty little regime it'd like to, unless you decide to go all unconventional on us, then we'll bomb the shit out of your little palace killing all the other people around it. Then, of course, get blamed by the U.N. for all the big bad things in the world - when in reality we're the U.N.'s number one supporter and your regime doesn't give a shit about regular old peasants in the muddy alleyways.

So, all in all, if you want your country to kick ass and take names - do it, and do it hard.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

I am not sure that Afghanistan ever had any experiences with neoconservatism. I am not sure that the Taliban were totalitarian. They seemed rather theocratic but not really totalitarian. Sad dam Hussein was certainly toppled to a large extent by neoconservatism and the Iraqi people are better off for it. His human rights violations were beyond words.

Yes they did. Afghanistan's own experience with neoconservatism came when the Bush Administration decided to invade that country with no formal declaration of war simply because it wanted to hunt down Bin Laden.

Oh really? "Better off for it"? Last I checked, Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't have to worry about a US military occupation that was wasteful and brutal, a creeping insurgency by ISIL that threatens to split the country apart and a sectarian government that seems perfectly inclined to neglect the interests of the Sunnis. Anyone can see that Saddam Hussein was the lesser of two evils compared to the Iraq of today.

[Korouse]

I am not sure that Afghanistan ever had any experiences with neoconservatism. I am not sure that the Taliban were totalitarian. They seemed rather theocratic but not really totalitarian. Sad dam Hussein was certainly toppled to a large extent by neoconservatism and the Iraqi people are better off for it. His human rights violations were beyond words.

Yes they did. Afghanistan's own experience with neoconservatism came when the Bush Administration decided to invade that country with no formal declaration of war simply because it wanted to hunt down Bin Laden.

Oh really? "Better off for it"? Last I checked, Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't have to worry about a US military occupation that was wasteful and brutal, a creeping insurgency by ISIL that threatens to split the country apart and a sectarian government that seems perfectly inclined to neglect the interests of the Sunnis. Anyone can see that Saddam Hussein was the lesser of two evils compared to the Iraq of today.

It's like the U.S. almost DIDN'T see ISIS coming!

[Asyir]

Think about it this way, war will always happen, it's human nature. However before you declare war and go gung-ho, ask yourself these questions 10 questions:

1.) Is it worth separating husbands from wives?
2.) Is this war worth fathers leaving their children behind?
3.) Is this war worth the taxpayer dollars?
4.) Does this war have a clear intention?
5.) Is this war going to benefit us?
6.) Is this war justifiable?
7.) Are we going to win?
8.) Will we receive support from the civilians "over there"?
9.) Will we receive support from our allies?
And the most important question of all:
10.) Is it worth American lives?

If you've answered no to at least one question, then you are throwing lives and money away. It's a shame our politicians don't ask themselves these questions everyday.