Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Anglo-California]

Because almost everything either directly or indirectly affect us in a globalised world?

Libertarians want a globalized society for the accruement of profit, not for the many other positive reasons. As such, they feel no need to help others in need in other countries.

Libertarians disagree with the idea of being taxed for it.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Because almost everything either directly or indirectly affect us in a globalised world?

Libertarians want a globalized society for the accruement of profit, not for the many other positive reasons. As such, they feel no need to help others in need in other countries.

They do realise that a globalised society, even for the accruement of profit, requires stability and therefore giving a shit about the rest of the world.

[Murkwood]

My very redneck friend says they taste delicious.
That metaphor only works when it's not someone prepared for you, which is what extremists would be if you let them consolidate in a region instead of dislodging them.

On the other hand, if you took up the policy of actively refusing to meddle in the affairs of others said extremists would not feel the need to lash out against you and would be content to genocide their way through their own back yard leaving you out of it. Everybody wins.

That's a major fallacy, one I like to call the "Israeli-9/11" fallacy. Extremists like Osama bin Laden justify their lashing out at the west politically, saying he did it to protest US backing of Israel. But even if the US hadn't backed Israel, bin Laden would still hate Western Values and want to lash out at us. They hate what we do, but they hate us even more.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So, the difference is only a matter of jargon and imagry.

No. For example

America was isolationist policy wise for the first half of the 1800s, and then non-interventionist. The difference is between how much you want to act abroad with other nations, economically, militarily, and etc.

So extremely superifical difference that turn on technicalities that, upon deeper inspection, really doesn't matter.

[The Liberated Territories]

Naturally. So unless the rest of civilization is directly affecting us, why should we bother if the only thing it does is create more conflict?

Because almost everything either directly or indirectly affect us in a globalised world?

Lol. Does everything that affect us justify going to war over? If the net outcome has been proven to, over time, be a negative influence than a positive one, why continue it? (Iraq war)

[The Liberated Territories]

No. For example

America was isolationist policy wise for the first half of the 1800s, and then non-interventionist. The difference is between how much you want to act abroad with other nations, economically, militarily, and etc.

So extremely superifical difference that turn on technicalities that, upon deeper inspection, really doesn't matter.

You aren't getting this, are you?

[Murkwood]

Because almost everything either directly or indirectly affect us in a globalised world?

Lol. Does everything that affect us justify going to war over? If the net outcome has been proven to, over time, be a negative influence than a positive one, why continue it? (Iraq war)

But war is not Math. You can't accurately calculate the outcome.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Because almost everything either directly or indirectly affect us in a globalised world?

Lol. Does everything that affect us justify going to war over? If the net outcome has been proven to, over time, be a negative influence than a positive one, why continue it? (Iraq war)

No, but it does justify not having isolat- sorry, non-interventionist policies.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So extremely superifical difference that turn on technicalities that, upon deeper inspection, really doesn't matter.

You aren't getting this, are you?

Please explain how isolationism is any different from non-interventionist beside a new title, and differences in technical jargon.

[The Liberated Territories]

Lol. Does everything that affect us justify going to war over? If the net outcome has been proven to, over time, be a negative influence than a positive one, why continue it? (Iraq war)

But war is not Math. You can't accurately calculate the outcome.

Fallacy.

I think the outcome of the last 13 years proves that we have done nothing except exasperate the problem, resulting the current quagmire that afflicts the middle east. Why then, do the general "arabic" public increasingly turn against America and support these terrorist groups? Why do bombing weddings of suspected terrorists tarnish our image and help unstabilize the region?

Conservatism my ass. Reacting like that doesn't conserve anything.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

But war is not Math. You can't accurately calculate the outcome.

Fallacy.

I think the outcome of the last 13 years proves that we have done nothing except exasperate the problem, resulting the current quagmire that afflicts the middle east. Why then, do the general "arabic" public increasingly turn against America and support these terrorist groups? Why do bombing weddings of suspected terrorists tarnish our image and help unstabilize the region?

Conservatism my ass. Reacting like that doesn't conserve anything.

So, one president's mismanagement under an irrational doctrine somehow condemn the whole policy of "we should give a shit about what's happening elsewhere", and then go to the other end of the extreme. That sounds more fallacious than what Murkwood is saying.

[Murkwood]

But war is not Math. You can't accurately calculate the outcome.

Fallacy.

I think the outcome of the last 13 years proves that we have done nothing except exasperate the problem, resulting the current quagmire that afflicts the middle east. Why then, do the general "arabic" public increasingly turn against America and support these terrorist groups? Why do bombing weddings of suspected terrorists tarnish our image and help unstabilize the region?

Conservatism my ass. Reacting like that doesn't conserve anything.

Our image comes second to defeating terrorism and tyranny.

[Benuty]

Fallacy.

I think the outcome of the last 13 years proves that we have done nothing except exasperate the problem, resulting the current quagmire that afflicts the middle east. Why then, do the general "arabic" public increasingly turn against America and support these terrorist groups? Why do bombing weddings of suspected terrorists tarnish our image and help unstabilize the region?

Conservatism my ass. Reacting like that doesn't conserve anything.

Our image comes second to defeating terrorism and tyranny.

Replacing terrorism, and tyranny with an even worse form of the latter seems redundant.

[The Liberated Territories]

You aren't getting this, are you?

Please explain how isolationism is any different from non-interventionist beside a new title, and differences in technical jargon.

Isolationism:
No trading
No immigration
No diplomacy (no nothing really)
Always oppose war (unless that war is internal)

Example nation: 1700s Japan

Non-interventionism:
Trade
Free immigration
Prefers diplomatic solutions
only support war if in self defense.

Example nation: Late 1800s America

[Murkwood]

Please explain how isolationism is any different from non-interventionist beside a new title, and differences in technical jargon.

Isolationism:
No trading
No immigration
No diplomacy (no nothing really)
Always oppose war (unless that war is internal)

Example nation: 1700s Japan

Non-interventionism:
Trade
Free immigration
Prefers diplomatic solutions
only support war if in self defense.

Example nation: Late 1800s America

Even if your definitions are correct, why is non-interventionism a good thing? A non-interventionist America wouldn't have gone into the Europe front of WWII.

[The Liberated Territories]

Isolationism:
No trading
No immigration
No diplomacy (no nothing really)
Always oppose war (unless that war is internal)

Example nation: 1700s Japan

Non-interventionism:
Trade
Free immigration
Prefers diplomatic solutions
only support war if in self defense.

Example nation: Late 1800s America

Even if your definitions are correct, why is non-interventionism a good thing? A non-interventionist America wouldn't have gone into the Europe front of WWII.

Wrong. America was attacked by Japan. As a force of aggression, it would be applicable to retaliate. Assuming that the triparte act holds, America could be justified in going to war against all of them. Now, I could argue that America had gone a little overboard (particularly with the nuke at Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but yeah.

[Murkwood]

Our image comes second to defeating terrorism and tyranny.

Replacing terrorism, and tyranny with an even worse form of the latter seems redundant.

Where have we done that?

[The Liberated Territories]

Replacing terrorism, and tyranny with an even worse form of the latter seems redundant.

Where have we done that?

The Middle East perhaps.

[Distruzio]

The more left I trend away from anarcho-capitalism the more I find neoconservatism appealing - from a purely pragmatic perspective, mind you.

[Murkwood]

Where have we done that?

The Middle East perhaps.

Point to a greater tyranny we installed.

[The New Sea Territory]

Because almost everything either directly or indirectly affect us in a globalised world?

Libertarians want a globalized society for the accruement of profit, not for the many other positive reasons. As such, they feel no need to help others in need in other countries.

....you really can't just say "Libertarians". That's like saying "Socialists". It is a really vague term. What libertarians, exactly? Paulites, or modern American Libertarians, Randian Objectivists, Minarchists, Anarchists, Classical Liberals, European Liberals....?

[The Liberated Territories]

The Middle East perhaps.

Point to a greater tyranny we installed.

Iran. Iraq.

[Distruzio]

The Middle East perhaps.

Point to a greater tyranny we installed.

Opposing Ghaddaffi, Mubarak, Assad, Hussein, and Omar hasn't, historically, resulted in more stable nations.

And lets not forget Pahlavi.

[Purpelia]

That's a major fallacy, one I like to call the "Israeli-9/11" fallacy. Extremists like Osama bin Laden justify their lashing out at the west politically, saying he did it to protest US backing of Israel. But even if the US hadn't backed Israel, bin Laden would still hate Western Values and want to lash out at us. They hate what we do, but they hate us even more.

Sure they would hate western values. But hating something personally really does not lend it self to recruiting people to die for your hatred as easily as you think. On the other hand having those same people bombed out of home and family whilst having corrupt governments and psychotic dictatorships thrust upon them by people holding to those values you hate beforehand helps. Hell, you don't even have to bomb them to make them hate you. Just plain old sanctions or even an economic recession caused by you will do.

There is a reason why extremist ideals, be they religious, nationalist or any other tend to spring up and take sway in situations of crisis. When people can't live the lifestyle they want to have they become desperate and turn to anyone who promises them a way out, regardless of how extreme. And the most obvious way out is to lash out against the ones who are preventing you from living your life the way you want. Looking at things that way it's relatively easy to see how the western world with its insistence of constantly telling the remainder of the planet what to do, how to behave, what ideals to uphold etc. under threat of sanctions, isolation and invasion is a boogeyman to a large part of the planet.

By allowing moral principals rather than economic and security interests to dictate foreign policy the western world is actively clashing against everyone whose morality it disagrees with. And in my opinion that needs to stop.

[The New Sea Territory]

The more left I trend away from anarcho-capitalism the more I find neoconservatism appealing - from a purely pragmatic perspective, mind you.

Yes, invading other countries off hunches and hypothetical situations is a pragmatic belief. In the same universe that yes means no.