Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Murkwood]

Edit: I decided to change the title to something funnier.

After participating in a pretty long threadjack on the Neo-Conservatism, I decided to create a post about it. When people bring up Neo-Conservatism/Interventionism, everyone has their two cents. Some believe that's it's the moral stance to take, to protect those who can't protect themselves and strengthen our standing in the world. Others disagreeing, thinking of NeoCons as trigger happy cowboys. What do you, denizens of NSG, think of Neo-Conservtism?

As a staunch NeoCon myself, I fully support it. Some people, usually Libertarians, say that you can't be pro-market and a NeoCon. I disagree. It's possible to be pro-smaller government and a NeoCon. Just because you believe the defense budget shouldn't be cut doesn't make you anti-small government. Rather, it mean that you value a strong country.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Remember kids, small government is good (except when it's forcing its power on people not even in the country—then big government is great).

[Canaore]

When are you going to stop trying to be funny and write normal titles?

[Murkwood]

Remember kids, small government is good (except when it's forcing its power on people not even in the country—then big government is great).

It's possible to have a big defense and a small domestic government.

[Valaran]

When are you going to stop trying to be funny and write normal titles?

Eh, humor is needed in NSG after a while.

[Murkwood]

When are you going to stop trying to be funny and write normal titles?

Every thread I make has to have two things:
1. Funny title
2. Poll with at least one humorous option.

It's my NSG tradition, like how Benuty spoilers everything.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Remember kids, small government is good (except when it's forcing its power on people not even in the country—then big government is great).

It's possible to have a big defense and a small domestic government.

Obviously, it's possible, as we can clearly see with the US. I, however, find it not only immoral, but also a tremendous waste of resources.

[Kelinfort]

I'm not completely against it, in fact, I am sometimes in favour of intervention, but intervening just because of a dictatorial government or oil reserves is not good enough of a reason to intervene.

[Murkwood]

It's possible to have a big defense and a small domestic government.

Obviously, it's possible, as we can clearly see with the US. I, however, find it not only immoral, but also a tremendous waste of resources.

Immoral?

[Avenio]

I'm not an enormous fan. Their foreign policy in practice is grossly hypocritical - supporting the destruction of dictatorships they don't like while surreptitiously propping up the ones they do, as long as they keep labour costs low and resources ready to exploit. Not to mention neocons' tendencies towards formenting class warfare and using the state as a blunt instrument against people and ideologies they don't like.

[Estado Nacional]

Interventionism is [almost] never practiced for humanitarian or moral reasons, but because countries need to watch out for their own interests. Not that I find anything wrong with that. Do you even realpolitik?

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Obviously, it's possible, as we can clearly see with the US. I, however, find it not only immoral, but also a tremendous waste of resources.

Immoral?

Yes, immoral.

Are you going to argue that we actually helped the majority of these people?

[Murkwood]

Immoral?

Yes, immoral.

Are you going to argue that we actually helped the majority of these people?

That wasn't immoral. We toppled one of the worst dictators in modern history.

[Norstal]

Remember kids, small government is good (except when it's forcing its power on people not even in the country—then big government is great).

It's possible to have a big defense and a small domestic government.

Only if you want a military dictatorship.

[The Serbian Empire]

It's possible to have a big defense and a small domestic government.

Only if you want a military dictatorship.

Prone to military juntas as well.

[Arkolon]

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.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Yes, immoral.

Are you going to argue that we actually helped the majority of these people?

That wasn't immoral. We toppled one of the worst dictators in modern history.

He wasn't exactly a great guy, but he did a hell of a lot better job at keeping the country stable than anyone after him. It's very hard to make the case that Iraq is now somehow better than it was before we invaded.

And everyone knows it was just about the oil and benefit as a country. Otherwise, we would have already invaded the basically resource-less North Korea...especially since they actually have weapons of mass destruction.

[Murkwood]

That wasn't immoral. We toppled one of the worst dictators in modern history.

He wasn't exactly a great guy, but he did a hell of a lot better job at keeping the country stable than anyone after him. It's very hard to make the case that Iraq is now somehow better than it was before we invaded.

And everyone knows it was just about the oil and benefit as a country. Otherwise, we would have already invaded the basically resource-less North Korea...especially since they actually have weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea is tricky, mainly because of China's backing.

Now, we should've invaded Sudan, but we haven't for some reason.

[Murkwood]

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?

[Norstal]

I'm not completely against it, in fact, I am sometimes in favour of intervention, but intervening just because of a dictatorial government or oil reserves is not good enough of a reason to intervene.

Most of our defense budget is used for military research. There's a reason why the U.S is at the forefront of technology overall. Sure, we don't have television in our phones like the Japanese does, but we can shoot down missiles with lasers.

However, if our budget is in excess, there isn't a point in it. We have too much surplus for the military. Either we cut it down or we restructure its budgeting.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

He wasn't exactly a great guy, but he did a hell of a lot better job at keeping the country stable than anyone after him. It's very hard to make the case that Iraq is now somehow better than it was before we invaded.

And everyone knows it was just about the oil and benefit as a country. Otherwise, we would have already invaded the basically resource-less North Korea...especially since they actually have weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea is tricky, mainly because of China's backing.

Now, we should've invaded Sudan, but we haven't for some reason.

China doesn't really even back North Korea anymore; in recent years, they've become very distant, and I highly doubt China would step in if the US were to invade. But we all know that's not gonna happen.

[Murkwood]

North Korea is tricky, mainly because of China's backing.

Now, we should've invaded Sudan, but we haven't for some reason.

China doesn't really even back North Korea anymore; in recent years, they've become very distant, and I highly doubt China would step in if the US were to invade. But we all know that's not gonna happen.

You can't invade a country hoping that another might not help them.

[Arkolon]

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?

Bombing for peace is pretty hypocritical, yes.

[Murkwood]

Hypocritical?

Bombing for peace is pretty hypocritical, yes.

But it's not for peace.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

China doesn't really even back North Korea anymore; in recent years, they've become very distant, and I highly doubt China would step in if the US were to invade. But we all know that's not gonna happen.

You can't invade a country hoping that another might not help them.

If a country was actually going around invading other countries for purely ethical reasons, then yes, they could, and would, take that infinitesimally small risk.