Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Murkwood]

As for Iraq, we did win when it came to the main objectives. Nation-building, however, didn't really work out.

What?

The objective of the Iraqi invasion was to find WMDs. Which you guys found none.

Then when that objective failed embarrassingly, the US then changed it's original rationale for invading Iraq from finding WMDs to nation-building. Needless to say, you guys failed spectacularly on that count too.

So nope, on all accounts, you guys did not "win" anything.

We found some chemical weapons, and we did overthrow Saddam.

[Jocabia]

What?

The objective of the Iraqi invasion was to find WMDs. Which you guys found none.

Then when that objective failed embarrassingly, the US then changed it's original rationale for invading Iraq from finding WMDs to nation-building. Needless to say, you guys failed spectacularly on that count too.

So nope, on all accounts, you guys did not "win" anything.

We found some chemical weapons, and we did overthrow Saddam.

Another case where your strongest defense would be most people's criticism. One wonders why anyone need explain why neocon ideology is wrong, when you can show how unsuccessful they are by offering your defenses.

[Murkwood]

We found some chemical weapons, and we did overthrow Saddam.

Another case where your strongest defense would be most people's criticism. One wonders why anyone need explain why neocon ideology is wrong, when you can show how unsuccessful they are by offering your defenses.

How?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We didn't really "win" the Cold War, the USSR simply collapsed into itself, but that can hardly be considered a "win". It's like winning a boxing match because your opponent had a car crash in the highway.

And Iraq was a failed mission even by the view of the top brass and George Bush's admission in his most recent book covering the war.

The goal of the Cold War was to bring about the collapse of Communism, which happened.

As for Iraq, we did win when it came to the main objectives. Nation-building, however, didn't really work out.

We backed right-wing dictatorships in Latin America and parts of Asia which were worse than the communists we were seeking to depose; mostly because Reagan and his generation saw any left-leaning nation as "communist" - that hasn't changed in the "War Hawk" generation. Our main goal was the collapse of Russian-style communism, but we tended to confuse any land reforms in other parts of the world and leaders ensuring rights and freedoms for their citizens as "communist" - the CIA covert operation in Guatemala in which they deposed Arbenz is indicative of the U.S.'s fuck ups in identifying what was actual Russian-style communism and what it wasn't.

As for Iraq we achieved our military objectives, but we failed at more than half of them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As for Iraq, we did win when it came to the main objectives. Nation-building, however, didn't really work out.

What?

The objective of the Iraqi invasion was to find WMDs. Which you guys found none.

Then when that objective failed embarrassingly, the US then changed it's original rationale for invading Iraq from finding WMDs to nation-building. Needless to say, you guys failed spectacularly on that count too.

So nope, on all accounts, you guys did not "win" anything.

Well, our main military objective was actually to depose Saddam Hussein; the WMD justification was merely that, a justification we came up with to invade Iraq and depose Hussein.

Our involvement in Iraq was very messy. It is, in fact, our worst Foreign Relations deal besides Vietnam.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

We found some chemical weapons

You found components that could have been used to make chemical weapons; gas, liquids and weapon shells but no real functioning WMD programme that the Bush Administration claimed Iraq was running. Not even close.

And the few chemical projectiles found date from pre-Gulf War and were in most cases buried or left unused by Iraqi soldiers who never used them again.

You found nothing akin to a nuclear or biological weapons programme, not even close to the imaginary WMD programme that neocons were bleating about in 2003. So yeah, you guys didn't really find anything significant.

and we did overthrow Saddam.

And replaced him with a Shia Muslim regime that was no better. Great job with the nation-building.

[Murkwood]

and we did overthrow Saddam.

And replaced him with a Shia Muslim regime that was no better. Great job with the nation-building.

Maliki is no saint, I'll give you that. But he is leaps and bounds ahead of Saddam.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Maliki is no saint, I'll give you that. But he is leaps and bounds ahead of Saddam.

By curtailing press freedom and intimidating journalists who report on government operations against militants?
Alienating sectarian minorities while promoting the interest of your own sectarian group?
Replacing Iraqi military and police commanders with your own party loyalists?

Sounds an awful lot like Saddam Hussein. I mean Nouri al-Maliki. Wait I mean Saddam Hussein. Dang they seem awfully similar.

[Jocabia]

Another case where your strongest defense would be most people's criticism. One wonders why anyone need explain why neocon ideology is wrong, when you can show how unsuccessful they are by offering your defenses.

How?

"We found some chemical weapons" as your best positive argument for a war you went to claiming there was threat of biological and nuclear weapons. You don't see how weak that is. It's like saying, yeah, we kicked in there door and shot everyone because we thought they had an illegal military arsenal, and they didn't, but we found an illegal slingshot.

[Murkwood]

Maliki is no saint, I'll give you that. But he is leaps and bounds ahead of Saddam.

By curtailing press freedom and intimidating journalists who report on government operations against militants?
Alienating sectarian minorities while promoting the interest of your own sectarian group?
Replacing Iraqi military and police commanders with your own party loyalists?

Sounds an awful lot like Saddam Hussein. I mean Nouri al-Maliki. Wait I mean Saddam Hussein. Dang they seem awfully similar.

Like how Maliki gasses Kurdish villages, right? Like how there is no freedom of speech at all, right? Oh, wait, no.

[Murkwood]

I decided to change the title to something funnier.

[Farnhamia]

I decided to change the title to something funnier.

You did? When are you going to do it?

[Murkwood]

I decided to change the title to something funnier.

You did? When are you going to do it?

Fite me IRL, pleb.

[The Liberated Territories]

You did? When are you going to do it?

Fite me IRL, pleb.

I shall beat you using the principle of non-aggression. For I am the stoic rock.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Neoconservatives like myself oppose dictatorships and are willing to fight wars to liberate the oppressed. That is all we are and that is how we should be judged. If we successfully get rid of some dictators and give people of former dictatorship countries the opportunity to have a more democratic government with a greater recognition of human rights, we are successful. We cannot be blamed or praised for what the liberated people do with that opportunity.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Neoconservatives like myself oppose dictatorships and are willing to fight wars to liberate the oppressed. That is all we are and that is how we should be judged. If we successfully get rid of some dictators and give people of former dictatorship countries the opportunity to have a more democratic government with a greater recognition of human rights, we are successful. We cannot be blamed or praised for what the liberated people do with that opportunity.

The problem is not the intervention idea; the problem is that you get into wars without understanding the situation on the ground and the effects it will cause for a region.

[Empire of Narnia]

It gives people freedom, well except for all the ones who are dead.

[Murkwood]

It gives people freedom, well except for all the ones who are dead.

There will always been casualties in war. The real question is: would the majority of people be better off?

[Empire of Narnia]

It gives people freedom, well except for all the ones who are dead.

There will always been casualties in war. The real question is: would the majority of people be better off?

Considering the damage to infrastructure, the instability and the people that have to live without their family members, probably not. It is also pretty callous to write off all the people that would be killed just so the survivors will live a little better.

[Murkwood]

There will always been casualties in war. The real question is: would the majority of people be better off?

Considering the damage to infrastructure, the instability and the people that have to live without their family members, probably not. It is also pretty callous to write off all the people that would be killed just so the survivors will live a little better.

If we followed your logic and didn't go into Korea, think how bad it would be.

[Empire of Narnia]

Considering the damage to infrastructure, the instability and the people that have to live without their family members, probably not. It is also pretty callous to write off all the people that would be killed just so the survivors will live a little better.

If we followed your logic and didn't go into Korea, think how bad it would be.

It would be better because Kim Il-Sung would have full control, which would mean a much better country. With the agricultural south and industrial north unified many food supply issues with modern North Korea would be avoided. The ultra-militarized state of the DPRK would also be avoided as they would have no need for such a large standing army. So really things would be a lot better without US intervention in Korea.

[Murkwood]

If we followed your logic and didn't go into Korea, think how bad it would be.

It would be better because Kim Il-Sung would have full control, which would mean a much better country. With the agricultural south and industrial north unified many food supply issues with modern North Korea would be avoided. The ultra-militarized state of the DPRK would also be avoided as they would have no need for such a large standing army. So really things would be a lot better without US intervention in Korea.

Do human rights mean anything?

[Kelinfort]

Considering the damage to infrastructure, the instability and the people that have to live without their family members, probably not. It is also pretty callous to write off all the people that would be killed just so the survivors will live a little better.

If we followed your logic and didn't go into Korea, think how bad it would be.

Except unlike say Iraq, Korea was already divided and seeking our help at the time. The true neocon war, Iraq, was a complete and utter failure in every sense of the word except for getting rid of Saddam, a one time ally of the nation who tossed him out for no legitimate reason, not even tyranny.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If we followed your logic and didn't go into Korea, think how bad it would be.

It would be better because Kim Il-Sung would have full control, which would mean a much better country. With the agricultural south and industrial north unified many food supply issues with modern North Korea would be avoided. The ultra-militarized state of the DPRK would also be avoided as they would have no need for such a large standing army. So really things would be a lot better without US intervention in Korea.

Are you kidding me? The Korean situation is one of the few calls of the last century that we got right.

[Kelinfort]

It would be better because Kim Il-Sung would have full control, which would mean a much better country. With the agricultural south and industrial north unified many food supply issues with modern North Korea would be avoided. The ultra-militarized state of the DPRK would also be avoided as they would have no need for such a large standing army. So really things would be a lot better without US intervention in Korea.

Do human rights mean anything?

Yeah, why don't we invade Turkmenistan or Angola or Equitorial Guinea or Belarus? All of those nations have terrible human rights records.