Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Geilinor]

So we should have stayed out of Korea.

i think so yeah...

cause Korea's not in North America

So we should have let Soviet influence spread and not participate in UN-sanctioned operations?

[Zottistan]

I usually call myself a neoconservative because if I call myself an imperialist people will think I'm retarded. And because neoconservative goals are much more likely to be achieved than imperialist ones.

I do believe that if you have moral values, you will strive to uphold them and stop their violation. Otherwise you hardly really value it. I also believe that aggression for aggression's sake is a very bad idea, but that aggression is always a valid option.

You can try to stop their violation; but at times you can't change a country's morality without killing everyone in the country itself. Which is why we need to be able to determine what's in our best interests as a country.

A country's morality can usually be changed, and going in and killing a bunch of them is usually very counter-productive to that.

You basically have reasons a country can get involved in a war; in response to aggression, to further its own interests, or to further the interests of the country. Usually, killing a bunch of people goes against all of those. At the right times, though, you can promote your own interests and the interests of the people involved. It usually requires a cultural or political crisis, though and it's definitely something you want to be careful doing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You can try to stop their violation; but at times you can't change a country's morality without killing everyone in the country itself. Which is why we need to be able to determine what's in our best interests as a country.

A country's morality can usually be changed, and going in and killing a bunch of them is usually very counter-productive to that.

You basically have reasons a country can get involved in a war; in response to aggression, to further its own interests, or to further the interests of the country. Usually, killing a bunch of people goes against all of those. At the right times, though, you can promote your own interests and the interests of the people involved. It usually requires a cultural or political crisis, though and it's definitely something you want to be careful doing.

Exactly my point. I am not against intervention, what I am against it blind intervention without a goal in mind. Basically, going and saying "we should invade [insert country here] to change this issue" isn't the right way to go and we should think clearly what are we trying to accomplish in the region to know exactly what our course of action should be, intervention in the manner of armed troops being left for diplomatic revolutions for the right side.

[Infected Mushroom]

i think so yeah...

cause Korea's not in North America

So we should have let Soviet influence spread and not participate in UN-sanctioned operations?

Soviets weren't the aggressors. They saved Europe from the Nazis too.

The Soviets weren't really interested in world domination, only in defending themselves. They wanted to use Eastern Europe as a buffer area against Western invasion (to prevent another Napoleon or Hitler invading).

Cold War was the most pointless waste of human life ever.

[Murkwood]

So we should have stayed out of Korea.

i think so yeah...

cause Korea's not in North America

same for Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc

So, we should have done nothing while South Korea fell to the Kims?

[Ginsenburg]

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.

A military dictatorship which we support for a very long time. I find it hypocritical for the US to sponsor dictatorships over-seas, use said dictatorships for their own advantages, then oust the regime and impose itself as the "good guys". It's very immoral in terms of the abuse of civil rights and political freedoms.

[Jocabia]

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.

Ah, yes, the stable victory for democracy and freedom that is modern day Iraq. Again, with the "victories" you're crowing about for Neocons, one wonders why we even need to offer criticisms. You're own expectations of Neocons are so low, that you actually consider this to be one of their good outcomes rather than the colossal mistake it looks like compared to good foreign policy.

It's like when you celebrate a three-year old's picture of a horse because it's got four legs. Sure they're all crooked and they all come from the front of its body and they're different lengths, but it's the best he could do. Good job, Jimmy. Four legs, buddy!

[Jocabia]

And in doing so screwed Iraq over for decades to come. Totally moral.

Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

Specifically, in what ways is it better? Are they better now that ISIS is there? Are they better after all the deaths? Are they better off without the water that used to be readily available to them? Without schools and hospitals because they've been bombed?

You can't just keep saying it's better off just because you didn't like Saddam. The average Iraqi was not suffering under Saddam and, according to your claim, that is the measure, what the average person experiences.

[Ginsenburg]

Iraq was already screwed. We just made it better.

Specifically, in what ways is it better? Are they better now that ISIS is there? Are they better after all the deaths? Are they better off without the water that used to be readily available to them? Without schools and hospitals because they've been bombed?

You can't just keep saying it's better off just because you didn't like Saddam. The average Iraqi was not suffering under Saddam and, according to your claim, that is the measure, what the average person experiences.

Just to tag onto this, this VICE video is a great example of your point Jocabia. http://www.vice.com/vice-news/in-saddams-shadow-full-length

[PC World News]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah I'm sure no one in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam hates the US for invading their country, flattening their homes and killing their relatives. You keep telling yourself that.

And seeing how the US has screwed up a ton of countries it invaded, I would say history clearly disproves your claims that war is a great way to bring freedom.

Nonsense. Also the us does not invade anyone. We liberate the oppressed. Take your anti Americanism somewhere else like North Korea perhaps.

If we didn't invade them, then how did we get there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the soldiers weren't equipped with passports.

Oh, and if by liberate you mean kill, then yes we did liberate a few of at least. To the rest, we made them completely dependent on our military for protection against ISIL (if you want to call THAT liberation). Like I mentioned earlier, If we would have negotiated and made peace with the countries in the Middle East before all this war propaganda nonsense, then the Middle East would have probably been strong enough BY ITSELF to threaten the goals of ISIL.

And to those of you who think every single Muslim wants your head because you are an American, I would like to say three things

1. You're wrong
2. Most of the Muslims in those countries are oppressed, so they go along to get along (and by get along, I mean not be killed in a horrifically inhuman manner)
3. If they do want you dead, it's because you are in their country without passports

If you think I am Un-American, or if you think I have a golden shrine to Kim Jong-un in my basement just because I disagree with the idea that we should "liberate" every country with military force, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you of any rational position concerning this matter.

Why are you correlating my position with treason? It doesn't make any logical sense.

[PC World News]

i think so yeah...

cause Korea's not in North America

same for Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc

So, we should have done nothing while South Korea fell to the Kims?

Should we still be in South Korea? That was the consequence of going in.

Now the entire nation is dependent on our military, and the moment we leave, South Korea will be invaded by Kim Jong-un. If the economy keeps sliding the way it is (and I'm pretty sure that it will), we will have to leave anyway, and all the people living in South Korea will be oppressed by Kim Jong-un. Even if the economy does recover, we can't stay in South Korea forever. To end the South Korean standstill we will have to conquer North Korea or leave South Korea (which of course, would mean we are supporting the very thing we said we were there to prevent).

It would, then, appear as if going into South Korea accomplished nothing.

Here was another option we could have taken: Do not get involved. Now this sounds pretty bad, but based on the alternative (which is your position), they would have taken South Korea, anyway (unless there is a hidden agenda to completely wipe North Korea from the face of the earth). From there, we should have tried to establish diplomatic relations with the new Korean government, like we have several times with several other nations that oppressed their own people.

Do I know what the long terms effect of this option would have looked like? No, but the North Koreans would have probably hesitated to threaten us or fund Iran's nuclear program if they knew we had taken the initiative to make alliances with them. The odds of this actually being true are probably small, but there is absolutely no chance of this alternative being possible now that we have made it an objective to make them our enemy.

Now, I have told you all this because Iraq is today's South Korea, and the entire Islamic World (who wasn't too fond of us anyway, but was divided and thus neutral) is our "North Korea"

So, are we going to stay in Iraq forever, or are we going to take over every single Islamic State that disagrees with us?

[Infected Mushroom]

i think so yeah...

cause Korea's not in North America

same for Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc

So, we should have done nothing while South Korea fell to the Kims?

yeah

because the right to self-determination and national sovereignty...

maybe China could have done something, but America? Its none of their business.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

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

And yet somehow, Saddam Hussein kept the country together while Iraq under Maliki is a floundering mess mired in government deadlock and sectarian and religious conflicts bordering on civil war, so clearly ol' Saddam got something right.

Yep, the shining new beacon of Iraqi democracy right there for all to see. Have fun with your so-called "freedom of speech" while the average Iraqi struggles to make a decent living without worrying about government mismanagement or crazy militants who might behead him.

[Murkwood]

So, we should have done nothing while South Korea fell to the Kims?

yeah

because the right to self-determination and national sovereignty...

maybe China could have done something, but America? Its none of their business.

Ummm...stopping the spread of the Soviets kinda was our business back then.

[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.

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.

I only care about liberating oppressed people. I do not want to see any political or religious prisoners or torture or any of that crap. Regardless of anything else we cannot support and must oppose that sort of thing.

[Glorious Freedonia]

So, we should have done nothing while South Korea fell to the Kims?

Should we still be in South Korea? That was the consequence of going in.

Now the entire nation is dependent on our military, and the moment we leave, South Korea will be invaded by Kim Jong-un. If the economy keeps sliding the way it is (and I'm pretty sure that it will), we will have to leave anyway, and all the people living in South Korea will be oppressed by Kim Jong-un. Even if the economy does recover, we can't stay in South Korea forever. To end the South Korean standstill we will have to conquer North Korea or leave South Korea (which of course, would mean we are supporting the very thing we said we were there to prevent).

It would, then, appear as if going into South Korea accomplished nothing.

Here was another option we could have taken: Do not get involved. Now this sounds pretty bad, but based on the alternative (which is your position), they would have taken South Korea, anyway (unless there is a hidden agenda to completely wipe North Korea from the face of the earth). From there, we should have tried to establish diplomatic relations with the new Korean government, like we have several times with several other nations that oppressed their own people.

Do I know what the long terms effect of this option would have looked like? No, but the North Koreans would have probably hesitated to threaten us or fund Iran's nuclear program if they knew we had taken the initiative to make alliances with them. The odds of this actually being true are probably small, but there is absolutely no chance of this alternative being possible now that we have made it an objective to make them our enemy.

Now, I have told you all this because Iraq is today's South Korea, and the entire Islamic World (who wasn't too fond of us anyway, but was divided and thus neutral) is our "North Korea"

So, are we going to stay in Iraq forever, or are we going to take over every single Islamic State that disagrees with us?

I am for taking over everyone of them.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Nonsense. Also the us does not invade anyone. We liberate the oppressed. Take your anti Americanism somewhere else like North Korea perhaps.

If we didn't invade them, then how did we get there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the soldiers weren't equipped with passports.

Oh, and if by liberate you mean kill, then yes we did liberate a few of at least. To the rest, we made them completely dependent on our military for protection against ISIL (if you want to call THAT liberation). Like I mentioned earlier, If we would have negotiated and made peace with the countries in the Middle East before all this war propaganda nonsense, then the Middle East would have probably been strong enough BY ITSELF to threaten the goals of ISIL.

And to those of you who think every single Muslim wants your head because you are an American, I would like to say three things

1. You're wrong
2. Most of the Muslims in those countries are oppressed, so they go along to get along (and by get along, I mean not be killed in a horrifically inhuman manner)
3. If they do want you dead, it's because you are in their country without passports

If you think I am Un-American, or if you think I have a golden shrine to Kim Jong-un in my basement just because I disagree with the idea that we should "liberate" every country with military force, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you of any rational position concerning this matter.

Why are you correlating my position with treason? It doesn't make any logical sense.

A dictatorship is not a legitimate government. When you overthrow the dictatorship and give the people control over there government that is liberation. Liberation means giving liberty it is what we did and should do more often.

If you are opposed to liberty you are un American. Liberty is an American ideal.

[Maineiacs]

If we didn't invade them, then how did we get there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the soldiers weren't equipped with passports.

Oh, and if by liberate you mean kill, then yes we did liberate a few of at least. To the rest, we made them completely dependent on our military for protection against ISIL (if you want to call THAT liberation). Like I mentioned earlier, If we would have negotiated and made peace with the countries in the Middle East before all this war propaganda nonsense, then the Middle East would have probably been strong enough BY ITSELF to threaten the goals of ISIL.

And to those of you who think every single Muslim wants your head because you are an American, I would like to say three things

1. You're wrong
2. Most of the Muslims in those countries are oppressed, so they go along to get along (and by get along, I mean not be killed in a horrifically inhuman manner)
3. If they do want you dead, it's because you are in their country without passports

If you think I am Un-American, or if you think I have a golden shrine to Kim Jong-un in my basement just because I disagree with the idea that we should "liberate" every country with military force, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you of any rational position concerning this matter.

Why are you correlating my position with treason? It doesn't make any logical sense.

A dictatorship is not a legitimate government. When you overthrow the dictatorship and give the people control over there government that is liberation. Liberation means giving liberty it is what we did and should do more often.

If you are opposed to liberty you are un American. Liberty is an American ideal.

Tell me, what countries should we not invade; oh, sorry -- I meant liberate? I have a feeling that list for you would be shorter than the list of ones you think we should. BTW, last time I checked a dictionary the definition of "un-American" was not "dares to disagree with Glorious Freedonia".

[The Greater Aryan Race]

When you overthrow the dictatorship and give the people control over there government that is liberation. Liberation means giving liberty it is what we did and should do more often.

*cough*Pinochet*cough*
*cough*Suharto*cough*
*cough*American-backed dictators*cough*

If you are opposed to liberty you are un American. Liberty is an American ideal.

For the price of one daisy-cutter, you too can have this limited edition copy of Fifty Shades of Manifest Destiny!

Tired of debating with un-American traitors? Fed up with letting liberty-hating scum demolish your arguments with well-crafted logic and examples?

Now with Fifty Shades of Manifest Destiny, you'll never have to worry about those darn toothin', freedom-hating, socialist-loving, un-American folks!

Watch as you deflect and evade your opponent's arguments with catch-all stock phrases about 'Murica and Liberty! Constantly throw up skewered and idealistic portrayals of American foreign policy conduct over the last two centuries, thereby contradicting established facts and factual history while conveniently playing down American support for autocratic regimes as a fabrication by hippie-loving, leftist scum! With Fifty Shades of Manifest Destiny, you'll be better equipped to blatantly justify armed aggression and crimes against humanity as being an integral part of the All-American, Freedom-loving, Liberty-Spreading crusade, as long as it's committed by 'Murica!

So what are you waiting for? Hurry and grab the nearest copy of Fifty Shades of Manifest Destiny before that evil Muslim, no-good appeasing, socialist-loving, un-American dictator Barack Hussein Obama puts a stop to it!

[Calimera II]

It's OK-ish.

[Albul]

Tell me the sauce?

[Murkwood]

Tell me the sauce?

(Image)

Dafuq?

[Jocabia]

Given the thread title, I'm surprised there aren't more neocons in this thread claiming they joined the thread to spread freedom.

[Murkwood]

Given the thread title, I'm surprised there aren't more neocons in this thread claiming they joined the thread to spread freedom.

The point of the thread is to overthrow the tyrannical rule of Murkwood, and find his chemical weapons.

Oh. Wait...

[Infected Mushroom]

yeah

because the right to self-determination and national sovereignty...

maybe China could have done something, but America? Its none of their business.

Ummm...stopping the spread of the Soviets kinda was our business back then.

you made it your business. The Soviets didn't threaten North America with nuclear missiles until you tried to threaten them with missiles in Turkey.

It didn't need to be that way. American foreign interventionism was wrong-headed. And no, NOT sending people to die in Vietnam would not mean that today we would all be speaking Russian.