Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Kravanica]

Chemical weapons? I thought it was nuclear weapons?

Yup, his Chemical Weapons were a huge concern, and well, we knew he had them, he massacred the Kurds with them quite often. We just weren't able to find all of them (contrary to popular belief). He did have them, and I'm pretty sure we found more than a few, but one of the main theories is that Saddam's forces smuggled them into Syria (who was a bit more Saddam friendly than originally thought at the time).

Huh... So I guess we were right. We just sucked at locating them.

[Organized States]

Yup, his Chemical Weapons were a huge concern, and well, we knew he had them, he massacred the Kurds with them quite often. We just weren't able to find all of them (contrary to popular belief). He did have them, and I'm pretty sure we found more than a few, but one of the main theories is that Saddam's forces smuggled them into Syria (who was a bit more Saddam friendly than originally thought at the time).

Huh... So I guess we were right. We just sucked at locating them.

In a way, yes. He just didn't have any delivery systems that could reach the US, or Europe.

[Kravanica]

Huh... So I guess we were right. We just sucked at locating them.

In a way, yes. He just didn't have any delivery systems that could reach the US, or Europe.

From what I understand he did try to have Bush's dad assassinated, though.

[Organized States]

In a way, yes. He just didn't have any delivery systems that could reach the US, or Europe.

From what I understand he did try to have Bush's dad assassinated, though.

Well, I didn't say Saddam was a nice guy. I mean he did sort of kill a lot of his own people... And almost everyone in the Middle East hated him...

[Kravanica]

From what I understand he did try to have Bush's dad assassinated, though.

Well, I didn't say Saddam was a nice guy. I mean he did sort of kill a lot of his own people... And almost everyone in the Middle East hated him...

Because he was an imperialist dick who invaded other countries for shits and giggles.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

It's not that simple.

Our entire reason for going to war was because, allegedly, there were WMD's in Iraq. No WMD's were ever found. So essentially, we invaded Iraq arguably for shits and giggles, causing immense turmoil in Iraq which has led to the rise of ISIS.

He did, have WMDs. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_ch ... ns_program

From http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and ... estruction :

Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War, despite multiple dissenting opinions and questions of integrity about the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.

Yes. They did have chemical weapons at one point, decades ago. But they gave that endeavour up quite a while before we went in, yet we still invaded (and of course, found none).

[Organized States]

Well, I didn't say Saddam was a nice guy. I mean he did sort of kill a lot of his own people... And almost everyone in the Middle East hated him...

Because he was an imperialist dick who invaded other countries for shits and giggles.

He wouldn't have lasted in the Mid East for much longer anyways. His Iraq would have fallen in the Arab Spring had we not invaded.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Because he was an imperialist dick who invaded other countries for shits and giggles.

He wouldn't have lasted in the Mid East for much longer anyways. His Iraq would have fallen in the Arab Spring had we not invaded.

Which would have been a much better alternative.

[Organized States]

He did, have WMDs. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_ch ... ns_program

From http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and ... estruction :

Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War, despite multiple dissenting opinions and questions of integrity about the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.

Yes. They did have chemical weapons at one point, decades ago. But they gave that endeavour up quite a while before we went in, yet we still invaded (and of course, found none).

I'll give you that, but he was using Chemical Weapons, and saying he had none, is incorrect.

[Organized States]

He wouldn't have lasted in the Mid East for much longer anyways. His Iraq would have fallen in the Arab Spring had we not invaded.

Which would have been a much better alternative.

Until his stocks and facilities with the weapons in it are seized by Crazy-Ass Jihadis funded by Qataris with nothing better to do.

[Shofercia]

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 they. Defense budget shouldn't be cut doesn't make you anti-small government. Rather, it mean that you value a strong country .

The Neo-cons believe that the government that governs best is the government that governs least, and by these standards they've set up a fabulous government in Iraq. That's Colbert. I guess the Neo-libs are slightly better. Then again, I am a Centrist

[Organized States]

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 they. Defense budget shouldn't be cut doesn't make you anti-small government. Rather, it mean that you value a strong country .

The Neo-cons believe that the government that governs best is the government that governs least, and by these standards they've set up a fabulous government in Iraq. That's Colbert. I guess the Neo-libs are slightly better. Then again, I am a Centrist

*high fives fellow Centrist

Hmm, I'd place some of the Neo-libs and the Neo-cons on about the same level, to be honest.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Which would have been a much better alternative.

Until his stocks and facilities with the weapons in it are seized by Crazy-Ass Jihadis funded by Qataris with nothing better to do.

If you're referring to ISIS, that's what happened when we DID invade, and as a direct result of the power vacuum created by the invasion. Not exactly sure how that helps your case for the war.

[Organized States]

Until his stocks and facilities with the weapons in it are seized by Crazy-Ass Jihadis funded by Qataris with nothing better to do.

If you're referring to ISIS, that's what happened when we DID invade, and as a direct result of the power vacuum created by the invasion. Not exactly sure how that helps your case for the war.

I'm not supporting the war, I'm just stating that the power vacuum, would have existed even without the US Invasion following the Arab Spring (Syria and Tunisia ring a bell).

[The Gaelic Kingdoms of Britain]

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.

He also commited genocide against the Kurds.

A lot of bad may have happened since we intervened there, but at least now the Kurds have a chance to have a state of their own.

[Kravanica]

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 they. Defense budget shouldn't be cut doesn't make you anti-small government. Rather, it mean that you value a strong country .

The Neo-cons believe that the government that governs best is the government that governs least, and by these standards they've set up a fabulous government in Iraq. That's Colbert. I guess the Neo-libs are slightly better. Then again, I am a Centrist

>Colbert

You lost me.

[Luziyca]

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.

Basically, this.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Sometimes, the ends justify the means. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. It's truly sad, but we had to.

No you did not. You had no justification and no international legal mandate to intervene in Iraq. You had no right to blatantly overthrow their government and militarily occupy the place, thereby creating an occupation that was as incompetent as it was brutal.

And I suppose by your logic, all those Iraqi civilians who died under American gunfire and all those Iraqis who had to suffer the humiliation of armed American soldiers break into their house, cable-tie their relatives and wave their guns about, had everything coming to them just because they were Iraqis? Damn, even a Fascist such as myself shakes my head at the utter idiocy of it all.

Hell you guys did such a half-ass job that you practically left Iraq in a shambles when American troops pulled out. Some omelet that turned out to be.

[Murkwood]

The US fought aginst Khmer Rouge. We bombed them. Read about Operation Freedom Deal and Operation Menu.

The CIA installed Pol Pot....

That's just a conspiracy theory.

[Murkwood]

Because he was an imperialist dick who invaded other countries for shits and giggles.

He wouldn't have lasted in the Mid East for much longer anyways. His Iraq would have fallen in the Arab Spring had we not invaded.

Saddam had a much stronger grip on his subjects than any other MidEast dictator.

[Organized States]

The US fought aginst Khmer Rouge. We bombed them. Read about Operation Freedom Deal and Operation Menu.

The CIA installed Pol Pot....

Yeah, we helped out North Vietnam's best bud at the height of the Cold War. Clearly.

[Murkwood]

The CIA installed Pol Pot....

Yeah, we helped out North Vietnam's best bud at the height of the Cold War. Clearly.

Just like we armed Hitler, right?

[Kelinfort]

The CIA installed Pol Pot....

Yeah, we helped out North Vietnam's best bud at the height of the Cold War. Clearly.

United Vietnamese invaded Cambodia four years after Pol Pot seized power.

[Organized States]

Yeah, we helped out North Vietnam's best bud at the height of the Cold War. Clearly.

Just like we armed Hitler, right?

Exactly, or my personal favorite, the Rothschild NWO UN Socialist Armies.

[Organized States]

Yeah, we helped out North Vietnam's best bud at the height of the Cold War. Clearly.

United Vietnamese invaded Cambodia four years after Pol Pot seized power.

Shit changes quickly, but the North Vietnamese were giving weapons to the Khmer Rogue for quite a while.