Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Agritum]

Neoconservatism is an evil ideology with leftist roots that disguises itself with nationalist robes to get us involved in foreign wars. Neoconservatism is probably a bigger threat to America than socialism at the moment.

What? That's crazy.

Paleo, crazy, alt, all the same thing.

[Korouse]

Think about it this way, war will always happen, it's human nature. However before you declare war and go gung-ho, ask yourself these questions 10 questions:

1.) Is it worth separating husbands from wives?
2.) Is this war worth fathers leaving their children behind?
3.) Is this war worth the taxpayer dollars?
4.) Does this war have a clear intention?
5.) Is this war going to benefit us?
6.) Is this war justifiable?
7.) Are we going to win?
8.) Will we receive support from the civilians "over there"?
9.) Will we receive support from our allies?
And the most important question of all:
10.) Is it worth American lives?

If you've answered no to at least one question, then you are throwing lives and money away. It's a shame our politicians don't ask themselves these questions everyday.

Of course they're not going to support it.

That's like asking someone if they'd like to be raped.

[Logic and Reason]

Take a moment to consider Vietnam. We were losing thousands of troops a day, and the American people protested the war to a point where we eventually brought our troops home. Here's what most of those people didn't see: Vietnamese women and children grasping onto helicopters as they left for america and the genocide of millions of people under a newly founded communist regime.

Are you kidding me? South Vietnam was, quite frankly, a U.S.-backed right-wing government which leader was a sleazebag.

Yes, but that "right wing" government didn't make war against it's own people. Besides, I was talking about the people of Vietnam who were murdered, not the fanatically right wing leader.

[District XIV]

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).

And except when it's enforcing policies we desire!

[The Grim Reaper]

Are you kidding me? South Vietnam was, quite frankly, a U.S.-backed right-wing government which leader was a sleazebag.

Yes, but that "right wing" government didn't make war against it's own people. Besides, I was talking about the people of Vietnam who were murdered, not the fanatically right wing leader.

Yes, but that "right wing" government didn't make war against it's own people.

Yes, it did. It was the successor state to a French puppet government, and was notoriously murderous, to the point that the White House had a minor breakdown over whether or not to back a coup against a rogue Minister - the President's brother - trying to encourage the Buddhist majority to revolt against the authoritarian ruling government, which was nominally Christian.

That eventually led to his assassination, which destabilized the nation of South Vietnam and left it an American military base.

[Logic and Reason]

Yes, but that "right wing" government didn't make war against it's own people. Besides, I was talking about the people of Vietnam who were murdered, not the fanatically right wing leader.

Yes, but that "right wing" government didn't make war against it's own people.

Yes, it did. It was the successor state to a French puppet government, and was notoriously murderous, to the point that the White House had a minor breakdown over whether or not to back a coup against a rogue Minister - the President's brother - trying to encourage the Buddhist majority to revolt against the authoritarian ruling government, which was nominally Christian.

That eventually led to his assassination, which destabilized the nation of South Vietnam and left it an American military base.

So the communists were justified? Were they not also "notoriously murderous"?

[District XIV]

Yes, it did. It was the successor state to a French puppet government, and was notoriously murderous, to the point that the White House had a minor breakdown over whether or not to back a coup against a rogue Minister - the President's brother - trying to encourage the Buddhist majority to revolt against the authoritarian ruling government, which was nominally Christian.

That eventually led to his assassination, which destabilized the nation of South Vietnam and left it an American military base.

So the communists were justified? Were they not also "notoriously murderous"?

When did Grim ever deny they weren't?

[Logic and Reason]

So the communists were justified? Were they not also "notoriously murderous"?

When did Grim ever deny they weren't?

Suppose for a moment that we stayed in Vietnam. What would it look like.

Most likely another American puppet state, but nonetheless, a puppet state that was free from a lifestyle that comes with a communist regime. The government before the Vietnam war I admit wasn't very good, but neither was the alternative. In fact it was horrifically worse.

Now I am sure that there were hidden agendas, but concerning THE PEOPLE, they wanted us to stay and fight the communists.

We didn't, they died, end of story.

[Murkwood]

The us govt did not like the dictatorship but the dictatorship was anti commie

It doesn't matter, it was backed because it was anti-communist. That is the point, that we have supported sleazebags but we didn't even know the culture of Vietnam.

In fact, Vietnamese culture was already ripe to accept communism because it wasn't that much of a change from their past culture at all in the spin off Ho Chi Minh was teaching.

We need to remember that, although Ho was a communist, he was a Vietnamese first and foremost, and that his Vietnamese heritage mattered to him rather than being buddies with Stalin and Mao.

And they still don't like China. Vietnam has the highest approval of America, with a 76% approval rating in 2014.

[CTALNH]

Death to neo conservatism! Re-education for all neo conservatives!

[Murkwood]

Death to neo conservatism! Re-education for all neo conservatives!

Are you joking?

[CTALNH]

Death to neo conservatism! Re-education for all neo conservatives!

Are you joking?

I am CTALNH you have only one guess.

[Murkwood]

Are you joking?

I am CTALNH you have only one guess.

Sadly, I bet you aren't.

[CTALNH]

I am CTALNH you have only one guess.

Sadly, I bet you aren't.

See you are good at learning.I am not serious.

We should just kill them.Now I am.Not really

[The Scientific States]

Sadly, I bet you aren't.

See you are good at learning.

We should just kill them.

You must be kidding.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

A silly, hypocritical ideology that has poisoned the Republican Party and ballooned the size of government.

[CTALNH]

See you are good at learning.

We should just kill them.

You must be kidding.

I am joking goddammit you goddamn cynics who take everything for face value.

[The Scientific States]

You must be kidding.

I am joking goddammit you goddamn cynics who take everything for face value.

For one, I'm not a cynic.

Two, given your previous posts on this topic, along with others, I had to ask the question, since I was unsure.

[CTALNH]

I am joking goddammit you goddamn cynics who take everything for face value.

For one, I'm not a cynic.

Two, given your previous posts on this topic, along with others, I had to ask the question, since I was unsure.

No your totally a cynic.

A mild one but still a cynic.

[Murkwood]

A silly, hypocritical ideology that has poisoned the Republican Party and ballooned the size of government.

Silly?

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Take a moment to consider Vietnam. We were losing thousands of troops a day, and the American people protested the war to a point where we eventually brought our troops home. Here's what most of those people didn't see: Vietnamese women and children grasping onto helicopters as they left for america and the genocide of millions of people under a newly founded communist regime.

No, but here's what they did see.

I could go on about the My Lai massacre, the indiscriminate use of napalm and Agent Orange and the overt American support for a dictatorial South Vietnamese regime. But hey, 'Murica was spreading freedom so that sort of justifies everything eh?

Take a moment to look at our own beginnings as an American nation? What would've happened to us if France wouldn't have been there at Yorktown? There would be no America.

Irrelevant. We're discussing neoconservatism, not postulating about the origins of the United States.

The people of Iraq, as of now, are at war with ISIL, and if we leave, there will be genocide. Now, do I believe that we need troops in Germany and Italy? Absolutely not! It's an assured waste of money and men, but before you start speaking for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, be sure to understand the complexity of the entire situation, and not just the popular opinion.

A genocide which, as far as everyone can remember, would never have happened if the US had not decided to invade Iraq and prop up a Shia Muslim regime that has neglected the interests of ethnic and sectarian minorities in Iraq, thus paving the way for a Sunni insurgency.

Oh I understand the complexity of the situation enough to know that global problems are not solved by unilateral, knee-jerk military interventionism and arbitrary enforcement of democracy in countries that have different histories and cultures from the USA, something which neocons such as yourself appear unable to grasp unfortunately.

[Jocabia]

Did I ever say that we should police the world? I'm just acknowledging the fact that because we have military superiority and dominance, our military has a major role in the world, for better or worse.

Fair point. However, such layoffs could potentially cause more unemployed veterans and the like.

I agree with all your points on the military.

It's simply naive and foolish to think we can afford to cut our military and continue to live the lifestyle we want to live. This isn't Netherlands where the prime minister can go to work on a bike and has no need for bodyguards, this is America where people are constantly trying to kill us and there is always a target on our backs.

Our military policy is the cause of that, not the solution.

[Jocabia]

Conquest, rectification of injustice, or peace are the big three categories. Why did we go to Iraq? Why the War on Terror? What's the purpose?

I've already listed the reasons in the other thread. Have you already forgotten?

1. Overthrowing a tyrant and the Taliban
2. Stopping terrorism
3. Spreading democracy
4. Finding WMDs most intelligence agencies said existed.

1. Iraq wasn't involved in the Taliban.
2. Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism
3. We didn't spread democracy in Iraq. In fact, we mostly wrecked the infrastructure and made it weak enough to be taken over by terrorists.
4. No. Nobody agreed there were WMDs in Iraq. There weren't any and we didn't have any evidence that there were. This is been proven over and again.

So, basically, the best argument for invading Iraq (and doing it badly) was that Hussein is a bad guy. And that goes back to the point everyone else made about how we don't seem to go after "bad guys" when they give us what we want. So let's not pretend it was about that. It was about the fact that he was giving oil to Europe instead of us. So we went in and made sure that money went to American companies, but not the US. So we, the people, get to spend money on the war, and the wealthy get to squirrel that money away in other countries.

And that, my friends, is what Neo-Conservatism is bad for the United States and its people.

[Murkwood]

I've already listed the reasons in the other thread. Have you already forgotten?

1. Overthrowing a tyrant and the Taliban
2. Stopping terrorism
3. Spreading democracy
4. Finding WMDs most intelligence agencies said existed.

1. Iraq wasn't involved in the Taliban.
2. Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism
3. We didn't spread democracy in Iraq. In fact, we mostly wrecked the infrastructure and made it weak enough to be taken over by terrorists.
4. No. Nobody agreed there were WMDs in Iraq. There weren't any and we didn't have any evidence that there were. This is been proven over and again.

So, basically, the best argument for invading Iraq (and doing it badly) was that Hussein is a bad guy. And that goes back to the point everyone else made about how we don't seem to go after "bad guys" when they give us what we want. So let's not pretend it was about that. It was about the fact that he was giving oil to Europe instead of us. So we went in and made sure that money went to American companies, but not the US. So we, the people, get to spend money on the war, and the wealthy get to squirrel that money away in other countries.

And that, my friends, is what Neo-Conservatism is bad for the United States and its people.

1. I'm talking about the entire War on Terror, which includes Taliban ran Afghanistan, and many other terror-related operations around the world.
2. Debatable, but even so, the War on Terror wasn't just Iraq. It was worldwide.
3. What does infustruture have to do with democracy?
4. Both US and Birtish intelligence believed he did. Plus, some WMDs, like chemical weapons, were found in Iraq.

[Jocabia]

1. Iraq wasn't involved in the Taliban.
2. Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism
3. We didn't spread democracy in Iraq. In fact, we mostly wrecked the infrastructure and made it weak enough to be taken over by terrorists.
4. No. Nobody agreed there were WMDs in Iraq. There weren't any and we didn't have any evidence that there were. This is been proven over and again.

So, basically, the best argument for invading Iraq (and doing it badly) was that Hussein is a bad guy. And that goes back to the point everyone else made about how we don't seem to go after "bad guys" when they give us what we want. So let's not pretend it was about that. It was about the fact that he was giving oil to Europe instead of us. So we went in and made sure that money went to American companies, but not the US. So we, the people, get to spend money on the war, and the wealthy get to squirrel that money away in other countries.

And that, my friends, is what Neo-Conservatism is bad for the United States and its people.

1. I'm talking about the entire War on Terror, which includes Taliban ran Afghanistan, and many other terror-related operations around the world.
2. Debatable, but even so, the War on Terror wasn't just Iraq. It was worldwide.
3. What does infustruture have to do with democracy?
4. Both US and Birtish intelligence believed he did. Plus, some WMDs, like chemical weapons, were found in Iraq.

1. Then you didn't address Iraq which was the first question.
2. The war on terror wasn't Iraq at all. Iraq had no ties to terrorism. And this is why neocons should not be permitted to make policy. They are killing people, including Americans, based on provably false claims.
3. And yet another reason neocons should not be allowed to make policy. You don't think infrastructure affects the stability of a country. Unstable democracies don't remain democracies.
4. No, they didn't believe he did. This, again, was debunked and admitted to by both countries.
Chemical weapons of the type that Iraq had are commonplace. If they are a reason to attack a country then we need to attack every country in the world. What you're doing is called equivocation. They weren't talking about chemical weapons and you and I both know it. They were suggesting they were building biological and nuclear weapons and neither turned out to be true. And we had no evidence to suggest that it was.

This is how desperate neocons are for war. There are literally dozens of countries with terrible regimes and awful treatment of their people. Many of them are ripe for democracy. Many of them wouldn't even require a war in order to start them on that path. The selection bias of neocons is dangerously unaware of how things actually work and of the facts relating to these countries.