Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

"War" against its own people implies that Ho Chi Minh wanted to fight in the first place against the South Vietnamese.

He did not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

And completely obliterate a culture in the process.

Look, I understand you believed McCarthy's bullshit. It's okay, but we're in 2014 and hindsight is 20/20. We could not have had control of Vietnam in the way we were doing it because we did not know about the culture of Vietnam period. Vietnamese culture is vastly different from our own.

[Murkwood]

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.

Yep. Totally not.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/ ... _yaphe.htm
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sp ... orism#Iraq
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.p ... nID=000863
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/31944.pdf
http://www.sharpe-online.com/SOLR/a/sho ... -article96

[Senkaku]

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

Well, if you don't count using a rather nasty secret police apparatus as making war against its own people, and if you consider the people of North Vietnam to be a separate people, then sure, they didn't.

The government before the Vietnam war I admit wasn't very good, but neither was the alternative. In fact it was horrifically worse.

Now you're thinking of the Chinese Civil War. The Communist Vietnamese government isn't really half bad.

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

Well, some of them did.
And as for hidden agendas... well, there was a 1953 Congressional study that pointed out, quite correctly, that Indochina is immensely rich in natural resources, so yes, there were.

[Glorious Freedonia]

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.

there were a lot of reasons. The congressional authorization of force had many.

[Glorious Freedonia]

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.

. We take our opportunities when we can. I wish we could help out others but we do what we can when we can. We could do more if only we would learn the lesson of Vietnam and ignore the hippy traitors and their freedom subversions.

[Jocabia]

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.

Yep. Totally not.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/ ... _yaphe.htm
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sp ... orism#Iraq
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.p ... nID=000863
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/31944.pdf
http://www.sharpe-online.com/SOLR/a/sho ... -article96

Oh, boy, I love that definition of terrorism. For example, one of your sources considers it terrorism that Saddam tried to attack American targets during the first Gulf War. Yes, you're right. By that definition, Iraq was connected to terrorism.

And your boys did an excellent job fixing it. No terrorists in Iraq now, by golly.

[PC World News]

We take our opportunities when we can. I wish we could help out others but we do what we can when we can. We could do more if only we would learn the lesson of Vietnam and ignore the hippy traitors and their freedom subversions.

There is another alternative than war in situations like Vietnam and Iraq. You cannot expect to fight tyranny all over the world with only military might. Spreading democracy through means of violence will only cause retaliation from the international community. War, my friend, is a two-way street.

It would be better if we, as a nation, focused more on preserving are own constitutional freedoms than using war to "save" nations.

If we did this, we would have spread a little less animosity in the world, and since there would be less animosity, the international community (and the people who live under oppressive regimes) would be more inclined to accept our idea of freedom.

[Jocabia]

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.

. We take our opportunities when we can. I wish we could help out others but we do what we can when we can. We could do more if only we would learn the lesson of Vietnam and ignore the hippy traitors and their freedom subversions.

You take your opportunities where it will make money for your sponsors. Let's not pretend otherwise. There is pretty much no way that Neocons could have a worse record with their stated goals in terms of global military efforts. You didn't establish democracies or spread freedom or rid the world of terror. Neocons have a bastardized version of the Midas touch because every country they touch goes to shit.

[Jocabia]

We take our opportunities when we can. I wish we could help out others but we do what we can when we can. We could do more if only we would learn the lesson of Vietnam and ignore the hippy traitors and their freedom subversions.

There is another alternative than war in situations like Vietnam and Iraq. You cannot expect to fight tyranny all over the world with only military might. Spreading democracy through means of violence will only cause retaliation from the international community. War, my friend, is a two-way street.

It would be better if we, as a nation, focused more on preserving are own constitutional freedoms than using war to "save" nations.

If we did this, we would have spread a little less animosity in the world, and since there would be less animosity, the international community (and the people who live under oppressive regimes) would be more inclined to accept our idea of freedom.

Yes, we might do well to show how good democracy is for our own people. If we believe our form of government is best for the people, then it should be clear. Instead, most objective observers can see that our form of government is best for a very small percentage. What on earth would make the general populace of any country want to spread that?

If you want endorsement from the people, something neocon politicians never seek and don't understand, you can't get it by torture, by ignoring rights, by denying trials, by murder, intimidation and violence. You have to make their lives better and show them the benefits of our cultural views on style of government. Plunging a country into 10 years of violence and completely decimating it's resources is not the way to accomplish your goals. It doesn't spread freedom, democracy or stop terrorism. It has a tendency to promote the exact opposite response. And the evidence on this is clear. George Bush Sr. knew it. His son and the Neocons did not.

[Glorious Freedonia]

We take our opportunities when we can. I wish we could help out others but we do what we can when we can. We could do more if only we would learn the lesson of Vietnam and ignore the hippy traitors and their freedom subversions.

There is another alternative than war in situations like Vietnam and Iraq. You cannot expect to fight tyranny all over the world with only military might. Spreading democracy through means of violence will only cause retaliation from the international community. War, my friend, is a two-way street.

It would be better if we, as a nation, focused more on preserving are own constitutional freedoms than using war to "save" nations.

If we did this, we would have spread a little less animosity in the world, and since there would be less animosity, the international community (and the people who live under oppressive regimes) would be more inclined to accept our idea of freedom.

When you are in the right who cares what evil people think? Nobody hates us for spreading freedom from tyrants. War is just one of the ways to do this by it works pretty well. Vietnam was an anti communism thing not a neo con thing. I also happen to support anti communism but they are separate.

[Glorious Freedonia]

. We take our opportunities when we can. I wish we could help out others but we do what we can when we can. We could do more if only we would learn the lesson of Vietnam and ignore the hippy traitors and their freedom subversions.

You take your opportunities where it will make money for your sponsors. Let's not pretend otherwise. There is pretty much no way that Neocons could have a worse record with their stated goals in terms of global military efforts. You didn't establish democracies or spread freedom or rid the world of terror. Neocons have a bastardized version of the Midas touch because every country they touch goes to shit.

Iraq is better. People are freer there. That is a success. That is he only place we ever got to save.

[Glorious Freedonia]

There is another alternative than war in situations like Vietnam and Iraq. You cannot expect to fight tyranny all over the world with only military might. Spreading democracy through means of violence will only cause retaliation from the international community. War, my friend, is a two-way street.

It would be better if we, as a nation, focused more on preserving are own constitutional freedoms than using war to "save" nations.

If we did this, we would have spread a little less animosity in the world, and since there would be less animosity, the international community (and the people who live under oppressive regimes) would be more inclined to accept our idea of freedom.

Yes, we might do well to show how good democracy is for our own people. If we believe our form of government is best for the people, then it should be clear. Instead, most objective observers can see that our form of government is best for a very small percentage. What on earth would make the general populace of any country want to spread that?

If you want endorsement from the people, something neocon politicians never seek and don't understand, you can't get it by torture, by ignoring rights, by denying trials, by murder, intimidation and violence. You have to make their lives better and show them the benefits of our cultural views on style of government. Plunging a country into 10 years of violence and completely decimating it's resources is not the way to accomplish your goals. It doesn't spread freedom, democracy or stop terrorism. It has a tendency to promote the exact opposite response. And the evidence on this is clear. George Bush Sr. knew it. His son and the Neocons did not.

Nonsense. Neocons do not favor any of those nasty things. That is the opposite of what we seek.

[PC World News]

There is another alternative than war in situations like Vietnam and Iraq. You cannot expect to fight tyranny all over the world with only military might. Spreading democracy through means of violence will only cause retaliation from the international community. War, my friend, is a two-way street.

It would be better if we, as a nation, focused more on preserving are own constitutional freedoms than using war to "save" nations.

If we did this, we would have spread a little less animosity in the world, and since there would be less animosity, the international community (and the people who live under oppressive regimes) would be more inclined to accept our idea of freedom.

Yes, we might do well to show how good democracy is for our own people. If we believe our form of government is best for the people, then it should be clear. Instead, most objective observers can see that our form of government is best for a very small percentage. What on earth would make the general populace of any country want to spread that?

If you want endorsement from the people, something neocon politicians never seek and don't understand, you can't get it by torture, by ignoring rights, by denying trials, by murder, intimidation and violence. You have to make their lives better and show them the benefits of our cultural views on style of government. Plunging a country into 10 years of violence and completely decimating it's resources is not the way to accomplish your goals. It doesn't spread freedom, democracy or stop terrorism. It has a tendency to promote the exact opposite response. And the evidence on this is clear. George Bush Sr. knew it. His son and the Neocons did not.

I see you and I agree. You are a realist to assume that most of the world won't except our idea of government, but there is still a way we give those who are oppressed hope. They can always leave their country and come to this nation, and they have that right. Now, I completely understand what that means for some. For some, it can mean death while for others, it is almost impossible, if not impossible, to get here.

Sometimes, it's not about spreading democracy. It's about giving the world hope, and you certainly can't give hope with weapons of war.

[PC World News]

Iraq is better. People are freer there. That is a success. That is the only place we ever got to save.

Are they any more free now than what they were? The moment we leave, ISIL will most likely take over the country, but if we would've left well enough alone and tried to establish alliances with the people in the Middle East instead of make war on them, we could've built up a resistance long before ISIL gained power. Now we are thrown headfirst into an Iraqi crisis, and do you know who is going to suffer the consequences of the military's actions?

The people of Iraq. Unless we stay there forever, further straining the already burdened economy, the people of Iraq are in for some dreadful times. How many messes are we, as a nation, going to have to make before we realize that making war only leads to world-wide reprehension?

This "saving people through war" has got to stop.

[Murkwood]

Yep. Totally not.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/ ... _yaphe.htm
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorism-havens-iraq/p9513
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sp ... orism#Iraq
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.p ... nID=000863
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/31944.pdf
http://www.sharpe-online.com/SOLR/a/sho ... -article96

Oh, boy, I love that definition of terrorism. For example, one of your sources considers it terrorism that Saddam tried to attack American targets during the first Gulf War. Yes, you're right. By that definition, Iraq was connected to terrorism.

And your boys did an excellent job fixing it. No terrorists in Iraq now, by golly.

No, but there are probably fewer terrorists worldwide because of the War on Terror.

[Jocabia]

Yes, we might do well to show how good democracy is for our own people. If we believe our form of government is best for the people, then it should be clear. Instead, most objective observers can see that our form of government is best for a very small percentage. What on earth would make the general populace of any country want to spread that?

If you want endorsement from the people, something neocon politicians never seek and don't understand, you can't get it by torture, by ignoring rights, by denying trials, by murder, intimidation and violence. You have to make their lives better and show them the benefits of our cultural views on style of government. Plunging a country into 10 years of violence and completely decimating it's resources is not the way to accomplish your goals. It doesn't spread freedom, democracy or stop terrorism. It has a tendency to promote the exact opposite response. And the evidence on this is clear. George Bush Sr. knew it. His son and the Neocons did not.

Nonsense. Neocons do not favor any of those nasty things. That is the opposite of what we seek.

Ah, you're not serious.

[Jocabia]

Oh, boy, I love that definition of terrorism. For example, one of your sources considers it terrorism that Saddam tried to attack American targets during the first Gulf War. Yes, you're right. By that definition, Iraq was connected to terrorism.

And your boys did an excellent job fixing it. No terrorists in Iraq now, by golly.

No, but there are probably fewer terrorists worldwide because of the War on Terror.

Hundreds of billions of dollars and your assessment of the return on investment is "there are probably fewer terrorists worldwide". If that's the defense of the policy, you gotta wonder what the criticism looks like.

Forgive me if I call anything without a predictably good result that requires spending a fortune in money and thousands of American lives (not to mention all those lives we've taken) a failed policy. In your own words, you've shown quite adequately why Neocons are bad for America.

[Arkolon]

You could consider "interventionist paleoconservative", because neocons are looked down upon.

[Geilinor]

When did Grim ever deny they weren't?

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.

I'm sure there's evidence showing which government the people wanted, then. There isn't, for either side.

[Risottia]

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

Then also:
(THINKING THAT) Public education budget shouldn't be cut doesn't make you anti-small government. Rather, it mean(S) that you value an intelligent country.
Same for:
Public healthcare budget ... healthy country.
Police budget... safe country.
Judiciary budget... just country.
Parliamentary budget... democratic country.
Public broadcasting budget... informed country.
Social budget... fair country.
Environment conservation budget... sustainable country.
Multiculturalism budget... tolerant country.
Public infrastructure budget... country with a working industry.
Antitrust agency budget... country with a working economy,
Literacy budget... country with no illiteracy.


Holy crap! I just discovered that I'm pro small-government, too! Where do I sign up as a NRA-card-carrying Born-Again Christian NeoConservative?

[Geilinor]

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.

Saddam Hussein was bad, but there were worse at the time.

[The New Sea Territory]

1.) Is it worth separating husbands from wives?

Rarely.

2.) Is this war worth fathers leaving their children behind?

Almost never.

3.) Is this war worth the taxpayer dollars?

Absolutely not in any situation.

4.) Does this war have a clear intention?

Historically, wars have rarely had really clear causes.

5.) Is this war going to benefit us?

Depends on the us. If "us" is the defense contractors, arms manufacturers, oil companies and politicians, then sure.

6.) Is this war justifiable?

Starting a war is never justified.

7.) Are we going to win?

Nobody ever really wins a war.

8.) Will we receive support from the civilians "over there"?

This question shouldn't be asked because this can never really be accurately measured or known.

9.) Will we receive support from our allies?

I guess this is the real legit one.

And the most important question of all:
10.) Is it worth American lives?

There are no "American" lives. There are no "Iraqi" lives, no "Russian" lives, No "Vietnamese" lives, no "German" lives. There are just lives. Is it worth lives?

[Murkwood]

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

Saddam Hussein was bad, but there were worse at the time.

At the time? I don't think so.

[Geilinor]

Saddam Hussein was bad, but there were worse at the time.

At the time? I don't think so.

Kim Jong-il, maybe.