Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Murkwood]

At the time? I don't think so.

Kim Jong-il, maybe.

Nah, Saddam killed more.

[Genivaria]

I believe that the world must be made safe for democracy, but the Neo-con method is....counter-productive at best.
Strong multilateralism and the notion of a Concert of Democracies is what should be pursued I think.

Counter productive?

Hell it is neo-colonialism at most that's far more than just counter productive.

I was being overly tactful.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

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.

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.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not a Neocon - Neocons tend to be trigger-happy and light on the diplomacy. It's more about strength and power than the ideals they claim to uphold. When people speak disdainfully of America acting as 'world police', what they mean is that we're acting like thugs; not that we're policing by consent in the finest traditions of what law enforcement is supposed to represent.

[Genivaria]

I'm not a Neocon - Neocons tend to be trigger-happy and light on the diplomacy. It's more about strength and power than the ideals they claim to uphold. When people speak disdainfully of America acting as 'world police', what they mean is that we're acting like thugs; not that we're policing by consent in the finest traditions of what law enforcement is supposed to represent.

The best law enforcement draws a good bit of the enforcers from the people they are protecting.
How can one nation protect the whole world? A 'Post-Atlantic NATO' or Concert of Democracies would do far more good then one nation acting unilaterally.

[Conserative Morality]

The best law enforcement draws a good bit of the enforcers from the people they are protecting.
How can one nation protect the whole world? A 'Post-Atlantic NATO' or Concert of Democracies would do far more good then one nation acting unilaterally.

Even our most unpopular military 'adventures' haven't been undertaken alone. For better or worse, where the USA goes, our allies are mostly dragged along. And our list of allies keeps growing.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

When are you going to stop trying to be funny and write normal titles?

Amen

[District XIV]

When are you going to stop trying to be funny and write normal titles?

Amen

It's not NSG without a funny title here and there; attacking a thread due to its title (except in certain cases. hint: this is not one of them) is regressive and unnecessary.

[Glorious Freedonia]

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.

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.

[Glorious Freedonia]

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.

If people hate our government why would they want to come to the us.

[The Grim Reaper]

If people hate our government why would they want to come to the us.

Because the USA only cares about people in the USA. Safer there, when they insist on coming to you.

[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.

How does our government only benefit a few people?

[Glorious Freedonia]

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

Ah, you're not serious.

Yes I am serious. If you are against totalitarianism you do not do bad things like that.

[Glorious Freedonia]

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

Neocons are the good guys only tyrant loving peaceniks look down on them.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Nonsense. Also the us does not invade anyone. We liberate the oppressed.

What a load of horseshit.

Yeah I'm sure the people of Chile were liberated when the US actively waged economic warfare to destabilise a democratically-elected regime then actively supported the Pinochet dictatorship.

And I suppose by your defective logic, American support for the Batista regime sure as hell "liberated" the Cuban people.

Take your anti Americanism somewhere else like North Korea perhaps.

You don't have to be anti-American to know that American interventionism has often created more problems than solutions. Nice try though.

[Murkwood]

I'm not a Neocon - Neocons tend to be trigger-happy and light on the diplomacy. It's more about strength and power than the ideals they claim to uphold. When people speak disdainfully of America acting as 'world police', what they mean is that we're acting like thugs; not that we're policing by consent in the finest traditions of what law enforcement is supposed to represent.

The best law enforcement draws a good bit of the enforcers from the people they are protecting.
How can one nation protect the whole world? A 'Post-Atlantic NATO' or Concert of Democracies would do far more good then one nation acting unilaterally.

We never act unilaterally. We always have help from our allies.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

Even I as a History major with emphasis on Foreign Relations can tell you that we have a shit record about "liberating the oppressed"; mostly because we end up oppressing to begin with.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If people hate our government why would they want to come to the us.

Because many of us, even though your domestic policies are a mess and your foreign relations is shit, know we're at least better off than in our countries.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ah, you're not serious.

Yes I am serious. If you are against totalitarianism you do not do bad things like that.

Neocons are not against totalitarianism. The PATRIOT Act is a clear sign of.

[Murkwood]

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

Even I as a History major with emphasis on Foreign Relations can tell you that we have a shit record about "liberating the oppressed"; mostly because we end up oppressing to begin with.

Our foreign relations are shit? We are the sole superpower, y'know.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Even I as a History major with emphasis on Foreign Relations can tell you that we have a shit record about "liberating the oppressed"; mostly because we end up oppressing to begin with.

Our foreign relations are shit? We are the sole superpower, y'know.

We are the sole superpower, doesn't mean our record is a perfect record.

I point you to the Cold War era and the recent Iraq intervention to make my point.

[Murkwood]

Our foreign relations are shit? We are the sole superpower, y'know.

We are the sole superpower, doesn't mean our record is a perfect record.

I point you to the Cold War era and the recent Iraq intervention to make my point.

Still, we won both.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We are the sole superpower, doesn't mean our record is a perfect record.

I point you to the Cold War era and the recent Iraq intervention to make my point.

Still, we won both.

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.

[Murkwood]

Still, we won both.

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.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

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.