Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[The New Sea Territory]

Whats the point of Proxy Conflicts, both sides know the other is involved so why not just settle your differences directly

Because proxy conflicts are much easier.

We send Iraqis, Afghans and South Vietnamese to die for our empire, not Americans.

To me, that sounds cowardly.

[The New Sea Territory]

Is it? The CIA and the American oligarchy

Stop right here. What oligarchy?

The Military-Industrial Complex is a pretty oligarchical system.

[The Liberated Territories]

Isolationism:
No trading
No immigration
No diplomacy (no nothing really)
Always oppose war (unless that war is internal)

Example nation: 1700s Japan

The Dutch and Chinese would like to disagree with you there.

Non-interventionism:
Trade
Free immigration
Prefers diplomatic solutions
only support war if in self defense.

Example nation: Late 1800s America

By people who explicitly called themselves Isolationists.

China was "isolationist" for only a short amount of time, and mostly due to piratical troubles. The Netherlands was moreso non-interventionist. Both supported trade and immigration (Chinese silk road, Dutch openess to foreigners due to religious persecution).

Source, mi camarade?

[The Liberated Territories]

Iran. Iraq.

There is sectarianism, violence, and chaos in Iraq, but not, as far as I can tell, tyranny, or anything remotely resembling a working government, or any government.

There is a government. Where am I talking about a government?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

There is sectarianism, violence, and chaos in Iraq, but not, as far as I can tell, tyranny, or anything remotely resembling a working government, or any government.

There is a government. Where am I talking about a government?

Tyranny, by definition, requires a government. Violence and Sectarianism and all that isn't exactly tyranny, it is simply Chaos, as for the Iraqi government, even if it is tyrannical, it is extremely effete.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The Dutch and Chinese would like to disagree with you there.



By people who explicitly called themselves Isolationists.

China was "isolationist" for only a short amount of time, and mostly due to piratical troubles. The Netherlands was moreso non-interventionist. Both supported trade and immigration (Chinese silk road, Dutch openess to foreigners due to religious persecution).

Source, mi camarade?

No, I meant Japan, as in, Japan actually traded with the Chinese and the Dutch during the 1700s, not as in "China and the Netherlands are example of Isolationist Empires"

A grand strategy for America

Robert Art.

[The New Sea Territory]

There is a government. Where am I talking about a government?

Tyranny, by definition, requires a government. Violence and Sectarianism and all that isn't exactly tyranny, it is simply Chaos, as for the Iraqi government, even if it is tyrannical, it is extremely effete.

A government does not necessary have to be formal. Really, any monopoly on the initiation of force is capable of tyranny.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Tyranny, by definition, requires a government. Violence and Sectarianism and all that isn't exactly tyranny, it is simply Chaos, as for the Iraqi government, even if it is tyrannical, it is extremely effete.

A government does not necessary have to be formal. Really, any monopoly on the initiation of force is capable of tyranny.

That isn't the definition of Tyranny, the monopoly of legitimate force is teh definition of any government.

[The New Sea Territory]

A government does not necessary have to be formal. Really, any monopoly on the initiation of force is capable of tyranny.

That isn't the definition of Tyranny, the monopoly of legitimate force is teh definition of any government.

You still haven't actually provided a definition for tyranny, and that's not all forms of government. There are plenty of ways to organize government without force.

[The Liberated Territories]

China was "isolationist" for only a short amount of time, and mostly due to piratical troubles. The Netherlands was moreso non-interventionist. Both supported trade and immigration (Chinese silk road, Dutch openess to foreigners due to religious persecution).

Source, mi camarade?

No, I meant Japan, as in, Japan actually traded with the Chinese and the Dutch during the 1700s, not as in "China and the Netherlands are example of Isolationist Empires"

A grand strategy for America

Robert Art.

What strict black and white definitions you use! So therefore, because the Japanese were trading with the Chinese and the Dutch, they were not strictly isolationist. Yet the policy taken still was, by definition, isolationist, as they cut out all trade but those few, and barred entry into their nation, while refusing diplomacy (save the Paris world fair exception, although not really diplomacy by definition).

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

No, I meant Japan, as in, Japan actually traded with the Chinese and the Dutch during the 1700s, not as in "China and the Netherlands are example of Isolationist Empires"

A grand strategy for America

Robert Art.

What strict black and white definitions you use! So therefore, because the Japanese were trading with the Chinese and the Dutch, they were not strictly isolationist.

It is only a correction on part of your ignorance of history, which states, unequivically, "Japanese is an Isolationist Nations, because it does not trade or have diplomatic ties with any other nations", which is patently false.

Yet the policy taken still was, by definition, isolationist, as they cut out all trade but those few, and barred entry into their nation, while refusing diplomacy (save the Paris world fair exception, although not really diplomacy by definition).

ANd you can see the goal post shifting, and it moves further and further away.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

That isn't the definition of Tyranny, the monopoly of legitimate force is teh definition of any government.

You still haven't actually provided a definition for tyranny, and that's not all forms of government. There are plenty of ways to organize government without force.

Actually, I am wrong in this respect, in that your definition is simply an appropiation of the Weberian definition of the State, which, judging by your flag, you would simply deem as "authoritarian" or "tyrannical". Tyranny, to us who do not partake in anarchist jargon, is a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler, the Tyrant, or a group of rulers with unrestricted power, such as the Athenian Thirty Tyrants (οἱ τριάκοντα τύραννοι)

[Murkwood]

Stop right here. What oligarchy?

The Military-Industrial Complex is a pretty oligarchical system.

It's also a silly conspiracy.

[Xsyne]

The Military-Industrial Complex is a pretty oligarchical system.

It's also a silly conspiracy.

This just in: no one makes and sells weapons. It's all in our heads.

[Murkwood]

It's also a silly conspiracy.

This just in: no one makes and sells weapons. It's all in our heads.

The Millitary-Industiral complex does exist. Them agitating for wars to sell more guns is a myth.

[Murkwood]

Because proxy conflicts are much easier.

We send Iraqis, Afghans and South Vietnamese to die for our empire, not Americans.

To me, that sounds cowardly.

First off, Americans died in all those conflicts. Second, we had genuine public support in those countries from people like the Kurds, Northern Alliance, and a majority of South Vietnamese.

[Dejanic]

Neo-Conservatism is a short sited ideology which destabilises regions, causes debt, ruins economies, murders millions and in the long run often causes a situation to worsen. The Iraq war pretty much created ISIS, and now we're stuck in a sort of hair of the dog situation where one of the most proposed ways to deal with this new scourge that was created by neo-conservatism, is to follow neo-conservatism.

I think it's harsh on genuine right wingers to call neo-conservatives "conservatives", the original neo-cons were Trotskyists who wanted to use the US as an imperial beacon to fight the Soviet Union, and most traditionalist Conservatives clash with "neo-cons". I see neo-conservatives more so as corporate underlings than actual ideological Conservatives, as they effectively serve the corporate military complex as well as the oil industry.

[Murkwood]

Neo-Conservatism is a short sited ideology which destabilises regions, causes debt, ruins economies, murders millions and in the long run often causes a situation to worsen. The Iraq war pretty much created ISIS, and now we're stuck in a sort of hair of the dog situation where one of the most proposed ways to deal with this new scourge that was created by neo-conservatism, is to follow neo-conservatism.

The justified US intervention in Iraq didn't breed ISIS. Radical Islam and a hesitance to intervene in Syria did.