Neo-Conservatism: Bomb this thread, we have Oil

[Murkwood]

You can't invade a country hoping that another might not help them.

If a country was actually going around invading other countries for purely ethical reasons, then yes, they could, and would, take that infinitesimally small risk.

I don't get what you're trying to get at, here. Yes, sometimes you need to take a risk. Now is not one of those times.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Bombing for peace is pretty hypocritical, yes.

But it's not for peace.

Freudian slip?

[Murkwood]

But it's not for peace.

Freudian slip?

No. No one fights a war for peace.

[Arkolon]

Bombing for peace is pretty hypocritical, yes.

But it's not for peace.

What is it for?

[Murkwood]

But it's not for peace.

What is it for?

Trillions of reasons. Some vain, some moral. I can't summarize every reason every country fought in every war.

[Arkolon]

What is it for?

Trillions of reasons. Some vain, some moral. I can't summarize every reason every country fought in every war.

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?

[Murkwood]

Trillions of reasons. Some vain, some moral. I can't summarize every reason every country fought in every war.

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.

[Arkolon]

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.

Those are specifics. 1 falls into "rectification of injustice", yet 2-4 all fall under "peace".

[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.

Those are specifics. 1 falls into "rectification of injustice", yet 2-4 all fall under "peace".

Okay, your point being?

[The Nihilistic view]

I somewhat agree with interventionism but rather wait for the situation to come to us rather than go out looking for it. So Don't invade Iraq but when a country descends to chaos of it's own accord like say Mali we should go and help. I almost feel that we have a duty in our old colonial possessions to make sure they now have the conditions to be able to grow into a free democratic healthy country. If that involves military intervention from time to time so be it. We should not shy away from silly view that it's supposedly somehow still imperialism.

Where there is a free government to help out help, where there is not don't try because one never knows what the unintended consequences will be like in Iraq with ISIS. Be patient and opportunities will arise to change these countries for the better from the inside in a more stable way long term.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

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.

That tyrant was eventually replaced by something far worse and chaotic. I'm going to safely assume you know what I'm talking about.

I once heard a nice little quote, it went something like this:

"For every drone strike that kills a terrorist, ten more are created."

Obviously, it's just a quote, but it holds immense truth. Drone strikes (and really, the entire war on terror) don't stop terrorism; in fact, they often encourage it. "Terrorism" is an idea. You cannot defeat an idea, especially not with weapons.

Democracy is not something that needs to be spread, and it simply does not work for some cultures.

Most non-US intelligence agencies say that Israel has nuclear weapons as well, and Israel does not confirm or deny it. It's pretty obvious that they do, but they're our allies, so they somehow have the right to nuclear weapons, even when they commit huge atrocities against the Palestinians.

[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.

That tyrant was eventually replaced by something far worse and chaotic. I'm going to safely assume you know what I'm talking about.

I once heard a nice little quote, it went something like this:

"For every drone strike that kills a terrorist, ten more are created."

Obviously, it's just a quote, but it holds immense truth. Drone strikes (and really, the entire war on terror) don't stop terrorism; in fact, they often encourage it. "Terrorism" is an idea. You cannot defeat an idea, especially not with weapons.

Democracy is not something that needs to be spread, and it simply does not work for some cultures.

Most non-US intelligence agencies say that Israel has nuclear weapons as well, and Israel does not confirm or deny it. It's pretty obvious that they do, but they're our allies, so they somehow have the right to nuclear weapons, even when they commit huge atrocities against the Palestinians.

"Democracy doesn't work for some people" is wrong, and the oldest trick in the isolationist book. All societies can adjust to a democracy.

[Socialist Tera]

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.

America had a chance to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War but didn't. I think it's more likely that the US disliked the fact the Hussein wanted to trade Oil in Euro instead of Greenback.

America just wants to spread it's global hegemony throughout the world. Conservatism spreads dangerous idea that endangers the workers.

[Arkolon]

Those are specifics. 1 falls into "rectification of injustice", yet 2-4 all fall under "peace".

Okay, your point being?

1. Democracy is peaceful.
2. Freedom is peaceful.
3. Violencistan is not free and not democratic.
4. Violencistan is not peaceful.
5. We must bomb, fight, or declare war against Violencistan to promote freedom and democracy.
6. We must bomb, fight, or declare war against Violencistan to promote peace.

[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.

America had a chance to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War but didn't. I think it's more likely that the US disliked the fact the Hussein wanted to trade Oil in Euro instead of Greenback.

It's a shame we didn't overthrow him the Gulf War.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

That tyrant was eventually replaced by something far worse and chaotic. I'm going to safely assume you know what I'm talking about.

I once heard a nice little quote, it went something like this:

"For every drone strike that kills a terrorist, ten more are created."

Obviously, it's just a quote, but it holds immense truth. Drone strikes (and really, the entire war on terror) don't stop terrorism; in fact, they often encourage it. "Terrorism" is an idea. You cannot defeat an idea, especially not with weapons.

Democracy is not something that needs to be spread, and it simply does not work for some cultures.

Most non-US intelligence agencies say that Israel has nuclear weapons as well, and Israel does not confirm or deny it. It's pretty obvious that they do, but they're our allies, so they somehow have the right to nuclear weapons, even when they commit huge atrocities against the Palestinians.

"Democracy doesn't work for some people" is wrong, and the oldest trick in the isolationist book. All societies can adjust to a democracy.

I disagree, but even if all societies 'could' theoretically adjust to become democracies, why exactly should we waste our money and resources forcing it upon them? The entire world does not want/need us to be their police.

[New Frenco Empire]

Since neoconservatism is pretty much "Imperialism Jr." I support it.

[Murkwood]

"Democracy doesn't work for some people" is wrong, and the oldest trick in the isolationist book. All societies can adjust to a democracy.

I disagree, but even if all societies 'could' theoretically adjust to become democracies, why exactly should we waste our money and resources forcing it upon them? The entire world does not want/need us to be their police.

If we don't protect human rights, who will?

[Socialist Tera]

I disagree, but even if all societies 'could' theoretically adjust to become democracies, why exactly should we waste our money and resources forcing it upon them? The entire world does not want/need us to be their police.

If we don't protect human rights, who will?

We don't protect human rights at all. We allow international corporations exploit people in blood diamond mines and sweat shops. America and it's allies only care about the interests of corporations. The UN's stance of Libya is indicative of that.
Also, what is your stance on America's use of depleted Uranium in the Gulf and Iraq wars? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-con ... 12888.html

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

I disagree, but even if all societies 'could' theoretically adjust to become democracies, why exactly should we waste our money and resources forcing it upon them? The entire world does not want/need us to be their police.

If we don't protect human rights, who will?

Our invasions are very seldomly for human rights, and there are many cases where we are hypocritical and do not protect human rights at all, either because the perpetrators are our allies and/or because we're afraid of attacking the country (once again, I point you to Israel and North Korea). And once again, we usually fail at protecting said human rights, or a country becomes even worse when we leave (see: ISIS). It's not like we can stay in a country forever, so a better course of action would just be not invading in the first place.

[The Liberated Territories]

Neoconism is an impediment to the free market, and certainly not compatible. Using large private sector subsidies to fund the military, protectionism that can destroy entire industries, bail-outs for the failures they helped create, etc. are all anti-free market actions. No wonder Bush left with a trillion dollar debt.

[Murkwood]

Neoconism is an impediment to the free market, and certainly not compatible. Using large private sector subsidies to fund the military, protectionism that can destroy entire industries, bail-outs for the failures they helped create, etc. are all anti-free market actions. No wonder Bush left with a trillion dollar debt.

Neo-Conservatism doesn't always mean protectionism.

[The Liberated Territories]

Neoconism is an impediment to the free market, and certainly not compatible. Using large private sector subsidies to fund the military, protectionism that can destroy entire industries, bail-outs for the failures they helped create, etc. are all anti-free market actions. No wonder Bush left with a trillion dollar debt.

Neo-Conservatism doesn't always mean protectionism.

Vietnam fishers would disagree. American protectionism on the catfish industry pretty muched wrecked Vietnam's prime industry.

[Murkwood]

Neo-Conservatism doesn't always mean protectionism.

Vietnam fishers would disagree. American protectionism on the catfish industry pretty muched wrecked Vietnam's prime industry.

What year was that?

[Kanaria]

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).

It's possible to have a big defense and a small domestic government.

With the right moral restraints, yes. In a country where the powerful are taught they get whatever they want, though...
(insert link to Ferguson, Missouri-related YouTube video)