CometII
Topic Author
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 6:02 am

Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:04 pm

Anyone notice how this massively unified front from neo-cons is stating, in very clear terms, that the "United States is showing weakness". That's fine, eveyone is entitled to their opinion. But when it comes to outlining the course to follow, they are oh so purposefully vague. All you hear is "America is in retreat" in the Middle East.

What do they mean by that??

The only conclusion one can draw, is they want the USA to remain in Iraq, double down in Afghanistan, and that is just for starters. They want to bomb Iran, engage in Syria, put boots in Libya, become involved in Sudan, take action in Yemen, and in Pakistan, and in Egypt, and, and, and...

Look, I want a strong US response whenever events like the latest happen, but these neo-cons are out of their minds. They seem to exist in an alternate universe. Don't they realize we don't have the power, the treasure, or quite frankly, the lives to spare for their outrageous sketches? It is also very dangerous for them to create the narrative that the US leaving Iraq or Afghanistan is a sign of weakness. It is not a sign of weakness, it is what must happen. We don't BELONG there.

If these are the minds in line for a Romney administration (plus Romney himself, who has the ability to even piss of Britain, not even Dubya managed that), this Arab world policy, plus the "self-deportation" policy, plus Russia being America's #1 opponent, plus his apparent eagerness to just piss off China due to trade (not a bad idea, but the way he seems to want to do so is troubling)... boy, I fear for the future.
 
mham001
Posts: 4222
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:16 pm

You've put a whole lot of words into the mouths of others.

There is unfortunately some truth, particularly in Egypt. Obama supported their "street" even at the expense of pissing off good allies. He strongly encouraged the military to hand over more power quickly, he plans/planned on getting Congress to forgive $1 Billion in debt while handing them $2 billion a year in aid, he threw Mubarak under the bus early on, he has done everything they wanted, yet Egypt is looking everywhere else for friends, Presidential trips to China, getting cozy with Iran, etc.

This is the fourth attack on embassies in Cairo with little to no police interaction and the Egypt president cannot even make a decisive condemnation for 24 hours?

Obama is an amateur.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:19 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1):
Obama is an amateur.

To be fair, our boots on the ground in Egypt only lasted, um, 0 days. Maybe he handled it poorly or not, I'm just glad we didn't invade Egypt (or Libya) (or Syria) (or Iran)
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:24 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1):
This is the fourth attack on embassies in Cairo with little to no police interaction and the Egypt president cannot even make a decisive condemnation for 24 hours?

Obama is an amateur.

And so what would your response be? Especially to a country that does billions of dollars in trade with the US, and one in which we actually have a surplus. There are a lot of interest of the US in Egypt, not the least being the Suez Canal, and a trading partner.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1):
threw Mubarak under the bus

So you support dictatorships? Gotta love that spirit of freedom and democracy.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:26 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
To be fair, our boots on the ground in Egypt only lasted, um, 0 days.

Exactly. There was no way that Mubarak was going to hold onto power short of military intervention (bad idea), and supporting him would have made the US look even worse (both in terms of being seen propping up a dictator and in terms of eventually being unable to do it), which would have had future repercussions. Trying to support those who would come next and hoping for a friendly government was the right thing to do - it didn't work out, but that's not Obama's fault.

Now if you want to talk about an amateur, look at Romney's idiotic comments about Russia a few days ago.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:26 pm

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Anyone notice how this massively unified front from neo-cons is stating, in very clear terms, that the "United States is showing weakness". That's fine, eveyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't think it's so fine, when that opinion is so dangerous.

A lot of us said some saber ratting was fine back in the early 2000s because we presumed everyone of adult age had learned the lesson of Vietnam and no one would ever be stupid enough to get us back into such a quagmire.

Sadly, we were very, very wrong.

None of us have any way of knowing if a McCain/Palin administration would have gotten us engaged in Iraq, although we do hear various right wingers agitating for it, and we know that on such issues the position of the GOP is very vague.

Not having a McCain/Palin administration is one reason we're better off than we were four years ago.

Not having a Romney/Ryan administration is one reason we'll be better off four years from now.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
sccutler
Posts: 5567
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:27 pm

"Neo-cons"?

Would you contend that any person who takes issue with the way a piece of policy is handled by the administration, is, ipso facto, a "neo-con"?

What about a person who has genuine disgreement with doctrine in this instance, but not all? Are they "neo-cons" only when they differ from your chosen position, or are they "neo-con" without hope of reprieve upon first disagreement with you?

---

The point is, by applying the broad brush to every person challenging policy, one quickly does away with any possibility of balance or credibility, and (in the process) brands him- or her-self with the badge of intolerance.

This works without regard to which side of the political spectrum you may find yourself on.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
mham001
Posts: 4222
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:29 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 3):
So you support dictatorships? Gotta love that spirit of freedom and democracy.

No, I don't really have any interest in spreading "democracy" to Egypt. You sound like what is being described as a neocon.

And our trade is dependent on that $2 biilion/year, remember?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:37 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 7):
No, I don't really have any interest in spreading "democracy" to Egypt. You sound like what is being described as a neocon.

Wasn't my point.
I misread your post.

However we can't go interfereing, and the neocons want us too.
All over the world.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:13 pm

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
The only conclusion one can draw, is they want the USA to remain in Iraq, double down in Afghanistan, and that is just for starters. They want to bomb Iran, engage in Syria, put boots in Libya, become involved in Sudan, take action in Yemen, and in Pakistan, and in Egypt, and, and, and...

Odd bit of behavior from Netanyahu with his "Red Line" comment - basically at the wrong time for those os us who support both Israel and Obama. Interesting story on that at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81150.html

Quote:

President Barack Obama’s national security team had every reason to believe they’d be spared a Bibi eruption before Election Day.

Earlier this year, U.S. and Israeli officials had informally agreed to stop airing their well-documented disagreements over how to halt Iran’s nuclear program, according to two people familiar with the situation.

But on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke the tacit détente. He accused the Obama administration, albeit not by name, of going squishy on Tehran by not creating concrete benchmarks — “red lines,” he called them — for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

The latest flare-up in the tempestuous Obama-Netanyahu relationship was overshadowed Wednesday by the carnage at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But U.S. officials believe the intense debate over the allied response to Iran’s nuclear program — and the sharp personal, policy and political differences between the two leaders — rivals the perils posed by the excesses of the Arab Spring.

And there was an interesting comment on the reality of the more responsible politicians in Israel on Page 3 of the article:

Quote:

The paradox, senior American officials told POLITICO, is that bilateral military and intelligence contacts between the two countries have seldom been more productive, for all the public squawking.

Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — whose weekend comments pushing back against the notion of an Iran deadline sparked Netanyahu’s “red lines” remark — enjoy close relationships with other top Israeli officials, especially former Labor prime ministers Ehud Barak, currently Netanyahu’s defense minister, and Shimon Peres.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1):
Obama is an amateur.

As opposed to Bush & Cheney who went after those WMDs in Iraq, boosting Halliburton's profitability.?

Quoting sccutler (Reply 6):
Would you contend that any person who takes issue with the way a piece of policy is handled by the administration, is, ipso facto, a "neo-con"?

Not at all.

I see the neo-cons as today's hard line conservative. It's a bit different than the Conservative GOP of my Father's day (and the one I was a part of). It is, to me, a far right political element with little tolerance for those who are moderate or (God Forbid) to the left of moderate. Basically the political type who believes a coin can only have one side.
 
mham001
Posts: 4222
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:30 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
As opposed to Bush & Cheney who went after those WMDs in Iraq, boosting Halliburton's profitability.?

I'm not sure what relevance Bush/Cheney have on this conversation. Can you point out to us what affect Bush/Cheney have had on the current state of affairs in Egypt? Or is that some kind of a deflection?

As I recall, Bush was pushing the democracy thing long before Obama, fwiw.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:49 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
. Basically the political type who believes a coin can only have one side.

It goes further than that. That side has to be shiny and polished to within 80% perfection .
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:27 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
I see the neo-cons as today's hard line conservative. It's a bit different than the Conservative GOP of my Father's day (and the one I was a part of). It is, to me, a far right political element with little tolerance for those who are moderate or (God Forbid) to the left of moderate. Basically the political type who believes a coin can only have one side.

Very well put. To expand, neo-con standard economic theory is to reward the rich for being rich, and punish the poor for being poor. Basically supporting the 1%. At lest, that's what it seems like to me.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11098
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:35 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 13):
I'm not sure what relevance Bush/Cheney have on this conversation.

Well, they actually were neocons. People don't seem to understand much of what neocons are. Simply wanting to intervene in the Middle East does not make one a neocon.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 3):
So you support dictatorships? Gotta love that spirit of freedom and democracy.

That's not something a neocon would do. No neocon would support a dictator if they thought democracy was a legitimate option.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
I see the neo-cons as today's hard line conservative.

Neocons are, by definition, not hard line conservatives.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 14):
To expand, neo-con standard economic theory is to reward the rich for being rich, and punish the poor for being poor. Basically supporting the 1%. At lest, that's what it seems like to me.

No, not at all. Neo-conservatism really has little to do with domestic policy and is concentrated on international relations.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:37 pm

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):

Anyone notice how this massively unified front from neo-cons is stating, in very clear terms, that the "United States is showing weakness". That's fine, eveyone is entitled to their opinion. But when it comes to outlining the course to follow, they are oh so purposefully vague. All you hear is "America is in retreat" in the Middle East.

What do they mean by that??

The only conclusion one can draw, is they want the USA to remain in Iraq, double down in Afghanistan, and that is just for starters. They want to bomb Iran, engage in Syria, put boots in Libya, become involved in Sudan, take action in Yemen, and in Pakistan, and in Egypt, and, and, and...

Your first para is generally true, and I do think they are overstating it a bit.

But your last para is completely invented by you. Nobody WANTS to do those things, although we should be willing to do them if necessary. I don't think anyone left or right wants to see boots on the ground in any of those places. Air strikes, maybe.

It comes back to the Bush Doctrine. If you attack us, we will hunt you down. If you hide in places where you are protected by the government, we will go after that government, and maybe the local population if they seem to be backing you up.

Safety will come if people know that if they attack the US, or harbor those who attack us, they are in for a world of hurt. The more we hold back, don't want to overreact as we have for generations now, the less people feel such fear. If, in Afghanistan, we had flattened every town from which we were fired on, using bombs, gunships and artillery, it is quite likely that we would not have had so many problems in Iraq and this week might never have happened.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:43 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1):
Obama is an amateur.

Amateur comes from the Latin ''amator'' which translates into ''Passionist'', someone who does something with passion, as a pasttime, not as a ''profession''; as President of the United States is considered more than a hobby, because it pays a salary, he is therefore a professional and not an amateur.

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
these neo-cons are out of their minds. They seem to exist in an alternate universe.

You don't say..

Quoting mham001 (Reply 7):
No, I don't really have any interest in spreading "democracy" to Egypt. You sound like what is being described as a neocon.

And our trade is dependent on that $2 biilion/year, remember?

And how much do you spend on ''the war on terror'', that such well-thought through calculations make necessary?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 10):
However we can't go interfereing, and the neocons want us too.
All over the world.

Because those are people who somehow believe that America is the center of the universe. If they realized America was just another country, which it is, then none of their beliefs would make sense anymore. Which is why your characterization of them as ''living in another universe'' is shared by virtually any other country - and every American who has actually left their own country.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7581
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:59 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
If, in Afghanistan, we had flattened every town from which we were fired on, using bombs, gunships and artillery, it is quite likely that we would not have had so many problems in Iraq

When did Afghanistan attack the US ? When did Iraq attack the US ? You were waging the war, don't forget that. It's exactly what neo-conservatism is about, using the US military to wage unnecessary wars, and benefit from it.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
BMI727
Posts: 11098
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:05 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):
It's exactly what neo-conservatism is about, using the US military to wage unnecessary wars, and benefit from it.

That isn't what neo-conservatism is about. Neo-conservatism is using military means to allow others to benefit from it. Neocons are people who will invade a country and then start building schools. Spreading democracy and all that.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5271
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:26 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
If, in Afghanistan, we had flattened every town from which we were fired on, using bombs, gunships and artillery, it is quite likely that we would not have had so many problems in Iraq and this week might never have happened.

Not really as that strategy would have required slaughtering massive numbers of civilians. Somehow, I don't see how slaughtering massive numbers of Muslim civilians would make the situation in Iraq, Libya, etc any better. Also, those we are fighting are not rational players that fear a "scorched earth" type policy.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
It comes back to the Bush Doctrine. If you attack us, we will hunt you down.

But how does that apply in Iraq? Iraq didn't attack us and Iraq posed little threat of every attacking us. Saddam may have been a threat to his own people, but he posed little threat to the U.S.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:57 am

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 23):

I agree with that... so you threw in race because...?
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:09 am

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):


Anyone notice how this massively unified front from neo-cons is stating, in very clear terms, that the "United States is showing weakness". That's fine, eveyone is entitled to their opinion. But when it comes to outlining the course to follow, they are oh so purposefully vague. All you hear is "America is in retreat" in the Middle East.

What do they mean by that??

The only conclusion one can draw, is they want the USA to remain in Iraq, double down in Afghanistan, and that is just for starters. They want to bomb Iran, engage in Syria, put boots in Libya, become involved in Sudan, take action in Yemen, and in Pakistan, and in Egypt, and, and, and...

Look, I want a strong US response whenever events like the latest happen, but these neo-cons are out of their minds. They seem to exist in an alternate universe. Don't they realize we don't have the power, the treasure, or quite frankly, the lives to spare for their outrageous sketches? It is also very dangerous for them to create the narrative that the US leaving Iraq or Afghanistan is a sign of weakness. It is not a sign of weakness, it is what must happen. We don't BELONG there.



If these are the minds in line for a Romney administration (plus Romney himself, who has the ability to even piss of Britain, not even Dubya managed that), this Arab world policy, plus the "self-deportation" policy, plus Russia being America's #1 opponent, plus his apparent eagerness to just piss off China due to trade (not a bad idea, but the way he seems to want to do so is troubling)... boy, I fear for the future.




Very well said
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:17 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 26):
Very well said

If you enjoy comedy of the 'Dumb and Dumber' variety.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:06 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Oh, jeez... I don't know a single person who has ever objected to the man's race. We don't like his policies and priorities, and this week's events further exposes his woeful ignorance of how the world works - or maybe he just doesn't care about anything except for his own political career.

You come from the party of birthers where Barack's released Birth Certifcate is suspect, and Mitt's sealed Tax Returns are Golden.
You have nowhere to go here. There is deep racism in the GOP, and I suspect you must not get out much if you haven't seen it.

This weeks policies are what they should have been. Wait to find out what happened, instead of taking WAG's and hoping a dart lands. The GOP as you have mentioned made mea culpa's that got a lot of people killed in a place that is probably going to collapse under it's own weight. Libya , Egypt and Yemen need to find their way in the world. Unlike Iran, and Saudi Arabia, they will find it is a very lonely place as they have little in terms of natural resources to peg the interest of the rest of the world to their whims. Unfortunately that is also one of the feeding zone of the terrorists. However Libya is cooperating and arresting suspects. Just because Rush and Sean are ready to Bomb the world , and want to support dictators does not mean that that is a good foreign policy for the US.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:51 am

Quoting casinterest (Reply 22):
You come from the party of birthers where Barack's released Birth Certifcate is suspect

While we might have a few birthers here and there, it is hardly widespread, and I have no use for them.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 22):
and Mitt's sealed Tax Returns are Golden.

And irrelevant. As long as he is not under investigation by the IRS for tax evasion, I'm fine with it. I am much more concerned with why Obama has spent so much money and effort to make sure that nobody sees his college records (he's supposed to be so smart - prove it) and other aspects of his past

Quoting casinterest (Reply 22):
You have nowhere to go here. There is deep racism in the GOP, and I suspect you must not get out much if you haven't seen it.

I have not heard a single GOP person who has given me the slightest indication that Obama's race is a major issue to them. But I think the Democratic platform, which thrives on the position that black people need special favors and handouts and consideration, is inherently racist because it is based on the belief that they can't make it otherwise.

But let's keep race out of this. it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Shame on you for bringing it up.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5367
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:07 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):

And irrelevant. As long as he is not under investigation by the IRS for tax evasion, I'm fine with it. I am much more concerned with why Obama has spent so much money and effort to make sure that nobody sees his college records (he's supposed to be so smart - prove it) and other aspects of his past

Nope nope nope.
Romney's tax records are much more important than a fake wild goose chase by the birthers, who are behind this phony record request. He graduated JD Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. I don't need to see his transcripts based on that info.
But maybe you do?
Romney's taxe on the other hand are a major question mark since it highlights his monetary policies.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
have not heard a single GOP person who has given me the slightest indication that Obama's race is a major issue to them

Then you are lucky. I have heard tons of people who dislike him based soley on that fact.

Race shouldn't be a factor , but it is , for many folks on both sides. I am meerly caling out the fact that the birthers and this college record rant of theirs has everything to do with racism.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
Shame on you for bringing it up.

Shame on those that stick their head in the sand and pretend that college transcripts and birth certificates are about the greater good, when they are based on something far more sinister.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:47 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
I am much more concerned with why Obama has spent so much money and effort to make sure that nobody sees his college records (he's supposed to be so smart - prove it) and other aspects of his past

What is with this right-wing fetish with the President's transcripts? Did seeing President Bush's (#43) transcripts make you more confident in his ability to lead the country? Or, instead, is this a reflexive retort to the unanswered requests to see Gov. Romney's tax returns (which, in my opinion, are not dispositive of his candidacy)?
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:58 am

Fine. They can go sabre rattling and start wars all they like.
But then they´d better re-introduce the draft and convert the economy of the US into a total war economy, similar to what the UK had during WW2: Food rationing, no more civilian cars built, all industry used to produce for the military, everybody have his "Victory garden", fuel rationing both for vehicles as for home heating. All resources will be used for the military, with as little as possible for the civilians. I wonder how the voters would like this. And BTW, introduce military law to stop any protests. The US had a little bit of it during WW2, but not as much as the UK.
Hitler tried to keep life in the home country as normal as possible for the civilian population up to about 1944, when he was forced to get into a total war mode, because else the people might have rebelled (remembering the turnip winters of WW1). Even in 1943 factories were still wasting materials on luxury items.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:59 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
Quoting casinterest (Reply 22):
You have nowhere to go here. There is deep racism in the GOP, and I suspect you must not get out much if you haven't seen it.

I have not heard a single GOP person who has given me the slightest indication that Obama's race is a major issue to them. But I think the Democratic platform, which thrives on the position that black people need special favors and handouts and consideration, is inherently racist because it is based on the belief that they can't make it otherwise.

But let's keep race out of this. it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Shame on you for bringing it up.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
Quoting casinterest (Reply 22):
You have nowhere to go here. There is deep racism in the GOP, and I suspect you must not get out much if you haven't seen it.

I have not heard a single GOP person who has given me the slightest indication that Obama's race is a major issue to them. But I think the Democratic platform, which thrives on the position that black people need special favors and handouts and consideration, is inherently racist because it is based on the belief that they can't make it otherwise.

But let's keep race out of this. it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Shame on you for bringing it up.


Shame on him? Really? While you are clearly and obviously an honorable and thoughtful member of the Republican Party, the fact remains that all of the birthers (except Superfly) are Republicans - not Democrats. The President's place of birth has long been established, yet those on the "right" side of the political spectrum keep throwing up spurious doubts and objections. If the current Democratic President were named, say, Barry Harold O'Neill (instead of Barack Hussein Obama), I doubt there would be such a fuss over his provenance. And yet, there is, and it comes from one side of the political spectrum: yours.

You speak of "shame" - as well you should - that shame should be ascribed to those who continue, irrationally, and despite all relevant and convincing evidence - to believe and proclaim that the President is foreign born and, therefore, illegitimate.

Your verdict ("shame") is the correct one. Your target, however, is misplaced.
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
seb146
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:16 am

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Don't they realize we don't have the power, the treasure, or quite frankly, the lives to spare for their outrageous sketches?

To quote Dick Cheney: Deficits don't matter. Unless those deficits go to help the American people. What I will never understand is: these right-wingers just love to spend and spend and spend on war and death and killing and scream about how much they love life but refuse to spend a penny on the lives of any Americans that are outside the womb.

IMO, we need to stop killing over there and channel that money into paying down the deficit. But, the right will never ever go for that. They love the profit in death, it seems.

Also, a very small and vocal few really REALLY want the rapture to happen in this lifetime. If Isreal and Iran get it on, that small and vocal few will be over the moon with excitement. Cuz that's when Jesus is a comin'!

The rest of us will be really upset....
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
User avatar
pu
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:08 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:29 am

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):

these neo-cons

As Ken777 hints at (or implies) in his post, Israel plays the main role in this discussion and neo-con is largely a polite word for an ultra-pro-Israeli stance on foreign policy. The Middle East Conflict is centered on one issue: Israel versus everyone else. If there were no Israel in the neighbourhood there would be no US involvement in Iraq or Egypt and no such thing as a neo-con. The only reason Neo-Cons are an identifiable force is because of their united forceful approach to using the USA as an effective egncy for Israeli interests.

Paul Wolfowitz or the wikipedia entry on PNAC enitrely illustrate the neo-con agenda. The rest of the world outside of the ME isn't even on their radar.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 6):
What about a person who has genuine disgreement with doctrine in this instance, but not all? Are they "neo-cons

Advocating force in the Middle East Is the central NeoCon belief and its hard to see why you would want to be aggresive in the region unless you shared their undying objective of neutralising all threats to Israel. But, if someone calls you a neocon for something not related to aggressive Middle Eastern foreign policy ideas, they are mistaken.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):

Safety will come

I think you've hit on the big divide between the left and right in America. To the left, safety arrived when the last existential threat to the USA disappeared in the War of 1812. To the right, American safety is forever elusive and new enemies are always waiting to emerge.

Pu
 
BMI727
Posts: 11098
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:50 am

Quoting pu (Reply 29):
As Ken777 hints at (or implies) in his post, Israel plays the main role in this discussion and neo-con is largely a polite word for an ultra-pro-Israeli stance on foreign policy.

Often in the modern context this is generally true, but although neoconservatism is often associated with Jewish individuals, it actually grew out of the Vietnam war and was oriented towards curtailing Communist influence around the world. Essentially, it was people from the left who advocated for military intervention and spreading democracy. These notions, somewhat understandably, held some appeal for the religious right American Zionists, which is how the neocons came back under George W. Bush after holding little influence after the end of the Cold War.

It seems to me that the association between neoconservatives and "the right" is largely a product of George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Despite having "conservative" in the name, neocons really come from the liberal side of the spectrum.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
seb146
Posts: 13893
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:43 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30):
Despite having "conservative" in the name, neocons really come from the liberal side of the spectrum.

And, as you point out, went from using no religion in their agenda to being all about religion. Tell me: which party is it that uses religion in every corner of their platform and every chance they get?
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11098
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:56 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 31):
And, as you point out, went from using no religion in their agenda to being all about religion.

It's not all about religion though. Applying neocon principles to the Arab world appeals to the religious right, most notably George W. Bush, but it's not by any stretch all about religion.

Neoconservatives really aren't conservatives at all. They were Democrats who were turned off by hippies.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
sccutler
Posts: 5567
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:46 pm

Quoting pu (Reply 29):
Quoting sccutler (Reply 6):
What about a person who has genuine disgreement with doctrine in this instance, but not all? Are they "neo-cons

Advocating force in the Middle East Is the central NeoCon belief and its hard to see why you would want to be aggresive in the region unless you shared their undying objective of neutralising all threats to Israel. But, if someone calls you a neocon for something not related to aggressive Middle Eastern foreign policy ideas, they are mistaken.

This is interesting to me - I have often seen the "neo-con" tag applied in contexts entirely different from that you have described. There is a real risk, where one applies a term intended to convey adherence to a belief, that it will be misused, misapplied or co-opted to another (perhaps pejorative) meaning. This has happened with the term "neo-con"; in any event, I've never heard or read of anyone who proclaims, "I am a neo-con."

As for whether and why you'd want to be aggressive in the middle east, there is real cause for debate there, isn't there? Just checked, verified I haven't got the answers just now.

Quoting pu (Reply 29):
I think you've hit on the big divide between the left and right in America. To the left, safety arrived when the last existential threat to the USA disappeared in the War of 1812. To the right, American safety is forever elusive and new enemies are always waiting to emerge.

There were a great many who objected to US involvement in WWII. I have no qualms reciting that Nazi Germany was a viable new enemy, one for which US involvement was the only right thing to do. I think that turned out OK for Europe and, indeed, for the world.

Other conflicts, since then, have been much less clear in their goals, morals and objectives, haven't they?
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
User avatar
pu
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:08 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:20 pm

Quoting sccutler (Reply 33):

As for whether and why you'd want to be aggressive in the middle east, there is real cause for debate there, isn't there? Just checked, verified I haven't got the answers just now

Sure, there is cause for debate. Many on the left would probably be ok with some type of military involvement against terrorist cells, for instance. But the NeoCon idea is aggressive military confrontation on several fronts to, acoording to their theory, prevent the inevitable aggression from American/Israeli enemies once they gain strength.

Quoting sccutler (Reply 33):

There were a great many who objected to US involvement in WWII. I have no qualms reciting that Nazi Germany was a viable new enemy, one for which US involvement was the only right thing to do. I think that turned out OK for Europe and, indeed, for the world....
Other conflicts, since then, have been much less clear in their goals, morals and objectives, haven't they?

Unless you believe Nazi German and/or Japan could have successfully defeated Russia and China on their own and furthermore manage a cross-ocean invasion of North America, it is questionable whether any of America's wars in the past 200 years were against enemies that had the ability to threaten America's security. Most of it has been about protecting US overseas interests, some of which are important to America (Europe or at least the UK), and some of which seem like less than crtically important places (Vietnam, Iraq).
.
Basically, though, a NeoCon is defined by an aggressive stance towards military intervention in the Middle East. Some might argue that they are for an aggressive foreign policy generally, but in reality this is only about the Middle East conflicts. People like William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle have effectively made the term neocon to mean someone who aggressively defends Israel and sees American policy in the Middle East in terms of Israeli objectives.

...Yes, the neocon term is badly misued especially when applied to social issues like abortion, tax policy, healthcare, gay marriage, etc... which are irrelevant to the neocon movement.

Pu
 
sccutler
Posts: 5567
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:45 pm

Quoting pu (Reply 34):

Unless you believe Nazi German and/or Japan could have successfully defeated Russia and China on their own and furthermore manage a cross-ocean invasion of North America, it is questionable whether any of America's wars in the past 200 years were against enemies that had the ability to threaten America's security.

Absent the US' involvement, what you describe would almost certainly have occurred... and Aussies would be Waltzing Matilda with a Japanese beat. It was not just about protecting our interests, per se, though that could still be compelling ly argued; it was about protecting our family, because ultimately, that where we were. In any event, it may or may not have been the right move, but I am comfortable defending our involvement.

Quoting pu (Reply 34):
Most of it has been about protecting US overseas interests, some of which are important to America (Europe or at least the UK), and some of which seem like less than crtically important places (Vietnam, Iraq).

When you said that little bit, you said quite a lot. It is difficult to, with a straight face, equate Vietnam or Iraq with western Europe.

Quoting pu (Reply 34):


...Yes, the neocon term is badly misued especially when applied to social issues like abortion, tax policy, healthcare, gay marriage, etc... which are irrelevant to the neocon movement.

I have surely observed this occurring with regularity.

---

Thanks for your thoughts.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:44 pm

Quoting pu (Reply 34):
Unless you believe Nazi German and/or Japan could have successfully defeated Russia and China on their own and furthermore manage a cross-ocean invasion of North America, it is questionable whether any of America's wars in the past 200 years were against enemies that had the ability to threaten America's security. Most of it has been about protecting US overseas interests, some of which are important to America (Europe or at least the UK), and some of which seem like less than crtically important places (Vietnam, Iraq).

I don't really think WWII was either for US security or for overseas interests as much... as corny as it sounds, I think a lot of it was "doing what is right." But security and interests had something to do with it... Japan did indeed attack us (and presented a threat to Hawaii and the Pacific) and we never really declared war on Hitler, he did on us after we declared war on Japan. In the end, as bad as it sounds, we'd still would've had interests overseas with a Nazi Europe. Had they won, I'm sure we'd be trading with them today, just fine. Their atrocities would have been just a "dark part in their history of a generally good nation" just like the US taking over Spanish lands and exterminating Indians... but that is going off topic a bit
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
BMI727
Posts: 11098
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:52 pm

Quoting pu (Reply 34):
Yes, the neocon term is badly misued especially when applied to social issues like abortion, tax policy, healthcare, gay marriage, etc... which are irrelevant to the neocon movement.

For what it's worth, when such issues do come up, neocons tend to follow their Democratic roots.

Quoting pu (Reply 34):
Sure, there is cause for debate. Many on the left would probably be ok with some type of military involvement against terrorist cells, for instance. But the NeoCon idea is aggressive military confrontation on several fronts to, acoording to their theory, prevent the inevitable aggression from American/Israeli enemies once they gain strength.

If neocons ran a school, they would beat up the bullies and give candy to the other students.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:04 am

Neo-Con is one of those terms that, in our current political climate, really means "someone that I don't like." It lost its objective meaning during the Bush Administration just like the terms fascist and socialist have lost their objective meanings during the Obama Administration.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:57 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36):

I don't really think WWII was either for US security or for overseas interests as much... as corny as it sounds, I think a lot of it was "doing what is right." But security and interests had something to do with it... Japan did indeed attack us (and presented a threat to Hawaii and the Pacific) and we never really declared war on Hitler, he did on us after we declared war on Japan. In the end, as bad as it sounds, we'd still would've had interests overseas with a Nazi Europe. Had they won, I'm sure we'd be trading with them today, just fine. Their atrocities would have been just a "dark part in their history of a generally good nation" just like the US taking over Spanish lands and exterminating Indians... but that is going off topic a bit

Thats quite a statement. My first reaction was to say, absolutely no way but you may have a point. In the end the 'winner' wins and I can see that could have been a plausible outcome.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12387
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:27 am

Far too many of the war hawks or their children have never served a day in the military, or only did so in ways or times of less risk. When they and their kids are putting their lives on the ground in such countries and face IED's and bullets, death and losing limbs then will they have far more credibility.

I also wish that our military was starving for qualified volunteers, but our bad economic times and the need for college money has encouraged too many to enter. Maybe if we had an active military draft with few ways out then maybe the masses wouldn't support the war mongers.

There is also the growing use of 'drone', unmanned bombing aircraft, with their operators half way around the world, into Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere killing too many civilians or non-targets in errors, that is causing further anger by the masses in the MENA areas against us.

Then there those who are calling for us or Israel to bomb ASAP in Iran over Iran's alleged nuke bomb development, yet allowed Pakistan Israel to have them as well as having Israel 'right or wrong' beliefs.

Of course the neo-cons long supported our puppets and taking sides with unpopular governments to the locals that is now coming back to haunt us.

I just wish a better balanced foreign policy would take hold, protecting American and it's interests but not causing more problems for us in the long term.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5567
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:57 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 40):
There is also the growing use of 'drone', unmanned bombing aircraft, with their operators half way around the world, into Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere killing too many civilians or non-targets in errors, that is causing further anger by the masses in the MENA areas against us.

This whole business of remote-control surveillance and assassination has a profoundly unsavory feel- and why should anyone rationally expect its use to be restricted to far-away places?

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 40):

Of course the neo-cons long supported our puppets and taking sides with unpopular governments to the locals that is now coming back to haunt us.

This is hardly a "neo-con" phenomenon.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 40):
I just wish a better balanced foreign policy would take hold, protecting American and it's interests but not causing more problems for us in the long term.

I think that, were we to take this simple statement, and apply it to most operations of the federal government, we'd be better-off.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Neo-cons Gone Wild

Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:24 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 39):
Thats quite a statement. My first reaction was to say, absolutely no way but you may have a point. In the end the 'winner' wins and I can see that could have been a plausible outcome.

I forgot where I heard that from but I had a similar reaction. What if Spain stopped the US from expanding back in the day and killing most of the Native Americans, and there was a large Native American population today? We'd have our mini-version of Nazi Germany or Rwanda. But we won, so it's a "dark period in our history."

And our Japanese concentration camps? Sure they weren't nearly as bad as Nazi Germany's... but we were the winners. What if the US was still part of Britain? The revolutionaries would be considered terrorist traitors (by the whole world and not just the UK   ). "Whoever wins the war writes the history books." Nazi Europe, had they won and been stable, would be a prosperous 'good' country that acknowledges the mistakes of their past but no one would really bat an eye.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 40):
Then there those who are calling for us or Israel to bomb ASAP in Iran over Iran's alleged nuke bomb development, yet allowed Pakistan Israel to have them as well as having Israel 'right or wrong' beliefs.

This is an interesting (scary) time. It seems like we are nearing the "go/no-go" point... we are either gonna invade or say no to Israel very soon I think. I think this election absolutely has bearing on this decision. Anyone else think Israel is waiting until after the elections to strike, and hopefully have Romney in (who has a greater chance of authorizing a strike IMO)? I think they're building it all up so they can either convince a President Romney or plead a President Obama to strike Iran...
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LittleFokker, SOBHI51, vikkyvik and 10 guests