Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21162326/site/newsweek/

Oct. 15, 2007 issue - Neocons can't help but slink around Washington, D.C. The Iraq War has given the neoconservatives—who favor the assertive use of American power abroad to spread American values—something of a bad name, and several of the Republican candidates seem less than eager to hire them as advisers. But Rudy Giuliani apparently never got that memo. One of the top foreign-policy consultants to the leading GOP candidate is Norman Podhoretz, a founding father of the neocon movement.
Well we know what to expect when Ghouliani gets elected, more wars and more intervention.

I expect that after reading the article, some of you will see how your beliefs coincide with neo-conservatism. You cannot exist in this state of denial and say that neo-conservatives do not exist and that is is just a "pejorative" term. They do exist and they have taken over Republican policy. They are not conservatives. Just look at who they support, Rudy Guliani. Someone that cannot be clearly defined as a conservative. His politics are left of center, same with these folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
See you both take things at face value. As I said neo-conservatives are NOT conservatives. They believe in Big government, they are former socialists. They break with the Republican tradition of being non-interventionists. They are conservatives in name only; just take a look at the massive expansion of the Federal government under Bush. Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare, etc. These are not the actions of a conservative. Conservatives also don't advocate pre-emptive attacks on other nations. Conservatives use restraint when dealing with rogue nations, we don't just bomb anyone we disagree with.

"Our forbearance should never be misunderstood, our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act."-Ronald Reagan

"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."-Ronald Reagan

Preemptive wars are the actions of rogue stats and dictatorships. Hitler, Saddam, Stalin. Saddam Hussein argued that Iran was plotting against him and invaded them preemptively. He did the same with Kuwait. Why do we follow actions of such evil men? We should stick to our traditional conservative principles and use force as a last resort and not as the first.

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"-Dwight D. Eisenhower

This foreign policy adventurism is destroying our freedoms within, the freedoms that we are supposedly fighting for and are trying to spread. Goodness and freedom cannot be forced on people through a barrel of a gun. Occupation does not create patrons of liberty, it lays seeds of hate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
Mauser boy... ah, NO.

Neo Cons are radical right wing conservatives. They're FURTHER right of traditional conservatives. They're the polar opposite of radical left wing liberals, otherwise they would be called... are you ready for this?... radical left wing liberals.

Neocons are radically pro-israel, highly religious, the very antithesis of the secular left.

You're claiming that a lion is the same as an anteloupe because they have four legs, but they're in fact mortal enemies. The only thing neo-cons and liberals have in common is that they're both elitists, but then you could say so are all politicians.

The neo-con movement was created specifically to defeat radical left wing socialism.

Please stop inventing your own definitions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,528 Posts
What politicians say and what they do are two different things, but you knew that, right?
Nixon bomded laos and cambodia.
Reagan bombed Libya, invaded Grenada, supported wars by proxy (I assume you know what that means) in Central America and A'stan.
Bush 41 invaded both Panama, Somalia, and Desert Storm.
Most of these actions could be considered preemptive.


Goodness and freedom cannot be force on people through a barrel of a gun. Occupation does not create patrons of liberty, it lays seeds of hate.
Really, explain Germany and Japan.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
94,195 Posts
The lesson of Germany and Japan from 1939 on is (a) before occupation you need to kill many of the people in the occupied nation, including a LOT of their military - this gets their attention; (b) have somebody they REALLY don't want to occupy them slavering at their border, kept out only by the occupying force. It helps even more if part of the national territory is in fact occupied by some really bad dudes who show every sign of being ready to take over the whole shooting match is given an opportunity.

This leads to active collaboration with the occupying power(s) and adoption of governmental forms acceptable to the said occupying powers.

The mistake we have made in places like Iraq is we failed to beat on them adequately prior to the occupation. Especially in failing to kill large numbers of the military and demanding (and obtaining) unconditional surrender from the existing government PRIOR to the occupation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
The lesson of Germany and Japan from 1939 on is (a) before occupation you need to kill many of the people in the occupied nation, including a LOT of their military - this gets their attention; (b) have somebody they REALLY don't want to occupy them slavering at their border, kept out only by the occupying force. It helps even more if part of the national territory is in fact occupied by some really bad dudes who show every sign of being ready to take over the whole shooting match is given an opportunity.

This leads to active collaboration with the occupying power(s) and adoption of governmental forms acceptable to the said occupying powers.

The mistake we have made in places like Iraq is we failed to beat on them adequately prior to the occupation. Especially in failing to kill large numbers of the military and demanding (and obtaining) unconditional surrender from the existing government PRIOR to the occupation.
+1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,762 Posts
Of course Wilson decided to go to war against germany on the basis of a telegram.
Roosevelt had an undeclared shooting war going on against those same germans before Pearl Harbor.
Almost forgot, William Randolph Hearst pushed McKinley into a war with Spain.

Oh by the way, we DID NOT invade Somalia, we sent troops there to insure the people who needed it go the relief supplies. It was Klintoons state department that screwed the pooch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Mauser boy... ah, NO.

Neo Cons are radical right wing conservatives. They're FURTHER right of traditional conservatives. They're the polar opposite of radical left wing liberals, otherwise they would be called... are you ready for this?... radical left wing liberals.

Neocons are radically pro-israel, highly religious, the very antithesis of the secular left.

You're claiming that a lion is the same as an anteloupe because they have four legs, but they're in fact mortal enemies. The only thing neo-cons and liberals have in common is that they're both elitists, but then you could say so are all politicians.

The neo-con movement was created specifically to defeat radical left wing socialism.

Please stop inventing your own definitions.
Apparently you don't understand neo-conservatism. You seemed to have never done any research on the subject. Neo-conservatives believe in big government and foreign intervention; a foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, a very liberal Democrat.
They may seem conservative on social issues but thats how they draw votes. How else is a big spending, big government conservative that starts wars going to attract the Christian vote? He tells them gays are going to marry and frightens them into voting for them. The whole "social conservatism" thing is a lie, its meant to stir up the base by fooling them into thinking that some how their way of life is being threatened by a social issue.

You are right, they are pro-israel. So Zionist that they have us fighting Israel's wars for them. First Iraq, next Iran.

What politicians say and what they do are two different things, but you knew that, right?
So why do you defend them and continue to support their policies? Why not support someone with integrity?

Nixon bomded laos and cambodia.
Reagan bombed Libya, invaded Grenada, supported wars by proxy (I assume you know what that means) in Central America and A'stan.
Bush 41 invaded both Panama, Somalia, and Desert Storm.
Most of these actions could be considered preemptive.
None of those are preemptive. I see you don't understand the meaning of the word preemption.

In Vietnam, the enemy was flanking our positions and going through laos and cambodia. The enemy was coming from their and using it as a base of operations.

Reagan bombed Libya because Libya actually HAD ties to terrorism and was a threat to US interests. Reagan didn't say "we are going to take these people out before they materialize." With Grenada we were asked to go in there by other Caribbean nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

"The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) appealed to the United States, Barbados, and Jamaica for assistance."

This also follows the monroe doctrine, which was the basis of US foreign policy for nearly 200 years.

With Bush and Panama we also followed the Monroe doctrine and we were enforcing drug laws. It wasn't a preemptive action.
Somalia was not preemptive, but it was a first sign of neo-conservative philosophy. I believe the reason we first went in was humanitarian mission. Desert Storm was in defense of national oil interests, though we should have declared war. This was AFTER Saddam invaded Kuwait.
All of these actions were the response to something that happened, they did not occur because we felt the urge to act preemptively.

We didn't invade a Soviet country nor did we bomb them. They had 50,000 nuclear weapons and we talked to them and negotiated with them. Reagan visited the Soviet Union, he talked to their leaders he didn't bully them around. He showed strength and negotiated.

Really, explain Germany and Japan.
Oh good grief, the World War II example grows tiresome. I believe the Nazis had the "werewolves", not very successful, but no one likes to be occupied.

How about our occupation of the Philippines and the insurgency that resulted?
How about France's occupation of Algeria and that insurgency?
How about the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan?
How about the occupation of the British on the new American colonies?
How about the Hungarian revolt of 1956?
The Gaza Strip?
France under Nazi Germany?
Yugoslavia under Nazi Germany?
Areas of Soviet Russia under Nazi Germany?
Holland under Nazi Germany?
Poland under Nazi Germany?

The list goes on and on...

The middle east already views our troops in their holy land as a negative and not a positive, then we go and invade and occupy another middle eastern country? Come on now...eventually you have to get the picture.

What would we do if China was occupying Alaska? What if Russia was? We would be fighting them and resisting their rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
So that wasn't a mistake? You REALLY think neo-cons are radical left wing liberals? Somebody better tell them that so they can call a truce and collaborate.

Mauserboy, I really think you have something here. You should start a blog, or contact the press, or maybe make a phone call to deepthroat. The world has to know the truth! Alot of people are going to laugh at you at first, don't let that hinder you. Remember, Neocons are radical left wing liberals. It seems like the Bushs and Clintons are on opposite sides, but really they're the same and playing us from both sides of the fence. You know what else? I think the Bushs and the Clintons are sleeping with eachother too! Maybe doing dark Illuminati blood rituals together!

OMG! This is just like in Star Wars! Sith Lords and Senators, playing everybody! *GASP* maybe George Lucas is also George Soros!!! Where does this end?!?

Thanks for correcting me MB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
So that wasn't a mistake? You REALLY think neo-cons are radical left wing liberals? Somebody better tell them that so they can call a truce and collaborate.

Mauserboy, I really think you have something here. You should start a blog, or contact the press, or maybe make a phone call to deepthroat. The world has to know the truth! Alot of people are going to laugh at you at first, don't let that hinder you. Remember, Neocons are radical left wing liberals. It seems like the Bushs and Clintons are on opposite sides, but really they're the same and playing us from both sides of the fence. You know what else? I think the Bushs and the Clintons are sleeping with eachother too! Maybe doing dark Illuminati blood rituals together!

OMG! This is just like in Star Wars! Sith Lords and Senators, playing everybody! *GASP* maybe George Lucas is also George Soros!!! Where does this end?!?

Thanks for correcting me MB.
LOL

This is the funniest post I have read today.

Five stars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
So that wasn't a mistake? You REALLY think neo-cons are radical left wing liberals? Somebody better tell them that so they can call a truce and collaborate.
The original neo-conservatives were admirers of Trotsky and were very liberal. The ones today are not socialists but they are left leaning, authoritarian Republicans. They believe in big government and foreign intervention. They are not conservatives. Do some research on the subject. If you are a conservative you should not agree with these people and you should not support Bush, his domestic policies or foreign policy. What happened to the foreign policy Bush ran on in the year 2000? No nation building, no foreign adventurism, only committing ourselves if their is a clear obtainable objective and a clear exit strategy. Time to draw the line; you are either with us (conservatives) or against us(neo-conservatives). Which side do you choose?

It seems like the Bushs and Clintons are on opposite sides, but really they're the same and playing us from both sides of the fence.
Now you are getting somewhere. Ever notice how both Bush and Clinton are considered the "extremes" of left and right but yet they are more moderate? Its a paradox. Bush is seen as "far right wing" when he isn't. Clinton is seen as far left wing but he isn't. Both are hated by the opposite's constituency. Conservatives hate Clinton; Liberals hate Bush. And yet they really are not all that different. Sure they spar on some minor points but they are the same. Both endorse the same major policies; foreign intervention, big government, big spending.
This country is so divided by stupid partisan politics. Its always a "left vs right" or "us vs them" mentality.

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."-Ronald Reagan
"This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."-Ronald Reagan
The Republican party is stripping itself of it's values. We have trusted the wrong people and they have lead us in the wrong direction.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
Headlines:

Ron Paul surrounds himself with the walking dead

Mauser Boy's right hand falls off while waving finger at Neocon

Rep. Ron Paul demands congressional investigation of defective stitching on walking dead
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Why not show your maturity and engage in serious discussion. If you really feel strongly about your causes then discuss them. Don't revert to name calling. Unless of course you can't debate without name calling....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,947 Posts
Why not show your maturity and engage in serious discussion. If you really feel strongly about your causes then discuss them. Don't revert to name calling. Unless of course you can't debate without name calling....

Kinda the same way you can't resist from time to time? Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
"OMG! This is just like in Star Wars! Sith Lords and Senators, playing everybody! *GASP* maybe George Lucas is also George Soros!!! Where does this end?!?"

ROTFLMAO!!!! 5 stars +1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/009348.html

The term "neoconservative" was coined in the 1970s as an anathema. It was intended to stigmatize a group of liberal intellectuals who had lately parted ways with the majority of their fellows.

As a heretical offshoot of liberalism, neoconservatism appealed to the same values and even many of the same goals--like, for example, peace and racial equality. But neoconservatives argued that liberal policies--for example, disarmament in the pursuit of peace, or affirmative action in the pursuit of racial equality--undermined those goals rather than advancing them. In short order, the heretics established themselves as contemporary liberalism's most formidable foes.

Two distinct currents fed the stream of neoconservatism. One focused on domestic issues, specifically by reexamining the Great Society programs of the 1960s and the welfare state as a whole. It was centered in the Public Interest, a quarterly founded and edited by Irving Kristol. The other focused on international issues and the cold war; it was centered in Commentary and led by the magazine's editor, Norman Podhoretz.
. . .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2558296.ece

Norman Podhoretz, an intellectual guru of the neoconservative movement who has joined Rudolph Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign as a senior foreign policy adviser, held an unpublicised meeting with Bush late last spring at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

...

“I urged Bush to take action against the Iranian nuclear facilities and explained why I thought there was no alternative,” said Podhoretz, 77, in an interview with The Sunday Times.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top