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.
