A question for neocons on this board

[JakeStarkey]

GWB is responsible for the worst foreign policy mistake in American history, not WJC.

 

[RadiomanATL]

When did a contribution towards something become the whole something?

if you're addressing me, never.

invading iraq in 2003 was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the united states. period. bush did it; he owns it.

Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It was Clinton though who made it US Policy to remove Saddam from power when he signed the Iraqi Freedom Act 1998.

Bush acted on it and did a great job, at first. Like the first 4 months.

 

[del]

When did a contribution towards something become the whole something?

if you're addressing me, never.

invading iraq in 2003 was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the united states. period. bush did it; he owns it.

Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.

cool, just checking.

 

[RadiomanATL]

It was Clinton though who made it US Policy to remove Saddam from power when he signed the Iraqi Freedom Act 1998.

Not quite partner.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 made it US policy to support regime change in Iraq.

Thats a whole passel different than making it US policy to remove Saddam.

 

[Ravi]

When did a contribution towards something become the whole something?

if you're addressing me, never.

invading iraq in 2003 was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the united states. period. bush did it; he owns it.

Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.

And no one was claiming that.

What he was doing was excusing Bush's actions by pointing at Clinton.

 

[RadiomanATL]

if you're addressing me, never.

invading iraq in 2003 was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the united states. period. bush did it; he owns it.

Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.

And no one was claiming that.

What he was doing was excusing Bush's actions by pointing at Clinton.

Which is another way of saying:
"pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush."

 

[Ravi]

Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.

And no one was claiming that.

What he was doing was excusing Bush's actions by pointing at Clinton.

Which is another way of saying:
"pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush."

No, you'd have to take out the word wholly. I don't think Dud blamed it wholly on Clinton, rather he was being an apologist for Bush.

Oh, look, Dubya isn't responsible...he's just a monkey with no brain that is controlled by Clinton.

 

[manifold]

If you think Ravi is sensitive about ANY criticism of Slick Willy, you should criticize Hillary some time.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Sorry Ravi, it just doesn't read that way.

 

[Si modo]

It has been my experience, that people who consider themselves Neoconservatives etc, are often social authoritarians as well as military authoritarians. Many of them truly believe it is our duty to save the world from itself, thereby keeping the U.S. safe and morally whole, in one way or another. Many of them love their big government just as much as Democrats like Pelosi. They may not come right out and admit it, but talking with them on various points, it becomes all too clear.

That looks like a collage of the Christian Right (social authoritarian) with the Neocons (military authoritarian).
True Neocons are generally liberal on social policies but have kept that on the down low to gain the evangelical vote. Victor Gold has a decent book about how those two camps raped my Party 8 million ways from Tuesday. The CR, and this may be news to some, adore the Neocon ideology not for earthly goals but mainly from their eschatological view. They truly believe supporting our imperialism will help hasten the attack on Israel that will lead directly into their vision of the book of Revelations. Don't believe any of this is true? Look at how Palin was gathering resources to prepare Alaska to be a safe haven after the "Rapture."

Right. Neocons are socially liberal which is in contradictory to the tenets of the Christian Right. However, the Christian Right proved useful for elections. The neocons running (except for GWB - thus his utility in wooing that demographic) did indeed keep their social liberalism on the down-low to keep that voting demographic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, si modo, for imply the truth that the the socially liberal neo-con imperialists lured the social values conservatives into an unholy alliance. si modo has left out the role of the econophons, but we will get to that at the right moment.

 

[CurveLight]

Really Del?

saying clinton contributed to the iraq mess is a far cry from blaming clinton for bush's actions.

I disagree. Clinton kept Saddam in check...Bush got hysterical. Pointing at Clinton for what Bush did is taking the responsibility of Bush's actions off of Bush's shoulders.

The mess in Iraq was not Clinton's doing.

Clinton's contribution was not causation but he sure helped pave the way for the invasion. It wasn't a necessary condition but his continued aerial attacks and maintaining of policies through the UN caused a hell of a lot of destruction. He killed innocent iraqis just like Bush but that doesn't mean the 03' invasion can be laid at Clinton,s feet. Remember, on May 12th 1996 his Sec of State was asked about the Sanctions that killed an estimated 500,000 and her response was to say the "price was worth it to avoid an invasion." i'm sure the clip from 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl is still online.

 

[CurveLight]

It has been my experience, that people who consider themselves Neoconservatives etc, are often social authoritarians as well as military authoritarians. Many of them truly believe it is our duty to save the world from itself, thereby keeping the U.S. safe and morally whole, in one way or another. Many of them love their big government just as much as Democrats like Pelosi. They may not come right out and admit it, but talking with them on various points, it becomes all too clear.

That looks like a collage of the Christian Right (social authoritarian) with the Neocons (military authoritarian).
True Neocons are generally liberal on social policies but have kept that on the down low to gain the evangelical vote. Victor Gold has a decent book about how those two camps raped my Party 8 million ways from Tuesday. The CR, and this may be news to some, adore the Neocon ideology not for earthly goals but mainly from their eschatological view. They truly believe supporting our imperialism will help hasten the attack on Israel that will lead directly into their vision of the book of Revelations. Don't believe any of this is true? Look at how Palin was gathering resources to prepare Alaska to be a safe haven after the "Rapture."

Right. Neocons are socially liberal which is in contradictory to the tenets of the Christian Right. However, the Christian Right proved useful for elections. The neocons running (except for GWB - thus his utility in wooing that demographic) did indeed keep their social liberalism on the down-low to keep that voting demographic.

Bush was chosen specifically because he is not a neocon and to exploit his father's support base. On 9E Cheney took the wheel and Bush never saw it again. Bush's main crime was loving himself more than the job he was supposed to do. He believed in some of the WOT rhetoric but even he had to pause and question the wisdom of policies he was helping put in place from time to time.

 

[acts]

No, to your question - drugs are for dopes like you.

 

[Ravi]

saying clinton contributed to the iraq mess is a far cry from blaming clinton for bush's actions.

I disagree. Clinton kept Saddam in check...Bush got hysterical. Pointing at Clinton for what Bush did is taking the responsibility of Bush's actions off of Bush's shoulders.

The mess in Iraq was not Clinton's doing.

Clinton's contribution was not causation but he sure helped pave the way for the invasion. It wasn't a necessary condition but his continued aerial attacks and maintaining of policies through the UN caused a hell of a lot of destruction. He killed innocent iraqis just like Bush but that doesn't mean the 03' invasion can be laid at Clinton,s feet. Remember, on May 12th 1996 his Sec of State was asked about the Sanctions that killed an estimated 500,000 and her response was to say the "price was worth it to avoid an invasion." i'm sure the clip from 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl is still online.

Yes, it is written that sanctions killed an estimated 500,000...but just because it is written doesn't make it true (I've seen no actual evidence of this claim, ever). And that would be Saddam's fault, either way.

 

[Liability]

The definitive answer to a thread and OP-question so stupid that only a dork like unmanlyfold could begin to come up with something that abysmally ignorant may be found elsewhere:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...n-for-the-liberoidal-pukes-on-this-board.html

Thank me very much.

 

[editec]

I think that truly authentic NEO-CONS are people without any ideological principles guiding them other than doing what works best for those that they consider on the their team.

They aren't nationalists, neither are they internationalists. They are OPPORTUNISTS

If times call for them to bankrupt this nation, they will. (and basically already have)

If times call for them to save the banks by printing money? They will (and are doing so right now )

If they see an advantage to THEIR TEAM MEMBERS (not to this nation overall) they will do WHATEVER IT TAKES.

They will spend a BILLION US tax dollars if it gains their team members 1/1000th of that in PERSONAL CORPORATE profits (See Halliburton as an example)

What am I REALLY describing here? A political movement?

Of course not..

Neo-conservativism is only interested in politics in so far as it gives them license to do as they choose.

Neo-Conservatism a political philosophy?

Of course not.

No more than the Mafia is a political philosophy.

I am describing a CABAL of sociopathic PRAGMATISTS seeking power and money for themselves regardless of whom must pay, or die for that to happen

They will ally with anybody for a temporary advantage.(See Saddam Hussein, Ally of the neocons)

They will betray any ally if times call for that, too (See Saddam Hussein, demonized by the Neo-cons)

RIGHT now, for example, they are strong allies of Israel.

That could easily change.

They don't love nations and they don't HATE government, they only hate government when they are NOT in control of it, and they only love nations when they are doing the bidding of the NEO-Cons.

They are not remotely politically conservative, neither are they remotely politically liberal.

Politics has NOTHING to do with what their agenda really is. They are ANTI-POLITICAL even though they are hip-deep in America politics.

Politics is nothing but a tool to them...one that they use in those nations where politics is still important.

Political and high sounding political ideologies are smokescreens they use to confuse the masses.

Stop listening to what they say and actually LOOK at what they do.

They've never met a principle they won't betray.

Republican and Democrat ideologies have nothing to do with their agenda ...except as needed

This CABAL (lets stop pretending they're a political movement, shall we?) inhabits in BOTH parties.

Regardless of what these brand they're wearing, like wolves sheep’s clothing they are NEITHER.

 

[CurveLight]

I disagree. Clinton kept Saddam in check...Bush got hysterical. Pointing at Clinton for what Bush did is taking the responsibility of Bush's actions off of Bush's shoulders.

The mess in Iraq was not Clinton's doing.

Clinton's contribution was not causation but he sure helped pave the way for the invasion. It wasn't a necessary condition but his continued aerial attacks and maintaining of policies through the UN caused a hell of a lot of destruction. He killed innocent iraqis just like Bush but that doesn't mean the 03' invasion can be laid at Clinton,s feet. Remember, on May 12th 1996 his Sec of State was asked about the Sanctions that killed an estimated 500,000 and her response was to say the "price was worth it to avoid an invasion." i'm sure the clip from 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl is still online.

Yes, it is written that sanctions killed an estimated 500,000...but just because it is written doesn't make it true (I've seen no actual evidence of this claim, ever). And that would be Saddam's fault, either way.

When Albright was questioned even she didn't question the number. Know why? Because most people realize it doesn't matter if the number is exact. What it signifies is so many innocent people are now dead it's fucking impossible to get an accurate count.


It's also very tiring to see the lame excuse it was Saddam's fault. The Sanctions did not hurt him in any way and they were designed to specifically harm the civilian population. We are the ones who prevented items such as milk and medicine from getting to Iraqis in need. The worst part is many of the same Iraqis helped us during Desert Storm and our way of saying thank you was to let them die. Our government has already owned responsibility so why try the obscene it's-not-our-fault shuffle?