Our ball-less Commander in Cheif

[Dr.Drock]

The Right Wingers and Neo-Cons are just coming to grips with the definition of "Global War on Terrorism". It turns out that we are not engaged in a "Global War on Islam". And we are not engaged in a "Global War on Islamic Governance".

Al Qaeda is dead or at least dying. It's time to focus on America and not the domestic troubles of an unconquerable land like Afghanistan.

Why isn't Obama a neocon with his continued warmongering in Afghanistan and sending troops to protect oil lands in Uganda?


Why isn't that the same principle as neocon Bush?

 

[Nosmo King]

The Right Wingers and Neo-Cons are just coming to grips with the definition of "Global War on Terrorism". It turns out that we are not engaged in a "Global War on Islam". And we are not engaged in a "Global War on Islamic Governance".

Al Qaeda is dead or at least dying. It's time to focus on America and not the domestic troubles of an unconquerable land like Afghanistan.

Why isn't Obama a neocon with his continued warmongering in Afghanistan and sending troops to protect oil lands in Uganda?


Why isn't that the same principle as neocon Bush?

The basic tenent of faith among Neo Cons is pre-emptive war. The use of American force, not in response to a provocation, but simply because it's there and we can.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Can he be called Hussein now
or does he still get his panties in twist
if people use it

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Right Wingers and Neo-Cons are just coming to grips with the definition of "Global War on Terrorism". It turns out that we are not engaged in a "Global War on Islam". And we are not engaged in a "Global War on Islamic Governance".

Al Qaeda is dead or at least dying. It's time to focus on America and not the domestic troubles of an unconquerable land like Afghanistan.

Why isn't Obama a neocon with his continued warmongering in Afghanistan and sending troops to protect oil lands in Uganda?


Why isn't that the same principle as neocon Bush?

Obama is a neo-con, he's just not as explicit about it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama is a neo-con, he's just not as explicit about it.

I wish y'all would learn terms.

A "neo-con" is someone with a theoretically conservative social and economic platform who holds a leftist view of globalization.

Obama is NOT a neo-con, he is an old fashioned leftist.

Neo-cons are an enigma because they supposedly hold conflicting positions for domestic and foreign affairs. Paul Wolfowitz is a perfect example. There is no conflict with Obama, he is 100% big government, on both domestic and foreign issues.

 

[Sunni Man]

Obama = America

To obey Obama is Patriotic

That is all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Obama is a neo-con, he's just not as explicit about it.

I wish y'all would learn terms.

A "neo-con" is someone with a theoretically conservative social and economic platform who holds a leftist view of globalization.

Obama is NOT a neo-con, he is an old fashioned leftist.

Neo-cons are an enigma because they supposedly hold conflicting positions for domestic and foreign affairs. Paul Wolfowitz is a perfect example. There is no conflict with Obama, he is 100% big government, on both domestic and foreign issues.

Like every other political term, it's nearly meaningless because there's no consensus as to what it means.

In this context, I'm using it to describe Obama's views on foreign policy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The Right Wingers and Neo-Cons are just coming to grips with the definition of "Global War on Terrorism". It turns out that we are not engaged in a "Global War on Islam". And we are not engaged in a "Global War on Islamic Governance".

Al Qaeda is dead or at least dying. It's time to focus on America and not the domestic troubles of an unconquerable land like Afghanistan.

Why isn't Obama a neocon with his continued warmongering in Afghanistan and sending troops to protect oil lands in Uganda?


Why isn't that the same principle as neocon Bush?

The basic tenent of faith among Neo Cons is pre-emptive war. The use of American force, not in response to a provocation, but simply because it's there and we can.

The purpose of the War in Afghanistan the entire time we've been there with Obama (and earlier) has absolutely nothing to do with defense of this nation. It's purely warmongering and nation building. Same stuff Bush liked.

I agree with Uncensored overall Obama isn't a neocon, but his foreign policy strategy is very much neoconservative. Hence all the threats and muscling against Iran and sending troops to protect oil lands in Uganda, when they also are zero threat to us.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Obama is a neo-con, he's just not as explicit about it.

I wish y'all would learn terms.

A "neo-con" is someone with a theoretically conservative social and economic platform who holds a leftist view of globalization.

Obama is NOT a neo-con, he is an old fashioned leftist.

Neo-cons are an enigma because they supposedly hold conflicting positions for domestic and foreign affairs. Paul Wolfowitz is a perfect example. There is no conflict with Obama, he is 100% big government, on both domestic and foreign issues.

Like every other political term, it's nearly meaningless because there's no consensus as to what it means.

In this context, I'm using it to describe Obama's views on foreign policy.

I'd say he's a neo-liberal overall. He's liberal fiscally and in terms of loving big gov't, but there's nothing liberal about his views on freedom and the individual.

 

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGDwvAbx_fg]Bush on nation building: 2000 presidential debates - YouTube[/ame]

When I ran for president, I never anticipated a mission like [nation-building in Afghanistan]. In the fall of 2000, Al Gore and I debated the most pressing issues facing America. Not once did the words Afghanistan, bin Laden, or al Qaeda come up. We did discuss nation building. "The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops, " I said in the first debate. "I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders."
At the time, I worried about overextending our military by undertaking peacekeeping missions as we had in Bosnia and Somalia. But after 9/11, I changed my mind. Afghanistan was the ultimate nation building mission. We had liberated the country from a primitive dictatorship, and we had a moral obligation to leave behind something better. We also had a strategic interest in helping the Afghan people build a free society.
Former Preseident George W. Bush

We have strengthened civil society. We’ve helped the military. We’ve helped the police. I believe it’s time to come home. And I would say within the first year of my administration, which is to say the end of 2013, I would want to draw them down. And I want to recognize Afghanistan for what it is. It is not a counter insurgency. I don’t want to be nation building in Southwest Asia when this nation is in such need of repair. President Barack Obama

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNO95aKFSh4]Obama: "America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home." - YouTube[/ame]


I don't see much light when it comes to "nation building" in the last several years between the two Administrations. While I see President Obama making in the last video a good speech on the issue, then to turn around and commit US invlement in that part of the world till 2024 doesn't serve much to make that speech come true anytime soon.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Like every other political term, it's nearly meaningless because there's no consensus as to what it means.

In this context, I'm using it to describe Obama's views on foreign policy.

I agree that it's become meaningless, an epithet tossed by the left with no understanding of the actual meaning of the term.

Thus my point.

Obama, with his position that America is the worlds policeman and guardian, has the traditional, leftist POV, the same one the party has championed since Wilson.

 

[High_Gravity]

By the time we are said and done in Afghanistan and we leave, they are just going to go back to doing the same things they did before we went there, wow what a huge waste.