A question for neocons on this board

[AllieBaba]

Your perception that war is the solution of choice is not the reality of the well-documented philosophy.

This is counter to everything I've ever read or encounter, the majority of it from neoconservatives themselves, about their philosophy. If this is the case, I'd appreciate it if you could demonstrate for me a prominent neoconservative thinker or government official advocating against going to war with another nation because the circumstances were not appropriately "special" and also explain what "special" circumstances warranted the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Thanks.

WHO? Who are these "neoconservatives" you keep referring to? Can you provide links to them claiming to be neoconservatives?

Of COURSE not, because it's a made-up term, which comes from a real, stolen term, and applied to someone you don't like.

You all used to hate the Jews. That's no longer PC, so you have transferred that hatred to republicans, bastardized the word, and just randomly chosen "traits" of the modern neocon.

It's sort of like calling conservatives "liberals". They aren't liberals, they have none of the traits of a liberal, but if you keep doing it long enough, eventually the definition changes and the despicable traits of liberals are being attributed to conservatives, who are still conservatives, but via magical transferrence have suddently taken on the traits and title of "liberal".

It's ******* insanity.

 

[manifold]

thankfully I was wise enough not to accept EZ's offer of a wager.

If only I was always so wise.

 

[Si modo]

If this is the case, I'd appreciate it if you could demonstrate for me a prominent neoconservative thinker or government official advocating against going to war with another nation because the circumstances were not appropriately "special" and also explain what "special" circumstances warranted the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Thanks.

You are conflating an analysis of an option with advocating for that option.

As far as Iraq is concerned, given the intelligence available at that time (which was later found to have fundamental flaws), the analysis indicated it was the best option. In hindsight, that is not the case. However, we don't have time machines avaliable to correct the intelligence flaws for that time (nor the subsequent strategic **** ups).

Yes, I feel so much safer now that Saddam is in the grave. Was he a horrible man? Yes. Was it in our national interest to invade a country to "spread our goodness"? No, not in the least bit. Preemptive war is never justified. If Saddam made a direct threat to our country, with a missile on the launch pad, then yes we should have taken him out. However, IIRC there was no such threat. If you want to know the root cause of something you need to follow the money. The military industrial complex made millions, along with the Fed and other banks who financed it.

At the time, the analysis of the situation indicated that it was indeed in our best interests. There was a consensus on that across the political spectrum, for all practical purposes. We can usually be right in hindsight, but we don't have that luxury in real time.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey, speaking of gambling...

I never gamble. I've never been able to bring myself to spend money on something that returns nothing. Unless you win, which honestly, the chances are just too slim. I need more intant gratification than that.

But the other day I was down to literally my last dollar, and there's a $38 million lotto going on, so I used my (literally) last dollar to buy a ticket.

I'm so excited! What if I win! Wouldn't that be something! Maybe THEN I could get a ******* $1000 short-term loan to pay for my son's airplane ticket to visit me before he leaves for Iraq, the bastards.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You are conflating an analysis of an option with advocating for that option.

As far as Iraq is concerned, given the intelligence available at that time (which was later found to have fundamental flaws), the analysis indicated it was the best option. In hindsight, that is not the case. However, we don't have time machines avaliable to correct the intelligence flaws for that time (nor the subsequent strategic **** ups).

Yes, I feel so much safer now that Saddam is in the grave. Was he a horrible man? Yes. Was it in our national interest to invade a country to "spread our goodness"? No, not in the least bit. Preemptive war is never justified. If Saddam made a direct threat to our country, with a missile on the launch pad, then yes we should have taken him out. However, IIRC there was no such threat. If you want to know the root cause of something you need to follow the money. The military industrial complex made millions, along with the Fed and other banks who financed it.

At the time, the analysis of the situation indicated that it was indeed in our best interests. There was a consensus on that across the political spectrum, for all practical purposes. We can usually be right in hindsight, but we don't have that luxury in real time.

I would shift that to say that the intelligence was manipulated to convince people to go along with an action they would have not agreed to had the honest information been passed along.

 

[Si modo]

Did you read the slate link?

Okay, let's use Iraq as an example. What were the "special circumstances" that justified the implementation of military force under the neoconservatism?

I didn't make a hasty generalization because I've been vocal opposition to the neocon agenda for well over 8 years. Your "special circumstances" phrase is simply escape hatch rhetoric for trying to deny what is obvious to the world: military force is the tool of choice for neocons. That is the basis of your circular logic. Every time the neocons use the military you can say it was "under special circumstances."

There are three basic defenses used:

1. "Neocon" is code for anti-semitism.

2. You don't know what "neocon" means. (by far my favorite......neocon sympathizers use that one endlessly to avoid admitting it is an inherently imperial doctrine)

3. You're just weak on national defense!

What I find amazing is the architects of neoconservatism publicly defend their policies all the time but supporters have a very very difficult time doing it.

You don't like the neocon philosophy. That's fine, several don't. However your perception that war is the solution of choice is not the reality of the well-documented philosophy.

Plus, as I said, please try to use terms that are relevant - this particular point has nothing to do with circular logic.

I have no issues discussing neocon philosophy with others. I understand others don't like it. That's fine. Disagreements are the norm in political discussions. However, I DO expect quality of discussion - using logic correctly, relevance, lack of repetition, etc.

War is the tool of choice as spelled out by their own philosophy. ....

See, I know that's wrong, but it's your assertion, and as such, you need to support it. When assertions are provided without supporting information they stand as bullshit until supported. The burden of support is on you.

.... Once again I will ask:

What were the "special circumstances" regarding Iraq?

Answered. Read the thread. But, as you are apparently lazy, the special circumstances were national security during a time where national security was an acute situation (in a nutshell).

 

[Rothbardian]

You are conflating an analysis of an option with advocating for that option.

As far as Iraq is concerned, given the intelligence available at that time (which was later found to have fundamental flaws), the analysis indicated it was the best option. In hindsight, that is not the case. However, we don't have time machines avaliable to correct the intelligence flaws for that time (nor the subsequent strategic **** ups).

Yes, I feel so much safer now that Saddam is in the grave. Was he a horrible man? Yes. Was it in our national interest to invade a country to "spread our goodness"? No, not in the least bit. Preemptive war is never justified. If Saddam made a direct threat to our country, with a missile on the launch pad, then yes we should have taken him out. However, IIRC there was no such threat. If you want to know the root cause of something you need to follow the money. The military industrial complex made millions, along with the Fed and other banks who financed it.

At the time, the analysis of the situation indicated that it was indeed in our best interests. There was a consensus on that across the political spectrum, for all practical purposes. We can usually be right in hindsight, but we don't have that luxury in real time.

What information? Please elaborate. Why should have we invaded a country that didnt threaten us?

 

[CurveLight]

If you want to discuss circular logic, at least use it where it applies. You made a generalization in a rebuttal: Neocons see wars as solutions. You obviously did not comprehend the qualification 'under special circumstances' that was used and is a fundamental element to neoconservative philosophy. The demonstrated logical fallacy is not circular logic, rather it is your hasty generalization - inaccurate.

Did you read the slate link?

Okay, let's use Iraq as an example. What were the "special circumstances" that justified the implementation of military force under the neoconservatism?

I didn't make a hasty generalization because I've been vocal opposition to the neocon agenda for well over 8 years. Your "special circumstances" phrase is simply escape hatch rhetoric for trying to deny what is obvious to the world: military force is the tool of choice for neocons. That is the basis of your circular logic. Every time the neocons use the military you can say it was "under special circumstances."

There are three basic defenses used:

1. "Neocon" is code for anti-semitism.

2. You don't know what "neocon" means. (by far my favorite......neocon sympathizers use that one endlessly to avoid admitting it is an inherently imperial doctrine)

3. You're just weak on national defense!

What I find amazing is the architects of neoconservatism publicly defend their policies all the time but supporters have a very very difficult time doing it.

The original and core base of NEOCONS are JEWISH LIBERALS who angered the democratic liberals by insisting that it is necessary to maintain a strong and pro-active military.

Anti-semitism my ass.

It appears you misunderstood. Some claim "neocon" is a pejorative aimed directly at the Jewish base in neoconservatism.

 

[L.K.Eder]

thankfully I was wise enough not to accept EZ's offer of a wager.

If only I was always so wise.

tell me about it. i fell for the minx. now i am sporting a pink barbie avatar with "echo zulu rules" in the upper left corner. nobody can read it though, hahaha

 

[Si modo]

Yes, I feel so much safer now that Saddam is in the grave. Was he a horrible man? Yes. Was it in our national interest to invade a country to "spread our goodness"? No, not in the least bit. Preemptive war is never justified. If Saddam made a direct threat to our country, with a missile on the launch pad, then yes we should have taken him out. However, IIRC there was no such threat. If you want to know the root cause of something you need to follow the money. The military industrial complex made millions, along with the Fed and other banks who financed it.

At the time, the analysis of the situation indicated that it was indeed in our best interests. There was a consensus on that across the political spectrum, for all practical purposes. We can usually be right in hindsight, but we don't have that luxury in real time.

What information? Please elaborate. Why should have we invaded a country that didnt threaten us?

Read this: Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence in Iraq

 

[CurveLight]

Your perception that war is the solution of choice is not the reality of the well-documented philosophy.

This is counter to everything I've ever read or encounter, the majority of it from neoconservatives themselves, about their philosophy. If this is the case, I'd appreciate it if you could demonstrate for me a prominent neoconservative thinker or government official advocating against going to war with another nation because the circumstances were not appropriately "special" and also explain what "special" circumstances warranted the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Thanks.

WHO? Who are these "neoconservatives" you keep referring to? Can you provide links to them claiming to be neoconservatives?

Of COURSE not, because it's a made-up term, which comes from a real, stolen term, and applied to someone you don't like.

You all used to hate the Jews. That's no longer PC, so you have transferred that hatred to republicans, bastardized the word, and just randomly chosen "traits" of the modern neocon.

It's sort of like calling conservatives "liberals". They aren't liberals, they have none of the traits of a liberal, but if you keep doing it long enough, eventually the definition changes and the despicable traits of liberals are being attributed to conservatives, who are still conservatives, but via magical transferrence have suddently taken on the traits and title of "liberal".

It's ******* insanity.

I already posted a link to their main homepage. Does it need to be done again? Maybe this will help:

"A neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging hostile governments, advancing democratic and economic freedom, ..."
Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

Anyone else notice the first referenced pillar of greater military force?

 

[Si modo]

....

Anyone else notice the first referenced pillar of greater military force?

Of course. Who is arguing the that is contrary to the neoconservative philosophy?

 

[Rothbardian]

At the time, the analysis of the situation indicated that it was indeed in our best interests. There was a consensus on that across the political spectrum, for all practical purposes. We can usually be right in hindsight, but we don't have that luxury in real time.

What information? Please elaborate. Why should have we invaded a country that didnt threaten us?

Read this: Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence in Iraq

Oh, a senate report summary on wikipedia. You got to do better than that.

 

[CurveLight]

You don't like the neocon philosophy. That's fine, several don't. However your perception that war is the solution of choice is not the reality of the well-documented philosophy.

Plus, as I said, please try to use terms that are relevant - this particular point has nothing to do with circular logic.

I have no issues discussing neocon philosophy with others. I understand others don't like it. That's fine. Disagreements are the norm in political discussions. However, I DO expect quality of discussion - using logic correctly, relevance, lack of repetition, etc.

War is the tool of choice as spelled out by their own philosophy. ....

See, I know that's wrong, but it's your assertion, and as such, you need to support it. When assertions are provided without supporting information they stand as bullshit until supported. The burden of support is on you.

.... Once again I will ask:

What were the "special circumstances" regarding Iraq?

Answered. Read the thread. But, as you are apparently lazy, the special circumstances were national security during a time where national security was an acute situation (in a nutshell).

It appears you try to overcompensate for a lack of knowledge by insulting people so let me help you out. Let's say I'm the laziest, dumbest, most ignorant smelly dog turd the earth could ever produce. Now we have that out of the way let's stick to the subject, okay?

You claim we were justified invading iraq based on the same bullshit reasons the Cheney Admin gave. Do you know why that is a problem? The neocons already stated in Sept 2000 they wanted to invade iraq whether or not Saddam was there. However, Saddam's presence was enough to try and sell the invasion. I would give you the page number from the manifesto spelling this out but as you have so kindly told everyone, you are the King of Neocon Knowledge.

So please explain how those bullshit intel reports justify an invasion when the Neocons had already stated it doesn't matter if there is a material threat from Iraq?

 

[Si modo]

What information? Please elaborate. Why should have we invaded a country that didnt threaten us?

Read this: Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence in Iraq

Oh, a senate report summary on wikipedia. You got to do better than that.

Check the link again - it's the Senate report. The intelligence analysis is contained in there in it's entirety.

 

[Si modo]

War is the tool of choice as spelled out by their own philosophy. ....

See, I know that's wrong, but it's your assertion, and as such, you need to support it. When assertions are provided without supporting information they stand as bullshit until supported. The burden of support is on you.

.... Once again I will ask:

What were the "special circumstances" regarding Iraq?

Answered. Read the thread. But, as you are apparently lazy, the special circumstances were national security during a time where national security was an acute situation (in a nutshell).

It appears you try to overcompensate for a lack of knowledge by insulting people so let me help you out. Let's say I'm the laziest, dumbest, most ignorant smelly dog turd the earth could ever produce. Now we have that out of the way let's stick to the subject, okay?

You claim we were justified invading iraq based on the same bullshit reasons the Cheney Admin gave. Do you know why that is a problem? The neocons already stated in Sept 2000 they wanted to invade iraq whether or not Saddam was there. However, Saddam's presence was enough to try and sell the invasion. I would give you the page number from the manifesto spelling this out but as you have so kindly told everyone, you are the King of Neocon Knowledge.

So please explain how those bullshit intel reports justify an invasion when the Neocons had already stated it doesn't matter if there is a material threat from Iraq?

I claimed we were justified in invading Iraq based on the intelligence at that time. Are folks so uninterested in government that they failed to read the Congressional report on pre-war intelligence? It came out in 2004.

You are dodging backing up your claim that war is the tool of choice in the neocon philosophy. But, I understand why you dodge that.

 

[AllieBaba]

This is counter to everything I've ever read or encounter, the majority of it from neoconservatives themselves, about their philosophy. If this is the case, I'd appreciate it if you could demonstrate for me a prominent neoconservative thinker or government official advocating against going to war with another nation because the circumstances were not appropriately "special" and also explain what "special" circumstances warranted the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Thanks.

WHO? Who are these "neoconservatives" you keep referring to? Can you provide links to them claiming to be neoconservatives?

Of COURSE not, because it's a made-up term, which comes from a real, stolen term, and applied to someone you don't like.

You all used to hate the Jews. That's no longer PC, so you have transferred that hatred to republicans, bastardized the word, and just randomly chosen "traits" of the modern neocon.

It's sort of like calling conservatives "liberals". They aren't liberals, they have none of the traits of a liberal, but if you keep doing it long enough, eventually the definition changes and the despicable traits of liberals are being attributed to conservatives, who are still conservatives, but via magical transferrence have suddently taken on the traits and title of "liberal".

It's ******* insanity.

I already posted a link to their main homepage. Does it need to be done again? Maybe this will help:

"A neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging hostile governments, advancing democratic and economic freedom, ..."
Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

Anyone else notice the first referenced pillar of greater military force?

Neoconservatives have a homepage?

Lol.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well if that's what the "neocons" have morphed into, I'm with them.

However, I don't see that term used there at all. They aren't using that term, because NEOCON refers to LIBERALS who essentially DESERTED THE LIBERAL SHIP when they defended the necessity of maintaining America as a SUPERPOWER and using the military to ensure peace and freedom, such as it can be, in the rest of the world.

Since all those guys have already left the liberal party and/or started different parties, NEOCON is not an accurate description of those today who support American militarism.

 

[Oddball]

I claimed we were justified in invading Iraq based on the intelligence at that time. Are folks so uninterested in government that they failed to read the Congressional report on pre-war intelligence? It came out in 2004.

You are dodging backing up your claim that war is the tool of choice in the neocon philosophy. But, I understand why you dodge that.

Gotta call BS on that claim.

Congress -remocrats and depublicans alike- had been sporting for even the most half-assed rationale for a land invasion of Iraq since Bubba's second term. 9/11™ and all its subsequent paranoia gave them the cheap excuse they had always been looking for.

Moreover, if enforcing UN edicts isn't the flimsiest pretext upon which to rationalize an American military action, I'd like to know of one that is more so.

 

[Si modo]

I claimed we were justified in invading Iraq based on the intelligence at that time. Are folks so uninterested in government that they failed to read the Congressional report on pre-war intelligence? It came out in 2004.

You are dodging backing up your claim that war is the tool of choice in the neocon philosophy. But, I understand why you dodge that.

Gotta call BS on that claim.

Congress -remocrats and depublicans alike- had been sporting for even the most half-assed rationale for a land invasion of Iraq since Bubba's second term. 9/11™ and all its subsequent paranoia gave them the cheap excuse they had always been looking for.

Moreover, if enforcing UN edicts isn't the flimsiest pretext upon which to rationalize an American military action, I'd like to know of one that is more so.

And that subsequent paranoia was supported by the intelligence at that time. The intelligence report in 2004 indicated several inherent flaws in intelligence gathering. Those flaws had accumulated during previous administrations, especially during the Clinton administration where limitations were put on inter-agency communications and on human assets allowed, just for example. We could have continued using these inherent IC flaws without consequence (ie. invasion of Iraq), but for 9/11. Now, these inherent flaws have been identified. Some have been corrected, some have not. We still have a ways to go such that mistakes of this magnitude do not occur again.