A question for neocons on this board

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'm going to come back and respond to Si modo with ample quotes from prominent neoconservatives advocating for, not just considering, attacks on Iran and North Korea (and will take this opportunity to say the reason we're not at war there is simply because neocons do not run our government, not because they didn't want to) as well as all the reports demonstrating that the Bush Administration was fixing the facts around a pre-arranged decision to invade, not invading based on the evidence at that time (which had far more evidence for not going to war with Iraq than for it, according to the intelligence community) when I have more time for a substantive post.

But since this is quick and easy: You're incredibly ignorant.

Neoconservative is not a "made up term" (at least, not any more so than any phrase in any language) and lots of prominent people self-identify as neo-conservatives. Obviously you've never heard of the people who directed our foreign policy during the first Bush administration, but they were almost entirely self-professed neocons.

Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Aaron Friedberg, Jeb Bush, and Zalmay Khalizah, among many others, are neoconservatives according to the 1=1 match on their beliefs with neoconservative ideology and in most cases their open self-identification and active support for neoconservative policies, institutes, and think tanks.

Among prominent non-politicians who have an impact on policy and discourse, Irving and Bill Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Steve Forbes, Marty Peretz, Thomas Donnelly, Michael Goldfarb, and much of the editorial staff of The Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post are neoconservatives however you want to cut it.

The idea that you think there's no such thing as neoconservative and it's just a made up label used to disparage people really shows the depths of your unbelievable ignorance.

As for the claims of antisemitism (big surprise), my mother and half of my family are Jewish; many neoconservatives are not Jewish. A good portion of the founders and early adopters of neoconservativism were Jewish, but what does that have to do with anything unless you're just racebaiting? Most Catholics are Democrats, does being a Republican mean you're anti-Catholic and just applying the term Democrat to Catholics you hate to be PC? Please. GTFO with that horseshit.

By the way, most Americans, both what are considered liberal within American politics and conservatives within American politics are "liberals." America and Western Europe are liberal democracies. Liberal has a different, more precise and specific meaning when you refer to progressives, the left, or Democrats as "liberals," but the majority of views and policies across the mainstream American political spectrum including Republicans are in line with Classical Liberalism.

I bet I could fill the Grand Canyon with what you don't know.
 
Last edited:
The best thing about this thread is seeing strong disagreement between usual "allies."



Carry on. :thup:
 
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.
Which was cooked, and both sides of the aisle knew it because they had been cooking it for years.

While trumping up evidence loosely meets the criteria of "flawed", it's just vague enough to run the semantic interference of plausible deniability...Which I don't buy for a second.

I'm an equal opportunity cynic...Get used to it.
 
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.
Which was cooked, and both sides of the aisle knew it because they had been cooking it for years.

While trumping up evidence loosely meets the criteria of "flawed", it's just vague enough to run the semantic interference of plausible deniability...Which I don't buy for a second.

I'm an equal opportunity cynic...Get used to it.
Some may have been cooked, that is true but the inherent flaws in the rules for intelligence gathering not only permitted that, but even encouraged it.
 
The best thing about this thread is seeing strong disagreement between usual "allies."



Carry on. :thup:
Actually it is. I am a fan of rational and relevant discourse.

And like most fans of major sports, you suck at it yourself. :lol:


Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
Oh well. I guess you are sorry that your sandbox-style thread actually has some meat to it, in spite of your and others' irrelevant input.
 
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'm going to come back and respond to Si modo with ample quotes from prominent neoconservatives advocating for, not just considering, attacks on Iran and North Korea (and will take this opportunity to say the reason we're not at war there is simply because neocons do not run our government, not because they didn't want to) as well as all the reports demonstrating that the Bush Administration was fixing the facts around a pre-arranged decision to invade, not invading based on the evidence at that time (which had far more evidence for not going to war with Iraq than for it, according to the intelligence community) when I have more time for a substantive post.

But since this is quick and easy: You're incredibly ignorant.

Neoconservative is not a "made up term" (at least, not any more so than any phrase in any language) and lots of prominent people self-identify as neo-conservatives. Obviously you've never heard of the people who directed our foreign policy during the first Bush administration, but they were almost entirely self-professed neocons.

Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Aaron Friedberg, Jeb Bush, and Zalmay Khalizah, among many others, are neoconservatives according to the 1=1 match on their beliefs with neoconservative ideology and in most cases their open self-identification and active support for neoconservative policies, institutes, and think tanks.

Among prominent non-politicians who have an impact on policy and discourse, Irving and Bill Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Steve Forbes, Marty Peretz, Thomas Donnelly, Michael Goldfarb, and much of the editorial staff of The Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post are neoconservatives however you want to cut it.

The idea that you think there's no such thing as neoconservative and it's just a made up label used to disparage people really shows the depths of your unbelievable ignorance.

As for the claims of antisemitism (big surprise), my mother and half of my family are Jewish; many neoconservatives are not Jewish. A good portion of the founders and early adopters of neoconservativism were Jewish, but what does that have to do with anything unless you're just racebaiting? Most Catholics are Democrats, does being a Republican mean you're anti-Catholic and just applying the term Democrat to Catholics you hate to be PC? Please. GTFO with that horseshit.

By the way, most Americans, both what are considered liberal within American politics and conservatives within American politics are "liberals." America and Western Europe are liberal democracies. Liberal has a different, more precise and specific meaning when you refer to progressives, the left, or Democrats as "liberals," but the majority of views and policies across the mainstream American political spectrum including Republicans are in line with Classical Liberalism.

I bet I could fill the Grand Canyon with what you don't know.


Who the hell are you anyway? One wonders how you could have acquired such a huge amount of knowledge about my ignorance, without my ever even noticing your existence. So apparently I garner a lot more attention than you do.

And regarding "liberal", you ******* idiot, I was one of those responsible for shooting down the retards who kept insisting that it was people like today's "liberals" who were responsible for building our government, and who were pathetic enough to think they had anything in common with Thomas Jefferson.

Now crawl back under your rock, or at least have the decency to continue lurking until you know when to keep your stupid mouth closed. You catch flies with it hanging open like that.
 
IMHO - The fact that the intelligence was cooked, twisted, and perverted to support a pre-ordained course of action is the most compelling piece of evidence. WHO did that? Answer that and you have the answer to who is to blame for the clusterf..k of the Iraq invasion.
 
IMHO - The fact that the intelligence was cooked, twisted, and perverted to support a pre-ordained course of action is the most compelling piece of evidence. WHO did that? Answer that and you have the answer to who is to blame for the clusterf..k of the Iraq invasion.
It had been cooked since the end of the '91 invasion. Both sides of the aisle were doing it.

Bubba Clinton, in 1998: Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

Not coincidentally, PNAC neocons were also attempting to goad him into a land invasion.
 
I think if these others had been involved in twisting the intelligence to support an invasion, at some point they would have asked for permission to invade....
 
From the link:

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.
If that isn't a combination trial balloon and veiled threat, nothing is.
 
Not coincidentally, PNAC neocons were also attempting to goad him into a land invasion.[/QUOTE


WHICH HE WAS NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO DO, IT TOOK THE GREAT GENIUS OF BABY BUSH TO DO THAT
 
WHICH HE WAS NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO DO, IT TOOK THE GREAT GENIUS OF BABY BUSH TO DO THAT
Bubba kept the economic sanctions and unilaterally imposed no fly zones of his predecessor in place. If he was seriously intent on reversing the state of quasi-war that existed with Iraq, he would've done so during his eight years in office.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
 
yea and it worked out soooooooooooooo much better with the way Jr handled it, maybe he should have read his daddy's book which listed all the reasons that and invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea
 
15th post
I wonder what Obama could accomplish if he spent as much time on his job as he does golfing? More golf in nine months than Bush in 3 years?

Wait, maybe we're just as well off. Upon second thought... play golf Mr. President.
 
I think if these others had been involved in twisting the intelligence to support an invasion, at some point they would have asked for permission to invade....
I agree. IMO Clinton talked against Iraq because it worked...that and a few bombs kept the jumped up dictator right where we wanted him...playing with his sand castles and unable to harm other countries. Much cheaper and so far more humane than what Bush did.
 
Eisenhower golfed three times as much as both of them combined. So what? Obama enjoys golf more than Bush - big deal. Certainly your not trying to stretch this into a claim that Bush spent more time on the job than Obama?
Presidents are allowed hobbies - even Bush. Palin can hunt wolves out of Marine 1 if she gets elected. So what?
 
yea and it worked out soooooooooooooo much better with the way Jr handled it, maybe he should have read his daddy's book which listed all the reasons that and invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea
Waving the pom-poms for your guy as a deflection from his failure to reverse course won't work. But it does give you away as a blatant party man hack.
 
Back
Top Bottom