A question for neocons on this board

[Annie]

Can't have a formal declaration of the end of a war if there was no formal declaration of war.

(hint: the US has only had 5 formal declarations of War and Desert Storm was not one of them)

No shit, Sherlock. When was the last declaration of war?

I would say but it appears you wouldn't believe me even if I link the evidence. If you happened to agree would you believe me then?

How about just posting what you know?

 

[CurveLight]

No shit, Sherlock. When was the last declaration of war?

I would say but it appears you wouldn't believe me even if I link the evidence. If you happened to agree would you believe me then?

How about just posting what you know?

Okay. I know you claimed only "iraqi delegates" challenged the legality of the no-fly zones. I know I posted evidence that is not true. I know you have not addressed that evidence.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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."

I realize there are exceptions. Some may find my observation surprising if not wrong. But, most of the time, whether it be online or off, I find the observation to be true. That is why it surprises me, that so many take issue with the Democrat Party platform, when they believe many of the same things.

I agree with Dude. The only thing that is different, are the labels. Both camps believe in the same things. One is more honest about their perversion of the foundation of the Republic than the other.

Even though I disagree with Si's use of Goldwater in her definition, I give her credit for being open about her beliefs. That is rare.

 

[Ravi]

You sure your I.Q. is as much as in double digits?

It's 84...and it still manages to make you look like a moron across all threads.

You fail to understand the concept of bluffing the enemy into submission, much like your hero Dubya.

No matter. If it isn't Clinton's fault it is Obama's fault...we all get your point. Bush isn't responsible for anything because everything can be blamed on others.

Bush is not Dude's hero. You couldn't be anymore wrong, than if you ran incessantly back and forth across a busy interstate.

I know he claims he's not a partisan hack and he criticizes Bush...but anyone that can blame Clinton because Bush invaded Iraq is pretty far up the neocon ass.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It's 84...and it still manages to make you look like a moron across all threads.

You fail to understand the concept of bluffing the enemy into submission, much like your hero Dubya.

No matter. If it isn't Clinton's fault it is Obama's fault...we all get your point. Bush isn't responsible for anything because everything can be blamed on others.

Bush is not Dude's hero. You couldn't be anymore wrong, than if you ran incessantly back and forth across a busy interstate.

I know he claims he's not a partisan hack and he criticizes Bush...but anyone that can blame Clinton because Bush invaded Iraq is pretty far up the neocon ass.

Dude has been blaming both sides. He has been very clear. You need to read his posts more slowly without injecting your own bias into them. I have known Dude for several years. You are 100% wrong.

 

[Annie]

I would say but it appears you wouldn't believe me even if I link the evidence. If you happened to agree would you believe me then?

How about just posting what you know?

Okay. I know you claimed only "iraqi delegates" challenged the legality of the no-fly zones. I know I posted evidence that is not true. I know you have not addressed that evidence.

Are you addressing this?

The Sec-Gen at the time also challenged the no fly zones.

The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger[1][2].
Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This cannot be argued, as the Secretary General is disagreeing with what was passed.

 

[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."

I realize there are exceptions. Some may find my observation surprising if not wrong. But, most of the time, whether it be online or off, I find the observation to be true. That is why it surprises me, that so many take issue with the Democrat Party platform, when they believe many of the same things.

I agree with Dude. The only thing that is different, are the labels. Both camps believe in the same things. One is more honest about their perversion of the foundation of the Republic than the other.

Even though I disagree with Si's use of Goldwater in her definition, I give her credit for being open about her beliefs. That is rare.

The lay members of both groups share two invariable qualities: they are Nationalists and rarely can they explain their own positions in their own words. The larger problem is not realizing Liberalism has many more sections in contrast to Conservatism. The sociall
y conservative desire a larger government by virtue of exploiting the government to forcibly extrapolate their moral ideas onto others and there is no question that is a model of Liberalism. The Neocons are Liberals by virtue of expanding the US government both at home (Homeland Security) and abroad by nation building.

Okay....got a phone call in the middle of that post and am too lazy to re-scope so what it says will have to do!

 

[CurveLight]

How about just posting what you know?

Okay. I know you claimed only "iraqi delegates" challenged the legality of the no-fly zones. I know I posted evidence that is not true. I know you have not addressed that evidence.

Are you addressing this?

The Sec-Gen at the time also challenged the no fly zones.

The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger[1][2].
Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This cannot be argued, as the Secretary General is disagreeing with what was passed.

Oh boy. You said the only ones who challenged them were iraqi delegates. Now you want to skip over that blatantly false claim and pretend you never made that claim, simply to dig a new hole.



Okay. Let's try this one more time. The no-fly zones were not any part of any UN Resolution. He was not disagreeing with what was already "passed" because there was never a "no-fly zone" Resolution. Even the Bush Sr. admitted that much in their defense of using them. That was in the first link I provided. So even the people who implemented the no-fly zones admit they are not specifically cited in any Resolution but a defender of that policy wants to cowboy up and ignore all of that?

How many links from sources of your choice is required to admit the NFZ is not in any UN Resolution regarding the end of Desert Storm?

 

[AllieBaba]

You sure your I.Q. is as much as in double digits?

It's 84...and it still manages to make you look like a moron across all threads.

The low end for low average.....Like we all hadn't figured that out by now. IQ Test Scores: The Basics of IQ Score Interpretation

Best quit acting like you're too-smart-by-half, half wit.

I always thought she was just acting dumb to piss us off! Now I'm kinda proud of her!

 

[Ravi]

Bush is not Dude's hero. You couldn't be anymore wrong, than if you ran incessantly back and forth across a busy interstate.

I know he claims he's not a partisan hack and he criticizes Bush...but anyone that can blame Clinton because Bush invaded Iraq is pretty far up the neocon ass.

Dude has been blaming both sides. He has been very clear. You need to read his posts more slowly without injecting your own bias into them. I have known Dude for several years. You are 100% wrong.

It's great he has you for a champion. The next time he blames Clinton for Bush's actions I'll keep that in mind.

 

[del]

I know he claims he's not a partisan hack and he criticizes Bush...but anyone that can blame Clinton because Bush invaded Iraq is pretty far up the neocon ass.

Dude has been blaming both sides. He has been very clear. You need to read his posts more slowly without injecting your own bias into them. I have known Dude for several years. You are 100% wrong.

It's great he has you for a champion. The next time he blames Clinton for Bush's actions I'll keep that in mind.

he didn't, but run with it if it makes you happy.

 

[Ravi]

Dude has been blaming both sides. He has been very clear. You need to read his posts more slowly without injecting your own bias into them. I have known Dude for several years. You are 100% wrong.

It's great he has you for a champion. The next time he blames Clinton for Bush's actions I'll keep that in mind.

he didn't, but run with it if it makes you happy.

Really Del?

Only a party man hack-in-the-box could ignore the Clinton administration's contribution to the mess in Iraq.

 

[del]

It's great he has you for a champion. The next time he blames Clinton for Bush's actions I'll keep that in mind.

he didn't, but run with it if it makes you happy.

Really Del?

Only a party man hack-in-the-box could ignore the Clinton administration's contribution to the mess in Iraq.

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

 

[RadiomanATL]

When did a contribution towards something become the whole something?

 

[AllieBaba]

When you're the only one making a contribution?

 

[AllieBaba]

Was that like a riddle?

Because I suck at riddles.

 

[Oddball]

Remember gang....84 I.Q.

 

[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.

 

[Ravi]

he didn't, but run with it if it makes you happy.

Really Del?

Only a party man hack-in-the-box could ignore the Clinton administration's contribution to the mess in Iraq.

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.

 

[RadiomanATL]

When you're the only one making a contribution?

A contribution usually implies that you are giving something, which will then be combined with other somethings that people have given and made into a large something.