A question for neocons on this board

[Si modo]

Geez. They don't see Wars as solutions? Who do you think was behind invading and occupying two nations that never attacked us? They also spelled it out pretty clearly in their manifesto that was published oh........over

NINE YEARS AGO!

What part of under certain circumstances is confusing you?

What part of circular logic dances past you? You can arbitrarily assign "special circumstances" to every military action linked with neoconservatism.

If you had ever read their manifesto you would have seen the use of military force is one of the foundations of its ideology.

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.

 

[Si modo]

And you're not alone as a self righteous ass hole.

Relevance? Do you understand that word?

 

[Wry Catcher]

And you're not alone as a self righteous ass hole.

Relevance? Do you understand that word?

Do you understand redundance?

From my earlier post:

Lewis "Scooter" Libby


Mr. Libby is currently chief of staff and national security advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney. He's served in a wide variety of posts. In the first Bush administration, Mr. Libby served in the Department of Principal Deputy Under Secretary (Strategy and Resources), and, later, as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.


Libby was a founding member of the Project for the New American Century. He joined Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and others in writing its 2000 report entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century."


Libby co-authored the once-shocking draft of the 'Defense Planning Guidance' with Mr. Wolfowitz for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992. Libby serves on the advisory board of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies of the RAND Corporation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Or this: In February 2005, Mr. Bolton was nominated US ambassador to the UN by President Bush. If confirmed, he would move to this position from the Department of State where he was Under Secretary for Arms Control, the top US non-proliferation official. Prior to this appointment, Bolton was senior vice president of the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. He also held a variety of positions in both the George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations.


Bolton has often made claims not fully supported by the intelligence community. In a controversial May 2002 speech entitled, "Beyond the Axis of Evil," Bolton fingered Libya, Syria, and Cuba as "other rogue states intent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction."


In July 2003, the CIA and other agencies reportedly objected strongly to claims Bolton made in a draft assessment about the progress Syria has made in its weapons programs


I could go on, and name other neocons, but why? Those who do not choose to be willfully ignorant self righteous ass holes will follow the link and learn who really represent the greatest domestic threat to our nation.

 

[Si modo]

Or this: In February 2005, Mr. Bolton was nominated US ambassador to the UN by President Bush. If confirmed, he would move to this position from the Department of State where he was Under Secretary for Arms Control, the top US non-proliferation official. Prior to this appointment, Bolton was senior vice president of the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. He also held a variety of positions in both the George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations.


Bolton has often made claims not fully supported by the intelligence community. In a controversial May 2002 speech entitled, "Beyond the Axis of Evil," Bolton fingered Libya, Syria, and Cuba as "other rogue states intent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction."


In July 2003, the CIA and other agencies reportedly objected strongly to claims Bolton made in a draft assessment about the progress Syria has made in its weapons programs


I could go on, and name other neocons, but why? Those who do not choose to be willfully ignorant self righteous ass holes will follow the link and learn who really represent the greatest domestic threat to our nation.

Linky?

 

[CurveLight]

What part of under certain circumstances is confusing you?

What part of circular logic dances past you? You can arbitrarily assign "special circumstances" to every military action linked with neoconservatism.

If you had ever read their manifesto you would have seen the use of military force is one of the foundations of its ideology.

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.

 

[Si modo]

And you're not alone as a self righteous ass hole.

Relevance? Do you understand that word?

Do you understand redundance? ...

Obviously, as I pointed out the fact that you posted a link that was posted already. You are redundant.

You also posted irrelevant information because it was redundant and ask irrelevant questions.

Kudos on now posting something relevant.

.... From my earlier post: ....

Ah, redundant, I see.

.... Lewis "Scooter" Libby


Mr. Libby is currently chief of staff and national security advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney. He's served in a wide variety of posts. In the first Bush administration, Mr. Libby served in the Department of Principal Deputy Under Secretary (Strategy and Resources), and, later, as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.


Libby was a founding member of the Project for the New American Century. He joined Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and others in writing its 2000 report entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century."


Libby co-authored the once-shocking draft of the 'Defense Planning Guidance' with Mr. Wolfowitz for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992. Libby serves on the advisory board of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies of the RAND Corporation.

Linky? And, other than your feelings about neocons - we get it, you don't like them, and that's fine - are you trying to rebut something?

 

[Oddball]

It's no wonder you've been banned from other message boards, you've zero social skills. Of course that's typical of 'your kind'.

Projection and irony, thy names are Wry Catcher!

 

[QUENTIN]

A simplistic description of what one actually is is a big government Democrat without the compassion - updated with the realization that the USA should take over the world and has no issues with killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and children and wasting trillions of tax dollars and borrowed money to do so when it is in the best interests of the military-industrial complex, oil companies, or the other wealthy corporate titans who pay for our campaigns

Fixed that for you.

It doesn't have anything to do with religion or social conservatism, that's true, that's just the demographic they've cynically pandered to to get elected because their ideas don't have much real support among the general populace. Instead it's all about a barbaric lack of decency or respect for human life that sees wars of choice as the solution to everything and places business interests above national interests.

I guess you didn't see this:

From this point forward, since some want to abuse it, and others want to whine all over my PM box about it, altering quotes from other members will no longer be allowed until further notice.

If you do so, you will be warned the first time. Each time thereafter will result in a 1 point infraction.

Once again, you can thank the minority for the majority not being able to have nice things, that in context can be fun.

And, neocons do not see wars as solutions. Only under special circumstances is that the case and that has already been posted in the thread.

No, I didn't see that. But frankly, I could care less about a point infraction. In the future I could just say "This is what Si Modo meant: "A simplistic description of what one actually is is a big government Democrat without the compassion - updated with the realization that the USA should take over the world and has no issues with killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and children and wasting trillions of tax dollars and borrowed money to do so when it is in the best interests of the military-industrial complex, oil companies, or the other wealthy corporate titans who pay for our campaigns" if it makes you or the admins feel better.

The point remains and the description is accurate. Neocons are for big government and huge offense, they couldn't care less about the human or economic toll that results. They're armchair generals chickenhawks the lot of them. They've yet to meet an opportunity for aggressive war they haven't liked. There are no special circumstances about it. The PNAC calls for the 21st century to be an era of wanton American imperialism derived by force. In the case of all serious modern diplomatic disputes: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, neoconservatives have pushed for aggressive invasion and occupation. In the case of the first two, they succeeded in getting us there and achieving their objective, to provide endless monies for American companies, particularly the M-IC, but totally failed in terms of human interest or national interest for Iraqis or Americans. War is THE answer to any perceived problem for Neocons, to the extent that it's the primary factor that distinguishes them from other political ideologies.

 

[Si modo]

What part of circular logic dances past you? You can arbitrarily assign "special circumstances" to every military action linked with neoconservatism.

If you had ever read their manifesto you would have seen the use of military force is one of the foundations of its ideology.

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.

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's no wonder you've been banned from other message boards, you've zero social skills. Of course that's typical of 'your kind'.

Projection and irony, thy names are Wry Catcher!

Thank you so much for sharing.

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for being the pot.

 

[QUENTIN]

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.

 

[Si modo]

Fixed that for you.

It doesn't have anything to do with religion or social conservatism, that's true, that's just the demographic they've cynically pandered to to get elected because their ideas don't have much real support among the general populace. Instead it's all about a barbaric lack of decency or respect for human life that sees wars of choice as the solution to everything and places business interests above national interests.

I guess you didn't see this:

From this point forward, since some want to abuse it, and others want to whine all over my PM box about it, altering quotes from other members will no longer be allowed until further notice.

If you do so, you will be warned the first time. Each time thereafter will result in a 1 point infraction.

Once again, you can thank the minority for the majority not being able to have nice things, that in context can be fun.

And, neocons do not see wars as solutions. Only under special circumstances is that the case and that has already been posted in the thread.

No, I didn't see that. But frankly, I could care less about a point infraction. In the future I could just say "This is what Si Modo meant: "A simplistic description of what one actually is is a big government Democrat without the compassion - updated with the realization that the USA should take over the world and has no issues with killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and children and wasting trillions of tax dollars and borrowed money to do so when it is in the best interests of the military-industrial complex, oil companies, or the other wealthy corporate titans who pay for our campaigns" if it makes you or the admins feel better.

The point remains and the description is accurate. Neocons are for big government and huge offense, they couldn't care less about the human or economic toll that results. They're armchair generals chickenhawks the lot of them. They've yet to meet an opportunity for aggressive war they haven't liked. There are no special circumstances about it. The PNAC calls for the 21st century to be an era of wanton American imperialism derived by force. In the case of all serious modern diplomatic disputes: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, neoconservatives have pushed for aggressive invasion and occupation. In the case of the first two, they succeeded in getting us there and achieving their objective, to provide endless monies for American companies, particularly the M-IC, but totally failed in terms of human interest or national interest for Iraqis or Americans. War is THE answer to any perceived problem for Neocons, to the extent that it's the primary factor that distinguishes them from other political ideologies.

Neocons are indeed for a strong DoD. You get no argument from me, nor have I ever implied the contrary. You'll have to support your claim that neocons are for big government (other than defense), though with something of substance.

Your claim that neocons take advantage of opportunities for aggression without an analysis of other considerations (human, economic, etc.) is without foundation. If that were the case, we would be in Iran, North Korea, Eastern Africa, etc. Noecons haven't pushed for invasion, rather they have given aggression a serious analysis - normal in any thorough analysis of any foreign affairs situation.

 

[Si modo]

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

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).

 

[Rothbardian]

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

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.

 

[Sweetchuck]

What a stupid ******* thread.

I can tell it's not going to take long to figure out who the idiots are on this forum.

 

[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.

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. That doesn't mean War is the "only" tool. They didn't name their manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses" based on a non-violent thesis. The major themes are forward military basing in the middle east and the last decade or so has shown this to be true both on paper and on the ground. Conservatives don't like neconservatism because there is nothing Conservative about occupying other nations.


Once again I will ask:

What were the "special circumstances" regarding Iraq?

 

[AllieBaba]

What part of circular logic dances past you? You can arbitrarily assign "special circumstances" to every military action linked with neoconservatism.

If you had ever read their manifesto you would have seen the use of military force is one of the foundations of its ideology.

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.

 

[CurveLight]

What a stupid ******* thread.

I can tell it's not going to take long to figure out who the idiots are on this forum.

It is somewhat amusing how they tell on themselves. Especially when they fail to realize the point of confession.