Syria: Iraq Redux? Guess Again

[JakeStarkey]

The longer the wars or war go one, the more war there will be. War begets war. We should have stopped with Afghanistan.

I agree with that. We could have been out as late summer 2002.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There was an interview with Deborah Amos today, where she said that not a word was said about the refugees during the Iraq war, but now Syria's neighbors are destabilized and pushed to the very brink with all the refugees, so it's some issue now, at least. This is an older broadcast.

2 Million Displaced Syrians Are Living 'Rough' : NPR

 

[Redfish]

How can one expect a person to be credible in a politilcal discussion in the year 2013 when they need to ask for a definition of neocon to determine if they are one or not?

terms like neocon mean different things to different people, I was merely asking snake what he thought it meant.

BTW grow up and act like an adult and you might have some credibility.

I'm not the one challanging the definitions of terms or words, that is specificly what children often try to do. Terms like neocon are not supposed to mean different things to different people. You can lean one way or the other, or define yourself as the follower of a specific era or founder of neoconism, but a neocon is a neocon. As I sit here I am asking my 5 year old if she has finished her lunch. She keeps telling me she loves peanutbutter and jelly. That tells me she hasn't eaten the bowl of peas and corn that came with the sandwich.

nice rant, but despite how you or a dictionary may define a word, it does not mean the same thing to all people in all contexts. A person can be a neocon on some issues but not on others-------there is no "one size fits all" in political jargon.

Snake asked me if I am a neocon, I told him that before I responded I wanted to know what definition he was using. He gave it to me and I told him that according to that definition I am not a neocon.

Generalizations in politics are where we all get into trouble.

If I say that all liberals are mentally ill, I would be generalizing because a few of them are not.

 

[Redfish]

I agree with your feeling, but in no way could we have won in Vietnam unless we were willing to use nukes, and that was just too risky.

I am curious: are you a neo-con, Redfish?

we will never know what could have been done in viet nam because the military was not allowed to fight to win, I don't think nukes would have been needed.

define neo-con and then I will answer.

We will also never know what we avoided. If we had done too much and the Chinese got heavily involved, things would have been much different. And even in that case if we had won, who is to say that the Chinese would not have continued it's attack later, or we would still be fighting that war today?

all very true, my point is that we should never have gotten involved in that mess in the first place. 58,000 dead americans for nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am in firm agreement with not getting involved in Vietnam.

In retrospect, I don't know that how we could have avoided it.

 

[Redfish]

I am in firm agreement with not getting involved in Vietnam.

In retrospect, I don't know that how we could have avoided it.

the point is that we do not seem to have learned anything from it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not until we all agree to a set of terms and definitions with which we can agree, we will not be able to make solid decisions in relationship to what is actually.

Your positions are neo-conservatism. It does not matter that you disagree. Don't want to be a neo-conservative, then drop such positions.

Final word from me.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I believe the reason Bush, sr. stopped short of finishing the job during the Persian Gulf War of 1990 and 1991 is an extremely technical question that gets into how oil is extracted from massive underground oil deposits in the Gulf region. There also may be an inflexible timetable set up for these very extractions.

Or there could be any number of reasons why a destabilized Iraq in 1991 would have thrown off those timetables. Technology to supply adequate power when oil deposits worldwide disappear was probably not sufficiently developed by 1991 to ensure the program. Now that that technology is widely available and obviously workable, we can confidently sit back and polish our cars well into the second half of the 21st century.