Syria: Iraq Redux? Guess Again

[Redfish]

Nobody would have voted for that war if they knew the plan was to keep us their for years as we attempted to "nation build".

of course not, nobody would have voted for it if they knew it would drag out for years---NEITHER PARTY WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED IT AND BUSH PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE EITHER.

Your partisan rhetoric has blocked your ability to think rationally.

Bush wasn't bright enough to understand that he was being manipulated. Cheyney and the other puppet masters knew exactly what they were doing and always intended to invade Irag and shape a government to their specifications. Nation building was the purpose. Bush didn't understand that. Presidents have to be scholarly. They don't have to be scholars, but the have to be the kind of individuals that can do their own research, reading and analysis of issue's so that they can ask the right questions about issue's before they make decisions. Bush was the decider, but he just went and trusted whoever he was told was the "expert".

amazing that you are able to get inside the minds of all of these people and know exactly what they were thinking----------

your partisan rhetoric is noted-----and ignored.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

I disagree we could have "won" in Vietnam without nukes: that is a discussion for another day.

The following is from merriam-webster

neo·con·ser·va·tive noun \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE

1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
— neo·con·ser·va·tism noun
— neoconservative adjective

I am not a former liberal. I do not advocate that the US should police the world. The tricky part is defining what is "in the national interest" Clearly Syria's civil war is not.

I don't think anyone fits clearly within any of the political definitions, except maybe obama because he is clearly a marxist collectivist.

so, in answer to your question, by the definition you provided I am not a neo con.

If you supported Vietnam and Iraq, or supported the possibility of "winning" to further American interests, in that sense, yes, you support neo-con principles.

You sound now as if you are developing a isolationistic approach to foreign policy.

 

[Camp]

of course not, nobody would have voted for it if they knew it would drag out for years---NEITHER PARTY WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED IT AND BUSH PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE EITHER.

Your partisan rhetoric has blocked your ability to think rationally.

Bush wasn't bright enough to understand that he was being manipulated. Cheyney and the other puppet masters knew exactly what they were doing and always intended to invade Irag and shape a government to their specifications. Nation building was the purpose. Bush didn't understand that. Presidents have to be scholarly. They don't have to be scholars, but the have to be the kind of individuals that can do their own research, reading and analysis of issue's so that they can ask the right questions about issue's before they make decisions. Bush was the decider, but he just went and trusted whoever he was told was the "expert".

amazing that you are able to get inside the minds of all of these people and know exactly what they were thinking----------

your partisan rhetoric is noted-----and ignored.

It's not mind reading and it's not partisan. It comes from reading position papers, transcripts of speechs, bio's, etc. of the people who worked or are working as advisor's to any specific leader. It sure ain't rocket science. You can not educate yourself on complicated and controversial issue's just by reading blogs and slanted news articles. Talking points and spin only keeps a person inside a bubble. If all you read is RW, you will never learn. If all you read is LW, you will never learn. If you get stuck and obsessed with a hatred of Bush or Obama, you will never learn. If after all this time you have not concluded that Bush was ill advised and misdirected by people around him, you are the one that is cuckoo. Even Bush understands this. His biggest supporters understand this.

 

[Camp]

and 50,000 americans could still be alive if Johnson and McNamarra had tried to actually win in viet nam-----------hind sight is always 20/20

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.

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?

 

[Redfish]

I disagree we could have "won" in Vietnam without nukes: that is a discussion for another day.

The following is from merriam-webster

neo·con·ser·va·tive noun \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE

1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
— neo·con·ser·va·tism noun
— neoconservative adjective

I am not a former liberal. I do not advocate that the US should police the world. The tricky part is defining what is "in the national interest" Clearly Syria's civil war is not.

I don't think anyone fits clearly within any of the political definitions, except maybe obama because he is clearly a marxist collectivist.

so, in answer to your question, by the definition you provided I am not a neo con.

If you supported Vietnam and Iraq, or supported the possibility of "winning" to further American interests, in that sense, yes, you support neo-con principles.

You sound now as if you are developing a isolationistic approach to foreign policy.

I did not support Iraq or viet nam. What I said was that IF we decide to enter a war we should let our military do what is required to win it.

Wanting to stay out of other country's civil wars is not isolationist. Wanting the US military out of foreign bases (unless the host country pays the entire bill) is not isolationist.

Wanting peace through strength is not isolationist.

We are not the world's morals enforcer or police force.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You practice misrecognition of terms, redfish, but that is OK, because it is obvious what you are doing.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Redfish]

You practice misrecognition of terms, redfish, but that is OK, because it is obvious what you are doing.

which terms? are you reverting to your old way of hurling vague insults when unable to deal in logical debate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My old way of correcting when you misdefine?

Yes, I will always do that. We have to have a common set of terms and definitions.

If you can't do that, tell us now.

 

[Redfish]

My old way of correcting when you misdefines?

Yes, I will always do that. We have to have a common set of terms and definitions.

If you can't do that, tell us now.

which terms did I misdefine? If you think neocon means the same thing to everyone, then you are hopelessly naive. If you think that partisans do not misdefine terms to make political points, then you are hopelessly naive.

but be specific, what did I misdefine? You asked me if I was a neocon by your definition. I am not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, I did not "if I was a neocon by your definition. I am not." I asked if you were a neo-con.

The dictionary definition of "neo-con" is what controls the meaning.

The below is what I posted.

The following is from merriam-webster

neo·con·ser·va·tive noun \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE

1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
— neo·con·ser·va·tism noun
— neoconservative adjective

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of us on the Board need to know of you are going to revert, Redfish, to name calling and yelling.

Talking with you is meaningless if you won't accept common terms and definitions.

I am going to unsubscribe this thread, and let you think about it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The failure of Iraq is primarily that of our GOP and neo-cons, supported by some minority Democrats. Bush et all failed, big time.

That does not mean a strike against Assad is the wrong move.

ps: You are wise to pull in your horns.

It was the MSM media that egged us onto war. They went on incessantly for months about Iraq, before the public predictably finally bought in and Bush finally followed along.

Again, the MSM is culpable, since they are not doing nearly enough to end the insanity now.

 

[Camp]

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.

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.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

America easily survived the inanity of the Bush administration and will easily survive Obama's.

Let's stay real.

Are you a fortune teller? No man can tell the future, and there's a lot at stake.

 

[kaz]

My old way of correcting when you misdefines?

Yes, I will always do that. We have to have a common set of terms and definitions.

If you can't do that, tell us now.

which terms did I misdefine? If you think neocon means the same thing to everyone, then you are hopelessly naive. If you think that partisans do not misdefine terms to make political points, then you are hopelessly naive.

but be specific, what did I misdefine? You asked me if I was a neocon by your definition. I am not.

There are certainly people who don't know what neocon means, but the actual meaning doesn't change. A neocon is a "new conservative," which boiled down is someone who loves big government social spending and supports using the military to spread democracy.

Liberals don't know what it means, but that's because they're stupid. They're not able to analyze deeper than liberal or not-liberal. They also like to use words that they like the sound of and they just re-define them to mean what they want. They don't grasp libertarian, socon, neocon or reactionary even though they are all different other than "not liberal." I get called all those by liberals even though I couldn't be any of the others as they are contradictory with libertarian. As I said, they're stupid.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The most glaring omission would be the rest of the Iraq War from 2003 onwards. It was a GOP-led fiasco, wasting billions of dollars, taking innocent Iraqi lives, causing misery for US troops and their families, and eventually putting in a pro-Iran regime in Iraq.

Way to go, GOP. No wonder the sigh of relief from the rest of the world when McCain & Mittypoo lost could be heard from sea to shining sea.

when did Clinton and Ted Kennedy join the GOP? I must have missed that.

The Dems who made the mistake of supporting the Iraq War realized their mistake, and changed course. They and the Dems were off the hook by 2006, when they thankfully took power from the GOP in Congress, and brought the out-of-control bible schooled buffoons of the Bush White House to heel. Too bad the country had to suffer a further two years of Bush as President. The country barely survived.

The American people had a chance to do something about it, but really didn't do nearly enough since they generally supported Iraq as revenge on anyone for 9-11. Sooner or later simply blaming the president won't be enough to explain the disasters. I don't know what it is we can do now, but if we are sheep, we cannot live as kings.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

and 50,000 americans could still be alive if Johnson and McNamarra had tried to actually win in viet nam-----------hind sight is always 20/20

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?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

We learned later in Army schools we did not even consider messing with (1) an invasion of NV or (2) bombing of Red China, because we did not really know what the giant would have done.

The events of the Cultural Revolution would have prevented of any and certainly not effective Chinese interference.

But we did not know that, and the American people in no important way would have supported an invasion of NV.