argumentumviaweblinkem = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
On Jun 16, 1:17 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 1996 was hardly "long before ‘W’ was pulled away from a life of failed > business adventures and a baseball fetish"...Neocons are just that...neo. > You give them more legitimacy by implying an age beyond what they had. The > Iraqi Liberation Act that Clinton signed in 1998 was directly drawn from > PNAC's stated principles.... > > read more » > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:09 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > For those who want to see how the neo-cons mapped it all out in > > advance, start with their words. > > They wrote their own My Struggle (“Mein Kampf”) long before ‘W’ was > > pulled away from a life of failed business adventures and a baseball > > fetish. > > >http://www.newamericancentury.org/ > > > On Jun 16, 12:57 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ok, I do remember talk about terrorism against the citizens of Iraq > > > and evidence was shown that Saddam had used chemical weopons on his > > > own people and the thuggery of his rule could certainly be considered > > > terrorism. I mean we weren't worried about him bombing our malls so > > > much as, like you said, keeping the flow of oil secure and freeing the > > > Iraqi people. > > > > dj > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Don Johnson<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > iam, about the only thing I agree with you on this post is the last > > > > sentence. Oil was the best reason for invading. The Bush > > > > administration felt they needed to stabilize the area so the flow of > > > > the black stuff would keep coming. They also thought soldiers would > > > > be greeted by the citizens throwing rose petals under their feet > > > > entering Baghdad. Thus the whole 'liberation' theme. Ooops. > > > > > The only people I heard crying about Bush saying the Iraq war was > > > > about terrorism or 9/11 was Democrats. I never heard him or anyone in > > > > the administration use that argument until well after congress agreed > > > > to military intervention. If you have evidence otherwise I'd like to > > > > be corrected and I'll admit I was wrong. > > > > > Your response to my comment about Saddam's role in ignoring or > > > > outright breaking UN rules confuses me. Yes, the US has a veto. So > > > > do other nations and they use theirs as well. I wasn't talking about > > > > them or us and those vetos don't break the rules they are a part of > > > > the process. I'm talking about throwing out weapons inspectors among > > > > other things. I can only surmise that you weren't paying attention > > > > during these occurrences or you've been fed a lot of disinformation. > > > > If you can prove me wrong I'll man up and admit it but until then > > > > we'll just have to disagree on the facts. > > > > > dj > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:52 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I don't understand Don > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>> I see your point, Fran. I happen to agree more with SD, however. > > > > >>> I have never connected the invasion of Iraq with 9/11 or radical > > > >>> Islam. > > > > >> that is what the world is fighting. > > > > >>> I saw it as a response to Sadddam's belligerence to UN > > > >>> resolutions > > > > >> and George Bush is not belligerant to UN resolutions. veto here veto > > there, > > > >> Iseral the naughty step child of the US can not be held accountable > > > >> because of this automatic veto.. > > > > >>> and, of course, his active pursuit of WMD's. > > > > >> What weapons of mass destruction? People around the world knew they > > didn't > > > >> exist and it was retoric coming from the Bush administration and his > > cronies > > > >> who don't count the cost of war ,, just the profit. > > > > >>> Right or wrong, this is why we invaded. > > > > >> No Iraq was invaded to satisfy Bush's ego to go down in the history > > books as > > > >> a great war time president,, being a coward that abandoned his post > > durning > > > >> the vietnam war and the only thing that saved his but was his daddy. > > > > >>> Hindsight of course tells us we should > > > >>> have stayed out of Iraq. > > > > >> What i don't understand is why in the first place. There is an old > > saying > > > >> that goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It was common > > knowledge > > > >> Saddam and Ben Laudin hated each others guts and there is no way he > > was > > > >> going to be allowed on saddam's territory and in starting the > > Bush/Iraq war > > > >> they gaveBen Laudin free access to the rest of the world.. > > > > >> The other thing the war was over was for the Oil.. > > > >> Allan > > > > >>> (or fought it more harshly to win, ala SD's > > > >>> premise) I can't disagree with that. However, sanctions weren't > > > >>> working(they only cause the poor to suffer more) and massive fraud at > > > >>> the UN and in countries all over the world with the Oil for Food > > > >>> debacle negated any effect they might have had. No one knows what > > > >>> would have happened if we hadn't invaded but I suspect it would have > > > >>> led to another war between Iraq and Iran. Good for us, really bad > > for > > > >>> the both of them. As it is, we've enabled Iran's recent success. > > > >>> Their economy is in the shitter(just like the rest of us) but, as you > > > >>> pointed out, patriotism is quite high. Citizens like a belligerent > > > >>> cowboy as a leader, even if he is just a figure head in this case. > > > >>> *my God, did I just compare I'mADinnerJacket to Reagan?-somebody slap > > > >>> me!* > > > > >>> I don't see a resolution to the 'War on Terror' ever. I'd rather > > > >>> fight them then pay them off like Saudi Arabia. Turning the other > > > >>> cheek I also have a problem with. It tends to get bitten off. Like > > I > > > >>> said earlier, if it was easy we'd of fixed it already. > > > > >>> dj > > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM, frantheman< > > [email protected]> > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > To use military language, the current position in what Bush called > > the > > > >>> > "War on Terror" (more correctly, the war on radical Islam) is > > SNAFU, > > > >>> > or Charlie Foxtrot. It didn't have to be that way; in the aftermath > > of > > > >>> > 9/11 there was overwhelming international support for the US, > > general > > > >>> > agreement that the Taliban (who offered succour and support to bin > > > >>> > Ladin and Al Khaida) had to be removed, a subsequent UN resolution > > and > > > >>> > a broadly-backed invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq and > > the > > > >>> > conflation of both conflicts blew all that and fatally poisoned the > > > >>> > whole issue. Saddam Hussein was many things, but never an > > Islamicist. > > > > >>> > Justin is right all the way on this. The pursual of the so-called > > "War > > > >>> > on Terror" contains so many contradictions that it is acting as a > > > >>> > first-class recruiting sergeant for radical Islamicism - Gitmo is > > only > > > >>> > one instance of this. The results are becoming daily more apparent > > in > > > >>> > Afpakhistan. The real battle, that for hearts and minds, is being > > lost > > > >>> > (and "getting them by the balls" isn't going to change this). The > > high > > > >>> > moral ground resulting from 9/11 has been lost - probably > > irrevocably. > > > >>> > Watching the "development" of Obama's position since his > > inauguration > > > >>> > makes me suspect that various military arguments are succeeding in > > > >>> > scaring him off truly courageous strategies which might offer some > > > >>> > hope of actually doing something about the situation. > > > > >>> > As much as I abhor radical Islamicism and all that it stands for, > > > >>> > dehumanising its adherents and active agents is not going to solve > > the > > > >>> > problems. Leaving aside the question as to whether he actually won > > the > > > >>> > election, it remains undeniable that millions of Iranians freely > > and > > > >>> > enthusiastically voted for Ahmadinejad. As a first step to actually > > > >>> > understanding some of the motivations of these people (and they are > > > >>> > people, not just crazed fanatics), I would recommend watching Abu- > > > >>> > Assad's "Paradise Now." > > > > >>> > In the end, Justin's position can be defined by the saying; "Love > > your > > > >>> > enemy, it will drive him crazy!" Trying it would be novel, and it > > > >>> > might just achieve something. However, I have to say that I'm not > > > >>> > holding my breath. > > > > >>> > Francis > > > > >>> > On 15 Jun., 12:21, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> >> The answer is simple. We do not kill them because it will > > negatively > > > >>> >> affect our efforts on the battlefield to achieve superiority. It > > > >>> >> motivates the enemy, hardens and destroys our own morale, and all > > for > > > >>> >> no strategic purpose. Ultimately, it is a political objective that > > we > > > >>> >> are trying to reach. Moving it farther out of our hands make no > > sense. > > > > >>> >> On Jun 14, 11:14 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> >> > I think you are losing the context of the thread. Perhaps > > lining > > > >>> >> > them > > > >>> >> > up for a firing squad veers the thread intent off track. I > > thought > > > >>> >> > there would be a psychological discussion but instead it is > > turning > > > >>> >> > out to be everything else but. > > > > >>> >> > The "civilians" and the "combatants"... the "guilty" and the > > > >>> >> > "innocent > > > >>> >> > bystander" are co-located. <JT > > > > >>> >> > Sure they are, no kidding? I'm not suggesting now nor did I > > suggest > > > >>> >> > at any time that we bomb the whole place, killing innocent > > people in > > > >>> >> > the process. My only suggestion was that we just eliminate the > > enemy > > > >>> >> > combatants during ground wars of any kind. > > > >>> >> > The context of the thread is pertaining to all- Hide quoted text > > > >>> >> > - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
