Interesting. I never knew neo cons had an actual definition. I don't agree with the whole nation building principle. Too idealistic. I thought it was just some Jewish former Trotskyite commie pinko that woke up one day and said "Hey, folks are trying to kill our way of life-maybe we should do something about it." Or some such. Live and learn.
dj On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:07 PM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
