DVD Talk
Should We Pull Out of Iraq? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Should We Pull Out of Iraq?


Cancer Man
11-06-05, 02:58 PM
Should we pull out of Iraq? Or are we going to keep our forces in that region for many years or even decades to come?

Discuss now.

Jason
11-06-05, 02:59 PM
Moving to the "Why do you hate 'Merica?" forum...

Max Bottomtime
11-06-05, 03:00 PM
I alway pull out early. I don't know nothin bout birthin no babies.

nemein
11-06-05, 03:17 PM
Should we eventualy pull out? Yes
Should we pull out right now? No
When is the right time to pull out? That's kind of hard to tell right now but I think we are continually building to it... the question is what kind of society are we going to leave behind.

CRM114
11-06-05, 03:21 PM
I'm with my man Patrick Buchanan. Claim victory and pull out. Hussein is gone. Regime change has occurred. If thats all we REALLY wanted, what are we waiting for? For the insurgency to say we give up? We'll be waiting a LONG time.

nemein
11-06-05, 03:30 PM
Regime change has occurred.

But it's not really stable yet. We need to continue w/ the training of the local troops and see how the election in Dec goes. After that we can start talking about downscaling our troops and pulling out.

CRM114
11-06-05, 03:42 PM
But it's not really stable yet. We need to continue w/ the training of the local troops and see how the election in Dec goes. After that we can start talking about downscaling our troops and pulling out.

Of course we wait until after the elections.

But for the Iraqi troops, what's that thing the Republicans like to say? "Its time to pull yourself up by your bootstraps." They either want a free country or they spinelessly give up to the insurgents. Its time for them to take their country in the direction they want it to go.

Pharoh
11-06-05, 04:39 PM
I'm with my man Patrick Buchanan. Claim victory and pull out. Hussein is gone. Regime change has occurred. If thats all we REALLY wanted, what are we waiting for? For the insurgency to say we give up? We'll be waiting a LONG time.



Of the great many insane and dangerous things that have spewed out of the mouth of Mr. Buchanan, that is one of most, if not the single most, potentially disastrous things uttered.

Pharoh
11-06-05, 04:42 PM
... Or are we going to keep our forces in that region for many years or even decades to come?

Discuss now.



God, I hope so.

Draven
11-06-05, 04:57 PM
Yes.

*whew* Got that out of the way...on to the next thread!

JasonF
11-06-05, 04:58 PM
I firmly believe the real purpose of the invasion was to establish a base on the Persian Gulf off of Saudi soil, so I think we'll be there for decades to come. Hopefully, though, our presence will become more like our presence in Germany or Japan -- that is, people stationed there won't ever see anything close to combat.

General Zod
11-06-05, 05:01 PM
Not only do I think we should stay in Iraq, I think we should put MORE soldiers there to prepare for the eventual takeover of Iran.

Ranger
11-06-05, 05:05 PM
No, we should not pull out of Iraq.

But if the goal of the war really was to establish long-term bases in Iraq, then I would have been against the war from the start.

Pharoh
11-06-05, 05:06 PM
I firmly believe the real purpose of the invasion was to establish a base on the Persian Gulf off of Saudi soil, so I think we'll be there for decades to come. Hopefully, though, our presence will become more like our presence in Germany or Japan -- that is, people stationed there won't ever see anything close to combat.



I've been posting about that for over two years now. Though it wasn't the sole purpose.

Pharoh
11-06-05, 05:08 PM
No, we should not pull out of Iraq.

But if the goal of the war really was to establish long-term bases in Iraq, then I would have been against the war from the start.



I think the thread has been culled, but quite some time ago I posted a map of proposed Iraqi bases which came from DoD sources. I think much has changed since then, but it was always one of the primary objectives, rightfully in my opinion.

eXcentris
11-06-05, 05:11 PM
Not only do I think we should stay in Iraq, I think we should put MORE soldiers there to prepare for the eventual takeover of Iran.


Yeah, after Iraq, I'm sure you'll get at least 2 more people to back up that new venture. :lol:

Rare Breed22
11-06-05, 05:57 PM
We Have to stay in and finish what we started, we can't abandon those people now like we did in the first gulf war.

CRM114
11-06-05, 06:23 PM
I think the thread has been culled, but quite some time ago I posted a map of proposed Iraqi bases which came from DoD sources. I think much has changed since then, but it was always one of the primary objectives, rightfully in my opinion.

That has to be the worst idea I've ever heard. Setting up a permanent cause for jihadists everywhere. -rolleyes- Rent-a-cause.

Is it that close to end of fossil fuel that we need to guard the fields like drug lords in Bolivia? If so, lets hear the truth.

classicman2
11-06-05, 07:02 PM
Forward base may have been one of the goals.

I don't believe it was the main purpose for the invasion of Iraq.

I haven't changed my belief of why the Bush administration took the action they did. I believe that Bush felt that Saddam posed a threat to the region.

Underlying all of it is oil. Let's not kid ourselves by the failure to recognize that truth.

If the growing of tulips was the main commodity of the Persian Gulf area, I seriously doubt that we would have invaded Iraq.

Nazgul
11-06-05, 07:09 PM
Forward base may have been one of the goals.

I don't believe it was the main purpose for the invasion of Iraq.

I haven't changed my belief of why the Bush administration took the action they did. I believe that Bush felt that Saddam posed a threat to the region.

Underlying all of it is oil. Let's not kid ourselves by the failure to recognize that truth.

If the growing of tulips was the main commodity of the Persian Gulf area, I seriously doubt that we would have invaded Iraq.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. While Saddam was not an immediate threat, at the time of the invasion, I think there were parties (i.e. Russia, France) very interested in lifting sanctions and allowing Saddam to rebuild. We took pre-emptive action and finished what we should have done after GW I.

classicman2
11-06-05, 07:20 PM
Reasonable - ?

Necessary - I don't believe the evidence indicates that the invasion was necessary.

Nazgul
11-06-05, 07:27 PM
Reasonable - ?


Your assessment makes s e n s e.

Nesbit
11-06-05, 08:28 PM
You've got to excuse cman. It's been awhile since someone has found his posts to be reasonable and, naturally, he thought you were mocking him.

Th0r S1mpson
11-06-05, 08:44 PM
I think we should re-invade.

classicman2
11-06-05, 08:53 PM
You've got to excuse cman. It's been awhile since someone has found his posts to be reasonable and, naturally, he thought you were mocking him.


You've confused what people think about my posts with what people think about yours. ;)

Myster X
11-06-05, 09:08 PM
Sooner or later we will have to compete with CXhina for oil resources. See Bush is about 2 decades ahead.

hahn
11-06-05, 09:47 PM
:lol: I love it. We go from WMD's, to freedom of the Iraqi people, to foothold of democracy in the Middle East, to stronghold against terrorism.

Now it's, "Well, okay. Maybe it WAS about the oil. But see, that was actually a REALLY good, important, and noble reason. Here's why..."

Next, "Well, okay, maybe Bush really is incompetent. But MAYBE, it's that he's doing that to fool everyone. By being SO incompetent, everyone else will underestimate us. And then, when people LEAST expect it, we will show our greatness when the NEXT republican president shows up because ANYONE else will look better than Bush. See? It's all part of the Big Plan! But you HAVE to play along and vote Republican in 2008 for the Big Plan to work out."

mikehunt
11-06-05, 09:58 PM
we'll have a permanent base there, just like germany and japan

kvrdave
11-06-05, 10:07 PM
We need to pull out so we can invade someone else. But I would give that about 8 years so that we can develop even better weaponry....you pansy.

HHS
11-07-05, 12:48 AM
I say pull out.

<i>Mod edit: Links to snuff videos have generally been disallowed here.</i>

Mutley Hyde
11-07-05, 02:27 AM
A little warning would have been fucking nice.

That video only makes me hope the military takes an even more aggressive stance.

Who the hell ever is filming these videos, I hope they die a grisly and violent death. And people freaked out when the military killed a cameraman that one time... I say no fucking wonder that they did kill him.

Puzznic
11-07-05, 04:59 AM
I feel so sorry for those soldiers. We have made it way to easy for them to kill us. Our soldiers are just sitting out there waiting for someone to snipe them. Notice how they only fire one shot, that way they never even know where it comes from. Most of them will probrobly get away, only to come back the next day and do the same thing.

Mammal
11-07-05, 06:58 AM
The debate over withdrawal from Vietnam was similar...we're in a no-win situation. In Vietnam we basically declared victory and left our friends to suffer, not something we should be repeating in Iraq. Meanwhile, young kids are killed and maimed so some old farts in Washington and elsewhere can "lead."

Speaking of pansies, where were these guys during the Vietnam war again? They're the right age to have gained some experience on the front lines of foreign policy.

joshd2012
11-07-05, 07:16 AM
Pull out now.

If the country goes back to a regime that we disagree with, we can either:

a) Ignore it as it really has no impact to US.
b) Bomb the entire country and grow a new civilization on the ashes of the dead.

No more of this liberation crap. Do it right, or don't do it at all.

classicman2
11-07-05, 07:32 AM
Question for those that favor an immediate withdrawal: Have you considered the foreign policy consequences of such an action - both now and in the future?

sracer
11-07-05, 07:45 AM
Question for those that favor an immediate withdrawal: Have you considered the foreign policy consequences of such an action - both now and in the future?
I believe that it is too late to simply pull out now. The time to do THAT was after we caught Saddam Hussein. (with a warning to the Iraqi people that if he is replaced by another dictator, that we would be back)

This nation-building nonsense, democracy seed planting, or whatever the White House wants to call it, is never going to end. The number of troops deployed there will gradually decrease over time and it will cease being news.

Th0r S1mpson
11-07-05, 07:57 AM
There seem to be a lot of new faces around the political forum. Sadly, that did not mean an increase in reasoning. :scratch2:

naughty jonny
11-07-05, 08:17 AM
Forward base may have been one of the goals.

I don't believe it was the main purpose for the invasion of Iraq.

I haven't changed my belief of why the Bush administration took the action they did. I believe that Bush felt that Saddam posed a threat to the region.

Underlying all of it is oil. Let's not kid ourselves by the failure to recognize that truth.

If the growing of tulips was the main commodity of the Persian Gulf area, I seriously doubt that we would have invaded Iraq.

I agree with all of this, but think that part of the reason Bush was so eager to invade was Bush's <b>personal</b> hatred of Saddam. His "that man tried to kill my daddy" quote said - to me - volumes.

Now, I'm sure that that wasn't the sole reason to take the country to war, but I do think it played a significant part.

Should the US pull out now? No. Not in my opinion. There may not have been great reasons to invade (or rather, the cat could have been skinned in many different ways), but what's been done has been done.

Pull out now (without a valid reason for doing so), and all you'll do is piss off your allies and give those people who opposed the war ammunition for next time. Not only will world think less of the US, it will also (again, IMO) be the political death of GW. That in itself means that it's exceedingly unlikely we'll see any pullout before 2008.

B.A.
11-07-05, 08:29 AM
We should have ignored Saddam like we have ignored Castro for over forty years. But since we didn't, we better finish what we started.

classicman2
11-07-05, 08:31 AM
We should have ignored Saddam like we have ignored Castro for over forty years. But since we didn't, we better finish what we started.

I wasn't aware that we had ignored Castro for 40 years.

B.A.
11-07-05, 08:58 AM
I wasn't aware that we had ignored Castro for 40 years.
Our relations w/ Cuba are minimal at best. We have imposed sanctions on them - I don't believe we trade w/ them at all. U.S. citizens are not permitted to vacation on Cuban soil. Basically - we have put them on "ignore".

HHS
11-07-05, 09:17 AM
A little warning would have been fucking nice.Too fucking bad. Those soldiers got no warning.

That video only makes me hope the military takes an even more aggressive stance.That video only makes me ask WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?

What's the latest line of neo-con crap?

classicman2
11-07-05, 09:24 AM
I wasn't aware you had to be a neo-con to come to the conclusion that to withdraw now would be a huge mistake.

mosquitobite
11-07-05, 09:30 AM
There seem to be a lot of new faces around the political forum. Sadly, that did not mean an increase in reasoning. :scratch2:
rotfl

I noticed that too! :lol:

I think it's because they changed the title of the forum :shrug:

classicman2
11-07-05, 09:46 AM
Not to worry about increasing the reasoning on the forum - we will always have you. :lol:

nemein
11-07-05, 10:19 AM
I wasn't aware you had to be a neo-con to come to the conclusion that to withdraw now would be a huge mistake.

It does when neo-con means anyone who doesn't believe exactly as I do, which seems to be the case for some recently...

classicman2
11-07-05, 10:42 AM
I've yet to hear a clear & concise definition of neo-con.

Therefore, I must grope in the dark to discover what the term means. ;)

Th0r S1mpson
11-07-05, 10:45 AM
Not to worry about increasing the reasoning on the forum - we will always have you. :lol:
Hey- every street needs a garbage man. But get too many garbage men and pretty soon they strike or kill one another over wages and then there's just garbage and bodies everywhere.

Pharoh
11-07-05, 04:39 PM
I've yet to hear a clear & concise definition of neo-con.

Therefore, I must grope in the dark to discover what the term means. ;)



-ohbfrank-

Chaos
11-07-05, 04:41 PM
I've yet to hear a clear & concise definition of neo-con.

Therefore, I must grope in the dark to discover what the term means. ;)


I was reading an editorial one day, and it was talking about a 'neo-con' who was senator with presidential aspirations . . . it went on to say how bad he was - that he was pro-death penalty, wanted to stay in Iraq until the job was done, anti-abortion, etc . . . . I had never heard of the guy before this article, but after I was ready to vote for the guy :thumbsup:

Th0r S1mpson
11-08-05, 12:00 AM
I've yet to hear a clear & concise definition of neo-con.

Therefore, I must grope in the dark to discover what the term means. ;)
Pretty good article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.

<B>What do neoconservatives believe?</B>

<B>"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. </B>Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

<B>Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.</B>

<B>Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. </B>They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. <B>Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.</B>

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

<B>The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense.</B> Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

<B>Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.</B>

<B>What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?</B>

<B>Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. </B>The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

<B>Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image.</B> Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. <B>Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." </B>AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
I got kinda tired of bolding as there are a lot of things to highlight... so is this the general consensus on what a neocon is? And can one share some of these "neocon" values without hoping for the "neoconservative dream world" described above?

Mammal
11-08-05, 07:07 AM
b. Neocons are advocates of agressive military action. The rarely, however, serve in the military, and in wartime will mabnipulate the system to avoid service.

c. Neocons have unlimited trust in government, if it's a neocon government.

d.?

classicman2
11-08-05, 07:18 AM
article: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

If that's the definition(s) of a neo-con, I'm not a neo-con. ;)

Pharoh
11-08-05, 09:27 AM
If that's the definition(s) of a neo-con, I'm not a neo-con. ;)



It isn't. It is an incredibly short-sighted definition from an avowed anti-neoconservative source. A far far better definition has repeatedly been provided here on this forum.

Regardless, you are not a neonconservative.
;)

classicman2
11-08-05, 09:31 AM
Pharoh,

Are you a neo-con?

BTW: Is there such a thing as a neo-lib? ;)

wendersfan
11-08-05, 09:33 AM
Well, according to their little quiz, I am. :lol:

ETA: c-man, I actually consider myself a neo-liberal in many respects.

classicman2
11-08-05, 09:38 AM
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world.

I have a real problem with that.

I have no problem with the U. S. using power to protect U. S. interests around the world.

Nesbit
11-08-05, 09:40 AM
You've confused what people think about my posts with what people think about yours. ;)

Yah well I'm rubber and you're glue pal.

wendersfan
11-08-05, 09:41 AM
I notice that almost every website that came up when I Googled 'neoliberalism' had an article attacking it as a philosophy/movement/whatever. These attacks all came from the left.

classicman2
11-08-05, 09:44 AM
Neoliberalists buy the idea of what we call 'free trade,' don't they?

They're also somewhat fiscally conservative, aren't they?

tommy28
11-08-05, 09:52 AM
Question is....

why are we even there.

wendersfan
11-08-05, 10:01 AM
Neoliberalists buy the idea of what we call 'free trade,' don't they?

They're also somewhat fiscally conservative, aren't they?Neoliberals favor free trade and market solutions to economic problems, yes.

classicman2
11-08-05, 10:04 AM
I'm not a neo-lib either. ;)

I consider myself a neo-populist. :)

Bandoman
11-08-05, 10:09 AM
Should we eventualy pull out? Yes
Should we pull out right now? No
When is the right time to pull out? That's kind of hard to tell right now but I think we are continually building to it... the question is what kind of society are we going to leave behind.

That's what she said!

Th0r S1mpson
11-08-05, 10:52 AM
Can I be a neocentrist?

hahn
11-08-05, 01:14 PM
Can I be a neocentrist?
Yes you can, but then EVERYONE in the Political Forum will have to hate you. Just ask C-man. ;)

eXcentris
11-08-05, 01:24 PM
I prefer being an anarchist myself. :)

Chaos
11-08-05, 01:46 PM
From Wikpedia:

Neoliberal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
------------------------------------------

Brief overview

Neoliberalism is an economic ideology centered around the values of a global economy, or globalization --free market, free trade, and the unrestricted flow of capital. Neoliberals advocate minimal government spending, minimal taxation, minimal regulations, and minimal direct involvement in the economy. Neoliberals believe market forces naturally fill many areas of jurisdiction for the highest overall gain. Detractors state that market forces are inherently not equitable. In the West, neoliberalism is taking prevalence over the Keynes' Welfare State. The thrust of neoliberalism as part of globalization is to exploit the worlds resources (cheap labour, raw materials, markets) in the most efficient way possible, and in doing so, make more markets available to multinational corporations, most of which are based in the core countries of the world-economy.

Some portray neoliberalism as the imposition of "free markets from the top-down" since it has been promoted for the benefit of multinational corporations through the largest international financial institutions of the world-economy, namely, the IMF, IMO, and World Bank and by powerful core states, in particular, the European Union and the United States government. Because these governmental institutions advocate neoliberalism, many identify the policies with neo-corporatism, and political-economic domination by multinational corporations.

Critics protest the fact that neoliberal policies give multinational corporations economic power over democratically elected governments, as these corporations can use their abilities to withdraw or infuse capital (and therefore affect jobs and the economy) as a tool to have governments do as they say. Supporters of neoliberalism will state that rights over the flow of capital are essential for necessary market efficiency.

Contrary to what the name seems to suggest, individuals identified as "liberals" often oppose neoliberalism, or do not support it entirely. Neoliberalism is not a version of the new liberalism of John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or the British Liberal Democrats, which advocated limited intervention in the economy as a tool to benefit people.

"Neoliberalism" is often used as a pejorative; in this context it means not the economic theory, but the implementation of global capitalism and the power of multinational corporations, as well as the effects of free trade on wages and social structures.

The term neoliberalism is not the only one for this movement, many supporters argue that it is simply "liberalism," while critics (along with some supporters) often label it "Thatcherism (United Kingdom), Reaganomics (United States of America), Rogernomics (New Zealand) or Manmohanomics (India)" Because of close association between this philosophy and neoclassical economics, and confusion with the ambiguous term "liberal," some advocate the term "neoclassical philosophy."

--------------------------------------------------

Neoconservative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
---------------------------------------------
eoconservative viewpoint

The meaning of the term "neoconservative" is widely disputed, and it is used more often by those who oppose neoconservative politics than by those who subscribe to them. Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles even if that meant unilateral action. Indeed, domestic policy does not define neoconservatism — it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for beleaguered liberal democracies such as Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism.

Accordingly, most people currently described as "neoconservatives" are members of the Republican Party, but while neoconservatives have generally been in electoral alignment with other conservatives, have served in the same Presidential Administrations, and have often ignored intra-conservative ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, there are notable differences between neoconservative and traditional or "paleoconservative" views. In particular, neoconservatives disagree with the nativist, protectionist, andisolationists strain of American conservatism once exemplified by the ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan, and the traditional "pragmatic" approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, which emphasized pragmatic accommodation with dictators; peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control; détente and containment — rather than rollback — of the Soviet Union; and the initiation of the process that led to ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States.

The term is frequently used pejoratively, both by self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right, and by Democratic politicians opposing neoconservatives from the left. Recently, Democratic politicians have used the term to criticize the Republican policies and leaders of the current Bush administration.

------------------------------------------------------

I seem to be a neoliberal and a bit of a neoconservative . . . . so can I do things like Neo from the Matrix?

jdodd
11-08-05, 01:52 PM
Neocon?

http://img1.imageshack.us/img1/5449/neocon3na.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

classicman2
11-08-05, 02:16 PM
I prefer being an anarchist myself. :)

I thought all along you were a commie. :lol:

eXcentris
11-08-05, 04:01 PM
I thought all along you were a commie. :lol:

Nope, I view all ideologies as evil, albeit some more than others. :)

classicman2
11-08-05, 04:04 PM
You take a little from one - a little from another - a little..........

When finished, you have a workable idealogy.

CRM114
11-08-05, 06:24 PM
I have a real problem with that.

I have no problem with the U. S. using power to protect U. S. interests around the world.

Its that whole William Kristol/PNAC nonsense. Forcefully implement democracy in the middle east. And really, who in the hell would trust anything William Kristol has to say?

riley_dude
11-09-05, 06:40 PM
I'm quite surprised at the results of this poll. How many more soldiers do you want to die??

nemein
11-09-05, 07:00 PM
I'm quite surprised at the results of this poll. How many more soldiers do you want to die??

Zero of course. Pulling out now will garuntee that's not the result in the long run though.

Th0r S1mpson
11-09-05, 07:28 PM
I'm quite surprised at the results of this poll. How many more soldiers do you want to die??
How many more soldiers do you think Geroge Bush wants to die?

Pharoh
11-09-05, 07:30 PM
Pharoh,

Are you a neo-con?

...


Sorry I didn't see this earlier.



I thought the answer was well known, but in case not, the answer is yes. I am of a neoconservative ideological bent.

I think there are only about two, maybe three others active posters here who I would also classify in that manner, even if they don't acknowledge it themselves. Wendersfan is not one of them, but he does have one foot in the door.
;)

Ranger
11-09-05, 07:51 PM
Is bhk a neo-con?

classicman2
11-09-05, 08:17 PM
I just took The Christian Science Monitor quiz to determine whether I'm a neoconservative or not.

Here are the results:

Neocon quiz results

Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.


Realist

Realists…

Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Correction!

hahn
11-09-05, 08:41 PM
Is bhk a neo-con?
bhk just defies description.

Pharoh
11-09-05, 09:23 PM
Is bhk a neo-con?



I believe he is, albeit a relatively conservative one.


I would also like to point out once again that folks of a neoconservative ideology do come in many stripes. There is not a one size fits all standard.

Pharoh
11-09-05, 09:33 PM
Really? I didn't quite read you that way.

Let me ask you: a couple of months before the actual invasion, with the information available then, why did you feel the US should go into Iraq? Did you share in some people's idealistic vision of a "democratic transformation of the middle east"?


It was a part, but only a part.

I however do tend to be much more of a pragmatic 'neocon' than many, (most?), others. Even more importantly, I place a far greater premium on free markets and economic liberties, along with the essential and inherent connection of development/economic enrichment with freedoms and liberties.

HHS
11-10-05, 01:19 AM
Most middle eastern countries are republics. Most of them have constitutions, legislative and judicial branches, and hold elections, with the exception of Syria and the Arab Emirates. Now that Iraq has a ratified constitution, it is no longer an exception either.

Why are we still there?

wendersfan
11-10-05, 06:42 PM
Most middle eastern countries are republics. Most of them have constitutions, legislative and judicial branches, and hold elections, with the exception of Syria and the Arab Emirates. Now that Iraq has a ratified constitution, it is no longer an exception either.Where exactly are you getting your information?

So as to not seem biased, I referred to the <a href = "http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity/">Polity IV Dataset</a>, which collects and compiles time-series data on the level of democratic institutions in every country around the world. Gathering the most current data for each Middle East country I could think of, I generated this table:

<body><table border="1" cellpadding=5> <tr> <td>Country</td> <td><div align="center">Polity Index</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Afghanistan</td> <td><div align="center">-66</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Algeria</span></td> <td><div align="center">-3</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bahrain</td> <td><div align="center">-7</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Egypt</td> <td><div align="center">-6</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Iran</td> <td><div align="center">3</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Iraq</td> <td><div align="center">-66</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Israel</td> <td><div align="center">10</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Jordan</td> <td><div align="center">-2</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kuwait</td> <td><div align="center">-7</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Lebanon</td> <td><div align="center">-66</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Libya</td> <td><div align="center">-7</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Morocco</td> <td><div align="center">-6</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oman</td> <td><div align="center">-8</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Qatar</td> <td><div align="center">-10</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Saudi Arabia</td> <td><div align="center">-10</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sudan</td> <td><div align="center">-6</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Syria</td> <td><div align="center">-7</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Tunisia</td> <td><div align="center">-4</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Turkey</td> <td><div align="center">7</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>United Arab Emirates</td> <td><div align="center">-8</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Yemen</td> <td><div align="center">-2</div></td> </tr></table>
<b>Polity Level</b> is the general index of democracy in a country, with '10' being the most democratic and '-10' being the least. A score of '-66' indicates the country's current government is 'in flux'.

One can clearly see that, objectively, most Mideast countries aren't even close to being democratic (and that's putting it kindly).

General Zod
11-10-05, 06:46 PM
Most middle eastern countries are republics. Most of them have constitutions, legislative and judicial branches, and hold elections, with the exception of Syria and the Arab Emirates. Now that Iraq has a ratified constitution, it is no longer an exception either.
I remember the elections before Saddam was removed from power, and he always got 101% of the vote! There's a real democracy for ya ;)

bareva
11-10-05, 06:54 PM
I wasn't aware that we had ignored Castro for 40 years.

I wasnt awared of that either but cuba is 90 miles away from Florida--it would have been a very easy invasion, besides the first cuba invasion failed. We need it a more challenging target and far far away possible. :) besides cuba doesnt have oil or other natural resources that I know of.

HHS
11-11-05, 01:09 AM
Where exactly are you getting your information? ... One can clearly see that, objectively, most Mideast countries aren't even close to being democratic (and that's putting it kindly).I never said middle eastern countries were "democratic." There are differences (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html) between republics and democracies. I said that most middle eastern countries were republics. Today, many still debate whether America began as a republic or a democracy. But if you want my sources, I get them from the U.S. Department of State.

Egypt (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm) is a republic with a Constitution and an executive, legislative and judicial branch of government in which representives are elected.

Iran (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5314.htm) is a republic with a Constitution and executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in which representatives are elected.

Pakistan (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3453.htm) is a parlimentary democracy with executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in which representatives are elected.

Turkey (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3432.htm) is a republic with a Constitution and executive, legislative and judical branches of government in which representatives are elected.

Syria (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm) is a republic with a Constitution and executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in which representatives are elected.

Kuwait (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35876.htm) is a hereditary emirate with a Constitution judicial and legislative branches of government in which representatives are elected.

Lebanon (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35833.htm) is a parlimentary republic with a Constitution and executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in which representatives are elected.

Jordan (http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact96/135.htm) is a constitutional monarchy with a Constitution and executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in which representatives are elected.

So, I ask again, why are we still in Iraq?

HHS
11-11-05, 01:10 AM
I remember the elections before Saddam was removed from power, and he always got 101% of the vote! There's a real democracy for ya ;)Funny, many people still wonder whether Bush won his election fair and square...and we're in democratic America. :rolleyes:

wendersfan
11-11-05, 06:52 AM
I never said middle eastern countries were "democratic." There are differences (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html) between republics and democracies.Really? I never knew that before... :sarcasm:

I have an exercise machine, but tht doesn't mean I use it, or that I'm in shape. Likewise, a country can call itself whatever it wants, but that doesn't make it so. But don't listen to me, you're the expert. ;)

Nazgul
11-11-05, 08:10 AM
I think Egypt and Iran are republics in name only. Mubarak holds the power in Egypt and the Mullahs rule Iran.

classicman2
11-11-05, 08:13 AM
I think Egypt and Iran are republics in name only. Mubarak holds the power in Egypt and the Mullahs rule Iran.

The U. S. is a Republic, and many argue that the president holds the power. ;)

nemein
11-11-05, 08:25 AM
The U. S. is a Republic, and many argue that the president holds the power. ;)

For the time he's in office that's true. However we have scheduled elections, term limits (and more or less) real opposition/chances for other groups to get into power. Do these other "republics" have that?

classicman2
11-11-05, 08:29 AM
Does our most trusted ally, GB, have scheduled elections? :)

Of course GB is not a republic.

This is a good day to discuss the War in Iraq. It's Veteran's Day. I won't be able to participate in the forum discussions, because I have other plans.

nemein
11-11-05, 08:36 AM
Does our most trusted ally, GB, have scheduled elections?

It's my understanding it's not on a regularly scheduled basis but they do have a systematic way of putting it up to the voters to change the party in power, and there is a realistic chance it'll happen. Was there any serious doubt of the outcome in the latest elections in Egypt?

classicman2
11-11-05, 08:39 AM
Must I remind you that many ruthless thugs have come to power through the democratic process of an election - Adolph comes to mind. ;)

nemein
11-11-05, 08:45 AM
Must I remind you that many ruthless thugs have come to power through the democratic process of an election - Adolph comes to mind. ;)

No you don't, but do you see that happening in the US though, do buy into the "coming facist state" theory? I'm not sure what we're really "debating" here though. Are you suggesting these states in the ME are republics in a similar fashion to the US or have systems of gov't that allow for the peaceful transition from one party/group to another?

classicman2
11-11-05, 08:47 AM
No, I'm more inclined to be more concerned by the 'coming theocratic state.' :lol:

classicman2
11-11-05, 08:57 AM
Speaking of Iraq - the Secretary of State made a surprise visit to Iraq this day.

The only question remaining is: when will Dick Cheney announce his 'retirement?' ;)

natevines
11-11-05, 09:01 AM
Must I remind you that many ruthless thugs have come to power through the democratic process of an election - Adolph comes to mind. ;)

Hitler rigged that election, it absolutely was not democratic.

nemein
11-11-05, 09:16 AM
No, I'm more inclined to be more concerned by the 'coming theocratic state.' :lol:

Which theological POV is it going to be based on though ;) IMHO we are more in danger of becoming a "humanist" theocracy than a Christian theocracy.

classicman2
11-11-05, 05:01 PM
Hitler rigged that election, it absolutely was not democratic.

Equivocate all you want - Hitler came to power through a democratic process.

HHS
11-12-05, 03:16 AM
No you don't, but do you see that happening in the US though, do buy into the "coming facist state" theory? I'm not sure what we're really "debating" here though. Are you suggesting these states in the ME are republics in a similar fashion to the US or have systems of gov't that allow for the peaceful transition from one party/group to another?I don't know what he's suggesting.

I'm suggesting that republics aren't necessarily bad.

nemein
11-12-05, 07:10 AM
I'm suggesting that republics aren't necessarily bad.

I think the republic form of gov't is very practical. I would take the converse of the above statement though and say all republics aren't necessarily good ;)

Mammal
11-12-05, 10:53 AM
Equivocate all you want - Hitler came to power through a democratic process.

That's absolutely correct.

Even scarier is that Japan turned from a Western-oriented, ally of ours in World War One to an ultra-nationalist, militarist government in less than 20 years. Every people have a dark side, and we need to suppress ours.

DVD Polizei
11-12-05, 11:12 AM
(JUst thought I would clear up something in case people thought Hitler was elected--he wasn't. Hitler did come to power in 1933, but it was not by popular vote. It was by default in the constitution (as per a democratic nation though). Hindenburg gave Hitler power as he was convinced/persuaded that Hitler's party was the better representation, and later the Reichstag Fire enabled Hitler to gain control of the country. Communists actually had more seats in parliament before the fire, but after the fire, Hitler conducted elections by way of "Crisis Elections" which further enabled him to get emergency powers, thereby stomping out any political competition.

When the US begins to hold elections in an "emergency time period", start thinking about world history.)

Mammal
11-12-05, 12:48 PM
(JUst thought I would clear up something in case people thought Hitler was elected--he wasn't. Hitler did come to power in 1933, but it was not by popular vote. It was by default in the constitution (as per a democratic nation though). Hindenburg gave Hitler power as he was convinced/persuaded that Hitler's party was the better representation, and later the Reichstag Fire enabled Hitler to gain control of the country. Communists actually had more seats in parliament before the fire, but after the fire, Hitler conducted elections by way of "Crisis Elections" which further enabled him to get emergency powers, thereby stomping out any political competition.

When the US begins to hold elections in an "emergency time period", start thinking about world history.)

Didn't the Nazi Party hold most of the Reichstag seats in 1933? He was named Chancellor due to electoral success, anyway. September 11, like the Reichstag fire, was a bad day.

DVD Polizei
11-12-05, 01:14 PM
Didn't the Nazi Party hold most of the Reichstag seats in 1933? He was named Chancellor due to electoral success, anyway. September 11, like the Reichstag fire, was a bad day.

Depends on what time frame you're talking about in 1933. Hitler elected a new Reichstag after the fire (After Feb. 28, 1933). Before the fire the Nazis did not have a majority (pre-Feb 1933). 70% of the German people voted AGAINST Hitler in March 1932, then held again in April 1932, giving Hitler a few more votes but still not a majority. July 1932 National Socialist Party won 230 seats, but still not a majority. Anyway, there were many different elections between 1932 and 1933, and even though Hitler's party was the biggest political party, it failed to be the majority of the actual member body of the Reichstag. Never did the NSP get more than ~37% of the vote. In Jan 1933, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. And the rest is history.

(with help from William Shirer of course as I can't remember all of this)

Mammal
11-12-05, 09:39 PM
Thanks - Bush's popularity is around 37% too.

hahn
11-12-05, 09:47 PM
Thanks - Bush's popularity is around 37% too.
How pathetic will that be if Bush's popularity sinks lower than the NSP's?

DVD Polizei
11-12-05, 10:00 PM
Thanks - Bush's popularity is around 37% too.

D'oh. Didn't mean to imply a correlation there. We have a LONG way to go before we get to the point of a Hitler Scenario. All competing political parties would have to be extinquished, deemed illegal, and the political leaders arrested.

In the US, we have one political party in the spotlight for 8 years and then another comes along. We always have our conservative streaks, and liberal ones too. The Republican streak is about over. Next, we'll get more liberal-minded folk in office and then after several years of their screwing up, we'll vote in another religious freak. However, I do think Bush has racked up some serious debt for taxpayers and this is going to hurt, and probably more social programs are going to get cut.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0