NationStates Jolt Archive

I shit you not. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/elian.htm)

Sorry if this seems a bit off topic, but I just had to say it.
Wow. :D Well, that explains a lot. It doesn't explain these crazy people, but it explains a lot of stuff swirling around them.

So.... We should storm into Syria, Iran, or North Korea because we don't like their governments? (I'm also curious where the troops for all of this "Glorious Liberation" will come from while we're tied down in Afghanistan) Starting wars to topple sovereign states we don't like, fuck yeah!

Yes. The troops should come from the same source they always have. What sort of question is that?

Yes. The troops should come from the same source they always have. What sort of question is that?
It's a reasonable one, for which you have not given an answer.

I am not even going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Sorry. I'm calling bullshit -- deliberate bullshit. The entire world is aware of the Nigerian yellowcake mess, and if you claim to be a neocon and you also claim that you don't know anything about it, then you are lying about something.

And this is typical neocon behavior. Revising history, claiming that well documented, publicly known facts never existed, pretending innocent ignorance when cornered, deny-deny-deny -- all are standard operating procedure for neocons, the most dedicated deliberate liars in all of modern politics.

The extreme -- sometimes comical -- dishonesty of neocons can be directly linked to their awareness of the obvious unpopularity of their views. Knowing that they are a tiny minority, and in no way even trying to win people over, they seek merely to manipulate people into letting them into positions of policy influence and to insulate themselves against any accountability for the outcomes of their policies. They really are quite insufferable.

Oh my gosh, you mean that old business about some of the intelligence from Africa. Look I am not a liar. It is just that "yellowcake" does not jog the memory the way "African intelligence" does. Geez, you get pretty nasty at times.

This yellowcake business is irrelevant. The only relevant aspect of the prewar business was that we wanted to inspect Iraq and they did not cooperate.

Syria might be possible. Iran is unlikely, since we're no longer entirely sure about whether they would (or could) fight back. North Korea are off the table. China is off the table.

The US only likes to pick wars with tiny little sandy wastelands, with no means of fighting back better than rifles.

Even enemies that fight back are still worth fighting.

Heh, and yet look how well those sandy wastes with their puny rifles manage to do against us. Yeah, neocon leadership is really effective, isn't it?

They did not do much against us. What are you talking about?

They did not do much against us. What are you talking about?

except keep us from winning a war that has gone on longer than the sum total of US involvement in world war 2.

4000 dead are irrelevant. They died in the glorious cause of pursuit of mythical WMDs.

They did not do much against us. What are you talking about?

I hesitate to speak for anybody else, but...

http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/9-112.jpg

Even enemies that fight back are still worth fighting.

Which is why we're currently at war with China.

What? We're not?

Oh my gosh, you mean that old business about some of the intelligence from Africa.
Yeah, that. It was top of the hit parade of ginned up lies for starting the war for a good long while.

Look I am not a liar.
I don't believe you.

It is just that "yellowcake" does not jog the memory the way "African intelligence" does.
And that's why I don't believe you.

Geez, you get pretty nasty at times.
Only to certain people.

This yellowcake business is irrelevant. The only relevant aspect of the prewar business was that we wanted to inspect Iraq and they did not cooperate.
Sorry, no, you don't get to revise history yet again. The yellowcake business was relevant at the time to the war, and it is still relevant to the history of the war, the history of the Bush admins dishonesty and possible crimes, and as an example of the general dishonesty of neocons. Also, your declaration of what's the only "relevant aspect of the prewar business" is bullshit. The facts that prove that the reasons the Bush admin cited for getting us into the war at the time they started it are indeed relevant to that topic, even if you wish they weren't.

Neocons just love to dictate the parameters of conversations, and keep changing those parameters every time they get cornered, but I don't play that game. You don't get to make the rules.

Which is why we're currently at war with China.

What? We're not?

We would be if more people thought like Freedonia.....

because they buy into the typical neocon bullshit of if we just give them one more chance it'll all work out, and they'll be proven correct. You can see it all in the playbook. We'll be greeted as liberators! Mission Accomplished! The Green Zone is safe! The surge is working!

The neocon world view is simple. Victory is always and perpetually just around the next corner.


We have killed and arrested a lot of terrorists. We overthrew an awful dictator. What is it that you have a problem with? Your arguments are bizarre. I analogize your argument to that of someone who is trying to shut down the police force because we still have crime even though we have been funding police forces for decades.

Bad guys must be stopped. This is not even a neocon thing it is just basic common sense.

They did not do much against us. What are you talking about?
I'm talking about more than 20,000 US troops permanently injured and maimed by IEDs and relatively small arms fire, that's what I'm talking about. Of course, being a neocon, you probably don't give a shit about that.

except keep us from winning a war that has gone on longer than the sum total of US involvement in world war 2.

4000 dead are irrelevant. They died in the glorious cause of pursuit of mythical WMDs.

I hesitate to speak for anybody else, but...

http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/9-112.jpg
Oh, yeah, and that, that, and that, too. Wow, turns out I was referringt to quite a lot of things. What the fuck is GF talking about, I wonder?

They did not do much against us. What are you talking about?

4,514 Coalition deaths, as of November 18th.

(At least 30,793 US soldiers injured)

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


And - just because it matters:

Documented Civilian deaths from violence in Iraq: 88,967-97,109, as of November 17th

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

We have killed and arrested a lot of terrorists. We overthrew an awful dictator. What is it that you have a problem with?

88,967 – 97,109 dead Iraqi civilians.

We have killed and arrested a lot of terrorists. We overthrew an awful dictator. What is it that you have a problem with? Your arguments are bizarre. I analogize your argument to that of someone who is trying to shut down the police force because we still have crime even though we have been funding police forces for decades.

Bad guys must be stopped. This is not even a neocon thing it is just basic common sense.

The mythical WMDs the troops were sent in to find do not enter the equation apparently. Nor the fact there's plenty of worse regimes we're perfectly happy to ignore. Nor the over 4000 deaths. Nor the fact that it took our focus off of Al Qaeda at a critical time, allowing them to regroup, and grow stronger than before, hence the current situation in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden still hasn't been caught either, because he ceased to be the objective once that neocon idiot Rumsfield got his way.

We could start small by invading America and freeing those illegally held and tortured at Gitmo.

I do not know about the whole invading America business, but nobody should be tortured ever.

Bad guys must be stopped. This is not even a neocon thing it is just basic common sense.

You're right, it's not a neocon thing, not even the slightest. at best the "neocon thing" is "bad guy whose political ideologies we don't like, or who have resources we want must be stopped". The neocon history of leaving violent dictatorships entirely alone, when they lack useful resources, or, indeed, propping up dictators themselves who were every bit as worse as those whom they replaced, demonstrates loudly and clearly that the neo con philosophy is in no way motivated by humanitarianism, no way motivated by compassion, no way motivated by a desire to relieve suffering.

I stand by what Mur said. You don't get to rewrite history. You don't get to ignore all the violent dictators who were allowed to run free unfettered, you don't get to ignore all the violent regimes we put in power, you don't get to ignore things like this:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/_/1/saddam_rummy.jpg

and pretend that the neocon philosophy is about "getting rid of bad guys".

4,514 Coalition deaths, as of November 18th.

(At least 30,793 US soldiers injured)

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


And - just because it matters:

Documented Civilian deaths from violence in Iraq: 88,967-97,109, as of November 17th

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

How you can trust an obviously biased group with a name like iraqbodycount.org is beyond me.

We have killed and arrested a lot of terrorists.
Prove this claim. When were their trials and convictions? Where are the IDs of the dead as being terrorists? Who made these arrests?

We overthrew an awful dictator. What is it that you have a problem with?
The fact that that was not the purpose of the war, nor was it our proper business to do it, making the Iraq war a war of choice and aggression and a violation of both US and international law. Ah, but I must remember Wiki's history o' the neocons -- you lot don't believe in law, do you?

Your arguments are bizarre. I analogize your argument to that of someone who is trying to shut down the police force because we still have crime even though we have been funding police forces for decades.
And I analyze your argument as a strawman designed to ridicule, if not demonize, your opponent because you cannot win the point by reason or fact.

Bad guys must be stopped. This is not even a neocon thing it is just basic common sense.
If by "common sense" you mean the thinking of a 10-year-old child. Tell me, what color hats do these "bad guys" wear in your reality?

I do not know about the whole invading America business, but nobody should be tortured ever.

Then why shouldn't America be invaded so those who are being tortured can be liberated?

We would be if more people thought like Freedonia.....

I don't think so. China is too major a player. We like rattling our sabres at them, but they wouldn't stand for our shit, and we can't just roll over them like we could over Iraq.

How you can trust an obviously biased group with a name like iraqbodycount.org is beyond me.

Then come up with the real figures. Put up or shut up.

How you can trust an obviously biased group with a name like iraqbodycount.org is beyond me.

'Poisoning the well' is a logical fallacy. You can CLAIM bias (although you haven't proved it), but the figures are valid unless you can SHOW that they aren't.

Regardless - I notice you didin't even touch on the 4,200 US dead, the 4,500 Coalition dead, and the 30,000 US injured.

How about a little intellectual honesty, and answer the arguments with arguments, the facts with facts, and stop pulling all the logcal fallacy crap?

I don't think so. China is too major a player. We like rattling our sabres at them, but they wouldn't stand for our shit, and we can't just roll over them like we could over Iraq.
When did inability to win a war ever stop neocon from wanting to start one? Hell, there's money to be made from both sides, you know.

How you can trust an obviously biased group with a name like iraqbodycount.org is beyond me.

Oh OK, you prefer the Lancet Study then?

654,965 excess deaths related to the war... and that's only up to 2006.

So yeah, what we "have a problem with" are the tens, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who you are apparently saying didn't, after all, die. They're really alive somewhere, and waving a US flag, and really happy about everything.

When did inability to win a war ever stop neocon from wanting to start one? Hell, there's money to be made from both sides, you know.

There's not a lot of money to be made if you attack someone and they bomb you into shit, though. Which is why we're unlikely to ever get involved in a war with China. Hell, if they just decided to occupy us in retaliation, they'd outnumber us better than 3-to-1. They can theoretically field as many soldiers... as we have people.

Neocons and the religious right are two different groups. The neocons seek to exploit and manipulate the religious right. As usual, they are playing with dynamite and matches together.

But it's true, the religious right, having rejected the theory, are not able to evolve. They seem determined to stay what they are now -- shudder -- forever.


Trickle Down is only doomed to failure if you assume it was ever meant to deliver income to the middle, working and lower classes. If, like me, you believe it was never meant to be anything but a lie and never meant to do anything but mollify the public into thinking they were not being hung out to dry by a bunch of grifters who were setting things up to facilitate them skimming the entire economy off the top (as we see today they actually did), then fuck, Trickle Down worked perfectly.

I think that Trickle Down economics works just fine. The problem is that there are other factors out there such as cheap foreign labor. We can do everything right and still have a less than stellar economic growth because of global factors. That is why we need protective tariffs as well as low taxes. We also need to encourage a good work ethic by doing away with welfare.

I think that Trickle Down economics works just fine. The problem is that there are other factors out there such as cheap foreign labor. We can do everything right and still have a less than stellar economic growth because of global factors. That is why we need protective tariffs as well as low taxes. We also need to encourage a good work ethic by doing away with welfare.

I'm sorry, but did you seriously just claim Trickle Down Economics works? And that doing away with welfare will encourage a good work ethic? News Flash: Good work ethics can't be manufactured.

I'm sorry, but did you seriously just claim Trickle Down Economics works?

Only someone utterly bereft of intellectual honest and even a basic understanding of economics thinks the way to help the poor is to give money to the rich.

I'm sorry, but did you seriously just claim Trickle Down Economics works? And that doing away with welfare will encourage a good work ethic?

Yes and did you seriously just deny those things?

Yes and did you seriously just deny those things?

he should, they're laughable.

I think that Trickle Down economics works just fine. The problem is that there are other factors out there such as cheap foreign labor. We can do everything right and still have a less than stellar economic growth because of global factors. That is why we need protective tariffs as well as low taxes. We also need to encourage a good work ethic by doing away with welfare.
HAHAHAHA!!! Rather than even try to address all the points in the current argument, that YOU started, btw, you decide to go rummaging for old points in the thread to attack? What -- do you have a personal goal to fail on every point individually?

Yes and did you seriously just deny those things?

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Care to read this, and then explain how trickle down works?

HAHAHAHA!!! Rather than even try to address all the points in the current argument, that YOU started, btw, you decide to go rummaging for old points in the thread to attack? What -- do you have a personal goal to fail on every point individually?

Yeah I'm sensing that his mode is just to make outrageous assertions with no support and with flawed reasoning, watch helplessly as said reasoning gets trashed, lack of support is pointed out, and assertions are rebutted... and then to repeat, this time with other outrageous assertions. Eventually people tire of playing the game, they stop responding to him, and this to him signals victory. This is how he can justify to himself, ironically enough, how he believes he is somehow always right. Argumentum ad vomit-inducing nausea.

Oh well.

You're right, it's not a neocon thing, not even the slightest. at best the "neocon thing" is "bad guy whose political ideologies we don't like, or who have resources we want must be stopped". The neocon history of leaving violent dictatorships entirely alone, when they lack useful resources, or, indeed, propping up dictators themselves who were every bit as worse as those whom they replaced, demonstrates loudly and clearly that the neo con philosophy is in no way motivated by humanitarianism, no way motivated by compassion, no way motivated by a desire to relieve suffering.

I stand by what Mur said. You don't get to rewrite history. You don't get to ignore all the violent dictators who were allowed to run free unfettered, you don't get to ignore all the violent regimes we put in power, you don't get to ignore things like this:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/_/1/saddam_rummy.jpg

and pretend that the neocon philosophy is about "getting rid of bad guys".

You need to be clear on your terms of usage, Neo: Rummy is an offensive realist with a vision for military "transformation", code word for using technology to do more with fewer total troops, effectively multiplying our force-projection abilities without increasing the number of troops that we had. In that Rummy liked military aggression and liked finding new ways to create an American hyperpower, he had some common cause with the neo-cons. But the second-generation neo-cons like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, at least in their early 90's incarnations, really are true believers to the use of military force for rolling back autocracy. A good test of whether you were a neocon in 2000 is whether or not you were outraged by the failure of the Bush I administration to continue fighting past the Iraqi border in Gulf War I; Rumsfeld to my knowledge never gave any indicators that this was so.

This isn't to say that neo-conservativism isn't dangerous: it is. But it's dangerous for different reasons than offensive realism is dangerous. Offensive realists are dangerous because they're often quite happy to have put RPG's in the hands of some group that yesterday was our useful proxy against some regional interest, today has no relationship to our compelling national interests, and tomorrow will be our new mortal enemy in the region. Neo-cons are dangerous mainly because they're often dumb enough to believe that we can alter a nation's values and character with nothing more than sufficient application of firepower.

Yeah I'm sensing that his mode is just to make outrageous assertions with no support and with flawed reasoning, watch helplessly as said reasoning gets trashed, lack of support is pointed out, and assertions are rebutted... and then to repeat, this time with other outrageous assertions. Eventually people tire of playing the game, they stop responding to him, and this to him signals victory. This is how he can justify to himself, ironically enough, how he believes he is somehow always right. Argumentum ad vomit-inducing nauseum.

Oh well.

Fixed. :D

Yeah I'm sensing that his mode is just to make outrageous assertions with no support and with flawed reasoning, watch helplessly as said reasoning gets trashed, lack of support is pointed out, and assertions are rebutted... and then to repeat, this time with other outrageous assertions. Eventually people tire of playing the game, they stop responding to him, and this to him signals victory. This is how he can justify to himself, ironically enough, how he believes he is somehow always right. Argumentum ad vomit-inducing nausea.

Oh well.
This is why I tend not to cater to such dodge attempts. When a poster like GF tries to squirm off the hotspot by dropping one argument and raising another, I will just keep hammering away at the first argument until he either gives up or gets frustrated and starts complaining about my personality. ;) Then I declare victory. :D

probably not, to be honest, because enough of their constituents are neocons to make it worth it.

probably not, to be honest, because enough of their constituents are neocons to make it worth it.

True, but it's killing their support from moderates/independents. And the Democrats considerably outnumber the Republicans now, so base vs base isn't going to work.

it is sad to live in the delusion that they will ever "get back" their land in cuba.

I thought of her statement more as "pipe dreams" than anything else. I agree it is sad. The revolution in Cuba took place in the 1950's and it is now 2008, Exiled Cubans are looking at almost 60 years of having lost land holdings etc. to Castro's government. The thought that they even have a chance of regaining anything does seem very 'delusional'. I never said anything to my fellow classmate only because....well she can have her dream, despite the fact I doubt it's ever going to happen.

True, but it's killing their support from moderates/independents. And the Democrats considerably outnumber the Republicans now, so base vs base isn't going to work.

That's true. But I think that the republicans are focusing on the far-right, for whatever reason. Whether or not that works, we'll see.

I hesitate to speak for anybody else, but...

http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/9-112.jpg

Pretty sure he's talking about Iraq. That has nothing to do with Iraq.

True, but it's killing their support from moderates/independents. And the Democrats considerably outnumber the Republicans now, so base vs base isn't going to work.

not really. because as things get stabelized, when the economy, iraq and afghanistan are no longer big concerns, people will revert back to their old party lines.

not really. because as things get stabelized, when the economy, iraq and afghanistan are no longer big concerns, people will revert back to their old party lines.

with the dems well ahead?

http://people-press.org/reports/images/312-2.gif

with the dems well ahead?

but even worse, since the way the republicans got close was the final shedding of southern 'conservative' democrats in the 90s. as dem advantage in party id recovered, it has been for a distinctly more left democratic party than the historical democratic supermajority.

and given the demographic trends (republicans are good with the shrinking bits of the population, dems have ridiculous leads among the growing bits), the dem advantage should be even bigger, barring some radical shakeup of the republican party and utter screw up for the dems.

with the dems well ahead?

http://people-press.org/reports/images/312-2.gif

Yep. nothing is as fickle as the voting public. ;)

Yep. nothing is as fickle as the voting public. ;)

actually, party id is quite stable once established. like remarkably so, such that you can see the same general blips in party id while following age cohorts across time.

I think the neocons and religious right who want to moralize our government and merge the three branches or make the executive more powerful should start their own party. Maybe they could call it "The Neodraconian Bible Thumper Party" or something like that?

I think the neocons and religious right who want to moralize our government and merge the three branches or make the executive more powerful should start their own party.
They already have one. They call it "the Republican Party". They're not going to give it up. It's the sane conservatives who have to leave and start anew.

Well, then if they don't give it up, then the rest of the republicans can either join the democratic party or start their own new party with a new name--perhaps the "Free for All Business Party?"

I've suggested the "Tories", since America already tried the "Whigs" once and it didn't work out.

I don't think Tory will work out either - they were loyalists during the Revolutionary time.

alright, if the whigs and tories are out, i suggest the scottish national party

I think that the republicans who want to leave the neocon/bible-thumpers behind need a new "brand" name to reflect their beliefs and distinguish them from the democrats, who they joined up with in this last election. "Tory" or "Whig" is meaningless in the 21st century.

Actually, if they named it the "Scotch" party, they might draw a bigger crowd. . . .then again, the tape dispenser people might sue them for infringement or something.

Or, how about, "Better Big Buisness Through Bailouts" party?

Or, how about, "Better Big Buisness Through Bailouts" party?

The Republican Party: Socialism is only bad when you're bailing out poor people instead of failed businesses.

alright, if the whigs and tories are out, i suggest the scottish national party

It has to be said, the Nats do a good Rikki Fulton (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7730701.stm).

The Reverend "I.M.Jolly" would not be accepted in what is left of the Republican Party, even though he is a reverend. They would call him a pseudo-priest-terrorist or something.

it is sad to live in the delusion that they will ever "get back" their land in cuba. So do several rich groups in the US, that's the other reason why the US made the Embargo to begin with, they wanted Cuba to payoff the Estate owners that lost their land.

All it did however, was to make Cuba buddy up with the Soviets.

The Reverend "I.M.Jolly" would not be accepted in what is left of the Republican Party, even though he is a reverend. They would call him a pseudo-priest-terrorist or something.

I think the Republicans could sympathise - they've had a helluva year as well.

(Why am I bothering? No one outside Scotland even knows what I'm writing about...)

How you can trust an obviously biased group with a name like iraqbodycount.org is beyond me.

I have never wanted to flame anyone more than I want to flame you right now.

*leaves*

I have never wanted to flame anyone more than I want to flame you right now.

*leaves*

You see, ANY site that gives us numbers of people, REAL people, not the mythical "bad guys", dead, are biased.

Towards reality.

Which is what infuriates GF so much. I feel his pain, I really do. I, too, claimed the sources were biased when they told me Santa Claus didn't exist.

I don't think I was his age, though.

I am actually trying to figure out what exactly is a neocon? Are they mindless idealogues? I am trying to figure out what exactly they are? So far I haven't been impressed by them. And the less I see of the Bushism, if that's what neoconservaism is, is the less I want. I am beginning to think that it's just a BS title for a hodge podge for anything that isn't left or Left Moderate.

As I understand it, neoconservatism rejects the defense oriented position of conservatism when it comes to the military. Neoconservatism recognizes that human rights are worth fighting for and totalitarianism is worth fighting against. A perversion of this theory is used by apologists for nasty cold war alliances with totalitarian fascists against totalitarian communism.

Pure neoconservatism recognizes that it is cowardice not to answer our duty to never let another person get hauled off to a gulag or a concentration camp. Eveeryone else likes to turn a blind eye to human suffering and gross violations of human rights while hiding behind outdated pre-holocaust theories of sovereignty.

As I understand it, neoconservatism rejects the defense oriented position of conservatism when it comes to the military. Neoconservatism recognizes that human rights are worth fighting for and totalitarianism is worth fighting against. A perversion of this theory is used by apologists for nasty cold war alliances with totalitarian fascists against totalitarian communism.

Pure neoconservatism recognizes that it is cowardice not to answer our duty to never let another person get hauled off to a gulag or a concentration camp. Eveeryone else likes to turn a blind eye to human suffering and gross violations of human rights while hiding behind outdated pre-holocaust theories of sovereignty.
In other word, the corpses just weren't fresh enough, eh?

That's a reference to my favorite mad scientist movie, "Herbert West: Reanimator." In it, the mad scientist keeps experimenting with his reagent, bringing corpses back to life willy-nilly, causing one horrific, bloody, murderous disaster after another -- and he never, not once, even considers the possibility that there is something wrong with his formula or his methods. Absolutely convinced of his own rightness, he concludes that the only problem is that the available corpses just aren't "fresh enough." You can guess how the plot went from there.

It went very much like the political history of neoconservatism.

You start from a faulty premise based on erroneous assumptions and self-serving interpretations of your own motives. You barrel forward with untested models, applying them directly to high level policy decisions. You generate failure upon failure upon failure upon failure, fully accessorized with hundreds of thousands of human deaths, widespread financial disaster, even more widespread political corruption, and environmental and infrastructure destruction on a massive scale. You do this over and over again, always with the same results. But you NEVER stop to question yourselves. Never. All you ever do is bitch about how your perfect theories were not kept pure enough by those who applied them, how all these piles of shit you generate are not "true neoconservatism," how the corpses just never seem to be fresh enough to give you the required results and that's why we have to let you keep doing the same thing over and over and over.... etc.

Forget it, pal. You had your chance. You failed. And your failure is no one else's fault, not the result of distortion of the theory, or anything like that. Your failure is the direct and inevitable result of the fact that neoconservatism is a bad idea. Get a new one.

In other word, the corpses just weren't fresh enough, eh?

That's a reference to my favorite mad scientist movie, "Herbert West: Reanimator." In it, the mad scientist keeps experimenting with his reagent, bringing corpses back to life willy-nilly, causing one horrific, bloody, murderous disaster after another -- and he never, not once, even considers the possibility that there is something wrong with his formula or his methods. Absolutely convinced of his own rightness, he concludes that the only problem is that the available corpses just aren't "fresh enough." You can guess how the plot went from there.

It went very much like the political history of neoconservatism.

You start from a faulty premise based on erroneous assumptions and self-serving interpretations of your own motives. You barrel forward with untested models, applying them directly to high level policy decisions. You generate failure upon failure upon failure upon failure, fully accessorized with hundreds of thousands of human deaths, widespread financial disaster, even more widespread political corruption, and environmental and infrastructure destruction on a massive scale. You do this over and over again, always with the same results. But you NEVER stop to question yourselves. Never. All you ever do is bitch about how your perfect theories were not kept pure enough by those who applied them, how all these piles of shit you generate are not "true neoconservatism," how the corpses just never seem to be fresh enough to give you the required results and that's why we have to let you keep doing the same thing over and over and over.... etc.

Forget it, pal. You had your chance. You failed. And your failure is no one else's fault, not the result of distortion of the theory, or anything like that. Your failure is the direct and inevitable result of the fact that neoconservatism is a bad idea. Get a new one.

^This. And this to sum up neocon foreign policy once again: http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll31/DemonLordRazgriz/neocon.png

As I understand it, neoconservatism rejects the defense oriented position of conservatism when it comes to the military. Neoconservatism recognizes that human rights are worth fighting for and totalitarianism is worth fighting against. A perversion of this theory is used by apologists for nasty cold war alliances with totalitarian fascists against totalitarian communism.

Pure neoconservatism recognizes that it is cowardice not to answer our duty to never let another person get hauled off to a gulag or a concentration camp. Eveeryone else likes to turn a blind eye to human suffering and gross violations of human rights while hiding behind outdated pre-holocaust theories of sovereignty.
Oh, and you also fail to weasel out from under the counter-arguments yet again. Your "it's not true neoconservatism" act is nothing more than "No True Scotsman." Logical fallacy = fail.

In other word, the corpses just weren't fresh enough, eh?

That's a reference to my favorite mad scientist movie, "Herbert West: Reanimator." In it, the mad scientist keeps experimenting with his reagent, bringing corpses back to life willy-nilly, causing one horrific, bloody, murderous disaster after another -- and he never, not once, even considers the possibility that there is something wrong with his formula or his methods. Absolutely convinced of his own rightness, he concludes that the only problem is that the available corpses just aren't "fresh enough." You can guess how the plot went from there.

It went very much like the political history of neoconservatism.

You start from a faulty premise based on erroneous assumptions and self-serving interpretations of your own motives. You barrel forward with untested models, applying them directly to high level policy decisions. You generate failure upon failure upon failure upon failure, fully accessorized with hundreds of thousands of human deaths, widespread financial disaster, even more widespread political corruption, and environmental and infrastructure destruction on a massive scale. You do this over and over again, always with the same results. But you NEVER stop to question yourselves. Never. All you ever do is bitch about how your perfect theories were not kept pure enough by those who applied them, how all these piles of shit you generate are not "true neoconservatism," how the corpses just never seem to be fresh enough to give you the required results and that's why we have to let you keep doing the same thing over and over and over.... etc.

Forget it, pal. You had your chance. You failed. And your failure is no one else's fault, not the result of distortion of the theory, or anything like that. Your failure is the direct and inevitable result of the fact that neoconservatism is a bad idea. Get a new one.

I have no clue what you are talking about. We ended the totalitarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and helped out in Liberia. Where were the failures?

I have no clue what you are talking about. We ended the totalitarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and helped out in Liberia. Where were the failures?
In every word you post.

I have no clue what you are talking about. We ended the totalitarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and helped out in Liberia. Where were the failures?

The failure is the belief that the above is true. The hollow "we bought democracy to Iraq!" while not realizing that the pseudo peace is maintained only by threat of the US stick.

No wonder John McCain wants to keep us there for 100 years. As long as there is sufficient military presence to keep the peace, they can bray about how their theories "worked" and we now have a "peaceful, democratic" Iraq.

Just as long as you don't mind walking around the oh so very peaceful and oh so stable green zone with a bullet proof vest.

I have no clue what you are talking about. We ended the totalitarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and helped out in Liberia. Where were the failures?

The thousands of dead US soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians maybe? The fact that Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose? The fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq as we were told, and the war in Iraq has contributed very little to nothing to the War on Terror? The catastrophic distraction from the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which has allowed them to recover, and if anything, become stronger?

And this....

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=207

The problem, as posted, is there has always been a crucial step missing in the neocon equation. Some part between "drop bombs" and "bring democracy". It's been the neocon philosophy, at a fundamental level, that democracy and peace can be brought to a nation with the clever application of high explosives. Just blow the bad bits of a country to smithereens and the good parts will grow to replace the hole.

Unfortunately, when faced with the grim reality of "gee, we've been bombing them for six months straight and they haven't become a democracy yet" the revelation is never "you know, maybe this isn't the best way to be doing this", but instead is, invariably "bomb harder!"

The problem, as posted, is there has always been a crucial step missing in the neocon equation. Some part between "drop bombs" and "bring democracy". It's been the neocon philosophy, at a fundamental level, that democracy and peace can be brought to a nation with the clever application of high explosives. Just blow the bad bits of a country to smithereens and the good parts will grow to replace the hole.

Unfortunately, when faced with the grim reality of "gee, we've been bombing them for six months straight and they haven't become a democracy yet" the revelation is never "you know, maybe this isn't the best way to be doing this", but instead is, invariably "bomb harder!"
You gotta get those corpses while they're really fresh, still warm if possible.

The problem, as posted, is there has always been a crucial step missing in the neocon equation. Some part between "drop bombs" and "bring democracy". It's been the neocon philosophy, at a fundamental level, that democracy and peace can be brought to a nation with the clever application of high explosives. Just blow the bad bits of a country to smithereens and the good parts will grow to replace the hole.

Unfortunately, when faced with the grim reality of "gee, we've been bombing them for six months straight and they haven't become a democracy yet" the revelation is never "you know, maybe this isn't the best way to be doing this", but instead is, invariably "bomb harder!"

Reminds me of the Vietnam War strategy.... It's like "Man, we've been bombing North Vietnam for years, why haven't they stopped launching offensives against the South, abandoned their commie ways, and become a democracy yet? Bomb harder!

I have no clue what you are talking about. We ended the totalitarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and helped out in Liberia. Where were the failures?

Oh, the failures are also in every argument you drop or dodge. There is a whole list of questions pending, GF. Answer them now, or concede the point that neoconservatism just does not work.

Francis Fukuyama did it. So can you.

Reminds me of the Vietnam War strategy.... It's like "Man, we've been bombing North Vietnam for years, why haven't they stopped launching offensives against the South, abandoned their commie ways, and become a democracy yet? Bomb harder!

Not even Veitnam, our own current strategy. How do we deal with the fact that our taking out a dictator let lose a tide of sectarian violence he had been holding back, where the only thing the various factions agree on more than the fact that they hate each other is that they really, REALLY hate us?

TROOP SURGE!

The problem with the neocon philosophy is that they can't understand, they just truly can't understand how, after we maimed, murdered, and butchered people's families, and killed more people in the last 10 months than the dictator we ousted did in the last 10 years, why is it that people are not flocking over to be just like us.

Not even Veitnam, our own current strategy. How do we deal with the fact that our taking out a dictator let lose a tide of sectarian violence he had been holding back, where the only thing the various factions agree on more than the fact that they hate each other is that they really, REALLY hate us?

TROOP SURGE!

The problem with the neocon philosophy is that they can't understand, they just truly can't understand how, after we maimed, murdered, and butchered people's families, and killed more people in the last 10 months than the dictator we ousted did in the last 10 years, why is it that people are not flocking over to be just like us.
My mom sums up neocon thinking as "We'll kill them until they start liking us."

Personally, I wish they'd all just join a BDSM club and leave the rest of the world out of their fantasies.

Not even Veitnam, our own current strategy. How do we deal with the fact that our taking out a dictator let lose a tide of sectarian violence he had been holding back, where the only thing the various factions agree on more than the fact that they hate each other is that they really, REALLY hate us?

TROOP SURGE!

The problem with the neocon philosophy is that they can't understand, they just truly can't understand how, after we maimed, murdered, and butchered people's families, and killed more people in the last 10 months than the dictator we ousted did in the last 10 years, why is it that people are not flocking over to be just like us.

Because that's a contradiction of a key portion of the neocon ideology, that other states are the US's to do with as we please, and must be shaped in the image of the US, for all other systems are immoral.

Oh, the failures are also in every argument you drop or dodge. There is a whole list of questions pending, GF. Answer them now, or concede the point that neoconservatism just does not work.

Francis Fukuyama did it. So can you.

In before obligatory "Francis Fukuyama wasn't a true neocon." :D

In before obligatory "Francis Fukuyama wasn't a true neocon." :D

Of course not. He was a CNN plant. Duh.

My mom sums up neocon thinking as "We'll kill them until they start liking us."

Personally, I wish they'd all just join a BDSM club and leave the rest of the world out of their fantasies.

ugh, like I want to be associated with those people.

The failure is the belief that the above is true. The hollow "we bought democracy to Iraq!" while not realizing that the pseudo peace is maintained only by threat of the US stick.

No wonder John McCain wants to keep us there for 100 years. As long as there is sufficient military presence to keep the peace, they can bray about how their theories "worked" and we now have a "peaceful, democratic" Iraq.

Just as long as you don't mind walking around the oh so very peaceful and oh so stable green zone with a bullet proof vest.

Are you pissed that we have troops in Korea, Japan, Italy, and Germany?

The problem, as posted, is there has always been a crucial step missing in the neocon equation. Some part between "drop bombs" and "bring democracy". It's been the neocon philosophy, at a fundamental level, that democracy and peace can be brought to a nation with the clever application of high explosives. Just blow the bad bits of a country to smithereens and the good parts will grow to replace the hole.

Unfortunately, when faced with the grim reality of "gee, we've been bombing them for six months straight and they haven't become a democracy yet" the revelation is never "you know, maybe this isn't the best way to be doing this", but instead is, invariably "bomb harder!"

6 months is that how long it takes until your patience runs out? You sound like the John Birch society during Vietnam. You impatient people are not an asset to the sustained commitment to victory required by our great country.

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with limiting WMD proliferation. These wars were not about WMDs. They had nothing to do with the Taliban. They were peripherally involved with Iraq at best. I have commented on this a dozen times on NSG. Iraq was not about WMDs at all. The only relevance was that Iraq refused to cooperate with WMD inspections. The reason why they did not comply is because they wanted to fool Iran into thinking that they had nukes. This gave them a deterrant to Iranian agression without having to actually invest in the weapons.

They did not comply because they did not think that anybody would do anything about it. They were betting on people just like you NSG liberal anti-war Bush Bashing CNN watchers influencing our leadership to avoid war. So in a way, you guys are the cause of the war. Thank you. We could not have liberated the Iraqi peopel without you guys. You were probably used through mysterious ways by God to give deliverance to the oppressed Iraqis. Blessed is the name of the Lord! For just as he delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage so does he continue to deliver the oppressed from their oppressors. Amen.

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with limiting WMD proliferation. These wars were not about WMDs. They had nothing to do with the Taliban. They were peripherally involved with Iraq at best. I have commented on this a dozen times on NSG. Iraq was not about WMDs at all. The only relevance was that Iraq refused to cooperate with WMD inspections. The reason why they did not comply is because they wanted to fool Iran into thinking that they had nukes. This gave them a deterrant to Iranian agression without having to actually invest in the weapons.

They did not comply because they did not think that anybody would do anything about it. They were betting on people just like you NSG liberal anti-war Bush Bashing CNN watchers influencing our leadership to avoid war. So in a way, you guys are the cause of the war. Thank you. We could not have liberated the Iraqi peopel without you guys. You were probably used through mysterious ways by God to give deliverance to the oppressed Iraqis. Blessed is the name of the Lord! For just as he delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage so does he continue to deliver the oppressed from their oppressors. Amen.

That's it, I'm calling Poe.

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with limiting WMD proliferation. These wars were not about WMDs. They had nothing to do with the Taliban. They were peripherally involved with Iraq at best. I have commented on this a dozen times on NSG. Iraq was not about WMDs at all. The only relevance was that Iraq refused to cooperate with WMD inspections. The reason why they did not comply is because they wanted to fool Iran into thinking that they had nukes. This gave them a deterrant to Iranian agression without having to actually invest in the weapons.

They did not comply because they did not think that anybody would do anything about it. They were betting on people just like you NSG liberal anti-war Bush Bashing CNN watchers influencing our leadership to avoid war. So in a way, you guys are the cause of the war. Thank you. We could not have liberated the Iraqi peopel without you guys. You were probably used through mysterious ways by God to give deliverance to the oppressed Iraqis. Blessed is the name of the Lord! For just as he delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage so does he continue to deliver the oppressed from their oppressors. Amen.

:confused:

surely you mean iraq's oil has been liberated not its people????

That's it, I'm calling Poe.
I'm ready to just call troll and have done with him.

Are you pissed that we have troops in Korea, Japan, Italy, and Germany?

Yes. And so are the the Japanese, Koreans, Italians, and Germans.

Are you pissed that we have troops in Korea, Japan, Italy, and Germany?

I love this strategy from neocon trolls. They're so used to their own double think, hypocrisy, and inability to maintain complex and nuanced positions that any time they're faced with opposition, they try to "trap" the other guy, into some how admitting that he is as inconsistent, hypocritical, and unsophisticated as they are.

Indeed, what can we expect from a political philosophy, the entire premise of which is "I'll keep hitting you until you love me!"? I mean what I said and said what I meant, you should try it some time.

Personally, I wish they'd all just join a BDSM club and leave the rest of the world out of their fantasies.

Ye gods, no. What did us kinky people ever do to deserve that?

Ye gods, no. What did us kinky people ever do to deserve that?

Besides, they're more likely to page underaged staff workers over the Internet or meet in an airport restroom to do those kinds of things.

:D

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with limiting WMD proliferation. These wars were not about WMDs. They had nothing to do with the Taliban. They were peripherally involved with Iraq at best. I have commented on this a dozen times on NSG. Iraq was not about WMDs at all. The only relevance was that Iraq refused to cooperate with WMD inspections. The reason why they did not comply is because they wanted to fool Iran into thinking that they had nukes. This gave them a deterrant to Iranian agression without having to actually invest in the weapons.

They did not comply because they did not think that anybody would do anything about it. They were betting on people just like you NSG liberal anti-war Bush Bashing CNN watchers influencing our leadership to avoid war. So in a way, you guys are the cause of the war. Thank you. We could not have liberated the Iraqi peopel without you guys. You were probably used through mysterious ways by God to give deliverance to the oppressed Iraqis. Blessed is the name of the Lord! For just as he delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage so does he continue to deliver the oppressed from their oppressors. Amen.

Ummm whatever you say. Personally I am tired of all the lies and deception the Neocons used to get us into Iraq. And most of Saddam's motives were saber rattleing. We had Saddam boxed in and if he made one move to sneeze, the US would have been on him in a heartbeat. Bush Sr. had enough sense to stay out of Iraq after the first Gulf War because he knew we'd have the mess that we have now.

But anyway I am done 'feeding' you.

Ye gods, no. What did us kinky people ever do to deserve that?

Besides, they're more likely to page underaged staff workers over the Internet or meet in an airport restroom to do those kinds of things.

:D
You're both right. I beg the pardon of the BDSM community for having wished such a blight on them.

What I meant was that, if neocons really need to hear someone begging them for spankings and saying things like "yes, master" and "please, sir, may I have another," I wish they'd find a more wholesome way to get their fix. If they can't go back to hazing fraternity pledges, then let them find someone else who enjoys that sort of thing -- or pay a specialist hooker, the way decent people do.

Shorter Glorious Freedonia: Dispensing freedom; whether we have it or not; whether you want it or not.

Reminds me of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56637).

you all have the wrong definition of Neo Con.
the Neo Cons are the moderates in the conservative Camp.
They were agaist Nixion supporting dictators that were US friendly and Against the over throw of Democratic but socialist leaning democracies. Neo cons are interventionist yes, but under idealist not realist terms meaning UN go ahead is preferred.

Basically because the Democrats have been unwilling to properly evaluate why they lost 2000,2004 and before 1980,1984,1988. Now the label Neo Con is just something thrown around to mean a republican I don't like.

for the record. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield are not Neo Cons. Neo con means new conservative. And they refer to former democrats who shifted right in voting habits.

you all have the wrong definition of Neo Con.
the Neo Cons are the moderates in the conservative Camp.
They were agaist Nixion supporting dictators that were US friendly and Against the over throw of Democratic but socialist leaning democracies. Neo cons are interventionist yes, but under idealist not realist terms meaning UN go ahead is preferred.

Basically because the Democrats have been unwilling to properly evaluate why they lost 2000,2004 and before 1980,1984,1988. Now the label Neo Con is just something thrown around to mean a republican I don't like.

for the record. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield are not Neo Cons. Neo con means new conservative. And they refer to former democrats who shifted right in voting habits.

Skinheads also resent that their identity are lumped in with white supremacist jackasses but the general public doesn't seem all too bothered with that distinction either.

And let's face it, thanks to the likes of Bin Ladin and Hamas, the West generally associates Muslims with terrorism.

So why the outcry over associating Neoconservatives with the Busheviks?

Skinheads also resent that their identity are lumped in with white supremacist jackasses but the general public doesn't seem all too bothered with that distinction either.

And let's face it, thanks to the likes of Bin Ladin and Hamas, the West generally associates Muslims with terrorism.

So why the outcry over associating Neoconservatives with the Busheviks?

A closer analogy would be lumping in social democrats with Socialist.

because in 2004 the democrats should have been able to win even if they were running a dead horse against bush.
However when you call a moderate wing of a party the extreme wing they tend to get mad show up at the polls in high numbers and vote by party lines.

the entire premise of which is "I'll keep hitting you until you love me!"?

I thought you were into that sort of thing:p

I thought you were into that sort of thing:p

He is.

When he's on the giving end.