Spot the lie, follow the money.
World Eater – Me, too.
Highwayman – Not sure praying will help, but I do hope you’re accepted to law school!
Bangiadore: Hey thanks buddy!
Etc. What war did you say Carter started? Another lame “the other guys are just as bad as us, or at least they would be if they could” post from another lame partisan kneejerker.
rjung has it right - you’re both.
None, as far as I can tell. He didn’t do it, nor did I say it. At least in the classical definition of “war.” I said it could be argued that the opening salvo in, “the so-called ‘War on Terror’” was fired by Carter.
Please quit misrepresenting my statements.
Please quit misrepresenting your *own * statements. Your claim that “it could be argued” is false. It can be claimed, and you’ve halfheartedly tried to do that, but that claim is not supported by fact or reason, and therefore no, it cannot be argued.
You tried to draw a moral equivalence, in the usual GOP partisan style. You then admitted that the approach you tried is fallacious, yet you still won’t retract the original claim. What else can one conclude about you?
Yeah! Another fucking semantic strawman from Elvis. If I can “claim” something, that “claim” can certainly be applied to an argument.
Get lost, you pedantic dipshit.
I would suggest that it was the Iranians that fired the opening salvo by taking the hostages in the first place. The lack of decisive reaction by the United States emboldened them and others for the next twenty years.
[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
– John Quincy Adams
“A tyrant . . . is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.” – Plato
Thanks for taking me seriously. Except you’ve proven that I was correct to ask my question, since you STILL don’t seem to understand what the neoconservative movement is/was. Above you say “for whatever reason”. But of course, the reason is well known. The Soviet Union. The threat of communist dictatorship. A boot smashing a human face, forever. That is why those former liberal jewish intellectuals abandoned the left and made common cause with conservatives. They felt that given the threat posed by the communist bloc was so great that differences in domestic policy had to be made secondary to surviving the cold war.
Not true. Strauss was never a neoconservative. Sure, some people who became neoconservatives were former students of his, but he was never a leader of the neoconservative movement. In fact there really are no “leaders” of the neoconservative movement, since it was an intellectual movement, not a political movement.
Oh, for pity’s sake. This is completely wrong. Neoconservatives believe in an activist foreign policy in a Wilsonian mode. Neoconservatives are typically idealists as opposed to “realists” like Nixon, Kissenger, James Baker, and Bush Sr.
Wait, so Republicans AREN’T warmongers? Which is it? Look, this perception has two sources. One is the Vietnam war. Yep, Roosevelt got us into WWII, Truman got us into Korea, Kennedy got us into Vietnam. Except remember 1968? The Democratic party became the anti-Vietnam War party. This intensified as the conservative southern democrats began abandoning the party to join the republicans. And of course, Carter, who was blamed for his handling of the Iranian crisis.
Um…Yeah, Bush is going to be dropped like a hot rock in 2008. Little thing called the 23rd amendment? Without that Clinton would probably have won re-election in 2000. Bush is done, Cheney won’t run. For the first time since 1952 no sitting president or vice-president will be running for the office. Wide open. Of course we’re going to get a change, even if a Republican wins.
And here we get to the nub of your assertion. That neoconservatism requires an enemy, and therefore created terrorism to provide that enemy. Pathetic. You know, at first I thought this was a joke thread…neoconservatives need an enemy, that means they’re evil, that means they are our enemy…the enemy that we liberals have been searching for that will at long last unite us! We liberals need an enemy, and because neoconservatives need an enemy therefore they are that enemy! Let us band together to defeat that enemy!
Except you’re serious. Take a look at what you’ve written above about neoconservatives. Take a look in SentientMeat’s linked threat about what others have written about neoconservatives. People there literally compare neoconservatives with animals, believe they are simply pure evil, machiavellian figures who do evil for the sake of evil, or perhaps simply to line their own pockets. In short, you hate a straw-man version of neoconservatism, you can’t understand why they believe what they do and therefore conclude they are psychopaths and butchers and slavemongers. That’s the kind of thinking I’d expect from Rush Limbaugh. Your political opponents can’t have good reasons for believing what they do, no they must deep down hate Freedom.
You must of course realize, that very few people consciously hate freedom. People make mistakes, people have odd premises that you might not agree with, they may be narrow-minded, they may be unwilling to compromise, they may be hot-tempered, they may have any number of faults. Please enlarge your thinking for a minute. You wish to defeat conservatives, neoconservatives, warmongers, etc, etc, etc? Remember how conservatives were outraged when liberals said we had to understand the terrorists to defeat them? If you understand conservatives…really understand them, not the cartoon version you wrote above…then you’re 2/3 of the way to defeating them already. Which is more important, winning policy battles, winning political office, getting people to agree to your agenda…or convincing people that your political opponents are evil people?
The “George Bush won because he’s evil and the American people are stupid” message isn’t a winning message. Do you care about winning, about shaping the future of this country, or are you just interested in feeling self-righteous? Self-righteousness is a drug. I’d advise you to kick the habit. Or not. Your choice.
If you really want to get technical and avoid terrorist nationalities, we could always discuss the Munich Olympics.
Yeah, well. Conflating acts of international terrorism with the United States’ soi-disant “War on Terrorism” certainly won’t help us define its inception.
Or the Balfour Declaration.
First, let me deal with this because I have such a beef with it:
I am not anti-war per se. I am about as pro-American as you can get. I recognize Bush and his minions for what they are: Shifty psuedo-intellectual cowards who choose to use the American government and therefore the American people for their own ends which are contrary to what is best for this nation. If this means lying through their teeth to involve us in a, AT THE VERY BEST, questionable war with Iraq, then they will do it and what is even worse is that they will not except responsiblity for any of their greivous lapses in the common sense.
But you are right, Jimmy Carter didn’t know how to invade a country in the Middle East when every regime there was hostile to us at the time. He did however agree to an operation that was supposed to not crash in the desert but what can you do? We had to wait for Reagan to trade them guns and missles to get them released. What a patriot!
But that is all I wish to debate with you, nitpick away, I JUST GOT INTO LAW SCHOOL MOTHERFUCKER! HA HA!
I’m sorry. I did not mean to cuss. I meant to say, instead of the word “motherfucker” to use “pedantic twerp”. Thank you!
Firstly the use of the term Bushco makes me think you are an idiot, I’ve found in my life that most people who use the term are indeed idiots that are more interested in spewing flames and random inanity than they are actually debating something. Which may be why this thread is in the Pit, but your thread asks a serious question and doesn’t just seem to be a rant or attempt to start an insane flamewar.
As it is, to try and ignore the fact that you are probably an idiot (gathered from your use of the term Bushco) I’d say that no, the neo-cons do not need the terrorists.
The neo-con agenda is about spreading American ideals around the world. The terrorist threat makes it easier for them to do this because terrorism whips the public into the right mindset to go about this kind of ideal-spreading campaign. But if there aren’t terrorists we can still see neo-con actions to attempt to spread the ideals of democracy and such. The neo-cons would have a hard time getting into the Middle East without the terrorists but they can certainly still function (and have functioned) without necessarily defining themselves by opposition to one “ist” group.
And what would those American ideals be?
Big Mac, large fries, and a Coke for everybody? And, uh, supersize it for all persons of a fairer hue.
Size
Does
Matter
In fairness UB, post 11/9 any politician who didn’t come out with Broad Support for The “war on terror”, carrying a small American flag and singing “God Bless America” on the steps of Congress was signing their own political suicide note.