compare that to freedom is on the march ..they hate us for our freedom ..See this is why Bush is the worst communicator ive ever seen in my life...he doesnt lead people or inspire them ..he barely talks to the public.. when he does he sounds like a fuckin retard!!..he was a good speaker at one time ..but he doesnt have the resolve in the face of negativity..you see it in his presence.. watch a bush s[peech from 20001 or 2002 its like he a totally different person today because when you see him speak theres barely any passion left in him .. he cant even form 3 sentences coherently ..stuttering, stammering making up words that dont exist ..do you see how many points reagan hammered home in less than 5 minutes ..his flawless delivery .. i laugh when people compare slick willie to him
jameznyhc
07-26-2008, 10:36 PM
the evil empire speech that had the libs having heart attacks
sorry alex the principles are exactly the same .. the only difference today is Iran and islamic fundamentalists trying to get the bomb ... and they are more dangerous than communists .. because you cant reason with them .. this is why iagree with Savage about Iraq & Iran and Buchanan gets it wrong..But i dont believe Buchanan is anti american .. I know he a patriot ..he just has zero understanding of islam and the threat of islamic fundamentalism..
Thats why Bush was succesful with the North Koreans(Communist) ..But not the Iranians ..the Iranians , syria, jordan, saudi arabia are committed to jihad my friend..SA just does it with a smile on their face while funding the most radical madrassas ..You dont believe me then all i can do is point to the debate in britain today to bring sharia law into the muslim community .. that my friend is world domination right before our eyes..and this is why Israel as reragan and nixon believed must be defended
We also saw Sadaam hussein use WMD on other nations (he was not a fundamentalist but a dictator for domination by seizing saudi oil fields).. we all saw him invade other countries.. He tried to have Bush SR. Assainated .. he shot at our planes, he had an alliance with russia and china that protected his genocide ..From my understanding the russians never sent an assasin to the states..they recruited one here however because JFK who was a great american patriot was just as anti communist as Reagan ..but thats only theory.. I could be wrong because we have no proof
I think Bush is being too non interventionalist with Iran to make the world safe for theocracy ..just read saavges short and simple essay ..its 100% reaganesque if thats a word lol.
jameznyhc
07-27-2008, 07:43 AM
What people dont realize is Bush jr along with his dad and cheney were nowhere as neocon as reagan was ..only after 9/11 did they wake up .. here a good explanation of neo conservatives and why im proud to be one ..its mixture of the left's human rights ideology coupled with the right wing defense and prevention of world domination ..The problem with Bush is he is too far too the left by promoting no child left behind, prescription drug care plan for seniors, and promoting huge goverment..This is what Reagan would have correctly called socialism under the guise of compassionate conservatism ..and trust me folks Iran would never try to make a bomb if reagan was our president ..because there nuclear facilities would have been blown to bits.. I credit Bush and the republican congress for labeling and passing the bill the darfur is genocide and i do applaud the left for speaking out against it and joiniing Bush..But McCain is way too silent i dont think he brought it up once .. this is where conservatives and neo-cons split Much more needs to be done ..but the world would rather sit by and watch people be slaughtered raped and persecuted..that is a disgrace no different than a holocaust ..i guess because it doesnt threaten other nations people are willing to close their eyes.. they did this also during the extermination of jews in germany .. wheres the compassion?
Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?
"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. [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.
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.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. 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.
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
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. 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.
Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.
Guilty as charged lol i was a reagan fan when i was 15
What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?
Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. 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.
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. 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. 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." 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.
jameznyhc
07-27-2008, 10:12 AM
this is the full speech from the 64 convention in my first post of the thread ..took me awhile to find it ..its 27 minutes ..the godfather of neocon movement put it on the map ..listen to the brilliance...Donato listen to the 12 min mark on how welfare destroys families if you read this threade..Also listen to how goldwater ran his company .. capitalism with integrity & a moral compass vs. the greedy pigs of today looking to make a quick buck..Reagan was all about free trade..but he be rolling over in his grave of the govts total failure (as allways) on fair trade ..i wouldnt consider bush a neo-con ...a neo-con wouldnt support Chinas despicable advantage on us!!!! and he be blasting them on human rights abuses ..he much closer to a detente (nixon type republican)..but even a detente would be appalled at the unfair trade
if he was a neo-con he'd have tried to invade and start a war to democratize the USSR, Eastern Bloc, South American dictatorships, Iran, Afghanistan etc
btw Reagan was for free trade with first world countries, ones where we are not at a complete disadvantage.
jameznyhc
07-27-2008, 11:39 AM
if he was a neo-con he'd have tried to invade and start a war to democratize the USSR, Eastern Bloc, South American dictatorships, Iran, Afghanistan etc
btw Reagan was for free trade with first world countries, ones where we are not at a complete disadvantage.
Lol how you think the afghannis defeated the soviets?? how did the santinistas win?? did you listen to the speech he gave to english parliament?? his backing of vietnam war? this is why he was rteferred to as a war mongerer by the left wing haters ..The reason he didnt invade russia was the exact same reason bush would never attack NK or any nuclear power... Nuclear war is mutual destruction ..So bush stayed in iraq to fight a proxy war with Iran and islamic fundamentalism after we defeated the iraqi baathists and hung sadaam .. Bush could also prevent a new cold war a much more dangerous one with the middle east if iran gets the bomb ..agree or disagree?? ..i believe if Obama wins bush and israel will take out Irans nuclear reactors between nov 4 and jan 24th..this is why what reagan said is true ..Obamas "appeasement" may lead to a serious war with iran because israel can not take that chance agree or disagree?
I do agree on free trade ..but reagan had a moral compass guiding him ..not fat cats ..like i said this is where McCain may surprise us
metfan85
07-27-2008, 06:31 PM
Lol how you think the afghannis defeated the soviets?? how did the santinistas win?? did you listen to the speech he gave to english parliament?? his backing of vietnam war? this is why he was rteferred to as a war mongerer by the left wing haters ..The reason he didnt invade russia was the exact same reason bush would never attack NK or any nuclear power... Nuclear war is mutual destruction ..So bush stayed in iraq to fight a proxy war with Iran and islamic fundamentalism after we defeated the iraqi baathists and hung sadaam .. Bush could also prevent a new cold war a much more dangerous one with the middle east if iran gets the bomb ..agree or disagree?? ..i believe if Obama wins bush and israel will take out Irans nuclear reactors between nov 4 and jan 24th..this is why what reagan said is true ..Obamas "appeasement" may lead to a serious war with iran because israel can not take that chance agree or disagree?
I do agree on free trade ..but reagan had a moral compass guiding him ..not fat cats ..like i said this is where McCain may surprise us
With the exception of Vietnam, those wars were not won with overt military action ala Iraq. Those were realist policies of proxy war and part time allies. None of those wars were to democratize those nation's, under the false assumptions democracies will not go to war. None of those wars were to make America the ultimate power in the world.
Neo-con's hated the USSR and took similar stances towards it as traditional conservatives, but when it comes to weaker nations they have no problems sending someone else to go "democratize" those nations.
Reagan was speaking on behalf of Barry Goldwater, you realize Barry AuH20 was against Vietnam because he believed in TR's Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick diplomacy. Something neo-cons haven't the slightest clue about.
jameznyhc
07-27-2008, 07:20 PM
With the exception of Vietnam, those wars were not won with overt military action ala Iraq. Those were realist policies of proxy war and part time allies. None of those wars were to democratize those nation's falsely thinking democracy cannot be bad in nature. None of those wars were to make America the ultimate power in the world.
Neo-con's hated the USSR and took similar stances towards it as traditional conservatives, but when it comes to weaker nations they have no problems sending someone else to go "democratize" those nations.
Reagan was speaking on behalf of Barry Goldwater, you realize Barry AuH20 was against Vietnam because he believed in TR's Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick diplomacy. Something neo-cons haven't the slightest clue about.
But iraq invaded their neighbors for world domination ..Bush jr ran against nation building ..he thought clinton was way too interventionalist ..Do you realize how many muslims groups supported bush jr in 2000? Bush and his dad wwere practicing detente that would even make nixon sickened lol .. bush and especially cheney (falsely labeled neocon thats a joke he was a lifelong conservative yet he loved terrorists and murders ) if you loook at history liberal republicans turned on goldwater they felt he was too hard line against the communists ..i read his book the conscience of the conservative ..he was a total neocon ..his supporters turned to reagan after his defeat in 64 .. this was the rise of new conservatism ..thats where neocons originated.. Rockefeller was the liberal wing and he was booed off the stage at the RNC .. very reminiscent of Ron Paul getting booed at the debates this past year.. Reagans main goal was to destroy and defeat communism .. and he did ..this is the line that scared the libs of the republican party..the reason i dislike bush's domestic policies is he totally opposite of reagan & goldwater ..with the exception of less taxes ..on foreign policy i give him an A+ ..on communication of foreign policy he sucks dick ..he won a war that 18 months ago seemed impossible .. now let me ask you this cause you never answer this question alex lol .. if the director oif the cia tells the president sadaam has got wmd its a slam dunk ..the brits are telling us about yellowcake and uranium what would you have done?? ..Now at the time iraq had the fourth largest military force in the world dont you remeber the libs telling us shock and awe would take months?? lol it happened in 3 days ..you watch these old clips its amazing how the same issues still effect us..
Now i absolutly agree Iraq was a disaster because we tried fighting terror with conventional warfare and we were gettin our butts kicked .. Until McCain and petraus pushed COUNTER_ INSURGENCY ... totally different paradigm than cheney-rumsfeld ..
ahh here rockefeller getting booed off the stage lol using the old fear mongering bullshit ala ron paul .. now bush domestically is more in league with rockerfeller which is why all conservative like me you and benny who may disagree on foreign policy hate bush's socialism and unfair trade .. i wouldnt call it free trade ..but bush jr was nothing like rockefeller appeasement attiude that reagan so genuisly pointed out .. if israel disappeared tomorow and we left all muslims countrys do you believe armijihad, bin laden, and all the other real war mongerers would be content?? would they embrace us and work with us?? would they no longer be guided by evil .. if you believe that we can only agree to disagree lol ..
so wat if Iraq invaded its neighbors for world domination? lol were not one of its neighbors, the only way he still couldve made money is if he sold oil, so it wouldnt have made a difference to us.
now about Bush, his foreign policy changed completely on 9/12, he went from non-interventionist to crazed idealouge.. and neo-cons did not come from Barry Goldwater, he was a conservative like Russel Kirk, William F Buckley.. neo-cons were leftists that did not have a home in the democratic party b/c of their anti-communism. they had no place left to go, the neocons were fusion candidates with the right wing so an anti-communist leader could be elected.
again if Reagan was a neo-con hed ha wouldnt have been a rght winger on the culture wars, and he wouldnt have let Iran/libya and other dictatorchips stay in power.. hed have toppled them and "nation build" who are the poeple saying Reagan didnt do enough militaryily? the neocons like Krauthammer, kristol, victor davis hanson and those other losers whose very names make my skin crawl
jameznyhc
07-27-2008, 08:04 PM
so wat if Iraq invaded its neighbors for world domination? lol were not one of its neighbors, the only way he still couldve made money is if he sold oil, so it wouldnt have made a difference to us.
now about Bush, his foreign policy changed completely on 9/12, he went from non-interventionist to crazed idealouge.. and neo-cons did not come from Barry Goldwater, he was a conservative like Russel Kirk, William F Buckley.. neo-cons were leftists that did not have a home in the democratic party b/c of their anti-communism. they had no place left to go, the neocons were fusion candidates with the right wing so an anti-communist leader could be elected.
again if Reagan was a neo-con hed ha wouldnt have been a rght winger on the culture wars, and he wouldnt have let Iran/libya and other dictatorchips stay in power.. hed have toppled them and "nation build" who are the poeple saying Reagan didnt do enough militaryily? the neocons like Krauthammer, kristol, victor davis hanson and those other losers whose very names make my skin crawl
reagan bombed libya killed khadafis family lol ..
George shultz said we should kill terrorists using military force ..dumbfuck bush senior the anti conservative who never met a terrorist he didnt wanna do business said and i quote "we will not kill 100 innocent men and women to get one terrorist" when he was VP .. Reagan came out and blasted him ..thats when the relationship between bush and reagan became strained ..ultimatly cheney baker and other terrorist appeasers and lovers got their way and pushed shultz out..Cheney baker and bush sr sold our sold and made deals with the slave masters like reagan warned against .. Reagan was also wrong in funding afghannis shultz begged him not too .. another massive mistake reagan made was when hezbollah killed our marines in 83 and he didnt respond all because of realpolitk bs.. After that they waged an 18 year war against us ..
Why hasnt bush bombed syria, iran, and north korea??? .. hes not that crazy ..you start one by one.. iraq was the easiest place because as reagan said about the el salvadorians .. the iraqi people EMBRACED democracy by voting in larger numbers than our own people and they are now progressing not regressing .. conscience matters .. human rights matter ..if sadaam got those oil fields wed be fucked ..thats where reagan went wrong but he had communism to deal with which at that time consumed him ..if it wasnt for reagn poland and russia would be communist toiday
I think kristol and krauthammer realized realpolitik was a mistake by arming sadaam hussein to do our dirty work ..i guess you wont answer my question about tenent telling bush wmd was slam dunk .. bush gave sadaam and even the afghannis a chance for peace you can not deny that ..Bush said to afghannis turn over al qaeda .. they refused to work towards peace ..he was willing to overlook that brutal regimes disgrceful ways in the name of peace.. he gave sadaam chance after chance to co-operate ..48 hours before we attacked in 2003 (18 months after 9/11) he gave sadaam the oppurtunity to avoid war ..Sadaams was convinced the russians and chinese would stop it ...but they couldnt bush did exactly as reagan would have done ..also khaddafi got bushs message i guess after reagan bombed his home he learned living was more important than allah lol
how can one embrace savage yet despise krauthammer?? .. Savage is a neocon as well he the most vocal about war on iran ..lol you confuse the hell out of me .. savage was a liberal in the 60s who found out he had no home in democrat party just as reagan did when affirmitive action opened hjis eyes
metfan85
07-27-2008, 08:10 PM
The point is Reagan sent a few bombs over he didnt risk bankrupting the country to set up a stupid fake democracy where the people didnt want it!
and how hasnt realpolitik worked? its worked everytime its tried! Saddam Hussein's Iraq suffered the causalities not us in the 80's.. like you said Reagan was a believe in realpolitik, which makes by definition doesnt make him a conservative.
the weekly standard doesnt have to go to war, the real patriots who sign up have to die for them... thats why they will never realize that winning a hot war with lots of casualies is cool, but winning a cold war with minimal casualties is a heck of a lot cooler
jameznyhc
07-27-2008, 08:18 PM
The point is Reagan sent a few bombs over he didnt risk bankrupting the country to set up a stupid fake democracy where the people didnt want it!
and how hasnt realpolitik worked? its worked everytime its tried! Saddam Hussein's Iraq suffered the causalities not us in the 80's.. like you said Reagan was a believe in realpolitik, which makes by definition doesnt make him a conservative.
the weekly standard doesnt have to go to war, the real patriots who sign up have to die for them... thats why they will never realize that winning a hot war with lots of casualies is cool, but winning a cold war with minimal casualties is a heck of a lot cooler
it didnt work because sadaam used those weapons to slaughter the kurds in 88, thats when reagan knew he fucked up bigtime .. read the reagan diaries.. he blasted realpolitk and the end of his administration .. did it help when he armed the afghannis ?? there the ones who blew us up in 2001 .. thats why kristol, and krauthammer and reagan and reagans son will tell you realpolitk is dead .. it died on 9/11 ..high casualties?? 4000 in a 5 year war is the lowest in recorded history ..
Clinton also failed with sending a few bombs remeber in 98 .. great move to start a war you have no intention of finishing thanks to sr and clinton bush jr had to stop sadaam ..answer the tenent question and did you support the war in 03?? lol..
actually i shouldnt say realpolitik is dead ..bush did negotiate with NK, Libya, and now iran .. my bad..
Alex your going to tell me with a straight face the shia and kurds did not want liberation and freedom to exist without genocide?? ..why did so many iraqis risk their lives going to the poles .. like reagan quoting that lady ..you can kill me , my family, but you cant kill us all .. thats why iraqis voted in such large numbers ..
Now you may question me and say james why is bush and petraus helping the iraqis defeat al qaeda and the sunnis.. here the difference when reagan liberated afghanistan by helping osama bin laden and the "so-called" freedom fighters ..he liberated an evil disgusting regime whose actions were more dangerous than the russians ..
Also why support the afghanistan war when the taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 .. that was Sadaams baby he was from yemen originally than SA .. the 19 hijackers were saudis.. is bush practicing realpolitik with SA and pakistan or should he have went after them all?? ..it doesnt help when the far right smear our president they did the same thing to reagan using liberal dirty tactics to create a case for themselves .. all we heard from buchanan was how bush was going to start a war with iran .. but savage was right bush didnt do shit just as i predicted ..do you thinks its moral for a nation like iran to have nuclear weapons?? reagan would be turning in his grave..lol reagan killed khaddafis family i wish bush would do the same to armijihad
jameznyhc
07-27-2008, 08:54 PM
totally off topic to my friend joyce (dzoys) .. i dont feel people avoid this forum when a spirited debate can be had between myself, alex or if im arguing points with jk or chris817 ..its all about respect!! and refraining from name calling, insults and labeling people racists is what turns them off ..people flying off the handle getting heated .. ..i could be wrong..but ive argued with them all ..its allways civil and respectful .. and its what makes this country so great..to bad the dems never challege each other id love to see that debate ..the only one that does is darius
jameznyhc
07-28-2008, 12:10 AM
it didnt work because sadaam used those weapons to slaughter the kurds in 88, thats when reagan knew he fucked up bigtime .. read the reagan diaries.. he blasted realpolitk and the end of his administration .. did it help when he armed the afghannis ?? there the ones who blew us up in 2001 .. thats why kristol, and krauthammer and reagan and reagans son will tell you realpolitk is dead .. it died on 9/11 ..high casualties?? 4000 in a 5 year war is the lowest in recorded history ..
Clinton also failed with sending a few bombs remeber in 98 .. great move to start a war you have no intention of finishing thanks to sr and clinton bush jr had to stop sadaam ..answer the tenent question and did you support the war in 03?? lol..
actually i shouldnt say realpolitik is dead ..bush did negotiate with NK, Libya, and now iran .. my bad..
Alex your going to tell me with a straight face the shia and kurds did not want liberation and freedom to exist without genocide?? ..why did so many iraqis risk their lives going to the poles .. like reagan quoting that lady ..you can kill me , my family, but you cant kill us all .. thats why iraqis voted in such large numbers ..
Now you may question me and say james why is bush and petraus helping the iraqis defeat al qaeda and the sunnis.. here the difference when reagan liberated afghanistan by helping osama bin laden and the "so-called" freedom fighters ..he liberated an evil disgusting regime whose actions were more dangerous than the russians ..
Also why support the afghanistan war when the taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 .. that was Sadaams baby he was from yemen originally than SA .. the 19 hijackers were saudis.. is bush practicing realpolitik with SA and pakistan or should he have went after them all?? ..it doesnt help when the far right smear our president they did the same thing to reagan using liberal dirty tactics to create a case for themselves .. all we heard from buchanan was how bush was going to start a war with iran .. but savage was right bush didnt do shit just as i predicted ..do you thinks its moral for a nation like iran to have nuclear weapons?? reagan would be turning in his grave..lol reagan killed khaddafis family i wish bush would do the same to armijihad
i meant osama ..
jameznyhc
07-28-2008, 07:54 AM
so wat if Iraq invaded its neighbors for world domination? lol were not one of its neighbors, the only way he still couldve made money is if he sold oil, so it wouldnt have made a difference to us.
now about Bush, his foreign policy changed completely on 9/12, he went from non-interventionist to crazed idealouge.. and neo-cons did not come from Barry Goldwater, he was a conservative like Russel Kirk, William F Buckley.. neo-cons were leftists that did not have a home in the democratic party b/c of their anti-communism. they had no place left to go, the neocons were fusion candidates with the right wing so an anti-communist leader could be elected.
again if Reagan was a neo-con hed ha wouldnt have been a rght winger on the culture wars, and he wouldnt have let Iran/libya and other dictatorchips stay in power.. hed have toppled them and "nation build" who are the poeple saying Reagan didnt do enough militaryily? the neocons like Krauthammer, kristol, victor davis hanson and those other losers whose very names make my skin crawl
one point i forgot too mention ..Russel Kirk was out spoken against libertarian neocons..he was more paleo-conservative old right, the old church, pro anglo, despised sexual revolution..they go way way back ..the fighting got so bad buckley was mediator betweent he paleos and libertarain/neo-cons ..Alot of paleos worked at national review but became disgutsed by reagan neocon ways and there was a rift in the 60s but by the the 80s ..kirk was preaching anti reagan neo-con, Goldwater went to opposite direction and embraced libertarianism ..Buchanan i would also consider paleo ..isnt that where "the american conservative" was born out of.. the paleos wanted to run buchanan for president in 88 ..buchanan refused but ultimatly ran as a 3rd party against senior bush the biggest lib republican since rokefeller ..thankgod his son is nothing like him..paleos also are not pro israel..reagan was very pro-israeli ..
metfan85
07-28-2008, 03:04 PM
one point i forgot too mention ..Russel Kirk was out spoken against libertarian neocons..he was more paleo-conservative old right, the old church, pro anglo, despised sexual revolution..they go way way back ..the fighting got so bad buckley was mediator betweent he paleos and libertarain/neo-cons ..Alot of paleos worked at national review but became disgutsed by reagan neocon ways and there was a rift in the 60s but by the the 80s ..kirk was preaching anti reagan neo-con, Goldwater went to opposite direction and embraced libertarianism ..Buchanan i would also consider paleo ..isnt that where "the american conservative" was born out of.. the paleos wanted to run buchanan for president in 88 ..buchanan refused but ultimatly ran as a 3rd party against senior bush the biggest lib republican since rokefeller ..thankgod his son is nothing like him..paleos also are not pro israel..reagan was very pro-israeli ..
yeah Thank God Bush 43 was not like Bush 41, are you kidding? Bush 43 will go down in history as the worst President in history far worse than Clinton. Im not getting into the rest because frankly libertarian and traditional conservatives both share something in common that neo-cons will never, we are first and foremost anti-statists.
Benny B
07-28-2008, 03:32 PM
yeah Thank God Bush 43 was not like Bush 41, are you kidding? Bush 43 will go down in history as the worst President in history far worse than Clinton. Im not getting into the rest because frankly libertarian and traditional conservatives both share something in common that neo-cons will never, we are first and foremost anti-statists.
:yipee statistics.. polls.. fuckem alllll
metfan85
07-28-2008, 03:45 PM
:yipee statistics.. polls.. fuckem alllll
:LOL yeahhhh its those damn statistics down with them!!....
:shuffle
i meant government.. anti state
jameznyhc
07-28-2008, 04:02 PM
yeah Thank God Bush 43 was not like Bush 41, are you kidding? Bush 43 will go down in history as the worst President in history far worse than Clinton. Im not getting into the rest because frankly libertarian and traditional conservatives both share something in common that neo-cons will never, we are first and foremost anti-statists.
so we agree to disagree .. my biggest concern is islamic fundamentalism ..its happening in britain ..there loosing there country ..letting iran get nukes is a great danger and as reagan stated appeasement never worked ..but look alex you can vote for barr ..kick the neocons to the curb .. good debate bro.
Benny B
07-28-2008, 04:10 PM
:LOL yeahhhh its those damn statistics down with them!!....
:shuffle
i meant government.. anti state
:chuckle
i know what you meant..you should know me by now.. lol
Chris
07-28-2008, 04:30 PM
yeah Thank God Bush 43 was not like Bush 41, are you kidding? Bush 43 will go down in history as the worst President in history far worse than Clinton. Im not getting into the rest because frankly libertarian and traditional conservatives both share something in common that neo-cons will never, we are first and foremost anti-statists.
you guys are anti statistic? you mean when it suits your argument tho right? ;-)
Chris
07-28-2008, 04:32 PM
so we agree to disagree .. my biggest concern is islamic fundamentalism ..its happening in britain ..there loosing there country ..letting iran get nukes is a great danger and as reagan stated appeasement never worked ..but look alex you can vote for barr ..kick the neocons to the curb .. good debate bro.
letting iran get nukes?!
waht about the 20 other countries that HAVE them and hate us... pick a fight too many times eventaully you lose...
lets say particulary like oh umm i don't know... North Korea?
jameznyhc
07-28-2008, 07:39 PM
letting iran get nukes?!
waht about the 20 other countries that HAVE them and hate us... pick a fight too many times eventaully you lose...
lets say particulary like oh umm i don't know... North Korea?
The problem with Iran is they are "state sponsers of terrorism" they fund hezbollah .. the president Armijihad is the hitler of our time..His goal is the destruction of israel all you have to do is listen ..and he is more explicit than fuckin hitler was .. Does anyone study history.. C.A.I.R. is trying to take Michael Savage of the air ..Who the fuck do they think they are?? see this enrages me .. to the point that its hard to put into words ..Who the fuck is anyone to silence anybody in my country?? This country is a free nation .. In britain they wanna bring sharia law into the muslim community are they fucking insane?? Britain opens their doors gives them a home like we do ..we let them worship and lead productive lives yet there going to stab in the country in the back that welcome them by trying to take over.. you let iran go nuclear .. saudi will go nuclear ..you wanna a cold war with the middle east.. look the moderate muslims are not rising up ..they are enslaved over there ...they speak out there dead.. wife cheats she stoned to death.. you wanna give that nation the bomb that buries women up to their waists and stones them to death ..do you realize hopw twisted and sick you gotta be to engage in that .. yet we go over there with a bible we are lynched .. im sick of the PC bullshit ..nobody ever wants to have a real honest discussion of radical fundamenatlist islam .. if they are the minority why are 3 billion fuckin enslaved ... give me a break bro
Chris
07-28-2008, 08:10 PM
The problem with Iran is they are "state sponsers of terrorism" they fund hezbollah .. the president Armijihad is the hitler of our time..His goal is the destruction of israel all you have to do is listen ..and he is more explicit than fuckin hitler was .. Does anyone study history.. C.A.I.R. is trying to take Michael Savage of the air ..Who the fuck do they think they are?? see this enrages me .. to the point that its hard to put into words ..Who the fuck is anyone to silence anybody in my country?? This country is a free nation .. In britain they wanna bring sharia law into the muslim community are they fucking insane?? Britain opens their doors gives them a home like we do ..we let them worship and lead productive lives yet there going to stab in the country in the back that welcome them by trying to take over.. you let iran go nuclear .. saudi will go nuclear ..you wanna a cold war with the middle east.. look the moderate muslims are not rising up ..they are enslaved over there ...they speak out there dead.. wife cheats she stoned to death.. you wanna give that nation the bomb that buries women up to their waists and stones them to death ..do you realize hopw twisted and sick you gotta be to engage in that .. yet we go over there with a bible we are lynched .. im sick of the PC bullshit ..nobody ever wants to have a real honest discussion of radical fundamenatlist islam .. if they are the minority why are 3 billion fuckin enslaved ... give me a break bro
i got news for you..
we are as free as they let us think we are free. we are far from free in this country.
when we change things like killing of women and children into the word of collateral damage,
things like censorship for the reason of censorship alone, tellling our children they can't listen to some lyrics then plastering the tv and movies with violence.
I agree with you on some fronts about iran but truth be told. watch the movie 3 kings.
theres a part in their that a guy named Said tortures mark Walhberg and listen to the conversation between the 2.
its prettty real and pretty much what still goes on. we can't free nations when our mind is on their oil. if we were freeing them for freeing thems sake thats one thing, but to galavant around as if we are trying to free them for their own benefit and notthing to do with us rediculous.
metfan85
07-28-2008, 09:37 PM
3 Kings is one of my favorite movies.. have a few uncles that worked in Libya, Iran Lebanon and Syria when Yugoslavia was rules by Tito and they tell me the same things. People in those countries look at us like Imperialists, making the world safe for McDonalds...
I dunno bout you guys, but I say its time we stop playing cop to the world and worry about the homeland
JustLikeHeaven
07-28-2008, 11:54 PM
3 Kings is one of my favorite movies.. have a few uncles that worked in Libya, Iran Lebanon and Syria when Yugoslavia was rules by Tito and they tell me the same things. People in those countries look at us like Imperialists, making the world safe for McDonalds...
I dunno bout you guys, but I say its time we stop playing cop to the world and worry about the homeland
I was gonna watch that movie last night it's on Demand...some good eye candy in there, too...but I ended up watching American Psycho for the 80 billionth time instead :shuffle
jameznyhc
07-29-2008, 07:25 AM
funny were considered imperialists while CAIR trys to hijack my country.. 3500 of my citizens were murdered in one day .. islamic fundamentalists try to enforce sharia law in britain .. try to get michael savage fired.. preach hate against my country.. preach hate against britain and all the west .. and launch suicicde attacks worldwide .. the fundamentalists blew up Iraq, turkey and india this week not a peep from ythe media ..self hating americans blaming themselves..because people in russia choose to eat at a Mcdonalds lol ..are we in muslim countrys opening churches? filing law suits against islamic programs? preaching pro western values ? nope because if you name a teddy beah Muhamed mobs swarm to kill you ..does george bush get on TV every week calling Iran the great satan who is committed to their destruction .. lol .. yeah were the imperialists .. we'd nevber be in afghanistan if they duidnt kill us fly planes into our towers .. we wouldnt be in iraq if they didnt try taking over the middle east and seizing saudi oil fields..but its our fault Sadaam was a tyrant, invader, torturer .. they look at us as imperialists ..i look at them as savage subhuman psychopatic luntaics .. theyre the ones after world domination .. but the america haters at home especially the far left blame us for their disgusting behavior ..such a joke ..are we launching attacks against israel? pakistan? turkey? australia? spain? germany? britain? ... nope they did .. and were the imperialists ..lmao ..its americas fault..
Perfect example of why appeasement fails .. look at spain ..why do they launch terrorist attacks in all these other countries who bend over backwards and cower to them?? i didnt see spain send one brigrade to iraq .. people have no clue .. brainwashed by our liberal self hating media