1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Gaard, it says our ideals, principles, and beliefs ARE moral... and the security of those things -our country- is a moral imperative.

So the next time someone shouts "We're there for the oppressed Iraqis, I should raise my finger and say "Yeah, but..."?

Liberating Country 'X' is moral. Liberating Country 'Y' is moral. Yet, we'll only bother to help the one that suits our interests. I think the word 'morality' is somewhat diminished in this context, don't you?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yeah, YOU were lied too, blah blah.... stupid people seem to get "lied to" a lot. Funny how that works.

It's been almost 2 years now, can you guys get a life? Your "LIES" has been hopelessly ignored.

For the record, people like you are the ones who bought the lies. I never did. Feel free to bleat your denials, however. If I were in your shoes, I'd find reality too painful to bear too.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Thought control seems to be working very well on you sir.

Wrong - You, conjur, and bowfinger don't seem to have a very good memory if you don't think I'm correct. However, I'll just chalk it up to blind rage from losing...

CsG

Oh? I'm incorrect? Tell that to Colin Powell:

Powell's full testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 9/26/2002:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/gover...c-afternoon-092602.htm

SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. : (Aside.) Thank you, Senator (Rockefeller ?). (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, I'm looking at pages 2 and 3 of your statement. Is the United States prepared to go to war against Iraq if it engages in illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program that's been established by the U.N.?

SEC. POWELL: The principal concern that we have are weapons of mass destruction, and the principal focus of the U.N. resolutions are weapons of mass destructions (sic), and that's what the inspection regime was trying to uncover and destroy. At the same time, however, Iraq is in violation of many other provisions, and --

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) -- I'm looking at -- I'm looking at your statement, and you say, "What Iraq must do to repair this breach."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war --

SEN. BIDEN: (Aside.) We still have a vote at 3:45.

SEN. SARBANES: -- to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say "What they must do."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: So they must do that or otherwise, we're prepared to move against them?

SEC. POWELL: That's -- I don't think I said that, Senator.

SEN. SARBANES: Okay, but what about --

SEC. POWELL: I'm saying -- I'm identifying, if I may -- I'm identifying the specific U.N. resolutions that they're in violation of, and under U.N. resolutions, they are supposed to comply with those resolutions. They have the force of international law.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say, "If these demands on Iraq sound like regime change, then so be it." Will we go -- will we take military action or go to war in order to make them release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown? Would we do that?

SEC. POWELL: I think the operating clause in that that is of the greatest concern is the one having to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that any of the others individually would lead to that kind of consequence.

SEN. SARBANES: So if you just -- I mean, if they did that, that would -- that's the one towards which war is directed.

SEC. POWELL: I think what we have to do -- no, I don't want to make that connection, Senator. I think what we have to do is look at their total response to these resolutions.

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) --

SEC. POWELL: And the resolution of greatest concern, the issue of greatest concern are the weapons of mass destruction. Which is why in 1998, both the United States Congress and the previous administration made that the policy of the United States government.

SEN. SARBANES: Why are you listing all these things? If the mass -- if the weapons is the thing, shouldn't we -- do you want authority to use military force again Iraq from the Congress in order to make them comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? Do you want that authority?

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

Tell that to Ari Fleischer:

Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Ari Fleischer September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/info...q/excerpts_sept26.html

QUESTION: Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Tell it to Paul Wolfowitz, too:

WMDs only 'bureaucratic reason' for war: Wolfowitz
http://www.smh.com.au/articles.../29/1053801479971.html

The US decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in remarks released today.

Wolfowitz, seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, said President Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons was merely one of several reasons behind the decision to go to war.

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.

However, just two months later, Wolfowitz was already singing a different tune (flip-flopping along with Bush)
Wolfowitz 'Not Concerned' About WMDs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92566,00.html

Finding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (search) that President Bush cited as his main justification for going to war is now a secondary issue, says Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (search).

In an interview Monday night aboard an Air Force jet en route to Washington following a five-day tour of Iraq, Wolfowitz said the task of settling the weapons question is in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies.

"I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction," Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him. "I'm concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn't come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction."

He also asserted that Iraqis themselves have little concern about the weapons issue.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Gaard, it says our ideals, principles, and beliefs ARE moral... and the security of those things -our country- is a moral imperative.

As long as you believe that this is true, in the imperative sense (i.e. that whatever America thinks MUST be right, which is ridiculous) and that giving King George carte blanche to use force in Iraq however he sees fit... then you are a hopeless ideologue, but at least we can all save time by not arguing with you anymore.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong - You, conjur, and bowfinger don't seem to have a very good memory if you don't think I'm correct. However, I'll just chalk it up to blind rage from losing...

CsG

Because you say so? Yeah, right. You love to make unsupported claims, insisting that your opinion is the word of God/George.

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: Infohawk
How convenient that Bush stuffed so many casualties into the period AFTER the election...

Tell it to Margaret Hasan . It seems the F-ING BEHEADINGS have begun to add up as well. Notice, I referenced Al-Jazeera so you neo-socialist hate mongers would believe it. Lord knows, if it comes from CNN, MSNBC, or Fox news it's all a big lie.
It seems that you leftists would rather we just left Iraq to these same savages, right? That's what you want, isn't it? For the US to just stop the "illegal occupation" and leave, right?
Maybe you all have a better idea? I'd like to hear it.

Spell it out for me, right here, right now.

Fine.

Y-o-u...a-r-e...a...t-r-o-l-l.

That's precisely what I thought your "answer" would be. It saddens me that I was correct.

What saddens everyone else is that *I'm* correct.

I think maybe it's just you who is sad. It's good that you have an outlet here for all of your irrational hate. I still have not, as yet, heard anything that even remotely resembles a better plan. Just more incessant yammering about how it's wrong, wrong, wrong and how everyone who get's fed up with your infantile drivel is a T-R-O-L-L. I'd just like to hear the neo-socialist SOLUTION to the situation...that's all.

 

[conjur]

Guess you'll have to ask a "neo-socialist"...whatever the hell that is.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yeah, YOU were lied too, blah blah.... stupid people seem to get "lied to" a lot. Funny how that works.

It's been almost 2 years now, can you guys get a life? Your "LIES" has been hopelessly ignored.

That is the respect you give to your dead contrymen?

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: conjur
Guess you'll have to ask a "neo-socialist"...whatever the hell that is.

In a word, you.

 

[cwjerome]

Idiot: Do you understand between right and wrong? Good and bad? Certain ideas, concepts and beliefs are better than others? Then think about that for a while and let me know when you're ready for serious conversation. K, thx, gg, nore

Gaard: That's actually a good question. I would say based on evidence, the US is the most moral nation that's ever existed, so doing what serves our interests is by default the moral thing to do. Our ideals, principles, and beliefs -the Western Universals we strive towards- are the most moral notions ever devised based on best possible evidence. Of course we should stand up and defend our beliefs and ideals. That does not entail becoming sacrificial fodder for the world's problems. This is the key point: the US government has a responsibility to the people IN THIS COUNTRY. It's called a social contract, and we agree to give certain powers to government, and it agrees to serve its purpose as stated in the preamble of the Constitution. Nowhere does it say anything about doing those things for the people of the world.

As ugly as it might sound to some, acting in our self interest means acting to protect and promote the universal ideals the US government has promised its citizens. That's why acting in our self interest is moral. Allowing a bloodletting over anything other than that is criminal.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: freakflag

I think maybe it's just you who is sad. It's good that you have an outlet here for all of your irrational hate. I still have not, as yet, heard anything that even remotely resembles a better plan. Just more incessant yammering about how it's wrong, wrong, wrong and how everyone who get's fed up with your infantile drivel is a T-R-O-L-L. I'd just like to hear the neo-socialist SOLUTION to the situation...that's all.

First of all, try reading conjur's posts - he isn't a socialist. He isn't even a democrat!

Second, don't prefix any word with 'neo' to make it derogatory. It makes you look like a schoolkid trying to impress people.

Neoconservativism is a legitimate philosophical/economic school of thought, and is very similar to neoliberalism (neither have anything to do with classical 'liberalism'). Neo-socialism doesn't even exist to the best of my knowledge, and certainly isn't what conjur is supporting here, or elsewhere, which in general is nothing more than accountability and honesty.

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: freakflag

I think maybe it's just you who is sad. It's good that you have an outlet here for all of your irrational hate. I still have not, as yet, heard anything that even remotely resembles a better plan. Just more incessant yammering about how it's wrong, wrong, wrong and how everyone who get's fed up with your infantile drivel is a T-R-O-L-L. I'd just like to hear the neo-socialist SOLUTION to the situation...that's all.

First of all, try reading conjur's posts - he isn't a socialist. He isn't even a democrat!

Second, don't prefix any word with 'neo' to make it derogatory. It makes you look like a schoolkid trying to impress people.

Neoconservativism is a legitimate philosophical/economic school of thought, and is very similar to neoliberalism (neither have anything to do with classical 'liberalism'). Neo-socialism doesn't even exist to the best of my knowledge, and certainly isn't what conjur is supporting here, or elsewhere, which in general is nothing more than accountability and honesty.

Throwing around the label 'Neo-con' to everyone with a conservative veiwpoint isn't derogatory?

EDIT: Is the sarcasm that veiled?

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Yeah, YOU were lied too, blah blah.... stupid people seem to get "lied to" a lot. Funny how that works.

It's been almost 2 years now, can you guys get a life? Your "LIES" has been hopelessly ignored.

LOL. That must make you and Cad the 2 dumbest people on earth.

 

[Engineer]

A one and only reply to this thread.....

1,200 of OUR countrymen and women have been killed in a war, regardless of it being justified or not. A salute and a

for each of them. Their names are updated in Perknose's and b0mbrman's threads everyday. Names, ages, and information paint more of a picture than even the large number does.....

1,200

's .......and one silent salute.....

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: freakflag
Throwing around the label 'Neo-con' to everyone with a conservative veiwpoint isn't derogatory?

Sometimes it is - sometimes it's accurate. It really depends on whether the idea in question is neoconservative in origin or not.

Throwing around 'neo-socialist' will always be inaccurate. So 'sometimes' or 'always' insulting; take your pick of which term has more potential to be abused.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Gaard, it says our ideals, principles, and beliefs ARE moral... and the security of those things -our country- is a moral imperative.

Those things were not threatened by Iraq.

We have the moral right to take out any dictatorship, slave pen, or rogue state there is. But a huge distinction is we don't have the DUTY to take them out. Whether we do or not should depend on our national interests, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers and thugs. Me and many other believe Iraq was in our national interest.

OK, lemme see if I get this straight. Any country that isn't a democracy you have the right to invade, on moral grounds (which seems pretty philosophical to me, but I'll let charlie handle that one).

But, the decision on whether or not you do invade is made by the US administration, based on America's self-interest. Regardless of moral questions.

And who decided this was right? Oh yeah, the American President.

And who decides who is a bad enough dictator? Oh yeah, the American President.

And who decides what is in America's best interest? Oh yeah, the American President.

Sounds like a great system to me!!
Sign me up!! (Just don't put me on the ground).

What happens if you replace democracy with Socialist state? Or Christiandom? Or Kaliphate? Or Vaterland? Or Civilization?

So spare me the dungheap of relativist jargon about "rights" and "soveriegn nation" BS. Ascribing "freedom" to a country that hasn't a clue as what freedom even is obliterates the moral meaning of the term.

THAT FVCKING COUNTRY HAD A CLUE WHAT BREATHING WAS, COULDN'T YOU HAVE LET THEM AT LEAST KEEP DOING THAT!?!?!??!?!?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: conjur
Guess you'll have to ask a "neo-socialist"...whatever the hell that is.

In a word, you.

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: freakflag
Throwing around the label 'Neo-con' to everyone with a conservative veiwpoint isn't derogatory?

Sometimes it is - sometimes it's accurate. It really depends on whether the idea in question is neoconservative in origin or not.

Throwing around 'neo-socialist' will always be inaccurate. So 'sometimes' or 'always' insulting; take your pick of which term has more potential to be abused.

Why, because is isn't in your text book?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Thought control seems to be working very well on you sir.

Wrong - You, conjur, and bowfinger don't seem to have a very good memory if you don't think I'm correct. However, I'll just chalk it up to blind rage from losing...

CsG

Oh? I'm incorrect? Tell that to Colin Powell:

Powell's full testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 9/26/2002:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/gover...c-afternoon-092602.htm

SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. : (Aside.) Thank you, Senator (Rockefeller ?). (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, I'm looking at pages 2 and 3 of your statement. Is the United States prepared to go to war against Iraq if it engages in illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program that's been established by the U.N.?

SEC. POWELL: The principal concern that we have are weapons of mass destruction, and the principal focus of the U.N. resolutions are weapons of mass destructions (sic), and that's what the inspection regime was trying to uncover and destroy. At the same time, however, Iraq is in violation of many other provisions, and --

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) -- I'm looking at -- I'm looking at your statement, and you say, "What Iraq must do to repair this breach."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war --

SEN. BIDEN: (Aside.) We still have a vote at 3:45.

SEN. SARBANES: -- to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say "What they must do."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: So they must do that or otherwise, we're prepared to move against them?

SEC. POWELL: That's -- I don't think I said that, Senator.

SEN. SARBANES: Okay, but what about --

SEC. POWELL: I'm saying -- I'm identifying, if I may -- I'm identifying the specific U.N. resolutions that they're in violation of, and under U.N. resolutions, they are supposed to comply with those resolutions. They have the force of international law.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say, "If these demands on Iraq sound like regime change, then so be it." Will we go -- will we take military action or go to war in order to make them release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown? Would we do that?

SEC. POWELL: I think the operating clause in that that is of the greatest concern is the one having to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that any of the others individually would lead to that kind of consequence.

SEN. SARBANES: So if you just -- I mean, if they did that, that would -- that's the one towards which war is directed.

SEC. POWELL: I think what we have to do -- no, I don't want to make that connection, Senator. I think what we have to do is look at their total response to these resolutions.

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) --

SEC. POWELL: And the resolution of greatest concern, the issue of greatest concern are the weapons of mass destruction. Which is why in 1998, both the United States Congress and the previous administration made that the policy of the United States government.

SEN. SARBANES: Why are you listing all these things? If the mass -- if the weapons is the thing, shouldn't we -- do you want authority to use military force again Iraq from the Congress in order to make them comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? Do you want that authority?

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

Tell that to Ari Fleischer:

Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Ari Fleischer September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/info...q/excerpts_sept26.html

QUESTION: Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Tell it to Paul Wolfowitz, too:

WMDs only 'bureaucratic reason' for war: Wolfowitz
http://www.smh.com.au/articles.../29/1053801479971.html

The US decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in remarks released today.

Wolfowitz, seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, said President Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons was merely one of several reasons behind the decision to go to war.

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.

However, just two months later, Wolfowitz was already singing a different tune (flip-flopping along with Bush)
Wolfowitz 'Not Concerned' About WMDs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92566,00.html

Finding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (search) that President Bush cited as his main justification for going to war is now a secondary issue, says Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (search).

In an interview Monday night aboard an Air Force jet en route to Washington following a five-day tour of Iraq, Wolfowitz said the task of settling the weapons question is in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies.

"I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction," Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him. "I'm concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn't come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction."

He also asserted that Iraqis themselves have little concern about the weapons issue.

CsG got awfully quiet all of a sudden.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: freakflag
Throwing around the label 'Neo-con' to everyone with a conservative veiwpoint isn't derogatory?

Sometimes it is - sometimes it's accurate. It really depends on whether the idea in question is neoconservative in origin or not.

Throwing around 'neo-socialist' will always be inaccurate. So 'sometimes' or 'always' insulting; take your pick of which term has more potential to be abused.

Why, because is isn't in your text book?

Well I suppose if you made up the word, you're more than welcome to use it.

Of course when you define it as 'conjur' it's not a very useful or meaningful word, is it?

I don't like the amount of airtime 'neocon' gets around here, but only because it is often used to describe things which are actually indicative of the Bush administration particular, and not neoconservatism in general.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
CsG got awfully quiet all of a sudden.

No, CsG was busy at home with kids who won't stay in bed.

However - you didn't seem to read what I said and then proceeded to post a bunch of irrelevant BS. You claimed it was the "sole justification" -but that is incorrect like I said. There were many justifications - many of which would stand on their own.

CsG

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: freakflag
Throwing around the label 'Neo-con' to everyone with a conservative veiwpoint isn't derogatory?

Sometimes it is - sometimes it's accurate. It really depends on whether the idea in question is neoconservative in origin or not.

Throwing around 'neo-socialist' will always be inaccurate. So 'sometimes' or 'always' insulting; take your pick of which term has more potential to be abused.

Why, because is isn't in your text book?

Actually, I've heard neo-socialist used to describe the mixed-market policies of West Germany after the 50s. They are what turned Germany into the engine of Europe's economy.

A neo-conservative is someone who believes in the liberal use of unconstrained US military force to further it's own interests abroad, and a policy of low taxation at home, even if political neccessity requires running deficits. The Neo-cons in the US have tactically allied themselves to the "moral majority" for electoral purposes. If you generally support the first two policies, then you are a neo-con, and should not take offense to the term.

Traditional conservatism supported low taxes with a balanced budget, and a less interventionist foriegn policy than the Roosevelt-Kennedy-Johnson liberals.

A further distinction is that ante-conservatives supported state's rights, and a small government, with low federal taxes being a conclusion of those two policies. Also, low taxation was seen as a good-in-itself.

Neo-conservatives, by neccessity of their focus on aggressive internationalism, require a larger federal government, and support low taxes because of the economic efficiencies that can be realized.

 

[cwjerome]

Kibbo: "Those things were not threatened by Iraq."

Well that's pretty debatable. I, along with millions of others, think we were.

I don't really understand the rest of your post. Let me just repeat that a dictatorship can claim no national rights and no such recognition of such "rights" by civilized countries. Dictatorship states are outlaws, and any free nation has the RIGHT -though not the DUTY- to destroy it. Whether it is destroyed would depend on the context, ie, the threat to one's interests (which are morally superior to the interests of a slave-state).

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: freakflag
Throwing around the label 'Neo-con' to everyone with a conservative veiwpoint isn't derogatory?

Sometimes it is - sometimes it's accurate. It really depends on whether the idea in question is neoconservative in origin or not.

Throwing around 'neo-socialist' will always be inaccurate. So 'sometimes' or 'always' insulting; take your pick of which term has more potential to be abused.

Why, because is isn't in your text book?

Well I suppose if you made up the word, you're more than welcome to use it.

Of course when you define it as 'conjur' it's not a very useful or meaningful word, is it?

I don't like the amount of airtime 'neocon' gets around here, but only because it is often used to describe things which are actually indicative of the Bush administration particular, and not neoconservatism in general.

Neo-Socialism
By Gary Schneider (04/29/03)

To attempt and understand the many varied positions and policies embraced, or otherwise represented by the Left, we must assume that, at some base level, they are founded in a semblance of logic and purpose. Though extremely difficult, the challenge then is to establish what that logic and purpose may be and from where it is derived.

If this is established, an understanding can be developed that begins to decode their seeming day to day defiance of logic, history and common sense ? thereby mitigating, albeit just a little, the extreme and frustrating befuddlement most mainstream Americans inherently feel when confronted with the illogical output of a Liberal mind. You see, to the Left, history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy?A philosophy that is rooted in Socialism. Given the historical irrelevance that has befallen Socialism (or Socialist policy) in all its manifestations, the Left must effectively reverse engineer nearly all forms of reality in order for it to conform ? or lend justification to, its core set of beliefs. Socialism (and its younger cousin Liberalism) has in effect become a religion that has been proven false by virtually any objective means, and the followers of this religion must necessarily either be dupes or duplicitous in their allegiance to the faith. It has devolved into being a belief system sustained by emotion not cognition, but one that nevertheless seeks cognitive validation. So the requirement for the illogical to become logical and for fiction to become fact (or fact-fiction) has indeed become a high priority for the keepers and purveyors of this doctrine. Once you accept this, well, then Liberalism makes perfect sense.


EDIT:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: freakflag
Neo-Socialism
By Gary Schneider (04/29/03)

To attempt and understand the many varied positions and policies embraced, or otherwise represented by the Left, we must assume that, at some base level, they are founded in a semblance of logic and purpose. Though extremely difficult, the challenge then is to establish what that logic and purpose may be and from where it is derived.

If this is established, an understanding can be developed that begins to decode their seeming day to day defiance of logic, history and common sense ? thereby mitigating, albeit just a little, the extreme and frustrating befuddlement most mainstream Americans inherently feel when confronted with the illogical output of a Liberal mind. You see, to the Left, history, fact and logic are secondary to the defense and promotion of its philosophy?A philosophy that is rooted in Socialism. Given the historical irrelevance that has befallen Socialism (or Socialist policy) in all its manifestations, the Left must effectively reverse engineer nearly all forms of reality in order for it to conform ? or lend justification to, its core set of beliefs. Socialism (and its younger cousin Liberalism) has in effect become a religion that has been proven false by virtually any objective means, and the followers of this religion must necessarily either be dupes or duplicitous in their allegiance to the faith. It has devolved into being a belief system sustained by emotion not cognition, but one that nevertheless seeks cognitive validation. So the requirement for the illogical to become logical and for fiction to become fact (or fact-fiction) has indeed become a high priority for the keepers and purveyors of this doctrine. Once you accept this, well, then Liberalism makes perfect sense.

Alright then - the condescending and idiotic rhetoric of the actual definition laid aside, you've found a reference to neo-socialism (I like Kibbo's better though).

Now if only that had anything to do with Conjur's post, you would be well justified in using the term.

Edit: You love to edit!