It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Roots and the War on Terror - Is the US on the right path?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Did you take the test Rant??????


I kind of like it, because it takes away a lot of the fluff as you cvall it.

Of course its just a stupid internet test, but kinda interesting




posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Did you take the test Rant??????


I kind of like it, because it takes away a lot of the fluff as you cvall it.

Of course its just a stupid internet test, but kinda interesting


Yup, even tried to cheat.
Still came out liberal.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Ah but go take the quiz, the results might surprise you, they did me.


Took the quiz and I came out a realist. Although I can still surprise myself with viewpoints on various things when it comes down to basic thinking I seem to stay true to the realist model. At least so far, but you never know when the wind will change.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Not surprisingly to me, reading the descriptions, I would have said I’m an Isolationist-Liberal with a few Realist tendencies. I'm always spread across several catagories in these things.

The test says I'm an Isolationist. It's all about me, I tell ya!


I had a hard time choosing between 2 similar answers on several questions, so I could probably take it on another day and come out Liberal.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Amuk
Did you take the test Rant??????


I kind of like it, because it takes away a lot of the fluff as you cvall it.

Of course its just a stupid internet test, but kinda interesting


Yup, even tried to cheat.
Still came out liberal.



RANT we almost never see eye to eye, but I DO respect you. You are consistent.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by koji_K
Why was there no "conservative" result on that questionaire? It's pretty incorrect to call reagan a neoconservative. The two are incredibly different ideologies.

-koji K.


This reads like a check list for the Reagan/Bush administration though as pertains to foreign policy which this test exclusively covers.

Neoconservatives…

* Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
* Share unwavering support for Israel
* Support American unilateral action
* Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
* Promote the development of an American empire
* Equate American power with the potential for world peace
* Seek to democratize the Arab world
* Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

As I was saying earlier there was alot of sugary candy coating to Reagan to make all that palatable (to most people), and the modern lexicon of "conservative" is just that IMO. Values are icing, not applicable ideology or policy.


[edit on 14-8-2005 by RANT]


I see your points, and I agree with them. But I would still say that as regards " Support American unilateral action " and maybe also " Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security " Reagan has a much keener sense of the power and necessity of consensus building. Sure, he was more willing than others to flex US power, particularly in South America, but he did not, to my knowledge, support preemption as national policy.

If the neoconservative movement is to be exposed as the extreme, special interest group it is, it shouldn't be able to cloak itself as simply the logical progression of conservatism. The founders of the neoconservative movement were reacting to conservatism moreso than liberalism. Still, it is just an internet survey...

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K Reagan has a much keener sense of the power and necessity of consensus building. Sure, he was more willing than others to flex US power, particularly in South America, but he did not, to my knowledge, support preemption as national policy.




He didnt watch 911 happen on his watch either, he confronted the USSR head on, all the while the tulipwalkers cried foul, just as today. Nothings changed.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by koji_K Reagan has a much keener sense of the power and necessity of consensus building. Sure, he was more willing than others to flex US power, particularly in South America, but he did not, to my knowledge, support preemption as national policy.




He didnt watch 911 happen on his watch either, he confronted the USSR head on, all the while the tulipwalkers cried foul, just as today. Nothings changed.


Of course, every administration deals with a different set of circumstances and challenges. But that doesn't mean they don't have an underlying ideology. 9/11 didn't dictate the Bush administrations response, the "response" was already decided by the neocons. It just presented the opportunity. Another administration would have handled the situation differently, depending on the ideology it was influenced by.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K Another administration would have handled the situation differently, depending on the ideology it was influenced by.-koji K.


Oh I agree and I would argue that you would have seen what we did in the 90's.....nothing.


Please Mr. Terror dude, dont attack us or well get the UN to put sanctions on you, and we all know that they work right?



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Please Mr. Terror dude, dont attack us or well get the UN to put sanctions on you, and we all know that they work right?


Watch the Iran situation unfold and the UN backbone will be fully revealed, again.

Anyhow, the thing with terrorism today, is despite administration, despite ideology, I see a divide and that divide is to the point that now when a terrorist act takes place, instead of blaming those who did the act, the act is blamed on the government that the act was against. It's like when the man or woman with the backpack explodes his or her bomb, some of those innocents killed will be saying in their dying words [or thoughts] about the blown apart suicide bomber suicide, the one who committed the act of terrorism: "It's not your fault. I blame Bush/Blair."

Ironic, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 14-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Sadly you are right,


the left will blame Bush no matter....



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Sanctions have nothing to do with terror. Sanctions are directed against nation states. As are, incidentally, wars and occupations.

Terror can only be fought if we realize the stateless nature of modern terror groups.

The only way to fight this new type of terror is by a.) denying the terrorists popular support, which means refraining from acts which would give them more support and b.) working in concert with the police forces and intelligence agencies of as many nations as we possibly can to fight a common, *borderless* threat. Both these strategies, however, are completely antithetical to the neoconservative belief in unilateralism.

The only way we can really begin to fight terror is when we get some new thinking into the highest levels of government.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Agree completely with you Koji. The first battle in the war on terror must be for hearts and minds and it is one we are currently losing. If we can persuade the middle eastern people that the west is working on their side to help them and make their life better, the support for terrorist organisations will start to dry up.

That velvet glove needs to be wrapped around an iron fist of co-operative police action to root out the leaders of these terrorist sects and the people who are financing them.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
In my opinion if the first battle is for the hearts and minds, then we are simply rewarding them. Carrots AND sticks are necessary.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
The only way to fight this new type of terror is by a.) denying the terrorists popular support, which means refraining from acts which would give them more support and


Uh your alarm clock is going off, time to wake up now and join the real world. Your formula was tried in the 90's and it got us 911 among others
thank you.



Originally posted by koji_K
b.) working in concert with the police forces and intelligence agencies of as many nations as we possibly can to fight a common, *borderless* threat. Both these strategies, however, are completely antithetical to the neoconservative belief in unilateralism.



And you don't think that this is happening? At least as much as it could? Problem with that theory is that when you have nation states that will not cooperate, you are limited in what you can do.

Then those that don't, its time for the stick.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
.
NeoCons want to create an Empire? [i think yes]
NeoCons want arab democracies? [Total BS]
The NeoCons don't like coming head to head with other dictators is all.
What they call democracy includes the so-called 'patriot act' , and the 'act' is all for show.

The Con in Neocon is short for con artist. They are a bunch of sociopathic political manipulators.
We used to call them snakes, now we call them Neocons.

Afghanistan helped consolidate a nation that was pretty tired of the brutal rule by the Taliban.

The War in Iraq is totally counter productive.
In fact i think it has weaked our hand in Afghanistan.
It has created chaos, which is perfect for terrorists.
Saddam while horrible did maintain a rigid control over a fractious region.
The war has even allowed 9 billion dollars to be embezzled, I believe mostly into Iraqi hands. This certainly has gone into criminal hands and some of it inevitably fallen to insurgents and straight up terrorists.
Weapons and ammo caches were left to be plundered by any Iraqi that wanted to.
The mismanagement from the moment the war was supposedly over would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

We have no genuine connections with Iraqis because of the cowboy attitude, so we can not possibly help construct a stable government or governments in that territory.

Bush has done nothing to identify, acquire, or contain the stocks of nuclear matterial that is scattered around the globe. Especially from the fracturing Soviet Union.

Our actions in Iraq, causing alienation between us and former allies, tying up our military in that quagmire, and making us look foolish in general, have all worked to embolden the repressive mulahs in Iran, and left the Iranian people who would like to dump the mulahs less sure of finding an ally.

Iraq has probably made little difference with North Korea beyond tying up our military.

I can't overstate just HOW counterproductive Iraq has been.
Abu Graib is a clear demonstration of our attitudes towards Arabs.
We have created a pit of hate and distrust of America.

Iraq has demonstrated to the entire worlds peoples and nations that the US is not to be trusted, in either competence or integrity.
It even makes me wonder if America is worth anything at all.
We have no morals, no integrity, and no apparent intelligence.

Put a fork in, America is done.
Its heart is dead.
.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.


Put a fork in, America is done.
Its heart is dead..


Not by a long shot no matter how you tulipwalkers portray it, your wrong and history will prove it just as always......



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join