Republican: the party of ignorance and greed?

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
reply to post by macman

 

so you consider the gop as a good alternative?

No, not by any stretch.

Then why are you spending so many posts and energy defending them
?

Originally posted by mastahunta

My entire life, Republicans have been for militarism, made fun of liberals for their inability to
use military might... I constantly hear that there is another breed of conservative, where are they?
Do they exist, or is utopian like Marxist sentiment?

There is a difference between "militarism" and "defense". One is offensive, one is defensive. What we have had since king George I is extremely offensive - or at least I find it so, coming from a Republican background. Perhaps that IS all you've known all your life, but that just means you haven't lived long.

George W Bush invaded

Iraq and Afganistan

Afghanistan stood in dire need of invasion, Iraq did not. Afghanistan was "defensive", Iraq was "offensive". Iraq was a bone-headed move into militaristic adventurism, the same thing we were fighting the Soviets over years ago. Iraq was a "Soviet" move. I did not agree with it then, and I do not agree with it now.

George H W Bush invaded

Iraq and Panama, with involvement in the Somali war and Columbia

King George I invaded Iraq, then ran away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs. He did NOT invade Panama - that was Reagan, He did NOT invade Somalia - that was Clinton. he did NOT get involved in Columbia - that was, again, Reagan.

Ronald Reagan

Lebanon, Grenada, Columbia, Nicaragua, El Salvador - involvement in
Afganistan, Iran and Iraq war

I know. I was there. I got blooded in Nicaragua, 1979, under Carter - although my involvement wasn't at his orders. It was, in fact, directly AGAINST his wishes. Carter wanted to give up the western Hemisphere to the communists. Reagan had to reverse and "fix" that problem. Perhaps it would behoove you to examine the backgrounds of those conflicts. Reagan, as a matter of fact, didn't fool with Iran very much. They released their hostages within minutes of him being sworn into office so that he didn't come and eat their lunches for them. You remember the hostages, right? Iran got damn good and quiet when Reagan was in office, hoping he wouldn't notice them. CARTER, whom you left out, was responsible for the hostage crisis. Grenada was a case where Reagan perhaps should have let the communists EAT the American students, eh?

Nether was Reagan involved in the first Iraq invasion. That was Bush I.

You tacitly admit to a degree of youth in the opening of your post, and I submit to you that the situations in some of those cases may not be as you have been told.

Gerald Ford,

extensive involvement in the Arab Israeli conflict and South East Asia

Say what? Ford was my favorite president, because he didn't do ANYTHING - that means he couldn't have messed much up, from my perspective. Hell, the man could barely WALK without falling down!

Richard Nixon

Direct involvement in the Chilean Coup, The Yom Kippur War, Escalation
into Laos and invasion of Cambodia.

You conveniently failed to mention that he also got us OUT of Vietnam and Southeast Asia altogether, a war that KENNEDY got us IN to, and Johnson escalated immensely. Probably not your fault - I'll blame it on a selective education, or selective recall. After all, you're young.

That accounts for forty years of Republicans Foreign Policies,

Perhaps, in a SELECTIVE and INACCURATE sort of way...

I guess we can delve into the definition of war for ten pages. Or you can tell me that Conservatives have been fooled by politicians, for every election they have won in the last four decades. It makes me wonder if Conservatism is just a myth?

It will be, eventually, if the current state of "education" is allowed to continue unchallenged.

Interesting that every unsavory act of a conservative politicians is referred to as a derivative of
liberalism. Yet when war protests have occurred in the last fifty years it is the liberal youth that
faces the gas, clubs and dogs..

Yes, it IS interesting, isn't it? You should think DEEPLY upon that.

In point of fact, the "enemy" is neither conservative nor liberal. the enemy is "STATIST, and promotes a globalist/collectivist/statist agenda. It is CENTRALIZATION of power that is the danger, not the "left" or the "right".

The CENTRALIZATION. That is the problem with both "communism" and the like on the left, and "fascism" and the like on the right. They are statist, all of them, Those are the only "rights" and "lefts" you have ever known, all your life. they are the same under the skin, and it never fails to amaze me how they have convinced the youth these days that there is some sort of ephemeral "difference".

There ain't.

Originally posted by nenothtu

I know. I was there. I got blooded in Nicaragua, 1979, under Carter - although my involvement wasn't at his orders. It was, in fact, directly AGAINST his wishes.

So you actively took part in an operation that you knew was against the law?

Carter wanted to give up the western Hemisphere to the communists. Reagan had to reverse and "fix" that problem.

See, its EXACTLY that sort of cowboy nonsense that has made the GOP a laughing stock in the past few years.

The 'threat' of "communism' was just a boogeyman meant to bleed America dry of money and civil liberties.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Afghanistan stood in dire need of invasion, Iraq did not. Afghanistan was "defensive", Iraq was "offensive". Iraq was a bone-headed move into militaristic adventurism, the same thin we were fighting the Soveits over years ago. Iraq was a "Soviet" move. I did not agree with it then, and I do not agree with it now.

Afganistan is a money pit and has been the final resting place for many a empire. America cannot
effect tribal culture, Afganistan was a Soviet move for America, as it was a Soviet move for the Soviets.
It is a sink hole and a money pit, not a good way to conserve money.

King George I invaded Iraq, then ran away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs. He did NOT invade Panama - that was Reagan, He did NOT invade Somalia - that was Clinton. he did NOT get involved in Columbia - that was, again, Reagan.

George I launched operation "Just Cause" in December of 1989, that was Panama

Somalia -

President Bush ordered troops into Somalia today on a mission to "save thousands of innocents," as the Pentagon outlined an operation that will leave soldiers and marines in Somalia well into the Administration of President Bill Clinton.

www.nytimes.com...

George I was deeply involved in the follies of the Medellin cartel

I know. I was there. I got blooded in Nicaragua, 1979, under Carter - although my involvement wasn't at his orders. It was, in fact, directly AGAINST his wishes. Carter wanted to give up the western Hemisphere to the communists. Reagan had to reverse and "fix" that problem. Perhaps it would behoove you to examine the backgrounds of those conflicts. Reagan, as a matter of fact, didn't fool with Iran very much. They released their hostages within minutes of him being sworn into office so that he didn't come and eat their lunches for them. You remember the hostages, right?
Iran got damn good and quiet when Reagan was in office, hoping he wouldn't notice them. CARTER, whom you left out, was responsible for the hostage crisis. Grenada was a case where he perhaps should have let the communists EAT the American students, eh?

You convey Carter's desire to be non interventionist as a fault, yet this entire post was a response to your
post, which was an attempt to dispel the idea that Republicans create war. Reagan and his cabinet played
both sides of the field dung the Iran - Iraq war. It was a boon time for the M.I.C.

Say what? Ford was my favorite president, because he didn't do ANYTHING - that means he couldn't have messed much up, from my perspective. Hell, the man could barely WALK without falling down!

Ya I like Ford too, compared to the other fellows. He still had involvement in the entrenching of sides
during Israeli/Arab conflict, including supplying Arms for Israel.

You conveniently failed to mention that he also got us OUT of Vietnam and Southeast Asia altogether, a war that KENNEDY got us IN to, and Johnson escalated immensely. Probably not your fault - I'll blame it on a selective education, or selective recall. After all, you're young.

I am not saying Kennedy or Democrats are not responsible or copable for war, again, I am responding
to you saying

Check your history. Republicans don't start wars, whatever other faults they may have.

Perhaps, in a SELECTIVE sort of way...

Yes, selective, while you selectively decided to ignore over ten Military entanglements/covert
actions engaged in by Republican presidents.

It will be, eventually, if the current state of "education" is allowed to continue unchallenged.

this current generation benefits from having an entire world of information at their disposal, including
many perspective from a large variety of sources. I would think that self education would be something
a conservative would champion.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Originally posted by nenothtu

I know. I was there. I got blooded in Nicaragua, 1979, under Carter - although my involvement wasn't at his orders. It was, in fact, directly AGAINST his wishes.

So you actively took part in an operation that you knew was against the law?

Yes and no. It was "against the law" in a general sort of way, but you can count the number of people who have lost their citizenship over like "operations" in the last century or so on the fingers of one hand. that's the only penalty available - loss of citizenship, and that would be a hard fought case. I was neither in the employ of the US government nor a foreign one, so, while Carter wasn't happy about such goings on, he couldn't charge any one with "treason". His response was to try to talk the president of Mexico into stepping in and "getting rid" of the likes of me. Ever hear of Mike Echanis? He was one of the ones that was "gotten rid of" in that conflict, but not by Mexico. the Mexican president figuratively threw up his hands and rolled his eyes - he knew the score a lot better than Carter did.

Carter wanted to give up the western Hemisphere to the communists. Reagan had to reverse and "fix" that problem.

See, its EXACTLY that sort of cowboy nonsense that has made the GOP a laughing stock in the past few years.

The 'threat' of "communism' was just a boogeyman meant to bleed America dry of money and civil liberties.

I guess you've never been shot at by one. I took that as an extreme threat, and acted accordingly. I guess you've never seen the villages laid waste by them, nor the villagers rotting in the fields where they lay. No, they weren't a "threat" - to another communist, or an American sitting on his soft ass in his cushy house, thinking if he ignored them they'd just go away. The killing and the pillaging was "someone else's problem", eh? I made it mine, too. I put my money where my mouth was - I went and DID, not just sit around and discuss political philosophies in coffee houses. I SAW.

Other folks just TALK philosophy about "helping the people". They don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Originally posted by nenothtu


I guess you've never been shot at by one. I took that as an extreme threat, and acted accordingly.

Yes, I have never been deployed in a foreign country to protect companies like Shell and Chevron's corporate profits.

You REALLY think you were fighting 'communism'? And you REALLY think you had a right to kill people in a foreign land?

Pathetic.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Afganistan is a money pit and has been the final resting place for many a empire. America cannot
effect tribal culture, Afganistan was a Soviet move for America, as it was a Soviet move for the Soviets.
It is a sink hole and a money pit, not a good way to conserve money.

Yup, it has been - and will be again if they don't get serious about winning. Alexander won there, Genghis won there, so it's not "undoable", it's just a matter of desire. America SHOULD NOT affect Afghan tribal culture. We ought not to be there to "nation build" or "spread democracy" at all. We should do what we said - erase the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan, then help the Afghans build the country THEY want, not the one we want them to have. Anything else is "mission creep", and counter-productive.

George I launched operation "Just Cause" in December of 1989, that was Panama

Somalia -

President Bush ordered troops into Somalia today on a mission to "save thousands of innocents," as the Pentagon outlined an operation that will leave soldiers and marines in Somalia well into the Administration of President Bill Clinton.

www.nytimes.com...

yet Clinton didn't pull them out - he got them in a shooting war instead, THEN ran away, tail tucked firmly between legs! I'm seeing a pattern here...

George I was deeply involved in the follies of the Medellin cartel

Hmmmm... in a ridiculous "war on drugs", much like this current ridiculous "war on terror". See what I mean about neocons not knowing which end wags and which end bites? Or had you not noticed that I'm not a fan-boy for any of the Bushes? My use of the phrase "King George I" should have tipped you off... Reagan started that ridiculous Columbian effort, and both Bush and Clinton continued it. I know a couple of guys who fought in it, and they have pretty much the same opinion of it as I do. You won't get any argument from me on this - it just strengthens my contention that neocons are not "conservative".

You convey Carter's desire to be non interventionist as a fault, yet this entire post was a response to your
post, which was an attempt to dispel the idea that Republicans create war. Reagan and his cabinet played
both sides of the field dung the Iran - Iraq war. It was a boon time for the M.I.C.

Oh no, you misunderstood me - Carter was NOT "non-interventionist", he was intervening on THE WRONG SIDE, much like Obama in Libya. Non interventionist I could live with, in both of those cases - I'd actually prefer it. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is something I'm not willing to overlook, however. In Nicaragua, Carter was trying to find a way to intervene on the behalf of the Sandinistas - just like Castro was doing. Pity for him that no one in his own government would board that train. That's why he appealed to the Mexican president to "do something".

Ya I like Ford too, compared to the other fellows. He still had involvement in the entrenching of sides
during Israeli/Arab conflict, including supplying Arms for Israel.

I'm not seeing a problem there, personally. it goes back to my previous posts - you help friends, and kill enemies. That's what marks the difference between "defense" and "offense". I thought we were discussing starting wars, not materiel cooperation. Whose barstool did OUR TROOPS kick out from under them to start those conflicts in the 70's?

I am not saying Kennedy or Democrats are not responsible or copable for war, again, I am responding
to you saying

Check your history. Republicans don't start wars, whatever other faults they may have.

Historically, they don't. So far you've shown no evidence of a Republican starting a war prior to the Neocon takeover of that party, which actually supports my contention that neocons are not Republicans other than in name and label - not action. You've shown that they FOUGHT wars, but wars that were already ongoing when they took office, and that they have provided material assistance to allies - but without fighting. So far no evidence that they STARTED any wars.

Yes, selective, while you selectively decided to ignore over ten Military entanglements/covert
actions engaged in by Republican presidents.

"Engaged in" isn't "started". "Covert actions" are not "wars". Covert actions have gone on under every administration since there have been covert warriors. They are "covert" so that they don't escalate into wars.

this current generation benefits from having an entire world of information at their disposal, including
many perspective from a large variety of sources. I would think that self education would be something
a conservative would champion.

Self education is a GOOD thing. I am largely self-educated, although I did study Electronics, law enforcement, and Physics and Astronomy in a formal setting. The key is to vet the sources of that education, and explore dissenting viewpoints, measuring them against what you already know, or have experienced, for validity. I don't believe, from what I read these days, that "Critical Thinking" is taught any more, though.

That's one of those things that people will HAVE to educate themselves on, and that's a hard thing to do without instruction - which isn't forthcoming, apparently.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Yes, I have never been deployed in a foreign country to protect companies like Shell and Chevron's corporate profits.

neither have I.

Firstly, I wasn't "deployed" I signed a contract and went to do a job. Some things are hard to ignore once you've gotten there and SEEN them, however, and sometimes I found myself on the defense of people other than my "employers", which was ok by me and them as long as there was no conflict where I was on the side against them. When you have a common foe, you don't care WHO takes them out, as long as they get taken out.

Seconly, neither Shell nor Chevron had much of a presence in any of the places I went, although "Pemex" had a few filling stations in at least one of them.

You REALLY think you were fighting 'communism'?

I dunno.... what else would "killing communists" fall under the heading of? Planting daisies, perhaps? yeah, THAT'S it! I was really a "gardener".

And you REALLY think you had a right to kill people in a foreign land?

Absolutely. You would just let them eat the poor and defenseless?

What kind of "champion of the People" are you?

a

Pathetic.

one?

Indeed.

reply to post by nenothtu


We may not be that far away in beliefs. I haven't voted in a election since 2000, when the supreme court appointed gwb as president. According to the constitution if there is a issue with a election it the congress job to correct it, not the court.

I view neocons as 4th Reich-ish, with all the baggage and warped thinking of the 3rd Reich. They are however the republican party and there has been plenty of time for real republicans to boot these people and they have not.

I agree with the posters that dems are the lesser of two evils, but that still isn't good enough for me.

The republicans have grown the debt and government more than all others in the last decade yet the republicans still blame everything thats wrong with this country on dems is just stupid.

I wish we could solves or at least have a better understanding of how to fix things with threads like these, but all we do is attack where we see weakness.

American politics will be the end of America.

Originally posted by neo96
yeah alrighty then do tell why are those who go to private school richer and smarter than their public counter parts eh?

I've honestly never heard something so proudly stupid in my entire life.

You really don't understand why the people who started with money end up having more money in the end?

..........

Methinks you are a prime example of what is wrong with the tea party enthusiasts.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by nenothtu

 

We may not be that far away in beliefs. I haven't voted in a election since 2000, when the supreme court appointed gwb as president. According to the constitution if there is a issue with a election it the congress job to correct it, not the court.

Absolutely. the courts have seized too much power for themselves, and congress has in some cases abdicated theirs, becoming derelict in their duties, and at other times abused what they have left. The executive is no different, using "executive orders" to effect legislation, which is properly the provenance of the legislative branch. It's all heading sideways.

I view neocons as 4th Reich-ish, with all the baggage and warped thinking of the 3rd Reich. They are however the republican party and there has been plenty of time for real republicans to boot these people and they have not.

I view them in much the same way. it's all in the name of a centralized grab for centralized power, which is never a good thing - it always leads to totalitarianism, It doesn't matter if it's a "left wing" totalitarian or a "right wing" totalitarian. they're all the same under the hood, and I personally don't care if it's the "right" or the "left" oppressing me - it's the oppression itself that is the problem. Who cares which side it comes from?

I agree with the posters that dems are the lesser of two evils, but that still isn't good enough for me.

This is one place we have a difference. Evil is evil, there are no "lessers" to my mind. BOTH are trying to centralize and micromanage, consolidating power for themselves, and just hand it off from one to the other to effect an illusion of "change" to keep the masses pacified. I don't see any appreciable difference in them, and both are pushing as hard as they can go for things that were viewed as "communistic" (which was really more along the lines of 'totalitarian') when I was younger. they are BOTH on the same "side", and I don't really care which side people think that is - I just would prefer that they notice the similarities, and act accordingly.

The republicans have grown the debt and government more than all others in the last decade yet the republicans still blame everything thats wrong with this country on dems is just stupid.

And the Dems blame it all on the Republicans, equally stupid. They are still harboring the illusion that there is a difference between the two. Your mention of "the past decade" is a key here. It has actually gone on longer than that, but the neocons consolidated their grip on the Republicans around 2000. It was there before that, but not with the death grip it has now.

I wish we could solves or at least have a better understanding of how to fix things with threads like these, but all we do is attack where we see weakness.

There is hope. Many are still stuck in the notion that there is a "difference", and it's my hope that the incessant bickering will lead to an "AHA" moment where they finally realize that they are arguing against the same philosophy, simply because it's in a different package.

When that happens, Katy bar the door, 'cause all hell is gonna break loose. It's past due.

American politics will be the end of America.

You say that in the future tense, where I would use the past tense... i,e,"has BEEN the end of America".

ETA: When the neocons took over the republican party, many of us just quit the party, It's not that we left it, it's more that the party left US. When the opposition gets that entrenched, it's better to start a new party, and abandon the old fields to them. It's harder to ferret out all the moles than it is to just start fresh, which is what will happen in the next few years, assuming we survive it. The key at this point is to figure out a way to prevent the neocons from co-opting any new party and assimilating it, in that effort they are aided by their "loyal opposition", who are only too eager to help shove the new party into the old opposition fold.

Right now, it's a "propaganda war", a "PsyOps" if you will.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Yup, it has been - and will be again if they don't get serious about winning. Alexander won there, Genghis won there, so it's not "undoable", it's just a matter of desire. America SHOULD NOT affect Afghan tribal culture. We ought not to be there to "nation build" or "spread democracy" at all. We should do what we said - erase the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan, then help the Afghans build the country THEY want, not the one we want them to have. Anything else is "mission creep", and counter-productive.

The Taliban is an expression of Afghani culture, it is like trying to wipe out, street gangs or red necks.
The same process and views which makes them relevant is what you cannot eradicate with death,
which is why it is a losing proposition.

yet Clinton didn't pull them out - he got them in a shooting war instead, THEN ran away, tail tucked firmly between legs! I'm seeing a pattern here...

You said this,

He did NOT invade Somalia - that was Clinton.

so now you are changing the focus of why I should pardon Bush's part in the affair,
while condemning Clinton. while the initial reason for this dialogue was based on the fact that Republicans
don't start war. You sure as hell might not care, but have you noticed that you started off with distain for
NEOCONS, while also creating distinction between neocons and Clinton for example. Focusing blame
from Republican (neocon and liberal, per your notion) to Democrat.

Hmmmm... in a ridiculous "war on drugs", much like this current ridiculous "war on terror". See what I mean about neocons not knowing which end wags and which end bites? . You won't get any argument from me on this - it just strengthens my contention that neocons are not "conservative".

Conservative is a word and concept, I think the embodiment differs from the rhetorical. I think many conservatives cling to idealism of
what it should me, but fault to see that implementing it is just as messy as anything else. A communist could
just as easily state that Stalin was not a real communist. I am specifically debating you because of this
idealism just to make it evident.

Oh no, you misunderstood me - Carter was NOT "non-interventionist", he was intervening on THE WRONG SIDE, much like Obama in Libya. Non interventionist I could live with, in both of those cases - I'd actually prefer it. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is something I'm not willing to overlook, however. In Nicaragua, Carter was trying to find a way to intervene on the behalf of the Sandinistas - just like Castro was doing. Pity for him that no one in his own government would board that train. That's why he appealed to the Mexican president to "do something".

Which side is the right side? I thought RINO'S were the ones who cheer on intervention and war, not conservatives. I think All these dickweeds are nuts, does that make me a real conservative and you
a liberal, neocon RINO? That is where your conservative definition is not very defined at all, more of
a copout.

I'm not seeing a problem there, personally. it goes back to my previous posts - you help friends, and kill enemies. That's what marks the difference between "defense" and "offense". I thought we were discussing starting wars, not materiel cooperation. Whose barstool did OUR TROOPS kick out from under them to start those conflicts in the 70's?

Or you do what Republicans and conservatives use to do and stay out of it... You are trying to lambast Neocons
but you don't sound like a Conservative, if being into war is the measure of a liberal or neocon, which you alluded to earlier.

Historically, they don't. So far you've shown no evidence of a Republican starting a war prior to the Neocon takeover of that party, which actually supports my contention that neocons are not Republicans other than in name and label - not action. You've shown that they FOUGHT wars, but wars that were already ongoing when they took office, and that they have provided material assistance to allies - but without fighting. So far no evidence that they STARTED any wars.

You haven't show any evidence that you are against the wars/covert operations/incursions/interventions started by the neocons. You have been making the case for the superior aggression and prowess of the neocons
you claim to dislike.

"Engaged in" isn't "started". "Covert actions" are not "wars". Covert actions have gone on under every administration since there have been covert warriors. They are "covert" so that they don't escalate into wars

You are parsing the very definition of war like, Chenny, Rumsfield or Wolfowitz would.

Sun Tzu's and many great military commanders would classify war as combination of covert, overt,
economic, and material aggression. The anti War Republicans and conservatives of the past,
are gone. What we have seen is conservatism in action, not theory

Originally posted by mastahunta

The Taliban is an expression of Afghani culture, it is like trying to wipe out, street gangs or red necks.
The same process and views which makes them relevant is what you cannot eradicate with death,
which is why it is a losing proposition.

No it isn't. The Taliban was started in Pakistani madrasas by the pakistani ISI, then infiltrated into Afghanistan around Kabul. The objective was Pakistani control of internal Afghan affairs. There is no single "Afghan culture". That is how the taliban got their name - "taliban" is the plural of "talib", which means "student"... from the madrasas.

post too long. more to come.

reply to post by Partisanity


sorry i am a product of of my own making not governments

and damn proud to be called a teapartier even tho i have never been to one

careful with that stupid word 9 times out of 10 that always ends up on the user

reply to post by mastahunta


Your post was too long to reply to, so I have to do this the old fashioned way - cut and paste in a text editor, over a couple of posts.

yet Clinton didn't pull them out - he got them in a shooting war instead, THEN ran away, tail tucked firmly between legs! I'm seeing a pattern here...

You said this,

He did NOT invade Somalia - that was Clinton.

so now you are changing the focus of why I should pardon Bush's part in the affair,
while condemning Clinton. while the initial reason for this dialogue was based on the fact that Republicans
don't start war. You sure as hell might not care, but have you noticed that you started off with distain for
NEOCONS, while also creating distinction between neocons and Clinton for example. Focusing blame
from Republican (neocon and liberal, per your notion) to Democrat.

Bush sent people in to feed allegedly starving Somalis. I'm with ya on this - he should have let them starve rather than "invade" with all that food that got a row going. So now, going by your own words here, feeding people is "starting wars". By that definition, we've started a lot of 'em as a nation.

There IS NO difference between Neocons and Clinton - or Obama, or any other current office holder. that's the entire point of my posts! Not any difference at all - much less any "distinction". The original contention was that Republicans are behind every war, and Democrats are innocent. I pointed out the fallacy of that, and you swooped in for the attack, defending some illusory "difference".

THERE ARE NO REPUBLICANS - not as an organized party. There are only Neocons masquerading as Republicans, making use of the label, while applying alien philosophies. The Republican party is DEAD. You are looking at a reanimated corpse, thinking that zombie is the person that it once was. It is not.

You STILL have not given any example of a Republican starting a war prior to the Neocon takeover - you can only point to feeding the starving as "warmongering". I'll help you out, give you a hint: Lincoln. He was the FIRST Republican President, and started a war right away. He was, however, the exception rather than the rule.

Conservative is a word and concept, I think the embodiment differs from the rhetorical. I think many conservatives cling to idealism of what it should me, but fault to see that implementing it is just as messy as anything else. A communist could just as easily state that Stalin was not a real communist. I am specifically debating you because of this idealism just to make it evident.

Stalin wasn't a "real" communist. He was a totalitarian thug, just like innumerable others who claimed to be on one side of the fence or the other to garner support.

Implementing the ideals of conservatism isn't messy - we just haven't seen it done in quite a while. The "ideal" is what to strive towards, whether "conservative" or "liberal", and that same ideal is what is being hijacked by the current administrations to promote an alien agenda, keeping people divided and fighting amongst themselves while the bank is being robbed. Just because THEY tell you that their implementation is the "ideal" doesn't make it so, whether they are using the ideals of conservatism or the ideals of socialism.

Which side is the right side? I thought RINO'S were the ones who cheer on intervention and war, not conservatives. I think All these dickweeds are nuts, does that make me a real conservative and you
a liberal, neocon RINO? That is where your conservative definition is not very defined at all, more of
a copout.

The "right" side is the one that isn't trying to kill or subjugate you. how hard is that to figure out? It's not a matter of "cheering on intervention and war", it's a matter of WHY intervention or war is prosecuted. Applying the blanket statement doesn't make you a "conservative" any more than it makes you a "liberal". it makes you an ostrich, with his head firmly planted in the sand.

There are times that intervention and war are needed, and in most cases where they are actually undertaken, there is NO need for them. No need in Iraq War II, no need in Libya. There WAS a need in Nicaragua, and Carter dropped that ball, preferring to intervene on the side of those who were killing and subjugating the campesinos. The net result was a "loss", 15 years of hardship under the Sandinistas.and export of "the revolution" to Guatemala and El Salvador, where the battle had to be fought even harder to stop the madness.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by mastahunta

The Taliban is an expression of Afghani culture, it is like trying to wipe out, street gangs or red necks.
The same process and views which makes them relevant is what you cannot eradicate with death,
which is why it is a losing proposition.

No it isn't. The Taliban was started in Pakistani madrasas by the pakistani ISI, then infiltrated into Afghanistan around Kabul. The objective was Pakistani control of internal Afghan affairs. There is no single "Afghan culture". That is how the taliban got their name - "taliban" is the plural of "talib", which means "student"... from the madrasas.

post too long. more to come.

I wasn't speaking about the specific origins of the Taliban, I was speaking about the cultural
context where many approve and applaud religious zealotry, because Taliban (Pashto) and Shia practice mimics
some of the age old tradition and hierarchy of Pashtunwali. Badal, is part of the Pashtunwali ethics that ensure an enduring vendeta or thirst for retribution against. The Taliban combined Badal and the notion of Jihad to secure a never ending blood feud with the Infidels U.S or Soviet alike. Basically, the more you kill, you
multiply your enemies by small compounding exponents, due to Pashtunwali code, specifically Badal.
The Badal principle creates a system of vengeance which perpetuates Jihad,as they have a similar
honor based objective.

This is why the U.S will never "win" in Afghanistan, you would have to turn the entire country and a good
part of Pakistan into glass, in order to eliminate the motive to fight the U.S or any conquering force for that matter.

www.transparent.com...

The term Badal literally means “to avenge”, however if we define Badal contextually it should include all those acts that a Pashtoon takes to restore social justice in his community. Although the practice of Badal serves as a means for achieving social justice in Pashtoon society, those who have not committed misdeeds are rightly safeguarded from external harm.

One of the most difficult concepts to grasp for those foreign to Pashtoon culture is that the Badal for wrongdoing is Badal. For example, if an individual were to kill another person in a Pashtoon-run society, he is to be likely to be killed by a member of the surviving family. In most cases, Badal can be very subjective, too. How may a person objectively identify and enact a “proper” act of revenge for what they personally deem to be an unjust act? This is a difficult question to answer, especially since those who believe to have been wronged may also take revenge on the family of the wrongdoer in addition to (or even in lieu of) taking revenge on the person who committed the transgression.

reply to post by mastahunta

Or you do what Republicans and conservatives use to do and stay out of it... You are trying to lambast Neocons
but you don't sound like a Conservative, if being into war is the measure of a liberal or neocon, which you alluded to earlier.

No, "being into war" isn't the measure of either of those - it's just an outgrowth of conquest. Telling your allies to "go to hell" by "staying out of it" when it comes to their ability to defend themselves is neither a conservative nor a liberal thing. It's just crass and heartless, a "hurray for me and to hell with you" stand. There's a difference between giving them the means to look out for themselves and actually dropping bombs yourself.

Further, it matters - at least to me - who picks the fight, and what they intend to do with it. In other words, who are the aggressors. The US in Iraq is an example. In the first Gulf War, the Iraqis were the aggressors, in the second, WE were. In Afghanistan, the Tlaiban picked the fight by harboring our enemies, they made themselves enemies as well. In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas were the agressors, with the objective of "spreading communism", in much the same vein as I hear the phrase "exporting democracy" from our side these days. Both are wrong. "Democracy" isn't an exportable commodity. It either grows from within, or it dies on the vine. Therefore, any such efforts are wasted.

Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is VERY exportable, whether right wing or left, by conquest, and should be resisted at every turn, by any means possible - up to and including war and intervention.

You haven't show any evidence that you are against the wars/covert operations/incursions/interventions started by the neocons. You have been making the case for the superior aggression and prowess of the neocons
you claim to dislike.

You haven't been following very closely then. My opposition to Bush II's Iraq War is plastered all over ATS, including this very thread. I don't care about any supposed "superior aggression" on the part of the neocons abroad - fix the neocon problem HERE, and the problems they cause abroad will vaporize.

I'm NOT against "war/covert operations/incursions/interventions" just because that's what they are - I oppose them, or not, based on the underlying circumstances. Nothing wrong with killing per se. It all depends on the reasons, or lack thereof. The bigger part of them are unnecessary, but that doesn't mean they ALL are. But then, this discussion isn't about justifications, is it? it's about who STARTS the wars. So far, I'M the only one who has been able to provide an example of a Republican starting one, and I had to go a LONG way back to do that.

You are parsing the very definition of war like, Chenny, Rumsfield or Wolfowitz would.

Then YOU define "war" for me, what you think it is, and we'll work from that.

Sun Tzu's and many great military commanders would classify war as combination of covert, overt,
economic, and material aggression.

That's your take on Sun Tzu. What do YOU think war is? Of course, if you want to defer to Sun Tzu, I can REALLY work with that.

The anti War Republicans and conservatives of the past, are gone.

No such thing as an "anti-war conservative". There are just conservatives who know when to wag and when to bite, and see most of the biting going on as ill advised. that doesn't mean they think there is NO time for biting. And no, were not "gone", we've just left the Republicans under the Neocons, who seem to think biting is the only and always answer.

What we have seen is conservatism in action, not theory

I suspect you are not old enough to have EVER actually seen conservatism in action. It certainly hasn't occurred in the last 20 years or so. What you are seeing is "NEOconservatism" claiming to be "conservative", when in fact it is neither new nor conservative. Just looking at the way they've increased government ought to tell you that there isn't anything "conservative" about them.

Don't confuse the labels with the actual contents.

Originally posted by mastahunta

I wasn't speaking about the specific origins of the Taliban, I was speaking about the cultural
context where many approve and applaud religious zealotry, because Taliban (Pashto) and Shia practice mimics
some of the age old tradition and hierarchy of Pashtunwali. Badal, is part of the Pashtunwali ethics that ensure an enduring vendeta or thirst for retribution against. The Taliban combined Badal and the notion of Jihad to secure a never ending blood feud with the Infidels U.S or Soviet alike. Basically, the more you kill, you
multiply your enemies by small compounding exponents, due to Pashtunwali code, specifically Badal.
The Badal principle creates a system of vengeance which perpetuates Jihad,as they have a similar
honor based objective.

I personally prefer the Nannawatai component of the Pashtunwali, but it's all part of the same code. The Taliban is an alien creation to the Pashtunwali. You must have missed the Pakistani ISI connection I made. If the Taliban had been upholding the Pashtunwali, then they would have controlled the entire country rather than 60% of it at the height of their power, and they would not have had the opposition of the Northern Alliance and Massoud.

The Taliban NEVER, EVER fought against the Soviets. they didn't even exist until after the Soviet Union had already collapsed. You seem to be confusing and conflating the Islamic concept of jihad with the Pashtun concept of the Pashtunwali.

This is why the U.S will never "win" in Afghanistan, you would have to turn the entire country and a good
part of Pakistan into glass, in order to eliminate the motive to fight the U.S or any conquering force for that matter.

Not so. They COULD win, and win handily, gaining a new old friend in the process, but you're probably right in saying that they won't. I've already outlined what would be needed for a "win" there, and they seem not to be interested.

www.transparent.com...

The term Badal literally means “to avenge”, however if we define Badal contextually it should include all those acts that a Pashtoon takes to restore social justice in his community. Although the practice of Badal serves as a means for achieving social justice in Pashtoon society, those who have not committed misdeeds are rightly safeguarded from external harm.

One of the most difficult concepts to grasp for those foreign to Pashtoon culture is that the Badal for wrongdoing is Badal. For example, if an individual were to kill another person in a Pashtoon-run society, he is to be likely to be killed by a member of the surviving family. In most cases, Badal can be very subjective, too. How may a person objectively identify and enact a “proper” act of revenge for what they personally deem to be an unjust act? This is a difficult question to answer, especially since those who believe to have been wronged may also take revenge on the family of the wrongdoer in addition to (or even in lieu of) taking revenge on the person who committed the transgression.

I'm already familiar with the Pashtunwali. "Badal" translates most directly and simply as "revenge", although with certain caveats and protocols. "Nannawatai" is the principle of Sanctuary, and a really strange, almost upside down one at that, and Milmastia... well, you seem to be able to do your own research here, so I don't need to be condescending or try to "educate" you. Good job

Originally posted by nenothtu

There IS NO difference between Neocons and Clinton - or Obama, or any other current office holder. that's the entire point of my posts! Not any difference at all - much less any "distinction". The original contention was that Republicans are behind every war, and Democrats are innocent. I pointed out the fallacy of that, and you swooped in for the attack, defending some illusory "difference".

I agree with the fallacy of the illusory diffence, I swept in because it appeared that you were absolving the
Republican party of war like tendencies and ambitions. I only took issue with you after you said

Republicans don't start wars, whatever other faults they may have.

I was not speaking about the Democrats, because you effectively threw the entire bucket of "War blame"
upon them. I was trying to get some of that onto the GOP where it belongs all the same.

THERE ARE NO REPUBLICANS - not as an organized party. There are only Neocons masquerading as Republicans, making use of the label, while applying alien philosophies. The Republican party is DEAD. You are looking at a reanimated corpse, thinking that zombie is the person that it once was. It is not.

I don't expect you to agree or entertain the idea, but the reason the conservatism you speak is not
present in politics, is because it an idea, not a physical manifestation of an idea. If I said Stalin was not
a real Communist because he murdered millions of people, would that change your views on the
implementation of such policies.

You STILL have not given any example of a Republican starting a war prior to the Neocon takeover - you can only point to feeding the starving as "warmongering". I'll help you out, give you a hint: Lincoln. He was the FIRST Republican President, and started a war right away. He was, however, the exception rather than the rule.

I sure did I gave you several Trillion of dollars with of Military output, however I also don't agree with the
idea that the words Republican and Conservative are reflected in the implementation of either. They
are words, not exact schematics.

I also posted this upon my initial response to you

That accounts for forty years of Republicans Foreign Policies, I guess we can delve into the definition
of war for ten pages

So I am not going make like a politician and start with parsing the concept of war.

Stalin wasn't a "real" communist. He was a totalitarian thug, just like innumerable others who claimed to be on one side of the fence or the other to garner support.

Well I think he was a totalitarian first and foremost,
we are discussing right and left, you are lending war like behavior to liberal ideology, but stating that Neocons
are war mongers because they liberal, however proclivity to war and dominance is a totalitarian measure, not a right and left measure.

Implementing the ideals of conservatism isn't messy - we just haven't seen it done in quite a while.

I disagree vehemently, I think implementing any political agenda is always going to include corruption,
war and propaganda.

Just because THEY tell you that their implementation is the "ideal" doesn't make it so, whether they are using the ideals of conservatism or the ideals of socialism.

This is exactly what I am saying to you when
you try to pass off neocons onto liberals, I happen to think they are "bad people". The idea of aligning
their bad behavior with liberalism is what I object to, because you oppose liberalism and you dislike
neocon policy it is expedient to toss the poor neocon behavior onto your rivals. cont...

reply to post by nenothtu

King George I invaded Iraq, then ran away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs. He did NOT invade Panama - that was Reagan, He did NOT invade Somalia - that was Clinton. he did NOT get involved in Columbia - that was, again, Reagan.

I think you might be getting Panama and Grenada mixed up. Reagan invaded Grenada and it was a successful mission.
What Carter did was GIVE away the Panama Canal.
Clinton got us into Kosovo. I don't even remember Somalia....

Ok I just did some checking. Turns out that the buildup to the Panama invasion was during the Reagan admin, but not carried out till Bush got in office.
Heres the timeline
andromeda.rutgers.edu...