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 "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.
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.
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December 1878[1] – 5 March 1953) was the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953. He was among the Bolshevik revolutionaries who brought about the October Revolution and had held the position of first General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953.
In 1928, Stalin replaced the New Economic Policy of the 1920s with a highly centralised command economy and Five-Year Plans, launching a period of rapid industrialization and economic collectivization in the countryside
Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[86]
In 1936, Stalin announced that the society of the Soviet Union consisted of two non-antagonistic classes: workers and kolkhoz peasantry. These corresponded to the two different forms of property over the means of production that existed in the Soviet Union: state property (for the workers) and collective property (for the peasantry). In addition to these, Stalin distinguished the stratum of intelligentsia. The concept of "non-antagonistic classes" was entirely new to Leninist theory. Among Stalin's contributions to Communist theoretical literature were "Dialectical and Historical Materialism," "Marxism and the National Question", "Trotskyism or Leninism", and "The Principles of Leninism."
After Soviet forces remained in Eastern and Central European countries, with the beginnings of communist puppet regimes in those countries, Churchill referred to the region as being behind an "Iron Curtain" of control from Moscow.[217][218] The countries under Soviet control in Eastern and Central Europe were sometimes called the "Eastern bloc" or "Soviet Bloc".
In Soviet-controlled East Germany, the major task of the ruling communist party in Germany was to channel Soviet orders down to both the administrative apparatus and the other bloc parties pretending that these were initiatives of its own,[219] with deviations potentially leading to reprimands, imprisonment, torture and even death.[219] Property and industry were nationalized.[219]
Originally posted by nenothtu
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.
In the case of Afghanistan, America could have just as easily looked to
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.
The spread of communist militarism also disrupted the coc aine supply chain, which severely impacted the profit and routine of many players involved with our own Government and it's entities. That served as a huge imperative which is rarely examined, policy comes quick when someone can't ensure the second
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.
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.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by mastahunta
The thing to remember is that there have been plenty of wars under Democrats, and under FDR it is said that he "allowed" the bombing of Pearl Harbor as a "pre-text" for getting us into the war because Americans for the most part didn't want war. I guess in his mind, if Japan was going to do it, then what's it hurt to let a few of our guys get killed in the process of letting the inevitable happen. Of course when that happens on a Republican watch, Repubs are called war mongers or hawks.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Stalin was a communist. He may have been more violent than his predecessor, but that did not make him less of a communist.
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (18 December 1878[1] – 5 March 1953) was the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953. He was among the Bolshevik revolutionaries who brought about the October Revolution and had held the position of first General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953.
In 1928, Stalin replaced the New Economic Policy of the 1920s with a highly centralised command economy and Five-Year Plans, launching a period of rapid industrialization and economic collectivization in the countryside
Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[86]
In 1936, Stalin announced that the society of the Soviet Union consisted of two non-antagonistic classes: workers and kolkhoz peasantry. These corresponded to the two different forms of property over the means of production that existed in the Soviet Union: state property (for the workers) and collective property (for the peasantry). In addition to these, Stalin distinguished the stratum of intelligentsia. The concept of "non-antagonistic classes" was entirely new to Leninist theory. Among Stalin's contributions to Communist theoretical literature were "Dialectical and Historical Materialism," "Marxism and the National Question", "Trotskyism or Leninism", and "The Principles of Leninism."
en.wikipedia.org...
Although he purged the old party, it was just rivals and does not make him any less communist than Lenin.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Found this too on wikipedia under the Stalin heading
After Soviet forces remained in Eastern and Central European countries, with the beginnings of communist puppet regimes in those countries, Churchill referred to the region as being behind an "Iron Curtain" of control from Moscow.[217][218] The countries under Soviet control in Eastern and Central Europe were sometimes called the "Eastern bloc" or "Soviet Bloc".
In Soviet-controlled East Germany, the major task of the ruling communist party in Germany was to channel Soviet orders down to both the administrative apparatus and the other bloc parties pretending that these were initiatives of its own,[219] with deviations potentially leading to reprimands, imprisonment, torture and even death.[219] Property and industry were nationalized.[219]
en.wikipedia.org...edit on 28-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Then YOU define "war" for me, what you think it is, and we'll work from that.
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.
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.
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 SheopleNation
reply to post by batgirl
That was a very well thought out 1st post my friend. Nice job. ~SheopleNation
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by nenothtu
Check your history. Republicans don't start wars, whatever other faults they may have. I presume you're talking about Bush. Bush is not a Republican, he is a Neocon, as was most of his administration. Neocons are "liberals", left-wingers, masquerading as Republicans or "conservatives". Republicans call them "RINOs". Just because they have taken over the Republican party so as to label themselves "Republican" doesn't make it so, A label swap doesn't change the contents. This is why we see no appreciable difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration, regardless of how much folks want to make a distinction.
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?
George W Bush invaded
Iraq and Afganistan
George H W Bush invaded
Iraq and Panama, with involvement in the Somali war and Columbia
Ronald Reagan
Lebanon, Grenada, Columbia, Nicaragua, El Salvador - involvement in
Afganistan, Iran and Iraq war
Gerald Ford,
extensive involvement in the Arab Israeli conflict and South East Asia
Richard Nixon
Direct involvement in the Chilean Coup, The Yom Kippur War, Escalation
into Laos and invasion of Cambodia.
That accounts for forty years of Republicans Foreign Policies, 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?
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..
edit on 27-9-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by nenothtu
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.
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...