Republican: the party of ignorance and greed?

reply to post by nenothtu


Wow, I have to say I was very impressed with your analysis on the war and concquest issue.

reply to post by nenothtu

The "right" side is the one that isn't trying to kill or subjugate you. how hard is that to figure out?

It is a matter of what you fear most Orwell or Huxley -

I fear Huxley's "model" of controlling humanity, which is subtle, without boots and very much like
a corporate induced cage of distractions, barely detectable or noticeable for many.

It's not a matter of "cheering on intervention and war", it's a matter of WHY intervention or war is prosecuted.

I would say that the Old School Republicans would not entertain the motive, they would first entertain the
principle or war and associated costs first and foremost.

[quote
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.

Some would say that Vietnam was just because it served as a virtual barricade against the spread of Communism in SE Asia. Had Reagan started that war, I think conservatives would have projected and proclaim valid justification. However I often hear Conservatives use JFK's interjection as a way to "prove" that liberals
and Democrats are the title holders of war mongering.

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.

The recent Middle East depose-ments are being touted as similar acts of popular uprising, what makes
you distinguish them as unjustified. Also, earlier you wanted me to accept war as an all out act i.e
Vietnam, WWII, Iraq, Korea, yet, in the case of Libya you classified it as a war, but Libya is similar to
other limited support role engagements by Republicans; you seemed to make the argument that those were not WARS... what's up with that???

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.

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.

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...

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.

It was the Old Right conservatives who opposed entering WWII, that was a mainstream conservative position
at the time. Non interventionist policy,was the most popular brand of conservatism that opposed FDR's Foreign policy. That sentiment of the old right sounded like the Conservatism you were speaking, in contrast to
neoconservatism, which you dislike for warmongering, because it's "liberal"... This is were I am confused

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 the case of Afghanistan, America could have just as easily looked to
Pakistan for aiding and abetting or the Saudi's for providing financial and material support. I think Afghanistan was about high dollar contracts garnered from the logistical aspects and the resulting sub contracting bonanza that resulted. I don't buy the cover story on that one at all, frankly I am surprised you do. Saudi blows
up buildings with plans, funded through the ISI with Arabian money = go to afganistan and spend 10 years?
I have experienced more sense after drinking half quart of Scotch...

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.

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
leg is clear because it is impeded with rebellion and chaos.

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 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 agree, but you need to be disciplined and not give a pass, with a rubber stamp just because the Neocon/lib
machine have proposed and spun a valid explanation.

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.

I provided plenty, if Libya is a war then my examples are wars too.

And just to get it straight, I think engaging in aggression, funding, arming and active subversion are
methods of war.

You missed

William McKinley and the Spanish American war

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.

Hey, if you would open your eyes, you would see that Democrats are accused of being hawks too.
I am just not buying the idea that either party owns the concept of militarism, militarism is an act of
any government, regardless of ideology or stated ideological tenets.

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.

Exactly and Ronald Reagan, who blotted the Pentagon budget and M.I.C involvement was a conservative,
didn't make him any less of a neocon.

Conservative is not some magical benchmark, that is what I am trying to point out. IT is a belief system
that is entirely disembodied from the reality which results from its implementation.

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)

You and your obsession with commies, yet you never explain why American liberals and progressives
have engaged in war with communist forces if they are advocation for communism. Seems pretty
dumb to repeatedly smash on your ideological allies, who would be better utilized propagation the secret communist agenda you speak of constantly.

reply to post by nenothtu

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

Use of financial, material, strategic or war implements to propel aggression onto an opponent.

I could could be in a fight with someone and poison them, I could ruin their credit, I could ruin there
relationships, destroy their ability to make money...

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.

I think it is a contest or conquest that is waged to achieve an advantages objective, while casting
a disadvantages outcome on the loser.

War does not need blood, China could destroy our technical infrastructure without firing a shot,
the world would still recognize it as an act of war.

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.

Anti war sentiment was very popular in the GOP during the early to mid half of the last century.
I always thought those were the REAL CONSERVATIVES that have been replaced by the RINOs.
Is there a third group I am unaware of???

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.

Look, I'll be honest, you are saying conservatism hasn't occurred in twenty years, that would lead me to believe that somehow it did, previous to 20 years ago,by simple deduction I am guessing you are suggesting Reagan???
That I could have viewed conservatism then... But I remind you that Ronald Reagan and his presidency increased the national debt more than all the presidents combined before him, in two terms. Ronald Reagan,
also had the entire cabal of Neoconservative fame serving his administration, developing his, monitory policy
and foreign policy alike. There is nothing conservative about the interest born, compounding debt obligation
we still shoulder due to Reagan's conservatism. Over half of the current debt obligation is principle and compounding interest incurred between Sept 81 and Sept 93 - that would fall right into a twenty year time period
all the way to a thirty year time period, where some shred of conservatism must have flourished somewhere.

I think conservative refers to the conservation of tradition/s - not the conservation of money, blood or honor. Tradition of mankind is to exploit, play war and act like men which is our proclivity. One could conserve
the tradition of war, conserve the practice of beheadings or conserve the exploitation of the less accomplished,
those are all acts of conservation, if their is indeed something to conserve. I can conserve resources or I can conserve the practice of exploiting resources, there is definitely a lot of liberty in conservation isn't there?

I could liberally pepper you with bullets or liberally shower your intellect with praise and I suspect you would have very deferent opinions on each notion. I could take liberty with spending or i could take liberty devising a radically efficient budget.

Don't confuse the labels with the actual contents.

I think I have been true to this the entire debate, I think the manifestation of conservatism, be it Reagan's
expansion of the budget, agencies or militarism is done in the name of conservatism. But, it is ONLY
a name, a word used to describe a generalized concept, describing a large swath of opinions and measures.


The contrary can be applied to liberalism too, words are approximations, representations, they guarantee
nothing.

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by batgirl

 

That was a very well thought out 1st post my friend. Nice job. ~SheopleNation

We agree on something!!! So refreshing...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Nah, I wasn't getting Panama and Grenada mixed up - I was just flat out wrong, and thinking that Noriega was taken down during Reagan's administration.

That's what creeping senility will do to ya!

Thanks for the reminder - I'll get myself back on track now!

I gotta get some beauty sleep some time, so I'll try to catch up on this tomorrow.

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)

You forgot LBJ with Vietnam.
Obama with Libya, continuation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

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
?

To state that one is so much better then the other is a farce that needs to be expelled.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


Ahh yes... The old argument of the ill informed or intellectual zombies...

"Your brand of tyranny is distasteful to my brand of tyranny."

Or...

"How can you fascists not see the brilliance of socialism?"

Yoda once told me, "Denying ignorance? Heh! Intellectual debate? Heh! A Troll craves none of these things."

Well, flame on, dude. Your path to the dark side is almost complete.

reply to post by nenothtu

I agree with you all the way, got to keep the good fight going. And if someone with integrity and honor gets in, he will need a huge majority of the people to stand together with him, will that be the case? I hope so.

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.

Wow! A lot of posting to catch up on, and I'm sure I'll miss something, but here goes:

I think our differences of opinion may be less ideologically oriented and more definition/semantically oriented. The specific concept in question appears to be what constitutes a "start" of a war, rather than the prosecution of one. In that difference, we could go round and round with the "chicken or the egg" argument, so to avoid that, which would ultimately be non-productive, I'll just say that I was flat out wrong in applying such a blanket statement.

EVERYBODY fights - Republicans, Democrats, Neocons, Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists, Communists, hell, I even met a Buddhist once who was a hell of a fighter. Perhaps the differences are in what they are willing to fight for, or what constitutes a "trigger" that they would consider provocation enough to have at it. I personally think that the spread of an ideology by force of arms is just plain wrong, whether it's spreading Socialism, Democracy, Christianity, Islam, or any other "ism". If people want it, they'll adopt it, and if they don't they'll just resent having it forced upon them, no matter which ideology it is.

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.

I accept that Stalin wasn't a "real" communist because I have been told so by communists, and must accept that they know their own ideology better than I do. The killing and the totalitarianist approach is an outgrowth of individual implementations, not the ideology itself, and that applies across the board.

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,

"Military output" is a fairly vague term, and could apply to anything from the manufacture of a stone spear point up to and including dropping a nuke. In terms of "military output", you are correct - every society, everywhere and every when, every ideology and sub-ideology, has had some sort of "military output".

Even "peaceniks" have been known to riot and get rowdy, which is again, by that definition, a "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.

Not any more, any more than "Liberal" and "Democrat" are reflected in one another. They have become separate, stand-alone entities, divorced from each other. the "Republicans" aren't reflecting a conservative ideology, and I don't believe the Democrats are reflecting a liberal ideology any more, either. There are some Democrats who seem to agree with me, as they are in the process of departing the party now, just as many Republicans departed the party in disgust over Bush and Co.

That then opens the question of what it is the parties ARE now reflecting, Whose benefit, and just how far apart they are in reality rather than the illusions they foster. I would see them as having moved away from "my" position, while liberals would see them as having moved away from theirs. the talking heads claim they've moved to "the center", but I don't think so. I think they've moved away from both sides in an entirely different direction. They've not moved either "left" or "right", but laterally towards a more totalitarian or tyrannical state. Not good for ANY of us peons. The illusions are fostered precisely to keep us from recognizing that.

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.

War per se is neither "right" nor "left", "up" nor down", "totalitarian" nor "anarchistic". It can be all of those, or none, but it's a tool in use to achieve an end. The various ideologies define what that end is. There are times when it is called for, but in the vast majority of cases it is not. I believe that the "spread of Democracy" through the use of war is no less aggression than the spread of any other "ism" through use of that tool. Some folks are just junkyard dog mean, and will try to kick your ass and take your stuff, or subjugate you under their "ism", and at those times, war against such is called for. Starting a war to spread an "ism" isn't.

That's one of the bases in my opposition to the Iraq war (we've no right to impose our "ism" on them) and my acceptance of the Afghan war (they've no right to impose their "ism" on us, or give aid and comfort to those who would).

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.

That depends entirely on the character of those doing the implementation, but in general you are right. People are greedy.

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...

No, I do it because neocons ARE "liberals", and were started by liberals. I refer you to this post I made in another thread for my take on that, rather than re-posting it here in the interest of saving space. They ARE "bad people", but not because they are Liberals - that's only incidental (out of space)

reply to post by mastahunta


- Continued -

No, I do it because neocons ARE "liberals", and were started by liberals. I refer you to this post I made in another thread for my take on that, rather than re-posting it here in the interest of saving space. They ARE "bad people", but not because they are Liberals - that's only incidental, and a function of the "lateral" move away from both philosophies that I alluded to above.

In other words, being "liberal" isn't what makes them "bad" any more than being "conservative" would make them "bad".

It's the move into the realm of tyranny and march towards totalitarianism that makes them "bad", and that isn't really a function of either the "right" or the "left". It's more a function of the consolidation and centralization of power that they are currently engaged in.

Those sorts of shennanigans emerge from BOTH sides - i.e. Stalin on the left, and Mussolini on the right. Bush on the right, and Obama on the left. It's not an claimed or professed ideology-dependent thing.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


It is interesting that people always talk about Republicans and Corporations as though they go hand-in-hand. It seems in 2006, the same corporations people think are Republican supporters, these corporations actually paid MORE to the Democrat Party.

"Other big Democratic donors include the entertainment and publishing industries.

Media giant Time Warner channeled 71% of its $1.4 million in contributions to Democrats, the center says. The firm supports tougher digital copyright protections to prevent piracy."

www.usatoday.com...

Sometimes people need to pay more attention to their side.

The Top 10 Corporate Democrats.

www.alternet.org...

I wonder which side the Kool-Aid man falls toward?