Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Would the last NeoCon to leave Washington Please Turn Out the Lights

Moderation in foreign policy, what a shocking concept.

Robert Joseph is the latest to leave an administration that some conservatives say has lost its clarity of mission.
Posted by at
Labels:

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

so there supposedly are "neo-conservatives" that are the extreme for the right. what does the left have? Communist and socialists who unfortunately are thriving like mosquitoes near a stagnant pond. it makes me sick how only one side is attacked while the other continues to do their dirty dealings.

March 21, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Robert L [Rivalries] said...

1Everything in this country relates to politics. People get elected on dynamic isues... they don't necessairly need to believe in them but a certain stance on anissue will get you elected at a certain time. The democrats had a decent amount of "sucess" during the elections on the anti-Iraq war platform. Now the republicans saw this and many are following suite. These are all the same people who voted "yes" to the war just a few years before. What has changed since then? Absolutley nothing (except Americans trying to give terrorists what they want, great way to set a prescedent Spain). What's best for this nation, and the region is for us to stay in Iraq and finish our job... but this is irrelevant. I hear arguments that things have changed because we didn't find WMD's, my response; Shut the fuck up. So we go into a country, to try make it better, to have an ally in the region, and now that things aren't what we expected we leave? What does your average Iraqi think. They can't leave. Soon they may even lose the Troops currently there. How can we amass allies there when they think we are about to give up and run away.

In another class the prof. cited fox news during a discussion while he was tyring to find an article of some sort. Everyone started laughing... as if Fox news is a joke. This was hillarious to me how stupid people really are. What do you think CNN is? Yet somehow no one thinks CNN is a joke. Fox News is a conservative media source, CNN is a liberal media source. They are both extremes. Yet everything viewed on CNN is supposedley true.

Lastly. Moderation may have been suitable in the past. 9/11 wasn't given to us in "moderation". States that support terrorism need to be taken out. It's plain and simple. I don't care if people are going to hate us more, or if its going to breed new terrorists. Maybe if you wouldn't support terrorism we wouldn't have to kick your silly ass to the moon in the first place.

Jimmy Carters national security adviser knew who the terrorist were; Chechen rebels. Many still see them as the good guys fighting off big bad Russia. Just like the terrorists that we fight, Chechens have provoked Russia into their territory, then Russia kills them and gets blamed for being the agressor. The Beslan hostage situation went pretty much overlooked by the world. Maybe Russia should have tried to use "moderation". Give me a break.

Terrorists are terrorists. They need to be killed. One day it may jsut be too late to go after them.

And 1st post guy. What's the point of getting upset about something so irrelevant. The president sent more troops to Baghdad, people bitched and moaned... guess what, despite all the opposition the troops are there. So sit back, relax, and laugh at people trying to "revolutionise" the staus-quo. Even though the status-quo is the only reason they can do so in the first place.

That's right I was bored.

March 23, 2007 at 9:39 AM
danylo said...

What would have been best for the region is to have done post-war planning PRIOR to invading Iraq. We did not go into Iraq to "make it better" or to "have an ally." If you recall, the original goal was elimination of WMD and then democracy for Iraqis, not courting allies? Making allies by invading them? Who does that?

Fox News is a joke. So is CNN. Anybody who cites either as their news source, ought to be suspect.

I agree with you that state-sponsors of terrorism ought to be dealt with accordingly. For example, Afghanistan should have been taken care of in the 1990s. But then, Congress was busy with more important matters.

Contrary to your assertion, the world did not ignore Beslan or the slaughter of children. Although the UN is ignoring Sudan in Darfur.

However, I'm surprised at your uninformed views on Russia vis-a-vis Chechnya. (e.g. "Chechens have provoked Russia into their territory"). Please read up more on the history of conflict before making comments like that.

On the final point, we agree again: terrorists need to be neutralized.

March 24, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Robert L [Rivalries] said...

"If you recall, the original goal was elimination of WMD and then democracy for Iraqis, not courting allies"

WMD's were ONE of the many reasons given. The media chose to focus on that one single objective. Our invading forces were wearing hazmat suits for a reason in the desert in addition to the normal combat load.

Secondly the war was not against the Iraqis, it was against the government. If the war would be against the Iraqis there would be no insurgency because we would just kill everyone and not try to protect people.

"Fox News is a joke. So is CNN. Anybody who cites either as their news source, ought to be suspect"

I agree with you abotu that. All media outlets are about making money not about bringing accurate news to the viewer. You can't have an objective view when money is king.

"Please read up more on the history of conflict before making comments like that."

Chechnya was acquired via spoils of war in the early 1900s.

After the Soviet Union fell a powerful group rose up inside Chechnya and tried to sucedee from Russia as Eastern European nations were doing. Not to mention they tried to replace communism with religious law (how thoughtful, one form of opression to antoher) They tried to do so forcefully so the Russian military was sent to restore order in it's territory. Second time around in 97 I believe a warlord overthrew the satellite government and Russian troops were sent back once more... this time they never left.

The fighters mixed themselves amongst the population (just like the shitbags currently do in Iraq)and thus their people suffered for that and to this day continue to do so.

Am I missing something important here (seriously, I don't known too much history)?

"Contrary to your assertion, the world did not ignore Beslan or the slaughter of children. Although the UN is ignoring Sudan in Darfur."

Just like Darfur, Sierra Leone, and a few others the Beslan incident was ignored by the international community. I don't mean this in a media coverage sense or anything like that. Nothing was done by the international community in either instance. People sit back, don't care, or think things will work themselves out on their own. Guess what, they're not.

The United Nations sending in peacekeepers is not intervention. People don't need to be told to live in peace. There needs to be offensive military campaigns to stop this kind of crap from happening. If the whole world puts its fist on this then everything will be solved. Weapons aren't free, military training isn't free; we need to go after the people providing these things to said shitbags.

March 26, 2007 at 4:02 PM
danylo said...

There needs to be offensive military campaigns to stop this kind of crap from happening.

The U.S. should not be hopping around the world invading countries for ephemeral reasons like democracy.

As for Chechnya, you exhibit a fine understanding of the situation on the ground. My only concern was not to place on the same level the U.S. and Russia and Iraqis and Chechens respectively. The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse notwithstanding, the American conduct in Iraq is above and beyond that of Russian military in Chechnya.

March 26, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Robert L [Rivalries] said...

You cannot judge what is going on in Iraq by the acts of a few individuals. What happened in those cases was a failure in leadership. Some things were blown way out of proportion such as the dog taunting. People went out to protest with pictures of an MP taunting a terrorist with a dog. How come no one protests aid workers having their heads cut off? How come no one protest kids being turned into hamburger meat? Everyone in this country seems to be convinced that America is so evil and is trying to find reasons to back that view up.

What do you suggest our role in the international system be. Your line of thinking is the reason why nations don’t get involved I places like Darfur. Even if we go in there for all the right reasons as soon as we start taking casualties people will start bitching and moaning – despite the wishes of the Soldiers on the ground … the mission will be foregone by the all-knowing American people. This is exactly what happened in Somalia.
Had it not been for us, Saddam would still be in power. This may be a good thing for oyu, but it is not for me.

March 29, 2007 at 10:16 AM
danylo said...

What happened in those cases [Abu Ghraib] was a failure in leadership.

Damn right failure in leadership, from the bottom and all the way up.

People went out to protest with pictures of an MP taunting a terrorist with a dog.

Aha, so that was a terrorist. Ok, I must have not watched that Fox news inside report. I just thought it was another Iraqi. Thanks for clarifying that one.

Everyone in this country seems to be convinced that America is so evil.

Wrong. There are those who hate America and long to move to Canada or France in their utopian idealizations; the rest is just pissed off at Bush, not America.

Your line of thinking is the reason why nations don’t get involved I places like Darfur.

My line of thinking makes sure that American military is ready to meet the security needs of this nation when and only when it is necessary for threats to be either a) countered (i.e. Afghanistan) or b) punished (i.e. bombing of Yugoslavia, Japan). Actually, it seems more convincing to argue that nothing is done in Darfur precisely because American military has its hands full - that would make it your line of thought.

What do you suggest our role in the international system be.

The U.S. should defend its national interests using diplomatic, economic and military means. It should provide leadership by example in the free and democratic world, spreading its culture and increasing its influence. Lastly, it should speak softly and carry a big stick (and if it has to, it should use it).

Even if we go in there for all the right reasons

And what might these right reasons be? It's a rhetorical question. What kind of standard is that to guide foreign policy decision making? Example: "Invading Iraq was the right thing to do." No, the right thing to do was to evaluate all our options and if we decide to invade then we need to have a post-war plan prior to any invasion.

as soon as we start taking casualties people will start bitching and moaning

Yes, that's what people do in democracy.

despite the wishes of the Soldiers on the ground … the mission will be foregone

Soldiers' wishes? What the hell do you think the Army is? There is a chain of command that stops with the Commander in Chief. It just happens that in America, this guy is elected. So if he decides to pull the plug, that's what it will be.

Had it not been for us, Saddam would still be in power. This may be a good thing for oyu, but it is not for me.

I am very glad that Saddam was removed and faced justice. A mass murderer and Stalin-worshiper, he got what he deserved.

Now the rational question is at what cost? Removing Saddam has cost over 3000 American soldiers their lives. Daughters and sons, wives will grow up without fathers and husbands. Thousands more are missing limbs. These are all costs. And yes, there are costs on the other side. The conservative estimate is 150,000 Iraqi civilians.

On the financial side: the cost is at $414,000,000,000

Yes, Saddam deserved what he got. Was the price paid for this worth it? Ask Iraq.

April 3, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Robert L [Rivalries] said...

"Aha, so that was a terrorist. Ok, I must have not watched that Fox news inside report. I just thought it was another Iraqi. Thanks for clarifying that one."

The people in Abu Ghraib were not caught taking strolls through the park. They were implicated in something that led us to believe they were our enemy. When we released some of these "innocent Iraqis" there were countless articles in which terrorists were interviewed and many said "after my release from Abu Ghraib..."


"Wrong. There are those who hate America and long to move to Canada or France in their utopian idealizations; the rest is just pissed off at Bush, not America."

Why is it that I keep hearing from liberals what imperialistic assholes we are when in reality we are one of the LEAST IMPERIALISTIC nations in the history of this world. What about the constant jabs at the government? I'm sure the people burning the American flag here just love America.


"My line of thinking makes sure that American military is ready to meet the security needs of this nation when and only when it is necessary for threats to be either a) countered (i.e. Afghanistan) or b) punished (i.e. bombing of Yugoslavia, Japan). Actually, it seems more convincing to argue that nothing is done in Darfur precisely because American military has its hands full - that would make it your line of thought."

Most of the genocides, civil wars, and other man made disasters occured while we were not at war (Genocide of Rwanda anyone?). Your argument does however hold some merit BUT not in the way things are actually happening. Iraq and Afghanistan has held a limited amount of troops. Don't forget we have thousands of troops in dozens of different countries - which if needed could be utilized. Secondly, some areas of operation are understaffed; then we hire contractors to take care of business. We are currently doing this in Somalia as most of our SOCOM community is rotated through Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few others. You can read more about Blackwater, particularly in Rwanda if you Google it.


"Lastly, it should speak softly and carry a big stick (and if it has to, it should use it)."

That's what we did in Iraq, yet you are complaining about it. WE re-drew the line that Saddam constantly stomped over... how many bullshit UN resolutions were there from 1991 as Saddam continuously broke the cease-fire agreement and continued committing crimes against humanity? The strict opposers of this war France, Germany, and Russia were all doing LUCRATIVE BUSINESS DEALS with Saddam. They didn't want to go to war because they put money over morals. Going after Saddamn was the right thing to do.

"And what might these right reasons be? It's a rhetorical question. What kind of standard is that to guide foreign policy decision making? Example: "Invading Iraq was the right thing to do."
No, the right thing to do was to evaluate all our options and if we decide to invade then we need to have a post-war plan prior to any invasion."

The pentagon was aware of the possibility that Iraq might turn into an insurgency. No one could have ever predicted the way things turned out. That's why it's called 'war' and not 'hippie fun time where all intentions are clear'.

"Yes, that's what people do in democracy."

The reality is that people don't care about our soldiers. The one's who do care for our service members are themselves, those who know them, and their families. The casualties are an agenda. "we are against the war but for the troops" Bullshit. How many names can these people pin to faces of the dead? That was the same bullshit used in Vietnam, then when soldiers came home they would get booed and egged by the same dipshits. (For the love of God someone tell me why Jane Fonda was not shot for treason?).

"Soldiers' wishes? What the hell do you think the Army is? There is a chain of command that stops with the Commander in Chief. It just happens that in America, this guy is elected. So if he decides to pull the plug, that's what it will be."

You don't need to educate me about the Army. It just happens to be that in this country the Commander in Chief and/or his party can be pressured to do what the public wants in fear of losing power. That's why Clinton withdrew our forces form Somalia.

"I am very glad that Saddam was removed and faced justice. A mass murderer and Stalin-worshiper, he got what he deserved.

Now the rational question is at what cost? Removing Saddam has cost over 3000 American soldiers their lives. Daughters and sons, wives will grow up without fathers and husbands. Thousands more are missing limbs. These are all costs. And yes, there are costs on the other side. The conservative estimate is 150,000 Iraqi civilians.
On the financial side: the cost is at $414,000,000,000
Yes, Saddam deserved what he got. Was the price paid for this worth it? Ask Iraq.

So basically what you're saying is, freedom is not worth any of this? I wonder where we would be as a nation had we had that rationale since the beginning. Everything you can do today was paid for in blood. Ask the remainder of the Soldiers who stormed the Beaches in Normandy if it was "worth it" for them to do so when entire platoons would be wiped out in seconds.

Back again to the troop thing. You should be thankful that men and women like this still exist. Do you know how many Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Seamen, and Coasties we lose each year in the United States to training accidents? I don't see any of this on the news. Is their sacrafice not the same as those who die fighting for what they believe in? This is all an agenda and I'm pissed about it. This is not a "cost"; it is a way of life, knowing these present dangers people join the military. It is not up to them to pick the fight, but you better be sure as hell they will show up and fight it because their country has asked them to do so.

Read my other post on the Death toll of Iraqis... and it depends on who you ask in Iraq. If you ask a Bathist Sunni who enjoyed wealth and power he will say; no not worth it. If you ask anyone else then yes worth it. Would you go to vote in the first free election while being mortared, shot at, and blown up? The Iraqis did in unprecedented numbers. Would you stand in line to join the Army while your family and yourself are being killed and threatened for it? The Iraqis continue to do so in unprecedented numbers (we cannot adequately train them fast enough). They want a better life for themselves and their families and one day they will have it.

There are something things you can't put a price on. Democracy is one of them.

Anyways, I see where you're coming from I just disagree with it.

I'm so happy it only took 3/4 of a semester for me to have someone to argue with!

April 9, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)