Moveon.org tells Obama not so fast on Syria

[Montecresto]

how is asking the congress to vote on a resolution calling for millitary action in syria a violation of our laws?

It's not. Attacking without seeking congressional authority would be, what do you mean?

 

[Jack Hays]

If that happens, get ready for four to eight years of President Clinton. Hillary that is.

Oh, and by the way, the Neoconservatives are the Ted Cruz types. Not the other way around.

Ted Cruz may be a lot of things, but a neoconservative he is not. eace

 

[Montecresto]

I think the government has released sufficient evidence; most normal people do. If someone would like to pass judgement without the intel provided congress, then they are a ****ing moron - Truther level.

"Evidence" has most certainly NOT been provided. I know your itching for another war eco, calm down.

 

[ecofarm]

Attacking without seeking congressional authority would be, what do you mean?

hahaha

Ever read history or current events?

 

[Montecresto]

The US government is unequivocal: "there is no evidence of rebels using chems".



8)

And they lie like a rug.

 

[ecofarm]

And they lie like a rug.

"All evidence is fake" does not constitute an argument as much as a mental disability.

 

[Montecresto]

russia has spent less on aiding the syrian refugees then the united states.

i think russia is hoping that this civil war in syria lasts a long time so it can rake in the profits of selling the weapons the regime needs to kill its citizens.

And the MIC has nothing to gain? Rah Rah America.

 

[Montecresto]

We're past the point of not doing anything. The ramifications of doing nothing, at this point, will be worse.

Wrong.

 

[ecofarm]

"Evidence" has most certainly NOT been provided.

That's Trutherism.

 

[Montecresto]

The US government evidence in incontrovertible. Shall we go Truther?

Nothin like a true believer.

 

[ecofarm]

Nothin like a true believer.

Allu Ackbar!

 

[Montecresto]

I take the wording of the petition to mean that should congress not approve the resolution that Obama not take military action. Both Obama and Kerry have hinted and/or flat out stated that the congressional resolutions are effectively meaningless because the President can act in the way he wishes without congressional consent. MoveOn, from what I gather, is telling him he can't or he mustn't.

That's EXACTLY what their telling him, how did that get lost in translation?!?!?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Ted Cruz may be a lot of things, but a neoconservative he is not. eace

How do you define Neo in neoconservative?

 

[Montecresto]

What is your evidence otherwise?

It's only been posted on numerous Syrian threads multiples of times!

 

[Montecresto]

Unless you believe that thousands of US government agencies and agents are all faking it; unless you believe that a conspiracy of thousands lacks a whistleblower of a trillion dollars payout...

There's evidence.

Thousands of US government agencies, are you embarrassed yet?

 

[Montecresto]

Fortunately, Obama isn't moving too fast (unlike the boob Bush). It's driving conservatives crazy since they don't know what talking points to use against him yet.

Oh Jesus Christ.

 

[Jack Hays]

How do you define Neo in neoconservative?

Neoconservatism is usually identified as originating with Podhoretz and Kristol at "Commentary" in the 1960's. Social conservatism of the evangelical variety is not included. Foreign policy is interventionist.

 

[Montecresto]

That's Trutherism.

Show it to us then.

 

[ecofarm]

Show it to us then.

Government Assessment of the Syrian Government

 

[Montecresto]

Government Assessment of the Syrian Government

You showed that already, those are claims. Do you not know the difference between a government claim and actual evidence? The Russians have produced actual evidence. STOP wishing for war, I thought you were the humanitarian.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Neoconservatism is usually identified as originating with Podhoretz and Kristol at "Commentary" in the 1960's. Social conservatism of the evangelical variety is not included. Foreign policy is interventionist.

Barry Goldwater is the father of the resurgence of political conservatism in the 1960's. He was against the evangelical variety. He was not an interventionist, as most Democrats were at the time, but nor was he a Nationalist or Isolationist.

Podhorertz and Kristol were influential in the defense (hawks) element of conservatism, but they did not define the overall term, conservative, or neoconservative.

The term Neo, meaning 'new' or 'young' would be more accurately attributed today to the likes of Cruz, rather than the likes of Susan Collins, or Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Orin Hatch or my Senator, Richard Burr.

Neo would be more appropriate to describe Ted Cruz, Roger Wicker, Thad Cochran, Rand Paul or Richard Shelby.

By the way, I'm enjoying being able to have a real discussion about this. Thank you.

 

[APACHERAT]

Look at the full history of the Republican Conservative, and tell me that the current definition of conservative as you use it is historically accurate (use Barry Goldwater as a Goal Post for historical accuracy). If not, then the "Neo" describes what you are calling conservatives, not the other way around.

Conservatism:

>" The Encyclopedia Britannica defines conservatism as “a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal,” explaining that “conservatives prefer institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability.” But without a historical, political, and cultural frame of reference, this definition tells us little about the principles that conservatism upholds. The established traditions of different cultures vary greatly, and thus “conservatism” means something unique in each culture. As the author and syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg has pointed out:

“To say a conservative is someone who wishes to conserve is technically correct but practically useless. 'Liberals' these days are in many respects more conservative than 'conservatives.' American conservatives want to change all sorts of things, while liberals are keen on keeping the status quo (at least until they get into power). The most doctrinaire Communists in the Soviet Politburo were routinely called 'conservatives' by Kremlinologists.”

To be conservative within a revolutionary tradition simply means to conserve the paradigm peculiar to that revolution. In the United States, the libertarian ethos of the American Revolution inspired a tradition based on individual rights, free markets and democratic constitutions. To be conservative, or on the “right,” in the context of the democratic West means to preserve the classical liberal, individualist and free-market framework that is its historic achievement. Among the highest values of this framework are:

individual rights and freedoms (as opposed to group rights, group privileges, and group-identity politics);
the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men, as manifested in judicial activism and the view that the Constitution is a "living," and therefore infinitely malleable, document);
private property (as opposed to the communality of property that is apportioned "equitably" by a central government);
free markets (as opposed to an economy that is managed and controlled by bureaucrats); and
limited government (as opposed to a massive, omnipotent government that micromanages virtually all aspects of people's lives). "<

Jonah Goldberg expands upon this theme: more-> Conservatism - Discover the Networks


>" Unlike leftism and progressivism, conservatism is not an “identity politics” focused on the issue of what kind of people embrace it. Nor is it a politics whose primary concern is to place its adherents in the camp of moral superiority and thus to confer on them the stamp of History’s approval. Consequently, conservatism does not have a “party line.” It is possible for conservatives to question most positions held by other conservatives without risking ex-communication – a stark contrast to the left's intolerance of divergent viewpoints.

Conservatives do not pretend to be able to shape the social future; they do not offer plans designed to induce human beings to act in ways that are dramatically different from how human beings have acted in the past. The “first principles” of conservatism are propositions about the existing social contract, about human nature in a social context. They are propositions about limits, and the imposition of limits, and what they both make possible. It is this practicality, this attention to experience and to workable arrangements, that explains why conservatism can be liberal and tolerant towards its opponents in ways that progressivism cannot.

In contrast to the conservative outlook, liberal and radical ideologies are about desired—and therefore determinate—futures. The first principles of the left are the principles of politically constructing a “better world.” Such a future must be consciously designed by enlightened intelligence. It is thus an essential characteristic of progressivism that it proposes a sharp break with the experience of the past; that its visions entail a rejection of existing social contracts. For more than two centuries the left has attempted to “complete” the French Revolution by extending political and civil freedom into the social realm in the form of redistributionist claims to economic wealth. “Socialism” is the ideological umbrella for this project..."< continue -> Defining and Understanding Conservatism - Discover the Networks

 

[Jack Hays]

Barry Goldwater is the father of the resurgence of political conservatism in the 1960's. He was against the evangelical variety. He was not an interventionist, as most Democrats were at the time, but nor was he a Nationalist or Isolationist.

Podhorertz and Kristol were influential in the defense (hawks) element of conservatism, but they did not define the overall term, conservative, or neoconservative.

The term Neo, meaning 'new' or 'young' would be more accurately attributed today to the likes of Cruz, rather than the likes of Susan Collins, or Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Orin Hatch or my Senator, Richard Burr.

Neo would be more appropriate to describe Ted Cruz, Roger Wicker, Thad Cochran, Rand Paul or Richard Shelby.

By the way, I'm enjoying being able to have a real discussion about this. Thank you.

I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion, but the term neoconservatism has a specific meaning in conservative typology and it has to do with the previous generation, not the current "new" conservatives.

 

[MMC]

Fortunately, Obama isn't moving too fast (unlike the boob Bush). It's driving conservatives crazy since they don't know what talking points to use against him yet.

That's Funny.....seems the Progressives do. Wonder why they never clued you in? :lol:

The real reason not to intervene in Syria

Demands by politicians and pundits for intervention in Syria have become so strong that they now seem to be influencing U.S. policy. But are they right? The most emotionally powerful arguments came from the State Department former policy planning head Anne-Marie Slaughter. The Obama administration is in danger of letting genocide akin to the one in Rwanda in the 1990s occur, she wrote, in the Washington Post. The case of Rwanda haunts Democrats. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called not saving Rwandans her “greatest regret” from her time in office, “something that sits very heavy on all our souls.” U.N. ambassador Susan Rice has similarly expressed agony over U.S. failure to intervene in Rwanda.

Why are humanitarian interventions so difficult? Kuperman theorizes that when rebels are assisted by outside forces, they are unintentionally encouraged to become more reckless in fighting a regime or provoking it, resist negotiations, and expand their ambitions. Intervention can thereby produce a perverse situation of prolonging a conflict that results in more deaths. He calls this the “moral hazard of humanitarian intervention.” Even the expectation or the mistaken belief of outside support can encourage rebels to continue fighting or resist settlements.

Right now, the U.S. public is overwhelmingly hostile to military intervention in Syria. Kuperman speculates that what had previously been a nonviolent uprising in Syria in early 2011 became an armed rebellion when Syrians saw that the U.S. supported Libyan rebels. “I think the Syrians were looking at this and saying, ‘Hey, we’ve been peaceful and getting nothing while the Libyans got outside help,’” he says. As a result of the Syrian opposition transforming their methods from nonviolent to an armed rebellion, the death toll has increased approximately 15 times per week, estimates Kuperman.

It should also be noted that these are purely discussions of humanitarian interventions, divorced from considerations about American interests. For the U.S. in the Middle East, there are no good options: Non-intervention spurs resentment at perceived American indifference to suffering; intervention spurs resentment at perceived American meddling. Encouraging negotiations means discouraging grand ambitions; supporting one side means alienating another. The toxic history of American and Western imperialism in the Middle East means that for a long time, the U.S. is simply going to be disliked in the Middle East. As George Washington University professor Marc Lynch puts it in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, “In the Middle East, haters gonna hate.”

The humanitarian impulse is a noble one, spurred by good intentions. But good intentions, even if they don’t pave the road to hell, can sometimes take us a good way there. Those calling for intervention in Syria should seriously consider the possibility that outside interference may be counterproductive.....snip~

The real reason not to intervene in Syria - Salon.com

 

[Beaudreaux]

Outstanding post. Let's look at some of the points made (emphasis added below by me):

Conservatism:

>" The Encyclopedia Britannica defines conservatism as “a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal,” explaining that “conservatives prefer institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability.” But without a historical, political, and cultural frame of reference, this definition tells us little about the principles that conservatism upholds. The established traditions of different cultures vary greatly, and thus “conservatism” means something unique in each culture. As the author and syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg has pointed out:

“To say a conservative is someone who wishes to conserve is technically correct but practically useless. 'Liberals' these days are in many respects more conservative than 'conservatives.' American conservatives want to change all sorts of things, while liberals are keen on keeping the status quo (at least until they get into power). The most doctrinaire Communists in the Soviet Politburo were routinely called 'conservatives' by Kremlinologists.”

To be conservative within a revolutionary tradition simply means to conserve the paradigm peculiar to that revolution. In the United States, the libertarian ethos of the American Revolution inspired a tradition based on individual rights, free markets and democratic constitutions. To be conservative, or on the “right,” in the context of the democratic West means to preserve the classical liberal, individualist and free-market framework that is its historic achievement. Among the highest values of this framework are:

individual rights and freedoms (as opposed to group rights, group privileges, and group-identity politics);
the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men, as manifested in judicial activism and the view that the Constitution is a "living," and therefore infinitely malleable, document);
private property (as opposed to the communality of property that is apportioned "equitably" by a central government);
free markets (as opposed to an economy that is managed and controlled by bureaucrats); and
limited government (as opposed to a massive, omnipotent government that micromanages virtually all aspects of people's lives). "<

The portion I have emphasized above, describes me well.

Jonah Goldberg expands upon this theme: more-> Conservatism - Discover the Networks


>" Unlike leftism and progressivism, conservatism is not an “identity politics” focused on the issue of what kind of people embrace it. Nor is it a politics whose primary concern is to place its adherents in the camp of moral superiority and thus to confer on them the stamp of History’s approval.

Again, the part I have emphasized describes me. However, the religious right, which are calling themselves "conservative" do exactly what this says a conservative does not do.

Consequently, conservatism does not have a “party line.” It is possible for conservatives to question most positions held by other conservatives without risking ex-communication – a stark contrast to the left's intolerance of divergent viewpoints.

And again, true. Except, how do some justify the term RINO? I've been called that many times.

Conservatives do not pretend to be able to shape the social future; they do not offer plans designed to induce human beings to act in ways that are dramatically different from how human beings have acted in the past. The “first principles” of conservatism are propositions about the existing social contract, about human nature in a social context. They are propositions about limits, and the imposition of limits, and what they both make possible. It is this practicality, this attention to experience and to workable arrangements, that explains why conservatism can be liberal and tolerant towards its opponents in ways that progressivism cannot.

I agree, mostly.

In contrast to the conservative outlook, liberal and radical ideologies are about desired—and therefore determinate—futures. The first principles of the left are the principles of politically constructing a “better world.” Such a future must be consciously designed by enlightened intelligence. It is thus an essential characteristic of progressivism that it proposes a sharp break with the experience of the past; that its visions entail a rejection of existing social contracts. For more than two centuries the left has attempted to “complete” the French Revolution by extending political and civil freedom into the social realm in the form of redistributionist claims to economic wealth. “Socialism” is the ideological umbrella for this project..."< continue -> Defining and Understanding Conservatism - Discover the Networks

Agreed.