What are we becoming? (1 Viewer)

[DeMaxx]

I have to ask that question. I have watched politics for years. I'm also a huge fan of political history. We can learn from past mistakes. We can also learn from past trends in politics. Lets look at Hitler, he came into power by putting people in powerful positions that were yes people to him. any one that opposed him disappeared. The Nazi party become stronger and stronger in Germany. Hitler became very powerful and very dangerous.
Does anyone other than me see this trend happening again. Bush is putting his puppets in place. Such as Bolton in the UN. Condi as secretary of state. and I hate to see who he replaces Sandra day O'Conner with. That is all we need is a yes person loyal to Bush, in our system of checks and balances.
The war in Iraq, should we have gone? No! This was a war that that had a personal agenda for Bush. Not unlike "the final solution" was a personal agenda for Hitler. Bush keeps saying it's a great day for America that we have lead Iraq to democracy. I wonder if Saddam had be removed and the Iraqi people had of had a chose to put what kind of goverment they wanted into place if it would have been a western style democracy. I really don't think so!
I do believe that our war on terrorism was correct. after all we were attacked. to bad that war was pushed to the side. I wonder if we would have Bin ladin in custony now if we had but as much effort in that as we did finding Saddam. Again that was Bush's priorities.
This country was based on certain rights and privledges. Now they are being stomped all over by such things as the patriot act. I have the freedom of speech? but just by writing this on this forum it legally gives the goverment the right under the patriot act the right to seach my home. So much for No illegal search and seizure. what have we become. Lets return to the amendments. Lets return tothe America that minds it's own business. Lets take care of America first. We have enough problems here at home. DeMaxx

 

[Schweddy]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Did you know that Clinton signed into law that we would remove Sadam from power? It seems to be forgotten.

Which Prez has NOT put their puppets into place?

Under a democracy, the Iraqi people can choose the style of governement they prefer - it does not have to be a western republic.

 

[DeMaxx]

You didn't sound like a dork. but I have not seen the new "Star Wars" movie, but you now make me want to see what you are talking about.

As for the Hitler comments if it offends I appoligize. It was not my intention, But that is one of the things that makes this country great. We can belong to any political party we wish. What ever religous group we wish. I just don't want to see that change.


I agree we have gotten to a winner take all mentality, and thats ashamed. the goverment is suppose to be here to serve the people. Now it's all about power. and those who can white wash the truth the most. (did that make sense?) I would love to see the people take back the goverment the way it is suppose to be. DeMaxx

 

[DeMaxx]

Vauge, I never said that Saddam should not have been removed from power. I agree that he should have been removed. I don't like being lied to and deceived to by someone to get it done.

Thge Iraqi people have already had western style democratic elections. which was set up by the US goverment. The Iraqi people will only be able to pick thier own type of goverment when the US leave their occupation of Iraq. This is not against our solders. They are brave, and fought as they should have. and should all be considered hero's.

At the end of the first Gulf war. We liberated Kwait, and there was a an uprising of Iraqi people against Saddam, the US didn't help them and Saddam put them to death. We missed our honest opportunity.

DeMaxx

 

[stsburns]

Careful with the Hitler references, the cons get upset because of that.

First off their is nothing new (Neo) about conservatives. They are todays Traditionalists. Thus "Neo-Con" is an oxymorn and is not a true statement.

Not to sound like a dork (which I undoubtedly will), who here saw the new Star Wars? The emperor remind you of anyone?

Yep, your ideology. I did see the movie, but the "Liberal spin" that was used while Aniken was talking with the lord of the "dark side", was supposedly the phrase that George Lucas snuck into the movie, portraying Aniken as "Bush". But too bad, most people were paying attention to the action in the movie, and not the political satire that Lucas willing put into the movie, and publicized about it. The only people I know that found it in the movie were people who were looking for it!

Bush has eroded so many aspects of American life that the life we live now doesn't even resemble our lives in '99 or '00.

Wow, were in 2005 things do change in 5 years!

We hate each other because of simple differences in opinions over issues that don't effect us.

Second change all of your "We's" to "Me's" and we'll see who really feels that way? About American's hating other American's, why are you posting that "THEY DON'T EFFECT US". They effected you when you typed your Opinion, now let others be entitled to their OWN opinion. Its called a "debate".

We're afraid of almost anything, and because of this fear half the people now don't trust the government for anything, and the other half trust the government enough to sacrifice their freedom so the government will protect them.

Change your "We"->"Me" and we can all see that you have your own insecurities. Try not inlisting everyone in the forum to your idealism.

The neo-cons pass ridiculous laws, to which the liberals pass ridiculous laws wherever they can, and we are now bogged down with so much legislation and hatred that we can barely function

Neo-Cons, Liberals, oh my! It was clever how you ended to seem end as an "Idependent" on the Issue, yet your other post's prove other wise. So playing "Idependent" on me, wont work on me pall! I've read your other posts! :mrgreen:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Vauge:
Under a democracy, the Iraqi people can choose the style of governement they prefer - it does not have to be a western republic.

But what if the government they choose, is anti-American. What will we do then?

Please note the story below:

Iraq Signs Military Pact with Iran
By Peter Graff
Reuters
Thursday 07 July 2005
Baghdad - Iraq signed a military pact with Iran on Thursday in a breakthrough with a former foe, but al Qaeda said it would kill Egypt's kidnapped envoy and attack more diplomats to stop the government winning international support.
Defence Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi signed a pact in Tehran agreeing to accept Iranian military training and other cooperation with the country Iraq fought for a decade under ousted leader Saddam Hussein.
Responding to the suggestion that the the thaw in ties with Iran would anger Washington, Dulaimi said: "Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries."

 

[Simon W. Moon]

First off their is nothing new (Neo) about conservatives. They are todays Traditionalists. Thus "Neo-Con" is an oxymorn and is not a true statement.

First, oxymorons are not necessarily untrue statements.
Second, the term neocon refers to a set of people who were liberals then switched to being conservative. They were new to conservatism, hence neo-conservatives.
They're not Traditionalists. They've departed from the US tradional conservative values. They reject the push for small-government. They favor big-government. They reject Realism and the idea that our military should only be used to protect our vital national interests. They favor the use of military to pursue idealistsic goals and social engineering experiments.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Simon W. Moon:
Second, the term neocon refers to a set of people who were liberals then switched to being conservative. They were new to conservatism, hence neo-conservatives.
They're not Traditionalists. They've departed from the US tradional conservative values. They reject the push for small-government. They favor big-government. They reject Realism and the idea that our military should only be used to protect our vital national interests. They favor the use of military to pursue idealistsic goals and social engineering experiments.

I didn't know what a neo-con was until you just explained it. I keep seeing the term, I knew it was in reference to conservatives, but I didn't know what it was all about. I also don't know what people mean by theo-con. If you could explain this, I would appreciate it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally quoted by DeMaxx:
You didn't sound like a dork. but I have not seen the new "Star Wars" movie, but you now make me want to see what you are talking about.

I'm just taking a guess. But it might be this.

 

[stsburns]

But their are still traditional conservatives. Many of them are christians, and are always being debated about their faith and politics on this site.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I didn't know what a neo-con was until you just explained it. I keep seeing the term, I knew it was in reference to conservatives, but I didn't know what it was all about. I also don't know what people mean by theo-con. If you could explain this, I would appreciate it.

Allow me to provide you with the opportunity to see for yourself. From the horses' mouths so to speak.
From Benador Associates:

What the Heck Is a Neocon?
by Max Boot
Wall Street Journal

The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

So is "neoconservatism" worthless as a political label? Not entirely. In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism.

On economic matters, neocons...embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.

But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning...

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

[Neocons] ...think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility.
​

From the Godfather of NeoConservatism:

The Neoconservative Persuasion
From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol

Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

...the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.

...an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state... seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.

The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists.
Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal.
No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."
​

I can only guess what the term theo-con denotes.

 

[anomaly]

But what if the government they choose, is anti-American. What will we do then?

Please note the story below:

Iraq Signs Military Pact with Iran
By Peter Graff
Reuters
Thursday 07 July 2005
Baghdad - Iraq signed a military pact with Iran on Thursday in a breakthrough with a former foe, but al Qaeda said it would kill Egypt's kidnapped envoy and attack more diplomats to stop the government winning international support.
Defence Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi signed a pact in Tehran agreeing to accept Iranian military training and other cooperation with the country Iraq fought for a decade under ousted leader Saddam Hussein.
Responding to the suggestion that the the thaw in ties with Iran would anger Washington, Dulaimi said: "Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries."

I imagine we'll do what we've always done: overthrow the 'anti-American' government. History shows that we have supported coups to oust democratically elected but anti-American presidents, and we have supported terrible dictators who happened to be pro-American. The notion that this nation is a 'friend' and 'supporter' of democracy is untrue.