Amazon 7 #26 October 7, 2007 You would have to ask him and his fellow travellers in the right wing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #27 October 7, 2007 Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am one of the smarter ones that didn't need to put his life on the line for a tiny salary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote I saved that because it speaks volumes about several of our more vocal far right wingers here. So when the enemy comes knocking on the door, and you're cowering in the corner because you don't believe in war and never enlisted, somehow gives that person validity? I 'd pull out the guns and start blazing away.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #28 October 8, 2007 Quote Interesting to note...the only two right wingers who are answering.. are those who have served..yet neither of you will embrace the name NEO-CON. I won't bore you with my credentials , but I never understood the term NEO-CON...NEO implies "new", and I am a conservative. The thing is that in the framework of the cold war, today's so-called "neo-cons" knew, 30 years ago, that the shit that started bubbling over in the 70s, would eventually have to boil over, and that direct US involvement would be required. As it happened, the cold war ended, but the framework of what happened in the middle east did not change. Israel was/is still a target, the revolution in Iran may still have its reckoning one day, Iraq was a proxy to keep the area occupied while the "big-two" stood toe-to-toe. Iraq today, and oil. Yes. HOWEVER, it's also about Iran. They are not in a comfortable spot while NATO lies to their north and the US is to their south. My point being, in the end, is that little of this big picture is "new" and that's why "neo-cons" as a name doesn't capture me. But hey, your mileage may vary. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #29 October 8, 2007 Does being an Aviation Machinist Mate, in an East Coast training squadron, during the last of the Vietnam War, get me a pass, or did I actually have to experience the Baptism of Fire? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #30 October 8, 2007 QuoteI won't bore you with my credentials , but I never understood the term NEO-CON...NEO implies "new", and I am a conservative.For those on the left, it's the new, acceptable, 'N' word. You have it say it like this. neO CON. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #31 October 8, 2007 Does being a NEO-zoom dweebie count? (name that movie) "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #32 October 8, 2007 Well my definition of a Neo-Con is any fool who thinks the solution is to spread democracy at gun-point, while systematically stripping away civil liberties at home. Here is the Rolling Stones definition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnQLce48iMc"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #33 October 8, 2007 Well now.....Since all of you dont seem to comprehend. I think this is a VERY good definition... http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html "Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster Gee it sounds all to familiar.................. to what fascism was in the 1930's....with military expansionism. Italy into Ethiopia Germany into most of its neighbors. But why do you think it is that so many who ascribe to this philosophy are so cowardly that they will not go and server as you did?? I guess they really do feel its below them to put themselves in harms way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #34 October 8, 2007 Quote"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Well, I'd change "promote its values" to "promote its interests", then I'm not ashamed to admit I do subscribe to the views in that definition. Of course, we can't go throwing our weight around too much or else we start to do more harm than good to our interests. As of now, we're on top...and we should do what we need to to stay that way. Since our world is and has always been governed by the use of force, the use of force is not unthinkable when it comes to protecting our standing.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #35 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am one of the smarter ones that didn't need to put his life on the line for a tiny salary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteI saved that because it speaks volumes about several of our more vocal far right wingers here. So when the enemy comes knocking on the door, and you're cowering in the corner because you don't believe in war and never enlisted, somehow gives that person validity? The enemy knocking on the door???? The enemy is kicking down our doors with warrantless searches. We have seen the enemy and he is you and your uber right buds.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #36 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteI voted for him, am here in the Middle East and headed up into Iraq again next week. Most of the folks over here voted for him as well. I think the addage goes....Fool me once... shame on you....fool me twice.. shame on me.... I believe the official quote is....."There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." or if you prefer video......http://youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #37 October 8, 2007 QuoteThe enemy knocking on the door???? The enemy is kicking down our doors with warrantless searches. We have seen the enemy and he is you and your uber right buds. You know this from experience, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 October 8, 2007 Quote This board gets funnier and funnier. Do that many people really use the term "neo con" in everyday conversation? I can only think of one who does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #39 October 8, 2007 Quote Quote Interesting to note...the only two right wingers who are answering.. are those who have served..yet neither of you will embrace the name NEO-CON. I won't bore you with my credentials , but I never understood the term NEO-CON...NEO implies "new", and I am a conservative. The thing is that in the framework of the cold war, today's so-called "neo-cons" knew, 30 years ago, that the shit that started bubbling over in the 70s, would eventually have to boil over, and that direct US involvement would be required. As it happened, the cold war ended, but the framework of what happened in the middle east did not change. Israel was/is still a target, the revolution in Iran may still have its reckoning one day, Iraq was a proxy to keep the area occupied while the "big-two" stood toe-to-toe. Iraq today, and oil. Yes. HOWEVER, it's also about Iran. They are not in a comfortable spot while NATO lies to their north and the US is to their south. My point being, in the end, is that little of this big picture is "new" and that's why "neo-cons" as a name doesn't capture me. But hey, your mileage may vary. What is new, becomes old and what is old, becomes new. Traitors to our founding principles have existed in all ages.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #40 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuote"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Well, I'd change "promote its values" to "promote its interests", then I'm not ashamed to admit I do subscribe to the views in that definition. Of course, we can't go throwing our weight around too much or else we start to do more harm than good to our interests. As of now, we're on top...and we should do what we need to to stay that way. Since our world is and has always been governed by the use of force, the use of force is not unthinkable when it comes to protecting our standing. I do not necessarily disagree, and there is much evidence what you say is true; but I find it a bit depressing to concede that we may forever be falling back on war as a way of spreading our values where they are not readily accepted. Define " . . . protect our standing." It appears you may think force is an acceptable way of protecting our standing. What exactly does that mean? I hope it does not mean that if we start to slip from our role of world's dominant economic power that such a slide alone would be sufficient to declare a few wars. You know, . . . to protect our standing." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #41 October 8, 2007 QuoteDefine " . . . protect our standing." It appears you may think force is an acceptable way of protecting our standing. What exactly does that mean? I hope it does not mean that if we start to slip from our role of world's dominant economic power that such a slide alone would be sufficient to declare a few wars. You know, . . . to protect our standing. NOW.. if we could just get all of those wishing to "protect our standing" to get in Uniform..... and besure to get their children into uniform as well.......I am thinking of they want to get the job done.. they should do it themselves instead of expecting OTHERS to do it for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteDefine " . . . protect our standing." It appears you may think force is an acceptable way of protecting our standing. What exactly does that mean? I hope it does not mean that if we start to slip from our role of world's dominant economic power that such a slide alone would be sufficient to declare a few wars. You know, . . . to protect our standing. NOW.. if we could just get all of those wishing to "protect our standing" to get in Uniform..... and besure to get their children into uniform as well.......I am thinking of they want to get the job done.. they should do it themselves instead of expecting OTHERS to do it for them. I'm waiting to see all those Dems signing up for Afghanistan... you know, the ones that have a LOWER percentage of veterans, despite being the majority party ... still no reports of lineups at the recruiting stations, alas...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #43 October 8, 2007 I looked at your list of veterans... did you ever look at the percentage of actual active duty as opposed to the old school National Guard and reserve types that got the cushy jobs back here in the states.?????? Interesting how many DEMS on that list actually had combat time....ooops there goes your pet theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 October 8, 2007 QuoteI looked at your list of veterans... did you ever look at the percentage of actual active duty as opposed to the old school National Guard and reserve types that got the cushy jobs back here in the states.?????? Interesting how many DEMS on that list actually had combat time....ooops there goes your pet theory. If you're going to play the tune of "only combat time counts", then nobody that hasn't been over to Iraq should be commenting...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #45 October 8, 2007 QuoteIf you're going to play the tune of "only combat time counts", then nobody that hasn't been over to Iraq should be commenting... You are forgetting about some former wars that people have served in.... My beef... AS ALWAYS is with the fucking warmongering loud mouthed assholes...... chickenhawk cowards..... that love war.. feed off of war.. yet are too fucking special in their minds to have to go to war.... you know... the whole lot of YOUR administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #46 October 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Well, I'd change "promote its values" to "promote its interests", then I'm not ashamed to admit I do subscribe to the views in that definition. Of course, we can't go throwing our weight around too much or else we start to do more harm than good to our interests. As of now, we're on top...and we should do what we need to to stay that way. Since our world is and has always been governed by the use of force, the use of force is not unthinkable when it comes to protecting our standing. I do not necessarily disagree, and there is much evidence what you say is true; but I find it a bit depressing to concede that we may forever be falling back on war as a way of spreading our values where they are not readily accepted. Define " . . . protect our standing." It appears you may think force is an acceptable way of protecting our standing. What exactly does that mean? I hope it does not mean that if we start to slip from our role of world's dominant economic power that such a slide alone would be sufficient to declare a few wars. You know, . . . to protect our standing. Well, I wasn't thinking in terms of economic power per se. War isn't the ideal answer, I'm just saying it's a tool that we shouldn't be afraid to use if we have to. As I said before, when it comes down to it, our world is governed by force or the threat of it.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #47 October 8, 2007 QuoteI looked at your list of veterans... did you ever look at the percentage of actual active duty as opposed to the old school National Guard and reserve types that got the cushy jobs back here in the states.?????? Interesting how many DEMS on that list actually had combat time....ooops there goes your pet theory. It wasn't his pet theory as he already knew this. His post was mere rhetoric in support of his home team.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #48 October 8, 2007 QuoteMy beef... AS ALWAYS is with the fucking warmongering loud mouthed assholes...... chickenhawk cowards..... that love war.. feed off of war.. yet are too fucking special in their minds to have to go to war.... you know... the whole lot of YOUR administration. I'm gonna laugh if you think you're talking about me.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
