I think sometimes I subconsciously include qualifiers, even while ignoring their implications. At any rate, UG sliced right through this one with an enchanted Ocaam's Razor +3.
That's what I get for not questioning assumptions (and I usually spend all day trying to find new ways of doing that!) UT continues... I think, at the bottom of what I'm saying is the nagging fact that you can't eat microchips. Well, you can't eat sand, either, but what I mean is we could "run out" of, say, life-giving fresh water.

In that case, the Middle-East might face the awkward situation of having converted from water-hoarding tribes, to petroleum-hoarding tribes, only to convert back to water-hoarding tribes. Please stop comparing things to other things. As rightful owner of this threadjack, I forbid it.

On an astronomical scale, there is definitely a finite amount of wealth/stuff/whatever. We may be able to keep adding value to sand by making it into chips, and then smashing those chips into sand, and making new chips, etc. But once the sun burns out, our energy source will be gone, and it will be done. It is finite.

Everything they have done and try to do.
Emotion does not enter into it.
My emotional opinion, the government has no business asking for more power, needs no more, the police abuse what they have, so they need no more.
The US has a perfectly good Constitution, we need to return what the neo-cons have stolen from it and the Bill of Rights as it is, hopefully the next president will.
The best way to fight terrorists and those who hate what the US stands for is to remain that which we stand for Free, not a police state, what BushCo & friends want.

No, I am just strongly against the idea of "spreading democracy". If another country wants to become democratic, let them. If they don't, fine. The US hasn't really been sponsors democracies anyways, just puppet states.

It’s a different philosophy so you will get different results. I do not think communism works either because of various reasons.

I agree, we need to pull out of the Middle-East completely, all aid, all military, EVERYTHING... just let em' go to hell.

Almost as soon as "America" came into being, as a shining beacon of freedom, we began supporting Imperialism in neighboring countries. Not Democracy.

Why? Slave revolts. Slave revolts scared our slaveowners. Better to support the Imperial masters than risk insiring our slaves to revolt. So began the oxymoronic journey of our foreign policy.

We've never been in the business of spereading Democracy. We routinely bring about the removal of Democratically elected leaders that stand in the way of our interests.

Exactly, that we spread democracy is a myth.

As much as I would love to disagree with this, it is for the best. Iraq is in the middle of a civil war right and by us staying there, we are only going to extend it and could possibly build tensions which will make it even worse than it is now. Yes, it could easily lead to genocide but what are we going to do to stop it?

I am against isolationism but there is a time when you need to intervene in other countries' affairs and a time when you don't. More times then most the latter is the best in the end.

The only real times I see when military action helps is:

1. When both sides want peace and need help keeping it (Palestine/Israel is getting closer to this….hopefully)
2. When it is a slaughter (Darfur/rest of Africa)

And as an ex-military person I can tell you that the minority of troops support these mis-adventures. We made that mistake in Somalia. We are not the worlds policeman. We don't want to be in Iraq, but we are, not much we can do to change that as soldiers. Being in the middle of a civil war is the last place we want to be and both of your examples are extremes of that. Screw Darfur and screw the Israeli-palestinians conflict.

Define "Neo-con". You are no different than radical conservatives. Us and them is all you can see. "Everything they have done and try to do." is such a vast generalization that it is not worth discussing as a valid point.

There is a difference between Iraq and two groups that actually want to work together for peace (Palestine/Israel wasn’t a great example but they are showing steps of wanting peace even if they aren’t close to being there yet). Iraq is not working for peace so there is nothing we can do there. If two places want peace, but just need help keeping it, America, along with other countries, should step in for the greater good. If things get out of control then leave.

Durfur is different because it is a slaughter. There is nothing the natives can do to stop the genocide in Sudan so higher authorities have to step in. You guys talk tough about everyone’s right to life but do nothing to protect anyone else's when they are asking for help.

Those are your opinions. I can tell you that it is not the job of American's to step into any shit hole. Darfur is a shit hole. That is the problem of Africa, they need to deal with it. The government of Sudan should deal with those issues. What you are saying is double-speak. On the one hand to talk about the US as a "higher authority" and at the same time say we should impose our will on other people because you think the cause is just. Bush thought that sending us to Iraq was just and look where that got us.

Who said anything about "us guys talking tough about everyone's right to life"? Certainly you are not making assumptions about my belief's?[/quote]

This is exactly what we should not do... Our history is littered with countries where we went in with good intentions and pulled out when things got tough only leaving the country in shambles. Maybe that is why people in the know are resistant to pull out of Iraq, I don't know. You don't step in with force and impose your will on others and pull out cause things are suddenly a bigger shite sandwhich for you to swallow... :2cents:

Neo-cons are those who think that they are right and that gives the the right to make others bend to their will, that religion has a place in politics, that the police having more power is a good thing, that saying lower taxes during a campaign but raising them as soon as they are elected is acceptable, that the military is a tool for foreign policy, the federal government is a tool to be used to bully states into doing as the party wants, ignorant stuff like that.
Basically BushCo.
Conservatives believe that the Constitution and Bill Of Rights are good as they are and should be respected, that the people's rights are more important than the police, that lower taxes are better, that State's rights are important and private property should not be stolen by the state.

The problem is that it is as common for me to lable people "liberals" as it is for anyone who has a conservative view on any one issue to be labled as "neo-con". If you look at the available terms on line it really should be narrowed quite a bit more than the things you listed. True "neo-cons" are actually a very small but vocal minority portion of conservatives.

Democrats currently in power are certainly people who "they are right and that gives the the right to make others bend to their will". Happens every day in Congress right now...

Many conservatives believe "that religion has a place in politics" and they are not "neo-cons". (I do not, I am more of a anti-religion state guy).

"the military is a tool for foreign policy"... well unfortunately this is a true statement regardless of one's political leanings. Name a president and I will name a case where the projection of military power was used as a tool of foreign policy. Any one in the last 100 years...

"the federal government is a tool to be used to bully states into doing as the party wants"... this is a common thing that Congress (the Federal Government) does to States all the time. It is unrelated to whom is in power or who is the President. Federal mandates handed out which hold money in check unless the States comply abound.

Yes, they are my opinions but it goes deeper than what we've said. I never said we should go to other countries without that country's consent (I'll go more into that later). If two countries think they need help keeping peace then we should go help them because they can help us later on. You scratch their back and they will scratch ours. The biggest problem is that these "peacekeeping" missions are used much more frequently then needed. Peacekeeping missions should only be used when both groups will work and sacrifice to begin and keep peace. These situations are rare but they do show up.

The second situation is true one-sided genocide, when one group takes complete control of another and starts methodically murdering them. The oppressed group wants help but there is nothing they can do to stop it. Even though this is obviously opinion, I think it is the UN's responsibility (note I didn't say US) to step in and put an end to it.

You don't have to have a higher authority to do either of those. Both times an outside source is asking for help, not where we say they need help.