Is America a nation at risk?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, I can see this will take a while -- and most of what Redux claims are failures (for he believes it with a religious intensity) are not, I think, failures in the end. Further remarks to follow.

Briefly, DanaC -- I for one could hardly oppose the demolition of a fascist regime, now could I? Could you -- in anything like good conscience? How can a democracy taking down a dictatorship be a wrongness, when dictatorships are invariably about the oppression? They differ only in degree, after all -- the less virulent that way are suffered to exist by the rest of the global community, but such suffrance doesn't add up to improvement, or even good. Dictatorships and autocracies are the ones that go easily to war; democracies, driven and steered by popular consensus, far less so. This is evinced even in this last decade and the one before it in the United States: who is seriously arming their nation against the US military? No one, except perhaps the North Koreans, who are sharply constrained by their lack of resources and so-so intel. Even Cuba, which professes to be greatly worried, isn't meeting its words with action.

Why is this? Try this idea on for size: it's because of the way we use it. No one is concerned that they will be randomly, arbitrarily plucked like low-hanging fruit by American marauders.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Well, I can see this will take a while -- and most of what Redux claims are failures (for he believes it with a religious intensity) are not, I think, failures in the end. Further remarks to follow.

UG....come on, dude!

It shouldnt take that long if you are a true neo-con.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

UG....come on, dude!

It shouldnt take that long if you are a true neo-con.

Oh, this is an example of the discussion you tend towards. I get it.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh, this is an example of the discussion you tend towards. I get it.

Yep...no partisan links from either UG or me!

Its called dialague and discourse.

He pushes and I push back.... and we do it in our own words and with our own thoughts...and maintain an equal level of respect.

On the other hand.you must have a partisan link to contribute. That is your contribution to most threads.

You always have a partsian link..or two..or three...or four...or five..that are always facutally correct regardless of what others may offer.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Yep...no partisan links from either UG or me!

Its called dialague and discourse..he pushes and I push back.... and we do it in our own words and with our own thoughts...and maintain an equal level of respect.

On the other hand.you must have a partisan link to contribute.

You always have a partsian link..or two..or three...or four...or five..that are always facutally correct regardless of what others may offer.

Ok, I see. You say partisan things to him and call him a few names to suit you; he says partisan things to you and he calls you a few names. And that is somehow a respectful conversation???

Ok.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ok, I see. You say partisan things to him and call him a few names to suit you; he says partisan things to you and he calls you a few names. And that is somehow a respectful conversation???

Ok.

Yep.

We got class...UG and me

I think he is full of shit but I recognize him as an independent thinker and I respect his intellect and gamesmanship and I would hope he has the same respect for me..despite the name calling.

On the other hand.....

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would hope he has the same respect for me..despite the name calling...

Ok.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

UG....come on, dude!

It shouldnt take that long if you are a true neo-con.

Fuck off, Jack. I think, despite your protestations -- or urgings -- to the contrary. You had best not have been serious.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Fuck off, Jack. I think, despite your protestations -- or urgings -- to the contrary. You had best not have been serious.

UH OH....a cyber threat? I'm shaking in my boots.

Why is it so hard to answer simple questions:

What was good about the early neo-con policy of supporting any govt that wasnt communist, even it was a right wing regime? Look at South/Central America to start...What did it accomplish other than raise anti-American sentiments in Venzuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicuagara, Uruguay,....

What did Reagan/GHW Bush accomplish by secretly funding both the religious extremist government of Iran and the dictatorship of Saddam?

How was US national security enhanced by attacking and invading a sovereign nation that posed no direct threat to the US while virtually abandoning the attack against the greater threat posed by those forces (al queda) in Afghanistan (and the Talliban govt that supported them) who were responsible for the attack on the US?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

UH OH....a cyber threat? I'm shaking in my boots.

Why is it so hard to answer simple questions:[indent]What was good about the early neo-con policy of supporting any govt that wasnt communist, even it was a right wing regime? Look at South/Central America to start...What did it accomplish other than raise anti-American sentiments in Venzuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicuagara, Uruguay,....

"neo-con" wasn't even part of our lexicon when we were really deeply involved in that part of the world.

What did Reagan/GHW Bush accomplish by secretly funding both the religious extremist government of Iran and the dictatorship of Saddam?

It kept them busy fighting each other. But to be honest you would really need to go back a little farther in history to be true to the issue as we supported Iran long before Reagan came to office.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

"neo-con" wasn't even part of our lexicon when we were really deeply involved in that part of the world.

The neo-conservative foreign policy ideology started as a post WW II "anti-communist" policy....mostly Democrats at the time. Viet Nam could rightfully be considered the first neo-con foreign policy failure.

In terms of South America, the School of the Americas, where right wing, anti-communist regimes received military training n the US, and used that training to suppress populist movements was another failure.

Reagan's attempt to replace a communist regime in Nicaragua through the illegal Iran/Contra fiasco was when the movement became more of a true Republican ideology. And it failed there as well....1o Reagan officials served jail time for the Iran /Contra affair and the person they removed from office, Daniel Ortega, is now back in power and more popular than ever.

Bush continued the same policy on a lesser scale with his interference in elections in Venezuela resulting in making Hugo Chavez even more popular in his own country and the region.
.

It kept them busy fighting each other...

And yet, now the top ruling Shiia parties in Iraq all have strong historic ties to Iran...so our invasion and occupation has made Iran stronger in the region.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

And yet, now the top ruling Shiia parties in Iraq all have strong historic ties to Iran...so our invasion and occupation has made Iran stronger in the region.

They have always had strong "historic ties" to Iran. That has not changed. I am not going to dispute the fact that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake or worse. And I have always stated that position.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The neo-conservative foreign policy ideology started as a post WW II "anti-communist" policy....mostly Democrats at the time. Viet Nam could rightfully be considered the first neo-con foreign policy failure.

But neo-con, as it is used today, refers only to those in the Republickin party to whom left-wingers like to associate with 8 years of Bush. And that would be incorrect. But it is how people assoicate the term. Irving Kristol is given most of the credit for the development of the term. Or as a better known description, "A liberal mugged by reality". Given our involvement with Vietnam began before Kennedy was in office you would need to spread that assertion over no less than 4 presidential terms to be accurate. Like our economic situation now, every party gets a piece of that shit sandwhich.

In terms of South America, the School of the Americas, where right wing, anti-communist regimes received military training n the US, and used that training to suppress populist movements was another failure.

You have made an assumption that that was the purpose of the SOA. I disagree. You would be hard pressed to document the goal of the SOA to be the "suppression of populist movements" from anything other than a partisan anti-SOA source. Lose associations between individuals who attended the SOA and their subsequent criminal actions in their own countries is hardly proof. Criminals will act as such with or without training.

Reagan's attempt to replace a communist regime in Nicaragua through the illegal Iran/Contra fiasco was when the movement became more of a true Republican ideology. And it failed there as well....1o Reagan officials served jail time for the Iran /Contra affair and the person they removed from office, Daniel Ortega, is now back in power and more popular than ever.

The Ortega issue was a side show to the hostages. A minor issue that got caught up in the larger issue. Not designed by Reagan but by others with alternative motives.