Is America a nation at risk?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Actually, if there is any BS to be found in the neocon approach to foreign policy, this has never come to the attention of anyone trying to actually execute it.

No one's ever been able to demonstrate that it's a "failed policy," either. They merely allege that it must be one, and solely because they disagree with it. How's that again?? It's the antidemocracy Left that's doing the grousing! Don't mistake rationalization for wise thought!

"More than I would like," quotha. How about democracy fucking winning and undemocracy fucking going extinct? Ever thought about that one?? I'll answer for you: you, Spexx, have never once thought in those terms, or evidence of it would appear as much in your posts as it does in mine.

If I'm wrong, show proof. Otherwise, amigo, the ash heap of history is out through the back door.

And pacifists -- they do have an incredible weakness in their philosophy which causes me to reject it as a way of life: pacifism does not help you stay alive in trouble. No other philosophy has that handicap. Under lethal attack, either the pacifist must die, or the pacifism must be abandoned. Either the pacifist or the pacifism must die then. Pacifism, it seems, sets human life at a higher value than human goodness. It doesn't take very much thought to see the weaknesses in this concept -- sociopaths have very little good in them, and the more pronounced the sociopathy the less the decency. Are such monsters to be kept in anything but a cage or the grave? Not on your tintype.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Actually, if there is any BS to be found in the neocon approach to foreign policy, this has never come to the attention of anyone trying to actually execute it.

No one's ever been able to demonstrate that it's a "failed policy," either. They merely allege that it must be one, and solely because they disagree with it. How's that again?? It's the antidemocracy Left that's doing the grousing! Don't mistake rationalization for wise thought!

"More than I would like," quotha. How about democracy fucking winning and undemocracy fucking going extinct? Ever thought about that one?? I'll answer for you: you, Spexx, have never once thought in those terms, or evidence of it would appear as much in your posts as it does in mine.

If I'm wrong, show proof. Otherwise, amigo, the ash heap of history is out through the back door.

And pacifists -- they do have an incredible weakness in their philosophy which causes me to reject it as a way of life: pacifism does not help you stay alive in trouble. No other philosophy has that handicap. Under lethal attack, either the pacifist must die, or the pacifism must be abandoned. Either the pacifist or the pacifism must die then. Pacifism, it seems, sets human life at a higher value than human goodness. It doesn't take very much thought to see the weaknesses in this concept -- sociopaths have very little good in them, and the more pronounced the sociopathy the less the decency. Are such monsters to be kept in anything but a cage or the grave? Not on your tintype.

UG...I (and others) demonstrated the failures in other threads and you ran away without responding. And you still haven't responded here..just more of the same "anti-left" rhetoric.

And once again, you ignored the facts (reversals of policy with greater respect for the law) that I noted above.

As to the broader neo-con policy issues, I will rerun the proof for you.

The failures of Reagan's illegal Iran/Contra fiasco (10 administration officials served jail time) and subsquent Bush (both) policies of supporting right wing thug "democracies" in the region ....the long term result of which was a growth in anti-American sentiment that resulted in the election of the same person that Reagan "defeated" and a stronger South/Central America and Caribbean (ALBA) alliance (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Dominica and, most recently, Honduras and to a lesser extent, Ecuador, Paraguay, Grenada, Belize....) with Cuba than the US.

The failures of the Reagan/GHW Bush policy to arm both Iran and Iraq. Please tell me what that accomplished?

And the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation by G Bush. While it is too soon to know the long-term outcome, I will grant you that Iraq now has a democratically elected government. I prefer that democracy result from the will of the people, rather than the invasion and occupation of a foreign power.

The cost of the war against a country that posed no direct threat to the US, and leaving aside the $1 trillion and 4,000+ US lives and an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives:

- the US invasion/occupation serving as a "cause celebre" (according to NIEs) for terrorist organizations around the world.

- the displacement of more than 4 million Iraqis from their homes, characterized by the UN as the worst refugee crisis in the Middle East in 40 years and resulting in more than an estimated 2 million Iraqis, many the former middle class, still living in refugee camps or slums in Syria, Jordan, etc. and afraid to return home or have no home to return to.

- the enhanced influence of Iran in Iraqi internal politics and thus greater influence on the politics of the region, with Iraq no longer serving as a buffer against the influence of the Iranian theocracy pulling the strings .

Added:
As to the "anti-democracy" left, I only speak for myself and as I said, I prefer democracies "of the people and by the people" and not imposed by force of invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, the unintended consequences of which are not always the cheery outcome you and the neo-cons suggest.

[DanaC]

Just as a small point: there are more positions available than just the two extremes of warmongering and pacifism.

I didn't agree with the Iraq war....that doesn't make me a pacifist. It just means I believe that particular war was wrong. Not that all war is wrong. Mind you: the word pacifism covers a range of views. Not all pacifists are against all war.

From wikipedia:

Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.

Given the highlighted sentence, Urbane's contention that under lethal attack 'pacifism' must be abandoned is somewhat erroneous.

[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.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Let me see if I can dig one up for ya...

[Aliantha]

As long as everyone's got comfy shoes on, America will never be a nation at risk.