Forums | MacLife

Liberals wrote the Constitution, liberals espoused separation from England.

Liberals advocated for the Bill of Rights.

Remember that Hitler was a conservative.

Get off of the name calling, you discredit any discussion you attempt to bring forth.

Can only one man bring law & order back to Iraq?

Back?

So I guess authoritarian fascist Communist dictatorships are the thread starters idea of "law & order"?

Man, this place is crazy...

ahh yes,

teh good old day of fascism and communism....

You people need to get some fresh air.

bratboy wrote:

Over half of the American public believes the war was a mistake.

Sources please!!!

fuchikoma wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Over half of the American public believes the war was a mistake.

Sources please!!!

Scroll down to the third question on the page.

Multiple examples.

gas huffer wrote:

bratboy wrote:

fuchikoma wrote:

Sources please!!!

Scroll down to the third question on the page.

Multiple examples.

only in hindsight it would seem....

Sure, prior to that they were being fed fabulous stories of weapons caches, nuclear programs, and chemical weapons training for al-qaeda!

gas huffer wrote:

That's because apparently you still think the public pretext for the war was the actual reason.  I am sorry I gave you credit for being smarter than that.

Wow, someone who actually admits that it was all a pretext!

Are you claiming that the public was intentionally mislead by this administration?

bratboy wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

That's because apparently you still think the public pretext for the war was the actual reason.  I am sorry I gave you credit for being smarter than that.

Wow, someone who actually admits that it was all a pretext!

Are you claiming that the public was intentionally mislead by this administration?

The noble lie.

It's good when your government lies to you, and the world.

You need to trust them because they know what's right.  It's for your own good.

huffer, you keep arguing with an assumption that you have some kind of superior knowledge.

Maybe instead of tossing insults to us about stuff we supposedly don't know, you could tell us about it. We may or may not agree with you - but then we might be able to have a discussion about it.

a good place to start:

Political Realism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realism

Without reading either link, pre-emptive war and the re-making the mid east as democratic states is built around a repudiation of realist policy. That repudiation is one of the cornerstones of today's neo-conservative foreign policy.  A foreign policy realist like Kissinger is the philosophical opposite of an Iraq war architect like Richard Perle.  The neo-cons blame realist foreign policy for much of today's geopolitical ills. They even go so far as to talk of 'moral clarity', like Krauthammer, for instance, who made a big deal out of it.

Ultimately, all foreign policy ends at realism. We see that with the attitude towards the Shi'te militias and maybe even a new attitude towards the sunni and baathist fighters. The attitude to Iran speakes for itself.

The heavy weight neo-con Fukuyama has even admitted the failure of neo-con philosophy to re-make the mid east. That's a considerable step beyond merely blaming the execution of neo-con policy, which many still publicly regard as sound.

But I've always stressed the point that with foreign policy, and particularly with neo-con policy, one has to parse what they say from what they want.

It's child's play to poke gaping holes in the grand pre-war pronouncements of the war apologists. WMD, terrorists, democracy, blah blah... They know it's crap as much as the anti-war crowd. But both sides doggedly cling to their BS arguments. The war apologists stick to discredited arguments while the anti war crowd stoop to debate these non-issues, sucked into a logical void that acts as a diversion.  All the while the bases get built and no doubt the treaty gets signed and  next thing you know America has some incredibly expensive bases that any foregn policy realist would think twice before giving up.

bratboy wrote:

fuchikoma wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Over half of the American public believes the war was a mistake.

Sources please!!!

Scroll down to the third question on the page.

Multiple examples.

Interesting. ABC News/Washington Post has found (at most) 620 misguided fools so far  to stack their poll, ...while ignoring the rest of the country.

Ribtorus wrote:

Without reading either link, pre-emptive war and the re-making the mid east as democratic states is built around a repudiation of realist policy. That repudiation is one of the cornerstones of today's neo-conservative foreign policy.  A foreign policy realist like Kissinger is the philosophical opposite of an Iraq war architect like Richard Perle.  The neo-cons blame realist foreign policy for much of today's geopolitical ills. They even go so far as to talk of 'moral clarity', like Krauthammer, for instance, who made a big deal out of it.

You confuse multilateral realist policy for unilateral, both of which are realist.  You should know that realism is essentially rational choice theory with Nations as actors, right?

The neocons preference for the use of force is not a repudiation of realism, its a repudiation of a mulitlateral approach when concesus conflicts with the Nations interests.

You do recall the magazine called the National Interest, eh?

Ribtorus wrote:

Ultimately, all foreign policy ends at realism. We see that with the attitude towards the Shi'te militias and maybe even a new attitude towards the sunni and baathist fighters. The attitude to Iran speakes for itself.

The heavy weight neo-con Fukuyama has even admitted the failure of neo-con philosophy to re-make the mid east. That's a considerable step beyond merely blaming the execution of neo-con policy, which many still publicly regard as sound.

But I've always stressed the point that with foreign policy, and particularly with neo-con policy, one has to parse what they say from what they want.

It's child's play to poke gaping holes in the grand pre-war pronouncements of the war apologists. WMD, terrorists, democracy, blah blah... They know it's crap as much as the anti-war crowd. But both sides doggedly cling to their BS arguments. The war apologists stick to discredited arguments while the anti war crowd stoop to debate these non-issues, sucked into a logical void that acts as a diversion.  All the while the bases get built and no doubt the treaty gets signed and  next thing you know America has some incredibly expensive bases that any foregn policy realist would think twice before giving up.

No, those arguments are for public opinion, and they are waged in the media for the masses as pure propoganda.

The real aim of this war is a long term political and institutional transformation of the ME.