The Epic Failures of Neocons

[donttread]

Nobody made that claim.

FYI- Bush attacked Iraq (public reason) because he didn't want Saddam to give WMD to terrorists.

The info about real WMD's which the public was lead to believe meant nukes was in accurate. Ergo , false information.

[Ethereal]

Neoconservatism wasn't designed to "work" (or fail for that matter), it's a self-serving ideology like libertarianism.

What a curious remark.

[Ethereal]

The neocons, acting on behalf of the military-industrial complex, are trying to manipulate Trump into more foreign catastrophes.

Americans must remember that neocons are the biggest failures in US foreign policy history. Everything they touch implodes, sending shockwaves across the world.

AQ, created by neocons.

ISIS, created by neocons.

Iraq, destroyed by neocons.

Libya, turned into a wasteland by neocons.

Syria, turned into a bloodbath by neocons.

Now the neocon blood lust is fixated on Iran.

And, of course, the neocon traitors are doing much of this on behalf of a foreign power, Israel, who has managed to co-opt the US government through nefarious means.

Will the American people survive the scourge that is the neocons? That remains to be seen.

[Captdon]

This thread will be dedicated to cataloging the failures of neocons. Granted, their failures are too numerous to cover comprehensively, so I will concentrate mostly on their failures starting in the 1980's when they created AQ.

It's no secret that during the 1980's, the CIA was financing, training, and supporting the so-called "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. What most people do not know is that these "freedom fighters" were actually Jihadist murderers and lunatics, and that they eventually transformed into Al Qaeda, the international terrorist organization who attacked us on 9/11.



So all the problems we currently face in regards to international terrorism can be traced back to this original sin.

But it doesn't stop there. Oh no. The neocons decided to unleash another monstrous terrorist threat on the world, this time in the form of ISIS.

Long story short, the neocons, under Bush and Cheney, convinced Americans to invade and occupy Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in a naive attempt to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to a country simmering over with sectarian hatred. The resultant power vacuum and instability allowed AQ to infiltrate the country. Once established, they were known as Al Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. Due to differences over strategy, vision, and ideology, AQI eventually broke away from "core" Al Qaeda and started its own, independent movement known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS.



Incidentally, their ability to leverage the instability of Syria as a means of expanding into that country was also the result of more neocon "regime change" chicanery.

As early as 2006, neocons were already fomenting insurrection in Syria in an attempt to destabilize the Assad government.



Basically, almost every terrorist threat the west faces, and every major problem in the Middle East, can be traced back to neocon foreign policy.

You should have gone back to the mid-50"s when we took over for the French in Vietnam. It's been mostly downhill ever since.

Neither party is totally to blame and neither has clean hands. We got a bit of Big Brother to the world. Some of it was needed to stop the USSR from expanding. Some of it was genuine good will but bad planning. Some of it was just senseless warmongering.

We wanted to put a burr in the Soviet saddle in Afghanistan. Good thought until you see who we armed. It was well meant but poorly thought out. Iraq was just revenge for trying to kill W's dad. Syria is needed to clean up that mess and the one Obama made that created ISIS.

I don't know what to think about NK if they don't denuclearize. They're too dangerous to let go but war is a big deal against a nuclear nation. At least Trump is taking it slow and not rushing itno something we may regret.

I think the old Neo-Con thing is going away. The people are tired of it. There's always the danger of isolationalism but if Trump goes slowly and keeps bullshitting the media he may pull it off. As non-Presidential he is, he does seem to get results.

[Ransom]

This thread will be dedicated to cataloging the failures of neocons. Granted, their failures are too numerous to cover comprehensively, so I will concentrate mostly on their failures starting in the 1980's when they created AQ.

It's no secret that during the 1980's, the CIA was financing, training, and supporting the so-called "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. What most people do not know is that these "freedom fighters" were actually Jihadist murderers and lunatics, and that they eventually transformed into Al Qaeda, the international terrorist organization who attacked us on 9/11.

That is absolute horseshiit. And cannot be left to rot on these pages. Please do research and then comment. Wow.

So all the problems we currently face in regards to international terrorism can be traced back to this original sin.

Who taught you this? It's absolute baloney.

But it doesn't stop there. Oh no. The neocons decided to unleash another monstrous terrorist threat on the world, this time in the form of ISIS.

I reckon Assad could be seen by some as a Neocon. Mistakenly so, but Ethereal's entire thread start is a mistake.

Long story short, the neocons, under Bush and Cheney, convinced Americans to invade and occupy Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in a naive attempt to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to a country simmering over with sectarian hatred. The resultant power vacuum and instability allowed AQ to infiltrate the country. Once established, they were known as Al Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. Due to differences over strategy, vision, and ideology, AQI eventually broke away from "core" Al Qaeda and started its own, independent movement known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS.

Ethereal should read more, write less.

Incidentally, their ability to leverage the instability of Syria as a means of expanding into that country was also the result of more neocon "regime change" chicanery.

No, it wasn't. Their ability to leverage the previous President and government leaders in Iraq, not to mention your arguments fueled ISIS.

As early as 2006, neocons were already fomenting insurrection in Syria in an attempt to destabilize the Assad government.

Neocons like Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Research Ethereal...then comment.

Basically, almost every terrorist threat the west faces, and every major problem in the Middle East, can be traced back to neocon foreign policy.

I don't know whether the thread start or the number of monkey see monkey do thank you's embarrass the forum more.

[Ransom]

For those who wish to know something about history and would like to know reality...what actually happened.

The United States invaded Iraq in 1990...and never left. It did do when Bush I was in office. During the entire Clinton Presidency, the United States is enforcing no fly zones in both north and south Iraq. We're enforcing economic blockades that are devastating the Iraq economy. Osama Bin Laden...is in Sudan. Events in and on the Arabian Peninsula is his focus and outrage. He goes to Afghanistan to hide under the Taliban government(who come into power following the civil strife following Soviet occupation). The attackers on 9-11 were focused on events in Iraq, were not original Afghan Fighters but Egyptian, Kuwaiti, and Saudi. Not Afghans....Ethereal.

Devastating sanction and blockade, manipulation of Saddam using him as a buffer against Iran......was what got us attacked on 9-11. Remember, when Osama Bin Laden declares war on the US, George W. Bush is the Governor of Texas. It is not Neocon policies that are targeted by OBL on 9-11, that is a mistaken analysis.

AQI were forces opposed to American occupation in Iraq following the 2003 invasion. They were AQ affiliates. Different goals, different purpose. AQI weren't international terrorist.

Lastly, ISIS is formed form the Syrian conflict. Once it spread into Iraq it would reason that former AQI members would bandwagon.....but their recruitment was much different. ISIS had support from the Turks, Hamas, many other entities inside Iraq, the US didn't create ISIS nor facilitate.

Homework is important.

[Dr. Who]

That is absolute horseshiit. And cannot be left to rot on these pages. Please do research and then comment. Wow.

Who taught you this? It's absolute baloney.



I reckon Assad could be seen by some as a Neocon. Mistakenly so, but Ethereal's entire thread start is a mistake.



Ethereal should read more, write less.



No, it wasn't. Their ability to leverage the previous President and government leaders in Iraq, not to mention your arguments fueled ISIS.



Neocons like Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Research Ethereal...then comment.





I don't know whether the thread start or the number of monkey see monkey do thank you's embarrass the forum more.

If you are so certain that it's not true - prove it. Much of what Eth is referring to comes from declassified material and revelations from former CIA operatives.

Furthermore, in the 1970's it became quite apparent after a series of scandals that the CIA was literally out of control (and had been for some time) and that the executive branch had no idea what they (the CIA) was doing other than growing exponentially. In the late 70's it had its wings clipped and then was once again revitalized under the Reagan administration only to be afflicted by a series of spy scandals in the mid 80's and of course Iran-Contra demonstrating once again that the CIA was operating without oversight. Other than making it abundantly clear that there is no nefarious activity that they wouldn't instigate or cause others to instigate, what makes you think that creating AQ would have been out of scope? The CIA were informed of what the government wanted but without oversight, used any means at their disposal to make it come true, even if those means ultimately proved catastrophic.

[Ethereal]

Ransom is rambling like a rank amateur, ignoring the copious amounts of facts and evidence I produced in the OP.

Who does he think he's fooling anyway?

[Ransom]

Ransom is rambling like a rank amateur, ignoring the copious amounts of facts and evidence I produced in the OP.

Who does he think he's fooling anyway?

You didn't produce a shred of evidence, you're winging it, Ethereal. I know it, you know it, Peter knows it.

[Ransom]

If you are so certain that it's not true - prove it. Much of what Eth is referring to comes from declassified material and revelations from former CIA operatives.

What would you like me to prove, Dr. Who? Much of what Eth is referring to didn't happen. Osama Bin Laden isn't an Afghan Rebel. His issue wasn't US interference in Afghanistan. It was Iraq. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Eth is wrong, I'm merely pointing that out.

Furthermore, in the 1970's it became quite apparent after a series of scandals that the CIA was literally out of control (and had been for some time) and that the executive branch had no idea what they (the CIA) was doing other than growing exponentially. In the late 70's it had its wings clipped and then was once again revitalized under the Reagan administration only to be afflicted by a series of spy scandals in the mid 80's and of course Iran-Contra demonstrating once again that the CIA was operating without oversight. Other than making it abundantly clear that there is no nefarious activity that they wouldn't instigate or cause others to instigate, what makes you think that creating AQ would have been out of scope? The CIA were informed of what the government wanted but without oversight, used any means at their disposal to make it come true, even if those means ultimately proved catastrophic.

Because the CIA didn't create al-Qaeda. AQ is developed in the Arabian Peninsula. Their declaration of war....that Eth can even show you by the way...is all about Iraq.....not Afghanistan. It is so crystal clear you're in the same no homework boat as Eth. He of course receives my focus as he should know better. What can I show you proof of, Dr. Who? These other two....Peter and Eth disappear once the actual facts arrive. Their guesswork and wing it style often amusing and keeps one's interest......but it's wrong.

And their analyses concerning ISIS...…..I'm sorry.....cannot be forgiven. For such vast claims to fame and experience....such vast claims of know how and geopolitics......they blundered the entire ISIS threat matrix, the realities needed to defeat ISIS, and the global realities attached. Such massive swings and misses, don't escape me.....and they will be repeatedly analyzed themselves to show all here and elsewhere what not to do. The importance of historical perspective. The wrong calls must be gone over, those failing to understand their history, are doomed to repeat its' mistakes.

Now.....how can I help prove to you what happened, Dr. Who. You'll be gone in a few posts too.