User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 99

Thread: War a Possibility as Iran-Azerbaijan Tensions Flare

  1. #31
    Points: 432,036, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307951
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,400
    Points
    432,036
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,966x in 55,594 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransom View Post
    Pete's knowledge on Neocon extremely limited.
    I’m just pointing out to him that all hawks are not neo-cons. I do agree with you that he does not have a full understanding of what a neo-con is.

    It’s safe to say that neo-cons are generally hawks, but not all hawks are neo-cons.
    When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.“ - Benjamin Franklin.


    “When people get used to preferential treatment equal treatment seems like discrimination.” - Thomas Sowell

  2. #32
    Points: 432,036, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307951
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,400
    Points
    432,036
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,966x in 55,594 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Or a liberal war hawk.I often define both terms. It should be a mystery as to what they are.Ransom becomes impossible to discuss the issues with when he insists on using the wrong meanings of these terms. He identifies Thomas Jefferson as a neocon. lol
    It appears that you don’t want to address the specifics of my comments directed at your view.

    . That’s fine.
    When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.“ - Benjamin Franklin.


    “When people get used to preferential treatment equal treatment seems like discrimination.” - Thomas Sowell

  3. #33
    Points: 141,274, Level: 90
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,776
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Ransom's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    48002
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    44,110
    Points
    141,274
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    10,124
    Thanked 15,009x in 10,721 Posts
    Mentioned
    494 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Neocons have a streak of imperialism. Thomas Jefferson America's greatest imperialist and empire builder. Jefferson very much a state's rights Cat, unlike his cousin James Madison who was a Federalist. So, Jefferson didn't support a large army, didn't want power centralized.

    But do not mistake who Jefferson really was. He was a sheer imperialist. An empire builder. A take land and occupy it not by a military of any size, but by trade and the presence/threat of our US military...that Jefferson used time and again.

    And thus why he falls under the Neocon label.

    Today, the modern version was started with Douglas MacArthur, who is the father of Neoconservatism using Pete's definition. The policy of invading a nation and then reforming it into a democracy certainly started following WWII. But where that is one policy, it isn't always chosen.

    But Tahu......Peter and Ethereal and donttread and I exchanged for months regarding ISIS. I was labeled the Neocon for merely wanting to insert US troops to directly and overtly confront the Islamic State. All 3 members mentioned vehemently opposed such an insertion, Pete explaining to me that it would take "hundreds of thousands" of US troops.

    They were wrong. Clearly, we should have acted earlier to confront ISIS. Clearly, Peter's realpolitik and Special Forces weren't the answer. Isolation or ignoring the issue.....what donttread and Ethereal were calling for wasn't the answer. We found out what the answer was. It was direct, overt confrontation in Iraq by US forces inserted for that very reason.

    Neocons called it correctly. Peter and many haven't been able to get over it.....thus your inability to get answers from him when you ask.

  4. #34
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496564
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,574x in 94,411 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    It appears that you don’t want to address the specifics of my comments directed at your view.

    . That’s fine.
    I know precisely what a neocon is. I also know what "hawks" are in the context of foreign policy schools of thought.
    They are neocons and liberal war hawks.

    Can other schools of thought have hawkish views at times? Sure, if the situation falls within their theories of geopolitics. For example realists (Realpolitik) are hawkish on issues that touch on vital US national security interests. However, they are not hawkish on issues that do not. That doesn't mean they ignore those issues. Liberal order foreign policy types can be hawkish when the global community agrees to act against an aggressive nation, whether vital national security interests are at issue.

    Again, neocons favor spreading democracy by force believing democracies don't make war on each other and autocracies are always dangerous.

    Liberal war hawks favor using military force to right humanitarian wrongs.

    Those two groups are important today because they were the ones that got the US into all of the post 9-11 wars/occupations other than the initial phase of Afghanistan. They are failures and dangerous to the US.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  5. #35
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496564
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,574x in 94,411 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    See.

    Ransom is clueless on this issue. Neoconservativism was born in the 1960s - created by disaffected liberals from the democratic party which opposed the war in Vietnam. They were stuck in the halls of academia and print media until Bush the Younger when they gain political power.

    So when Ransom gives these sorts of opinions on foreign policy take it for what it is- entertainment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ransom View Post
    Neocons have a streak of imperialism. Thomas Jefferson America's greatest imperialist and empire builder. Jefferson very much a state's rights Cat, unlike his cousin James Madison who was a Federalist. So, Jefferson didn't support a large army, didn't want power centralized.

    But do not mistake who Jefferson really was. He was a sheer imperialist. An empire builder. A take land and occupy it not by a military of any size, but by trade and the presence/threat of our US military...that Jefferson used time and again.

    And thus why he falls under the Neocon label.

    Today, the modern version was started with Douglas MacArthur, who is the father of Neoconservatism using Pete's definition. The policy of invading a nation and then reforming it into a democracy certainly started following WWII. But where that is one policy, it isn't always chosen.

    But Tahu......Peter and Ethereal and donttread and I exchanged for months regarding ISIS. I was labeled the Neocon for merely wanting to insert US troops to directly and overtly confront the Islamic State. All 3 members mentioned vehemently opposed such an insertion, Pete explaining to me that it would take "hundreds of thousands" of US troops.

    They were wrong. Clearly, we should have acted earlier to confront ISIS. Clearly, Peter's realpolitik and Special Forces weren't the answer. Isolation or ignoring the issue.....what donttread and Ethereal were calling for wasn't the answer. We found out what the answer was. It was direct, overt confrontation in Iraq by US forces inserted for that very reason.

    Neocons called it correctly. Peter and many haven't been able to get over it.....thus your inability to get answers from him when you ask.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (12-01-2022)

  7. #36
    Points: 123,366, Level: 85
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 2,684
    Overall activity: 60.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    173984
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,702
    Points
    123,366
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    25,436
    Thanked 26,625x in 16,267 Posts
    Mentioned
    271 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    See.

    Ransom is clueless on this issue. Neoconservativism was born in the 1960s - created by disaffected liberals from the democratic party which opposed the war in Vietnam. They were stuck in the halls of academia and print media until Bush the Younger when they gain political power.

    So when Ransom gives these sorts of opinions on foreign policy take it for what it is- entertainment.
    Agreed. Jefferson was no neocon. Not even remotely.
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  8. #37
    Points: 141,274, Level: 90
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,776
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Ransom's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    48002
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    44,110
    Points
    141,274
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    10,124
    Thanked 15,009x in 10,721 Posts
    Mentioned
    494 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    Agreed. Jefferson was no neocon. Not even remotely.
    Your lack of knowledge on history doesn't surprise me. As a forum......we are atrocious on US or any history for that matter. You're a good example.

  9. #38
    Points: 141,274, Level: 90
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,776
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Ransom's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    48002
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    44,110
    Points
    141,274
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    10,124
    Thanked 15,009x in 10,721 Posts
    Mentioned
    494 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    I know precisely what a neocon is. I also know what "hawks" are in the context of foreign policy schools of thought.
    They are neocons and liberal war hawks.

    Can other schools of thought have hawkish views at times? Sure, if the situation falls within their theories of geopolitics. For example realists (Realpolitik) are hawkish on issues that touch on vital US national security interests. However, they are not hawkish on issues that do not. That doesn't mean they ignore those issues. Liberal order foreign policy types can be hawkish when the global community agrees to act against an aggressive nation, whether vital national security interests are at issue.

    Again, neocons favor spreading democracy by force believing democracies don't make war on each other and autocracies are always dangerous.

    Liberal war hawks favor using military force to right humanitarian wrongs.

    Those two groups are important today because they were the ones that got the US into all of the post 9-11 wars/occupations other than the initial phase of Afghanistan. They are failures and dangerous to the US.
    Realpolitik failures led to 9-11 wars/occupation, this has been documented time and again. It wasn't the Neocons who got us attacked on 9-11, it wasn't the Neocons who were responsible for Iraq or the failed sanction and blockade, the Neocons had to come in and save the day. Again.

  10. #39
    Points: 141,274, Level: 90
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,776
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Ransom's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    48002
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    44,110
    Points
    141,274
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    10,124
    Thanked 15,009x in 10,721 Posts
    Mentioned
    494 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    See.

    Ransom is clueless on this issue. Neoconservativism was born in the 1960s - created by disaffected liberals from the democratic party which opposed the war in Vietnam. They were stuck in the halls of academia and print media until Bush the Younger when they gain political power.

    So when Ransom gives these sorts of opinions on foreign policy take it for what it is- entertainment.
    I've taken much criticism, labeled repeatedly.....but still coming up correct.

    The ISIS issue in here played out for years, the Neocon solution was the one that finally worked.....that's never been forgiven.

    And I cannot see how Neoconservatism was born in the 1960's...when we're occupying Korea after invading and defeating both the North Korean and Chinese armies....in the early 1950's. We remain in Korea today......the very definition used by Peter for Neocon. We invaded.....defeated the KPA...not to mention the Chinese....occupied Korea...where we're still in occupation today, South Korea becomes a democracy.....but Neoconservatism doesn't start until a decade later? WTF.

    It is Peter who has proven himself clueless on such matters. It is Peter who will not discuss his ISIS analysis. It was Peter who repeatedly and vehemently opposed anything but covert and indirect opposition to the Islamic State. It was Peter who gave the analysis that is would take hundreds of thousands of US troops to dig ISIS out. So, we can argue and label....but the record here on this forum does not change. His borders on abhorrent during that entire ISIS debacle, I of course.....will stand by my record.

    I'll also ask Members here read the book I offered and finally convinced @donttread to read. Much of it on THomas Jefferson, the book actually about the Lewis and Clark Expedition. It reads like a novel, it's chock full of history, it's as exciting as any novel I've read, the author Stephen Ambrose, the book Undaunted Courage.

    Read...then tell me Jefferson was anything but a Neocon imperialist. An empire builder, an invader and occupier. Learn first...then come in here and hold your own. Cause right now....you two are embarrassing this forum.

  11. #40
    Points: 432,036, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307951
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,400
    Points
    432,036
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,966x in 55,594 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    I know precisely what a neocon is. I also know what "hawks" are in the context of foreign policy schools of thought.
    They are neocons and liberal war hawks.

    Can other schools of thought have hawkish views at times? Sure, if the situation falls within their theories of geopolitics. For example realists (Realpolitik) are hawkish on issues that touch on vital US national security interests. However, they are not hawkish on issues that do not. That doesn't mean they ignore those issues. Liberal order foreign policy types can be hawkish when the global community agrees to act against an aggressive nation, whether vital national security interests are at issue.

    Again, neocons favor spreading democracy by force believing democracies don't make war on each other and autocracies are always dangerous.

    Liberal war hawks favor using military force to right humanitarian wrongs.

    Those two groups are important today because they were the ones that got the US into all of the post 9-11 wars/occupations other than the initial phase of Afghanistan. They are failures and dangerous to the US.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    See.

    Ransom is clueless on this issue. Neoconservativism was born in the 1960s - created by disaffected liberals from the democratic party which opposed the war in Vietnam. They were stuck in the halls of academia and print media until Bush the Younger when they gain political power.

    So when Ransom gives these sorts of opinions on foreign policy take it for what it is- entertainment.
    None of that comes close to substantively refuting my comments.
    Last edited by Tahuyaman; 12-01-2022 at 12:59 PM.
    When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.“ - Benjamin Franklin.


    “When people get used to preferential treatment equal treatment seems like discrimination.” - Thomas Sowell

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts