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
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
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.
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
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.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
FindersKeepers (12-01-2022)
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.
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.
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