Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Neocon Foreign Policy Allows For Huge Govt.

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 5:24:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is from a blog post of mine defending Ron Paul's stance on the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, and exposing the hypocrisy of neoconservatives like John McCain and Rick Santorum who profess small government at home but make a magical exception for huge government abroad.

Defending Ron Paul's Stance On The Murder Of Anwar al-Awlaki, And How Military Adventurism and Policing The World Allow For Big Government Gone Wild

Today, Ron Paul made headlines for his apparently bold and controversial assertion that Al Qaeda figure and U.S. Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki deserved his constitutional right to a fair trial, instead of the murder by drone strike he received in Yemen this Friday. Is Ron Paul wrong in yet again refusing to bend on his consistent support of the Constitution? Obviously not. Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen, and each American is by law entitled to a fair trial, no matter how heinous a crime he or she committed. Says Paul, there is something seriously wrong with this country if we aren't bothered by the fact that an American citizen was murdered today simply because the President decided so. If we allow a President the power to violate the law and take away the life of an American citizen because he deems him a terrorist without ever proving it in a court of law (what happened to innocent until proven guilty?), I shudder to think of one simple question: what's next?

Anyone who says Ron Paul is wrong on this issue is probably thinking more with emotion than any semblance of rationality. However, the neoconservatives, who have thoroughly hijacked the Tea Party that Ron Paul began and who still unfortunately make up the majority of the Republican base, will predictably blast Paul for "siding with Al Qaeda" and denying "American exceptionalism".

The catch is that in the eyes of (most of) the GOP, being exceptional means that America gets to do whatever the hell it wants around the world; that it can and should start endless, bloody, costly, unconstitutional wars in the name of "democracy"; and that we can safely ignore the logical consequences of those actions. Then, when Ron Paul points out that most people who live in these countries view us not as liberators but as murderers, and that they might just be a little bit resentful of an endless, murderous American presence there, it's because he hates America and he's siding with the terrorists. In fact, Mitt Romney snidely told Ron Paul in a 2007 debate that he should "stop taking his marching orders from Al Qaeda."

I am filled with sadness when I reflect that Ron Paul, who has for 30 years been Washington's only consistent advocate of liberty, freedom, and the Constitution, a feat truly worthy of America's Founding Fathers, is portrayed by most of the Republican party as a terrorist sympathizer because he doesn't give America carte blanche to police the world and disregard the inevitable consequences of doing so. I mean, you seriously don't want to know how many times I've heard "I agree with Ron Paul on everything except his foreign policy" from the average Republican voter. Ron Paul must get tired of explaining to people, time and time again, that true conservatism doesn't advocate a jingoistic, "Go America, f*ck yeah!", good guys vs. bad guys mentality where the American military is some infallible force of goodness that can do no wrong in its noble quest for worldwide democracy. This runs contrary to the childishly naive and historically blind views of notorious war hawks John McCain and Rick Santorum, who have both criticized Ron Paul for denying American exceptionalism, hating America, and blaming America for the 9/11 attacks.

It stuns me that Republicans like McCain and Santorum who proudly trumpet small government values at home – low taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, laissez-faire economics – can be so unbelievably blind to the fact that throughout American history and to this very day, war has proven to be a springboard for big government to violate the Constitution and strip away the individual rights of its citizens.

Take the example of World War One, when Woodrow Wilson created an unprecedented propagandist machine known as the Committee On Public Information which had one sole purpose: to brainwash Americans into supporting the war. And worse still were the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, which literally permitted the government to deem anyone who spoke out against it's brainwashing war efforts as a terroristic threat to American security. These acts forbade the use of disloyal, profane, or abusive language about the US government, and both gave the government essentially unrestricted power to punish those that simply disagreed with it. We see in the case of "Wilson's War" that war allowed for a huge, propagandist government with a blatant disregard for our right to free speech as guaranteed under the Constitution's first amendment.

Not convinced that war serves as a catalyst for big government gone wild? Consider the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks nearly 100 years after World War One, when Congress readily approved the Patriot Act one month after the attacks. The Patriot Act is literally the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, which says that government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has or will commit a crime. It also violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide any notice to people whose privacy has been compromised. In the words of Dr. Paul himself,

"Certainly the Patriot Act would have never been passed, because it wasn't available to us… It was almost 400 pages long, and became available less than an hour before it was debated on the House floor… The congressmembers were intimidated… And the people are frightened. When they are frightened, they are much more willing to give us their liberties. But giving up their liberties won't make them safer, that's the real sad part of it."

Yet again in the case of the Patriot Act, as in Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts, we can observe government using terrorism and war as an excuse for people to give up their constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety from the government. Each time, the "safety" is nothing but massive government expansion and actually makes American citizens significantly less safe than they ever were before.

The greatest irony is that the one group who most pushes the wars and "terrorist prevention" that serve only as springboards for government expansion and loss of civil liberties are those who most profess the need for the government to stay out of peoples' personal lives: the neoconservatives. Indeed, these are the same people that will inevitable deride Paul for his supposed "alliance" with terrorists such as Anwar al-Awlaki. It should be quite clear that in reality, Paul correctly understands liberty as an indivisible whole – not something that can be applied only to economic policy but disregarded when it comes to foreign policy. It also proves that Paul is one of the few, if not the only Republican(s) that understand the history of war and "terrorist" prevention in America. Said Paul on Friday,

"If the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad."

Is Paul saying that al-Awlaki isn't actually a bad guy? Of course not. What he is saying is that we as Americans should never stand for the murder of another American, no matter how evil, who was killed without a fair trial and solely because the President said so. History indicates that if we so complacently accept the fear mongering that the government spins for us, and let the President violate the law because of it, then we do so at the jeopardy of our own civil liberties.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 6:28:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The neo-con idea is that you minimize government in areas of welfare while keeping a large military with aggressive orders.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 8:02:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 6:28:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
The neo-con idea is that you minimize government in areas of welfare while keeping a large military with aggressive orders.

Yeah, but the won't admit that their "big government" foreign policy always leads to "big government" at home, stripping away civil liberties and expanding government power over the personal life of citizens, under the guise of safety.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 8:05:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 7:34:30 PM, seraine wrote:
Hear, hear!

Yeah, neocons believe in economic small gov, a wee little bit of social small gov, and no foreign small gov.

How do they believe in a "wee little bit social small gov"? Isn't social conservatism the exact opposite of that?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 8:28:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 8:02:47 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 9/30/2011 6:28:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
The neo-con idea is that you minimize government in areas of welfare while keeping a large military with aggressive orders.

Yeah, but the won't admit that their "big government" foreign policy always leads to "big government" at home, stripping away civil liberties and expanding government power over the personal life of citizens, under the guise of safety.

I don't see the relevance. Our military expanded under Reagan and our civil liberties didn't correspondingly decrease.

It's if we get attacked at home that you get that sort of social control. If it's a foreign war, the American people won't given enough of a damn. For example, the U.S.S Cole attack by Osama Bin Laden.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 9:01:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 8:28:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:02:47 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 9/30/2011 6:28:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
The neo-con idea is that you minimize government in areas of welfare while keeping a large military with aggressive orders.

Yeah, but the won't admit that their "big government" foreign policy always leads to "big government" at home, stripping away civil liberties and expanding government power over the personal life of citizens, under the guise of safety.

I don't see the relevance. Our military expanded under Reagan and our civil liberties didn't correspondingly decrease.

It's if we get attacked at home that you get that sort of social control. If it's a foreign war, the American people won't given enough of a damn. For example, the U.S.S Cole attack by Osama Bin Laden.

What about WW1 and the suppression of dissent in speech and the press? I'm pretty sure we weren't attacked at home for that.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 9:22:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 8:05:20 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:34:30 PM, seraine wrote:
Hear, hear!

Yeah, neocons believe in economic small gov, a wee little bit of social small gov, and no foreign small gov.

How do they believe in a "wee little bit social small gov"? Isn't social conservatism the exact opposite of that?

I had thought I remembered something that showed that conservatives have some social liberalism streak, but apparently I was mistaken.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 9:55:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 9:01:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:28:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:02:47 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 9/30/2011 6:28:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
The neo-con idea is that you minimize government in areas of welfare while keeping a large military with aggressive orders.

Yeah, but the won't admit that their "big government" foreign policy always leads to "big government" at home, stripping away civil liberties and expanding government power over the personal life of citizens, under the guise of safety.

I don't see the relevance. Our military expanded under Reagan and our civil liberties didn't correspondingly decrease.

It's if we get attacked at home that you get that sort of social control. If it's a foreign war, the American people won't given enough of a damn. For example, the U.S.S Cole attack by Osama Bin Laden.

What about WW1 and the suppression of dissent in speech and the press? I'm pretty sure we weren't attacked at home for that.

We could go back and forth, I could name the Alien and Sedition act, you can name japanese internment camps, I'll name gulf war, you'll name panama, etc. The correlation isn't as absolute as you make it out to be.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 10:55:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Did you know the first Income Tax was put into place under Abraham Lincoln?

It was. (though it was ruled unconstitutional)

Did you know that the Income Tax was reinstated in 1913 and made substantially higher because of WW1?

Even though it was cut in the 1920s, it still remained much higher than the pre-War norms.

And, the Top Income Tax Rate was raised to well above 90% during the war. It stayed this high until John F Kennedy cut down to 70%, but the Vietnam War allowed Johnson to raise it again.

Finally, Reagan got rid of the insanely high rates.

And, how about inflation?

Inflation was rampant during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and the Vietnam War was paid for by Monetary Expansion that led to the 1970s Stagflation.

Finally, look at deficits. The Debt increased massively under Lincoln and the Civil War, Wilson and WW1, and FDR and WW2... Not to mention Bush 2 and Reagan...

In fact, the three presidents that increased the debt the most are Wilson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln... our three biggest War Presidents...

So, wars have led to inflation, massive debt, and high taxes...
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 11:16:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 10:55:20 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Did you know the first Income Tax was put into place under Abraham Lincoln?

It was. (though it was ruled unconstitutional)

Did you know that the Income Tax was reinstated in 1913 and made substantially higher because of WW1?

Even though it was cut in the 1920s, it still remained much higher than the pre-War norms.

And, the Top Income Tax Rate was raised to well above 90% during the war. It stayed this high until John F Kennedy cut down to 70%, but the Vietnam War allowed Johnson to raise it again.

Finally, Reagan got rid of the insanely high rates.


And, how about inflation?

Inflation was rampant during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and the Vietnam War was paid for by Monetary Expansion that led to the 1970s Stagflation.

Finally, look at deficits. The Debt increased massively under Lincoln and the Civil War, Wilson and WW1, and FDR and WW2... Not to mention Bush 2 and Reagan...

In fact, the three presidents that increased the debt the most are Wilson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln... our three biggest War Presidents...

So, wars have led to inflation, massive debt, and high taxes...

You do know that Reagan increased military spending the most of any president in peacetime.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 11:23:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 6:28:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
The neo-con idea is that you minimize government in areas of welfare...

False. Neo-conservatism was invented by leftists who left behind the left on foreign policy and crime, not on economics. Most neo-cons believe in a welfare state, though they might occasionally support welfare reform a la Clinton.

A person in Yemen is outside the reach of an American trial. If they are a member of an organization at war with the United States, they should expect acts appropriate to war, regardless of where they were born.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that warrants are required for assassinations. That seems fine to me. If they want a trial they can turn themselves in to the nearest official, or put hang out somewhere where it's possible to arrest them instead of shooting and running.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 11:36:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 11:16:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 10:55:20 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Did you know the first Income Tax was put into place under Abraham Lincoln?

It was. (though it was ruled unconstitutional)

Did you know that the Income Tax was reinstated in 1913 and made substantially higher because of WW1?

Even though it was cut in the 1920s, it still remained much higher than the pre-War norms.

And, the Top Income Tax Rate was raised to well above 90% during the war. It stayed this high until John F Kennedy cut down to 70%, but the Vietnam War allowed Johnson to raise it again.

Finally, Reagan got rid of the insanely high rates.


And, how about inflation?

Inflation was rampant during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and the Vietnam War was paid for by Monetary Expansion that led to the 1970s Stagflation.

Finally, look at deficits. The Debt increased massively under Lincoln and the Civil War, Wilson and WW1, and FDR and WW2... Not to mention Bush 2 and Reagan...

In fact, the three presidents that increased the debt the most are Wilson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln... our three biggest War Presidents...

So, wars have led to inflation, massive debt, and high taxes...

You do know that Reagan increased military spending the most of any president in peacetime.

Ya.... Maybe that explains the deficit....

But, it's silly. You said "in peace time". I am talking about the massive increase in gov. during wars...
President of DDO
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 1:01:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"neocon" has become a buzzword used by paulbots to demonize anyone who dare criticize their leader.

Neoconservative is about exporting democracy to places that don't have it. A stupid idea that has led to several wars and millions of casualties.

But it is not a defining feature of US foreign policy. the constitution is treated like the bible for Ron Paul.

the constitution was not designed that way - Jefferson himself did not see the constitution as a static piece of paper. "big government" was not created by conservatives, but liberals - and Congress, who have used the commerce clause to pass bills regulating guns, murder, domestic violence, construction of schools, controlling farmers, the list is endless.

the founding fathers would be laughing at Ron Paul if they were alive today.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 3:23:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
the constitution was not designed that way - Jefferson himself did not see the constitution as a static piece of paper.

"big government" was not created by conservatives, but liberals - and Congress, who have used the commerce clause to pass bills regulating guns, murder, domestic violence, construction of schools, controlling farmers, the list is endless.
These don't sound like words coming from the same person. They aren't really arguments anyway, but the first sentence hints that you are for the nanny state and the second that you are against.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 3:52:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 3:23:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
the constitution was not designed that way - Jefferson himself did not see the constitution as a static piece of paper.

"big government" was not created by conservatives, but liberals - and Congress, who have used the commerce clause to pass bills regulating guns, murder, domestic violence, construction of schools, controlling farmers, the list is endless.
These don't sound like words coming from the same person. They aren't really arguments anyway, but the first sentence hints that you are for the nanny state and the second that you are against.

the first sentence is pure legality. jefferson believed that succeeding generations of new americans will write new laws to match their generation. he predicted (rightly) that his time will be different than his children's, and so on.

but the commerce clause is crucial because jefferson believed interstate commerce should be always reserved for the states. BUT when FDR is elected and with all his puppet packed SC, landmark laws took a massive dump on article 5 because it gave congress (feds) insane power over the states. these powers have yet to be reversed.

so when paul goes on and on about the constitution, people don't realize how irrelevant the constitution is from an economic perspective.

as far as his foreign policy is concerned, dubious at best, self-destructive at worse. america didn't become the richest and most powerful national on earth through wilsonian isolationism which is precisely what paul advocates (though he had condemned wilson publicly)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 2:21:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 1:01:08 AM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
"neocon" has become a buzzword used by paulbots to demonize anyone who dare criticize their leader.

And by any historically aware person who realizes that neoconservatives have hijacked the Republican Party (and crashed it to the ground), hijacked the Tea Party that Ron Paul started, and currently dominate U.S. foreign policy. To be fair, this jingoistic, imperialistic foreign policy isn't solely a neoconservative one and it has its roots in the Progressives of the early 20th century. But no, "neocon" has become a "buzzword" used by those who resent the fact that they've wasted trillions of dollars on needless, perpetual, immoral, unconstitutional warfare.

Not just Paulbots. Don't turn this into a "Paulbot" thing. And besides, even if it was, it doesn't make them wrong.

Neoconservative is about exporting democracy to places that don't have it. A stupid idea that has led to several wars and millions of casualties.

But it is not a defining feature of US foreign policy.

Wrong. Yes it is.

the constitution is treated like the bible for Ron Paul.

Isn't it crazy how much he cares about the government following the law that everyone who works for it swore to uphold and protect? Crazy.

the constitution was not designed that way - Jefferson himself did not see the constitution as a static piece of paper. "big government" was not created by conservatives, but liberals - and Congress, who have used the commerce clause to pass bills regulating guns, murder, domestic violence, construction of schools, controlling farmers, the list is endless.

Not sure what you know about Jefferson's view of the Constitution. He was for an extremely strict interpretation and said that when future generations interpret it, they should look back and try to understand the "spirit" in which it was founded. Essentially rejecting the view that the Constitution is malleable document that changes as time goes on.

Also, unless I missed something, nobody said that neoconservatives created "big government", so not sure why you're writing about that.


the founding fathers would be laughing at Ron Paul if they were alive today.

This is so incorrect I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that Ron Paul might as well be a modern day Thomas Jefferson because so many of their views are identical. For almost every time Ron Paul says something in a speech, I could find you a quote by a Founding Father that is remarkably similar. If anything, (most of) the Founding Fathers would be smiling at Ron Paul because of his view that less government is good government, his stress on individual liberty and freedom, and his unwavering support of the Constitution.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 2:25:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And by any historically aware person who realizes that neoconservatives have hijacked the Republican Party (and crashed it to the ground), hijacked the Tea Party that Ron Paul started, and currently dominate U.S. foreign policy. To be fair, this jingoistic, imperialistic foreign policy isn't solely a neoconservative one and it has its roots in the Progressives of the early 20th century. But no, "neocon" has become a "buzzword" used by those who resent the fact that they've wasted trillions of dollars on needless, perpetual, immoral, unconstitutional warfare.:

Imperialist? Hijacked? Dominate? How many buzzword.

Under the current definition, JFK was a neo-con. So was FDR for establishing ties with Islamic states and arming them.

George W. Bush is a saint compared to folks like JFK and LBJ. I guess Clinton too was a neo-con for Kosovo?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 2:33:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
jefferson believed interstate commerce should be always reserved for the states.

Wat
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 2:47:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 2:25:51 PM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
And by any historically aware person who realizes that neoconservatives have hijacked the Republican Party (and crashed it to the ground), hijacked the Tea Party that Ron Paul started, and currently dominate U.S. foreign policy. To be fair, this jingoistic, imperialistic foreign policy isn't solely a neoconservative one and it has its roots in the Progressives of the early 20th century. But no, "neocon" has become a "buzzword" used by those who resent the fact that they've wasted trillions of dollars on needless, perpetual, immoral, unconstitutional warfare.:

Imperialist? Hijacked? Dominate? How many buzzword.

I'm not sure if this is an argument or what. It sure didn't rebut anything I said.

Under the current definition, JFK was a neo-con. So was FDR for establishing ties with Islamic states and arming them.

What current definition? We've only been discussing the neoconservative foreign policy which is but one component of what the average neocon believes. So, no.


George W. Bush is a saint compared to folks like JFK and LBJ. I guess Clinton too was a neo-con for Kosovo?

Again, neoconservatism is not only about foreign policy. And seriously how is GWB a saint compared to JFK or LBJ? Maybe I just don't know enough history, but at least they didn't campaign against "nation building" and on a "humble foreign policy" and then prove to enact the exact opposite policies over their terms. And that's only if you're counting their foreign policies. How about Bush's Patriot Act? Pretty much kissed the 4th Amendment goodbye.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 6:43:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Again, neoconservatism is not only about foreign policy. And seriously how is GWB a saint compared to JFK or LBJ? Maybe I just don't know enough history, but at least they didn't campaign against "nation building" and on a "humble foreign policy" and then prove to enact the exact opposite policies over their terms. And that's only if you're counting their foreign policies. How about Bush's Patriot Act? Pretty much kissed the 4th Amendment goodbye.:

Neoconservatism is purely about foreign policy. Neo-conservativism=exporting democracy (our brand of democracy) to other parts of the world.

Let's see - JFK's intervention Cuba, Africa, Vietnam, and Iraq. JFK increased US troops in Vietnam by more than 3000% (yes, 3,000 percent) during his term.

neo-con is a buzzword, like teabagger etc.

Neo-conservatism is in fact a moral upgrade from traditional US foreign policy. What is better - supporting authoritarian regimes or using our resources to further democracy in other parts of the world?

It was Bush that forced the Palestinians into elections. Forced elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt. We used to just throw money at dictators from Roosevelt to Clinton.

Our war in Afghanistan is a blatant example of neo-conservatism. Is Obama a neocon?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 8:50:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Neo-conservatism is in fact a moral upgrade from traditional US foreign policy. What is better - supporting authoritarian regimes or using our resources to further democracy in other parts of the world?

Neither is worth a damn as such. However, the authoritarian regimes at least often give the US some incidental strategic benefit.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.