Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

George Bush Campaigned on Noninterventionism

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 8:58:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wouldn't you love to know what happens when they get into office? I mean, there's some sort of transformation of international politics within the individual where they conform to some agenda that's seemingly universal, and independent of party. I doubt there are many who would have thought our current president would be waging war against innocents in countries where we are not at war. Truly murdering people on a regular basis, knowingly.

I wonder how things would go if Ron Paul were elected? Would he be transformed, or would he be eliminated from the equation?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 10:01:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is almost as bad as Obama's "Sermon on the Mount" speech which, in part, made him a Nobel Peace laureate.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 10:18:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 8:58:27 AM, innomen wrote:
Wouldn't you love to know what happens when they get into office? I mean, there's some sort of transformation of international politics within the individual where they conform to some agenda that's seemingly universal, and independent of party. I doubt there are many who would have thought our current president would be waging war against innocents in countries where we are not at war. Truly murdering people on a regular basis, knowingly.

I wonder how things would go if Ron Paul were elected? Would he be transformed, or would he be eliminated from the equation?

Well George W. Bush's policy in 2000 seemed to go out the window after 9/11.

Also, Obama didn't campaign on a non-intervention policy. His only policy was to bring the troops home in Iraq. Barack didn't say that we should bring the Afghanistan troops back or any other troops back.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 11:12:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 10:18:49 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/27/2012 8:58:27 AM, innomen wrote:
Wouldn't you love to know what happens when they get into office? I mean, there's some sort of transformation of international politics within the individual where they conform to some agenda that's seemingly universal, and independent of party. I doubt there are many who would have thought our current president would be waging war against innocents in countries where we are not at war. Truly murdering people on a regular basis, knowingly.

I wonder how things would go if Ron Paul were elected? Would he be transformed, or would he be eliminated from the equation?

Well George W. Bush's policy in 2000 seemed to go out the window after 9/11.

Yeah, I was thinking that at first, but then I realized that with neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc in the administration from the beginning, I feel like they would have found a way to institute the "Bush doctrine" somehow even without 9/11. Just look at the 18 people who were associated with the neoconservative think-tank Project For A New American Century, which basically espoused the Bush doctrine during the Clinton years, who would later go on to become involved in the administration - http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see how, with these kind of people in the administration, they would have possibly let Bush stick to his campaign foreign policy. These people were just itching for a full scale invasion, occupation, and regime change in Iraq since the administration of Bush the first, at least.

Then again, I don't know what would have gotten the American people scared enough to permit, out of fear, the kind of foreign policy changes the neocons were itching for. The least we can say is that 9/11 was a freaking gift for people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz:

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event""like a new Pearl Harbor" (From a PNAC publication, pre 9/11)


Also, Obama didn't campaign on a non-intervention policy. His only policy was to bring the troops home in Iraq. Barack didn't say that we should bring the Afghanistan troops back or any other troops back.

Not only did he not say we should withdraw from Afghanistan, he openly said we need to focus more effort on it. Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good and noble war.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 1:09:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 11:12:50 AM, jat93 wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking that at first, but then I realized that with neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc in the administration from the beginning, I feel like they would have found a way to institute the "Bush doctrine" somehow even without 9/11. Just look at the 18 people who were associated with the neoconservative think-tank Project For A New American Century, which basically espoused the Bush doctrine during the Clinton years, who would later go on to become involved in the administration - http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see how, with these kind of people in the administration, they would have possibly let Bush stick to his campaign foreign policy. These people were just itching for a full scale invasion, occupation, and regime change in Iraq since the administration of Bush the first, at least.

Then again, I don't know what would have gotten the American people scared enough to permit, out of fear, the kind of foreign policy changes the neocons were itching for. The least we can say is that 9/11 was a freaking gift for people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz:

George Bush argued against nation-building in particular during the election. No matter what his advisers or himself thought, he was still limited by public opinion, congress, and geopolitics. What the president wants to happen often has very little to do with what actually happens. Obama's foreign policy was actually quite similar to Bush's, despite his slogan of "Change!" and his intentions to create better relationships with the Arab world. 9/11 sent ripples around the Islamic world along with a feeling that the US, the 'Great Satan', was vulnerable. Regardless of what Bush may have wanted originally, 9/11 forced him to attack to prevent the possibility of an anti-US coalition from forming in the Middle East which would have posed a major threat. A completely random, unforeseen event radically changed his presidency.

What I can't stand is when libertarians say THIS president was terrible for his imperialistic foreign policy, but THIS one wasn't so bad when both of them would have done the same thing in the same situation. Invading was really the only rational move on the table (although the long occupation is up for debate). It doesn't matter what the president said to get elected, and I don't understand at all what you mean by the "neocons" would have found a way. If you seriously believe that the people running the country wanted to create a massive, pointless, expensive, unpopular war because of their political ideology then I honestly have nothing left to say to you. If you ever decide to stop reading leftist or libertarian propaganda and look past the ideological zeal from all sides you might find that US foreign policy is actually *gasp* rational! And when you think you can stop making assertions and actually back up your presumably extensive knowledge of global policies and geopolitics in a debate, give me a call (but if your definition of "knowledge of geopolitics" means "read Foreign Affairs", then no, I'm not interested).

</endrant>
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 2:52:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 1:09:16 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/27/2012 11:12:50 AM, jat93 wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking that at first, but then I realized that with neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc in the administration from the beginning, I feel like they would have found a way to institute the "Bush doctrine" somehow even without 9/11. Just look at the 18 people who were associated with the neoconservative think-tank Project For A New American Century, which basically espoused the Bush doctrine during the Clinton years, who would later go on to become involved in the administration - http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see how, with these kind of people in the administration, they would have possibly let Bush stick to his campaign foreign policy. These people were just itching for a full scale invasion, occupation, and regime change in Iraq since the administration of Bush the first, at least.

Then again, I don't know what would have gotten the American people scared enough to permit, out of fear, the kind of foreign policy changes the neocons were itching for. The least we can say is that 9/11 was a freaking gift for people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz:

George Bush argued against nation-building in particular during the election. No matter what his advisers or himself thought, he was still limited by public opinion, congress, and geopolitics. What the president wants to happen often has very little to do with what actually happens. Obama's foreign policy was actually quite similar to Bush's, despite his slogan of "Change!" and his intentions to create better relationships with the Arab world. 9/11 sent ripples around the Islamic world along with a feeling that the US, the 'Great Satan', was vulnerable. Regardless of what Bush may have wanted originally, 9/11 forced him to attack to prevent the possibility of an anti-US coalition from forming in the Middle East which would have posed a major threat. A completely random, unforeseen event radically changed his presidency.

What I can't stand is when libertarians say THIS president was terrible for his imperialistic foreign policy, but THIS one wasn't so bad when both of them would have done the same thing in the same situation. Invading was really the only rational move on the table (although the long occupation is up for debate). It doesn't matter what the president said to get elected, and I don't understand at all what you mean by the "neocons" would have found a way. If you seriously believe that the people running the country wanted to create a massive, pointless, expensive, unpopular war because of their political ideology then I honestly have nothing left to say to you. If you ever decide to stop reading leftist or libertarian propaganda and look past the ideological zeal from all sides you might find that US foreign policy is actually *gasp* rational! And when you think you can stop making assertions and actually back up your presumably extensive knowledge of global policies and geopolitics in a debate, give me a call (but if your definition of "knowledge of geopolitics" means "read Foreign Affairs", then no, I'm not interested).

</endrant>

Instead of destroying all your hopelessly misinformed and fact-less points right here, which at first I intended to do, I'm up for a debate. Anything from American foreign policy to Israeli foreign policy to the Iran situation to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Your call. Tearing apart your bullsh!t, sourceless, adhoms and baseless assertions about how Bush had no choice when he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz IMMEDIATELY after 9/11 tried to concoct ways to tie the attacks to Saddam, which they knew was a lie, one that they stuck to and instructed the Pentagon to stick to throughout his Presidency, will admittedly be much more satisfying in a formal debate than in a forum. If you really believe that the Bush administration had no choice, and you are prepared to argue that in a debate, prepare to be embarrassed. The Iraq war was unnecessary and required intense lobbying and propaganda on behalf of the government and the mainstream media in order to be sold to the American public. These are facts, and I have a plethora of great sources to back them up, so let's go for it.

Convenient how you ignore my sources about Project For a New American Century and how 18 associates with this group went on to be influential in the Bush administration, and for years they were actively lobbying for America to intervene and change the regime in Iraq, and actually said that a "Pearl Harbor like" attack would make the "transformations" they desired much easier to implement. And then you tell me I'm the one who needs to back up my assertions? At least my post had a link to wikipedia detailing the ties between PNAC and the Bush administration and explaining how 9/11 would be a gift for them in achieving their foreign policy goals. What sources do you respond with? None at all, literally. You're a hypocrite, and I don't pretend to know more than I do about American foreign policy, but it's not hard to now more than a juvenile, cocky ignoramus such as yourself.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:36:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 2:52:28 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 9/27/2012 1:09:16 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/27/2012 11:12:50 AM, jat93 wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking that at first, but then I realized that with neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc in the administration from the beginning, I feel like they would have found a way to institute the "Bush doctrine" somehow even without 9/11. Just look at the 18 people who were associated with the neoconservative think-tank Project For A New American Century, which basically espoused the Bush doctrine during the Clinton years, who would later go on to become involved in the administration - http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see how, with these kind of people in the administration, they would have possibly let Bush stick to his campaign foreign policy. These people were just itching for a full scale invasion, occupation, and regime change in Iraq since the administration of Bush the first, at least.

Then again, I don't know what would have gotten the American people scared enough to permit, out of fear, the kind of foreign policy changes the neocons were itching for. The least we can say is that 9/11 was a freaking gift for people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz:

George Bush argued against nation-building in particular during the election. No matter what his advisers or himself thought, he was still limited by public opinion, congress, and geopolitics. What the president wants to happen often has very little to do with what actually happens. Obama's foreign policy was actually quite similar to Bush's, despite his slogan of "Change!" and his intentions to create better relationships with the Arab world. 9/11 sent ripples around the Islamic world along with a feeling that the US, the 'Great Satan', was vulnerable. Regardless of what Bush may have wanted originally, 9/11 forced him to attack to prevent the possibility of an anti-US coalition from forming in the Middle East which would have posed a major threat. A completely random, unforeseen event radically changed his presidency.

What I can't stand is when libertarians say THIS president was terrible for his imperialistic foreign policy, but THIS one wasn't so bad when both of them would have done the same thing in the same situation. Invading was really the only rational move on the table (although the long occupation is up for debate). It doesn't matter what the president said to get elected, and I don't understand at all what you mean by the "neocons" would have found a way. If you seriously believe that the people running the country wanted to create a massive, pointless, expensive, unpopular war because of their political ideology then I honestly have nothing left to say to you. If you ever decide to stop reading leftist or libertarian propaganda and look past the ideological zeal from all sides you might find that US foreign policy is actually *gasp* rational! And when you think you can stop making assertions and actually back up your presumably extensive knowledge of global policies and geopolitics in a debate, give me a call (but if your definition of "knowledge of geopolitics" means "read Foreign Affairs", then no, I'm not interested).

</endrant>

Instead of destroying all your hopelessly misinformed and fact-less points right here, which at first I intended to do, I'm up for a debate. Anything from American foreign policy to Israeli foreign policy to the Iran situation to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Your call. Tearing apart your bullsh!t, sourceless, adhoms and baseless assertions about how Bush had no choice when he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz IMMEDIATELY after 9/11 tried to concoct ways to tie the attacks to Saddam, which they knew was a lie, one that they stuck to and instructed the Pentagon to stick to throughout his Presidency, will admittedly be much more satisfying in a formal debate than in a forum. If you really believe that the Bush administration had no choice, and you are prepared to argue that in a debate, prepare to be embarrassed. The Iraq war was unnecessary and required intense lobbying and propaganda on behalf of the government and the mainstream media in order to be sold to the American public. These are facts, and I have a plethora of great sources to back them up, so let's go for it.

Convenient how you ignore my sources about Project For a New American Century and how 18 associates with this group went on to be influential in the Bush administration, and for years they were actively lobbying for America to intervene and change the regime in Iraq, and actually said that a "Pearl Harbor like" attack would make the "transformations" they desired much easier to implement. And then you tell me I'm the one who needs to back up my assertions? At least my post had a link to wikipedia detailing the ties between PNAC and the Bush administration and explaining how 9/11 would be a gift for them in achieving their foreign policy goals. What sources do you respond with? None at all, literally. You're a hypocrite, and I don't pretend to know more than I do about American foreign policy, but it's not hard to now more than a juvenile, cocky ignoramus such as yourself.

I've done my homework, my friend. Let's dance: http://debate.org...
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 10:51:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 10:18:49 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/27/2012 8:58:27 AM, innomen wrote:
Wouldn't you love to know what happens when they get into office? I mean, there's some sort of transformation of international politics within the individual where they conform to some agenda that's seemingly universal, and independent of party. I doubt there are many who would have thought our current president would be waging war against innocents in countries where we are not at war. Truly murdering people on a regular basis, knowingly.

I wonder how things would go if Ron Paul were elected? Would he be transformed, or would he be eliminated from the equation?

Well George W. Bush's policy in 2000 seemed to go out the window after 9/11.

Bush and his administration were preparing plans to invade Iraq prior to 9/11.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 10:54:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 10:51:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/27/2012 10:18:49 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/27/2012 8:58:27 AM, innomen wrote:
Wouldn't you love to know what happens when they get into office? I mean, there's some sort of transformation of international politics within the individual where they conform to some agenda that's seemingly universal, and independent of party. I doubt there are many who would have thought our current president would be waging war against innocents in countries where we are not at war. Truly murdering people on a regular basis, knowingly.

I wonder how things would go if Ron Paul were elected? Would he be transformed, or would he be eliminated from the equation?

Well George W. Bush's policy in 2000 seemed to go out the window after 9/11.

Bush and his administration were preparing plans to invade Iraq prior to 9/11.

proof?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:06:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 10:54:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/27/2012 10:51:39 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/27/2012 10:18:49 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Well George W. Bush's policy in 2000 seemed to go out the window after 9/11.

Bush and his administration were preparing plans to invade Iraq prior to 9/11.

proof?

According to Bush"s Secretary of the Treasury Paul O"Neill, in January 2001, almost as soon as Bush assumed office and about eight months before the 9/11 attacks, the administration began serious talks about how to change the regime in Iraq. Similarly, according to James Risen, who reports on intelligence for the New York Times, officials from the CIA"s Iraq Operations Group told an April 2002 gathering that Iraq had been on Bush"s agenda from the very start of his administration and that 9/11 had delayed the action. Whereas Bush"s critics have correctly pointed out that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the more important task of counterattacking the 9/11 attackers, the Bush administration, obsessed with settling old scores with Saddam Hussein, believed the opposite: that 9/11 was a distraction from a Bush vendetta against Saddam.

-http://articles.cnn.com...
- James Risen, State of War, pgs. 214, 219
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.