No more. Bring our troops home. There will be plenty of fighting to do here soon enough.
Posted on 03/16/2011 2:02:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
No.
The “national interest” is a common term used in foreign policy and national security.
True. But it is also the focus of the neocons, NOT "national defense" as you stated. They two are different animals that sometimes coincide but often don't.
Interesting could you list these “neo-con” actions in every crack and corner”?
Do your own homework.
No more. Bring our troops home. There will be plenty of fighting to do here soon enough.
With respect to Perle, Kemp, et al, I agree. I was referring to their supporters/defenders.
Supporters/defenders hoping to get a few crumbs from the mega deals..........
“(National Interest)...True. But it is also the focus of the neocon ..NOT “national defense” as you stated. They two are different animals that sometimes coincide but often don’t.”
National Defense implies military forces, National Interest implies our foreign policy. It is simple terminology that means what is in the interests of the country....nothing sinister about that.
Interesting could you list these “neo-con” actions in every crack and corner”?
“Do your own homework. “
Well, at least you know when you are check-mated.
Gulf War - defended an ally,Kuwait, from armed invasion and occupation
Afghanistan - attacked a country that directly assisted, housed, helped to finance and train Al Qeada operatives who attacked American soil, killing 3,000 and wrecking our economy for a period of time.
Iraq - whether you agree or disagee with conduct of war...Intel showed WMD in Iraq. It would have been negligent not to invade with the intel available from US and allies.
So, YOUR silly little CONSPIRACIES aside, these military contingencies all had rationale in the interests of the United States.
Too bad you can’t follow the conversation and have to take a detour to defend your nonsense.
Check my first post. I said using “military force” under the guise of “national interest.”
Nice try, though.
You asking about Reagan exposed your silly attempt at “gotcha.” I don’t have time for your childish games.
As to countries, you left a few out — quite a few. Certainly you can do better than that. If not, you seriously need to work on your research skills. Here’s a hint: try reading Kristol, Podhoretz & co. for starters. Maybe even Kagan. Or just follow John McCain’s foreign policy. He seems to be a fine puppet. These folks are always the first to want to sacrifice lives of U.S. military men and women to “promote democracy” in some far off land. Thankfully many are saying “NO MORE.”
Well, I just ruled out Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq as being included in your conspiracy list of neo-con wars, by giving the rationale for the wars.
What else to you have?
One more addition. READ what I first wrote. There is no "national interest" that justifies the military force advocated by these crooks. They are their for their own self interest, not that of the U.S. of A. It's time for conservatives to reject these neo-crazies and get back to a strong "national defense," not policing the world while this clan gets rich off US tax dollars funding their sleazy backroom deals.
How?
calcowgirl posted: There is no "national interest" that justifies the military force advocated by these neo-crooks. They are their for their own self interest, not that of the U.S. of A. It's time for conservatives to reject these neo-crazies and get back to a strong "national defense," not policing the world while this clan gets rich off US tax dollars funding their sleazy backroom deals.
The Palin Doctrine is the Bush or McCain Doctrine.
Funny how that is now considered conservative.
They have people thinking that the doctrine equals national defense.
Marcus Tullius Cicero Roman Statesman Speech in the Roman Senate - 42 BC "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. "
It is interesting that words spoken in 42 BC are still so relevant.
Still unheeded though.
Gulf War - defended an ally,Kuwait, from armed invasion and occupation
Afghanistan - attacked a country that directly assisted, housed, helped to finance and train Al Qeada operatives who attacked American soil, killing 3,000 and wrecking our economy for a period of time.
Iraq - whether you agree or disagee with conduct of war...Intel showed WMD in Iraq. It would have been negligent not to invade with the intel available from US and allies.
*None of these are neo-con wars, except in the heads of very little brain.
If it was retaliation we were after we could have had him offed long ago.
The point of debate is not what we have been going after, but instead what we should be going after.
We should be going after the terrorist Gadaffi and we should be going after any known Al Qaeda on the other side.
Still haven’t done your research, I see.
Carry on talking to yourself.
You’re a conspiracy nut...and deep down you know it.
My research is completed: rational security interests in every major contingency I mentioned (Gulf War, Afghan, Iraq)
If you evidence of “neo-con” wars as you state...put forth the evidence.
Sorry, it can’t be the fantasia in between your ears.
Try identifying the United States interest affected by Libya.
(BTW - I support Palin, but I don’t support intervening in a muslim civil war)
You’re really suggesting that those are the only three areas where neocons have urged U.S. military action in the last few decades?
Seriously?
You are grossly uninformed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.