Well I suppose that you called me a neo-con. At any rate a paleo-con is a faction and not a name--it includes people like Pat Buchanan, etc. And thanks for allowing me the privilege of laughing at your pure insight.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Veterans frustrated by presidential debate on Iraq war
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Well I suppose that you called me a neo-con. At any rate a paleo-con is a faction and not a name--it includes people like Pat Buchanan, etc. And thanks for allowing me the privilege of laughing at your pure insight.
I never called you anything. I have facts on my side so I don't have to.
OK, but I am not a neo-con and paleo-con is not insulting except that it includes Pat Buchanan, whom the Jews consider to be a Jew Hater. It is just a name for people who have been conservative forever--the opposite of neo-con, who used to be a liberal and perhaps a Jew.
Paleo-con, i.e., true, real conservatives like Buchanan, Goldwater, Reagan...gotcha. Makes sense, I guess.
By neo-con I mean, broadly, purveyors of the war industry and adherents to The Project for the New American Century “Statement of Principles”. I think that's the general use/intent of the term nowadays.
By neo-con I mean, broadly, purveyors of the war industry and adherents to The Project for the New American Century “Statement of Principles”. I think that's the general use/intent of the term nowadays.
You must remember that BroC can call people liars, the enemy, stupid, all kinds of names, but they do not count as name calling in his view.
But if anyone says anything he does not like, or points out un-Christ like beliefs or comments he pulls out the crying towel and complains bitterly.
That said the GOP and their apologists really want to distort history and pretend they had no responsibility of a Republican administration sending troops to a disastrous war. Sure there were Democrats who voted to sent troops and that is to their shame as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Obviously, the war was officially began under a Republican. No one is saying "It's not our war." They're saying "It's your war, too."
It's actually the opposite of what you're saying. It's the Dems denying their part in it.
BOTH sides wanted this war. BOTH sides voted for this war. BOTH sides pushed for regime change. And so BOTH sides share in any blame and responsibility.
On the other hand, Dems want credit for pulling out. Again, BOTH sides get credit. It happened under Obama, but Bush set it in motion. Both sides get credit for it. (Which, in my opinion, it was a mistake, anyway).
Both should simply admit they made a terrible mistake. I won't hold my breath however.
Same answer as above.
What scared me is there are folk, mostly conservative Republicans who seem determined to involve us in another such misadventure.
Politics as usual. Everyone wants credit for anything that the see as a positive event.
I agree, once there we should have stayed. Though we could have stayed 100 years and as soon as we pulled out it would all begin falling apart. 1300 years of history should have taught us this much.
And you're allowed to praise eastern religions and people who deny the deity and the resurrection of Christ.
Pound sand. I never called him anything. You, on the other hand, are a liar, and not a very smart one.
BINGO! ....and they're STILL frothing for war with Iran! It's going to be interesting to watch how hawks like Huckabee, Santorum, Rubio, Graham, and others will present their position for another war to a war wary public. More war is becoming an increasingly hard sell to Americans, believe it or not.
When's the last time you looked at the debt clock? We can't afford to be occupying and 'nation building' other countries.
U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There Oct - 2011
"...Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq's continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.
Those efforts had never really gone anywhere; One senior U.S. military official told National Journal last weekend that they were stuck at "first base" because of Iraqi reluctance to hold substantive talks.
That impasse makes Obama's speech at the White House on Friday less a dramatic surprise than simple confirmation of what had long been expected by observers of the moribund talks between the administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, which believes its own security forces are more than up to the task of protecting the country from terror attacks originating within its borders or foreign incursions from neighboring countries.
In Washington, many Republican lawmakers had spent recent weeks criticizing Obama for offering to keep a maximum of 3,000 troops in Iraq, far less than the 10,000-15,000 recommended by top American commanders in Iraq. That political point-scoring helped obscure that the choice wasn't Obama's to make. It was the Iraqis', and a recent trip to the country provided vivid evidence of just how unpopular the U.S. military presence there has become -- and just how badly the Iraqi political leadership wanted those troops to go home.
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, for instance, is a hugely pro-American politician who believes Iraq's security forces will be incapable of protecting the country without sustained foreign assistance. But in a recent interview, he refused to endorse a U.S. troop extension and instead indicated that they should leave.
"We have serious security problems in this country and serious political problems," he said in an interview late last month at his heavily guarded compound in Baghdad. "Keeping Americans in Iraq longer isn't the answer to the problems of Iraq. It may be an answer to the problems of the U.S., but it's definitely not the solution to the problems of my country."
Shiite leaders -- including many from Maliki's own Dawaa Party -- were even more strongly opposed, with followers of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr threatening renewed violence if any American troops stayed past the end of the year. The Sadr threat was deeply alarming to Iraqis just beginning to rebuild their lives and their country after the bloody sectarian strife which ravaged Iraq for the past eight and a half years.
The only major Iraqi political bloc that was willing to speak publicly about a troop extension was the Kurdish alliance which governs the country's north and has long had a testy relationship with Maliki and the country's Sunni and Shia populations. But even Kurdish support was far from monolithic: Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker considered one of the most pro-American members of parliament, said in a recent interview that he wanted the U.S. troops out."
This is all great stuff. I believe if Hillary gets in she's going to disappoint a lot of peacenik democrats.
ROFL. See, the non-name caller just called me a name.
BroC, get your big boy pants on, grow up and start being a real man. Time for you to stop being a insecure bully and be a man.
I don't believe I ever called you anything, never mind "neo-con".
And only misinformed Jews think Pat Buchannan is a Jew hater.
Neocon, too me, is someone willing to ignore the constitution in matters of freedom and limited government, yet still wants the conservative label.
I'm trying to keep this on-topic. You can call me all the names you want to. Your opinion means absolutely nothing, to me. Talk about the subject, or buzz off.
It's those with an agenda to conceal their wrongdoings that make these smears and slanders in order to silence the truth.
Yea, that too.
He's one of the least hateful people I know of. He had an excellent eulogy for Ted Kennedy when he died.
can you briefly describe what the word means to you ?
From post #44:
"By neo-con I mean, broadly, purveyors of the war industry and adherents to The Project for the New American Century “Statement of Principles”. I think that's the general use/intent of the term nowadays."
But I'd add your take to this also.
Yup. She will be the biggest D.C. insider ever to run.
Get the facts straight, he actually tried to keep us there but in the end he had no choice in the matter:
U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There Oct - 2011
"...Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq's continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.
Those efforts had never really gone anywhere; One senior U.S. military official told National Journal last weekend that they were stuck at "first base" because of Iraqi reluctance to hold substantive talks.
That impasse makes Obama's speech at the White House on Friday less a dramatic surprise than simple confirmation of what had long been expected by observers of the moribund talks between the administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, which believes its own security forces are more than up to the task of protecting the country from terror attacks originating within its borders or foreign incursions from neighboring countries.
In Washington, many Republican lawmakers had spent recent weeks criticizing Obama for offering to keep a maximum of 3,000 troops in Iraq, far less than the 10,000-15,000 recommended by top American commanders in Iraq. That political point-scoring helped obscure that the choice wasn't Obama's to make. It was the Iraqis', and a recent trip to the country provided vivid evidence of just how unpopular the U.S. military presence there has become -- and just how badly the Iraqi political leadership wanted those troops to go home.
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, for instance, is a hugely pro-American politician who believes Iraq's security forces will be incapable of protecting the country without sustained foreign assistance. But in a recent interview, he refused to endorse a U.S. troop extension and instead indicated that they should leave.
"We have serious security problems in this country and serious political problems," he said in an interview late last month at his heavily guarded compound in Baghdad. "Keeping Americans in Iraq longer isn't the answer to the problems of Iraq. It may be an answer to the problems of the U.S., but it's definitely not the solution to the problems of my country."
Shiite leaders -- including many from Maliki's own Dawaa Party -- were even more strongly opposed, with followers of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr threatening renewed violence if any American troops stayed past the end of the year. The Sadr threat was deeply alarming to Iraqis just beginning to rebuild their lives and their country after the bloody sectarian strife which ravaged Iraq for the past eight and a half years.
The only major Iraqi political bloc that was willing to speak publicly about a troop extension was the Kurdish alliance which governs the country's north and has long had a testy relationship with Maliki and the country's Sunni and Shia populations. But even Kurdish support was far from monolithic: Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker considered one of the most pro-American members of parliament, said in a recent interview that he wanted the U.S. troops out."