Posted on 12/06/2010 10:24:01 AM PST by Academiadotorg
A. Germany and Japan were NOT Muslim, were they? Islam is a backwards Cult. HELLO.
B. Though 65 years ago the USA helped rebuild Germany and Japan, there was a tactical reason: To buttress them from expansionist USSR and Red China.
C) It needs to be noted that "Nation Building" remains un-constitutional and in no way is an obligation of the American citizenry to either finance or spill blood in/for other countries.
“A neocon has the foreign policy that if you can democracize your enemy, through force if necessary, they will become less hostile and eventually become an ally.”
Half truths amount to lies.
One half truth in your statement is that “neocons”, with respect to Iraq, were NOT joined by many other Conservatives in that position. That’s false, they were. Thus, whether or not “neocons” took that position, it had broad enough Conservative support to belie the claim that it was NOTHING BUT a “neocon” position.
The other half-truth in your statement is the mistake, the error, that such a position was taken, by “neocons” or anyone else as a unilateral, universal “policy position” that ought to be taken, no matter what, without regard to context. It never was.
Yep.
You forgot that libertarians all want to eat small children and mandate heroin injections, too.
“Those who fear libertarians fear themselves.”
The Verdict is in right now.
Epic Fail. NOT worth it. On all counts.
Guess what? China has been a "threat" to us for decades and we pulled no trigger; As was the USSR. Cuba. North Korea. Iran. And now Venezuela.
Germany was Nazi, and Japan was just as bad.
Through years of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan there is a tactical reason, to butress them (and contain) an expansionist Iran.
Nationbuilding in Japan and Germany was un-Constitutional?
What provisions of the U.S. Constitution forbids it?
This should be interesting........
Don't change the course of the debate by attempting to smear someone as a "Paulite."
The fact is 0bama had a chance to change the dynamics of the recent elections in Iran - he chose to support Ahmadinejad instead. It's no secret Iran has been working on Uranium enrichment for years; We even helped that nut in N. Korea with his nuke projects.
You can NOT stop countries from developing nukes at this point in time. Well, you can - at the risk of launching WWIII.
As "bad" as the 1400 years of Cultist Islam as a constant marauder of ALL things, places, and persons? *eyeball roll*
Germany - the home of Luther - was a Christian nation gone awry. Japan's own leadership led them astray as well.
OTOH, no Muslim nation (or tribe) can be converted against their will to be "Democratic." THAT, my misguided friend is a pipe-dream worthy of Cheech and Chong.
Nationbuilding in Japan and Germany was un-Constitutional? What provisions of the U.S. Constitution forbids it? This should be interesting........
You realize "declarations of war" are constitutional, right? By the consent of Congress.
Moreover, you mean to say the US Constitution obligates the US military and US taxpayers to finance, bleed for, and "Nation Build" foreign countries?
In your dreams, pal. LMAO.
If it were up to YOU, we'd be "Nation Building" the entire continent of Africa, the rest of Asia, and South America.
This is true.
A good summary to which I would add a point or two. When Russell Kirk (an Edmund Burkian conservative — hardly an ex-lefty) gained promeanance in the mid-fifties from his work “The Conservative Mind” and was part of the new group writing for Buckley, hw was call a Neo-Conservative by the America-First / Robert Taft crowd from the 30s and 40s.
The ex-Communist that was also hired by Buckley that most deserved the appelation of Neo-Con was Frank Meyer, an ex-communist who saw himself as a libertarian.
Good article:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2751.html
But, even the Old Whig, classical liberal, Irving Kristol came to be called a Neo-Con. Russell Kirk (hardly in line with Kristol) wrote a defense and asked something along the line of “if they are at bottom an Old Whig as opposed to a rationalistic New Whig aren’t thay all just part of the conservative tradition?”
The Neo-Con’s of the Reagan to Bush 43 era were more about exporting Democracy as a manner of making the world safe for our republic — pragmitists all. Here we have Bill Kristol etc. Again, the Jewish heritage element plays too big a part in the description.
I have an old factoid. Who was Ron Paul’s later famous chief of staff when he was first in congress?
A common perception, delivered to the public by their critics, but nor supported by their own writing.
"They also think that America’s mission is to spread democracy across the globe by any means necessary."
"by any means necessary" - again, another claim by their critics, not supported by most "neocons" themselves; and always made as if the "neocons" would, anymore than anyone else, make a unilateral, universal position with no respect to context. Its absurd.
"Good examples are Bill and Irving Kristol, David Frum, and David Brooks.
I don't think David Brooks is any true Conservative, "neo" or otherwise. True, in the early 2000s he echoed, in his oped articles, the views already expressed by some "neocons", particularly regarding Iraq, but I don't think he was ever in the same "camp" as the Kristol brothers; having himself still been a Liberal until possibly the 1980s, after many "Neocons" had already left any of their Left-leaning inclinations behind.
All you can do in defense of your idiocy is to make strawman arguments about declarations of war, and your futile attempt to mind-read me?
If you were more competent, you might rise to the level of being pitiful.
Now please tell me what section of the Constitution makes ‘nation building’ of the type we did with Germany and Japan Unconstitutional.
Oh yeah, you cannot, because you don't really KNOW the Constitution, do you?
If you had a clue, you be dangerous.
You're the one who just compared "Nation Building" Germany and Japan to *snicker* Muslim Iraq?? That dog don't hunt.
Firstly, there was NO official declaration of war upon Iraq. Iraq did not violate America's sovereignty, nor was there a sneak attack. We bombed it and crippled it. THEN STOLE MONEY FROM THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER TO REBUILD IT.
Technically "Nation Building" in both Germany and Japan respectively required the American taxpayer and citizen to rebuild them as well. IOW, that is called "taxation without representation."
Now you want to tell me confiscating US taxpayer wealth to rebuild foreign countries infrastructure is "constitutional"?
Nice Statist/Globalist position. You probably support the UN and a World Tax on the US as well.
Let’s not forget the underlying reason we went to war in WWII was defense of America and its sovereignty. Nation building was a collateral.
The whole reason we went to war in Iraq was to build a democratic oasis.
The two situations do not compare. Saddam Hussein was an evil man and I wouldn’t wish my worst enemy under his rule, but he was no threat to American sovereignty.
If you were more competent at this, you might rise to the level of being pitiful.
A declaration for the use of force fulfills the Congress's responsibility for a declaration of war. It doesn't have to say “By the way, Rio Linda, this is a declaration of war”.
Rebuilding Japan and Germany was “taxation without representation”?
Of all the ludicrous arguments! LOL! Do you even know what that means?!?!!? Most likely not, as we had FULL representation during the post WWII years, and our elected Representatives in the House and Senate approved all funding on our behalf.
Yes, rebuilding foreign nations is perfectly Constitutional. There is certainly nothing to prevent it being done within the Constitution. But before you go off on the idiotic and asinine argument that such is REQUIRED or OBLIGATED, not all things that we are ABLE to do under the Constitution are we REQUIRED or OBLIGATED to do. That should be simple logic for any with a functioning brain.
Are you a Ron Paul supporter? It sure seems like it!
The Reagan era can NOT be compared with either subsequent era of both Bush's, Clinton or 0bama.
In eight years, Reagan only forays into "Nation Building was limited in the Northern Hemisphere and to fighting Communism (Noriega/Nicaragua), through the backdoor, and in Grenada. As we all know, Reagam stalemated and beat down Gorby, winning the Cold War, knocking down the Berlin Wall without firing a shot. THAT was true "Nation Building."
It's only been since GH Bush that "exporting Democracy" under the guise of "Nation Building" has been the neverending MO of globalist-CFRers and elites everywhere.
It's no coincidence that GH Bush first reveal the direction US foreign policy would be heading: Read, "New World Order."
That was the gist of the "strategy." How any group of so-called "foreign policy experts" with any sense of history of Islam could make this determination should be considered political malpractice.
The two situations do not compare. Saddam Hussein was an evil man and I wouldn’t wish my worst enemy under his rule, but he was no threat to American sovereignty.
You're right - of course not in either case. The meddlers and international busy-bodies who think America's resources belong to foreign countries believe otherwise. "Mi casa de dinero es su casa de dinero."
Not even close.
We had many reasons to take out Saddam Hussein, and building a democracy there was deemed unfeasible/impossible by many who supported the other reasons.
Others, like Biden, suggested that we split up Iraq three ways, others suggested that putting Iraq under a “strong man” (but not quite so brutal as Hussein, sort of a Hussein lite, now with less mass murder) was preferable.
Building a democracy after we kicked their asses is always a nice touch, and shows that the USA is purely a class act. But it wasn't the REASON we went there and kicked some asses.
And long term, an Iraq under a dictator (even, temporarily “our” dictator) is going to be more of a threat and detriment in the region than an Iraq that is a representative Republic.
When our nation was founded we had Revolutionary zeal, and thought that America was an existential threat to the thrones of tyranny around the world. Somewhere along the way we seem to have lost some of that spirit.
The Weekly Standard crowd were all “left overs” from Reagan era groups and branches as I recall, working for Bill Bennent in the Department of Education where he was aligned with Paul Wolfowitz then in the State Department.
You are right that this collection of individuals played more prominance in the Bush Quayle administration (where detractors call Kristol, Quayle’s Brain) but many were part of the Reagan era team.
Whether in Reagan’s administration or in either Bush administration, the group we are calling Neo-Cons never had a free rein to establish the overall agenda. Their alignment with Liz Cheney gave them more leverage with the Vice President than with GWB.
Just like now, right?
Do you actually believe had the tab for rebuilding either Germany, Japan, OR Iraq been divulged and revealed to the American Taxpayer, that The People would have consented??
A declaration for the use of force fulfills the Congress's responsibility for a declaration of war. It doesn't have to say “By the way, Rio Linda, this is a declaration of war”.
Really??
So tell me - what's the difference between "use of force" and "war"? Answer: NOTHING. This is where and how the US constitution really winds up as just a "gd-piece of paper - who'd have thunk?
Rebuilding Japan and Germany was “taxation without representation”?
You really don't quite understand the tenets of Founders, do you?
Yes, rebuilding foreign nations is perfectly Constitutional.
Yes, I see where "Nation Building" been the failed pro-globalist, neocon, CFR-enabling mantra and policy (of both party elites.)
Are you a Ron Paul supporter? It sure seems like it!
LOL, aaah - using the "Ron Paul" Card - the last refuge of desperation and moniker of discredit. Is this where you also ask me if I'm still beating my wife?
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.