View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
R. S. Refugee

Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He's on a sinking ship. Even the rats have left it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemcgarrett wrote: |
He's on a sinking ship. Even the rats have left it. |
We have learned the good general will not be delivering "his" report, or even writing it, after all. We just saw three to five hundred people killed in one attack. The opposition just goes where we ain't. That's how you win, or at least don't lose, the game. IT also why the "surge" has done not much more than kill Americans at a faster rate and has failed to move the political situation forward at all. You will remember a primary reason for the surge was to provide a stable environment for the political side of the problem in Iraq.
Yes, the ship is sinking. You are quite right.
Are you ever going to enter a thread to discuss the topic rather than attack the messenger? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
As usual, no content from the neo-cons. Soldiers talking about the war in negative terms is ignored to maintain your cognitive dissonance, rather avoid it. Pages and pages on Chavez from the neo-cons - most of it insulting other posters - but nothing when US soldiers say what 70 percent of America thinks.
Anyone surprised?
Last edited by keane on Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who are the neo-cons, exactly? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Who are the neo-cons, exactly? |
A good question (but as always, a loaded one from you, I'm sure)
"Neo con" represents entrenched interest. Most of all, military and might is right because it pays the (read, MY) bills. It does not represent ideology or belief. Other than incidentally.
DD |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a funny definition dd! Wrong, but funny.
Neo-conservatism typifies the belief that American military might is appropriately used in spreading 'American values' of democracy and such. Generally, this is complemented by a "big meaning" goal at home, whereby the population is encouraged to look for meaning in life through the state.
I suppose Joo might be a neo-con. I can't think of any others who post here.
I'll define neo-douch for you when I'm less sleepy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD wrote: |
Who are the neo-cons, exactly? |
Well, there are the neo-cons, then there are those they say they aren't, but act like they are. You are the latter. You make comments hinting at being against the war or not supporting Bush, but your attacks on people who actually do are vicious. I put you in the same category as Gopher on that score.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps it is only me you attack?
Don't miss the new posts on the PO and Meltdown threads. Have some serious Q's and info I hope you will respond to. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
ddeubel wrote: |
Quote: |
Who are the neo-cons, exactly? |
A good question (but as always, a loaded one from you, I'm sure)
"Neo con" represents entrenched interest. Most of all, military and might is right because it pays the (read, MY) bills. It does not represent ideology or belief. Other than incidentally.
DD |
I think I might call them empiricons: they have no true love of ideology, but use it to get control, money and power while preferring (publicly, at least) slightly the conservative agenda.
Empire! EMPIRE!
- Queensryche |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|