Neo-Conservatism is the political philosophy that called for the invasion of Iraq, wants us to invade Syria, Iran. They wanted us to get rid of Qaddafi. They also want us to reshape the Middle East in a way that supports our oil interests and helps Israel. Is this philosophy good for the USA, or have they done the world more harm than good?
I believe the invasion of Iraq, has been a disaster. Our support for the rebellions in Syria and Libya have been a disaster. they created a power vacuum that allowed Islamist Sunnis to take over, and now we have to deal with the threats of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Neo-Conservatism has been a pox upon our house.
If the idea was to make the USA safer from terrorism, then surely is must of been an abject failure. At least judging by how scared many are on this forum.
Any kind of conservatism is generally bad. While there may be some virtue to be found in believing that there is a reason for traditions and we should find it out before we dispose of them, along with the idea that we should review the comprehensive effects of changes before we rush into them; both of these concepts are really not worth constantly being on the wrong side of history. In any environment change is the one constant, and it is upon us before we know it. We really can do nothing but adapt or die, as the saying goes. The conservative is under the illusion that change is manageable when the truth is that change manages us, and so the conservative is constantly trying to turn back the clock, insanely wishing to return to some cloud-cuckoo land that never existed in the first place
I've said it before...Why don't you haters of the USA, renounce your citizenship and move to Europe or Asia. Just because the politicak party that you hate is in power...You all are like the brat in Willie Wonka..."I want it my way, and I want it now!!!" Please leave so that we can quit hearing the "It's Bush's fault" or some other version...The best thing Clinton ever did is that I can ask my wife to give me a 'Lewinsky' later and the kids have no idea what I'm talking about.
I love America, and want us to do things that are good for America. invading Iraq was very BAD for America.
It's sheer idiocy to quote that stuff as an excuse for having invaded Iraq. And, it's even more ludicrous to suggest that any president would have invaded Iraq due to those old quotes. The UN took the proper steps in insisting that there be inspections to verify whether those old quotes were an accurate representation of the situation. We found out that they were NOT ACCURATE, because much had changed since we had good intel on what Iraq was doing. The thing is, the NeoCons were interested in conquering Iraq regardless of their WMD status. In the end, Bush ignored the UN and appealed to congress. Congress gave HIM the right to decide. And, HE decided to conquer Iraq like the NeoCons wanted.
So why aren't you complaining about Obama having troops still on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all the special forces being used in Syria. Let me guess, Bosnia good, Iraq bad...You always come off as just a party hack Ronstar, at least be consistent in your complaints.
Iraq broke 17 UN resolutions. We invaded with 61 other nations and a bi-partisan congress 19 months after 911. For Gods sake, read a book once in a while. It's no ones fault that you didn't pay attention to what was actually going on at the time.
Obama is not a representative of this "neo-conservatorism" [I'm a conservative myself and I feel that "neo" a bit disturbing ... conservatives are "old good conservatives"!], but he managed to make Qaddafi fall ... so, what are you talking about?
Like most policy ideas, just tipping your toe in the water usually isn't good. It could have produced good results for the US, but to do that would have required a much stronger commitment.
Breaking a resolution is not a justification for war. And, Bush knew that, thus he didn't use UN resolutions as a justification for conquering Iraq. The fact that we paid other nations to join us (Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Solomon Islands) does NOT give us better legal status. No, the decision made by Bush was based on the joint congressional resolution which stated that he could declare war based on one of TWO possible justifications - support for the UN (which obviously did NOT apply) and defense of the USA (which I would argue also did not apply, since the US was not under any immediate threat).
Please describe what you suggest was required. Let's note that in Libya, the opposition forces we saw as playing a leadership role were unwilling to come together to form a government. And, in Iraq we picked Maliki and made Iraq sovereign - thus making it their issue, NOT ours.
Neoconservatives are a clear and present bunch of patriots and heroes. President Bush Jnr was a patriot who done much good for us.
