Soundbite "Neocon preemptive war = thought police for foreign nations"

[swissaustrian]

Neocons always stress the need to invade countries in order to prevent them from doing something in the future. This equals the idea of a thought police for individuals. Thought police means preemptive policing where a person is apprehended in anticipation of the possibility that they may commit a crime. One could call the neoconservative concept preemtive warfare a "thought police for foreign nations". Maybe this soundbite opens some eyes.

What do you think?

[If you want to read more about the concept of a thought police read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police ]

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Just use the Eisenhower quote for the warmongers.


"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war--what is a preventive war?

I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.

A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.

I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

Frankly, pre-emptive wars are nothing but wars of Aggression, Invasion, and Subjugation.

[Brian4Liberty]

What do you think?


I like the concept. ;)


Question - What if Iran was to develop a nuclear weapon?

Answer - That's a good question. What if Iran had a nuclear weapon? Let's start with the main concern, that some elements in Iran, especially President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, might have a desire deep in their hearts to use that weapon on Israel. So we are concerned with the very real possibility that Ahmadinejad would consider doing just that, in his own mind. In essence, we are accusing Ahmadinejad of a thought crime, and the evidence for that crime is the hyperbolic political statements that Ahmadinejad has made in the past. This is the essence of the Iran problem.

Now, that thought crime by itself, if true, would not be enough to take action. We must additionally accuse Ahmadinejad of another thought crime. We must also make the accusation that he, upon true sober reflection, would consider vaporizing hundreds of thousands or more of innocent women and children in Israel. Is he really such an animal? We have less evidence of this, yet it remains a valid concern. But we can not stop with that accusation. We must also suppose that he would also be willing to have an even greater number of innocent women and children killed in Iran during an inevitable retaliation. He would have to consider this as part of his thought process. Could he still do this? Could he make his thought crime a reality, and actually attempt to do it? To take the accusation to this point, we must believe that he is a true psychopath, a true murderer, with no inhibitions at all on taking these actions. Do we have evidence of this?

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad is not the Supreme Ruler of Iran. There is a another person with that title, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. To go further with our concerns about Iran, we must believe that Khamenei shares all of the above psychotic conditions of which Ahmadinejad stands accused. And these two men do not stand alone. There are Generals, councils and a parliament that would also have to go along with the intentional murder of their own families, of their own people and of other innocent people. Is it reasonable to believe all of that?

If a person believes that all of the above conditions have been met, is it also reasonable to examine the mind of the person making those accusations? Are they suffering from paranoia or irrational fear? Perhaps the mental state of those making the accusations needs to be examined before we go further down the path of contemplating a solution to a problem that most likely does not exist at all. For if we are to truly believe that this is the case, what other leaders and influential politicians must we worry about? North Korea? China? Russia? Cuba? Venezuela? Mexico? Canada? When will the paranoia stop?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?338606-What-if-Iran-was-to-develop-a-nuclear-weapon

[sailingaway]

Many many conservatives who are not neocons find that word extremely insulting because so many don't know what it means and use it as a generic insult to all conservatives. I really recommend not using it. 'Sheeple' ditto.

[swissaustrian]

Many many conservatives who are not neocons find that word extremely insulting because so many don't know what it means and use it as a generic insult to all conservatives. I really recommend not using it. 'Sheeple' ditto.
The question is: why are they voting for people who stand for a neocon foreign policy (Newt, Mitt, Rick) then?
But anyway: One can just erase the word "neocon" from the soundbite and it still makes sense: "preemptive war = thought police for foreign nations"

[Brian4Liberty]

Many many conservatives who are not neocons find that word extremely insulting because so many don't know what it means and use it as a generic insult to all conservatives. I really recommend not using it. 'Sheeple' ditto.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that neo-conservatives created the word "neo-conservative" to describe themselves and their specific philosophy, and now it is a forbidden term. Most people really don't know what it means, even people who subscribe to or agree with some of the neo-conservative positions.