PDA

View Full Version : Decomposing Neo-Con Arguments




ghengisconrad
01-05-2008, 11:42 PM
I couldn't find a transcript, and there are a lot of words and arugments flying back and forth as the Neo-Cons tried to prove the truth is democratic by ganging up and talking over Dr. Paul.

Can anyone honestly give a point by point of everyone's side from that little frayay about Iraq?

Also, some counter-arguments to each of the Neo-Cons would be helpfull.

**edit**
More specifically http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP6IrkxAwU <--- that argument

ghengisconrad
01-06-2008, 12:09 AM
freedom bump

pinkmandy
01-06-2008, 12:23 AM
I can say a few quote that we are endowed by our creators to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...that they expounded on the right of Americans to be free from govt intrusion, that they believe in the Constitution. Well- WHAT ABOUT THE PATRIOT ACT? The most UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF OUR TIME! They support that. And when Paul called them out about going to war by ignoring our Constitution they SNICKERED AND GIGGLED. I'm so disgusted with 5 candidates right now. I have a really hard time stomaching the thought of any of them being elected and I can't respect people who vote for them. It's just insanity.

Ron2Win
01-06-2008, 12:27 AM
It's simple.

If the war on terror is supposed to eliminate terrorism and protect American lives, then why has this same war, killed more Americans and bred more terrorists?

ghengisconrad
01-06-2008, 12:31 AM
now I said honestly. They make some good points.

For example, why do they attack london ect.?

I was hoping someone could come in, be OBJECTIVE, give the neo-con argument generously(without being sarcastic or snide) and then explain why they are wrong.

Thats why a transcript would be helpful.

Outright attacking a point sarcastically isn't going to win anyone over, its only going to make them hate you more. But being clear and objective, and generously understanding a persons argument, puts you in a better position to blow them out of the water.

So again, can anyone do that point by point?

Ron2Win
01-06-2008, 12:37 AM
Watch this to see where everything started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE

DRV45N05
01-06-2008, 12:49 AM
The Bali and London bombing points are asinine. The Bali bombing did have to do with Islam to the people who did it, but only in so much as they viewed the Indonesian government as being an anti-Islamic form of government IN A MUSLIM LAND! The key with them is not that they want to destroy democracy everywhere: it's that they don't want it in their land, and that they don't want it imposed on their land. As far as the London bombing is concerned, anyone who has been following bin Laden's statements knows that he has been lumping the UK in with the US consistently in opposing what he views to be a joint US-UK policy. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about the history of the region knows that there has been a long-standing animosity of Muslims there toward the British for their imperialist policies in the early 20th Century, and they view the Brits as continuing it to this day.

On the Munich point... this was just plain stupid. This attack had nothing to do with Islam, and it was not an attack on Germany. This attack was carried out by a Palestinian group on Israelis in protest of what they view as Israeli political oppression. (Something that, to large extent, they are right about.)

Mayor Giuliani has some serious problems with his interpretation of history. What's unfortunate about it is that there are so many in this country who are dumb enough to believe him regardless of this fact.

Furthermore... what's not true about al-Qaeda not attacking Canada? He never answered the question "Why hasn't al-Qaeda attacked Canada?" He just listed other countries where attacks took place ignorantly and without understanding the real reason for those attacks.

Soccrmastr
01-06-2008, 12:55 AM
Wow, McCain is such a jerk

Maverick
01-06-2008, 12:57 AM
I like this thread title. Do you mean "deconstructing" rather than "decomposing" the argument? Although, the neocon argument really is tired and decomposing, isn't it? ;)

logolepsy
01-06-2008, 12:57 AM
Watch this to see where everything started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE

Slightly off-topic on this thread, but this is a more entertaining illustration of the blowback with our involvement in Iran.

Edit: forgot the link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bWdQutcctwo

ghengisconrad
01-06-2008, 01:25 AM
The Bali and London bombing points ... attacking Canada? He never answered the question "Why hasn't al-Qaeda attacked Canada?" He just listed other countries where attacks took place ignorantly and without understanding the real reason for those attacks.


May I just say, MOAR!!!!

I have some neo-con relatives, and its hard understanding exactly what they're points are. So if you could just give the neo-con posistion, and then explain why its wrong, that would be terrific.

thisisgiparti
01-06-2008, 03:20 AM
The Bali and London bombing points are asinine. The Bali bombing did have to do with Islam to the people who did it, but only in so much as they viewed the Indonesian government as being an anti-Islamic form of government IN A MUSLIM LAND! The key with them is not that they want to destroy democracy everywhere: it's that they don't want it in their land, and that they don't want it imposed on their land. As far as the London bombing is concerned, anyone who has been following bin Laden's statements knows that he has been lumping the UK in with the US consistently in opposing what he views to be a joint US-UK policy. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about the history of the region knows that there has been a long-standing animosity of Muslims there toward the British for their imperialist policies in the early 20th Century, and they view the Brits as continuing it to this day.

On the Munich point... this was just plain stupid. This attack had nothing to do with Islam, and it was not an attack on Germany. This attack was carried out by a Palestinian group on Israelis in protest of what they view as Israeli political oppression. (Something that, to large extent, they are right about.)

Mayor Giuliani has some serious problems with his interpretation of history. What's unfortunate about it is that there are so many in this country who are dumb enough to believe him regardless of this fact.

Furthermore... what's not true about al-Qaeda not attacking Canada? He never answered the question "Why hasn't al-Qaeda attacked Canada?" He just listed other countries where attacks took place ignorantly and without understanding the real reason for those attacks.

Rudy couldn't resist another opportunity to plug his 911 moment, and he rattled on and on about how this was not an excuse to hate Muslims... though their "caliphates" are enemies of freedom and want to "impose Sharia law" on the world and "listen to their writings" and "global jihadism." Do they even know how xenophobic they sound?

Yeah, Giuliani sounded stupid when he asked whether Munich was in the US, and why was it a terrorist target?

ANSWER: Because the Olympics were there and the Palestinians were protesting Israeli occupation. That's geography not religion.

AceNZ
01-06-2008, 04:02 AM
As I understand the neo-con position, it's basically one of fear.

They are afraid that someone is going to either repeat 9/11 or do something much worse -- like a dirty bomb or a biological attack. They aren't exactly sure who that "someone" is, but its probably Islamic Fundamentalists, Islamofascists, etc. One oft-given line of thinking is that the bad guys are out to kill all non-Islamists, not just Americans, and we know this because of what they have written. Another thing they say to justify preemptive war is that a country like Iran could give a weapon to a terrorist group like Hezbollah, who could then use it against the US. So we can't allow those countries to develop nukes.

Given these problems, the solution is to "bring democracy" to these areas. To change them in some fundamental way. To Westernize them.

Why are those positions wrong?

-- They don't take into account WHY people are out to get the US. If you really read what they've written, and not just the Cliff Notes version, they hate the US for reasons that include: our support of Israel, our placing military bases in what amounts to holy land, our manipulation of governments in the area (the CIA's overthrow of an elected leader in Iran in 1953, for example), and now of course, the invasion of Iraq.
-- Their solutions are not achievable. If history shows us anything, it's that it isn't possible to simply "convert" large numbers of people over to a different way of thinking. Instead, that's the path to perpetual war. The whole concept of trying to Westernize Islamic countries is another reason they hate us.
-- The threats are not credible. Americans were scared into believing Iraq had to be invaded because of their development of WMDs, which never existed. The idea of them being able to do any significant damage in the US is just not credible. Sure, maybe another building might get blown up. Is it really worth killing more than a million Iraqis to theoretically reduce the chances of something like that happening? And the reality is the opposite -- the chances are higher now than before.
-- The best and most effective solution is to just get out of their hair. That would totally defuse things. Let them claim victory. Who cares? Look at what happened in Vietnam after we left... Did we really need to kill 5 million Vietnamese to get to this point (yes, that's a real number)?
-- Islam is a peace-loving religion. If we removed the "nail from their foot", their natural inclination would most likely be to leave us alone.
-- A useful analogy might be: imagine that you started parking your car in your neighbor's driveway every day, and telling him that he would be better off if he parked his car down the street instead. Then he starts plastering the neighborhood with hate mail. He says he wants to kill you and everyone like you. He goes out and buys a gun (or you think he's bought a gun; you're not totally sure). In that situation, would you have the right to preemptively break into your neighbor's house and kill him and his family -- and maybe other neighbors, too, because they agreed with him and started to buy guns themselves?


When having these kinds of discussions, I think it's also useful to point out that the real reason we're fighting these wars has nothing to do with the "official" neo-con position I described above. The real reasons involve control over the Iraqi and Iranian oil fields, combined with profit motives from defense contractors and bankers. You only have to look at the history of US wars to see this. It's also obvious when you look at the government's actions (how quickly they started work on an oil pipeline in Afghanistan, how they signed up Halliburton to run the Iraqi oil fields, etc). I also believe there is a deliberate intent to precipitate a financial collapse in the US -- but that one is a harder sell (the supporting data is there, though, if you look for it). Fear is the disguise.

Antonius Stone
01-06-2008, 07:04 AM
The best way to attack the ridiculous Neo-Con argument "they hate us for our freedoms"-

BRAZIL. Brazil is far more liberated sexually than the United States is. I may be mistaken, but I believe they have a proportionately larger Homosexual and Transgendered Community than we do, two things that the Fundamentalists would absolutely be abhorred by and (if you were to follow along with the Neo-Con's argument) would no doubt attack.

Yet Fundamentalists have not attacked Brazil.
Further add in the fact that when the Fundamentalists attack us they are biting the hand that feeds them because we are the NUMBER 1 buyer of their region's chief (and arguably only) export product- Crude Petroleum. Brazil on the other had has little to no business with the Middle East- all of their fuel concerns are met by their thriving Sugar Cane Ethanol Industry. Wouldn't Brazil be a MUCH more reasonable target for the Terrorists to attack if they merely "hate people for their freedoms"?

Chauncy
01-06-2008, 08:03 AM
nt