How's this for different morals?

[myron myron]

[Lena]

Whether a President has personally fought in a war is a red herring. It is irrelevant. Franklin Delano Roosevelt never served in the military even though he was able-bodied during the years he could have served in World War I (he became paralyzed from the waist down in 1921, at age 39). Yet FDR instituted the draft in 1940, led the United States through almost all of World War II and is considered a great wartime President.

Based on the historical facts, Democrats John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman would qualify as neo-cons today. Both were staunch anti-Communists. Both espoused an interventionist foreign policy with unilateral military action if necessary. And both were staunchly pro-Israel.

Truman made the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan. Truman was pro-Zionist and pro-Israel from the very beginning. Over the objections of his own State Department and Department of Defense, Truman supported the 1947 UN plan to partition Palestine which created the basis for early American recognition of Israel. See http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm

Kennedy was the President who got the United States militarily involved in Vietnam. JFK faced down the Soviets in Berlin and in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And JFK openly armed Israel by authorizing the sale of American Hawk anti-aircraft missiles in 1962.

[myron myron]

[myron myron]

[mogadishu]

Neo-cons are moderate to liberal socially but support military intervention for reasons other than defense from attack. Neo-cons support military intervention on the basis of "human rights."

No - they say they do. That's a different thing. Cynics suggest this is merely a pretext for gaining strategic and resource control.

Nazis told people they were exterminating Jews in the name of socialism. On your analysis that would make Nazis left-wing. Perhaps the left/right wing paradigm is of limited usefulness in explaining american politics.

[myron myron]

[mogadishu]

Well - me for one. if Iraqi human rights were so important to the american government, why was saddam an ally of theirs for so many years? Why was one of the earliest priorities of the us government to take control of the oil supply?

I'm talking about the neo-cons who invaded Iraq, and the authors of PNac.


you didn't respond to my other point:

Nazis told people they were exterminating Jews in the name of socialism. On your analysis that would make Nazis left-wing. Perhaps the left/right wing paradigm is of limited usefulness in explaining american politics?

[myron myron]

[ILWL]

Neo-cons are moderate to liberal socially but support military intervention for reasons other than defense from attack. Neo-cons support military intervention on the basis of "human rights."

No - they say they do. That's a different thing. Cynics suggest this is merely a pretext for gaining strategic and resource control.

Nazis told people they were exterminating Jews in the name of socialism. On your analysis that would make Nazis left-wing. Perhaps the left/right wing paradigm is of limited usefulness in explaining american politics.

Which "cynics"?

What are the facts on which they base their cynicism?

Which neo-conservatives are you talking about?

Let's talk facts, names, sources; not vague allegations and abstractions.

How about this 'fact' - that all deals relating to oil contract were signed by the provisional governments before 'Democracy' took it's course!

Guess that doesn't matter though when one considers that in the end - the results pretty much confirmed the US assumption that this was going to be the government of Iraq!

[mogadishu]

We're talking about neo-conservatives, not Nazis.

We're talking about anything of relevance. Such is the beauty of freedom of expression.

Did you read through the logical fallacies? That Nazi thing fits several.

Nonsense! The document you posted mentions a nazism in relation a a straw man argument.

I've used nazism to demonstrate that political groups (such as the Nazis) can label themselves in a way quite out of keeping with modern political analysis (ie. as socialists). Therefore, the fact that neo-conservatives label themselves as protecters of human rights, does not necessarily prove that they *are* protecters of human rights.

Understand the difference?

[myron myron]

[mogadishu]

Which misses the point that I didn't commit a fallacy when *I* mentioned nazism. That's the key point here. Focus, myron. Focus.

You have yet to provide any reasoned analysis supporting your position concerning neo-cons.

Unless you're contesting the fact that they supported Saddam militarily and economically since the 1950's, I don't need to. That one fact would disprove the notion that they were necessarily opposed to human rights violations commited under his rule.

[myron myron]

[mogadishu]

Well clearly, if you don't already know this incredibly well known fact, you are just going to try to force me to post the many publications which will refer to it as fact, and then attempt to undermine their credibility? Why? because you'll dismiss them as too left wing. In this way you will insulate yourself from all the facts which contradict your own political stance.

It's all rather... predictable of you.

[Blond Adult Girl]

Which misses the point that I didn't commit a fallacy when *I* mentioned nazism. That's the key point here. Focus, myron. Focus.

You have yet to provide any reasoned analysis supporting your position concerning neo-cons.

Unless you're contesting the fact that they supported Saddam militarily and economically since the 1950's, I don't need to. That one fact would disprove the notion that they were necessarily opposed to human rights violations commited under his rule.

Did we even know at the time that saddam was commiting crimes against humanity?