1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Death of Neoconservatism?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by zeke12, Dec 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. printdust

    printdust New Member

    Petty, have you ever been for a war? Would you have questioned a military response to Pearl Harbor? How many of America's wars would you have avoided? To avoid attacking our southern brothers, would you have found another "peace for our time" option for the Civil War?
     
  2. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    You just mentioned two wars started by enemy combatants. Which U.S. city did Iraq attack? I must have missed it.
     
  3. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    "our southern brothers"

    what a wagonload of horseshit

    we were invaded by a power and responded in kind
     
  4. printdust

    printdust New Member

    Didn't matter. I was just asking if he has ever been for a war. Those were just examples.

    And here's your bag of shit back, Lee, with the historical stories of family members fighting on opposite sides during the Civil, yes, Civil War.
     
  5. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Examples of historical idiocy. Where do you people find this absolute nonsense?
     
  6. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Before we get sidetracked, the point of the thread is that the selfsame idiocy that got us into the mess in Iraq will keep getting repeated regardless of facts, and that an ideology cannot sustain itself thusly.

    I mean, this is the logic presented in the original column:

    We must attack Iran.

    This is so because Iran has nuclear capabilities.

    Intelligence reports saying that Iran does not have nuclear capabilities must be from opponents of the original thesis, that we must attack Iran.

    This intelligence, then, must be flawed, because:

    We must attack Iran.


    This is the foreign policy we are currently pursuing.

    We had to attack Iraq because Saddam is a threat to the people of the United States.

    With Saddam gone, the new leadership might be a threat, so we must stay in Iraq.

    We cannot police Iraq, so we need to send more troops.

    We need places to put these troops, so we must build bases.

    We'll need troops to protect the bases.

    The bases are being attacked, so we must go on the offensive, because attacking bases is the same as attacking the people of the United States.



    Just wondered if anyone else noticed, that's all...
     
  7. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Aren't self-fulfilling prophecies awesome, Zeke?
     
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    I'm hoping to be named High Priest of Tautology within the NeoCon movement.

    Maybe then I'll finally get a warm-up jacket.
     
  9. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    You need a logo.
     
  10. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    [​IMG]

    I'm thinking something like this, but it needs a lightning bolt or something.
     
  11. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Tautology for Dummies


    [​IMG]
     
  12. I'm tired of this endless whining about jackets.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page