What Were We Fighting For?

[kaz]

I think of them not as Neo-Conservatives (neocons) but Pseudo Conservatives (pseudocons)

Actually, by definition, neocons are liberals. Hence the "neo" in "neocon."

 

[Contumacious]

I'm with you on the middle east, but both the Nazis and Japanese attacked us. And had we not joined the allies, we'd have been fighting them on our own. This is a cutting off your note to spite your face argument.

Again, what was going BEFORE Pearl Harbor?

Find out if goddamned FDR was SECRETLY fighting the Japs in Indochina.

Find out if FDR froze the Japs assets in the US BEFORE the attack?

Find out if FDR directed the oil companies not to sell petroleum products to the Japs?

Find out if FDR knew of the impending attack but PURPOSELY CHOSE NOT TO PROTECT PEARL HARBOR IN ORDER TO UNITE THE NATION IN HIS DETERMINATION TO JOIN WWII.

BTW, when where did Hitler attack the US BEFORE FDR joined WWII?


.

Obviously you spend a lot of time on conspiracy sites when you are not here.

Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

December 9, 2013


Today, 70 years after Pearl Harbor, a remarkable secret history, written from 1943 to 1963, has come to light. It is Hoover’s explanation of what happened before, during and after the world war that may prove yet the death knell of the West.

Edited by historian George Nash, “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war."

.

.

 

[kaz]

Again, what was going BEFORE Pearl Harbor?

Find out if goddamned FDR was SECRETLY fighting the Japs in Indochina.

Find out if FDR froze the Japs assets in the US BEFORE the attack?

Find out if FDR directed the oil companies not to sell petroleum products to the Japs?

Find out if FDR knew of the impending attack but PURPOSELY CHOSE NOT TO PROTECT PEARL HARBOR IN ORDER TO UNITE THE NATION IN HIS DETERMINATION TO JOIN WWII.

BTW, when where did Hitler attack the US BEFORE FDR joined WWII?


.

Obviously you spend a lot of time on conspiracy sites when you are not here.

Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

December 9, 2013


Today, 70 years after Pearl Harbor, a remarkable secret history, written from 1943 to 1963, has come to light. It is Hoover’s explanation of what happened before, during and after the world war that may prove yet the death knell of the West.

Edited by historian George Nash, “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war."

.

.

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said. I'm not interested in defending FDR, he sucked. The Japanese certainly got themselves into a war as well. If you're arguing there is blame both ways, sure, I'll agree with that. If you're arguing it was our fault alone, I don't. Either way, that the US should not respond to an attack on American citizens because of the actions of our politicians is preposterous.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think of them not as Neo-Conservatives (neocons) but Pseudo Conservatives (pseudocons)

Actually, by definition, neocons are liberals. Hence the "neo" in "neocon."

hmmm, would that be neolibs?

Imo, neo stands for new. So it's really (new) conservatives.

I agree, they are hardly conservative. Hence Pseudo-cons.....

 

[Desperado]

What are you talking about? I'm beginning not to like you and I don't think you are neocon.

Can you please explain what each of you means by neocon?
both literally what it means, like traditionally where the term came from.
and figuratively how you think it applies to Obama or other people here? Thanks!

is this like calling someone a crony capitalist?

What I mean by neocon is the definition of the word, it's a "new conservative." Neocons are:

- Big government loving, free spending liberals
- Believe in using the military to spread Democracy, or their version of it.
W and Obama are both neocons.

I agree with your definitions, Maybe Neocons planning to take over the world was a bit extreme and I just should have said that they were going to force Democracy on the rest of the world, no matter if they wanted it or not.

 

[Contumacious]

Obviously you spend a lot of time on conspiracy sites when you are not here.

Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

December 9, 2013


Today, 70 years after Pearl Harbor, a remarkable secret history, written from 1943 to 1963, has come to light. It is Hoover’s explanation of what happened before, during and after the world war that may prove yet the death knell of the West.

Edited by historian George Nash, “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war."

.

.

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said. I'm not interested in defending FDR, he sucked. The Japanese certainly got themselves into a war as well. If you're arguing there is blame both ways, sure, I'll agree with that. If you're arguing it was our fault alone, I don't. Either way, that the US should not respond to an attack on American citizens because of the actions of our politicians is preposterous.

Of course, the government MUST defend us after getting us into the mess. Of course we must support the troops once they are sent into harms way.

The $64,000 question is how the fuck do we prevent the motherfuckers from involving the country in the internal affairs of other nations in the first place?

.

 

[kaz]

I think of them not as Neo-Conservatives (neocons) but Pseudo Conservatives (pseudocons)

Actually, by definition, neocons are liberals. Hence the "neo" in "neocon."

hmmm, would that be neolibs?

Imo, neo stands for new. So it's really (new) conservatives.

I agree, they are hardly conservative. Hence Pseudo-cons.....

Your opinion of what the word means is irrelevant, it's not your word. If you want to make up your own definition that's fine, but you shouldn't use it on a website as if anyone who knows what they are talking about knows what you're talking about. It's actually not hard to do some research on the word.

 

[kaz]

Can you please explain what each of you means by neocon?
both literally what it means, like traditionally where the term came from.
and figuratively how you think it applies to Obama or other people here? Thanks!

is this like calling someone a crony capitalist?

What I mean by neocon is the definition of the word, it's a "new conservative." Neocons are:

- Big government loving, free spending liberals
- Believe in using the military to spread Democracy, or their version of it.
W and Obama are both neocons.

I agree with your definitions, Maybe Neocons planning to take over the world was a bit extreme and I just should have said that they were going to force Democracy on the rest of the world, no matter if they wanted it or not.

That works!

 

[kaz]

Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

December 9, 2013


Today, 70 years after Pearl Harbor, a remarkable secret history, written from 1943 to 1963, has come to light. It is Hoover’s explanation of what happened before, during and after the world war that may prove yet the death knell of the West.

Edited by historian George Nash, “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war."

.

.

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said. I'm not interested in defending FDR, he sucked. The Japanese certainly got themselves into a war as well. If you're arguing there is blame both ways, sure, I'll agree with that. If you're arguing it was our fault alone, I don't. Either way, that the US should not respond to an attack on American citizens because of the actions of our politicians is preposterous.

Of course, the government MUST defend us after getting us into the mess. Of course we must support the troops once they are sent into harms way.

The $64,000 question is how the fuck do we prevent the motherfuckers from involving the country in the internal affairs of other nations in the first place?

.

Right now I don't know because both sides are determined to do that. The Democrats do the same things as the Republicans, they just want to be behind the steering wheel.

But how to do it is to shut down every overseas base and bring our troops home. We should only have a permanent presence in US territory. And we let the bad guys in the world know that you leave us alone, we leave you alone. You fuck with us, we will take your asses out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Obviously you spend a lot of time on conspiracy sites when you are not here.

Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

December 9, 2013


Today, 70 years after Pearl Harbor, a remarkable secret history, written from 1943 to 1963, has come to light. It is Hoover’s explanation of what happened before, during and after the world war that may prove yet the death knell of the West.

Edited by historian George Nash, “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war."

.

.

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said. I'm not interested in defending FDR, he sucked. The Japanese certainly got themselves into a war as well. If you're arguing there is blame both ways, sure, I'll agree with that. If you're arguing it was our fault alone, I don't. Either way, that the US should not respond to an attack on American citizens because of the actions of our politicians is preposterous.

I think this is an important point, and probably not one that I make often enough. FDR certainly did all he could to provoke Japan into attacking the U.S., but Japan did attack the U.S.

 

[protectionist]

Incorrect.

Most people who listen to conservative media would classify Hillary Clinton as a Liberal.

Most Liberals would not. Same for Bill.

It's - of course - in the interests of simpleton thinkers like Rush and Sean to classify anyone who isn't a conservative as a Liberal. It's a catch-all insult for the extreme fringe.

That's nice. Now can we re-rail this derailed thread back to the topic >> "What Were We Fighting For?"

And you guys can live happily ever after with your conservative vs liberal topic in another thread.

It was answered pages ago: we fought for nothing.

The first part of your sentence was right. YES, it WAS answered pages ago (on Page 1, Post # 14) The second part of your sentence was wrong. We fought, and still fight, and need to keep on fighting for our SURVIVAL.


1. In Afghanistan, it is essential for US troops to be in close proximity to Pakistan and it's arsenal of 100+ nuclear warheads. Pakistan is a country loaded with Islamic jihadists who have repeatedly attacked storage centers of these weapons. The situation is so bad that Pakistan now moves these warheads around in ordinary cargo vans (like UPS), through ordinary streets, making them dangerously susceptible to attack. On top of that, the Pakistani govt. is quite fragile, and if toppled by the Muslim loonies, the nukes would quickly be in the hands of the same people who attacked us on 9/11 and Fort Hood.
With the troops in Afghanistan, they can be close enough to the Paki nukes to quickly get to them and secure them from the jihadists.
Note: If I had my way, the troops would enter Pakistan now and secure those nukes, and bring them back to the US, or to another safe location far away from al Qaeda's central operations.

2. In Iraq, for years, we heard an endless chorus of "It's about OIL!" Well, maybe it's more about oil than any of those people ever thought.

If Al Qaeda were to topple the Malaki govt (with the help of Sunni militants), then a much worse situation presents itself than the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and training camp issue. With Iraq, not only would al Qaeda have everything they were denied in Afghanistan (at the cost of thousands of US troops' lives), but they would also have in their pockets the world's largest unproven oil reserves, and fortunes$$$$ to go with it, putting them in position to acquire nuclear weapons, and making them far more capable to attack the US, Israel, and any non-Muslim country., and doing it with authority.

I think a lot of people are foolishly going with what feels comfortable at the moment, rather than the big picture, and the critical nature of it. It could be that US troops may NEVER be able to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and may be needed in quite a few other countries as well.

Maybe you didn't notice all this, in your haze of off topic political talk.

 

[protectionist]

Why? Because he went to the aid of our allies?

If Iran attacks Israel tomorrow and Obama retaliates, does that make him a warmonger?

Good point. A nation has to stick up for its allies. In life, one has to define who is his friend and who is his enemy. Who is a help, and who is a threat. And how would FDR be called a "warmonger" by fighting the Japs, after Pearl Harbor ?

Yo ding dong, have you researched to find out what went on before Pearl Harbor?

What's the matter, cat got your tongue ? Or are you only adept at slinging insult words, and not providing answers ?

 

[protectionist]

BTW, when where did Hitler attack the US BEFORE FDR joined WWII?

As the Rock of WWE fame would say, IT DOESN'T MATTER "when where did Hitler attack the US"

What does matter is that Hitler declared war on the US, and had a world conquest plan (which does include the US)

 

[protectionist]

In case anyone doesn't know, Hitler's plan was to take over the WORLD.

That plan has now been passed on to the NeoCons every where.

More like Muslim jihadists.

 

[protectionist]

We were never fighting for anything. That's why Obama followed Bush's withdrawal date and got us the fuck out.

Oh, and leaving our troops over in that shit hole doesn't show them respect. Quite the opposite.

Our treasure was spent and our troops wasted for the singular purpose of advancing the interests of the oil industry. We have an enormous embassy in Iraq, the biggest embassy in the world. Al Qaeda will someday attack that embassy in strength, and we will be forced to return in strength.

It's a matter of time. And we will not fully withdraw from there until those oil fields are sucked dry.

We should suck those oil fields dry. We could do that to get the $$$ of them, but much more important is to keep those $$$ away from al Qaeda, whereby they could be used to arm al Qaeda with nuclear weapons. No end to what can happen with the power of money.

 

[protectionist]

What are you talking about? I'm beginning not to like you and I don't think you are neocon.

Can you please explain what each of you means by neocon?
both literally what it means, like traditionally where the term came from.
and figuratively how you think it applies to Obama or other people here? Thanks!

is this like calling someone a crony capitalist?

I think of them not as Neo-Conservatives (neocons) but Pseudo Conservatives (pseudocons).

Why "Conservatives" Can't Do Foreign Policy: "Pseudo-Conservative": An Update on the Origins of the Term

"As far as my etymological researches are concerned "pseudo-conservative" may have first been used in a rather famous book, The Authoritarian Personality, written by Theodore Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford in 1950. The authors wrote that the pseudo-conservative "in the name of upholding traditional American values... and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aim at their abolition." I find it difficult to improve on that definition fifty-six years later. Our pseudo-conservatives of today are also fighting "more or less fictitious dangers" such as "Islamo-Fascism" and "International Terrorism" in the "name of upholding traditional American values", and in this very struggle are "consciously or unconsciously" threatening the abolition of these very American values."

What a ludicrous post. I have used the term, pseudo-conservatives, numerous times in my OPs and posts, to describe the conservatives of today who subscribe to the psuedo-conservative ideas of Ronald Reagan (small, weak govt, low taxes, low spending). "Pseudo" because these notions have absolutely NOTHING to do with conservatism (and in fact they are contradictory to it).

"Conservatism" is CONSERVING the core values and culture of America. First and foremost is the emphasis on National Security, with a big, strong govt, and high taxes on the rich (as was the case with Eisenhower in the 50s), to support a strong military, lots of national security (ICE, CBP, FBI, CIA, DEA, etc).

Today's Psuedo-conservative Reaganists (who pattern themselves after a selfish movie star who only wanted to keep most of his huge movie star salary away from taxes) are harmful to National Security. While they seem to be concerned with nothing but protecting the rich from taxation, and cutting spending in the process, they deny the govt the power they need to stop immigration, Islamization, Islamic terrorism et al terrorisms, fix dangerous infrastructure, limit the military, etc.

 

[protectionist]

I think of them not as Neo-Conservatives (neocons) but Pseudo Conservatives (pseudocons)

Actually, by definition, neocons are liberals. Hence the "neo" in "neocon."

If neocons are liberals (economically), then they are really OLDcons, who were always in favor of high taxes on the rich (91-92% for the entire 8 years of the Eisenhower administration) to support a big, strong govt, capable of providing a strong secure, National Security.

 

[protectionist]

Actually, by definition, neocons are liberals. Hence the "neo" in "neocon."

hmmm, would that be neolibs?

Imo, neo stands for new. So it's really (new) conservatives.

I agree, they are hardly conservative. Hence Pseudo-cons.....

Your opinion of what the word means is irrelevant, it's not your word. If you want to make up your own definition that's fine, but you shouldn't use it on a website as if anyone who knows what they are talking about knows what you're talking about. It's actually not hard to do some research on the word.

There really isn't any patented definition of "Pseudo-Conservative". Psuedo simply means false. So any notion of what is a false brand of conservatism (based on a definition of conservatism) could fit > "Pseudo-Conservative".

I presented my perspective on this in Post # 336, based on how I have seen the evolution of the word conservative change form the Eisenhower 1950s, to the Reagan 80s, to now. Quite amazing how so-called "conservatives" can rally around a phony like Reagan, who gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, 32 years after Ike, the REAL Conservative, chased them back to Mexico in Operation Wetback (1954)

Incidentally, while the REAL conservative, Eisenhower, was grinding his way across Germany in World War II, as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe, the psuedo (fake) "conservative: Reagan, was in Hollywood, making movies about it.

 

[protectionist]

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said. I'm not interested in defending FDR, he sucked. The Japanese certainly got themselves into a war as well. If you're arguing there is blame both ways, sure, I'll agree with that. If you're arguing it was our fault alone, I don't. Either way, that the US should not respond to an attack on American citizens because of the actions of our politicians is preposterous.

Of course, the government MUST defend us after getting us into the mess. Of course we must support the troops once they are sent into harms way.

The $64,000 question is how the fuck do we prevent the motherfuckers from involving the country in the internal affairs of other nations in the first place?

.

Right now I don't know because both sides are determined to do that. The Democrats do the same things as the Republicans, they just want to be behind the steering wheel.

But how to do it is to shut down every overseas base and bring our troops home. We should only have a permanent presence in US territory. And we let the bad guys in the world know that you leave us alone, we leave you alone. You fuck with us, we will take your asses out.

This couldn't be more wrong. It is critical to have US troops in ALL hotspots around the world where Muslim jihadists can assume power, especially in places like Afghanistan (close proximity to Pakistan's nukes), and Iraq, with such a valuable oil resource at stake, to enable the loons to acquire nuclear weaponry.

 

[protectionist]

Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

December 9, 2013


Today, 70 years after Pearl Harbor, a remarkable secret history, written from 1943 to 1963, has come to light. It is Hoover’s explanation of what happened before, during and after the world war that may prove yet the death knell of the West.

Edited by historian George Nash, “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war."

.

.

I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said. I'm not interested in defending FDR, he sucked. The Japanese certainly got themselves into a war as well. If you're arguing there is blame both ways, sure, I'll agree with that. If you're arguing it was our fault alone, I don't. Either way, that the US should not respond to an attack on American citizens because of the actions of our politicians is preposterous.

I think this is an important point, and probably not one that I make often enough. FDR certainly did all he could to provoke Japan into attacking the U.S., but Japan did attack the U.S.

Indeed. That is the bottom line. You get attacked. You fight.