Originally Posted by sammi jo
Unless the country is the US, which tends to attack other nations for reasons which (a) are hard to pin down, (b) turn out to be lies or (c) make a show of wielding power to the rest of the world, or (d) for the benefit of big business, acts of war like this usually conducted in anger; retaliation for some other act of aggression. In this case, we shall probably never know how this spat got started; in the last significant incident when a S. Korean ship was torpedoed, allegedly by NK, it turned out that the torpedo was of German manufacture. Arms trade has no barriers, huh?
Maybe this latest attack is Krazy Kim showing off to the world that he's got a big dick? Or perhaps he's taken a leaf out of the neoconservative doctrine, as championed by the George W. Bush Administration, which has demonstrated that it's perfectly OK to attack others, just because we can
You know Sammi, it is okay to call it neoconservative when Bush is the one swinging the stick at people but since Obama and the Democrats are in power, you ought to call this doctrine something else because it is the exact same policy but no longer being done by a leftist who has moved away from the hard left due to their anti-Americanism.The "new" right has to be "new for some reason, otherwise they are still just the old left.Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that supports using economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a limited welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.........."New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman. A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA...........
Or as Michael Lind notes...Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
If someone from the right is engaging in these policies, feel free to call them a neocon for it is new and different for the typically isolationist right to want to play cop for the world. However don't dare call it that when we are under Democratic rule because it isn't new or different there. It is old hat. New Con = Old Liberal.
Originally Posted by gerald apple
I truly hope Obama does not get involved in this mess with these 2 countries.We are fighting 2 wars which is enough. Let us but out.
What makes you think we ever stopped fighting the Korean war. What makes you think we ever stopped fighting WWII? Sure no bullets or bombs are flying, but the TROOPS are still there.
We've got more troops in Germany than in Iraq. Why does no one question that? We've got more troops in Japan than in South Korea. Why is that no concern?
Why does no one care to bring those troops home?
Originally Posted by jimmac
Sarcasm or no he was editorializing. Bringing in a seperate subject ( his hate for all things left ) when it was unnecessary.
And SDW as far as I'm concerned you've aready discussed your take on the political dimension.
I'm consistent on the matter. I approached the political blinders bit with some humor. Instead you have to wander in and PERSONIFY the very truth in that bit of sarcasm. You've ruined the joke Jimmac because now it's just profoundly ironic in a manner far too dark to be funny. You've got blood on your hands because you only care about the troops in harms way when there is a Republican president. When you refuse to admit the problem, then the problem will remain.
The Korean war was a proxy war fought under a Democratic president. What makes you think anything has changed or will change, especially with enablers like yourself? The United Nations was created by FDR and all the lines in the sand they have drawn since their creation are still being fought over and often have 30-50k American troops nearby to enforce. A different approach needs to be tried and it doesn't matter if we want to call it new conservative or old liberal, it is still the same damn approach.
Something new must be done. South Korea is no longer some backwash outpost that any country could easily overrun. They can easily stand on their own two feet against North Korea if not for the nuclear issue and since that came about under Clinton, and I have no doubt Iran will do the same under Obama, how does that really change anything?
All the claims about the wars under Bush were due to America as empire. We are letting the TSA molest our kids and we are giving away our freedoms due to the fact that while the faces have changed, the actions haven't and folks like yourself no longer care precisely because of politics, aka your team won. Show some principles for goodness sakes and demand we stop policing the world, start policing our own borders and then we can stop most of this stupid bullshit we call security internally.