arteestx

Vindibudd
Vietnam was not an unwinnable situation.

Then again I ask; how could the U.S. have won Vietnam? What tactically, militarily, etc. could have been done after April 1975 that would have resulted in our winning?

By 1973 the United States had annihilated the North Vietnamese ability to wage war effectively. We had the peace treaty from the Paris Peace Accords and the South Vietnamese had all the equipment they needed to hold off North Vietnam with the promise of air support by the United States. But the Democrats were more obsessed with demonizing the war and pulling down Nixon than anything else. The North Vietnamese only invaded South Vietnam when it was apparent that Nixon had not the political capital to make good with the air support. The Democrats snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. Why? Because Nixon tried to cover-up an office break-in. To this day, it seems the Democrats cling to Vietnam like it was some great victory for them. Democrats started the war and a Republican almost won it before the Democrats intervened to lose it. If you think that it was a lost cause then you have not seriously studied it.

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff recently said "No amount of troops in no amount of time will do any good in Iraq".

What we're doing in Iraq right now is performing a counter-insurgency. In order for us to win we have to win the support of the population. The problem is this isn't happening. We do have control of the battalion leaders, but the leaders do not have control over their men, who are only loyal to certain militias.

Sunni militias are armed by us in order to fight against Al Queda, but this puts us at odds with the government of Iraq, which is dominated by Shiites. We also have no idea if once we leave whether these Sunni militias that we arm will stay loyal to us. Probably not.

Because of this precarious situation we will not be able to leave the country. However support for the war will dwindle, and less and less Americans will join the armed forces. America will eventually HAVE to pull out, one battalion at a time, and let the Iraqis finally decide their fate for themselves. We may be able to provide food to Iraqis, but we have failed to provide any real security, and our staying is hardly making things any better.

You know, as tempting as it is to debate Viet Nam, this thread is supposed to be about Iraq, and in this war there is no ambiguity about who is responsible and who fucked up.

Let's review shall we? After fucking a possible opprtunity to repair relations with the emergent clerical revolutionists in Iran in '79, We gave guns and money to Saddam Hussein to help in his war against Iran. After a long and bloody stalemate, Saddam needed to sell some oil to get his economic base back. That's when Kuwait saw an opportunity to destabilize Saddam's regime and lowered the price of oil. Add to the list the fact that Kuwait was found to be slant drilling across the border, and Saddam went beserk and threatened to slit their throats personally. Always the good soldier he checked with our embassy, because he knew how chummy Bush senior was with the Saudis, the the sheiks in Kuwait were part of the Saudi Family. We assured him that it was a regional conflict and as long as the oil was flowing we wouldn't get involved.

Then came the phone call, the Saudis pulled the leash and got Bush to invade Iraq. The classic double cross. From that moment on Saddam pledged to use his political and economic might to oppose us. Enter characters like Cheney and Wolfowitz who saw an emerging European economic union as threat to our lone superpower status, and deduced that taking control of oil away from unstable middle east politics was the best way of keeping control away from Russia and Europe. Demonizing europe was just a freebie.(remember freedom fries? How unbelievably embarrassing.)

So Junior gets elected and uses 9/11 as an excuse to take out Saddam once and for all. But they totally fuck things up. They fire or force to resign anybody with sound military advice and just figure if they throw enough money at the problem it will go away.

So now its worse than when we began, and now it's finally time to cut and run. Viet Nam is not Iraq. We invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. At the time of our ivasion of Iraq, Saddam was a toothless lion. We flew no fly zones over Kurdistan and southern Iraq. We bombed anything that looked suspicious with a total pass from the UN. At any time we could have brokered a deal with Hussein, with the threat of our bombers returning as in incentive. Now there is a vacuum and that is just swell for Al Qaeda isn't it? Had we left Saddam alone, eventually there would have been an internal, organized uprising, but by throwing out all the civic and military leaders and essentially hiring any body without proper vetting, they got a worthless excuse for a governtment which inspires local thugs to grasp power.

You know this is EXACTLY what was forescasted before the war by people who were decried as traitors for voicing dissent. The same people who squealed in condemnation about Clinton's bid to end genocide in the balkans now found it politically expedient to change the rules and accuse anybody with a valid question about how this war was going to work as a terrorist sympathizer.

Time to get out of there and while we can so we don't have to spare another American life on this travesty. Make no mistake it's running away from our mess, but it's way too late and completely impossible to clean up this mess with force.

I know you might have trouble dealing with this, but it would be easier to read without all the f-bombs.

I'm going to choose to bypass your rendition of the last 20 odd years of history and redirect it to the most important thing:

What happens when the U.S. leaves? The reality is that it will be a lot worse than staying.

bobhhh
You know, as tempting as it is to debate Viet Nam, this thread is supposed to be about Iraq, and in this war there is no ambiguity about who is responsible and who fucked up.

Let's review shall we? After fucking a possible opprtunity to repair relations with the emergent clerical revolutionists in Iran in '79, We gave guns and money to Saddam Hussein to help in his war against Iran. After a long and bloody stalemate, Saddam needed to sell some oil to get his economic base back. That's when Kuwait saw an opportunity to destabilize Saddam's regime and lowered the price of oil. Add to the list the fact that Kuwait was found to be slant drilling across the border, and Saddam went beserk and threatened to slit their throats personally. Always the good soldier he checked with our embassy, because he knew how chummy Bush senior was with the Saudis, the the sheiks in Kuwait were part of the Saudi Family. We assured him that it was a regional conflict and as long as the oil was flowing we wouldn't get involved.

Then came the phone call, the Saudis pulled the leash and got Bush to invade Iraq. The classic double cross. From that moment on Saddam pledged to use his political and economic might to oppose us. Enter characters like Cheney and Wolfowitz who saw an emerging European economic union as threat to our lone superpower status, and deduced that taking control of oil away from unstable middle east politics was the best way of keeping control away from Russia and Europe. Demonizing europe was just a freebie.(remember freedom fries? How unbelievably embarrassing.)

So Junior gets elected and uses 9/11 as an excuse to take out Saddam once and for all. But they totally fuck things up. They fire or force to resign anybody with sound military advice and just figure if they throw enough money at the problem it will go away.

So now its worse than when we began, and now it's finally time to cut and run. Viet Nam is not Iraq. We invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. At the time of our ivasion of Iraq, Saddam was a toothless lion. We flew no fly zones over Kurdistan and southern Iraq. We bombed anything that looked suspicious with a total pass from the UN. At any time we could have brokered a deal with Hussein, with the threat of our bombers returning as in incentive. Now there is a vacuum and that is just swell for Al Qaeda isn't it? Had we left Saddam alone, eventually there would have been an internal, organized uprising, but by throwing out all the civic and military leaders and essentially hiring any body without proper vetting, they got a worthless excuse for a governtment which inspires local thugs to grasp power.

You know this is EXACTLY what was forescasted before the war by people who were decried as traitors for voicing dissent. The same people who squealed in condemnation about Clinton's bid to end genocide in the balkans now found it politically expedient to change the rules and accuse anybody with a valid question about how this war was going to work as a terrorist sympathizer.

Time to get out of there and while we can so we don't have to spare another American life on this travesty. Make no mistake it's running away from our mess, but it's way too late and completely impossible to clean up this mess with force.

I guess when you talk about history it true and when I do it's a 'rendition'.

But more to the point the simple answer to your question is it will be WAY worse if we stay. If we leave, there will continue to be violence, maybe even civil war, but eventually a new power will emerge and your doomsday scenarion of WW# wil not happen for the same reason it will never happen. No one wants it. If a real global threat emerges then even adversaries will band to gether to nip it in the bud. WW# is a paranoid fantasy on the level of Red Dawn.

bobhhh
I guess when you talk about history it true and when I do it's a 'rendition'.

But more to the point the simple answer to your question is it will be WAY worse if we stay. If we leave, there will continue to be violence, maybe even civil war, but eventually a new power will emerge and your doomsday scenarion of WW# wil not happen for the same reason it will never happen. No one wants it. If a real global threat emerges then even adversaries will band to gether to nip it in the bud. WW# is a paranoid fantasy on the level of Red Dawn.

Well how do you know no one wants it? Ahmadinejad is routinely talking about bringing on a world war to facilitate some religious delusion he has about the 12th Imam. You speak as if all these people are rational. It only takes one irrational person to start a world war. You seriously must live in a fairyland to think that there are no deathly serious consequences for the world connected with the United States leaving Iraq right now.

As a matter of fact, I'm done with this topic as it relates to you.

You really believe in dualism ?

Vindibudd = The great ethical and moral master who can tell right from wrong.

Vindibudd

bobhhh
I guess when you talk about history it true and when I do it's a 'rendition'.

But more to the point the simple answer to your question is it will be WAY worse if we stay. If we leave, there will continue to be violence, maybe even civil war, but eventually a new power will emerge and your doomsday scenarion of WW# wil not happen for the same reason it will never happen. No one wants it. If a real global threat emerges then even adversaries will band to gether to nip it in the bud. WW# is a paranoid fantasy on the level of Red Dawn.

Well how do you know no one wants it? Ahmadinejad is routinely talking about bringing on a world war to facilitate some religious delusion he has about the 12th Imam. You speak as if all these people are rational. It only takes one irrational person to start a world war. You seriously must live in a fairyland to think that there are no deathly serious consequences for the world connected with the United States leaving Iraq right now.

As a matter of fact, I'm done with this topic as it relates to you.

Way to have to a debate: Ignore your opponent's opininion. My quote is above, I said there were going to be consequences, unless civil war and violence aren't of consequence to you. Your attempt to dissmiss me as naive rather than respond smells suspiciously like, how did you so eloquently put it?, oh yeah I remeber: "...ran away from a fight".

You know what burns me up about your line of thinking. It automatically assumes our opponents are evil and we are good. That's very convenient because you never have to place your self in their shoes. You would have us believe that there are no rational people over there. Hell even in Iran there is a very moderate third of the country which keeps the clerics in check. So Ahmadinejad talks, so did Kruschev, so do we for that matter. Bush called them an axis of evil, he says things like "bring 'em on". He talks big about not taking nukes off the table as a strategy, and yet no one ever thinks he'll start WW#. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Multinational corporations, accountable to no one, with the help of the US military are trying to subvert your country. You can't out gun them, you don't have nukes, what do you do? You fight a guerilla war, its nasty and morally bereft, but is it any less so then collatoral damage? Innocent civillians still die. Nobody can claim the moral high ground. Isn't it just possible that they see us as the evil imperialists and see them selves as fighting for national soverignty?

My point is they are not crazy. They are human beings, and thus, they can be reasoned with. After all the bad blood will they be skeptical? Sure. Will there be radical elements who define themselves by the extension of conflict, absolutely. But to claim with certainty as you do that without the magic wand of US military might that there can be nothing but anarchy gives the US military way too much credit.

Again, I say paranoid.

I'm still going for the idea of taking out troops in set increments at set times that cannot be changed. As we pull out, the Iraqi government would have to get their act together as our protection dwindles (We'll provide help, of course, but it's up to them to take it seriously). If they don't get their act together when we pull out, that's not really our fault. It will probably end up very messy, but it's better to let the dirt settle than to keep stirring it like we are doing now.

Kohdok
I'm still going for the idea of taking out troops in set increments at set times that cannot be changed. As we pull out, the Iraqi government would have to get their act together as our protection dwindles (We'll provide help, of course, but it's up to them to take it seriously). If they don't get their act together when we pull out, that's not really our fault. It will probably end up very messy, but it's better to let the dirt settle than to keep stirring it like we are doing now.

Seems reasonable, as long as we get them outta there in a finite time I wouldn't quibble about minutiae.

Vindibudd
By 1973 the United States had annihilated the North Vietnamese ability to wage war effectively.

You are deluded. The U.S. was not defeated in Vietnam militarily and we destroyed much of their conventional capability. But they could still wage guerilla war very effectively with no end in sight.

Vindibudd
We had the peace treaty from the Paris Peace Accords and the South Vietnamese had all the equipment they needed to hold off North Vietnam with the promise of air support by the United States.

You are deluded. The peace treaty left the NVA in South Vientnam. You consider that winning? You think the NVA was close to defeat?

Vindibudd
The Democrats snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.

You are deluded. You're trying to claim that after sending over 500,000 troops, dropping 8,000,000 tons of bombs, spending 15 years and 58,000 American deaths, the tragedy of Vietnam is that we didn't stay there for another 10 years. As though we didn't do enough or try hard enough.

Vindibudd
If you think that it was a lost cause then you have not seriously studied it.

Gee, how condescending of you. In reply, the reason I think it was a lost cause is because not only have I seriously studied it, I have the added advantage of reading text and comprehending what was written.

Ultimately, this thread is about Iraq. But the conservatives, in some bizarre Orwellian way, are trying to rewrite Vietnam so that they can rewrite Iraq as well. They seek to transform Vietnam from a needless and unwinnable war that naively expected military force to solve political problems into a noble war that could have been won if only the Democrats had the backbone.

And now they want to transform Iraq from a needless war based on fraudelent claims that tried to use military force to solve a political problem into a noble and necessary war that could be won and succesfully transform the Middle East if the Democrats have the backbone. To believe that involves swallowing every lie put out by this adminstration and ignoring reality. But this historical rewrite is exactly what conservatives are attempting to do.

arteestx
Gee, how condescending of you. In reply, the reason I think it was a lost cause is because not only have I seriously studied it, I have the added advantage of reading text and comprehending what was written.

Careful, careful. If you make too much sense he may ignore you! :P

I fear its too late! Or perhaps like in any other zombie movie...he's one of the lucky ones!

Not to get this topic back on track or anything

But I absolutely hade that ad. Mostly because interviews and blogs from soldiars still in the field, the vast majority I've seen actually favor escalation. In fact they say we should've escalated years ago. If you send half as many troops over as you need to do the job then of course it's going to be over there 4 times as long.

Give them the troops that they need so they can do their job and come home.

kingofsnake
Not to get this topic back on track or anything

But I absolutely hade that ad. Mostly because interviews and blogs from soldiars still in the field, the vast majority I've seen actually favor escalation. In fact they say we should've escalated years ago. If you send half as many troops over as you need to do the job then of course it's going to be over there 4 times as long.

Give them the troops that they need so they can do their job and come home.

I'm afraid it's too late for that. There is too much anarchy now to create order. there are too many factions with power and delusions of grandeur to create a coalition. And although I think we had no business there to begin with, I agree we should have listened to the generals and sent in enough troops to do the job in the first place.

As for the add, it bugs me because I'm not sure even tho' I agree with the sentiment, that it's no more than cheap emotional blackmail. I feel we anti war folks should have enough faith in our position to not have to trot out limbless veterans for sympathy.

But on the other hand, people who have paid the price should have a say and be clear about the stakes.

bobhhh
I'm afraid it's too late for that. There is too much anarchy now to create order. there are too many factions with power and delusions of grandeur to create a coalition. And although I think we had no business there to begin with, I agree we should have listened to the generals and sent in enough troops to do the job in the first place.

I disagree. Given enough troops, we can extend Pax Americana to Damascus and beyond. Of course, that might mean a draft, and then our martini sipping friends might have to scramble for a deferment so they don't have to sully their hands in the building of our glorious new empire. Sure, it will be bloody, long, and expensive, but through the grace of Christ, I will never have to participate, so I have no problem sitting on the sidelines and cheerleading the deaths of even more nameless, uncounted brown people.

Then we can focus our attention back home, where its needed, and get those shameless women to cover up!

kingofsnake
Give them the troops that they need so they can do their job and come home.

What "job" will they do with more troops, and how will they "do" it?

Heh... Soldiers only do so much, their role is limited. And soldiers don't actually win wars, strategists, diplomats, politicians, spys etc are the ones that change the course, even journalists. The poor soldiers just slog and put policy into action. What will more soldiers do? What can they do?

Well, they can kill people... They can guard things... Hmm, someone help me out here, I'm running short.
Well, you could increase their numbers to as many people as the entire population of the country, but what would that do? It wont stop people hating each other... And the guarding soldiers all have to go home eventually, and after that the Iraqis can go back to killing each other. :(

Seriously, what can they do? They can not kill all the "insurgents" and "terrorists" because those are just basically members of the Iraqi population and will always replenish because of the tensions and bad political system.

You could try to effectively guard every infrastructure project that happens (fixing up all the power stations, sewerage, water, housing facilities etc.), in the hope that with all these functioning life will turn out better for people and tensions will ease. But the thing is the money you pay for the soldiers comes directly out of the money that would go to the infrastructure projects...

More soldiers unfortunately are not the solution. Better management is. Personally I'd throw out the neocon optimists, toadying generals, useless British, Australian, Polish and whatever other "allies" are over there as well, and get in some experienced diplomats. Toss aside neocon xenophobic imperialistic fantasy and prejudice and work directly with the Russians, Chinese, Syrians, Iranians, and Saudis and get the Jordanians to coordinate it. Get some serious diplomacy and capital investment going! The US can keep their treasured base in Iraq that they fought so hard for, but they have to share the access to the oil fields in order to placate their Useful allies (Russia and China).

THAT kind of thing would help solve Iraq.

ozoneocean

kingofsnake
Give them the troops that they need so they can do their job and come home.

What "job" will they do with more troops, and how will they "do" it?

Heh... Soldiers only do so much, their role is limited. And soldiers don't actually win wars, strategists, diplomats, politicians, spys etc are the ones that change the course, even journalists. The poor soldiers just slog and put policy into action. What will more soldiers do? What can they do?

Well, they can kill people... They can guard things... Hmm, someone help me out here, I'm running short.
Well, you could increase their numbers to as many people as the entire population of the country, but what would that do? It wont stop people hating each other... And the guarding soldiers all have to go home eventually, and after that the Iraqis can go back to killing each other. :(

Seriously, what can they do? They can not kill all the "insurgents" and "terrorists" because those are just basically members of the Iraqi population and will always replenish because of the tensions and bad political system.

You could try to effectively guard every infrastructure project that happens (fixing up all the power stations, sewerage, water, housing facilities etc.), in the hope that with all these functioning life will turn out better for people and tensions will ease. But the thing is the money you pay for the soldiers comes directly out of the money that would go to the infrastructure projects...

More soldiers unfortunately are not the solution. Better management is. Personally I'd throw out the neocon optimists, toadying generals, useless British, Australian, Polish and whatever other "allies" are over there as well, and get in some experienced diplomats. Toss aside neocon xenophobic imperialistic fantasy and prejudice and work directly with the Russians, Chinese, Syrians, Iranians, and Saudis and get the Jordanians to coordinate it. Get some serious diplomacy and capital investment going! The US can keep their treasured base in Iraq that they fought so hard for, but they have to share the access to the oil fields in order to placate their Useful allies (Russia and China).

THAT kind of thing would help solve Iraq.

I agree totally!

Look at the fall of the Soviets. What happened? You'd think after suffering Soviet oppression for 75 years, the ethnic factions would have bonded and rejoiced with each other in their new found freedom.

No they just stood across from each other and said, "Now where were we?, oh yeah I hate you and you hate me, start shooting on 3-2-1..."

To this day my mom still tries to get me, as a greek, to get all excited about hating turks. Who cares? Well the answer is a lot of folks care about ethnic hatred, and no amount of policing will make that go away. The second we leave they will start shooting, so why wait, let them have it out without us around to confuse the issue.

SpANG
I really love the way the conservative base is now taking the WRONG lesson away from Viet Nam. I really do.

Neo-conservative. Conservative was Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

When 268 Marines got killed by a bomb in Lebanon, Reagan did not smirk like a chimp and say "Bring it on!" He pulled our troops out.

We can't bring troops out of Iraq. It's bad now but it'll get worse if we leave. Besides Al Queda came to US after we invaded. So Iraq can be our battle ground to fight them. We wanted to find Al Queda and Iraq allows us a place to fight em. That's an opportunity we can't pass up.

Lukey
We can't bring troops out of Iraq. It's bad now but it'll get worse if we leave. Besides Al Queda came to US after we invaded. So Iraq can be our battle ground to fight them. We wanted to find Al Queda and Iraq allows us a place to fight em. That's an opportunity we can't pass up.

Well, you've hit all the neocon talking points, so you have that going for you ... I guess. Have you considered actually checking out the veracity of these statements. I'll give you some debate here, but if I find a good article by more of an expert I'll post it for you tomorrow if you'd like.

It's bad now but it'll get worse if we leave

This is more than likely true for the short term. Any occupation at the barrell of a gun that ends will cause a reshuffling of the political climate, and often that is a fairly brutal one. But I would assert that this will happen whenever we leave, and that if we left the death toll would steadily decrease and (perhaps with international help) end.

Besides Al Queda came to US after we invaded

This is also true. Because our soldiers are much easier targets in Iraq than they are anywhere else in the world right now (because the Iraqis don't like them much and because so much of the infrastructure of Iraq has been destroyed).

The thing is, the thiking here is that Al Queda is suffering their losses alone. They aren't. Every time we get a few of them, we take a bunch of innocent civilians with them ... and THEY take a bunch of innocent civilians with them when they do their bombings. In both cases, Iraqis lose family members and America looks like the bully. What that does is create more Al Queda sympathy and ultimately more Al Queda across the world.

The other thing to remember is that Al Queda is more of a mindset than an organization with any central operations. It isn't like a government, it's like a bacterial growth. It spreads, and doesn't need orders to wreak havok.

By this understanding, you can see that staying in Iraq to fight Al Queda is only going to create an endless war.

We wanted to find Al Queda and Iraq allows us a place to fight em. That's an opportunity we can't pass up.

As I explained, the Al Queda we fight in Iraq is only loosely tied to those who attacked our country, and it's hardly fair to take innocent Iraqi lives in the process of eliminating a group of people that won't change the ultimate makeup of terrorist enemies.

________

Now, I put to you that the money and time and soldiers we are losing in Iraq has made the United States (and the world) less safe for these reasons:

1. It creates much ill will towards the United States, and ultimately only increases the ranks of anti-American terrorist networks. (It is also hampering investigations in other countries that are our allies, but we'll table that for now.)

2. It distracts us from the real people who attacked us on 9/11. Osama is still allegedly alive and protected, and every day that is the conventional wisdom is another day that the United States has failed to dispense justice, or prove it even can.

3. The money we spend on this war could have strengthened our infrastructure and security systems so that we would be better prepared to thwart a terrorist attack.

Its surprising that people are *now* crying tears about the Iraqi deaths when it comes to a pullout. They sure were quiet when it came to years without adequate water purification, electricity and security.

I guess they only count when its time to make a talking point. More like crocodile tears to me.

TitanOne

SpANG
I really love the way the conservative base is now taking the WRONG lesson away from Viet Nam. I really do.

Neo-conservative. Conservative was Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

When 268 Marines got killed by a bomb in Lebanon, Reagan did not smirk like a chimp and say "Bring it on!" He pulled our troops out.

Yeah it's hard to accept that Ronald Reagan could be an example of temperance, but even ol' Ronnie understood that he was not really a cowboy. I get this picture of Bush twirling fake pistols in the mirror and saying " Alright Osama, go for yer gun!"

I for one favor forced sterilization of neo-conservatives. :P

bobhhh
I for one favor forced sterilization of neo-conservatives. :P

wouldn't help , i don't think it's hereditary . it's an infectious disease spread through the media (Faux, CNN, the "history" channel)

lothar

bobhhh
I for one favor forced sterilization of neo-conservatives. :P

wouldn't help , i don't think it's hereditary . it's an infectious disease spread through the media (Faux, CNN, the "history" channel)

See now, that's just plain ignorance.

I'm not approving of what conservatives have done right now, but completely getting rid of conservatives is not the answer. I'm non-partisan, and I think that we need both liberal and conservative people to really make a country work. I think that if we had nothing but liberals, things would be all screwed up again, but in the opposite direction.

Lukey
We can't bring troops out of Iraq. It's bad now but it'll get worse if we leave. Besides Al Queda came to US after we invaded. So Iraq can be our battle ground to fight them. We wanted to find Al Queda and Iraq allows us a place to fight em. That's an opportunity we can't pass up.

It isn't our country. Why are we there? To stop weapons of mass destruction? There weren't any. But the argument behind even that is bogus.

Who here thinks the Founding Fathers envisioned a United States where the US flexes its muscles and invades countries it doesn't like, based on reports that they might be doing something dangerous that we don't like?

Al Queda is a criminal organization. It should be chased with international police, not with trumped-up wars.

As for the social engineering, i.e., "it'll only get worse if we leave", why are we there? Can anyone answer that question in a way that makes sense?

Hawk
See now, that's just plain ignorance.

Neo-cons, like corrupt Enron CEOs, are not part of the healthy spectrum of politics.

No one would miss them except they themselves.

You're gonna have to define for me what a neo-conservative is, then.

Hawk
See now, that's just plain ignorance.

I'm not approving of what conservatives have done right now, but completely getting rid of conservatives is not the answer. I'm non-partisan, and I think that we need both liberal and conservative people to really make a country work. I think that if we had nothing but liberals, things would be all screwed up again, but in the opposite direction.

I'm not responding to agree to bobhhh's sterilization argument -- but I'm wondering. Is there a position that so extreme that it doesn't have a place in making our country work?

You seem to say in your post that liberals and conservatives are the the polar extremes, which I don't think is true. Your National Socialist movement is pretty darn small, but still a voice in America, and David Duke did win some a seat in the Louisiania House of Representatives (As a Republican, I might add, though many in his very own party knew he was a bit much)

In a way, I kind of look at it as the death penalty -- there are people who shouldn't be allowed to participate, and at the same time, you have to be *very* careful as to who's getting excluded.

Hawk
You're gonna have to define for me what a neo-conservative is, then.

This might help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative [en.wikipedia.org]