Congratulations, you've completely justified Al Queda's every action; past, current, and future.

Although I disagrree with the above statement, Snowman is one ugly American

Snowman is 100% correct about might makes right. History is written by the winners. How many books have you read by former SS officers preaching about how Germany was right? Sure, they're out there for sale on wacko websites along with the Flat Earth Society and the folks who think the lunar landing was done in a tv studio. If al Qaeda had anything close to the nuclear arsenal we have, western civilization would have long ago ceased to exist and all remaining kids would be learning about how Allah destroyed the infidels.

I disagree, Rick. On both levels.

First, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan don't rise to meet the moral standards of a just war. See Neo-Conned! : Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq aqnd Neo-Conned! Again : Hypocrisy, Lawlessness, and the Rape of Iraq document fully that immorality.

Second, and last, your notion about nuclear weapons is just more neo-con talking points regurgitated, and less than I expect from you.

Pat, I've honestly never read anything close to what I just wrote anywhere else, except for the "history is written by the winners" part. I don't know what neo-con. means and considered myself a right-wing gun nut long before Paul Wolfowitz became the neo-con poster boy. I think that term in itself is a talking point.

I don't know what the moral standards for a just war have to do with "might makes right" doctrine. One can debate the former all day long, but the latter is about as absolute as universal gravitational pull. It just is.

Why do I have the distinct suspicion that Pat has an entire shelf full of books with "neo-con" in the title? His favorite sits by his computer, "2,486 Ways to Get the Word NEOCON Into Normal Conversation". This is closely followed by "3,486 Ways to Detect Closet Fascists and Expose Them!"

Neo-con is short for neo-Conservative. In an essay, one of the fathers of neo-Conservatism, Irving Kristol, explained what they are and what their goals are. I've posted the url for the article, and their web site The Project for a New American Century, PNAC for short, many times. I'll post them again if you didn't see them over the last two weeks. While I don't know, yet, if you are a neo-con; you did fall onto one of their rhetorical talking points.

I realize that winners of war are just that, triumphant over those that, for whatever reason, couldn't win. That said, there is also a good reason the Pope did not rule the invasion of Iraq a just war, and the references I presented above show why.

Your pusillanimous screed against intellectualism is noted.

And, rejected.

"Neo-con" is simply racist liberal code for either "Jew" or "Jew-lover," it is a valueless and meaningless term of derision concocted by the communists as a demonized strawman. Naturally the Jewish conservatives are the top of the heap.."Right wing nut" and "far-right winger" and "nazi" weren't working anymore, so they needed a new scare term.

If anybody would know a screed, it is you Pat.

Somebody bought the "Word a Day Calender":)

Yes, I know what neo-con means literally. I just don't know how/why it has become this silly buzzword or label.

Pat, how many divisions does the Pope have? Hmmmm. I think I've read that somewhere before.

I'll tell you why I use the term neo-con sometimes. The same reason I use "Bushists" and "Bush apologists," and yes, "mouth breathers."

Because I will not call 99% of the "conservatives" on this board "conservatives." I would not even call them "right wing." They are not conservatives, and they are as far from Barry Goldwater "right wing" politics as Jane Fonda.

Conservative to me means fiscal restraint, a small, efficient government that does not interfere with citizens unless absolutely necessary, and a foreign policy controlled by America's vital interests. The Bushists have borrowed and spent like drunken sailors, are incompetent at anthing but winning elections, want to come in my bedroom and doctor's office and email, and get involved in foreign policy adventures to "spread democracy."

Until someone coins a new term for these idiots, I’ll use neo-con and the other terms. But I’d sooner call Michael Moore conservative than them.

Rodeo, I have a great term for what you described - Fictional Character.

Or, synonymously, but more accurately - Democrat.

Oh ... the democrats that want to tell a woman whether and under what circumstances she can have an abortion? Or the democrats that have bloated federal spending beyond all comprehension in the past five years? Or the democrats that want to listen to my phone calls and peek at my email? How about the democrats that invaded a country that was no threat to America.

You are living in a fantasy world.

If you do not know this is a lie, you are a fool...Roe v. Wade was judicial tyranny. 30+ states had legal abortion when the Constitutional violation of Roe took place.

Did you know that Roe opposes Roe v. Wade?
You liberals set most of the discretionary targets in place, Bush just played your game...If he didn't he would have been crucified by you lefties...Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

He did cut taxes and the deficit is being paid down.
Are you talking to terrorists?...Things like Echelon, CALEA and the Clinton Administration using the IRS as a weapon should scare you.
You mean like Germany, Korea, Vietnam and Serbia?

Once again...Iraq was funding and harboring al qaeda and other Islamofascist organizations.
Why is it the person living in the fantasy world always accuses somebody of living in a fantasy world?

Might does not make right, might might make acceptable though.

Well said, and entirely accurate. George W. Bush hasn't a drop of genuine conservative blood flowing in his veins.

Further, the two books I referenced above were positively reviewed in Chronicles Magazine published by the Rockford Institute, a real conservative think tank. I, in fact, do not own them nor have I read them. Of course, I don't need too, others writing in this thread obviously do, to get their moral compasses overhauled, if for no other reason.

I do find it amusing that Democrats are berating a Republican for acting like a Democrat.

Bush is a Conservative, but has not always acted as such. Like Mull eluded, he has often had to appease or purchase the left in order to push his real agenda.


And just because Bush is spending like a drunken Democrat doesn't mean those of us that support him in general support that spending. I assure you we do not.