Ukraine and Only Ukraine. If it isn't about Ukraine then fuck off

kent_island_sailor

Super Anarchist
28,667
6,428
Kent Island!
If you're talking about lefter than progressives, yeah that's true. I wish it weren't the case but the lefter than left, the Greens (Jill Stein, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, ...), tend to be a bunch of easily malleable deluded muffin heads.
One of the reasons I was a conservative was I thought the left lived in some parallel universe that hardly overlapped with the real world.
Boy have things changed :rolleyes:
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
64,068
6,420
De Nile
One of the reasons I was a conservative was I thought the left lived in some parallel universe that hardly overlapped with the real world.
Boy have things changed :rolleyes:
Remember when folks were chained to trees, threw blood on people wearing fur, etc?

Yeah, that's now a long time ago. A lifetime ago really.
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
31,019
5,309
New Oak City
Now oddly enough "left" means pro war and "right" means cut Ukraine off and cheer on Russian invaders.
Reagan once said he changed parties without changing one position. Some days I feel like that.

That oversimplifies things just a little. I think the left has always been against dumb neoconservative wars. Neoconservativism is explicitly interventionist. Where you're seeing this up-is-down logic is that conservatives are opposing Biden which means they're opposing Ukraine. For example, Jeff did this sort of flip flop logic on Libya because ... Hillary. Conservatives were opposed to FDR aiding Britain. Hell, Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative who flew to Munich. Backing Ukraine is NOT neoconservative.

The prototypical neoconservative war was the Vietnam War which was stupid and fought for the glory initially of LBJ and then Nixon. This quest for the leader's tribute is ancient. For example, Trajan invaded Britain just to get a proper triumph. It wasn't necessary; it was just there and seemed easy (until they got to the Scots). The point is that Vietnam wasn't necessary. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist before he was any sort of communist. We could have done a deal with him; the tennis shoes I'm wearing were made in Vietnam. We only attacked Vietnam for the vanity of our leaders. That is neoconservatism.

Neoconservative wars are defined by an itchy trigger followed by a moralizing casus belli. Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Somalia, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq fall into that category. Necessary wars (degrees here) are characterized by slow to act, almost getting dragged into them. WWII, Yugoslavia, Libya, fall in that category. I don't know about WWI and Korea.

(I'm in a pissy mood. I'm in a cafe for the first time in for fucking ever and they're playing Boomer music. Hasn't my generation inflicted enough damage?)
 

spankoka

Super Anarchist
Well; the Korean War looks pretty good in retrospect as the ROK turned out so much better than the DPRK. Back when the ROK was a fascist dictatorship, it was natural that arguments of moral equivalence were made.
 

Go Left

Super Anarchist
5,948
1,039
Seattle
That oversimplifies things just a little. I think the left has always been against dumb neoconservative wars. Neoconservativism is explicitly interventionist. Where you're seeing this up-is-down logic is that conservatives are opposing Biden which means they're opposing Ukraine. For example, Jeff did this sort of flip flop logic on Libya because ... Hillary. Conservatives were opposed to FDR aiding Britain. Hell, Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative who flew to Munich. Backing Ukraine is NOT neoconservative.

The prototypical neoconservative war was the Vietnam War which was stupid and fought for the glory initially of LBJ and then Nixon. This quest for the leader's tribute is ancient. For example, Trajan invaded Britain just to get a proper triumph. It wasn't necessary; it was just there and seemed easy (until they got to the Scots). The point is that Vietnam wasn't necessary. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist before he was any sort of communist. We could have done a deal with him; the tennis shoes I'm wearing were made in Vietnam. We only attacked Vietnam for the vanity of our leaders. That is neoconservatism.

Neoconservative wars are defined by an itchy trigger followed by a moralizing casus belli. Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Somalia, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq fall into that category. Necessary wars (degrees here) are characterized by slow to act, almost getting dragged into them. WWII, Yugoslavia, Libya, fall in that category. I don't know about WWI and Korea.

(I'm in a pissy mood. I'm in a cafe for the first time in for fucking ever and they're playing Boomer music. Hasn't my generation inflicted enough damage?)
Well, the current generation has decided to inflict crotch grabbing hip hop on us all. So there's that.
 

Mark_K

Super Anarchist
That oversimplifies things just a little. I think the left has always been against dumb neoconservative wars. Neoconservativism is explicitly interventionist. Where you're seeing this up-is-down logic is that conservatives are opposing Biden which means they're opposing Ukraine. For example, Jeff did this sort of flip flop logic on Libya because ... Hillary. Conservatives were opposed to FDR aiding Britain. Hell, Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative who flew to Munich. Backing Ukraine is NOT neoconservative.

The prototypical neoconservative war was the Vietnam War which was stupid and fought for the glory initially of LBJ and then Nixon. This quest for the leader's tribute is ancient. For example, Trajan invaded Britain just to get a proper triumph. It wasn't necessary; it was just there and seemed easy (until they got to the Scots). The point is that Vietnam wasn't necessary. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist before he was any sort of communist. We could have done a deal with him; the tennis shoes I'm wearing were made in Vietnam. We only attacked Vietnam for the vanity of our leaders. That is neoconservatism.

Neoconservative wars are defined by an itchy trigger followed by a moralizing casus belli. Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Somalia, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq fall into that category. Necessary wars (degrees here) are characterized by slow to act, almost getting dragged into them. WWII, Yugoslavia, Libya, fall in that category. I don't know about WWI and Korea.

(I'm in a pissy mood. I'm in a cafe for the first time in for fucking ever and they're playing Boomer music. Hasn't my generation inflicted enough damage?)
I wouldn't lump all those wars into the neoconservative label. With the exception of Iraq II, all those wars have different agendas behind them, many of them classical rationales for which nations have gone to war ever since some chimps figured out that if they hung together they had their pick of the best banana trees.

The prototypical "neocon" wars were the wars of the French Revolution, in which the Jacobin left-wingers waged war because they were convinced that if a Republican form of government was to survive then all the monarchies around them must be subjected to regime change.

The term neoconservative is very recent. It was coined for the strident anti-communists in the Democratic party who needed a label after Vietnam and its subsequent peace fad utterly dominated the Democratic party. They relabeled themselves conservatives because all the hawks were then in the Republican party. The thinking is nevertheless radical leftist whatever the label du jour. They represent the Jacobin thinking and are far more aligned to that than any other. For them all other issues are secondary to their Holy Cause, including party affiliations.
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
31,019
5,309
New Oak City
I wouldn't lump all those wars into the neoconservative label. I did. With the exception of Iraq II, all those wars have different agendas behind them, many of them classical rationales for which nations have gone to war ever since some chimps figured out that if they hung together they had their pick of the best banana trees.

The prototypical "neocon" wars were the wars of the French Revolution, in which the Jacobin left-wingers waged war because they were convinced that if a Republican form of government was to survive then all the monarchies around them must be subjected to regime change.

The term neoconservative is very recent. It was coined for the strident anti-communists in the Democratic party who needed a label after Vietnam and its subsequent peace fad utterly dominated the Democratic party. They relabeled themselves conservatives because all the hawks were then in the Republican party. The thinking is nevertheless radical leftist whatever the label du jour. They represent the Jacobin thinking and are far more aligned to that than any other. For them all other issues are secondary to their Holy Cause, including party affiliations.
Afghanistan had the exact same agenda as Iraq (even before Iraq) because it was proffered by the exact same people. OBL was already gone when W the Stupid and crew decided to nation build in order to hide their failure at Tora Bora with a very loud bang.

Panama was unnecessary. They were no threat to us.

Somalia was unnecessary. They were no threat to anyone.

Persian Gulf could have been avoided with only the smallest bit of saber rattling. We told them we were indifferent. We had backed Hussein for more than a decade against Iran even after he put a couple of Exocets into the USS Stark. We were indifferent until Thatcher stood H The Ever So Slightly Less Stupid up because ... because the Cold War was over. BTW, Iraq had a point about Kuwait's slant drilling and we could have brokered a deal. But you know, bang bang.

Grenada was a weekend distraction from the Beirut barracks bombing. Reagan was a shit.

All of those wars were neoconservative. That the term neoconservative is recent doesn't mean its idea is. Yeah, neocons got their start complaining about the left complaining about a dumb war. Yes, this pattern of dumb wars go way back. I'll see your Jacobins and raise you a Sicilian Expedition. The defining characteristic of these dumb neocon wars is that they're dumb, they're unnecessary and dumb leaders (Krugman's term, Very Serious People applies) think they can be national heroes by winning an easy dumb war which turns out not to be easy but is still dumb.

BTW, the term neoconservatism was coined during the Vietnam War, 1973, after Watergate but before Nixon's resignation. Not quite recent.
 
Last edited:

Mark_K

Super Anarchist
Afghanistan had the exact same agenda as Iraq (even before Iraq) because it was proffered by the exact same people. OBL was already gone when W the Stupid and crew decided to nation build in order to hide their failure at Tora Bora with a very loud bang.

Panama was unnecessary. They were no threat to us.

Somalia was unnecessary. They were no threat to anyone.

Persian Gulf could have been avoided with only the smallest bit of saber rattling. We told them we were indifferent. We had backed Hussein for more than a decade against Iran even after he put a couple of Exocets into the USS Stark. We were indifferent until Thatcher stood Bush The Ever So Slightly Less Stupid up because ... because the Cold War was over. BTW, Iraq had a point about Kuwait's slant drilling and we could have brokered a deal. But you know, bang bang.

Grenada was a weekend distraction from the Beirut barracks bombing. Reagan was a shit.

All of those wars were neoconservative. That the term neoconservative is recent doesn't mean its idea is. Yeah, neocons got their start complaining about the left complaining about a dumb war. Yes, this pattern of dumb wars go way back. I'll see your Jacobins and raise you a Sicilian Expedition. The defining characteristic of these dumb neocon wars is that they're dumb, they're unnecessary and dumb leaders (Krugman's term, Very Serious People applies) think they can be national heroes by winning an easy dumb war which turns out not to be easy but is still dumb.

BTW, the term neoconservatism was coined during the Vietnam War, 1973, after Watergate but before Nixon's resignation. Not quite recent.
Afghanistan was where the guys who did 911 were hanging out. To lump it together with Iraq II is to accept Cheney's BS. You sure you want to do that??

Panama was about taking out a crook and a national interest in the canal.

Somalia? YGTBKM. There is nothing ideological about preventing genocide-by-starvation.

Grenada and Iraq II were very much a neo-con styled rationale. Iraq I? Not so much.

The peace-phase was very much linked to the Vietnam war...but I've already said that so your complaint seems to be mere quibbling.
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
31,019
5,309
New Oak City
Afghanistan was where the guys who did 911 were hanging out. To lump it together with Iraq II is to accept Cheney's BS. You sure you want to do that??

Panama was about taking out a crook and a national interest in the canal.

Somalia? YGTBKM. There is nothing ideological about preventing genocide-by-starvation.

Grenada and Iraq II were very much a neo-con styled rationale. Iraq I? Not so much.

The peace-phase was very much linked to the Vietnam war...but I've already said that so your complaint seems to be mere quibbling.

We'll disagree about Panama.

We had every reason to go to Afghanistan to get OBL + friends. We had no reason to stay. And stay we did, 20 years of staying. We paid $2T of rent for our stay. In the end, it meant nothing.

The Persian Gulf War was unnecessary. There was no moral justification as we had backed Saddam to the hilt while he gassed the Iranians and the Kurds. There was no strategic justification as we could have prevented it with the greatest of ease. It was just a dumb war fought by dumb leaders intent on glory. Americans were right to fire H.

Somalia, we came, we left, it meant nothing. I'm a mercantilist. I think if we had found something to buy and maybe paid more than necessary we could have made a difference. But bang bang.
 

Clove Hitch

Halyard licker
10,859
2,058
around and about
Afghanistan was where the guys who did 911 were hanging out. To lump it together with Iraq II is to accept Cheney's BS. You sure you want to do that??

Panama was about taking out a crook and a national interest in the canal.

Somalia? YGTBKM. There is nothing ideological about preventing genocide-by-starvation.

Grenada and Iraq II were very much a neo-con styled rationale. Iraq I? Not so much.

The peace-phase was very much linked to the Vietnam war...but I've already said that so your complaint seems to be mere quibbling.
I'm in Panama right now and all the locals think the US intervention was a good thing. But they all admit its rather sordid. If Noriega had just agreed to be a puppet and not got into bed with certain folks from Colombia he might still be Presidente!

20230323_162306.jpg
 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,869
2,275
Back to the desert
The problem with depleted uranium is that it leaves a horrible cloud, that settles into toxic dust. Yes it rips the shit out of enemy armor. It makes the NATO and UKR anti-armor weapons much more effective.

But the Ukrainians will have to live there, will be stuck with cleaning it up. Maybe after Chernobyl, they ain't scared. Maybe they feel it's more important to shred the Russian Army first and worry about afterwards, afterwards.
Unless they shred the rooskie armor, there IS NO "afterwards" for them.
 
Top