When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[Imran Siddiqui]

How are they different?

Are you ****ing kidding me? Neoconservatism and realpolitik is on opposite sides of the spectrum! One is part and parcel of realist theory and the other is a subset of liberal theory. Now you wonder why no one takes you seriously?! Educate yourself because you speak on this again, please.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How are they different?

Are you ****ing kidding me? Neoconservatism and realpolitik is on opposite sides of the spectrum! One is part and parcel of realist theory and the other is a subset of liberal theory. Now you wonder why no one takes you seriously?! Educate yourself because you speak on this again, please.

I don't claim to know everything, but I'm sure not going to get my education from you.

edit: And this is why.

Wikipedia

Some argue that Strauss's influence has left some neoconservatives adopting a Machiavellian view of politics.

[Kidlicious]

And from the same article.

Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

Yes, MINE.

Why should we listen to you then?

Because a) I can make an argument from your morals and b) our moral axioms are probably similar.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You would mind but you wouldn't call it immoral, because I would be acting in my self-interest, right?

I'd also call it immoral, but that's because morality is very EASY to enforce and hold standard within a nation, but effectively impossible to enforce between nations.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'd also call it immoral, but that's because morality is very EASY to enforce and hold standard within a nation, but effectively impossible to enforce between nations.

That's called conventional morality. You don't believe in any moral principles. I really don't consider that morality, just self-interest.

[Kuciwalker]

So?

I don't consider freely made contracts coercion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And this is why.

Hey... 'some say' and 'critics charge'. That's really factual hard truth. Some say Stalin ate babies... guess that makes it true .

Learn some IR, consider the term "Hard Wilsonianism" and educate yourself.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I don't consider freely made contracts coercion.

So what. Either do I, but at least my decision about them is not clouded by my self-interest, and conventional limitations to my morality.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And this is why.

Hey... 'some say' and 'critics charge'. That's really factual hard truth. Some say Stalin ate babies... guess that makes it true .

Well, it is technically possible that stalin ate babies, so the question of whether he did or not is an acceptable, if somewhat silly, idea because it is in the realm of possibility.

However, you where suggesting that the two things where polar opposites and so unlike one another that they could not be compaired. And yet, "some say" and "critics charge" would seem to suggest otherwise, as there is apparently an ongoing debate where the two are compared, and even associated with one another. So they must not be such complete, uncompatible, opposites, and there must be similiarities or parallels that warrant comparison.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
The American's behaviour with regard to Iraq and North Korea is all the incentive the Iranians need. If you have nukes, they will leave you alone. If you don't have nukes, they will say you do and then attack.

We only need to remember the empiricism-free 'case' against Iraq.

That would be a valid explination if only you didn't ignore what occured in India & Pakistan. Since you did ignore it...

[Imran Siddiqui]

And yet, "some say" and "critics charge" would seem to suggest otherwise

Mostly because people have no idea what a neo-conservative really is and use the term for any right-wing idea they hear. There are some people who consider Dick Cheney a neoconservative!

So they must not be such complete, uncompatible, opposites, and there must be similiarities or parallels that warrant comparison.

Like Fascism and Communism? People make dumb comparisons some times.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And this is why.

Hey... 'some say' and 'critics charge'. That's really factual hard truth. Some say Stalin ate babies... guess that makes it true .

Learn some IR, consider the term "Hard Wilsonianism" and educate yourself.

Let's go back and see what happened. I asked a QUESTION. Maybe you don't know what a question is. It starts with a word like 'how' and it ends with a question mark. A question is not a claim. Not carrying about civil debate, or morality as it turns out. You took the opportunity to try to make me look like a person who thinks he knows everything and is frequently wrong.

As it turns out that person is YOU. You think you know everything. I knew long ago that you don't know **** about economics. No matter how much I tried to help you understand economics. You never listened to me. You just called me ignorant.

You also pretend to be authoritative about other subjects (like poly sci) which I don't really know much about. I had my doubts as to whether you actually knew a lot about those subjects, but I never said anything. But here we see that you pretend to be authoritative about this subject also, but you are not.

Now here is what you posted.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Neoconservatism and realpolitik is on opposite sides of the spectrum! One is part and parcel of realist theory and the other is a subset of liberal theory. Now you wonder why no one takes you seriously?! Educate yourself because you speak on this again, please.

Obviously you were claiming authoritative knowledge of political science, and making the claim that EVERYONE knows that neoconservatism and realpolitik are incompatable.

But it didn't stop there. Why? Because I have said something here that is unacceptable to you about the US. So instead of debating civily and admiting wrong doing. You continue to support you claim when it is clearly wrong. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT THINK THAT MORALS MATTER! You are immoral. I do not argue with people like you. Case closed.

YOU ARE PWNED! And it's all the sweeter because you've acted like such an *******.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I asked a QUESTION. Maybe you don't know what a question is. It starts with a word like 'how' and it ends with a question mark.

Yeah.. right... a flippant question designed to be a smartass.

You took the opportunity to try to make me look like a person who thinks he knows everything and is frequently wrong.

Because you are.

I knew long ago that you don't know **** about economics. No matter how much I tried to help you understand economics. You never listened to me. You just called me ignorant.

The person that knows jack **** about economics, who gets schooled in every debate about economics saying someone else doesn't know economics! That's so hilarious!

Obviously you were claiming authoritative knowledge of political science, and making the claim that EVERYONE knows that neoconservatism and realpolitik are incompatable.

Everyone that has the bare minimum of political science IR knowledge. Realism and Liberalism are two obviously opposite ideals. It's like asking the "what is the difference" when someone says Fascism and Anarachism are different.

You continue to support you claim when it is clearly wrong. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT THINK THAT MORALS MATTER! You are immoral. I do not argue with people like you. Case closed.

In the end you've called everyone in this thread that has disagreed with you that 'you do not think that morals matter'. Have your proven it? No, of course not. And also you think that not thinking morals matter equals immoralness, which is demonstrably wrong. In fact, I wonder if you know anything at all, or do you just parrot your slogans and hope one will stick.

YOU ARE PWNED!

If saying so makes you sleep better, while getting utterly schooled over and over again, go ahead, say what errors you will .

[Dinner]

Originally posted by General Ludd
If a country nukes another country, it has commited political suicide. A nuclear retaliation is not even neccisary.

Oh, now that is funny. I realize yopu are very young and likely don't remember how John Major and George Bush Sr. both flatly said they'd launch a massive nuclear attack upon Iraq if they used chemical weapons. What did your world do? Chear and agree. There most certainly are cases where nukes can be used and political support be maintained; the main reason they haven't been used since 1945 is the weak are to scared to cross the strong and the strong are afraid to fight each other.