Why is everyone against NeoConservatism? It's the most redpilled ideology, Sup Forums likes redpilled stuff doesn't it? Anyway any educated republican understands the fact that traditional conservatism aka Trumpism is outdated and a New American Century Conservative is way more practical.
>Plus George Bush was a really cool guy
Other urls found in this thread:
investopedia.com
weeklystandard.com
is.cuni.cz
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
archive.is
money.cnn.com
twitter.com
...
Fuck NeoCons because they care about foreign policy more than domestic policy.
Your trolling more than anything.
You sound like an SJW. Muh social issues. Foreign policy actually keeps a nations role in world politics relevant, domestic politics leaders to SJWism. Besides neoCons have many domestic policies such as
>understands America needs to give up a little bit of freedom for a lot more security
>God back in America
>God back in schools
>progressive ideas like complusory helmet and seatbelt laws
>draft for the military
>You sound like an SJW. Muh social issues
Lower taxes, more guns, anti-regulation, and immigration, fag, not social issues.
Foreign policy is important, if we don't dominate the world militarily we run the risk of the USD losing its status as the world reserve currency, which would be a disaster.
But they focus more on the foreign policy than any other issue that affects my life.
Explain more about this USD thing. I support foreign policy for freedom but if this USD thing gives me another reason to support it than im in.
The USD is the world reserve currency.
investopedia.com
Basically this keeps the demand for dollars high, which means we suffer little inflation and devaluation.
Our debt is out of control, but since we are still the reserve currency it doesn't really matter.
We will hold our spot as the reserve currency as long as our economy stays strong enough.
Our economy and our government could be in big trouble if people started wanting us to pay off this debt and stopped investing in treasury securities and bonds.
One of the reasons people don't ask us to pay, and keep investing in treasury securities and bonds is because our military controls the shipping and trading lanes across the world and our military influences other nations' economies - think NATO needing our military.
If our military weakens the likelihood of people wanting us to pay debnts increases, while the amount of people willing to invest in our treasury drops.
If that happens our economy could tank a bit, but couple that with the yuan replacing the USD as the reserve currency and the demand for USD plummets and so does the value of the USD.
So why did the U.S get in this mess in the first place. Why not have a moderate debt and a normal currency like everyone else. How does having this super currency benefit the average American?
>suffer less inflation
Well thats good, i mean you can issue more money in that case but it really doesn't mean anything when every dollar issued has to go to the military.
True, but isn't this a consequence of the Supreme Jew, the Federal Reserve?
We wouldn't have gotten off the gold standard and signed that suicide pact known as the petrodollar. This shit is not going to end well and you know it.
you know thats bullshit.
You mean neo cohen-servatism.
thats antisemite
FUCKING FINALLY ANOTHER NEOCON.
Pic related.
I'm glad to have another neocon. It seems like every conservative on Sup Forums is just an Alex Jones tier libertarian
...
unironic fucking kike loving TROTSKYITES on this board jesus christ, kill yourselves you fucking globalist goons
remember to sage shitty bait threads
>Trotskyite
>"Kike loving"
>Globalist
Yeah you're trolling, enjoy yuor ban.
It benefits us because it helps keep our economy stable. The inflation could get out of control if we weren't the reserve currency. I'm talking pushing wheelbarrows down the street for bread levels.
We got into this mess because if we didn't someone else would have, so we decided to be the top currency in the world. It helps with economic stability.
The Fed was founded in 1913, we officially became the reserve currency in 1944.
Yes, it did lead to us getting off the gold standard, and lead to most countries doing the same. They keep USD instead of gold as a reserve.
I'd prefer to go back to the gold standard, but if that's off the table then I want to make sure we remain the reserve currency because it gives us economic power.
Bush II is a ridiculously underrated president. Harry Reid was literally declaring defeat in the Senate in Iraq in 2006 before the Surge. Traitorous Democrat fucks should've been sent to Gitmo or used as cannon fodder in Fallujah.
Anyone who thinks Saddam was a "stable" leader is just plain wrong. Certain Arab authoritarian regimes can be considered stable, for instance, the House of Saud, which holds back the Wahhabis (even though I don't like them). But Saddam was literally preparing an arms build up. Regardless of whether or not he had chemical weapons, all he had to do was keep waving his dick around and pretty soon either Iran or the Gulf Arabs, both of whom were opposed to Saddam, would've started building up arms of their own. Further, the Gulf Arabs, who are Sunni, and the Iranians, who are Shia, both hate each other, so this conflict would quickly go from being just anti-Saddam to a Sunni vs. Shia arms race. From there, Israel would probably get involved one way or another.
If Bush hadn't toppled Saddam, we would've seen the Thirty Years War on steroids in the most oil rich region of the globe. Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with a war for oil. Oil is a natural resource that fuels the modern economy and a bunch of third world despots don't get to decide whether americans keep the lights on.
Theyre in thinktanks like AEI mentally masturbating.
>he doesn't know neoconservatism is applied trotskyism started by a former communist youth party member
sucks to suck. daily reminder all neoconservatives, from Schumer, Kristol to Cheney and Rumsfeld, will be hung until they are dead after a criminal court finds them all to be traitors. Just like you :^)
>Trotskyites
Wow we're such fucking Trotskyists for wanting to spread free market capitalism and liberal democracy to other parts of the globe. For fucks sake get over yourselves.
Calling neocons "Trotskyists" because we believe in spreading democracy is like saying Trump is Hitler. Sure, there was some early intellectual overlap, but do you honestly believe for a fucking second that Dick Cheney, the CEO of Halliburton and one of the most conservative House representatives, was secretly working for a Marxist agenda?
>Why is everyone against NeoConservatism?
Because you faggots give so much ammo to the liberal media that you cease to become effective pretty fucking quick and you suck globalist dick.
Youve been shilling or shitposting for neo conservatism for the last 3 months. It is time to stop
Reminder that Neo conservatism was created by a bunch of Trotsky followers. While Trotsky wants permanent class revolution. Neo cons want permanent war to promote democracy and capitalism. Neo cons are just ex communists who want global empire.
You guys are globalists and against real tradition and nationalism.
I
Except didn't the war cost 6 trillion dollars, more than the amount of oil America got?
Liberal kikes.
>spread free market capitalism and liberal democracy
kill yourself right now for thinking either of those things are a net positives and that our boys need to die to spread that kikery. Literally take bleach and swallow it right now for even pretending to shill for this shit because you are still retarded for pretending to be retarded
>Schumer
not a neoconservative
>Bill Kristol
Any neocon worth their salt is backing Trump nowadays. Look at Tom Cotton.
>Cheney
One of the best VPs in modern history from how he managed the White House.
>Rumsfeld
Literally rebuilt the military into a 21st century fighting machine that went from losing a simple security op in Somalia to being able to topple Saddam, at the time one of the largest militaries in the world, and endure not one, but a two front counter insurgency.
They aren't getting hung. You're just mad Trump is literally following every item out of the Bush playbook. You think Mattis and McMaster are isolationists? You think that Flynn was a non-interventionist, even as he was a cheerleader for attacking Iran? John Bolton was on the shortlist for Secretary of State and he literally wrote a piece in the New York Times calling for bombing Iran.
The writing is on the wall pal.
So you want people to be hung for thought-crime? That's fucked
>who want global empire
Reminder without the United States you'd be sucking either Japanese or communist cock. Literally the only reason why Singapore is so successful is because you were under the umbrella of the US. With our interventions in Korea and Vietnam, we broke the back of communism in Asia. If we had let Vietnam fall, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, and eventually Singapore would've all fallen. You're welcome.
>The writing is on the wall pal.
And your back is going to be up against it, you traitorous commie piece of shit. Stop trying to argue your way out of this. Your worldview is fundamentally anti-white, and therefore anti me and my family and my people. Stop with the circumlocutions and prepare for when the hard times come.
It cost 6 trillion because not everyone in the Bush admin was a fucking neocon. For fucks sake, Colin Powell didn't even agree with the war and Condi reluctantly made us fight with our hands tied behind our backs.
In 2007 Bush wisened up and won the Iraq War by listening to the generals, including Mattis and Petraeus first and foremost, who called for a Surge to turn the tide. The tide was turned and literally all Obama had to do was keep troops there to prevent it from becoming an Iranian proxy state and he fucked it up. Who the fuck cares about signing a basing agreement? We're America- we don't take orders from some arrogant Iraqi fucks who are only in power because we let them take power.
I respect neoconservatism for toppling oppressive regimes and im new to the ideology but isn't that kind of messed up? I mean for example Canada isn't a free market system, Scandinavia is democratically socialist, would a neocon support an invasion of those countries?
>red pill
>literally slave to Israel
Yeah, nah
The Bretton Woods agreement allowed the US to replace the British pound to become the world's reserve currency. There was supposed to be a fixed exchange rate where the USD could be exchanged for gold on demand. The problem was that soon there were too many dollars in circulation, so Nixon got us off the gold standard. So, in order to keep demand for the dollar high, and prevent us from getting hit hard with inflation, we made an agreement with the oil-rich nations of the Middle East and agreed that we would protect them as long as they sold their oil in USD. The nail in the coffin for Saddam was when he proposed selling Iraqi oil in Euros instead of dollars.
How are you having a hard time with this, leaf?
>implying they aren't
Yeah i forgot letting Islamists build a Caliphate and communists take over entire continents is in our strategic interests because our government should stop at the borders.
For fucks sake, let me guess you're going to try and reply with some quote from George Washington in spite of the fact Adams was a Zionist, Jefferson attacked the Barbary Pirates, Madison waged the War of 1812, and Monroe did the Monroe Doctrine. From its start America wasn't going to be a non-interventionist state. Move to Switzerland you whiney isolationist.
I don't understand. You do realize war costs a lot of money right? It can't go on forever
Well this is another problem I have with neoconservatism. I support the Vietnam and Korean war since they helped prevent communism but why did the U.S have the draft in those wars? I mean I understand volunteering to fight for freedom but why did Americans have to give up their lives to fight for freedom of people across the globe? I understand how some heros would want to but why was it forced.
Id rather japan won the war to be honest. Nowadays my country is filled with degenerates. And there are too many foreigners. If Japan won we would be a traditional society learning the bushido code instead of having to deal with the degeneracy of Mac world on a daily basis.
Besides in the japanese racial hierarchy we would be 2nd only to pure Japanese.
So the Iraq war could have been won easily and cheaply if they wanted it? Could America have won it cheaply enough to have the war pay for itself with the oil?
Israel benefits America more than vise versa.
Are you going to stop LARPing soon and face the facts that the neoconservatives are the best mobilized foreign policy group out there? The reason Trump is appointing neocons is because we're the only people out there. Literally nobody buys into your isolationist bullshit in a respectable field, not even in the military.
And I'm sure the military would love a coup against James Mattis. If anything, a military coup would be decidedly neoconservative.
>James Mattis: Interventionist; Iran hawk
>David Petraeus: Interventionist
>H.R. McMaster: Interventionist
>Michael Flynn: Interventionist; Iran hawk
>Wesley Clark: Interventionist
>John Allen: Interventionist
>Norman Schwarzkopf (deceased): Interventionist
neoconservatism is literally jewish conservatism.
Both in culture and foreign policy. it was started by leftist jews who wanted to further isreals interest in the middle east and were fed up with actual liberals who werent zionist enough.
Post Amerifats getting BTFO.
>come to Sup Forums
>larp as a neocon
>muh democracy
>muh free market capatialism
>muh Isreal
>muh Russia
>muh china
You literally want people to be hung for thoughtcrime
>come to Sup Forums
>larp as an alex jones tier conspiracy theorist
it made usa vs the soviet uninion a near 1 sided affair.
Also if the usa didnt do it someone would have. The soviets were trying to get control of the middle east.
There's a difference and you're displaying it, it's called common sense. Canada isn't a free market, but they aren't trying to infect us with socialism or anything along those lines. They're a close ally and so is most of Western European. Thus we can tolerate a degree of difference, hence liberal democracy.
Further, neocons don't support invading just anywhere in the globe. We couldn't give less of a fuck about a military coup in Fiji. In strategic regions of the globe, for instance Iraq (oil) and Afghanistan (lithium), it's important to build stable states that are reliable allies. Authoritarian states are not reliable allies, just look at Iraq. America backed Saddam as a friendly authoritarian and ten years later he was opposing the United States and posing a very serious threat to our interests. That's exactly what backing an authoritarian is: a gamble. In strategic regions, sometimes you can't take that gamble. You need something more permanent.
I personally don't have anything against the guy in egypt right now or the Shah in Iran because they are good authoritarians, who work in the US' interests. No point toppling them when we have other authoritarians, like those in Iran, who are against us.
Democracy promotion is a means not an end in itself. We're not over there for them, we're over there for us.
But how does the middle east benefit us, it seems to be costing America a lot of money, and the world reserve currency isn't really benefiting America now a lot.
Yeah we could've. One of the biggest issues with the war was underestimating the Insurgency. Though this gets blamed a lot on neocons, the biggest issue was that the State Department was full of anti-Iraq people who wanted to sideline the issue. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Richard Armitage, these people were all against the war (Powell went to the UN but harbored deep reservations about the war and fought with the Cheney wing a lot). Bush wasn't a full on neocon and listened mostly to his advisers, some of whom were neocons and some of whom weren't.
The insurgency was only large to that extent because of Iranian infiltration. Iran gave weapons tech to Shia militias that made them powerful foes and our military hadn't prepared for that kind of operation.
Had we built a stable state in Iraq, one of the most oil rich nations in the world, occupying a strategic position in the Middle East, the 6 trillion would've been worth it. But Obama gave it all up. Seriously, Obama taking the troops out was one of the biggest blunders in American military history and it won't be covered in the textbooks because of the media.
Many neocons supported elections in Gaza and West Bank against the interests of Israel. For example, Max Boot.
This is the type of ideology I want to support. But my question is doesn't our current foriegn policy benefit others more than us? By us i mean America because Canada basically is very interwoven at this point. For example Afgan invasion cost the U.S a LOT of money, did the U.S or more importantly could the U.S have carried out the Afgan invasion and have the war pay for itself with Lithium?
Or carry out the Iraq war in a way so that it pays for itself? If it's for the benefit of the U.S shouldn't the war supply more in resources to the U.S than they cost. They seem to always cost WAYYYYYY more.
How does the Middle East benefit us?
>natural resources: oil
Contrary to what gets told, we still need the Middle East even with fracking. Fracking, as well as oil shale in Canada, produces much lower quality oil than what refineries are looking for. The fact of the matter is, the Middle East has the best goddamn oil in the world and will remain integral to world energy markets. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be exploited by OPEC, for fucks sake, the De Beers executives are scared shitless of stepping foot on American soil after the antitrust was passed against them, and yet we allow OPEC to continue to exist?
>strategic location
Having a long term military presence in the Middle East gives us leverage over China and to a lesser extent Russia (personally I don't think Russia is that big of a deal, China is a much bigger threat).
>More allies
It builds our sphere of influence, again, making us stronger against China in the sphere of global competition.
That's because they didn't believe the terrorists (hamas) would win. Fuck Israel and fuck neoconservatives
Being the world reserve currency is why we can accrue so much debt without consequence. That's a huge benefit.
Being in the ME means we control more of the oil, not to mention the constant war there keeps the region destabilized, which keeps prices low, and lets us sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and gives us a reason for increasing military spending, which is spent on US companies. Also most of the money we give to Israel they spend on US arms. If the ME was stable there would be no reason to funnel tax dollars through Israel to our arms manufacturers.
The way I see it would work is the U.S would allow American corporations to buy up the oil fields for super cheap in a war-torn Iraq and then tax these corporations very high (since they have a deal with the U.S government) so that the people of America actually benefit off the Iraq oil. I guess thats what would of happened if a neocon was in office after Bush
Afghanistan was actually pretty controversial. The biggest mistake that gets made in other intellectual circles when discussing neocons is assuming we all think the same. There's a wide range of beliefs, for instance:
-Ann Coulter: She used to be a neocon, I don't know what she is now, but she was for Iraq and against Afghanistan. There is an ongoing debate over whether or not Afghanistan can be reliably "nation-built," but the bulk of the Afghanistan build up happened under Obama, not Bush. Under Bush it was primarily a security operation to find al-Qaeda and Taliban elements. Obama tried to make himself look strong by deploying a ton of troops there with little purpose or long term goals established. The end result is here today, a resurgent Taliban.
It would be hard to make the war pay for itself, but we could've reduced the costs. Most of the reason we didn't conduct it in that manner was because we had to appease the global community, which was the result of the influence of non-neocons in the State Department. We could've had oil go to ExxonMobil and American drillers, but instead we let it go to European, Russian, and Chinese firms who didn't contribute to the invasion to save face with them, as they were opposed to the war to begin with. That's what's so funny about the stuff happening with Trump now, he's effectively being a neocon about things. Germany and France hold little to no strategic importance anymore, we're better off getting closer to nations like Poland, who actually deployed troops to Iraq, and pivoting to Asia. Shinzo Abe's faction in his party (Liberal Democrats, they're conservatives don't let the name fool you) wanted to invade in Iraq with the US, for instance.
War will always have some costs, but it can be lowered drastically if we use the natural resources right. Plus there's the benefit of those allies in key regions of the globe for when shit goes down with larger players, like China.
You're making a mistake in separating US companies from the US people.
That's not the neocon ideology. To them the companies making a large profit is benefiting the people of America. Taxing corporations at a high rate benefits the American government more than the people.
Neocons complained about us not taking the oil in Iraq, coincidentally so did Trump. weeklystandard.com
Literally Democrats cucked us out of getting that sweet sweet oil money because they wanted us to look good for the international community and not a well functioning hegemonic power.
>oil
But how would America get the oil. Remember after the Iraq war the American government would have huge debts to pay. I'm guessing how it would work as I said in another comment is allow American corporations to buy and sell the oil to America and these corporations would pay super heavy taxes to the American government for giving them these oil fields.
>ontrary to what gets told, we still need the Middle East even with fracking. Fracking, as well as oil shale in Canada, produces much lower quality oil than what refineries are looking for. The fact of the matter is, the Middle East has the best goddamn oil in the world and will remain integral to world energy markets. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be exploited by OPEC, for fucks sake, the De Beers executives are scared shitless of stepping foot on American soil after the antitrust was passed against them, and yet we allow OPEC to continue to exist?
What does OPEC do thats so bad?
You don't have to tax them high, just sell them the oil fields at high costs. Middle Eastern oil is the best in the globe, so they'd be willing to eat the costs. Secure them with troops and voila, you're set.
A guy named Miles Ignotus, widely believed to be Henry Kissinger (who was not a neocon), proposed seizing Arab oilfields after the Embargo of 1973: is.cuni.cz
>Being the world reserve currency is why we can accrue so much debt without consequence. That's a huge benefit.
But America still has to pay off that debt
>Being in the ME means we control more of the oil, not to mention the constant war there keeps the region destabilized, which keeps prices low, and lets us sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and gives us a reason for increasing military spending, which is spent on US companies. Also most of the money we give
Who would control the oil theoretically? The American government?
>to Israel they spend on US arms. If the ME was stable there would be no reason to funnel tax dollars through Israel to our arms manufacturers.
Isn't that taking money from taxpayers and giiving it to wallstreet?
>huge debts
Iraqi oil was nationalized. We create a new government in Iraq and take possession of the oilfields, which we sell to American firms. We pocket the proceeds from the sales and American firms hire native Iraqis to work on the oilfields and steadily a market economy is developed as infrastructure gets rebuilt and is privatized.
OPEC manipulates the price of oil to intimidate the West. Saudi Arabia has been largely well behaved, trying to seek a stable price of oil and as such they will either cut production or increase production to keep it constant, but other players like Iran or Venezuela want as high an oil price as possible to gain diplomatic clout over the West.
>Why is everyone against NeoConservatism?
I know taxing corporations high is bad, but since the government spent 6 TRILLION dollars invading Iraq wouldn't it only make sense to tax the oil corpoations enough to get their money back considering the war was done for their favour. And how on earth is allowing corporations getting rich benefitting the american people?
Doesn't make sense in my opinion, if the oil was taken it would be by huge U.S corporations
How much would the oil fields cost? 6 trillion dollars? Because thats how much the war cost. And then securing them with troops would cost the tax payer money
>pay off the debt
Well yeah, but that's more of a domestic policy thing. If we spend 4 trillion on the Iraq War, it'll eventually get paid off. We don't have to pay off 4 trillion in a lumpsum payment. Plus, that ignores a lot of the structure of why people buy Treasury bonds. Chinese and much of the emerging market wants a safe place to store assets because their native markets are volatile. If a Chinese investor puts his money in the stock market, he might lose it the next day. If he buys a Treasury bond, he's set because the Treasuries are solid. It's a means of storing wealth and is also the reason why so many invest in property markets in Canada and Australia. This will prop up demand for Treasuries for a while as there are a lot of emerging market investors doing this.
At worst, you can do what is known as a helicopter drop and originally proposed by Milton Friedman. It's effective debt monetization, where you would pass a stimulus bill spending 1 trillion (for example) and have the Federal Reserve purchase the 1 trillion in bonds or something. It's supposed to happen on a much smaller scale to avoid hyperinflation, but even inflation itself is very complicated (when you're at
>Iraqi oil was nationalized. We create a new government in Iraq and take possession of the oilfields, which we sell to American firms. We pocket the proceeds from the sales and American firms hire native Iraqis to work on the oilfields and steadily a market economy is developed as infrastructure gets rebuilt and is privatized.
Ok but would they be sold for 6 trillion dollars? Because thats how much the war cost
>OPEC manipulates the price of oil to intimidate the West. Saudi Arabia has been largely well behaved, trying to seek a stable price of oil and as such they will either cut production or increase production to keep it constant, but other players like Iran or Venezuela want as high an oil price as possible to gain diplomatic clout over the West.
So are Venezeula or iran manipulating these organizations?
Everyone loves it.
But you would want the sale of the oil to pay off the debt it took to get the oil. I mean it's not very good for your financies if you spend 6 trillion securing oil and then sell it for 4 trillion. You just lost 2 trillion
>But America still has to pay off that debt
That's where you're wrong. We don't have to pay because we're the reserve currency and our military is so strong and intertwined with world trade that more people invest in the US than want to collect.
>Who would control the oil theoretically? The American government?
The host nation, still. We just have more control over them. Like Saudi Arabia, for instance. If they start fucking us around with oil prices we will fuck them twice as hard.
>Isn't that taking money from taxpayers and giiving it to wallstreet?
It's giving it to Lockheed and Boeing and the like. Wall Street benefits by them earning more profits, so it does put money into Wall St's pockets, but as an indirect effect.
I'm explaining it to you from the political ideology of a neocon.
>And how on earth is allowing corporations getting rich benefitting the american people?
More money in out country is a good thing. More capital owned by our corporations and citizens is a good thing.
People work at those corporations and manufacture those arms. Those are jobs.
It's Reaganomics. They believe those jobs and that infusion of money benefits the people more than the taxes would.
In an ideal neocon situation, the war wouldn't have cost $4 trillion. It cost so much because after we toppled Saddam in 2003, the division between the State Department (Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Richard Armitage- not neocons) and the Defense Department (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle- neocons) meant that we were stuck holding our dicks waiting for something to happen as our troops got killed by suicide bombers. Had we done an immediate Surge and switched to COIN, we would've had a much cheaper conflict that we were looking at.
And looking at the mineral wealth of Afghanistan, we could've covered a lot of the costs involved in both wars: nytimes.com
I don't think it's possible to fully cover the costs of the conflict totally, but looking at the Second World War for instance, we didn't pay for that either. We can work to reduce the costs with natural resources and in some cases turn a profit, but war is unpredictable.
We could also auction off other things to private companies beyond oil. Letting companies bid on the reconstruction of Iraq could've been another way to make more money. We had that happen, but the oversight was pretty flawed as there were issues within the Coalition Provisional Authority that any neocon would admit to. The invasion wasn't perfect but no war is.
Here's the archive:
>nytimes.com
--> archive.is
There are other costs that go into it though. Spending $2 trillion getting a reliable partner a la Germany or Japan in the heart of the Middle East can aid for future issues with terrorism as well as establishing a permanent military base in the region. The question is how much you're willing to spend on that.
Cony capitalism is the true red pill. Capitalists and politicians exchanging money and services is just another voluntary interaction. Plus, the alliance makes sure that leftists don't gain power.
>That's where you're wrong. We don't have to pay because we're the reserve currency and our military is so strong and intertwined with world trade that more people invest in the US than want to collect.
Ok but eventually the debt will either stabilize and then the government will have to pay interest for all eternity or the debt will go down. The government can't keep borrowing forever and even if they could interest would be so high.
>The host nation, still. We just have more control over them. Like Saudi Arabia, for instance. If they start fucking us around with oil prices we will fuck them twice as hard.
Well that seems like a huge waste of money then. I thought the whole point was for the oil
>It's giving it to Lockheed and Boeing and the like. Wall Street benefits by them earning more profits, so it does put money into Wall St's pockets, but as an indirect effect.
So how does that benefit Americans?
>It's Reaganomics. They believe those jobs and that infusion of money benefits the people more than the taxes would.
THat's stupid then. The government TAXES people to get the oil in which it gives it to a company, and then taxes are suddenly bad. But the government has no problem taxing people to get the oil in the first place.
>traditional conservatism aka Trumpism
Snort
Everyone make sure to thank the based Norwegian archivist Jews are losing millions of shekel-clicks thanks to his hard work
>how does that benefit Americans
Government collects taxes on higher economic profits. If we sell the oilfields to American firms, we pocket the proceeds. On top of that, cheap reliable energy lowers the cost of doing business in the US, bringing in more tax revenues. Lower gas costs cause American households to spend more on non-gas related things in the economy, driving up economic growth and further increasing tax revenues. Having a stable ally in a strategic location in the Middle East makes international issues more manageable, thus reducing the economic loss during future confrontations.
>I don't think it's possible to fully cover the costs of the conflict totally
Then the war could never have benefitted america.
True.
I like it actually
But would the price of oil lower, don't most of these companies keep the price jacked up even if they can sell it for cheaper.
Neocons?
Totally fake redpill. Hate actual redpills. Taking joobux to flood the country with shitskins and gooks who want to kill us in our sleep. Get fucked.
>The government can't keep borrowing forever and even if they could interest would be so high.
This is the part that I don't think you're getting. It's not that we're borrowing money, really. People are investing in the US by buying bonds. We fund our government based on these bonds. We pay them off as we go. You can buy US bonds and they will pay out with interest in a certain time period. As long as people keep buying them we are set.
>The top holder by far is U.S. citizens and American entities, such as state and local governments, pension funds, mutual funds, and the Federal Reserve. Together they own the vast majority -- 67.5% -- of the debt.
money.cnn.com
It's a weird and complex thing, but it's not like taking out a loan from a bank.
>So how does that benefit Americans?
The stock market being high benefits the economy. It gets people to invest in US companies. And again, Reaganomics.
>THat's stupid then. The government TAXES people to get the oil in which it gives it to a company, and then taxes are suddenly bad. But the government has no problem taxing people to get the oil in the first place.
Well that's certainly an opinion. But they think letting our companies make more money benefits people more than government handouts because of Reaganomics.
Oil companies don't determine the price of oil, it gets determined on futures exchanges using either WTI or Brent futures contracts. Once they got control of these fields they'd jack up production because the production costs are much lower than they are in the United States.
>could never have benefited America
We didn't turn a profit on Vietnam, South Korea, or World War 2. Are you saying we would be better off with Hitler still in power?
Saddam Hussein actions were making the Middle East be ready to kick off Thirty Years War 2.0 if we had let him continue. We made the choice to sacrifice 4,000+ American lives rather than having to wage a Third World War over the Middle East.
>We didn't turn a profit on Vietnam, South Korea, or World War 2.
Yes we did. Maybe with the exception of Vietnam.
You don't think our trading partnerships with Europe, Japan, and S.Korea haven't fully paid off everything we spend in WWII and Korea?
>Why is everyone against NeoConservatism?
Because they are the quintessential cuckservatives. They typify the essence of the word.
>This is the part that I don't think you're getting. It's not that we're borrowing money, really. People are investing in the US by buying bonds. We fund our government based on these bonds. We pay them off as we go. You can buy US bonds and they will pay out with interest in a certain time period. As long as people keep buying them we are set.
But these bonds cost more than the government makes in money. It's basically like the government is allowing people to rip them off.
>It's a weird and complex thing, but it's not like taking out a loan from a bank.
Wait U.S only owns 67%? That means 33% of the debt is literally owned by people outside the U.S meaning a lot of interest is leaving the U.S
>The stock market being high benefits the economy. It gets people to invest in US companies. And again, Reaganomics.
But that just benefits the 1% since they own all the stocks
>Well that's certainly an opinion. But they think letting our companies make more money benefits people more than government handouts because of Reaganomics.
But they clearly don't believe in reagonomics, they think taxing american citizens is good since you need to tax people to get money to get the oil fields.
We would have had immense trading partnerships with Iraq then that probably would've paid off the war eventually.
Again, the only reason it cost so much was because you didn't have neocons running the whole operation. They were in a few key locations, but they didn't control everything and the resulting foot dragging of those who were opposed to the war made war spending go up. Had you let neocons run the operation, the costs would've been much lower and we could have feasibly paid things off.
>a lot of interest is leaving the US
Most foreign buyers in emerging markets like China buy US debt as a store of wealth because it's backed up by the credibility of the US government, not to turn a profit off of the interest payments. Of all the assets they could invest in, Treasuries have one of the lowest returns. They're attractive because they're secure, not because they pay well.
>But these bonds cost more than the government makes in money. It's basically like the government is allowing people to rip them off.
No. People aren't ripping us off. They just keep infusing us with money. This could go on ad infinitum.
>Wait U.S only owns 67%? That means 33% of the debt is literally owned by people outside the U.S meaning a lot of interest is leaving the U.S
Yes, but they are also infusing us with money, giving us cash flow.
>But that just benefits the 1% since they own all the stocks
This is wrong. 401ks, pensions, and other retirement plans invest in stocks. Most people have an interest in the stock market doing well.
>But they clearly don't believe in reagonomics, they think taxing american citizens is good since you need to tax people to get money to get the oil fields.
They do. That's why they always lower taxes.
Will that lower price
Well actually yeah. I mean taking out Hitler benefitted Europe but not anyone else. The vietnam war didn't benefit america and the korean war didn't benefit us
Nope since the U.S is way more in debt now. Before the war U.S was in less debt
Why not just keep the money in cash?
I'll make another point about the debt but you'll go against that. The war costed 4 trillion in Federal Government Spending. Would the Iraq war if run by Neocons increase revenue overall by 4 trillion dollars is the main question.
>Nope since the U.S is way more in debt now. Before the war U.S was in less debt
Wrong. We've had a budget surplus following those wars.
The Iraq war is a different story, but again, debt doesn't matter as much as you think.
>No. People aren't ripping us off. They just keep infusing us with money. This could go on ad infinitum.
No it cant, the U.S debt could reach 100 trillion dollars, we'd be paying 1 trillion every year in ineterest. That couldn't go on forever
>This is wrong. 401ks, pensions, and other retirement plans invest in stocks. Most people have an interest in the stock market doing well.
But the majority of the wealth would go to the 1%,, pensions don't benefit from stock markets increasing since pensions are already set. If the stock market boomed then pensioners pensions wouldn't suddenly increase. AND to add to that it will be the poor and the middle class who are paying for the wars.
>They do. That's why they always lower taxes.
Well then who paid for that war spending?
A few years of TINY budget surpluses doesn't equate to massive deficits for the previous decades
Neoconseervatism is no different than neoliberalism. Both ideologies belong to globalists that have no intent to push their cause forward since none of them are extreme enough. They only care about staying in power. Ever notice why John McCain and Cuck Shumer agree on so much?
As for W. he is my favorite Bush. He really loved America. However his presidency is a mess and the globalists ticked him into fucking with Iraq.
>will that lower the price
Lower operating costs = lower price of oil
>taking out Hitler benefited Europe but not anyone else
What about taking out Tojo? That had a clear benefit to the United States, the Japanese had a clear interest in our territories in the Pacific.
>Vietnam and Korea didn't benefit us
Domino Theory
>Why not keep the money in cash
Investors want to put their money in a place that it'll make at least some return, plus currency risk. They have to deal with the volatile values of their currencies, while the American dollar and Treasuries are stable and hold thier value over time.
>increase revenue overall by 4 trillion
It wouldn't need to because it wouldn't have costed 4 trillion. It would've been a much quicker and leaner operation and happened on a much faster time table.
...
Neoconservatism isn't a coherent ideology. There are different shades of neocons. You have people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and you have people like John Bolton and Tom Cotton.
Neocons (neoliberalism if you aren't a backwards American) is a necessary evil to fight leftist faggots. The right wing ultimately wants to return to standard American conservatism/classical liberalism, which is why they are "hated" while left wing dipshits just hate anything right wing and therefore this gives the impression that everyone hate Neocons.