• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

Are Neocons A Threat To World Peace?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 59.0%
  • No

    Votes: 25 41.0%

  • Total voters
    61
Prominent neocon Paul Wolfowitz is famous for the following policy objectives for the US



And



Here it is clearly stated that the most important goal is to contain Russia. Furthermore the goal is to prevent any challenge to the leadership role of the US on the global stage.

Do such policies put the US on a collision course with the rest of the world? Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.

Are the neocons therefore a threat to world peace?

... humanity is a threat to world peace.

What is good about the US having to go to war with Russia over Ukraine?

Russia-Ukraine relations aren't the only example of their kind in the world. There are plenty of other countries who can resolve regional disputes revolving around migration and resources by military force. It encourages arms build-ups, discourages economic and cultural integration or understanding (and therefore undermines human advancement), and makes every small country feel as though they need to have a nuclear arsenal to ward away off giants like Russia because countries like the United States and the European Union can't be counted on to defend them.

Military relations can stay rational when a few big actors have nuclear weapons, but 100+ countries with that kind of capability increases arithmetically the odds of a regional nuclear war, the destructiveness of which has globe spanning consequences on the environment, economy, and political relations, even if it remains localized.
 
Last edited:
... humanity is a threat to world peace.

That is when humanity is poisoned by ideology created by people who do not fully understand what they are doing. For instance, the notion that it is imperative that the US preempt the rise of rival powers.
 
.
Russia-Ukraine relations aren't the only example of their kind in the world. There are plenty of other countries who can resolve regional disputes revolving around migration and resources by military force. It encourages arms build-ups, discourages economic growth and production, and makes every small country feel as though they need to have a nuclear arsenal to ward away off giants like Russia because countries like the United States and the European Union can't be counted on to defend them.

Military relations can stay rational when a few big actors have nuclear weapons, but 100+ countries with that kind of capability increases arithmetically the odds of a regional nuclear war, the destructiveness of which globe spanning consequences on the environment, economy, and political relations, even if it remains localized.

So as a result of that, do you feel that the Ukraine should be admitted into NATO and that the US should be prepared to go to war with Russia over Ukraine?
 
So as a result of that, do you feel that the Ukraine should be admitted into NATO and that the US should be prepared to go to war with Russia over Ukraine?

Let's say that Ukraine moved at a faster pace than the West in an effort to have a clean break with Russia, and Russia moved faster than the West to stop that from happening.

In general, the rule of the Cold War was the the guy who seizes the initiative can't be directly challenged because it would result in thermonuclear war. So no, we shouldn't go to war with Russia over Ukraine.

That is when humanity is poisoned by ideology created by people who do not fully understand what they are doing. For instance, the notion that it is imperative that the US preempt the rise of rival powers.

If we could, we should. As far as historical superpowers go, the United States is by far the most benign.

We've made too many mistakes though. Too much shortsightedness.
 
Last edited:
Let's say that Ukraine moved at a faster pace than the West in an effort to have a clean break with Russia, and Russia moved faster than the West to stop that from happening.

In general, the rule of the Cold War was the the guy who seizes the initiative can't be directly challenged because it would result in thermonuclear war. So no, we shouldn't go to war with Russia over Ukraine

I don't think what you said with regards to Ukraine moving at a faster pace to break with Russia is accurate. I think the US made up it's mind that they would break Ukraine from Russia and Russia did not go along with the scheme.
 
If we could, we should. As far as historical superpowers go, the United States is by far the most benign.

We've made too many mistakes though. Too much shortsightedness.

I don't agree with you. We should preempt the rise of rival powers only when they pose a clear and present danger to our vital interests. Otherwise, we will be in a state of perpetual war. Over and above that, you may see the US as benign, but others may not. Not only that it's not necessarily true.
 
I don't agree with you. We should preempt the rise of rival powers only when they pose a clear and present danger to our vital interests. Otherwise, we will be in a state of perpetual war. Over and above that, you may see the US as benign, but others may not. Not only that it's not necessarily true.

No, not necessarily, but it usually it is. Look at the difference between West Germany and East Germany or North Korea and South Korea. Most countries who have established a relationship to the United States have improved through that relationship. I don't see that the same thing could be said of the former Soviet bloc.

The United States does involve itself in morally ambiguous events -- like the Iran-Iraq War -- and occasionally does vile things, but usually there is a broader context that most people don't consider. The United States prefers doing business with egalitarian democracies when possible, but sometimes the realities of power require us to establish diplomatic, cultural, and economic channels with countries that fall short of the ideals.

I don't think what you said with regards to Ukraine moving at a faster pace to break with Russia is accurate. I think the US made up it's mind that they would break Ukraine from Russia and Russia did not go along with the scheme.

Nice theory, but the United States doesn't have nearly that level of interest or control in that part of the world. It's the Ukrainians who are interested in us, or rather, Western Europe first and us second. They want to draw from the water of the West's economic resources, richer and more accessible than Russia's, to develop their own society. Our political structures are more attractive than Russia's autocracy and Soviet heritage, which countries like Ukraine still resent.

The United States wouldn't mind acquiring them in our sphere of influence for free, but we aren't going to strain ourselves to make it happen.
 
Last edited:
No, not necessarily, but it usually it is. Look at the difference between West Germany and East Germany or North Korea and South Korea. Most countries who have established a relationship to the United States have improved through that relationship. I don't see that the same thing could be said of the former Soviet bloc.

In the case of Ukraine, the US forced the issue of an EU association agreement. When you look at the EU, we find countries like Greece where there are many people starving, dying and cursing the EU. Many people in Europe despise the fact that there country is in the EU. The EU is about to do to Ukraine what it did to Greece. So US influence does not necessarily guarantee well being or being better off.

The United States does involve itself in morally ambiguous events -- like the Iran-Iraq War -- and occasionally does vile things, but usually there is a broader context that most people don't consider. The United States prefers doing business with egalitarian democracies when possible, but sometimes the realities of power require us to establish diplomatic, cultural, and economic channels with countries that fall short of the ideals.

The US cares about egalitarian democracies only when it suits the corporate interests here. A glaring display of that was the example of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The US did everything in it's power to thwart the democratically elected and popular Chavez and even supported a coup against him by being the first to recognize the coup leaders as valid. It even supported the overthrow of someone as benign as Aristide, so your statement about preferring egalitarian democracies is not correct.
 
Nice theory, but the United States doesn't have nearly that level of interest or control in that part of the world. It's the Ukrainians who are interested in us, or rather, Western Europe first and us second. They want to draw from the water of the West's economic resources, richer and more accessible than Russia's, to develop their own society. Our political structures are more attractive than Russia's autocracy and Soviet heritage, which countries like Ukraine still resent.

It's not a theory. It was the US that spearheaded the efforts to overthrow Yanukovych after he rejected the EU association agreement. The Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland directly fomented protest in the streets. She directly threatened the powerful Akhmetov, who controlled a powerful bloc in Parliament of about 45 MPs, that if he didn't put pressure on Yanukovych he would be exposed. She also directly threatened Yanukovych right after passing out food to protesters. The problem is that there are many people in Ukraine that do not want to be a part of the EU. We should have left that up for their leaders to decide. If we don't like the leaders, wait until the next election.

The United States wouldn't mind acquiring them in our sphere of influence for free, but we aren't going to strain ourselves to make it happen.

We went out of our way in Ukraine.
 
It's not a theory. It was the US that spearheaded the efforts to overthrow Yanukovych after he rejected the EU association agreement. The Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland directly fomented protest in the streets. She directly threatened the powerful Akhmetov, who controlled a powerful bloc in Parliament of about 45 MPs, that if he didn't put pressure on Yanukovych he would be exposed. She also directly threatened Yanukovych right after passing out food to protesters. The problem is that there are many people in Ukraine that do not want to be a part of the EU. We should have left that up for their leaders to decide. If we don't like the leaders, wait until the next election.



We went out of our way in Ukraine.

One of the most abused notions in human history is that you can somehow "forment" protest.

The tendency of human beings is to be inert and not to do anything. You can't make them do something unless they really want to do it. If the United States has established, funded, and is personally supervising grassroots networks (through C.I.A. agents or other officials) to create protest or an illusion of protest, I'll acknowledge your claim. But making a handful of inflammatory remarks and leaking information about high up political wheeling and dealing doesn't pass muster. That's throwing a few matches into an oil drum that is already burning.

More importantly, the line between who wants to be part of the Russian Federation and who wants to be part of the European Union is drawn mostly between ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians, who make up about 17% and 78% of the population respectively. But just as the political leadership in Washington is disconnected from the voice of the common man, the leadership in Kiev tends to follow its own establishment logic. Namely, that Russia is the regional power, not Europe, and that deference must be given for Ukraine to be safe (and for the political leadership to remain rich with Russian economic and political connections).

In conventional elections, it would take decades or hundreds of years to bring the leadership into line with what the people want.
 
Last edited:
What is good about the US having to go to war with Russia over Ukraine?

My intended point wasn't about 'going to war over the Ukraine'. I meant (though my post is obviously faulty) that there's good and bad points about sending troops to the Ukraine just as we have for South Korea. The presence of our troops would make Russia think twice, though one can imagine all the inflammatory rhetoric and diplomatic posturing Putin (and Obama's opponents here) would use the moment our troops touched down in the Ukraine. Such a move would make war in the Ukraine less likely - and that's good...but if war did happen, that same move would make a disastrous escalation more likely.
 
We can certainly 'foment' protest and in fact it's done all the time.

To a degree, but aside from the thing I said in my post, formentation is a smokescreen that removes responsibility for acting from the people doing the protesting. Even when we have huge networks of personnel employed to do some legwork on the civil discontent front, I would still say the population itself bears the main portion of the responsibility for their actions.
 
One of the most abused notions in human history is that you can somehow "forment" protest.

It is possible to foment protest. This can very easily be seen when countries fall on severe economic hardship and ultra nationalists groups step in to fill a need.

The tendency of human beings is to be inert and not to do anything.

No it isn't. As a matter of fact one cannot refrain from doing something, not even for a moment, even if it's no more than engagement on the mental platform.

You can't make them do something unless they really want to do it.

First of all, the statement as worded is meaningless. But if you are saying that a person cannot be made to do something that they already want to do a priori, that is possible also. I don't want to go to work, but I do it because of the money. So money is one way. It can be done through deception. Usually in national elections in the US, a majority of the effort is spent trying to convince voters who have not decided to vote for a particular candidate. Not only that but voters can be made to change their minds through clever propaganda. Dukakis was leading in the presidential polling in 1988, but the Willie Horton ads help change all that. So your notion is not true, no matter how you look at it.

If the United States has established, funded, and is personally supervising grassroots networks (through C.I.A. agents or other officials) to create protest or an illusion of protest, I'll acknowledge your claim. But making a handful of inflammatory remarks and leaking information about high up political wheeling and dealing doesn't pass muster. That's throwing a few matches into an oil drum that is already burning.

I don't know where you have been, but yes the US does indeed support grassroot protest against Putin and other world leaders. For example, consider Garry Kasparov, perhaps you have heard of him.

In 1991, Kasparov received the Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy (a US think tank) for his contributions "to the defence of the United States and American values around the world"

In April 2007, it was asserted that Kasparov was a board member of the National Security Advisory Council of Center for Security Policy, a "non-profit, non-partisan national security organization [in Washington, DC] that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security". Kasparov confirmed this and added that he was removed shortly after he became aware of it. He noted that he did not know about the membership and suggested he was included in the board by accident because he received the 1991 Keeper of the Flame award from this organization. But Kasparov maintained his association with the leadership by giving speeches at think tanks such as the Hoover Institution

Please note that this council has neocon intellectuals as it's members.

As to what Kasporov thinks about Putin, here's an excerpt from a piece that Kasparov wrote

From Caracas to Moscow to Pyongyang, everyone follows their own agenda while ignoring President Bush and the U.N. Here in Russia, for example, Vladimir Putin gets Mr. Bush's endorsement for membership to the World Trade Organization while selling advanced air defense missile systems to Iran and imposing sanctions on Georgia, itself a WTO member. WTO membership is not going to benefit ordinary Russians, but it will provide more cover for Mr. Putin and his gang of oligarchs to continue to loot the country and launder the money abroad with no resistance from a distracted, discredited and enfeebled West.

And please note this

After his retirement from chess in 2005, Kasparov turned to politics and created the United Civil Front, a social movement whose main goal is to "work to preserve electoral democracy in Russia".[53] He has vowed to "restore democracy" to Russia by toppling the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, of whom he is an outspoken critic.

More importantly, the line between who wants to be part of the Russian Federation and who wants to be part of the European Union is drawn mostly between ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians, who make up about 17% and 78% of the population respectively.

Here you just don't know what you are talking about and have simply fabricated a tale. First of all, not all "ethnic Ukrainians" want to be a part of the EU. Anyone who has been following recent events in Ukraine knows that some right wing Ukrainian groups who were influential in the Maidan protests have openly said that they do not want to have anything to do with the EU. Not only that, but when you look at some of the polls, you find the following:

Ukraine is split practically 50/50 over the accession to the European Union or the Customs Union. Europe is favored by 39 percent of Ukrainians, and 37 percent prefer the Customs Union, said the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

https://www.kyivpost.com/content/uk...lit-over-eu-customs-union-options-332470.html
 
My intended point wasn't about 'going to war over the Ukraine'. I meant (though my post is obviously faulty) that there's good and bad points about sending troops to the Ukraine just as we have for South Korea. The presence of our troops would make Russia think twice, though one can imagine all the inflammatory rhetoric and diplomatic posturing Putin (and Obama's opponents here) would use the moment our troops touched down in the Ukraine. Such a move would make war in the Ukraine less likely - and that's good...but if war did happen, that same move would make a disastrous escalation more likely.

The point is that if we are going to advocate NATO membership for Ukraine, we should be prepared to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And Ukraine is just not a vital interest such that a war with Russia would be justified.
 
The point is that if we are going to advocate NATO membership for Ukraine, we should be prepared to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And Ukraine is just not a vital interest such that a war with Russia would be justified.

That's true, too. That situation already exists for other nations already on Russia's borders, too.
 
That's true, too. That situation already exists for other nations already on Russia's borders, too.

That is true and is a concern. However the power of the Russian navy is based in Crimea and Russian depends on Ukraine for some critical military equipment such as parts for it's ICBMs. That makes Ukraine a very vital interest for Russia, unlike those countries.
 
Neocons appear to be characterized by a type of paranoia that causes them to conjure up imagined threats that do not exist. Consider this from Robert Kagan and William Kristol

No one has been paying much attention to Iraq lately. But that unfolding Clinton administration disaster is certain to rear its head again over the next year. Right now Saddam Hussein is busy building his weapons of mass destruction, unencumbered by international inspectors, unchallenged by a domestic opposition that the Clinton administration, despite paying lip service to the Iraq Liberation Act, refuses to support, and unharmed by the sporadic attacks which the United States has been carrying out in the no-fly zones. The sanctions regime is tottering. International support for the "containment" of Saddam is evaporating. And the Clinton administration does not even pretend to have an answer.

It turns out, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the neocons were sure successful in scaring the hell out of everyone that there were. Enough that we went on a ignorant witch hunt and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to preempt the threat of what Cheney called a "mushroom cloud."

It mindless paranoia.
 
Neocons appear to be characterized by a type of paranoia that causes them to conjure up imagined threats that do not exist. Consider this from Robert Kagan and William Kristol
It turns out, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the neocons were sure successful in scaring the hell out of everyone that there were. Enough that we went on a ignorant witch hunt and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to preempt the threat of what Cheney called a "mushroom cloud." It mindless paranoia.

Here's another one of those damned war mongering neo-cons! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
 
There are three problems with the neocon notion of preemption:

1. It places the US in a state of constant conflict because nations will always act to increase there influence.

2. Because preemption involves acting against threats that have not presented themselves, there is the risk of acting against threats that don't exist.

3. Acting to preempt the rise of a nation will be the cause of conflict itself because the nation will have to defend itself against the preemption. In other words, it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
 
Neocon sounds like Unicorn or some other novel concept.

Actually it sounds like a race of evil race of war mongering robots from another planet.

Transformers+wallpaper+(6).jpg


Glutenus Maximus Holius Prime, the Neocon!!! His mission is to instigate fighting amongst humans in order to soften them up for the imminent Neocon invasion!!!! :lamo
 
Are neocons a threat to World Peace?

Duh...of course they are.

Neocons and their self-serving, neurotic, staggeringly ignorant delusions are, IMO, directly/indirectly responsible for much of the western directed terrorism and hatred in the world.

I personally believe, but cannot prove, that it was the actions of neocons that indirectly led to the motivation for the 9/11 attacks. No, they did not perpetrate it. But their actions indirectly created the motivation for them. And I also believe - but cannot prove - that the big shot Neocons secretly loved the attacks (assuming they lost no one to them) because it gave their causes a gigantic added boost. Suddenly most Americans were behind America policing the world and starting war after war in the name of fighting terrorism (read...fear).

Neocon policies get brave U.S. soldiers killed in distant lands, cost American taxpayers trillions more then they need to spend and prop up horrible regimes that cause untold amounts of misery to their people.

Neocons may or may not be well meaning (I say 'not' for the most part)...but they are, IMO, the single largest cause of world misery in areas where America has some influence.
 
Last edited:
Are neocons a threat to World Peace?

Duh...of course they are.

Neocons and their self-serving, neurotic, staggeringly ignorant delusions are, IMO, directly/indirectly responsible for much of the western directed terrorism and hatred in the world.

Yeah, Obama bought into the neocon garbage on Russia with Ukraine. He sent Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland to straighten Putin out. The result is the current mess in Ukraine. The same can be said for Iraq, Bush bought into the neocon garbage and the result is that Iraq is a mess and the US lost thousands of soldiers lives and spent hundreds of billions of dollars for nothing.

When will people wake up and realize that the neocons don't do anything but create a mess.
 
Back
Top Bottom