View Poll Results: Are Neocons A Threat To World Peace?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    44 61.11%
  • No

    28 38.89%
Page 14 of 29 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 285

Thread: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    You can in fact turn down William Kristol a few notches, nor would I somehow consider him an heir to it. In many ways, you would probably want to look at Robert Kagan, Wolfowitz, and Perle for really having a clear foreign policy vision for the Neo-Reaganites. The political viewpoints fairly frequently travel down the family line, as the Podhoretz and Kagan family would very easily demonstrate. In government, a lot of people tend to view Moynihan, Wolfowitz, or Perle to be their mentors (in addition to Scoop, Zbig, and so on). William is a great short essayist with connections in Washington, but if you want to be in government, you don't necessarily knock on the door of William.

    Folks look at William a little too easily, and forget all of the rest.
    I'm talking about ideology. People like Kristol are not the types to execute policy. They formulate the ideological basis for policy.

  2. #132
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,635

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    I'm talking about ideology. People like Kristol are not the types to execute policy. They formulate the ideological basis for policy.
    Which is why you should be looking to someone like Wolfowitz, Kagan, and Perle. They've tended to do both, and often led the way. It makes a great deal of sense when you look closer and where they came from. William is more politically connected than his father, but his father often required the talents of others so he could distill his own perspective.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Which is why you should be looking to someone like Wolfowitz, Kagan, and Perle. They've tended to do both, and often led the way. It makes a great deal of sense when you look closer and where they came from. William is more politically connected than his father, but his father often required the talents of others so he could distill his own perspective.
    OK, fair enough. But all three are signatories to the same.

  4. #134
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,635

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    OK, fair enough. But all three are signatories to the same.
    Signatories to PNAC? While it was impressive to get so much attention, I'd really suggest you look to the American Enterprise Institute from the 1970s to the 1990s, the Committee on the Present Danger, and Coalition for a Democratic Majority. That's where most of the intellectual firepower was.
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 04-11-14 at 11:01 PM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Signatories to PNAC? While it was impressive to get so much attention, I'd really suggest you look to the American Enterprise Institute from the 1970s to the 1990s, and the Committee on the Present Danger. That's where most of the intellectual firepower was.
    OK, I yield on that point. That said Kristol was a scholar at AEI.

  6. #136
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Do they need a reason to be 'very very pro-interventionist' and what statements have they made to support your theory.
    Uhhh the neo cons that were pro interventionist in Iraq!!


  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Uhhh the neo cons that were pro interventionist in Iraq!!
    The 'neo cons' were 'interventionist' in Europe more than once and in fact countries have been 'interventionist' throughout human history and on every continent. The term 'neo con' appears to cover a lot of territory.

  8. #138
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,861

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    No we aren't--and he is right.
    Given that Wolfowitz's general doctrine is one of preemptive war, I think he's right only in concept, not by how he'd go about reaching that goal if he were in charge.

    Fortunately, the neoconservatives have had their fingers off the levers of power for quite some time, and to insist they're a "threat to world peace" is preposterous.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  9. #139
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,861

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    "neocon" to the dogmatic leftist acts like "liberal" to the mouth foaming dittohead. It is the pejoritive that embodies all manner of evil.

    As to the original neocon movement,however, one objective was to liberalize the middle east among other things,and even if this was a display of complete hubris, a more liberal middle east WOULD help deliver peace.

    The problem here,is that such a grandiose plan backfired,and the reaction to it has resulted not only in the middle east becoming even more backwards, but a great deal of the world left joining them because, by golly, if the neocons stand for something, they will stand against.
    Well sure; I think that's a goal of more than just the neoconservatives. It was the doctrine of pre-emptive war (combined with a completely ham-fisted approach to it, what with absolutely zero plan for the endgame and the "we will be greeted as liberators" nonsense) that didn't work.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    The Authorization for the Iraq war listed the attempt to develop nukes, not that they already had nukes. And chemical weapons were used by Saddam in Halabja. About 3 times as many Iraqis were killed there as Syrians were killed in the attack that prompted Obama to want to attack Syria. US forces were prepared for chemical and biological agents when they invaded. Soldiers don't wear that lousy protective gear unless there is a reasonable chance of use.
    I was just trying to recall what I was thinking at the time. If I remember right, I didn't believe he had a program to develop nuclear weapons. Joseph Wilson and others had cast doubt on that whole issue. There was also doubt he had chemical weapons. At the end of the day no WMDs were found. They say Colin Powell is still sore that he made a fool of himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    I re-read your initial posting. It seems to me that US has always been a neo-con nation. It didn't take long after founding before we went after the Barbary coast pirates, against the wishes of the European powers (which controlled basically the world at the time).
    No, the US has not always been a neocon nation and the example you gave does not prove that. What the neocons purpose is preempting the rise of other powers. One only need to refer to Washington's admonishment that the US should stay out of European affairs to see that the founders were not trying to implement a neocon vision of preemption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    The War of 1812 was basically a pre-emptive attack against the British-backed native American tribes in Ohio and what was called the NorthWest Territories.
    Wrong again. The war of 1812 was not about preempting the rise of the British empire. To do that the US would have had to station troops in places where Britain was in the process of colonizing such as India, to thwart their rise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    The Mexican War was some phony war made up as a result of an argument that may or may not have happened in what may or may not have been the US. Lincoln opposed the logic of the war with his Spot Resolution in Congress but we ended up swiping a Louisiana Purchase size piece of land and got a buffer with Mexico. Spanish American War started by the sinking of the Maine that may or may not have happened as we were told.
    Again neither of those wars were to preempt the rise of a rival power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    WW1 was basically a squabble among the royal families in Europe but the questionable Zimmerman telegram caused Wilson to want to do a pre-emptive strike against Germany in retaliation. WW2 may have been the exception but FDR wanted to go to war against Germany and Pearl Harbor gave him the opening.
    US involvement in both world wars was reactive, not preemptive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    In 1948 Truman declared Korea was out of the US sphere of influence but changed his mind when N. Korea attacked.
    Although that can be seen as a preemptive with regards to China, you could also say it was reactive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    Vietnam? Gulf of Tonkin? Rather suspicious and why did we get into basically a civil war. The Vietnamese liked us until then.
    Vietnam was weird. Basically the French were being beat and we started to increase our involvement. But we got stuck in quicksand. I don't consider that preemptive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    And Iraq. The Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed with one "Nay" in Sept 18, 2001. A lot of NeoCons in Congress. And the Authorization for Iraq was passed 297-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate, and c. 70% of the people supported it at the time. The fact that they supported it because of the WMD question doesn't diminish the fact that it would be a neo-con idea to pre-emptively attack a country if they were working on getting a WMD and that is what Congress and the people supported.
    Now Iraq was a true neocon, preemptive war. And although Congress did vote for an authorization of a use of force, it contained this section:

    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
    President to--
    (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
    Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
    and encourages him in those efforts; and
    (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
    Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
    evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
    with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
    Bush never got a security council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. It could therefore be said that the war was illegal and Bush and Cheney are war criminals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    As to whether the US is a threat to world peace, it seems to me that there are moments of peace when one nation has so much power, as in Pax Romana or when the British Empire was supreme.
    The world has changed quite a bit since the Roman empire. Neither the Roman or British empires had to face adversaries with nuclear arsenals that could destroy their civilizations. That simply is not the case now, and it is the major factor that leads one to the conclusion that the neocons are indeed a threat to world peace. The notion of preempting the rise of such adversaries is dangerous and will likely lead to a nuclear disaster in the future if such notions are not strongly put down.

Page 14 of 29 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •