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 18 of 29 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 285

Thread: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

  1. #171
    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
    Nuclear weapons have not been used. Even though some neoconservatives sought refuge in counterforce to stop an all-out exchange, counterforce largely became a mere hypothetical.
    That is not correct. Nuclear weapons, fission bombs, were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  2. #172
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,705

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    That is not correct. Nuclear weapons, fission bombs, were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    You know what I meant, MildSteel.
    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. #173
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,705

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    There is no post nuclear era. We are in the nuclear era. That's one flaw. Next of all, the reason why there has been no war between Russia and the US is that previously both sides keep within their respective spheres of influence due to the threat of MAD. Neocons have no respect for such spheres of influence. Rather they seek to preempt the rise of nuclear armed powers like Russia and China. Never in post WWII history has the US so directly encroached on Russia's vital interests as in the way that we have currently done in Ukraine. Russia had it's main naval port in Ukraine. Some of Russia's most critical military equipment is manufactured in Ukraine. Neocons, in their blind ambition, have no respect for this. Therefore they are a danger to world peace.
    Preempt Russia and China with what, exactly? Nuclear weapons? You really need to study up on the neoconservatives if you are going to make that claim. The vast majority of nuclear policy in the realm of neoconservatism has been defense (not strikes) against a preemptive attack from the enemy.
    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

  4. #174
    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 MildSteel View Post
    That is not correct. Nuclear weapons, fission bombs, were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    And that infamous neo-con, Harry Truman, was responsible for both..

  5. #175
    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 cpwill View Post
    that is certainly a viewpoint. It is the viewpoint of a paranoid, low-information Russian voter believing whatever Putin tells him on state-controlled media, but it is certainly a viewpoint.
    No it is a viewpoint backed up by facts. The fact is, contrary to assurances made to Gorbhachev, NATO not only expanded inches eastward but hundreds of miles. And there is the very real possibility that it will expand into Ukraine. As we speak Ukraine is preparing for joint military exercises on Ukraine's eastern border with Russia. What do you think NATO was formed for? It was formed to contain Russia. There is nothing paranoid or low information about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Wait. Your case depends on the notion that Putin suddenly realized that Russia had been pursuing control of warm water access for centuries because Victoria Nuland is married to a writer?
    No, it depends on the notion that there was no other reason for Nuland to take the steps that she did after Yanukovych rejected the EU association offer except to preempt the rise of Russia. Yeah, that little, inconsequential writer, happens to be a very influential thinker in the US foreign policy establishment. Preemption of Russia is exactly what Nuland was trying to accomplish through her activities. So yeah, the fact that she is married to a very prominent advocate of Russian preemption, is relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Heavy Handed? Meh...
    Yep, directly fomenting protest against a democratically elected leader. She was passing out food to protesters right before she meet with Yanukovych, where she directly threatened him. Threatening a very influential oligarch, Akhmetov, that if he didn't put pressure on Yanukovych he would be exposed, were all heavy handed tactics.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    As for pre-empting the expansion of Russian Influence - duh?
    Yes sir! In fact Yanukovych had rejected the EU offer and was about to accept a Russian counteroffer. That's preempting the rise of Russian influence in Ukraine.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    So?
    So it demonstrates her arrogance and disdain for the rest of the world as she went about pursuing her goal of preempting the rise of Russian influence in Ukraine. That's what's "so."

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is incorrect. Yanukovych's actions led to his own overthrow, when he became too obviously blatantly a tool of Putin. The lady you are accusing of fomenting this said mean things about the EU AFTER Yanukovych had fled.
    No, Yanukovych would still be in office if Nuland had not put pressure on Akhmetov. Here's what Steven Pifer, former US ambassador to Ukraine and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State had to say right before Nuland issued the threats:

    Rinat Akhmetov, the wealthiest oligarch, has been fairly close to Mr. Yanukovych

    I think it would be useful if Mr. Akhmetov was using his influence with President Yanukovych to encourage him to negotiate in a serious way to find a solution.

    If there was some threat that there might be financial or travel sanctions on Mr. Akhmetov, that could be a useful lever
    Akhmetov also controlled a bloc of about 45 MPs in parliament that abandoned Yanukovych as a result of US pressure. So yeah, it lead to his overthrow


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Ukraine was not about to join NATO, however, think about what you are saying - you are admitting that Russia was going to pursue it's national interests, which is precisely both the realist and neocon argument.
    Although it is not likely that Ukraine will join NATO under the administration of Obama, Bush before him pushed for it. And there are influential people, some of whom are in the US senate that have called for it. So there is a very real possibility that Ukraine could join NATO.

    No one is disputing that nations will pursue their interests and that is not an observation that is unique to the neocons. What I find disturbing about there position is the notion that we should preempt the rise of potential rivals. Preemption should be used in the case of preventing a clear and present danger. Otherwise it becomes a prescription for perpetual war because of the very fact that nations will always pursue their interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Incorrect. The warm water port wasn't put in jeopardy, but rather became a potential risk because Putin pushed his toady too far.
    No, it was in jeopardy and was put in risk because Nuland decided to ram through the EU association agreement.

  6. #176
    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
    Preempt Russia and China with what, exactly? Nuclear weapons? You really need to study up on the neoconservatives if you are going to make that claim. The vast majority of nuclear policy in the realm of neoconservatism has been defense (not strikes) against a preemptive attack from the enemy.
    To borrow your phrase, "you know what I mean." For example, fearing the expansion of Russian influence in Eurasia, we preempt Russia by overthrowing the Yanukovych regime after he rejected a EU offer in favor of a Russian one. That's the type of thing I am talking about.

  7. #177
    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 Grant View Post
    And that infamous neo-con, Harry Truman, was responsible for both..
    Yep, Wolfowitz was there advising him!!!

  8. #178
    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 know what I meant, MildSteel.
    Yeah, ok. My point is that this business of preempting the rise of a nation that is armed with nuclear arsenal that could destroy the US is a very dangerous notion.

  9. #179
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    No, it occurred simultaneously because nuclear weapons were being developed when it happened.
    if you want to get into a pointless debate on semantics you can fight that alone. The Nuclear Era, when it is used historically, is used to describe the end of WWII forward; usually it is used to ensure that the era immediately preceding the Cold War is captured. Regardless, the point remains.

    First of all it was, contrary to your claims, gruesome, dirty, and uncivilized.
    Reading is Fundamental - my point is simply that objectively war has become less gruesome, dirty, and uncivilized, not that it has ceased to contain these things.

    Next of all, it was probably unnecessary.
    That is also incorrect. If you wish to argue otherwise, please go down to the history forum, where I will enjoy watching you have your butt handed to you after being diced into many pieces.

    In fact Eisenhower advised against it because, according to him, the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.
    no he didn't. The decision to drop the bombs was made completely without his input.

    There is no post nuclear era. We are in the nuclear era.
    Sort of - we are in the information era. For example, we still use bronze for stuff, but we are no longer in the "bronze era", just as we also use stone for stuff, but are no longer in the "stone age".

    Next of all, the reason why there has been no war between Russia and the US is that previously both sides keep within their respective spheres of influence due to the threat of MAD.
    You think we are still in the Cold War?

    Neocons have no respect for such spheres of influence. Rather they seek to preempt the rise of nuclear armed powers like Russia and China. Never in post WWII history has the US so directly encroached on Russia's vital interests as in the way that we have currently done in Ukraine. Russia had it's main naval port in Ukraine. Some of Russia's most critical military equipment is manufactured in Ukraine. Neocons, in their blind ambition, have no respect for this. Therefore they are a danger to world peace.
    We didn't encroach - that's the problem with our foreign policy in Ukraine. Putin didn't invade because he felt the US was threatening him, he invaded because he knew we wouldn't. Putin advances where he knows he faces weak or no opposition - what was the U.S. doing in Georgia to threaten and demand that Putin invade?

    You are blaming Neocons for the actions of Putin - that's idiotic.

  10. #180
    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.
    Uhh history...


Page 18 of 29 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... 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
  •