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 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 285

Thread: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

  1. #191
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    I can be classified as a Neocon and believe in peace through strength and am appalled by this current social government led by the biggest socialist of all Obama who is destroying the strongest military in the world and turning it into a 3rd rate one.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  2. #192
    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 Navy Pride View Post
    I can be classified as a Neocon and believe in peace through strength and am appalled by this current social government led by the biggest socialist of all Obama who is destroying the strongest military in the world and turning it into a 3rd rate one.
    Your post reminds me of a rather interesting scene from a movie that I saw a while ago. I think it's quite illuminating



    That's not a kid's game that is being played in Ukraine. The thinking people here among the foreign policy establishment had better think this out and think it out well. Otherwise the world may be headed for a big catastrophe.

  3. #193
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I can be classified as a Neocon and believe in peace through strength and am appalled by this current social government led by the biggest socialist of all Obama who is destroying the strongest military in the world and turning it into a 3rd rate one.
    While I support a strong military in order that we do not have to use it as often, I think you are wrong about Obama's actions as relate to the military. Every change that Obama has undertaken has been at the urging of the Joint Chiefs. I think that many are so used to the old style military that they fail to realize that wars will not be fought the same way forever and that more money is being put into technological advancements so that our military is the most advanced and that hopefully at some point, we may minimize the need for US blood to be spilled in war. I am all for robotics taking the place of our young people and would much rather our military personnel control weapons from the safety of our nation than be in harms way if there is another way.

  4. #194
    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?

    Due to the inherent egocentricism that is a part of the existential situation of human beings, sometimes people who are placed in important positions become bewildered in their understanding as to what is good for others. As a movie projector projects it's internal image onto an external screen, they project the internal image that is in there minds concerning what is right, what is wrong, what is good, and what is bad onto the external screen of the environment in which they have some influence. Unfortunately, as Walter Lippmann has so astutely observed, the world that is in our heads is not the same as the world as it actually exists. In the process of projection, sometimes such leaders project out what is actually bad about themselves and place it onto others. And while it may be some truth that the evil that they have projected onto someone else exists, they forget to consider that the evil is in themselves as well. Therefore what emerges in reality is a situation in which two parties have projected pictures, that they take for the actually reality, in which each side views the other as evil, while at the same time either minimizing or ignoring completely the evil that is in themselves.

    What this means is that, in practical terms, the proper exercise of power requires an understanding of this situation first and foremost. Next it should be clearly understood the difference between having a preponderance of power and having absolute power. No one in this world of fallible mortals welds absolute power. In truth, this type of power is reserved for the almighty creator who is the actually proprietor, maintainer, and destroyer. Everyone else is limited and we should be humble and understand this point well. We have a natural quota, that is set aside for our maintenance. Therefore we should not encroach on what has been set aside for others, understanding who the actually proprietor of everything is. For us, there are limits to everything and persons who occupy positions of leadership need to understand in practical terms what those limits are. Only in this way, is peace possible.
    Last edited by MildSteel; 04-15-14 at 08:50 AM.

  5. #195
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,077

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    The exact point is chosen depending on what is the desired emphasis. Not only that but the fire bombing of Tokyo occurred at the end of WWII so it is definitely part of the Nuclear Era.
    you are the one who wanted precise measurement in order to place the end of WWII in the nuclear era, as opposed to it's more general usage, which is to say post-war. By your own precision you are wrong, as Tokyo preceded those bombings.

    There is nothing objective about the notion that some white guy, engaged in the practice of self deception, believes that war has become less gruesome.
    Oh. So you are a racist. How very shocking.

    War has become less gruesome. Civilian casualties are way down, as are raw deaths as a part of conflict. WWII was bad, certainly, but it was nothing compared to what we saw in previous centuries. Hell, when the Mongols went through Iran they killed so many people that it wasn't until the twentieth century that Iran recovered its pre-invasion population.

    The fact that warfare has become less gruesome is not a matter of right or left or neocon or realist or pacifist, it's a matter of math and objective historical reality. You can argue about why that trend has occurred, but not that it has.

    It sounds just like the same garbage the Israelis regurgitate when they do things like fire missiles in the midst of innocent people to kill an old man in a wheelchair.
    Actually it's the other side that targets innocent men in wheelchairs. But your dual reference to white people and unneeded segway into israel are noted.

    Although it is debatable, there is strong evidence to support it
    That the bombings ended the war early, saving many, many lives? Not really. Again, come on down to the history forum. Periodically someone shows up making that same, ahistorical argument and gets' their butt handed to them.

    Wrong! Yes he did.
    No, he didn't. To advise is to give input into a decision or decision-making-process. Eisenhower did neither. He was informed after the decision what was about to occur.

    Furthermore, we also happen to know that Eisenhower was wrong. The Japanese were not about to surrender. That is why they didn't surrender after the first A-Bomb. It is also why even after the second A-Bomb they didn't surrender, and after we threatened them (a bluff) that we had more (we were plumb out) and were going to turn the entirety of the Home Islands into ash that the vote on whether or not to surrender was still tied, forcing the Emperor to break the tie. And even then portions of the military revolted, kidnapped the Emperor, and attempted to force Japan to fight down to the bitter, honorable end. If it hadn't been for the actions of a very small number of brave individuals, the Emperor's message would never have gotten out on the radio, and we would have had to invade.

    Now, towards the end of the war, we were seeing combat kill rates of a little better than 1 to 5 in the US' favor. In Okinawa, for example, the U.S. lost 14,009 men, while the Japanese Imperial Army lost 77,166. Operation Downfall was anticipating 100,000 casualties in the first four days of the invasion of the main island group. However, they weren't facing the same, experienced, Imperial Army. They were facing young boys, old men, poorly armed conscripts. So, assuming that 14 year olds and 60 year olds with WWI-era rifles fought as well as better-trained and better-equipped veterans of the Army, that means that Japan would have absorbed roughly 500,000 casualties in the first 96 hours of the invasion. And that's not counting civilian casualties - approximately 1/4th of the civilian populace of Okinawa was killed, they still refer to it as the "steel typhoon". Millions of Japanese civilians would have died in both the initial onslaught and then the deprivation that would have surely followed.

    But again, if you want to pick a bone with that, head to the history forum. In the meantime, your entertaining claim that two bombings can disprove the mass aggregate of data on warfare only demonstrates that you continue to value emotional expression over fact.

    There is no "sort of." Different eras can coincide. Just like the nuclear era also coincided with the jet age.
    If you want to play semantics go play semantics. I'm here to enjoy refuting your hilariously self-centered and naive notion that the fact that some state department lady was married to a writer is why Putin invaded Crimea.

    The point is that the neocons want to bring the cold war back. They need war to justify their existence, otherwise they become irrelevant.
    You appear to be unaware of the history of the intellectual movement you are attacking. That's not terribly surprising, but you may want to engage in some basic background research. Neoconservatives reached their apex after the Cold War, they didn't need it.

    Yes we did encroach in Ukraine. There is no doubt about it.
    fantastic. Demonstrate it.

    Putin took Crimea because he had to and he would have done it regardless, because Russia had the military capability to do it.
    Wait. You are admitting that Putin took Crimea because he could and still blaming some out-of-power intellectuals in the U.S.?

    And if you say otherwise, since you feel Putin is such a problem, why not just invade Russia and overthrow him like we did Saddam?
    Not least because that is an idiotic idea. You seem to be unable to grasp that opposition to pacifism and weakness abroad does not require a single solution, similar to the inability of advocates of large government to differentiate between small government and anarchy.

    Why not just remove him like we did Noreiga in Panama? Why don't we do it? Because of Russia's military capability, that's why.
    That is certainly one reason, though hardly the only one.

    But flip the math. What would have caused Putin to decide not to invade Georgia? What would have caused him to decide not to invade Crimea? What would have made him decide not to launch a cyber-attack on Estonia?

    U.S. military capability and will to defend the territorial integrity of other nations under threat by nearby autocrats.

    No, what's idiotic is the notion that we should go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
    That's an interesting statement. Which neocons are urging the United States to go to war with the U.S. over Crimea?

  6. #196
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Don't get me wrong, they are personally likely not terrible people. Actually, I think if I knew some of them, I would probably like them. But they may not like me because, I don't know, they may not like black people.
    As I said earlier in the thread, when I think of them, I am reminded that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    My point is that as far as potentially dangerous approaches to foreign policy, neoconservatism is very low on the list, especially when considering it opposes the much more threatening and sinister belief systems in regards to international relations.
    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    The problem with that position is that states have a natural tendency to endeavor to increase their influence. This itself is the result of their natural tendency to desire to improve the economic conditions of their citizens. Therefore a state will naturally act to facilitate the favorable exchange of goods and services with other nations. If one nation is to preempt the rise of another, it must act to restrict this exchange. When it does so, simply for the sake of preempting the rise of that particular nation, that nation will feel that it is the victim of injustice and the result will be animosity. Animosity is the catalyst for war, especially when a nation's vital interests are at stake.

    In the case of Ukraine, this attempt to restrict Russia has come right up to one of its near borders. To see why this is problematic we should recall that Gorbhachev was promised that NATO would not expand one inch eastward if 300,000 Soviet troops were removed from East Germany. The result was not only did NATO expand into former Soviet republics, but George Bush pushed for NATO membership for Ukraine. Russia shares a large border with Ukraine from which it is vulnerable to attack. NATO is a military alliance that was formed specifically to contain Russia. Therefore the attempt to place such a military alliance right on a vulnerable Russian border cannot be viewed as anything than a blatant attempt to restrict Russia. Our attempt to restrict Russian influence in Ukraine is therefore a source of Russian animosity towards the US.

    One very important thing that does not get much attention is that Russia gets vital military equipment from Ukraine. Here's an article that talks about this:

    Complex Ties: Russia's Armed Forces Depend On Ukraine's Military Industry



    Just how important Ukraine is to Russia with regards to military equipment is further emphasized here, and it so important that there is a worry that Ukraine could sell Russia's military secrets:

    Can Russia's military fly without Ukraine's parts? - CSMonitor.com



    Our attempt to restrict Russian influence in Ukraine is therefore the source of Russian animosity towards the US.

    Crimea was actually a part of Russia until it was given to Ukraine as a gift in 1954. Indeed Russia's naval power is based at Sevastopol. Our attempts to restrict Russian influence in Ukraine is therefore the source of Russian animosity towards the US.

    What is absurd about the neocon position that Russia must be restricted in this way in Ukraine is that it appears to be oblivious to the fact that is puts Russia in a position in which it is exposed to clear and present dangers to its vital interests. When we factor in the fact that Russia has the capability to destroy the US, it becomes clear that the neocon notion that Russia must be restricted in Ukraine is a suicidal recipe for disaster.

    Therefore the neocons are a threat to world peace.
    Here's a fine example of an attitude towards international relations that is much more troublesome than the one that neocons typically hold. You clearly believe that powerful states states violating the territorial integrity of neighboring nations in the name of protecting their own "interests" (which are rarely static and which do not ever extend to ethnic irredentism) is a perfectly reasonable behavior, or at least that it is somewhat tolerable. Sovereignty, human rights, and cooperative diplomacy are chucked out the window in favor of countries doing whatever they please in order to satisfy oligarchs; a might-makes-right international order, in other words. What's worse is that you consider any attempt to oppose this psychopathic behavior as threatening to world peace. We tried that in the 1930s and it failed miserably, so what makes you think it would work now?

    On a side note, what are you referring to vis-a-vis Gorbachev and the promise not to extend NATO? Are you sure it wasn't only designed to apply to a world in which the Soviet Union still existed?
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  7. #197
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,077

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    Here's a fine example of an attitude towards international relations that is much more troublesome than the one that neocons typically hold. You clearly believe that powerful states states violating the territorial integrity of neighboring nations in the name of protecting their own "interests" (which are rarely static and which do not ever extend to ethnic irredentism) is a perfectly reasonable behavior, or at least that it is somewhat tolerable. Sovereignty, human rights, and cooperative diplomacy are chucked out the window in favor of countries doing whatever they please in order to satisfy oligarchs; a might-makes-right international order, in other words. What's worse is that you consider any attempt to oppose this psychopathic behavior as threatening to world peace. We tried that in the 1930s and it failed miserably, so what makes you think it would work now?

    On a side note, what are you referring to vis-a-vis Gorbachev and the promise not to extend NATO? Are you sure it wasn't only designed to apply to a world in which the Soviet Union still existed?
    That is correct. If anything, the approach which most encourages aggression is pacifism and appeasement.

  8. #198
    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 MadLib View Post
    We tried that in the 1930s and it failed miserably, so what makes you think it would work now?
    It was tried during the 50's, 60's, and 70's as well, with commensurate Communist expansion, until Ronald Reagan dramatically changed US foreign policy.

  9. #199
    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
    you are the one who wanted precise measurement in order to place the end of WWII in the nuclear era, as opposed to it's more general usage, which is to say post-war. By your own precision you are wrong, as Tokyo preceded those bombings.
    I didn't ask you to give me a precise measurement as I doubt you could even tell me what was the difference between precision and accuracy without referring to some reference. And as far as usage goes, again, people use different points of reference. There is no doubt that the fire bombing of Tokyo was part of the nuclear era because indeed nuclear weapons were being developed at the time. There is no "by your own precision you are wrong."

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Oh. So you are a racist. How very shocking.
    What is shocking is that you are so desperate that you will use any lame excuse to try to score some points. It wasn't a racist remark. The usage connoted the notion that there is a bias in vision due to background, specifically that of a white male who wants to whitewash the sins of the wars the US and it's allies have waged. By contrast, a racist remark would have been to say that what you said what typical of stupid white people. That would be racist. Get it?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    War has become less gruesome. Civilian casualties are way down, as are raw deaths as a part of conflict. WWII was bad, certainly, but it was nothing compared to what we saw in previous centuries. Hell, when the Mongols went through Iran they killed so many people that it wasn't until the twentieth century that Iran recovered its pre-invasion population.

    The fact that warfare has become less gruesome is not a matter of right or left or neocon or realist or pacifist, it's a matter of math and objective historical reality. You can argue about why that trend has occurred, but not that it has.
    War has become more gruesome due to the types of weapons that modern armies have at their disposal. When you consider that with one bomb, one third of the population of Hiroshima was killed, that is more gruesome that anything in history. When you consider that two thirds of Hiroshima was destroyed with one bomb by the US, that is more gruesome than anything in history. When you consider the effects that poisonous radiation had on the people that survived Hiroshima, that is more gruesome than anything in history. You tell those people who suffered from such an atrocity that war is less gruesome and see what they say. Yeah, again some white guy who wants to believe such nonsense will engage in self deception and put that notion forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Actually it's the other side that targets innocent men in wheelchairs. But your dual reference to white people and unneeded segway into israel are noted.
    Yeah but that does not mean that the Israelis didn't do it. And yes they say that they wage clean war just like what you are putting forward. It's nonsense when they say it and it's nonsense when you say it. I don't care what you note.

  10. #200
    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 the bombings ended the war early, saving many, many lives? Not really. Again, come on down to the history forum. Periodically someone shows up making that same, ahistorical argument and gets' their butt handed to them.
    It most certainly is debatable. Japan was on the ropes from the destruction that had been inflicted due to aerial bombardment. The Japanese had sent people to seek peace through Russia. MacArthur even said that if the US had included the offer for the Japanese to keep the emperor, they probably would have surrendered in a couple of weeks without an invasion or without a fission bomb.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No, he didn't. To advise is to give input into a decision or decision-making-process. Eisenhower did neither. He was informed after the decision what was about to occur.
    To advise means to give advice. Anyone who has had a teenager knows that you advise them even though you know that they have already made a decision.

Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... 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
  •