• 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
MildSteel said:
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.



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.



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.



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.





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



And please note this





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:



https://www.kyivpost.com/content/uk...lit-over-eu-customs-union-options-332470.html
Click to expand...

... the statement as worded means exactly what it should mean. People protest because they want to protest. Even in cases where "fomentation" occurred, they are still responsible for the results of their actions.

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:
Click to expand...

Indeed. I fabricated a fairy tale when the poll says people who live in the east parts of the country (heavy with ethnic Russians and Russian speakers) favor the customs union and those in the west (heavy with ethnic Ukrainian and native speakers) favor the European Union.

Polls like that aren't a reliable metric because there are one hundred reasons why they show the results that they do.
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
Like I said, I'm not going to make a ranked list. Let me put it like this, neoconservatives are a high priority on the list because they are very influential in the foreign policy establishment of the United States in terms of ideology and access to positions of power in government.
Click to expand...
The people I've listed have killed much more innocents and created much more global instability than neocons ever have.


The problem with your position is that it completely ignores the significance of the breakup of the Soviet Union and the effect that has on Russia's position today. Not only that but it ignores the role that the United States played in bringing about the fall of the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, Yanukovych, and it's motivation for doing so. When we take into account these factors, i.e. that Ukraine is a vital interest to Russia and that the US is essentially trying to strangle Russia through it's activities in Ukraine, then it becomes clear that the territorial considerations that you mentioned are simply an excuse by the US to achieve it's goals of trying to preempt the rise of another power. This preemption, which is advocated by proponents of neocon ideology, is what is troubling. Therefore, neocons are a threat to world peace.
Click to expand...
1. I do not believe the US had any significant role in the ouster of Yanukovych. The evidence you and others have presented to this end is circumstantial at best and does not constitute irrefutable proof of a CIA covert operation.

2. Once again, nothing's been forcing Russia to take a position hostile the US efforts towards a democratic world order. Moscow's support of the contemptible regimes of Milosevic, Bashir and Assad and its use of brute force to coerce its former republics into behaving the way it wants is why it's at odds with the US. We cannot have another cold war between two mutually hostile superpowers, and preempting a hostile Russia from rising is a necessary effort to stop this from happening. If Russia wishes to be a democratic and non-aggressive hegemon that does not keep fascist dictators in power in order to spite the US, then I'm perfectly fine with them expanding their influence.
Are you really trying to put forward the notion that the breakup of the Soviet Union means that NATO is no longer a threat to Russia?
Click to expand...

Not at all. My point is that this agreement, if it actually exists - which is in itself dubious, because the US isn't the sole power in NATO and because Gorbachev had no authority over what other countries decided to do - was made between the United States and the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, it's questionable whether such an agreement is still binding.
 
Morality Games said:
... the statement as worded means exactly what it should mean. People protest because they want to protest. Even in cases where "fomentation" occurred, they are still responsible for the results of their actions.
Click to expand...

The problem is that your statements that

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

and

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

would have us believe that people who foment protest bear no responsibility and that people are merely doing what they want to do. Over and above that to make a statement like: "the boy threw the ball because he wanted to throw it," is meaningless. In that case we are not given any sort of insight as to why he wanted to throw it in the first place. He may have thrown the ball because someone had a gun pointed to his head and threatened to kill him if he didn't. To see why this is important, let's suppose that someone is on trial for setting fire to a building. However, if in fact the person set the fire because someone had a gun to his head and threatened to kill him if he didn't, he would be treated much differently than someone who did it because they had some sort of ax to grind.

Morality Games said:
Indeed. I fabricated a fairy tale when the poll says people who live in the east parts of the country (heavy with ethnic Russians and Russian speakers) favor the customs union and those in the west (heavy with ethnic Ukrainian and native speakers) favor the European Union.

Polls like that aren't a reliable metric because there are one hundred reasons why they show the results that they do.
Click to expand...

Yes you fabricated a fairy tale because you said that it was drawn mostly along ethnic lines. If the ethnic composition is 17 percent Russian and 78 percent Ukrainian, as you have stated, then obviously there must be a substantial portion of the Ukrainian section that is in favor of the customs union.

If you don't believe the poll, can you point to some objective evidence that demonstrates it's fault? Or is it that you simply don't want to believe it? Not only that, but how do you know what the ethnic composition of Ukraine is in the first place? Did you go there and count?
 
MadLib said:
The people I've listed have killed much more innocents and created much more global instability than neocons ever have.
Click to expand...

The question was whether or not they were a threat to world peace, not where do neocons rank on the list of threats to world peace.

MadLib said:
1. I do not believe the US had any significant role in the ouster of Yanukovych. The evidence you and others have presented to this end is circumstantial at best and does not constitute irrefutable proof of a CIA covert operation.
Click to expand...

That's ok if you don't want to believe it. As Julius Caesar said, men freely believe that which they desire. However, there is evidence to support the notion. If it is true, then the US did indeed play a very significant role in the ouster of Yanukovych. What is irrefutable is that Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland helped foment protest against Yanukovych. It is also clear that she was talking on the phone about making Yatsenyuk prime minister before he held the post. Those things in themselves point to a substantial role. If it is true, and there is good reason to believe that it is, that she pressured both Akhmetov and Yanukovych, then there is no doubt of a significant role.

Not only that, but I never said it was a covert CIA operation.

MadLib said:
2. Once again, nothing's been forcing Russia to take a position hostile the US efforts towards a democratic world order. Moscow's support of the contemptible regimes of Milosevic, Bashir and Assad and its use of brute force to coerce its former republics into behaving the way it wants is why it's at odds with the US. We cannot have another cold war between two mutually hostile superpowers, and preempting a hostile Russia from rising is a necessary effort to stop this from happening. If Russia wishes to be a democratic and non-aggressive hegemon that does not keep fascist dictators in power in order to spite the US, then I'm perfectly fine with them expanding their influence.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you want to put forward the notion that it is necessary to preempt the rise of Russia. At the same time you want to say that there is nothing forcing Russia to take a position hostile to the US. It's a ridiculous statement to make. Not only that but the US has shown itself to be hostile to democratically elected leaders such as Hugo Chavez, who merely wanted to use state resources for the benefit of poor people. And as I have stated before, the US was also hostile to someone as benign as Aristide, during the Bush administration. At the same time we protect the Saudi regime, and do not speak up to this day about the alleged mistreatment of King Abdullah's daughters.

MadLib said:
Not at all. My point is that this agreement, if it actually exists - which is in itself dubious, because the US isn't the sole power in NATO and because Gorbachev had no authority over what other countries decided to do - was made between the United States and the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, it's questionable whether such an agreement is still binding.
Click to expand...

So why didn't the US say it had no authority to grant such a guarantee? Gorbhachev had the authority to remove those 300,000 troops and indeed kept his end of the bargain. On the contrary the US simply lied, and that's a big reason why we have the current crisis.
 
MildSteel said:
:lamo

Hillary Clinton is so full of crap! That's what you call a neocon wanna be!!!!
She's just trying to get some political capital from the neocon brand.
Click to expand...


What's the real difference between Hillary Clinton and a neo con wannabe? She would seem more of a threat than Dick Cheney, for example.
 
MildSteel said:
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
Click to expand...

Straight out of Thriller's world! ;)

Plus "to con" does it not mean to deceive? In such a case it sounds as if this is the new age con artists party. Why would not one want to vote for them?

The acronym GOP sounds a lot better.
 
Well yes, but the greatest threat to "world peace" (an abstraction) is the monopoly of legitimate use of violence
 
DDD said:
Straight out of Thriller's world! ;)

Plus "to con" does it not mean to deceive? In such a case it sounds as if this is the new age con artists party. Why would not one want to vote for them?

The acronym GOP sounds a lot better.
Click to expand...

Neo Con Artist:"Hey buddy, Saddam is about to attack with WMDs. You wouldn't want a mushroom cloud now would you?"

Voter:"Oh my god! That's awful!"

Neo Con Artist:"Yeah Colin Powell was just on TV."

Voter:"Oh no! What are we going to do?"

Neo Con Artist:"Don't worry, just vote for me and I'll take care of everything."

Voter:"Ok, I'll do anything to be safe."

A couple of years later...........

Voter:"Hey, Saddam didn't have any WMDs."

Neo Con Artist:"Ha Ha! Too late sucker!"

:lamo
 
TheLastIndependent said:
Well yes, but the greatest threat to "world peace" (an abstraction) is the monopoly of legitimate use of violence
Click to expand...

The problem with neocons is that they think that they have the right to determine of what is the legitimate use of violence. Anyone who does not agree with that notion is a threat that must be preempted.
 
MildSteel said:
The problem is that your statements that



and



would have us believe that people who foment protest bear no responsibility and that people are merely doing what they want to do. Over and above that to make a statement like: "the boy threw the ball because he wanted to throw it," is meaningless. In that case we are not given any sort of insight as to why he wanted to throw it in the first place. He may have thrown the ball because someone had a gun pointed to his head and threatened to kill him if he didn't. To see why this is important, let's suppose that someone is on trial for setting fire to a building. However, if in fact the person set the fire because someone had a gun to his head and threatened to kill him if he didn't, he would be treated much differently than someone who did it because they had some sort of ax to grind.



Yes you fabricated a fairy tale because you said that it was drawn mostly along ethnic lines. If the ethnic composition is 17 percent Russian and 78 percent Ukrainian, as you have stated, then obviously there must be a substantial portion of the Ukrainian section that is in favor of the customs union.

If you don't believe the poll, can you point to some objective evidence that demonstrates it's fault? Or is it that you simply don't want to believe it? Not only that, but how do you know what the ethnic composition of Ukraine is in the first place? Did you go there and count?
Click to expand...

The arsonist-under-duress comparison doesn't work when the difference in agency between a man threatening the arsonist with the gun and a U.S. official saying something about how Kiev's relationship with Moscow won't get in the way of the self-determination of the Ukrainian people. Most of the political mobilization and organizational effort is occurring at a grassroots level.

The grassroots level of politics is what fundamentally makes a group of people a country instead of a bunch of disassociated individuals.

Polls are skewed by the sample, the way the question is asked, and who cared enough to respond. Historical polls have generally shown greater favor for the EU.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom