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 23 of 29 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 285

Thread: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

  1. #221
    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 MadLib View Post
    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.
    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.

    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    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?
    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?

  2. #222
    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
    Japan sustained not one, but two nuclear bombings without being willing to surrender, only coming to a tied vote on the matter when more were threatened. They were certainly not about to surrender under the vague threat of a single new bomb whose effects they had not seen.
    You want to put forward the notion that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end the war, but at the same time you acknowledge that the bombing did not cause them to surrender. Your position is ridiculous. What caused them to want to surrender was the entrance by the Soviet Union into the war.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Eisenhower said he expressed doubts because he thought Japan was beaten. It turns out that inasmuch as that meant they were ready to surrender, that was incorrect.
    What you fail to understand is the fact they were already beaten meant that there was no good reason to use such a terrible weapon against Japan.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    You are the one who insisted that the nuclear era began with the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings. It's not my fault you don't know your history. However, as to the actual matter under discussion it is irrelevant for the simple enough fact that violence has been declining for centuries.
    I didn't say it began with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What I said was that the fire bombing of Tokyo was part of the nuclear era because nuclear weapons were being developed at the time. You don't even know the history of what was said in this thread, what to speak of what happened in WWII.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Racism is to impugn characteristics on an individual because of his ethnicity. So, for example, your decree that historians and social scientists who point out that violence has been relatively declining among humans both in peace and in wartime for centuries must be attempting to white-wash American history because he is white is a racist declaration that because the guy is white he is trying to whitewash our nations sins. In reality, his race, my race, your race, none of them have any bearing on whether or not violence has, in fact, declined over the past few centuries - but you tried to make it about that, indicating that you are, in fact, a racist.
    Again, you don't know the history of what was said in this thread. What was said is that some white guy wants to engage in the self deception that war has become less gruesome. That is not racist because it is not derogatory to point out that people of white European descent have engaged in the practice of colonizing non European countries and enslaving non Europeans such as Africans and their descendants. That is simply a fact. As a result of this and the effect that it such activities are having on the world today some have a tendency to want to whitewash the associated guilt. That is also a fact. It is not racist to point that out. It is also a fact that people of European descent have done things like drop nuclear bombs on innocent people on purpose. Therefore to say that a white male wants to whitewash the guilt associated with to gruesome effects of modern warfare is not racist, although you would like for it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    It's also ridiculous, and indicates (again) that you have no idea what you are talking about.
    It's not ridiculous and your response indicates you are desperate and need to play the race card. Amazing.

  3. #223
    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
    Oh, Hey, and I can't help but notice that I asked you to actually - you know - demonstrate your claims that the U.S. had encroached on Russia via the Ukraine and you sort of failed to provide that or even quote it in your response...
    Yes I did. Like I said, read the thread. I'm not going to do it again.

  4. #224
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    In fact they did - they had enough time certainly to vote to reject surrender. Just as they rejected surrender (again) after Nagasaki. It wasn't until we threatened them with a hundred more of the things, which we claimed we would use to turn the entire home island chain into ash, that the votes in favor of surrender even managed to tie the votes in favor of fighting to the honorable end. You point out that they had witnessed the firebombing of Tokyo - don't forget that the firebombing of Tokyo was the single most destructive air raid in history, more destructive than either of the Atomic bombs. A single bombing less powerful than that which didn't even kill anyone would have been less impressive than a single bombing less powerful than that which did wipe out plenty, and that single bombing wasn't enough to do it.

    The "oh, well, had the Japanese high command realized that their people would have suffered they would have quite" argument is a mirror-image fallacy; imputing western values onto early 20th Century Japanese decision-makers. Similarly, the claim that they couldn't have received enough direct information from Hiroshima, but did from Nagasaki is flawed, as Nagasaki is almost twice as far from Tokyo as Hiroshima is.
    Wrong. The Tokyo devastation wasn't all caused by those firebombs - most of it was caused by the fact that most of the buildings were constructed of bamboo - they were a tinderbox waiting to catch fire. What the firebombing did was to make enough of a fire that the fire brigades were overwhelmed and a bigger-than-Dresden firestorm (essentially, a fire tornado) began. In Nagoya - which was 98% destroyed - it went one step further - instead of a firestorm, it was a 'sweep conflagration', a kind of 'tidal wave of fire' which traveled "slower than a man could run, but faster than a man could walk". Why did this make them decide to surrender?

    What you don't understand is that when the Japanese High Command looked at the devastation of Tokyo, they didn't think of giving up - they thought of how Tokyo, Yokohama, and the surrounding prefectures had been devastated by the 1923 earthquake. They thought of how many MORE people died in that earthquake and the resulting fires than in the March 10, 1945 firebombing of Tokyo...and they thought of how they had been able to recover from that great earthquake that was even worse than the bombing.

    On the other hand, if they had personally seen a single plane that drops a single bomb that does a full one-third of the damage of that earlier firebombing raid (which had involved 300 bombers)...THAT, sir, would have gotten their attention.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  5. #225
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Getting rid of American missile defense in Poland was a major Russian foreign policy achievement under Putin. The question is not whether or not he would consider it a "big whoop" (he would), but whether or not Eastern Europe leadership is willing to trust us on that again after we betrayed them on the subject in 2009.
    Again, you're confusing perception and reality. The reality - which the leaders of every nation involved realize - is that Putin isn't about to launch ballistic missiles against the EEC goose that pays golden eggs for the gas he's selling them, upon which Russia's economy depends. He isn't about to risk nuclear war. What he is likely to do is to push conventional efforts just as far as he thinks he can get away with.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #226
    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 an interesting claim. "More Gruesome Than Anything in History". More gruesome than the Holocaust? More gruesome than the firebombings of Dresden or Tokyo? More gruesome than the genocides and ethnic cleansings that marked warfare for millennia? The Aztec temples reached an industrial rate of human sacrifice that outpaced Auschwitz, ripping the beating hearts from their screaming victims while their families looked on in helpless, terrified horror at what was about to happen to them - now that's gruesome. A flash of light that instantly incinerates you before you even know what has happened? That's less gruesome. Being tied between two boats and painted with honey so that you could be eaten alive by insects? More gruesome. Being executed by bullet or electric chair? Less gruesome.

    Genghis Khan would be laugh at your claim that the U.S. or the a-bombs were uniquely gruesome. Then he would kill everyone in a hundred miles and have his lieutenants built a pyramid from the skulls. Hell - we dropped leaflets warning the Japanese civilians what was about to happen and warning them to leave the cities. In the annals of military bastardlyness, we're weak sauce.
    Since it does not appear to be clear, let me clarify so that you don't obfuscate due to misunderstanding. First of all let's compare the number of weapons, there was one in the case of Hiroshima. Then let's compare the time range over which the weapon was actually welded against it's target, in this case a matter of seconds. Then yes, like I said killing over the third of the population of Hiroshima with one weapon, destroying two thirds of Hiroshima with one weapon, was more gruesome than anything in western recorded history.

    In addition to the deaths and physical destruction that were inflicted with just one weapon, there were other effects. The effects of radiation poisoning, caused individuals to get cancer due to the freakish mutation of DNA of living cells. Not only that but the unborn in the womb also suffered freakish effects such as increased head size and other birth defects such as this



    When you consider that all of that and more was inflicted with one weapon in a matter of seconds, yes it is indeed the most gruesome thing in recorded western history. Dropping some leaflets does not whitewash the atrocity

  7. #227
    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 DaveFagan View Post
    You name the Neo Cons as you claim to be the only one on this board who knows who they are. Wolfowotz, Perle, Cheney, Bushes, and all the signatories to the PNAC document, among others.
    These are people with no power whatsoever. How can any of them be a threat??

  8. #228
    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
    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?
    How is NATO a threat to Russia?

  9. #229
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,299

    Re: Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

    How was NATO a threat to Libya? Another front group to paper a trail of credibility to initiate WAR. You know, death, chaos, destruction, mayhem, standard USA policy in Iraq Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. Very profitable, however. Energy Control. WorldWide Energy Control.

  10. #230
    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 DaveFagan View Post
    How was NATO a threat to Libya? Another front group to paper a trail of credibility to initiate WAR. You know, death, chaos, destruction, mayhem, standard USA policy in Iraq Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. Very profitable, however. Energy Control. WorldWide Energy Control.
    That really doesn't answer the question.

    No, forget it. In fact it does.

Page 23 of 29 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... 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
  •