• 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
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.

Except they really didn't care about 'free' ME nations. They wanted ME nations that played ball.
 
No, I just say it because most people don't know what a neoconservative is, including when they use the term. Most people think a neoconservative is simply the most egregious example of a Scoop Jackson Democrat hawk. That's not really the case, however.

I'm more in the vein of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nathan Glazer, and parts of James Q. Wilson.


The problem with taking the intellectual approach is that it hardy ever translates into actuality.

Unless you're ascribing yourself as a disciple, taking on the totality of their thought, this doesn't tell me much.

I mean, my influences range from Belloc to Burke, from Proudhon to Peter, Paul, and Pat... (Brimelow, Gottfried, Buchanan) from Marx to Maritain..and many more...
 
I was not thrashing Obama in that post.Republicans and conservatives in general view democrats as total ******s when it comes to military.So why would they want a democrat running another war?

I don't give a damn what RepubLies and conservatives think, especially when Rand Paul calls Cheney out for what he did, start a war for Haliburton profits. When you call DEMs ******s, our blood must be blue. Last decade was about murdering torturing traitors, staining the name of the USA .
 
How much did W2 cost after not leaving troops in Germany after the first go around?


i don't support keeping troops there.

we need to look at this stuff long term. each of these actions will always necessitate another. the actions we need to take right now are to build infrastructure and replace our transportation energy model.
 
How much did W2 cost after not leaving troops in Germany after the first go around?

alliances, interventionism, and brinksmanship led to WWI. pretty much the same kind of policies that some still support.

it's time to nation build at home for a while. we cannot afford to be the world's pro bono military, and we've been at war almost continuously for nearly one hundred years now. it's time to take a serious look at that, and to decide whether that is really the best path forward for the country.
 
"It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far."
-- Stephen Tonsor on Neocons...
 
I'm all in favor of spending our resources here, but ignoring history is just condemning us to repeat it. We could easily close a 100 military installations in the world and have opened two in Iraq. Two bases in Iraq would have been a worthy ounce of prevention.

alliances, interventionism, and brinksmanship led to WWI. pretty much the same kind of policies that some still support.

it's time to nation build at home for a while. we cannot afford to be the world's pro bono military, and we've been at war almost continuously for nearly one hundred years now. it's time to take a serious look at that, and to decide whether that is really the best path forward for the country.
 
I'm all in favor of spending our resources here, but ignoring history is just condemning us to repeat it. We could easily close a 100 military installations in the world and have opened two in Iraq. Two bases in Iraq would have been a worthy ounce of prevention.

i don't see what they could have done there except constantly fight insurgency after insurgency. i don't support maintaining a seventy year long presence there. Iraq is not Japan
 
They are are a threat to world peace, a threat to the United States of America, a threat to humanity.

Die Neocon DIE!!!

I wish you'd tell us how you really feel.
 
Based on the OP most of the neocons would be running Iran. Building nukes and being friendly with terrorists and North Korea is a threat to world peace.

mullahs.nuke.jpg
 
It worked in Italy, Germany and Japan...shocking all three are friends today!

And there'd have been no need to be on the streets taking hits. Retire the troops to a significant base, secure it, offer training, material support and occasional air support and win the hearts and minds of the masses. If you can do that in Japan after nuking it you can do it anywhere.


i don't see what they could have done there except constantly fight insurgency after insurgency. i don't support maintaining a seventy year long presence there. Iraq is not Japan
 
It worked in Italy, Germany and Japan...shocking all three are friends today!

And there'd have been no need to be on the streets taking hits. Retire the troops to a significant base, secure it, offer training, material support and occasional air support and win the hearts and minds of the masses. If you can do that in Japan after nuking it you can do it anywhere.

we have too much to do here at home to maintain a significant presence there for seventy years. if the goal is to make them want democracy, we need to make it look so good that everyone else demands it. we do that by making America even better. i support humanitarian (food / medical) aid to developing areas of the world, and that's about it.
 
We just saw how Russia needs to be contained and what happens if it isn't. 50,000,000 Ukrainians were just made perpetual beggars and slave labor to Russia by Russia stealing all the natural gas and resources of Crimea from Ukraine.

My point is that would not have happened if we weren't focused on trying to thwart the rise of a potential competitor.
 
From Merriam Websters.


I don't think so. The law of the land since 2001, passed almost unanimously by Congress states that the President must act to protect the US. Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy were all "neo-cons" who wanted those objectives. Obama intervened in Libya and wanted to intervene in Syria. In addition, he greatly expanded the role in Afghanistan. The stated goal in all those cases was to make the world safe or save the world from tyranny. Not bad goals if properly managed.

What I find problematic is the stated policy goal of thwarting the rise of potential competitors. This is at the root of the rather destructive doctrine of pre-emption that led the US into Iraq.
 
I do not wish to speak for Fiddytree, but as I am like-minded, I will take a stab at it. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the powers of Europe cooperated to maintain a balance of power in order to maintain what could be described as close to world peace as possible. That is not to say there were not wars, but no single super-power was allowed to rise, as it was feared such a situation would be the ruin of Europe, as one nation would gain the capability to force their will on the rest of the continent.

China and Russia formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to achieve a balancing force against the US and it's global hegemony.

I understand that. My point is that is something like lemonade vendors A and B agreeing to only work their designated sides of the street. A non zero sum game is more like A and B, realizing that they both need lemons and sugar, pooling their resources to obtain the lemons and sugar at a reduced price, thus increasing profits for both. A win win.
 
Anyone could be a threat to world peace. Virtually any and all philosophies or political views can be contested or defended violently making any view point a somewhat potential threat to world peace.

On the other hand Wolfowitz merely states some proposed policy objectives while others go out and actively shatter world peace.

View attachment 67164660

So the question should really be who is the greater threat?

You forgot that Wolfowitz was a major player in the administrations of H. W. Bush and W Bush.
 
I find that hard to believe.They are basically Don King telling his boxer that his opponent just called him a bitch. They are like kids in a school yard calling him a chicken if he doesn't hit back.

Yep, that's how they do it. BTW that's not confined to the neocons though.
 
Based on the OP most of the neocons would be running Iran. Building nukes and being friendly with terrorists and North Korea is a threat to world peace.

No, they would be implementing foreign policy that would make it more likely that Iran would want nukes for self defense to insure the survival of their regime. Under their doctrine of pre-emption, they would unnecessarily invade Iraq resulting in the bombing of innocent people that creates more terrorists. It's like that.
 
Yes, and I think McCain, unwittingly, is one of the worst. Probably something to do with his own War experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom