No I did not.
The key word is WAS.
He is no threat to any one now.
But the current administration is.
View attachment 67164680
Ok. But still the promotion of such ideas is itself dangerous. But your point is well taken.
neocons aren't the only hawks. interventionism itself can be a threat to world peace in certain situations. other times, it's warranted, such as WWII. there was no way to stay out of that one, but it's debatable whether WWII would have even happened if WWI hadn't occurred.
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.
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.
You are probably right that the doctrine of pre-emption led many to support US into Iraq although the Congressional authorization listed 23 reasons. I support it because of some of those 23 reasons such as the repression of their own people, use of chemical weapons on their own people, non-compliance with inspectors, violation of US Security Council Resolutions, and fulfilling the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998(passed by Congress and signed by Clinton).
From almost the moment of the invasion the death rate in Iraq improved, infant mortality rates (which rose sturdily throughout Saddam's reign) improved and the population boomed from 22 million to 31 million. Despite apparently erroneous reports of 600,000 Iraqis killed as of Sept, 2006 the final count is closer to 100,000 and most of those were Iraqis killing other Iraqis in a civil war that allied forced attempted to limit and control. An improvement in the death rate from 8.5 to 5 per 1000 per year in a country of 25 million would mean c. 75,000 Iraqis saved a year. The improvement in infant mortality rates would mean thousands of saved infants per year. Something positive was going on.
Was it worth the cost and lives? Not for the US but probably for Iraq and almost certainly for the region. Until we failed to get a forces agreement to keep some troops there, like we have in Germany 70 years after the war and Korea.
I don't agree with use of military to potential or suspected pre-empt an attack or to control and dominate other countries but it seems that the world community should react in cases like Rwanda, Cambodia, Liberia, Congo, and Iraq for humanitarian purposes. Have no idea why we are in Afghanistan.
So whatever Putin does now is because of 'the neo-cons'.I think this strategy to curb and roll back Russia in the last decade was very short-sighted and stupid, because at that time, Putin was still longing for close cooperation with the West (and the West kicked in his balls instead).
Now we have the mess. At some point, Putin and his advisors felt "enough is enough", now are convinced it's a matter of life and death because the West wants to actually destroy and shatter Russia, and thanks to the useless neo-con wars like in Iraq, we're tired of war so much we can hardly defend ourselves.
So yeah, pretty stupid policies by the neo-cons. However, now it's too late to whine about that and sink into self-criticism.
The Versailles Conditions towards Germany were not smart either, 1918-1933, because it was a severe burden for the democratic system and its legitimacy. But once Hitler was in power and started annexing his neighbors in 1938, it was too late for appeasement and understanding too.
World War II was essentially the sequel to World War I..... Too much unfinished business from WWI.
So whatever Putin does now is because of 'the neo-cons'.
Politics made simple.
Prominent neocon Paul Wolfowitz is famous for the following policy objectives for the US
And
Here it is clearly stated that the most important goal is to contain Russia. Furthermore the goal is to prevent any challenge to the leadership role of the US on the global stage.
Do such policies put the US on a collision course with the rest of the world? Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.
Are the neocons therefore a threat to world peace?
Was there world peace prior to the emergence of the neo-con movement in the 60's?
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.
Was there world peace before nazis came along? Did the existence of nazis make the world more or less peaceful?
You didn't really answer the question. Of course there has never been world peace, but neo-cons are causing more violence and bloodshed and less peace.
Prominent neocon Paul Wolfowitz is famous for the following policy objectives for the US
And
Here it is clearly stated that the most important goal is to contain Russia. Furthermore the goal is to prevent any challenge to the leadership role of the US on the global stage.
Do such policies put the US on a collision course with the rest of the world? Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.
Are the neocons therefore a threat to world peace?
Was there world peace before nazis came along? Did the existence of nazis make the world more or less peaceful?
You didn't really answer the question. Of course there has never been world peace, but neo-cons are causing more violence and bloodshed and less peace.
Can you say with any certainty that their would've been no regional conflicts without neo-con intervention? Do you believe allowing Soviet influence to expand unopposed would have lead to more or less world peace?
Do you have a link to statistics that show that and secondarily that it was the Neo-Cons' actions that made it worse?
Of course there would still be conflicts, no one has claimed there wouldn't be. So you think waging war after war for American dominance and oil makes the world safer? How has American imperialistic behavior improved your safety down under?
Now that I think about it, you Aussies have quite a bit of oil. I think you guys could use some good ol' fashioned American freedom. We should bomb and invade Australia, just to make sure you bitches don't rise up.
I'm not talking about statistics, I'm talking about the ideology that clearly and openly states "We Americans are exceptional, and we will bomb and invade anyone who gets in our way on the road to total and complete domination."
That is an EXTREMELY violent mind set and is a major threat to world peace.
Of course there would still be conflicts, no one has claimed there wouldn't be. So you think waging war after war for American dominance and oil makes the world safer? How has American imperialistic behavior improved your safety down under?
Now that I think about it, you Aussies have quite a bit of oil. I think you guys could use some good ol' fashioned American freedom. We should bomb and invade Australia, just to make sure you bitches don't rise up.
Instead they bomb Israel through a proxy.