• 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
Concerning preemption, here's Paul Wolfowitz

The problem with your argument is that you have conflated support for the Iraq war as the advocation of preemption as a policy in general. There is a difference.

Then you have completely ignored what I have written. I would have been completely and totally against the Iraq War if the only rationale was the suspected presence of WMD or suspected harboring of suspected terrorists. I am also against the Afghanistan war, the Pakistan war, the Libyan war, and the proposed Syrian war. A country has no business attacking another country because of suspected WMD or having terrorist within their borders. PERIOD. But that is what Congress voted for and the majority of Americans supported.
 
I honestly think that Islamic fundamentalists, Arab nationalists, North Korean oligarchs, Russian irredentists, Iranian expansionists, Syrian fascists, and their sympathizers are a bigger threat to world peace than those who think that we should conduct military interventions to promote liberal values. I have my disagreements with the neocons, but I don't quite understand why people act as if they're pure evil when the policy they promote isn't immoral or illogical at all.
 
The problem with your argument is that you have conflated support for the Iraq war as the advocation of preemption as a policy in general. There is a difference.

The greatest threat facing the world today is not war or WMD spread or US's neo-con policies but democide, the state authorized and endorsed killing of citizens of the state. Democide was happening in Yugoslavia and the US went to war and it was happening in Iraq. One estimate is 262 million were killed in the 20th century. And the international community for the most part lacks the will or political skills to successfully plead for unified action. You apparently don't care about these people unless some UN recognized and authorized entity votes to fight it.
20th Century Democide
 
The greatest threat facing the world today is not war or WMD spread or US's neo-con policies but democide, the state authorized and endorsed killing of citizens of the state.

If what Victoria Nuland has done in Ukraine results in a war between the US and Russia, the possible destruction that will result will be on a scale that has not been seen in modern history. Indeed it could bring about the end of our current civilization as we know it. Therefore I say that neocons are a threat to world peace. That said, overall their intentions are not bad. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Then you have completely ignored what I have written. I would have been completely and totally against the Iraq War if the only rationale was the suspected presence of WMD or suspected harboring of suspected terrorists. I am also against the Afghanistan war, the Pakistan war, the Libyan war, and the proposed Syrian war. A country has no business attacking another country because of suspected WMD or having terrorist within their borders. PERIOD. But that is what Congress voted for and the majority of Americans supported.

What the US Congress voted for was an authorization of the use of force. In that authorization, there was a clear reference to the President of the United States making an effort to obtain support from the UN Security Council. Bush decided to attack Iraq, totally disregarding the Security Council. Therefore, there is an argument that states that the war was in violation of international law, and that position has merit.
 
I honestly think that Islamic fundamentalists, Arab nationalists, North Korean oligarchs, Russian irredentists, Iranian expansionists, Syrian fascists, and their sympathizers are a bigger threat to world peace than those who think that we should conduct military interventions to promote liberal values. I have my disagreements with the neocons, but I don't quite understand why people act as if they're pure evil when the policy they promote isn't immoral or illogical at all.

There are many threats to world peace and I am not going to try to draw up an exhaustive, ranked list. To be brief, what makes the neocons such a threat is that their ideology is having a substantial influence on US foreign policy. In particular, the notion that the US should preempt the rise of competitors like Russia and China is a very dangerous. Since the mid 19th century, advancements in technology have made warfare an extremely gruesome affair. Nuclear weapons have made it worse many times over, because such weapons have the capability to destroy modern civilization. Therefore the neocons are a threat.
 
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?

Neocons are to world peace what armed victims are to reduced crime rates. Blaming them for the actions of Putin et. al. is a uniquely self-centered form of idiocy. :roll: as though Russia's historical interest in controlling its' Near Abroad through coercion and the threat of force required a few intellectuals in the United States to first identify it and posit that it was not in the interests of the expansion of liberty that is intertwined with long-term US security and global stability.
 
There are many threats to world peace and I am not going to try to draw up an exhaustive, ranked list. To be brief, what makes the neocons such a threat is that their ideology is having a substantial influence on US foreign policy. In particular, the notion that the US should preempt the rise of competitors like Russia and China is a very dangerous. Since the mid 19th century, advancements in technology have made warfare an extremely gruesome affair. Nuclear weapons have made it worse many times over, because such weapons have the capability to destroy modern civilization. Therefore the neocons are a threat.

That's an interesting claim. Given that, objectively, war in the nuclear era has been cleaner and less gruesome of an affair, marked by sharply reduced civilian casualties, especially when the United States is involved, how do you defend it?
 
Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.

Naturally people are against human, civil, labor and environmental rights? Naturally people are against free press and speech?

I don't think so.
 
Neocons are to world peace what armed victims are to reduced crime rates. Blaming them for the actions of Putin et. al. is a uniquely self-centered form of idiocy.

You analogy is flawed because comparing the United States to victims of crimes by Russia is absurd. Rather, Russia had over 300,000 troops stationed in East Germany at the end of the cold war. Gorbhachev, with a naive belief in his concocted fairy tale of a "new thinking" of cooperation between the Russia and the US, trusted the US that it would not expand NATO even ONE INCH EASTWARD. He removed those 300,000 troops and your so called victims rolled right over the former Soviet empire. Victims indeed!!!

:roll: as though Russia's historical interest in controlling its' Near Abroad through coercion and the threat of force required a few intellectuals in the United States to first identify it and posit that it was not in the interests of the expansion of liberty that is intertwined with long-term US security and global stability.

The eloquent use of the terms liberty, security, and global stability mask an ignorance of the fact that Ukraine is currently in chaos as a result of the neocon notion of preemption. Iraq and the entire ME are in chaos as a result of the neocon notion of preemption. What will it take, at nuclear war between the US and Russia before you realize that the neocon notion of preemption is a threat to world peace?
 
Naturally people are against human, civil, labor and environmental rights? Naturally people are against free press and speech?

I don't think so.

That's not what I mean. I mean things like Taiwan being a part of China, and Ukraine being under the sphere of Russian influence. That's what I'm talking about.
 
You analogy is flawed because comparing the United States to victims of crimes by Russia is absurd.

No, my analogy is correct because you are mistaking someone recognizing and preparing for aggression as causing that aggression. Victims being armed don't cause robbers, they cause fewer robbers. America having a forward-leaning defense posture doesn't cause Russia and like-minded countrires to become more aggressive, it causes Russia to become less aggressive.

The eloquent use of the terms liberty, security, and global stability mask an ignorance of the fact that Ukraine is currently in chaos as a result of the neocon notion of preemption.

There is literally no mechanism linking neoconservative thinkers in the United States - who you will notice have no power in the White House or the foreign policy establishment, and haven't since about 2006 - to Putin's decision to seize direct control over Crimea in the face of a popular revolt against his puppet in Kiev. Ukraine is currently in chaos because they have both the misfortune to have an incredibly corrupt government and be in possession of something that Russia desperately wants - a warm water port.

Iraq and the entire ME are in chaos as a result of the neocon notion of preemption.

That's an interesting claim. So are you suggesting that the Arab Spring is in fact the result of the neoconservative championing of the invasion of Iraq, and that they were correct when they claimed that doing so would lead to a series of popular movements against cruel and abusive Middle Eastern tyrants?

What will it take, at nuclear war between the US and Russia before you realize that the neocon notion of preemption is a threat to world peace?

It would probably take me frying my brain with industrial amounts of drugs to come to that conclusion, given that it is so demonstrably at odds with the history of the last few centuries.
 
That's an interesting claim. Given that, objectively, war in the nuclear era has been cleaner and less gruesome of an affair, marked by sharply reduced civilian casualties, especially when the United States is involved, how do you defend it?

What is rather interesting is your claim that war has been cleaner in the nuclear era. The firebombing of Tokoyo was part of the nuclear era, that was a very gruesome affair. Before the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it calculated what time of day and the exact locations in which the maximum casualties would be inflicted. In Hiroshima, the time was chosen when innocent people would be going about their regular daily affairs. WITH ONE NUCLEAR WEAPON, SMALL BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN HIROSHIMA ALONE! Is this your notion of clean? Is this your notion of less gruesome?
 
What is rather interesting is your claim that war has been cleaner in the nuclear era. The firebombing of Tokoyo was part of the nuclear era, that was a very gruesome affair.

:) Actually that occurred prior to the nuclear era, though it was indeed part of both WWII and the massive, centuries-long decline in violence in human society.

of course, that would involve history, and people blaming William Kristol for a centuries-old Russian search to control warm water access might understandably have erred there.

Before the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it calculated what time of day and the exact locations in which the maximum casualties would be inflicted. In Hiroshima, the time was chosen when innocent people would be going about their regular daily affairs. WITH ONE NUCLEAR WEAPON, SMALL BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN HIROSHIMA ALONE!

Yup. And was so effective that it ended WWII, saved millions of lives, and managed to ensure that, having gained control of massive weapons, the nations of the world would (thus far) avoid their use.

Is this your notion of clean? Is this your notion of less gruesome?

believe it or not - yes, the post-nuclear era has seen an amazing drop in the amount of violence and human tragedy associated with warfare.

A fantastic book for you, not that you will read it, as you seem to be impervious to new information that does not confirm your pre-established positions
 
No, my analogy is correct because you are mistaking someone recognizing and preparing for aggression as causing that aggression. Victims being armed don't cause robbers, they cause fewer robbers. America having a forward-leaning defense posture doesn't cause Russia and like-minded countrires to become more aggressive, it causes Russia to become less aggressive.

No it is incorrect because of the use of the term victim. The US has not been victimized by Russia. Rather, Russia has been victimized by the US through NATO expansion. An expansion that it guaranteed it would not engage in.

There is literally no mechanism linking neoconservative thinkers in the United States - who you will notice have no power in the White House or the foreign policy establishment, and haven't since about 2006 - to Putin's decision to seize direct control over Crimea in the face of a popular revolt against his puppet in Kiev.

Wrong. Victoria Nuland is the wife of prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan. There was absolutely no reason for Nuland to engage in Ukraine in such a heavy handed way except to preempt the expansion of Russian influence. She even arrogantly proclaimed "f*** the EU." Her actions led to the overthrow of the government of a democratically elected leader, Yanukovych. The core of Russian naval power is based in Sevastopol. Putin had to seize Crimea in order to avoid the real possibility that NATO, a military alliance that was formed to contain Russia, would be right next to the seat of Russian naval power.

Ukraine is currently in chaos because they have both the misfortune to have an incredibly corrupt government and be in possession of something that Russia desperately wants - a warm water port.

That warm water port was put in jeopardy by US attempts to preempt Russian power.
 
What is rather interesting is your claim that war has been cleaner in the nuclear era. The firebombing of Tokoyo was part of the nuclear era, that was a very gruesome affair. Before the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it calculated what time of day and the exact locations in which the maximum casualties would be inflicted. In Hiroshima, the time was chosen when innocent people would be going about their regular daily affairs. WITH ONE NUCLEAR WEAPON, SMALL BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN HIROSHIMA ALONE! Is this your notion of clean? Is this your notion of less gruesome?

Nuclear weapons have not been used. Even though some neoconservatives sought refuge in counterforce to stop an all-out exchange, counterforce largely became a mere hypothetical.
 
No it is incorrect because of the use of the term victim. The US has not been victimized by Russia. Rather, Russia has been victimized by the US through NATO expansion. An expansion that it guaranteed it would not engage in.

:lol: that is certainly a viewpoint. It is the viewpoint of a paranoid, low-information Russian voter believing whatever Putin tells him on state-controlled media, but it is certainly a viewpoint. :)

Wrong. Victoria Nuland is the wife of prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan.

Wait. Your case depends on the notion that Putin suddenly realized that Russia had been pursuing control of warm water access for centuries because Victoria Nuland is married to a writer?

There was absolutely no reason for Nuland to engage in Ukraine in such a heavy handed way except to preempt the expansion of Russian influence.

Heavy Handed? Meh...

As for pre-empting the expansion of Russian Influence - duh?

She even arrogantly proclaimed "f*** the EU."

So?

Her actions led to the overthrow of the government of a democratically elected leader, Yanukovych.

That is incorrect. Yanukovych's actions led to his own overthrow, when he became too obviously blatantly a tool of Putin. The lady you are accusing of fomenting this said mean things about the EU AFTER Yanukovych had fled.

The core of Russian naval power is based in Sevastopol. Putin had to seize Crimea in order to avoid the real possibility that NATO, a military alliance that was formed to contain Russia, would be right next to the seat of Russian naval power.

Ukraine was not about to join NATO, however, think about what you are saying - you are admitting that Russia was going to pursue it's national interests, which is precisely both the realist and neocon argument.

That warm water port was put in jeopardy by US attempts to preempt Russian power.

Incorrect. The warm water port wasn't put in jeopardy, but rather became a potential risk because Putin pushed his toady too far.
 
Nuclear weapons have not been used. Even though some neoconservatives sought refuge in counterforce to stop an all-out exchange, counterforce largely became a mere hypothetical.

More to the point, it was precisely the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that kept nuclear weapons from being used.
 
More to the point, it was precisely the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that kept nuclear weapons from being used.

Largely so. It sticks out in one's mind that Niels Bohr asked "is it big enough?" One has to give credit to the many scientists who were at least able to get that point right. I think many scientists were a bit out of their depth with politics, but their greatest contribution was advocating it be fully unleashed the first times to make an impression.
 
:) Actually that occurred prior to the nuclear era, though it was indeed part of both WWII and the massive, centuries-long decline in violence in human society.

No, it occurred simultaneously because nuclear weapons were being developed when it happened.

Yup. And was so effective that it ended WWII, saved millions of lives, and managed to ensure that, having gained control of massive weapons, the nations of the world would (thus far) avoid their use.

First of all it was, contrary to your claims, gruesome, dirty, and uncivilized. Next of all, it was probably unnecessary. In fact Eisenhower advised against it because, according to him, the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.

believe it or not - yes, the post-nuclear era has seen an amazing drop in the amount of violence and human tragedy associated with warfare.

There is no post nuclear era. We are in the nuclear era. That's one flaw. Next of all, the reason why there has been no war between Russia and the US is that previously both sides keep within their respective spheres of influence due to the threat of MAD. Neocons have no respect for such spheres of influence. Rather they seek to preempt the rise of nuclear armed powers like Russia and China. Never in post WWII history has the US so directly encroached on Russia's vital interests as in the way that we have currently done in Ukraine. Russia had it's main naval port in Ukraine. Some of Russia's most critical military equipment is manufactured in Ukraine. Neocons, in their blind ambition, have no respect for this. Therefore they are a danger to world peace.
 
Nuclear weapons have not been used. Even though some neoconservatives sought refuge in counterforce to stop an all-out exchange, counterforce largely became a mere hypothetical.

That is not correct. Nuclear weapons, fission bombs, were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
There is no post nuclear era. We are in the nuclear era. That's one flaw. Next of all, the reason why there has been no war between Russia and the US is that previously both sides keep within their respective spheres of influence due to the threat of MAD. Neocons have no respect for such spheres of influence. Rather they seek to preempt the rise of nuclear armed powers like Russia and China. Never in post WWII history has the US so directly encroached on Russia's vital interests as in the way that we have currently done in Ukraine. Russia had it's main naval port in Ukraine. Some of Russia's most critical military equipment is manufactured in Ukraine. Neocons, in their blind ambition, have no respect for this. Therefore they are a danger to world peace.

Preempt Russia and China with what, exactly? Nuclear weapons? You really need to study up on the neoconservatives if you are going to make that claim. The vast majority of nuclear policy in the realm of neoconservatism has been defense (not strikes) against a preemptive attack from the enemy.
 
:lol: that is certainly a viewpoint. It is the viewpoint of a paranoid, low-information Russian voter believing whatever Putin tells him on state-controlled media, but it is certainly a viewpoint. :)

No it is a viewpoint backed up by facts. The fact is, contrary to assurances made to Gorbhachev, NATO not only expanded inches eastward but hundreds of miles. And there is the very real possibility that it will expand into Ukraine. As we speak Ukraine is preparing for joint military exercises on Ukraine's eastern border with Russia. What do you think NATO was formed for? It was formed to contain Russia. There is nothing paranoid or low information about it.

Wait. Your case depends on the notion that Putin suddenly realized that Russia had been pursuing control of warm water access for centuries because Victoria Nuland is married to a writer?

No, it depends on the notion that there was no other reason for Nuland to take the steps that she did after Yanukovych rejected the EU association offer except to preempt the rise of Russia. Yeah, that little, inconsequential writer, happens to be a very influential thinker in the US foreign policy establishment. Preemption of Russia is exactly what Nuland was trying to accomplish through her activities. So yeah, the fact that she is married to a very prominent advocate of Russian preemption, is relevant.

Heavy Handed? Meh...

Yep, directly fomenting protest against a democratically elected leader. She was passing out food to protesters right before she meet with Yanukovych, where she directly threatened him. Threatening a very influential oligarch, Akhmetov, that if he didn't put pressure on Yanukovych he would be exposed, were all heavy handed tactics.

As for pre-empting the expansion of Russian Influence - duh?

Yes sir! In fact Yanukovych had rejected the EU offer and was about to accept a Russian counteroffer. That's preempting the rise of Russian influence in Ukraine.


So it demonstrates her arrogance and disdain for the rest of the world as she went about pursuing her goal of preempting the rise of Russian influence in Ukraine. That's what's "so."

That is incorrect. Yanukovych's actions led to his own overthrow, when he became too obviously blatantly a tool of Putin. The lady you are accusing of fomenting this said mean things about the EU AFTER Yanukovych had fled.

No, Yanukovych would still be in office if Nuland had not put pressure on Akhmetov. Here's what Steven Pifer, former US ambassador to Ukraine and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State had to say right before Nuland issued the threats:

Rinat Akhmetov, the wealthiest oligarch, has been fairly close to Mr. Yanukovych

I think it would be useful if Mr. Akhmetov was using his influence with President Yanukovych to encourage him to negotiate in a serious way to find a solution.

If there was some threat that there might be financial or travel sanctions on Mr. Akhmetov, that could be a useful lever

Akhmetov also controlled a bloc of about 45 MPs in parliament that abandoned Yanukovych as a result of US pressure. So yeah, it lead to his overthrow


Ukraine was not about to join NATO, however, think about what you are saying - you are admitting that Russia was going to pursue it's national interests, which is precisely both the realist and neocon argument.

Although it is not likely that Ukraine will join NATO under the administration of Obama, Bush before him pushed for it. And there are influential people, some of whom are in the US senate that have called for it. So there is a very real possibility that Ukraine could join NATO.

No one is disputing that nations will pursue their interests and that is not an observation that is unique to the neocons. What I find disturbing about there position is the notion that we should preempt the rise of potential rivals. Preemption should be used in the case of preventing a clear and present danger. Otherwise it becomes a prescription for perpetual war because of the very fact that nations will always pursue their interests.

Incorrect. The warm water port wasn't put in jeopardy, but rather became a potential risk because Putin pushed his toady too far.

No, it was in jeopardy and was put in risk because Nuland decided to ram through the EU association agreement.
 
Back
Top Bottom