• 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
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

p1040552.jpg


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
 
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??
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
What was the purpose of including this obviously doctored photo?
 
What was the purpose of including this obviously doctored photo?

Purpose? Assuming that it is doctored, there was no purpose because OBVIOUSLY I didn't know the photo was doctored. Why was it so OBVIOUS to you that I would post an OBVIOUSLY doctored photo in the discussion? What would be my OBVIOUS purpose in doing so?

Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion? Do you dispute that there were birth defects that were the result of a single nuclear bomb being dropped on Hiroshima? Or is this the limit of your contribution?

Assuming that it is indeed a doctored photo, how do you know for a fact that it is so? Is it a famous photo? What is it about the photo that let's you know that it is doctored?
 
How is NATO a threat to Russia?

A better question would be, how could a military alliance that was formed to contain Russia not be a threat to Russia?
 
A better question would be, how could a military alliance that was formed to contain Russia not be a threat to Russia?

Because it's never been tested in combat and has rarely been used at all since it's inception.
 
In reality, the technological advances that have brought us greater weapons have coincided with an increase in human empathy that have demanded - over time - more conscientious rules governing their use. Today, for example, we talk about "collateral damage" and try to avoid it. For most of human history, raping massacring civilians was just what you did to blow off steam after winning the battle. The ancient stories in the Bible that horrify us now about killing every man, woman, child, and animal of an entire enemy tribe or ethnicity was just how you made a statement. The Romans were masters of that sort of public statement - we don't get the phrase sow the earth with salt because that was their fertilizer technique, after all.

In reality the technological advances have created an insensitivity to killing that is exemplified by the current President of the United States getting a daily list of people who are to be killed by remote control. In the process many innocent people have been killed and are casually written off as collateral damage. The collateral damage designation itself legitimizes the killing because it implies that what was done was humane.

As for talking to people including those in Japan about actual warfare - I have. I lived in Japan for three years, and served alongside their military.

Did you talk to someone dying from cancer due to radiation poisoning from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Did they say, thanks for the humane death?

I have actually experienced the modern face of warfare (having fought it, and advised others in the fighting of it), and professionally studied warfare of the past. So I wouldn't claim to be John Keegan, but I come to this debate actually having an idea what I am talking about.

Since you are profess to know so much about warfare and it's history, can you point to references that state that Chandragupta, who founded the Maurya empire, engaged in raping and killing innocent civilians? Or more recently, did Jai Singh who founded Jaipur engage in such atrocities? The people you were referring to were barbarians, similar to the present day savages.
 
Because it's never been tested in combat and has rarely been used at all since it's inception.

Let's suppose someone has manufactured a gun that has not been tested. Is that gun not a threat?
 
Let's suppose someone has manufactured a gun that has not been tested. Is that gun not a threat?

If it's never used, no, it's not a threat.
 
And I'd love to hear what, exactly, the conservatives think should be done instead of economic sanctions.

McCain wants to bring Ukraine into NATO so that we will have to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
 
So a gun is not a threat until the trigger has been pulled for the first time?

A guns not a threat at all - the person using the gun is the threat. However, in your example you stated an un-tested gun. An un-tested gun is only a threat to the person doing the testing... if it's never tested an inanimate object is not a threat. NATO is an untested inanimate object. Do you really think that NATO is feared in the world?
 
McCain wants to bring Ukraine into NATO so that we will have to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.

Yeah well, McCain needs to go back on his meds.
 
In reality the technological advances have created an insensitivity to killing that is exemplified by the current President of the United States getting a daily list of people who are to be killed by remote control. In the process many innocent people have been killed and are casually written off as collateral damage. The collateral damage designation itself legitimizes the killing because it implies that what was done was humane.

:lol: dude, killing people by drone reduces civilian casualties. Some studies say we've managed to get it down to about 2%. The Mitigated Combined Effects Radius of a Hellfire is incredibly tight compared to any similar system that has been employed, and (furthermore), we actually care about trying to reduce civilian casualties now. A few centuries ago, mass civilian casualties would have simply been considered a good way to make a point.

Did you talk to someone dying from cancer due to radiation poisoning from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Did they say, thanks for the humane death?

Nope. Are you suggesting that your emotional hyperventilation should trump actual historical data, given that the latter disagrees with you?

Since you are profess to know so much about warfare and it's history, can you point to references that state that Chandragupta, who founded the Maurya empire, engaged in raping and killing innocent civilians? Or more recently, did Jai Singh who founded Jaipur engage in such atrocities? The people you were referring to were barbarians, similar to the present day savages.

:shrug: The initial Islamic conquest of Egypt, too, was (at the time) considered to have occurred with a minimum of rapine. Barbarians? Heck, it was the 4th Century BC.

Again, the actual data is against you on this.
 
Purpose? Assuming that it is doctored, there was no purpose because OBVIOUSLY I didn't know the photo was doctored. Why was it so OBVIOUS to you that I would post an OBVIOUSLY doctored photo in the discussion? What would be my OBVIOUS purpose in doing so?

Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion? Do you dispute that there were birth defects that were the result of a single nuclear bomb being dropped on Hiroshima? Or is this the limit of your contribution?

Assuming that it is indeed a doctored photo, how do you know for a fact that it is so? Is it a famous photo? What is it about the photo that let's you know that it is doctored?

I didn't realize you'd get so excited over a rather straightforward question. Maybe it's time to switch to decaffeinated.
 
A guns not a threat at all - the person using the gun is the threat. However, in your example you stated an un-tested gun. An un-tested gun is only a threat to the person doing the testing... if it's never tested an inanimate object is not a threat. NATO is an untested inanimate object. Do you really think that NATO is feared in the world?

In response, I will simply state that a gun that has been properly manufactured is that threat if it is loaded and aimed at someone else with the intent to kill, regardless to whether it has ever been fired or not.
 
In response, I will simply state that a gun that has been properly manufactured is that threat if it is loaded and aimed at someone else with the intent to kill, regardless to whether it has ever been fired or not.

The threat is not the gun - the threat is the intelligence pointing the gun. The gun is simply a tool. It could be a rock, or an arrow, or a knife, or a lead pipe. However we are digressing. The purpose of this is to show NATO is not a threat - they are not a threat because they are not used. They are not used because the intelligence directing NATO in this case has never once tested it, therefore if it's never been tested one cannot know if it will work properly. Who is threatened by a NATO which has for 40 years never been used and never been tested?

The answer to the direct question which I asked you previously is: No one is frightened by NATO in the world.
 
:lol: dude, killing people by drone reduces civilian casualties.

The point is that contrary to you claims that there has been an increase in empathy, the use of drones as in the example of Obama and his kill lists has created an increased insensitivity to killing. The notion of collateral damage is a convenient label that whitewashes the killing of innocent people.

That's right. And if you did, they would not likely agree with your biased assessment that war is less gruesome and more clean.

Are you suggesting that your emotional hyperventilation should trump actual historical data, given that the latter disagrees with you?

Are you suggesting that the bombing of Hiroshima did not kill one third of the population, did not destroy two thirds of the city, did not cause cancer, did not cause birth defects, and did not cause mental retardation? Are you saying that those facts are simply emotional hyperventilation?

The initial Islamic conquest of Egypt, too, was (at the time) considered to have occurred with a minimum of rapine.

My point is that not everyone engaged in raping and killing civilians. Actually I brought up those two kings because I thought that since you claimed to have studied war so extensively you might know something about them. But I guess not.


Barbarians? Heck, it was the 4th Century BC.

Again, the actual data is against you on this[/url].

Yep, people that engage in intentionally killing innocent civilians are barbarians.

Again, the point was that the technological advances that were a result of the industrial revolution have made modern warfare an increasingly brutal and gruesome affair. This is so because advances in technology have made it possible for one weapon to inflict harm on huge quantities of people and create large scale destruction to the environment. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an example of this.

Regarding barbarism, here's what Admiral William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff had to say

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.
 
Last edited:
The threat is not the gun - the threat is the intelligence pointing the gun.

If you want to put it like that no weapon is a threat and NATO is not a threat either, it's the people.
 
I didn't realize you'd get so excited over a rather straightforward question. Maybe it's time to switch to decaffeinated.

I didn't realize you would be so intimidated by some simple questions. Maybe it's time to chill and be quiet if you don't have something substantial to say.
 
The neocon notion of strength is flawed in that it assumes that strength is manifested only when the will of one side is imposed on the opposition. And this simply is not true because no one in this world of fallible mortals has ever been observed to have absolute strength such that in all circumstances their will is imposed on all. Indeed this position is reserved for that most perfect one that Jesus referred to when he taught his disciples to pray, thy will be done in Earth as in heaven. Therefore true strength in this world means to properly understand the limits of the influence one has been granted by providence and to be satisfied with that. Intelligence means that one understands that it is not possible to always impose one's will on others. And it is not a symptom of weakness to understand this. Rather weakness is to believe that because one is not successful in imposing one's will one is weak.

Neocons would have us believe that if the US cannot or does not impose it's will in a contested area it is weak. This is no necessarily so. Sometimes there may be limits imposed on US influence, even though it is strong. Furthermore sometimes although it may be possible to impose one's will in the short term, the long term consequences far outweigh the benefits. Therefore in such a situation, it is better not to do so. And that does not make one weak.

The other problem is that the political climate is such that people in general have not been educated to understand these principles. Therefore wicked people, who simply want to get some political influence, will deceive people that someone in a position of power is weak, when in reality this may not be the case. And that goes to another point. We need a better system of education so that people will not be susceptible to the influence of such wicked people.
 
Back
Top Bottom