• 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
Fiddytree said:
"Hijacked" is such a dumb term for this. Every department in the administration was headbutting to get the ear and confidence of the President. Had it been Powell and Armitage that beat Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith few would be using that term to describe it.
Click to expand...

Of course I am borrowing the term for Wilkerson (if I remember right). That said, I think it's a fair description. Basically the intelligence was formed to fit the conclusion as stated by the Dowling Street memo. Dissent was crushed as in Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plane. So yeah, hijack is appropriate.
 
Fiddytree said:
I keep thinking of European balance of power objectives through the 18th and 19th centuries.
Click to expand...

I need to think about that. My reservation is that right off hand I don't think the powers involved envisioned a cooperative rise for all. Rather I think they were attempts to contain rivals, and there is a subtle difference. Perhaps you could elaborate.
 
MildSteel said:
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?
Click to expand...
Just another nutbag, masturbating to paranoid and feverish dreams of an impossible American global hegemony. Guys like this Wolfowitz clown are heaven-sent for unscrupulous agents with insidious agendas. They unwittingly expedite the selfsame process they profess to oppose. About the only way in which these kumquats are a 'threat' is in their capacity to bore and annoy.
 
CalGun said:
Or if after WWI we would have set in place bases like we did after WWII. You would have thought an educated man like BO would have learned that lesson before leaving Iraq like he did. Some day we will likely have to return there.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fiddytree said:
I hate to get into that, because it means we have to project a bit after his assassination-which is not fun. Certain neoconservatives wanted to make that argument (hell, everyone wanted to claim Kennedy as their own, so why not neoconservatives?), but it's tricky. Parts of the claim make sense, others won't, while others still require us to project years, perhaps decades after his death.
Click to expand...

I agree that many claim JFK, however if you look at his military policies during his presidency, they were rather Bush-like. At least in my opinion.
 
MildSteel said:
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?
Click to expand...
From Merriam Websters.
1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
Click to expand...

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.
 
MildSteel said:
I need to think about that. My reservation is that right off hand I don't think the powers involved envisioned a cooperative rise for all. Rather I think they were attempts to contain rivals, and there is a subtle difference. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Click to expand...

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.
 
They are are a threat to world peace, a threat to the United States of America, a threat to humanity.

Die Neocon DIE!!!
 
MildSteel said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

JxjCjKY.jpg

So the question should really be who is the greater threat?
 
MildSteel said:
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?
Click to expand...

I say yes.One only has to tune in to FOX or some of the radio talk show hosts to see this is true. The gist of what they are saying is "Obama is a bitch, Putin just punked Obama, Obama should make Putin pay, Obama made us look weak" and how dare he talk about something like minimum wage wage equality for women instead of talking about Ukraine. These pieces of **** neocons who are directly pushing for military action or pushing Russia into attacking the US by antagonizing Russia should ask themselves do they really want Obama in charge of the military?"
 
So you get to trash Obama and Neo-Cons in the GOP in the same paragraph?!
I'm sure Rand Paul is taking notes with his thrashing of lead Neo-Con Dick-less Cheeney .
jamesrage said:
I say yes.One only has to tune in to FOX or some of the radio talk show hosts to see this is true. The gist of what they are saying is "Obama is a bitch, Putin just punked Obama, Obama should make Putin pay, Obama made us look weak" and how dare he talk about something like minimum wage wage equality for women instead of talking about Ukraine. These pieces of **** neocons who are directly pushing for military action or pushing Russia into attacking the US by antagonizing Russia should ask themselves do they really want Obama in charge of the military?"
Click to expand...
 
You mean Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and C. Rice, correct ?
ChezC3 said:
They are are a threat to world peace, a threat to the United States of America, a threat to humanity.

Die Neocon DIE!!!
Click to expand...
 
ChezC3 said:
They are are a threat to world peace, a threat to the United States of America, a threat to humanity.

Die Neocon DIE!!!
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
jamesrage said:
I say yes.One only has to tune in to FOX or some of the radio talk show hosts to see this is true. The gist of what they are saying is "Obama is a bitch, Putin just punked Obama, Obama should make Putin pay, Obama made us look weak" and how dare he talk about something like minimum wage wage equality for women instead of talking about Ukraine. These pieces of **** neocons who are directly pushing for military action or pushing Russia into attacking the US by antagonizing Russia should ask themselves do they really want Obama in charge of the military?"
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. The neocons do not want Obama to act. They want to point out that he is not acting.
 
As with Lybia, Neo-Cons will say Obama did not do enough.
Isolationist/TEAs will say he did too much.
These are the two parties Obama is dealing with, chirping from both ends giving aid and comfort to Putie .
tlmorg02 said:
You are mistaken. The neocons do not want Obama to act. They want to point out that he is not acting.
Click to expand...
 
ChezC3 said:
They are are a threat to world peace, a threat to the United States of America, a threat to humanity.

Die Neocon DIE!!!
Click to expand...

I'll be alive for a while.
 
tlmorg02 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Likewise, when it came to hegemony, each of the powers did what they could to reject an emerging threat to take place, and did what they could to maintain the strength of their empires.
 
ChezC3 said:
Good, I hope long enough for you to change your political ideology and then some... :2razz:
Click to expand...

When people speak of neoconservative here, I am not what what they call a neoconservative. I am, however, a neoconservative.
 
tlmorg02 said:
You are mistaken. The neocons do not want Obama to act. They want to point out that he is not acting.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Depends on which person you ask. When you ask that group of persons whether or not they should intervene militarily, you'll get a variety of answers. When you ask if other diplomatic remedies would be preferable, many would agree, some would disagree. When you ask if the President started this awkwardly or weakly, you'll probably get more than enough affirmatives.
 
NIMBY said:
So you get to trash Obama and Neo-Cons in the GOP in the same paragraph?!
I'm sure Rand Paul is taking notes with his thrashing of lead Neo-Con Dick-less Cheeney .
Click to expand...

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?
 
Fiddytree said:
When people speak of neoconservative here, I am not what what they call a neoconservative. I am, however, a neoconservative.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Rick James of neocons, eh?

Nah, I didn't wipe my feet on Eddie Murphy's couch...

Yeah, I wiped my feet on his couch...

:lol:
 
ChezC3 said:
Ah, the Rick James of neocons, eh?

Nah, I didn't wipe my feet on Eddie Murphy's couch...

Yeah, I wiped my feet on his couch...

:lol:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom