• 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
Poor McCain. I think all that torture took it's toll on him.
 
MildSteel said:
You forgot that Wolfowitz was a major player in the administrations of H. W. Bush and W Bush.
Click to expand...

No I did not.

The key word is WAS.

He is no threat to any one now.

But the current administration is.

DYiQFoV.jpg
 
MildSteel said:
Ok. But still the promotion of such ideas is itself dangerous. But your point is well taken.
Click to expand...

Ideas are not dangerous only actions are.

The KKK promotes many hateful ideas. The vast majority of people who are reasonable ignore them.
 
Anonymous Polls suck
 
Helix said:
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.
Click to expand...

World War II was essentially the sequel to World War I..... Too much unfinished business from WWI.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
That was the opine of Ron Paul and his fellow libertarians, and why I'd have voted for BHO before him had he won a R nomination. Putting your head in sand only gets it cutt off.


Helix said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Politicians/political partisans are a threat to world peace.

Neocons are politicians/political partisans

Therefor, Neocons are a threat to world peace.
 
Eric7216 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well I don't agree with you at all that the cost was worth it for Iraqis or the region. The whole thing is a mess right now, but that's a discussion for another thread.

But we do agree on the pre-emption issue which is the focus here.
 
German guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
So whatever Putin does now is because of 'the neo-cons'.
Politics made simple.
 
upsideguy said:
World War II was essentially the sequel to World War I..... Too much unfinished business from WWI.
Click to expand...

And the Cold War was unfinished business from WWII. We will soon see who fills the political vacuum.
 
Grant said:
So whatever Putin does now is because of 'the neo-cons'.
Politics made simple.
Click to expand...

Hey Grant! Look into the European section. I mentioned you there, favorably! =)

There you can read what I really think about the entire Russia situation ... if you care, that is.
 
Neo Con policy direction has been trumped by Tea Party policy in the GOP.....which for foreign policy means NO policy.

Rather than forward an agenda, it seems all we do anymore is complain about someone elses.
 
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...

Very much so. They're infected with such an extreme amount of nationalism that they don't recognize that we're all human beings and that peace, trade, and cooperation are better than manipulation, war, and bloodshed.

As long as we have neo-con politicians that value imperialism and dropping bombs over diplomacy, America will never know peace.
 
Was there world peace prior to the emergence of the neo-con movement in the 60's?
 
spud_meister said:
Was there world peace prior to the emergence of the neo-con movement in the 60's?
Click to expand...

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.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Instead they bomb Israel through a proxy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to statistics that show that and secondarily that it was the Neo-Cons' actions that made it worse?
 
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 don't really believe that the Neo-Cons were a danger, as they were operating in a period in which the US was the only entity capable of maintaining international security. At the same time the then administration was already implementing action to persuade allies and the UN to alter the foundations of international security, however. The most notable achievement was the incorporation of R2P in the UN Charter, which would probably like the switch away from free-riding by countries like Germany not have been possible without the Iraq imbroglio.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
spud_meister said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

joG said:
Do you have a link to statistics that show that and secondarily that it was the Neo-Cons' actions that made it worse?
Click to expand...

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.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

A violent ideology that doesn't bring more conflict and war than others but causes the UN to adopt R2P is fine by me. If only we had a President that had followed up with more than red lines and options on the table, maybe we would be closer to a better global security structure.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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?
Click to expand...

We're talking world peace, not safety. Neo-con's opposed the expansion of the USSR, whilst there was much violence caused by that, unopposed Soviet expansion would've lead to another global conflict. Furthermore, neo-cons went out of power with GW Bush, yet America still goes to war. All neo-cons are interventionists, but not all interventionists are neo-cons.
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.
Click to expand...

:prof That's interventionism, as we're already a close ally, it would be contrary to neo-con policy.
 
American said:
Instead they bomb Israel through a proxy.
Click to expand...

Israel has created the largest human prison in Palestine. They are the source of much of their difficulties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom