• 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
MildSteel said:
Israel has created the largest human prison in Palestine. They are the source of much of their difficulties.
Click to expand...

Right, the poor poor Palestinians are innocent victims and no culpability in the matter. :roll:
 
Neocon sounds like Unicorn or some other novel concept.

I do not think that they can hinder world peace. Yet their position is also valid just in case Russia and/or China go nuts.
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. Although much could be said, to be brief, you don't maintain international security by trying to pre-empt the rise of other powers. That's how you create international insecurity.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time understanding the, apparently, majority opinion that it would have been OK to invade Iraq IF they had a nuclear weapons program. "Bush lied and people died". No, anyone who thinks that it would have been OK to invade because of this is, IMHO, a little nuts. We are OK with UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel having nuclear weapons.
 
DDD said:
Neocon sounds like Unicorn or some other novel concept.

I do not think that they can hinder world peace. Yet their position is also valid just in case Russia and/or China go nuts.
Click to expand...

Meet my new pet, Neocon the Unicorn!!! He's a little insecure so you better watch out!!! :lamo

They should be kept in the background, not occupying key policy positions as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. Biting dogs should be used sparingly, otherwise their effect is spoiled and they do more harm than good.

Speaking of names, Wolfowitz sounds like the mutation of the big bad wolf and the wicked witch of the west! :lamo
 
Eric7216 said:
I have a hard time understanding the, apparently, majority opinion that it would have been OK to invade Iraq IF they had a nuclear weapons program. "Bush lied and people died". No, anyone who thinks that it would have been OK to invade because of this is, IMHO, a little nuts. We are OK with UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel having nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

At the time I thought Saddam may have had some chemical weapons. But if I remember right, I don't think I ever thought he had nukes because we would never have invaded Iraq if we seriously thought he had them.
 
American said:
Right, the poor poor Palestinians are innocent victims and no culpability in the matter. :roll:
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that Israel has made the whole situation worse through it's policies. In particular Ariel Sharon played an extremely destructive role to the prospects of peace.
 
MildSteel said:
Meet my new pet, Neocon the Unicorn!!! He's a little insecure so you better watch out!!! :lamo

They should be kept in the background, not occupying key policy positions as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. Biting dogs should be used sparingly, otherwise their effect is spoiled and they do more harm than good.

Speaking of names, Wolfowitz sounds like the mutation of the big bad wolf and the wicked witch of the west! :lamo
Click to expand...

Cheney isn't a neoconservative, though.
 
MildSteel said:
I disagree with you. Although much could be said, to be brief, you don't maintain international security by trying to pre-empt the rise of other powers. That's how you create international insecurity.
Click to expand...

Preemption can work in certain circumstances. Other than in antiquity today's dynamics would let it work for only a short time. In any event, preemption is not really, what the US has been doing since the end of the Cold War. It has maintained a position of military power that has made it more or less immune to aggression by formal states. This has, however, been only the part of a deeper strategy than immediately meets the eye, unless one was watching for it. That effort has been rather well executed by chance or design. that is hard to tell.
 
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...

I don't see how they are doing that since they are not in power or directing policy.

The current administration may be many things it is not neo con. But they are still violently and pre-emptively attacking others.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
I don't see how they are doing that since they are not in power or directing policy.

The current administration may be many things it is not neo con. But they are still violently and pre-emptively attacking others.
Click to expand...

So I guess you just decided to discount the past 12 years of armed conflict? Are you claiming these wars weren't neo-con initiated?
 
Fiddytree said:
Cheney isn't a neoconservative, though.
Click to expand...

If you say so. At the very least he spearheaded much of their policy, enough to make himself practically indistinguishable. The neocons never had a better friend.
 
joG said:
Preemption can work in certain circumstances. Other than in antiquity today's dynamics would let it work for only a short time. In any event, preemption is not really, what the US has been doing since the end of the Cold War. It has maintained a position of military power that has made it more or less immune to aggression by formal states. This has, however, been only the part of a deeper strategy than immediately meets the eye, unless one was watching for it. That effort has been rather well executed by chance or design. that is hard to tell.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. Despite what had been said for external consumption, it was pre-emption that was behind the Iraq war. Not only that, but it was pre-emption that led to the recent events in Ukraine. In those cases we were pre-empting the rise of Saddam Hussein and Russia respectively. I would also argue that the Obama's so called Asia pivot is based on the notion of pre-emption of the rise of China. So I think we have been and currently are practicing pre-emption since the end of the cold war.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So I guess you just decided to discount the past 12 years of armed conflict? Are you claiming these wars weren't neo-con initiated?
Click to expand...

Not exclusively no they were not.

And apparently you miss the point that neo cons have not been directing policy for over 5 of those 12 years.
 
MildSteel said:
I disagree with you. Despite what had been said for external consumption, it was pre-emption that was behind the Iraq war. Not only that, but it was pre-emption that led to the recent events in Ukraine. In those cases we were pre-empting the rise of Saddam Hussein and Russia respectively. I would also argue that the Obama's so called Asia pivot is based on the notion of pre-emption of the rise of China. So I think we have been and currently are practicing pre-emption since the end of the cold war.
Click to expand...

I guess we will have to disagree, as I would not define preemption as a passe partout.
 
MildSteel said:
If you say so. At the very least he spearheaded much of their policy, enough to make himself practically indistinguishable. The neocons never had a better friend.
Click to expand...

They were allies, essentially. Rumsfeld was probably the better friend, in terms of longevity, however. They both, however, didn't care much about democracy as a foreign policy plank, nor did they have the Johnny-come-lately experience as Jackson crowd, and they were often times more "conservative" than the Jackson folks.
 
joG said:
I guess we will have to disagree, as I would not define preemption as a passe partout.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I don't quite understand what you mean, but the administration of George W Bush claimed it was preventing Saddam from launching an attack with weapons of mass destruction. So such attack had occurred or was known to me imminent. So that's preemption. In the case of Ukraine, we saw the wife of a very prominent neocon spearheading the events that lead to the fall of the Yanukovych regime. What value could Ukraine be to the US besides preempting the rise of Russia?

Perhaps you mean the Iraq war of a frame up? I'm not sure.
 
Fiddytree said:
They were allies, essentially. Rumsfeld was probably the better friend, in terms of longevity, however. They both, however, didn't care much about democracy as a foreign policy plank, nor did they have the Johnny-come-lately experience as Jackson crowd, and they were often times more "conservative" than the Jackson folks.
Click to expand...

Ok, but you have to admit that Cheney sure did spearhead the Iraq war which was a major neocon policy goal. Furthermore he was a signatory to the PNAC principles, a William Kristol, the son of the father of neoconservatism, project. So like I said, the neocons had a very good friend indeed in Cheney.
 
MildSteel said:
Ok, but you have to admit that Cheney sure did spearhead the Iraq war which was a major neocon policy goal. Furthermore he was a signatory to the PNAC principles, a William Kristol, the son of the father of neoconservatism, project. So like I said, the neocons had a very good friend indeed in Cheney.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. Although I don't know why most people focus on PNAC. It was less than a dozen employees, a photocopier and fax machine renting office space from AEI. AEI was probably your best bet for a connection, as that was where Cheney and dozens of neoconservatives, Chicago school economists, and other free marketers gathered before joining the Reagan and W. Bush administrations.
 
Last edited:
Well yes. There foreign policy is very very pro-interventionist, and their goal is to "spread American influence" via the use of force. So yes, i would have to say so.
 
MildSteel said:
Perhaps I don't quite understand what you mean, but the administration of George W Bush claimed it was preventing Saddam from launching an attack with weapons of mass destruction. So such attack had occurred or was known to me imminent. So that's preemption. In the case of Ukraine, we saw the wife of a very prominent neocon spearheading the events that lead to the fall of the Yanukovych regime. What value could Ukraine be to the US besides preempting the rise of Russia? Perhaps you mean the Iraq war of a frame up? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

It seems you are using this 'neo-con' term too often and, despite your OP, aren't really relating it to any clear historical events. When you get donw to referring to the wives of neo cons as something symbolic of something then you have obviously jumped the shark.

Using those recent definitions of your 'neo-cons have been around forever, with nothing 'neo' about them.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well yes. There foreign policy is very very pro-interventionist, and their goal is to "spread American influence" via the use of force. So yes, i would have to say so.
Click to expand...

Do they need a reason to be 'very very pro-interventionist' and what statements have they made to support your theory.
 
Grant said:
When you get donw to referring to the wives of neo cons as something symbolic of something then you have obviously jumped the shark.
Click to expand...

You tell me what could Victoria Nuland have been trying to accomplish in Ukraine other than to preempt the rise of the Soviet Union.
 
Fiddytree said:
Yes, he did. Although I don't know why most people focus on PNAC. It was less than a dozen employees, a photocopier and fax machine renting office space from AEI. AEI was probably your best bet for a connection, as that was where Cheney and dozens of neoconservatives, Chicago school economists, and other free marketers gathered before joining the Reagan and W. Bush administrations.
Click to expand...

One cannot underestimate the ideological influence of William Kristol, heir to the father of the neocons, Irving Kristol. Here he lays out the following principles that which Dick Cheney was a signatory:

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have theresolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital --both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, in attention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

...........
Click to expand...
 
MildSteel said:
You tell me what could Victoria Nuland have been trying to accomplish in Ukraine other than to preempt the rise of the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

Yes, what else could it be? Just the mention of Victoria Nuland strikes fear into the heart of every Russian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom