As to the original neocon movement,however, one objective was to liberalize the middle east among other things,and even if this was a display of complete hubris, a more liberal middle east WOULD help deliver peace.
So the question should really be who is the greater threat?
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.
The one with the greatest power.
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?
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.
How much did W2 cost after not leaving troops in Germany after the first go around?
-- Stephen Tonsor on Neocons..."It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far."
alliances, interventionism, and brinksmanship led to WWI. pretty much the same kind of policies that some still support.
it's time to nation build at home for a while. we cannot afford to be the world's pro bono military, and we've been at war almost continuously for nearly one hundred years now. it's time to take a serious look at that, and to decide whether that is really the best path forward for the country.
I'm all in favor of spending our resources here, but ignoring history is just condemning us to repeat it. We could easily close a 100 military installations in the world and have opened two in Iraq. Two bases in Iraq would have been a worthy ounce of prevention.
They are are a threat to world peace, a threat to the United States of America, a threat to humanity.
Die Neocon DIE!!!
I wish you'd tell us how you really feel.
I mean neo-conservatism as a whole.
Now he's going to pout, because you didn't say YES.
i don't see what they could have done there except constantly fight insurgency after insurgency. i don't support maintaining a seventy year long presence there. Iraq is not Japan
It worked in Italy, Germany and Japan...shocking all three are friends today!
And there'd have been no need to be on the streets taking hits. Retire the troops to a significant base, secure it, offer training, material support and occasional air support and win the hearts and minds of the masses. If you can do that in Japan after nuking it you can do it anywhere.
We just saw how Russia needs to be contained and what happens if it isn't. 50,000,000 Ukrainians were just made perpetual beggars and slave labor to Russia by Russia stealing all the natural gas and resources of Crimea from Ukraine.
From Merriam Websters.
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.
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.
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.
View attachment 67164660
So the question should really be who is the greater threat?
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.
Based on the OP most of the neocons would be running Iran. Building nukes and being friendly with terrorists and North Korea is a threat to world peace.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?