Concerning preemption, here's Paul Wolfowitz
The problem with your argument is that you have conflated support for the Iraq war as the advocation of preemption as a policy in general. There is a difference.
The problem with your argument is that you have conflated support for the Iraq war as the advocation of preemption as a policy in general. There is a difference.
The greatest threat facing the world today is not war or WMD spread or US's neo-con policies but democide, the state authorized and endorsed killing of citizens of the state.
Then you have completely ignored what I have written. I would have been completely and totally against the Iraq War if the only rationale was the suspected presence of WMD or suspected harboring of suspected terrorists. I am also against the Afghanistan war, the Pakistan war, the Libyan war, and the proposed Syrian war. A country has no business attacking another country because of suspected WMD or having terrorist within their borders. PERIOD. But that is what Congress voted for and the majority of Americans supported.
I honestly think that Islamic fundamentalists, Arab nationalists, North Korean oligarchs, Russian irredentists, Iranian expansionists, Syrian fascists, and their sympathizers are a bigger threat to world peace than those who think that we should conduct military interventions to promote liberal values. I have my disagreements with the neocons, but I don't quite understand why people act as if they're pure evil when the policy they promote isn't immoral or illogical at all.
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?
There are many threats to world peace and I am not going to try to draw up an exhaustive, ranked list. To be brief, what makes the neocons such a threat is that their ideology is having a substantial influence on US foreign policy. In particular, the notion that the US should preempt the rise of competitors like Russia and China is a very dangerous. Since the mid 19th century, advancements in technology have made warfare an extremely gruesome affair. Nuclear weapons have made it worse many times over, because such weapons have the capability to destroy modern civilization. Therefore the neocons are a threat.
Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.
Neocons are to world peace what armed victims are to reduced crime rates. Blaming them for the actions of Putin et. al. is a uniquely self-centered form of idiocy.
:roll: as though Russia's historical interest in controlling its' Near Abroad through coercion and the threat of force required a few intellectuals in the United States to first identify it and posit that it was not in the interests of the expansion of liberty that is intertwined with long-term US security and global stability.
Naturally people are against human, civil, labor and environmental rights? Naturally people are against free press and speech?
I don't think so.
You analogy is flawed because comparing the United States to victims of crimes by Russia is absurd.
The eloquent use of the terms liberty, security, and global stability mask an ignorance of the fact that Ukraine is currently in chaos as a result of the neocon notion of preemption.
Iraq and the entire ME are in chaos as a result of the neocon notion of preemption.
What will it take, at nuclear war between the US and Russia before you realize that the neocon notion of preemption is a threat to world peace?
That's an interesting claim. Given that, objectively, war in the nuclear era has been cleaner and less gruesome of an affair, marked by sharply reduced civilian casualties, especially when the United States is involved, how do you defend it?
What is rather interesting is your claim that war has been cleaner in the nuclear era. The firebombing of Tokoyo was part of the nuclear era, that was a very gruesome affair.
Before the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it calculated what time of day and the exact locations in which the maximum casualties would be inflicted. In Hiroshima, the time was chosen when innocent people would be going about their regular daily affairs. WITH ONE NUCLEAR WEAPON, SMALL BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN HIROSHIMA ALONE!
Is this your notion of clean? Is this your notion of less gruesome?
No, my analogy is correct because you are mistaking someone recognizing and preparing for aggression as causing that aggression. Victims being armed don't cause robbers, they cause fewer robbers. America having a forward-leaning defense posture doesn't cause Russia and like-minded countrires to become more aggressive, it causes Russia to become less aggressive.
There is literally no mechanism linking neoconservative thinkers in the United States - who you will notice have no power in the White House or the foreign policy establishment, and haven't since about 2006 - to Putin's decision to seize direct control over Crimea in the face of a popular revolt against his puppet in Kiev.
Ukraine is currently in chaos because they have both the misfortune to have an incredibly corrupt government and be in possession of something that Russia desperately wants - a warm water port.
What is rather interesting is your claim that war has been cleaner in the nuclear era. The firebombing of Tokoyo was part of the nuclear era, that was a very gruesome affair. Before the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it calculated what time of day and the exact locations in which the maximum casualties would be inflicted. In Hiroshima, the time was chosen when innocent people would be going about their regular daily affairs. WITH ONE NUCLEAR WEAPON, SMALL BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN HIROSHIMA ALONE! Is this your notion of clean? Is this your notion of less gruesome?
No it is incorrect because of the use of the term victim. The US has not been victimized by Russia. Rather, Russia has been victimized by the US through NATO expansion. An expansion that it guaranteed it would not engage in.
Wrong. Victoria Nuland is the wife of prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan.
There was absolutely no reason for Nuland to engage in Ukraine in such a heavy handed way except to preempt the expansion of Russian influence.
She even arrogantly proclaimed "f*** the EU."
Her actions led to the overthrow of the government of a democratically elected leader, Yanukovych.
The core of Russian naval power is based in Sevastopol. Putin had to seize Crimea in order to avoid the real possibility that NATO, a military alliance that was formed to contain Russia, would be right next to the seat of Russian naval power.
That warm water port was put in jeopardy by US attempts to preempt Russian power.
Nuclear weapons have not been used. Even though some neoconservatives sought refuge in counterforce to stop an all-out exchange, counterforce largely became a mere hypothetical.
More to the point, it was precisely the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that kept nuclear weapons from being used.
Actually that occurred prior to the nuclear era, though it was indeed part of both WWII and the massive, centuries-long decline in violence in human society.
Yup. And was so effective that it ended WWII, saved millions of lives, and managed to ensure that, having gained control of massive weapons, the nations of the world would (thus far) avoid their use.
believe it or not - yes, the post-nuclear era has seen an amazing drop in the amount of violence and human tragedy associated with warfare.
Nuclear weapons have not been used. Even though some neoconservatives sought refuge in counterforce to stop an all-out exchange, counterforce largely became a mere hypothetical.
That is not correct. Nuclear weapons, fission bombs, were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There is no post nuclear era. We are in the nuclear era. That's one flaw. Next of all, the reason why there has been no war between Russia and the US is that previously both sides keep within their respective spheres of influence due to the threat of MAD. Neocons have no respect for such spheres of influence. Rather they seek to preempt the rise of nuclear armed powers like Russia and China. Never in post WWII history has the US so directly encroached on Russia's vital interests as in the way that we have currently done in Ukraine. Russia had it's main naval port in Ukraine. Some of Russia's most critical military equipment is manufactured in Ukraine. Neocons, in their blind ambition, have no respect for this. Therefore they are a danger to world peace.
That is not correct. Nuclear weapons, fission bombs, were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
:lol: that is certainly a viewpoint. It is the viewpoint of a paranoid, low-information Russian voter believing whatever Putin tells him on state-controlled media, but it is certainly a viewpoint.
Wait. Your case depends on the notion that Putin suddenly realized that Russia had been pursuing control of warm water access for centuries because Victoria Nuland is married to a writer?
Heavy Handed? Meh...
As for pre-empting the expansion of Russian Influence - duh?
That is incorrect. Yanukovych's actions led to his own overthrow, when he became too obviously blatantly a tool of Putin. The lady you are accusing of fomenting this said mean things about the EU AFTER Yanukovych had fled.
Rinat Akhmetov, the wealthiest oligarch, has been fairly close to Mr. Yanukovych
I think it would be useful if Mr. Akhmetov was using his influence with President Yanukovych to encourage him to negotiate in a serious way to find a solution.
If there was some threat that there might be financial or travel sanctions on Mr. Akhmetov, that could be a useful lever
Ukraine was not about to join NATO, however, think about what you are saying - you are admitting that Russia was going to pursue it's national interests, which is precisely both the realist and neocon argument.
Incorrect. The warm water port wasn't put in jeopardy, but rather became a potential risk because Putin pushed his toady too far.
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?