You and Tyrone are simply assuming that their ideology is wrong. If the ideology was wrong, then yes, you could say that Rummy et al are fall guys for a doomed ideology.Originally Posted by hoosier
But we haven't even begun to discuss the merits of their ideology.
the commonality is in the idealogy: that American military power should be used for promotion of democracy and human rights (with consideration for American interests.)
You're right, I do assume it's wrong, but that's not the point I'm making here. My point is that the Bush doctrine makes a radical break with foreign policy principles that US administrations have upheld in name (not always in reality of course) since the early 19th century. The intention after 9/11 was to impose that kind of change without allowing any room for real debate--which should have happened whether the ideology was justified or not.You and Tyrone are simply assuming that their ideology is wrong. If the ideology was wrong, then yes, you could say that Rummy et al are fall guys for a doomed ideology.
But we haven't even begun to discuss the merits of their ideology.
I don't see it that way. Iraq is different because it involves violation of the principle of state sovereignty in the absence of both international consensus and any evident threat posed by the "rogue state." Preventive war and unilateral violation of state sovereignty definitely don't apply to Yugoslavia.
No, i'm not assuming the ideology is wrong. Regardless of ideology, who were they going to blame for the lack of success? The MSM? LOLYou and Tyrone are simply assuming that their ideology is wrong. If the ideology was wrong, then yes, you could say that Rummy et al are fall guys for a doomed ideology.
But we haven't even begun to discuss the merits of their ideology.
the commonality is in the idealogy: that American military power should be used for promotion of democracy and human rights (with consideration for American interests.)
Yugo: You are really pushing it. I don't seem to recall democracy being the reason we went to Iraq. I recall something about a mushroom cloud, etc.
You are correct that if they were successful, Iran was next.
..and democracy was not the reason we went to and are still in the former Yugoslavia (Kosovo) if I remember correctly.....it was to prevent a possible genocide.No, i'm not assuming the ideology is wrong. Regardless of ideology, who were they going to blame for the lack of success? The MSM? LOLYou and Tyrone are simply assuming that their ideology is wrong. If the ideology was wrong, then yes, you could say that Rummy et al are fall guys for a doomed ideology.
But we haven't even begun to discuss the merits of their ideology.
the commonality is in the idealogy: that American military power should be used for promotion of democracy and human rights (with consideration for American interests.)
Yugo: You are really pushing it. I don't seem to recall democracy being the reason we went to Iraq. I recall something about a mushroom cloud, etc.
You are correct that if they were successful, Iran was next.
C.H.U.D.
right. aggressive action in the name of human rights is a big part of the neocon ideology.
this word "neocon" is a brand name that has turned into "neo nazi" from misrepresentation. Much of their ideology has a great deal of appeal to a bleeding heart liberal such as myself. They are very different from, even opposed to isolationist conservatives and libertarians, or real politik hawks of the Henry Kissinger lineage.
Does "MSM" have something to do with Bill Gates?
I think the war in Iraq was a mistake because it was under-resourced. I was naive about what was required. And no international support = no go. And I wouldn't support George Bush leading any such effort.
But do not be shocked if 10 or 12 years from now, this adventure is viewed as a great turning point in world history - for the better. If Iraq does become a stable state, and evolves into a democracy, that could have the transforming effect that the neocons originally crowed about. Compare this to the likely alternative: a brutal, dangerous dictatorship of Uday & Qusay Hussein. And sorry to sound cold, but the price of 6000 American lives will seem like a small war. (The suffering of Iraq people in this transition is more horrible, yes)
Give me a break. The first Gulf War never really ended. Iraq was still patroled by U.S. aircraft, with periodic bombing. Hussein was NOT complying with weapons inspections, despite misinformation to the contrary, he only became cooperative after 100,000 U.S. troops were sitting in Kuwait. The country was under sanctions that Noam Chomsky claimed was killing 50,000 young children and babies every year.
This was not a normal, soveriegn state.
Human rights? LOL Where are they in africa? Actually, where are they in the U.S.? We here in maricopa county, under sheriff joe, have a jail that amnesty international has called out..not to mention guantanamo. Or our allies like the saudis.right. aggressive action in the name of human rights is a big part of the neocon ideology.
this word "neocon" is a brand name that has turned into "neo nazi" from misrepresentation. Much of their ideology has a great deal of appeal to a bleeding heart liberal such as myself. They are very different from, even opposed to isolationist conservatives and libertarians, or real politik hawks of the Henry Kissinger lineage.
They are only interested in out of the way countries that have special interest for our country.
MSM: Rush speak..mainstream media.
neocons: do you really believe in the project for the new american century?
There was no special American interest in Bosnia or Kosovo, other than a general desire for stability in Europe. The main thrust was moral, to stem genocide or violence.
You are right, though. They are not purely for humanitarian intervention, practical considerations are also weighed.
Um, we were talking about neo cons. Boz and Kosovo weren't neocon interventions.There was no special American interest in Bosnia or Kosovo, other than a general desire for stability in Europe. The main thrust was moral, to stem genocide or violence.
You are right, though. They are not purely for humanitarian intervention, practical considerations are also weighed.
Practical: Yeah, like a velvet hammer.
HArd to say EXACTLY who the neocons are. They don't carry badges. Its a school of thought started by Bill Kristol's father back in the 60's. Irving Kristol was editor of a political journal. BTW, Irving Kristol was a patriotic leftist, a former marxist. Neocons believe in an activist foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights. People who are mentioned in this group come from both Democrat and Republican parties.
Bosnia & Kosovo interventions were most certainly promoted by neocons and their ideological allies. Richard Perle was the leading and loudest morale voice for stopping the genocide. Bill Kristol beat the drums on TV and in his magazine. John McCain & Joe Biden were the most vocal advocates in the Senate, McCain is pretty-much a neocon.
By practical I mean they argue how American interests are enhanced by any intervention, that is a consideration.
Our policy wasn't being driven by neo cons. Don't be ridiculous. While they may have been in favor, they weren't making policy.HArd to say EXACTLY who the neocons are. They don't carry badges. Its a school of thought started by Bill Kristol's father back in the 60's. Irving Kristol was editor of a political journal. BTW, Irving Kristol was a patriotic leftist, a former marxist. Neocons believe in an activist foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights. People who are mentioned in this group come from both Democrat and Republican parties.
Bosnia & Kosovo interventions were most certainly promoted by neocons and their ideological allies. Richard Perle was the leading and loudest morale voice for stopping the genocide. Bill Kristol beat the drums on TV and in his magazine. John McCain & Joe Biden were the most vocal advocates in the Senate, McCain is pretty-much a neocon.
By practical I mean they argue how American interests are enhanced by any intervention, that is a consideration.
McCain: He isn't close to being a neo con.
The measures you mention--sanctions, troops on other side of border--imply sovereignty, even if its the questionable sovereignty of a rogue state. But then again, what state doesn't act like a rogue state from time to time? In any case, Bush's war is different from all other wars in that it tries to establish that merely potential threats (not actually existing threats) are a legitimate reason for invasion.Give me a break. The first Gulf War never really ended. Iraq was still patroled by U.S. aircraft, with periodic bombing. Hussein was NOT complying with weapons inspections, despite misinformation to the contrary, he only became cooperative after 100,000 U.S. troops were sitting in Kuwait. The country was under sanctions that Noam Chomsky claimed was killing 50,000 young children and babies every year.
This was not a normal, soveriegn state.
OK, ya. neocons had high positions in Bush administration - Wolfowitz, Perle.
This word "neocon" really means two different things:
1) A Jewish conspiracy of men with dark hearts who want to make war in promotion of Isreali interests. I saw an outragous British documentary on the neocons (complete with ominous timpanis in background) that promoted this view. "The Project for New American Century", as you mentioned before, being the nerve center of their quest for world domination. The new Trilateral Commission. I take it you largely have accepted the Dangerous Bad Men theory.
2) "Neocon" refers to an intellectual stream of thought that combines liberal notions of democracy and human rights with ideas of American exceptionalism, and advocacy for the use of American military power for idealistic purposes. America as the shining beacon of democracy. It's been around for 40 years. People are "neocons" to various degrees. I am somewhat of a neocon, as is John McCain. Perle & Kristol are vocal and ideologically pure neocons.
I became impressed with the clarity with which the neocons addressed the situation in Yugoslavia. They recognized the moral imperative to intervene in a genocide a FULL TWO YEARS before the politicians were on the ball. And they pointed out the world-wide impact of forming a bond with and making a sacrifice for the Muslims of Bosnia. Not bad for a Jewish conspiracy.
I believe the Bush administration had convinced themselves that Iraq was a threat.
I was for the invasion because of the opportunity to rid the world of a very ugly and dangerous dynasty, with no end in sight for generations. I think now that I was wrong to support this, for 3 or 4 reasons.
The war has been a disaster. However, I see a very good chance of a positive outcome in the long term, 10-15 years, and history may be more kind than you can imagine right now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote