Ahmadinejad
 

News agencies are reporting Ahmadinejad as saying he has warned western leaders to follow the path of God or vanish from the face of the earth!


I feel a sortie of B-2's coming!


Jim

The Iranian Parliament just voted to cut his term by 18 months this Sunday. Maybe both of us are pulling in our radicals?

Just curious, who might our radicals, in your estimation, be?

Do we still have the balls to do what needs to be done?? Seems as if we are about to enter into negotiations with Iran and Syria to help mold the Middle East for the next 30-50 years? ?? Can this be happening? :eek:

John Bolton, I think Donald Rumsfeld was a radical departure from the traditional SECDEF cut. Neoconservativism is a radical departure from the traditional Paleoconservative establishment. Religion and morality in foreign policy is a radical departure in a field that is traditionally amoral.

I think bringing in Robert Gates, Baker's ISG, Bolton leaving, and the recent election all warrants the observation that radicals are being brought in here.

This is all for better or worse. I certainly at one point supported these people and tenets. I do not think it is offensive to note that it is radical, rather it is a just observation.

I think there are signs that Ahmadinejad is getting restrained at home too.

Just how was Bolton a radical?

Or for that matter, Rumsfeld?

TR

Frankly I kind of like John Bolton and probably agree with him on alot of things. But I would consider this a radical departure from the norm (probably a good thing). Showing such public contempt for the UN (while you or I may agree), is indeed radical and a far throw from the likes of Adlai Stevenson. The Proliferation Security Initiative, his work, I consider to be a good program, has been productive exactly because he radically sidestepped tradition (the UN being venue for such a program) and created a voluntary results driven program.

TR, is it not safe to say that Secretary Rumsfelds policies were a radical departure from the Weinberger-Powell Doctrines? Secretary Rumsfeld came into office intent on reasserting civilian control of the military and I would say has been very successful. Would you not?

Again this is all for better or worse. I worked on the '04 campaign, at one point I can say these were my guys. Semantics maybe at issue here, but am I out of line ?

TK

While Bolton might be considered a "radical" in terms of his style he is not in any way shape or form a radical in terms of international policy. Unorthodox maybe but certainly no radical and neither was Don Rumsfeld for that matter.

Adlai Stevenson was a different day and time; when the UN was expected to do great things........ far different from the do nothing corrupt communist and socialist cesspool it has become.


Jim

To the realist intellectual bedrock of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau, Kennan, and Mearsheimer they do. Same with realist statesman like Kissenger, Brzezinski, and Scowcroft. To the likes of Woodrow Wilson they don't.

I fail to see how democratic peace theory is rule rather then the exception in American foreign policy history, and is not "radical" in a historical context.

Radical is being used as an adjective and a noun here w/o being adequately defined by the potentially inflammatory opening comments.

My interpretation of your statements is that you are making Rummy the U.S./Western antithesis of ahMADinejad - which I vehemently disagree with and find insulting to our culture and system of governing. There has been no departure from traditional policy making, implementation, administration, and innovation (whether right or wrong is not being debated) with political and religious overtones during either term. Plus you have the position of US SecDef vs. Iranian Pres.

Rummy was not trying to create a pseudo-religious empire or bring about the return of the Messiah.

All, by definition, may have radical ideas because they want to change the fundamental nature of something. Your statement was too ambiguous and simultaneously accusational.

Ahmadinejad is a religious and political fanatic.

I see from your profile that you are a student, which explains a lot and I don't mean that as an insult to you.

BTW, responsiblities of the UN Ambassador and Secretary of Defnese differ greatly from those of the Sec of State and National Security advisor. I don't see how you can use the timewarp trio when discussing Rummy and Bolton. Wouldn't Madeline Notsobright and Bill Cohen be a much fairer comparrison?

I have had this misfortune of living through the legacies left by policies enacted by Albright and Cohen. If you think Bolton and Rumsfeld are radical compaired to that those tow, I'll ask you this. Is that such a bad thing? From where I am sitting you can take those two idiots and I'll gladly stick with Rumsfeld and Bolton.

For me I would rather have a Secretary of Defense and a UN Ambassador who is willing to look the North Koreans in the eye and tell them to sod off (and actually mean it), than to go to North Korea, sip bubbly with Kim Jong Il and bury my head in the sand while knowing full well that they were using us while building weapons that threaten the peace and security of the entire world. Thanks but no thanks. If Rummy and Bolton are radical I have no clue what you would call me because I don't think the two went far enough.

Guilty of ambiguity.
Guilty of accusation, I think democratic peace theory as a practiced by Rumsfeld, Bolton, Albright, and Cohen is not always in America's interest.

I'm speaking in pro-American Nationalism here, they're speaking in ideology.

No offense, but IMHO, you speak too often from a position colored by liberal MSM and academia.

The positions may be popular with some in those fields, but they lack extensive life experience outside their ivory towers and realpolitik. Kind of like an Iraqi Study Group report written from the protection and insulation of the Green Zone.

Military history is a dying intellectual exercise on most campuses, where courses on gays in the military or military fashion are more likely than a serious military offering. MIT recently forced their military history department to change their logo, as the 18th Century cannons appears to be intimidating and "militaristic". When the real world catches up to the leftover 60s liberal academics, they are going to be the grease in the treads of the tanks. Neither Sharia or Maoism are going to be particularly tolerant of leftist free-spirits. Thus the ability of students to appreciate and understand military actions are seriously compromised. One of my favorite Rumsfeld exchanges was when he had to explain to a member of the media that the purpose of our bombing was to actually KILL people.

I also think that Machiavelli, Hobbes, Keenan, and Kissinger were certainly more pragmatic and would see Bolton and Rumsfeld as centrists, not particularly conservatie or neo-cons, but that is just my .02. Bolton has largely successfully represented the interests of the US, Rumsfeld would have been viewed as a success had he left earlier in this war. History may yet vindicate his service. It is too early to tell and emotions are running too high right now.

We have to decide as a nation whether it is in our interest to practice interventionist politics (and by extension, military action as an extension of those politics). It is disingenuous to demand action in Rwanda, or Haiti, or Bosnia, or the Sudan, and decry it when the same interventionist policy is applied in similar areas. Due to modern weapons technology, lack of serious border security, and the sheer volume of international commerce arriving on our shores, we can no longer afford to pull back to Fortress America and hope that they do not come after us. The time for that is past and it will eventually fail. Therefore, I believe we need to establish a policy under which we will intervene and what the range of consequences might be for those who endanger us.

When an American city is burned to bedrock, and the economy is wrecked, it will be a little too late to wish we had fought them in their backyard rather than ours. I do not recall a lot of people whining about erosion of terrorists rights and the evils of military action when by and large, we were doing it on the cheap in late 2001.

What really chaps my ass is the liberals bitching about the war who cannot claim to know a single person actually putting their ass on the line in the effort. None.

TR

TK,

Guilty of accusation, I think democratic peace theory as a practiced by Rumsfeld, Bolton, Albright, and Cohen is not always in America's interest.

Name one true democracy that currently exists. Democracy is a theory. Here, we have a democratic process in a constitutional republic. Lenin (and Mao) used social democratic reform and tactics as a means to establish a Social Democracy or "Direct Democracy." How does the DPT work when applied to these types of governing if you ignore the 'individual freedom index' ?

Direct Democracy and other forms of autocratic govt have historically lead to war (empire building) when that govt has the ability to transnationally project its will through force or is under extreme duress. What about these quasi-democracies creating pariah states and/or subservient nations? How many total wars broke out between similar Socialists and/or Communists nations?

I do not believe that historically 'similar democracies' rarely go to war against each other is due to the "Democratic Peace Theory." The fact that constitutional republics (God Bless America!), constitutional monarchs (God Bless them too!), and the others rarely have full war with each other is merely a byproduct of their culture, economies, and various other similarities/parallels.

I believe that the European Monarchies had similar forms of govt but had a few wars with each other. So, what makes today's 'Western' style of govt so cooperative...?

The DPT is an attempt at understanding and defining, in tangible replicateble terms, why this occurs in modern democratically represented forms of govt.

Using the DPT as an ideology or principle to form policy, or even implement it, against hostile dissimilar forms of government (or entities) is interesting but very one dimensional and poses a threat to national security issues.

The SecDef can influence and is influenced by foreign policy (foreign and domestic)but does not author it (foreign or domestic).

I'm speaking in pro-American Nationalism here, they're speaking in ideology.
Would you please explain this to me with references. You have stimulated some old brain cells and started a train of thoughts on the topic.