Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tk27
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.
|
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.