Ahmadinejad

[rubberneck]

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.

[incommin]

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

[tk27]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

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.

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.

[rubberneck]

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.

[MRF54]

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.

[tk27]

Originally Posted by MRF54

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.

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.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by tk27

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

[x SF med]

TR-
I fully agree with your views above. The libs have forgotten this little tract:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

and are willing to sacrifice the rights they hold so dear, in order to 'humanize' the world. They are sheeple who deserve what they are wishing for, I just hope they do it another country. Let them attempt to run rampant the way they do here, spouting off against their government, its policies and ruling parties - say in Iran, Malaysia, an African 'democracy'.... They have forgotten that this country was forged by war, in order to preserve the rights of responsible citizens who were in later years willing to fight to preserve those rights. Would these liberals feel as disturbed if the military were fighting in their backyards to protect them because their protests brought the current world tensions into their homes? Would they accept responsibility for doing so? Would they pick up arms and fight to protect themselves? I believe the answer to all of the previous questions is a resounding "NO", they would expect better men and women to protect them and fight in order to preserve their way of life.

This country tried Isolationism, twice, and we were embroiled in 2 World Wars because of it. the liberals fail to realize that they are not dealing with people who have the same rights with which they have been blessed , nor the economic bounty, nor the freedoms, nor the protections under the law, nor the cultural diversity... They cannot understand the single minded determination of our current enemies, because they can change causes on a whim when they get tired of their current 'cause juste'.

As to the study of military history - it is bloody, it is brutal, it is not pretty. There is honor, there is dishonor; there is bravery, there is cowardice; there is the depth of man; there is subterfuge; there is blatant heroics. Military history is the study of the causes that have shaped our world, our politics, our views.

disjointed rant over.

[Monsoon65]

Originally Posted by x_sf_med

The libs have forgotten this little tract...

Well said, brother. I agree with you. My niece graduates from High School in 2007 and plans on going to college. I just fear for what she's going to run into there with lib profs that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the military and what's actually going on in this world. I might be wrong, but I think most of the profs out there have never left the safe, secure bubble of college/education and spout off about world politics and the military like they actually have a clue.

They think that every country is like the US, where the right to protest was given to them by the blood of troops killed in combat these past 230 years. You're right, try that in Iran/North Korea/Etc and see where it gets you. Prison, execution, whatever.

I've come to hate listening to the news because of what I hear. I get depressed hearing the drivel that the left sprews about Iraq and the world, how they are going to make things better thru committees and Peace, Love and Understanding. I know I'm probably not alone in wanting to grab some of these libs by the pencil neck and shake some sense in them.

Ahmadinejad can say whatever he wants because the libs view it as a little country standing up to the big, bad USA. They'd wet themselves if we said we were going to start carpet-bombing Iran if they don't get their act together.

Let me secure my soapbox for now.

[MRF54]

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.

[rubberneck]

I must be stuck on stupid here. DPT says the liberal democracies rarely go to war with one another (note: it doesn't say never, just rarely).

Just what liberal democracies are we at war with? Iraq under Hussein? Syria under Assad? North Korea under Jong Il? Iran under Ahmadinejad? Afghanistan under the Taliban?

It scares the hell out of me that this bleeting horse pucky is being taught in our Universities and I have a Political Science degree of the University of Wisconsin. DPT has no relevance in the real world. Your professors would know that if they took their heads out of their rear ends for a second and looked at the world surrounding them. The world we live in is a dangerous place. People who embrace nonsensical political theories hoping to make the bad people go away have no right to speak on the matter.

Don Rumsfeld and John Bolton may be a lot of things but the one thing they are not is naive to the threats that confront us today, and as an American I am proud that we had two people who cared enough about my safety that they are willing to endure the sling and arrows of lesser men who lack the courage to deal with problems head on.

[MRF54]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

I must be stuck on stupid here. DPT says the liberal democracies rarely go to war with one another (note: it doesn't say never, just rarely).

Just what liberal democracies are we at war with? Iraq under Hussein? Syria under Assad? North Korea under Jong Il? Iran under Ahmadinejad? Afghanistan under the Taliban?

It scares the hell out of me that this bleeting horse pucky is being taught in our Universities and I have a Political Science degree of the University of Wisconsin. DPT has no relevance in the real world. Your professors would know that if they took their heads out of their rear ends for a second and looked at the world surrounding them. The world we live in is a dangerous place. People who embrace nonsensical political theories hoping to make the bad people go away have no right to speak on the matter.

Don Rumsfeld and John Bolton may be a lot of things but the one thing they are not is naive to the threats that confront us today, and as an American I am proud that we had two people who cared enough about my safety that they are willing to endure the sling and arrows of lesser men who lack the courage to deal with problems head on.

Well said.

DPT is an interesting theory in trying to understand why these systems of govt rarely go to war with each other. In other words, to analyze but not define. So, all it can generate is opinion, conjecture, and maybe a little insight to functionaries - How does this contribute to anything? It does make for good beer talk though.

[tk27]

Sirs, I believe you are literally seeing red here and jumping to conclusions.

I argue that we have one reason to be in Iraq. It is a very good reason. I have been asked by a moderator to not discuss it on this board, but if you would like to understand where I am coming from look here. I believe this issue is the most important of our day, and connects to everything. I do not believe this makes me a liberal, for some of the things I believe we should do are anything but.


TR, you continue to imply that I am some lefty-pinko. Certainly I hold a lot of libertarian positions, and I do disagree on a lot with the group currently running the GOP (the party of which I am a registered member). Some of the people that I read and often agree with such as Milt Bearden, Alastair Crooke, Michael Scheuer, and Colonel Patrick Lang (U.S. Army ret) are hardly ivory tower academics when it comes to their experiences in the Middle East and terrorism. Further, criticisms of our current policies that influence my opinions come from Andrew Bachevich, Generals Anthony Zinni and Paul Van Riper, Robert Pape, and John Mearsheimer, I would not call these gentlemen members of the liberal intelligentsia. While criticisms of contemporary conservatism may automatically make me a liberal in your book, a recent article in The American Conservative gives a much better rebuttal than I could ever write.

Finally, by painting me as a “liberal” thereby implying that I “cannot claim to know a single person actually putting their ass on the line in the effort. None.” You make an erroneous claim, while the Armed Forces may find me disqualified for service; this is not the case with my personal friends and families friends. But even if I in fact did not “know a single person actually putting their ass on the line in the effort”, even if I was not at a wedding of two Army Officers (one just back from Iraq) last week, I would still hold my criticisms. For the fact would remain that I and my fellow citizens consume 20% of the worlds energy, this has direct impact on terrorism and current efforts in Iraq, and that I am not even picking up the tab, the only thing asked of us post 9/11 was to “keep shopping”. This is not taking responsibility for ones actions, and goes against what I believe conservatives and this country stand for.

[jfhiller]

TR, x_sf_med, rrubberneck, Razor, et al, I concur with your comments and thank you for speaking more eloquently than I could on this. It's enlightening to hear the wisdom born of experience in response to the somewhat embarrassing wanderings of the student mind led primarily by ivory tower pundits and conventional wisdom of the MSM.

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by jfhiller

TR, x_sf_med, rubberneck, Razor, et al, I concur with your comments and thank you for speaking more eloquently than I could on this. It's enlightening to hear the wisdom born of experience in response to the somewhat embarrassing wanderings of the student mind led primarily by ivory tower pundits and conventional wisdom of the MSM.

Thanks for the nice words, but I come from the very shallow end of the experience pool when compaired to TR, x_sf_med and Razor. Real world experience always trumps academic experience IMHO. In their case they have both. I on the other hand have no experience with the implementation of national policy.