When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You know I seem to remember from my world politics class that realism is more of a theory of how world politics works. Don't realists believe that everyone is truly a realist?

Almost every IR theory is about how world politics works . Liberals claim that Realists misrepresent how world politics work and it works like they say it does. Realist theory pushes balance of power or hegemony in order to secure soveriegnty.

[Kidlicious]

The wikipedia article says that they have their origins with the disillusionment of the Great Society. Honestly I'm at a loss as for why they were considered left wing. I think it's because the Republican party had so many isolationists among them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It could be because they were a bunch of former TROTSKYISTS! I wouldn't exactly call that right wing thought .

[Agathon]

Plus, the 60s were the years in which people finally woke up to the bull**** they'd been taught.

You had a lot more people from much more diverse backgrounds going in to higher education, and the methods of control (class solidarity, tolerance of deviants as "eccentric") could no longer work. Mass media also helped people realize that their governments and traditional authorities were lying sacks of ****.

Of course this is massively overstated. It was largely restricted to university students and a lot of people who went to university in the 60s were apolitical. But there were enough to make a large noise and it is no surprise that the political right's war on the liberal arts dates from this time.

Heaven forbid that anyone be told the truth about the conquest of the New World or even consider that "our" (meaning "their") side ever possessed anything other than the noblest of motives.

[Agathon]

No, we don't.

Denial is a wonderful thing NYE. Just like Nixon's denials of his illegal saturation bombing of Cambodia. Just like the hush ups of troops fragging their own officers, etc.

[Agathon]

I'm surprised that anyone would still want to defend the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war of aggression against all the Vietnamese people, a people who had been trying to liberate themselves from foreign rule for hundreds of years.

It involved terrible atrocities like the carpet bombing of civilians, forced relocations, napalming villages and free fire zones. And it accomplished precisely nothing apart from the deaths of some Americans, the poisoning of the countryside and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It could be because they were a bunch of former TROTSKYISTS! I wouldn't exactly call that right wing thought .

You might ask yourself why you take people who have been so many God damn things for their word? How can you say what they believe in?

[child of Thor]

The problem imho, with these kind of discusion is that it comes down to semantics(sp?), and too many shades of grey.
The Neo-cons have become more open, and wether its actualy correct or not on who is and who isn't a real neo-con, actualy doesnt matter in the real world.

what matters most is that whomever supports the current political ideology of the bush administration deserves to be tared with the same brush. Its roots lie in the Neo-con agenda period.
These people are dangerous to world security, and will cause decent amercians such a backlash from around the world that it may force the hand to put us all in a 'them or us' confrontation(and as americans you will find yourselves progresivly isolated - traditional allies may well desert you).

At heart i think this is what they(neo-cons) want. A winner takes all scenario. The irony of this is that there probably wont be much left worth 'winning'

We should not play these childish games.

[child of Thor]

sorry for the double post, but this kinda helps in the arguement in one way http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4259575.stm.
Fear is on the political agenda, and that comes from neo-con doctrine as a way to further this agenda. Is Donald Rumsfeld a Neo-con or a realist thingy-ma-jig? He sure sounds like he wants to spread fear around, as he did all through the 60's+70's with what the CIA admitted were false claims against the soviet unions capabilities(see my linked thread below for details).

So i dont really care what he calls himself. He is the danger by what he endorses with his words and postion and actions

[child of Thor]

last one:

and when you add this into the mix i hope all the "but what about 911!!!!" crowd(about which i'm with the victims of that one - not taking part in that slightly distastefull thread about 911 recently imho) will think about all the possible little connections

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4255755.stm

[DinoDoc]

/me decides to give Imran something to do other than argue with morons over what the definition is and get to how the theory works

How do you respond to the charge that by going into Iraq we have needlessly tied down our Armed Forces (weakening our ability to deal with other threats) and we have severely weakened our hand in dealing with Iran?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How do you respond to the charge that by going into Iraq we have needlessly tied down our Armed Forces (weakening our ability to deal with other threats) and we have severely weakened our hand in dealing with Iran?

Show me a Neocon that believes this and will tell you that American values are more important so invading Iraq was the better thing to do. Every Neocon will argue that invading Iraq was the best thing for the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
* DinoDoc decides to give Imran something to do other than argue with morons over what the definition is and get to how the theory works

How do you respond to the charge that by going into Iraq we have needlessly tied down our Armed Forces (weakening our ability to deal with other threats) and we have severely weakened our hand in dealing with Iran?

It's actually a good criticism. Frankly, I think the administration has bungled the entire setup and planning of the war. If we could have done it with more allies and a better plan to secure the country, I think we may have seen less of our military tied down there. Of course, that is all speculation (what I believe would happen may not actually happen at all).

I do think we have a problem in dealing with other military threats, but I guess my answer is if Iraq works out (if the administration doesn't **** it up), then it's worth it. It may not be that consoling of an answer, but it's what I can tell you.

As for dealing with Iran, one of the problems is that we haven't worked with the reformers. Iran is an interesting case. It actually DOES have a lot of democratic processes, but with an executive above it which holds all the cards. In some ways it is similar to Turkey, which has the army playing a similar role, though the Ayatollah's meddle much more. I guess with Iran, I would have come at it with a whole different way. I don't think the Iraq invasion by itself would have weakened our hand with Iran, if it wasn't for everything else.

Frankly, I'm not sure I actually answered your questions sufficiently, but it's a good starting point I guess. Perhaps in the end, I really like the theory, but in my heart of hearts realize that it is more difficult in practice.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't think that Rumsfeld is a neocon because at heart he seems to be a decent man.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
is UR defending the US?

No