After Neoconservatism

S&N, the point I was making wasn't about free trade with China, but the free trade with China and all the money flowing there from us is enabling the Chinese to build up their military force big time, thus, to become the future #1 superpower in the world. It is well documented they are upgrading and building up their military. Anyway, sometimes I forget to define the points I'm trying to make on my posts. Hope that clarifies.

 

Scott,

You may be right but I think a confederacy would just be asking for the country to splinter.

 

Possibly correct. Of course this may be in the calculation. GWB et al may believe that if a free society can be established and people grow accustomed to having a say... that people will eventually turn from Islam.</font>[/QUOTE]Why then is Islam the fastest growing religion in the USA?

 

Because of all the angry young black males and the Islamic recruitment in our jails. An angry religion appeals to those who have anger.

 

No.

we were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on us in the aftermath. Iraq did not attack us. We attacked it.

We attacked it for reported military reasons, though. The point remains: we defeated them militarily and the proper thing to do was to not leave a political vacuum.

No response to other points?

 

Oh, I thought that one of the points of the article was to provoke discussion. Do you agree with everything Fukuyama said? Do you agree with everything else that I said about it? What's the point of posting an article for discussion if you aren't willing to discuss it? Or is it just part of the "Let's see how many pointless threads I can start today" campaign?

 

Neo-cons argue for American World supremacy by whatever means it takes. The thin veneer of claiming that we are spreading democracy has already been shown to be a lie. Do you actually believe a democracy will work in Iraq? Did you see the news tonight about war between the Shi'ites and Sunni's? The civil war is starting.

 

Correct. Yes, I just love John Yoo (I almost said I love Yoo, but figured that would probably beg some clarification)

 

Ken,

Thanks for the further response.

Of course our troops are magnets. But putting them in harm's way in Iraq when the evidence was so flawed was a huge mistake. One that I hope and pray that we do not repeat regarding Iran.

So if there was acceptable evidence of WMD it would not have been a mistake? Given the broad acceptance of that as fact prior to the war by a wide range of folks on "both sides of the aisle" this argument seems a non-starter.

I think the comparison of the Bush administration with Wilsonianism is spot on. I don't see how one cannot see the connection in light of President Bush's second inaugural address.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. There was certainly none of the internationalism that so carried Wilson away.

I don't think that Mr. Fukuyama is blaming Bush for Ahmadinejad's electoral win or the overwhelming electoral victory by Hamas. However, it is true that pushing for democracy can produce results that are potentially detrimental to U.S. interests. That is not to say that we should not encourage democracy but we must be prepared to live with results that we do not forsee and do not like.

Looking back at Fukuyama's statement, you may be right about the first point.

Mr. Fukuyama is simply stating that we will eventually withdraw from Iraq(which we will - like it or not), and that when we do so we must give in to some isolationist tendencies in our nation and withdraw from interacting with the rest of the world.

I don't think the latter necessarily follows from the former, though it will certainly cause second thoughts, rightly or wrongly, about going to war when we feel our security is threatened. As to the latter, I think that as to "interaction", pulling out may necessitate such interaction, if for no other reason than to manage internal and international perceptions about the reason for the pullout and American strength.

President Bush had mentioned democratizing Iraq in the leadup to the war, but it was not emphasized like the "evidence" that Iraq had WMDs.

Democratization was not given as the justification under international law.

Even if we perceive that our use of military power is more "moral" than that of other countries it is foolish for us to expect other countries to regard it in that light.

Do you deny that our use of military power is more moral than that of China or Russia? Other countries are certainly judging our actions by their own views of morality. Why should we not do so? Are we to be guided by theirs or ours in determining what is the right thing to do? No, I'm not saying that is the only thing that gets factored into a calculation of action, but it must certainly be one of the factors.

North Korea is not a part of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked us, North Korea has not. I use the North Korea question to point out the poor logic used by some people in being so concerned about a country such as Iran which doesn't have nuclear weapons(and which I don't believe are trying to develop them) while not talking about bombing or nuking or invading North Korea.

Ken, at what point do you look at your own information? You're the one who told us Iran has 300 underground sites. What in the world do you think they're doing with them? What in the world do you think China is sending them? Do you require a detailed explanation of the military threat that North Korea represents vs. that of Iran? You're comparing apples to oranges but still can't see the difference?

Germany and Japan had attacked the us. We conquered them and install democratic institutions so that they would not attack us, or other nations, again. Iraq had not attacked us. We did not need to invade Iraq. It was a preventive war of choice. And President Bush bears the responsibility for his choice.

As I said before, we attacked Iraq for reported military reasons, though. The point remains: we defeated them militarily and the proper thing to do was to not leave a political vacuum. Maybe I'm missing your point. What is it?

There will not be a world government. Rather we will see a proliferation of organizations such as NATO, OAS, etc., even NGOs, that will work together to solve various problems. The United Nations will not be the one stop place for international cooperation.

Of course I said nothing about world government. Who will oversee the agenda/actions of such organizations? And if that agenda runs counter to our own interests? What if such organizations are paralyzed as IAEA was with Iran, continually giving them "more time" and not going to the Security Council themselves. It is a pipedream to see such "international cooperation" as a panacea for rogue states threatening regional, international, or our own security. Such organizations tend to be paralyzed with the European sickness. We have often done poorly ourselves as with Clinton's "Agreed Framework" with North Korea; we shouldn't have our own actions controlled or threats to our own/alliles' security ignored by do-gooders thinking that tigers change their stripes--even as such tigers sharpen their claws.

 

Ken,

a country such as Iran which doesn't have nuclear weapons(and which I don't believe are trying to develop them)

From "Iran's Nuclear Facilities: a Profile" (Center for Nonproliferation Studies), 1998 available in pdf format:

 

Ken,

a country such as Iran which doesn't have nuclear weapons(and which I don't believe are trying to develop them)

Iran's Nuclear Threat

Carnegie Endowment

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Nuclear Threat Initiative

BAS II

Arms Control Association

CSIS

Don't think they're trying to develop them? Isn't the sand starting to get into your ears yet?

 

Ken makes a good point about being prudent with intelligence.