Imperial America & the Bush Doctrine - What the hell were the neocons smoking?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
With all due respect, XT, who is the big bad wolf? There is no USSR for the EU to fear. No tanks are going to come rolling in from the eastern bloc. True, the Europeans rely on commodities such as oil coming from places where not everyone is singing kumbaya. But is terrorism something that you need a superpower to protect you from or is it a criminal activity that good intelligence and preventive activity can deal with? Let’s say you’re Spain and you want to keep that Arabian oil coming in. Why do they need the US to help them get it?
[/QUOTE]

Why do you think there has to be a big bad wolf Bob? Do you suppose that nations like Iran and North Korea stay within their borders because they are really peace loving peoples? Let me lay out a scenerio here. Lets say that tomorrow there was no US military. Poof, its gone. The world rejoices.

What then? What will nations like Syria, Iran, India, Pakastan, China or our Euro buddies do then? Will they just go merrily on their way? Will Iran and Saudi lay down together in peace and harmony? What of Kuait…will no one dream of taking such a rich and unguarded prize? Will the Russians, peace loving souls that they are, sit poor but happy while still having a decent military capability at their disposal? How about Israel and its merry neighbors? They going to perhaps share some hugs now that big bad America is out of the way?

Without even bothering with terrorism, I can see a dozen places where, but for the threat of the US military and what we COULD do, there is the potential for regional conflict as stronger neighbors eye weaker ones. And who’s to stop them? Who would stop North Korea from pouring across the border into the South? Or threatening Japan, a rich but weak prize? Sure, maybe no one will roll tanks at our Euro buddies…and maybe they will remain peaceful in their word and deed from here on out ( :dubious: ). But if there was a serious conflict in the ME, in Asia, in India/Pakastan, their trade would certainly be disrupted…and they have no means to do anything about it but watch. NONE of them (or anyone else today) have the capability to project military force like the US, except on a regional basis. Europe could certainly defend itself (if it remained united) from external attack…but it couldn’t protect its overseas interests.

I think you (and others) are under estimating the effect the US military and its capabilities has on preventing wide spread regional conflict…and definitely underestimating what the effect of many of those regional conflicts would be on not only the European economy but the world economy as well.

-XT

42

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
But democracy is better than dictatorship, and freedom is better than slavery.
[/QUOTE]

Even if what you say is true (ignoring the fact that there’s 1000degrees of grey between those extremes) what business is it of ours? What right do we have to impose that view on other people?

43

No, xt, I don’t think we are. The Neo-con approach was centered on destabilizing the ME, they just painted a happy face on it, based on the utterly deluded premise that, given their druthers, Achmed Six Pack would opt for a bourgeois parliamentary secular democracy. In other words, they were just like us but hadn’t had the opportunity to express it. And hence, would greet us with bouquests of roses, offering us their daughters, and all the rest of the happy horseshit.

Iraq was a bad, mean, nasty authoritarian, but comparatively stable. Pakistan is also a bad, mean, etc. Stable for the moment, but God alone only knows for how long. Plus, while they’re being just our bestest buddy ever, they were conducting a nuclear Amway sale. Boy, when it comes to spread freedom and democracy, you can’t have a better ally than a military dictatorship. If you’re full of shit, that is.

44

[QUOTE=elucidator]
No, xt, I don’t think we are. The Neo-con approach was centered on destabilizing the ME, they just painted a happy face on it, based on the utterly deluded premise that, given their druthers, Achmed Six Pack would opt for a bourgeois parliamentary secular democracy. In other words, they were just like us but hadn’t had the opportunity to express it. And hence, would greet us with bouquests of roses, offering us their daughters, and all the rest of the happy horseshit.
[/QUOTE]

My apologies…I wasn’t really talking about the neo-con approach/strategy. I was refering to the US in general. I don’t think we have particularly destabalized the ME myself, but again, I wasn’t really speaking to that. Sorry for the hijack.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Iraq was a bad, mean, nasty authoritarian, but comparatively stable. Pakistan is also a bad, mean, etc. Stable for the moment, but God alone only knows for how long. Plus, while they’re being just our bestest buddy ever, they were conducting a nuclear Amway sale. Boy, when it comes to spread freedom and democracy, you can’t have a better ally than a military dictatorship. If you’re full of shit, that is.
[/QUOTE]

I think your characterization that Iraq (and by extension I presume you mean the entire ME) befor the US intervention there is simplistic at best. Wrong would be another way of putting it. All the shit we have unleashed in Iraq was already there, ticking merrily along and would have eventually let loose…with or without us. Couple that with Saddam’s adventurism, Iran’s getting froggy and the periodic dustups between Israel and various of its neighbors, not to mention religous factionalism and I certainly don’t think one could characterize that as ‘stable’…not with a straight face. But, if you want to lay it all at the feet of America and Bush, feel free…you are quite right that your ‘Achmed Six Pack’ does, reguardless of how accurate it is to do so.

-XT

45

[QUOTE=astorian]
Quick: name a single neoconservative who’s ever held a Cabinet position in the Bush White House.
[/quote]

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense and long-time PNAC member.

And while it’s not a Cabinet-level position, I wouldn’t dismiss Vice President Dick Cheney’s neoconservative credentials, either.

46

Perhaps not “top tier,” but there’s little doubt the following gents work/ed for Bush. And what’s worse managed to get their insane policies vis-a-vis the Iraq invasion enacted:

[url=http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html]THE MEMBERS OF PNAC - THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY in the G.W. BUSH Administration!

Warning: Bush apologist will despise the site and do everything in their power to descredit the reporter. However, the pesky facts presented have a way of standing up on their own.

If you’re into Truth, you’ll find THE MEMBERS OF PNAC - THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY in the G.W. BUSH Administration!]this site chockful of it.

Ain’t a pleasent read unless you own one of those superduper secret, Gov-issues rose colored glasses. Then again, these are probably people who hate America and aid and abet your very " enemies". Particularly in pre-invasion Iraq; about one of the most secular govs in the region for many a year. No more of course.

Where does your bloody trail lead to next, Mr Pretend-President?

All empires throught history have had their day of recogning – doubt the US can escape the same fate.

47

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
But you are willing to use force to make other people share yours.

Now I’m not saying you aren’t infallible, and destined by God to bring order to the world, but . . . well, you’re not.

Tris
[/QUOTE]

I don’t want to use force to make other people share my opinions. I just want governments to stop oppressing their people. If they’re democratic, and the government really reflects the popular will, they can believe whatever they want.

48

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I don’t want to use force to make other people share my opinions. I just want governments to stop oppressing their people. If they’re democratic, and the government really reflects the popular will, they can believe whatever they want.
[/QUOTE]
When you say “democratic” what do you mean? Does there have to be a U.S. style system, or would you be willing to accept one of many different kinds of democratic system?

49

[QUOTE=rjung]
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense and long-time PNAC member.
[/QUOTE]

Donald Rumsfeld a neocon? I’m surprised you didn’t say Henry Kissinger. Rumsfeld is a businessman, and so long as it’ll make money, he’ll support it.

50

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
When you say “democratic” what do you mean? Does there have to be a U.S. style system, or would you be willing to accept one of many different kinds of democratic system?
[/QUOTE]

When I say “democratic”, I mean a government that is chosen by the popular will, and which can be changed by the people in an orderly, regularized fashion, and by “liberal”, I mean one that recognizes certain basic human rights, like the freedom to disagree with the government, and make your views publicly known, the freedom to practice your religion (or not practice any) without official harrassment, and the right to have equal access under the law, regardless of your race, religion, ethnic background, or language.

Obviously, a democracy doesn’t have to be a “U.S. style system”, and in fact, most world democracies aren’t…the system of government most common in Europe, for instance, is a parliamentary one, with a strong legislature, where the head of the majority legislative party enjoys de facto executive power so long as he has the approve of the legislature.

51

Fair enough, though i’d add “sexuality” to that list of equal access under the law. And therein lies a problem; everyone has a different idea of what are basic human rights. Do you think the current U.S. administration would foster a democracy in which allowing people to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender, is a basic human right? What about abortion laws?

And of course the difficulty with a democratic system is that it may not be the popular will. What if people prefer a dictatorship? Or a democracy for some, but slavery or similar for others? What’s more important; democracy, or the people’s will? They are not always compatible.

52

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Why do you think there has to be a big bad wolf Bob? Do you suppose that nations like Iran and North Korea stay within their borders because they are really peace loving peoples? Let me lay out a scenerio here. Lets say that tomorrow there was no US military. Poof, its gone. The world rejoices.

What then? What will nations like Syria, Iran, India, Pakastan, China or our Euro buddies do then? Will they just go merrily on their way? Will Iran and Saudi lay down together in peace and harmony? What of Kuait…will no one dream of taking such a rich and unguarded prize? Will the Russians, peace loving souls that they are, sit poor but happy while still having a decent military capability at their disposal? How about Israel and its merry neighbors? They going to perhaps share some hugs now that big bad America is out of the way?
-XT
[/QUOTE]

While I normally rather agree with you

  • in this case not at all

If the USA disappeared tomorrow it would be a problem for China, for about a few hours while they renegotiated quota deals and that would be it.

(Obviously this is not true, there would be financial chaos, markets would collapse and there would be a degree of confusion)

Israel would revert to Mirage jets, possibly Eurofighters (if the damn things work) and the Russians would carry on preparing themselves to being the most affluent ‘Europeans’ that are not exactly in Europe.

India might ask for a forensic examination of the ball that got Pakistan called a bunch of cheating scumbags (I think that cheating is part of cricket nowadays anyway).

Syria will sign a mutual defence pact with France.

There could be a small invasion of Saudi and Kuwait, but it would be led by hookers, delighted that the ruling classes have decided to execute anyone they don’t like without getting castigated on Sat-TV. Saves a lot of hassle being geographically close to the clients.

Oh yes, the UK and France would quietly close down some African wars, just on the basis that some of us were educated with the leaders of some arbitrary faction.

Basically the rest of the world can do without America, nothing personal, no animosity, but it is true.

We used to fight wars you have never heard of, covertly, quietly and with great viciousness.

We really do not need America.

53

[QUOTE=FRDE]
If the USA disappeared tomorrow it would be a problem for China, for about a few hours while they renegotiated quota deals and that would be it.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not talking about trade but the projection of military force beyond a nations local region. China doesn’t have this capability. Neither do the Europeans. Only the US does.

Certainly if the US disappeared tomorrow the Europeans and Chinese could muddle through with trade (though I doubt it would only take a few hours…more like years to fill the gap the US would leave in every other nations trade balance)…but what would the Europeans and Chinese do if the ME exploded? Neither could project sufficient force into the region to make any appreciable difference. And won’t be able to do so for years to come. And this is just the logistics aspects. Neither the Europeans or the Chinese are even close to the US in other combat capabilities…and it would take massive ammounts of money and time for them to get even in the ball park.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
Israel would revert to Mirage jets, possibly Eurofighters (if the damn things work) and the Russians would carry on preparing themselves to being the most affluent ‘Europeans’ that are not exactly in Europe.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I’m not talking about the military hardware the US sells to countries like Israel. I think you are misunderstanding the point I was making here. Certainly Israel isn’t going to collapse because they can’t buy US weapons and systems…Israel already makes many US weapons and systems under license to US companies after all. They may have more problem due to the sudden halting of US aid in the form of money and such, but even that wouldn’t crush them.

However, with no US they would most likely be thrust into a series of regional conflicts…and there would be no US to stand behind them with a big stick. They would stand or fall completely on their own. Even if the Euro’s sympathized and wanted to help ( :dubious: ), there would be very little they could do, materially. Europe simply does not have the capability to project a size-able force much beyond Europe. They rely on the US to do this, they even rely somewhat on the US to provide logistics support to the small forces they DO send hither and yon today. No US, no force projection.

Sure, they could (eventually) build it up…but that would mean spending real money on defense, something many in the EU aren’t willing today to do. After all, it would significantly cut into their socal programs and other entitlements. Could you see, say, France spending what the US does from a GDP standpoint? Germany? Sweden? Norway? Even the UK? Yet they would have to do this, and probably for decades, in order to build the capabilities that would enable them to project significant force beyond Europe. Or they would have to just sit back and hope for the best in regions like the Middle East.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
We used to fight wars you have never heard of, covertly, quietly and with great viciousness.
[/QUOTE]

Preaching to the choir telling me how vicious and nasty you Europeans are. :slight_smile: And I probably HAVE heard of more of those battles than you think. However, some significant things have changed in Europe in the last 50 years. Certainly in the last 20, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I have no doubt that given time Europe COULD re-build its various militaries. But it would require time, effort and most of all money…things I don’t believe the average European citizen are willing to commit too. Certainly not when the US can and is carrying the load for them.

[QUOTE=FRDE]
We really do not need America.
[/QUOTE]

So you say. Hopefully you’ll never have to find out how very wrong you are about that.

-XT

54

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Fair enough, though i’d add “sexuality” to that list of equal access under the law. And therein lies a problem; everyone has a different idea of what are basic human rights. Do you think the current U.S. administration would foster a democracy in which allowing people to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender, is a basic human right? What about abortion laws?
[/quote]

Would it foster it, as in insist on it? Probably not, as (unfortunately), the current US administration doesn’t recognize full equality regardless of sexuality as a basic human right. I don’t think it would actively work against another country doing so, though. We still have good relationships with Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, etc., for instance. But you’re right, deciding what is or is not a right can be tricky, and there’s room for some give there.

To that extent, rights are more important than democracy…which is why I’m saying what needs to be fostered aren’t just democracies, but liberal democracies. We can obviously both point out cases where the majority has been oppressive, which is why there needs to be some framework in place to make sure the minority is protected.

One more thing I may need to stress here. I realize that some of what I’ve been saying, and some of my rhetoric makes it seem like I’m saying there’s some sort of stark dichotomy, with “democracy” on one side and “tyranny” or whatever on the other. Obviously, I don’t believe that’s true. It’s a continuum. Not all dictatorships are the same, and not all democracies are the same. Obviously, even though they’re both autocracies, Jordan is a much freer society than North Korea, to use some extreme examples. The goal is to work to make societies more free, not to just expect them to become free overnight. And this isn’t neccesarily done militarily. There’s a whole variety of approaches, from diplomatic pressure, to trade, to encouraging the democratic trends already existing, and most of all, by example.