I guess I'll start with John.
John McCain is a neocon. Neocon diplomacy is basically finding new ways to get the message out that the US is superior, which always goes over so well with the rest of the world…
The League of Democracies is one of his lovely ideas. Kicking out Russia from the G8 until it behaves responsibly is another. Using arrogance and hypocrisy to explain the unnecessary push for US ideological dominance is not an effective way to negotiate anything.
The only reflection his experience has to offer about the failure in Iraq is that we didn’t send enough troops. What about why we went in?
McCain has been 'the champion for the hard-line, neoconservative thinkers" for some time now, so I cant forsee that understanding occuring anytime soon.
http://tinyurl.com/6lkk2l
John McCain and Obama are very similar in their "America has to rebuild our image and reconnect with our allies" talk but I don’t believe McCain can do that. Not only is he a jerk, but he hasn’t acknowledged the failure in (amongst other problems) the ideology that got us into Iraq and Obama has. There is some kind of recognition of our mistakes in the Bush neocon foreign policy with Obama which is another way of saying " I don’t intend to continue with the same approach" on the other hand, John McCain is saying that he will but he will be a better neocon than Bush. He will be successful where Bush failed. With that in mind, I cant imagine how he could possibly “revitalize the country's purpose and standing in the world” witih more of what has ruined it. How will he be a better communicator of "the cause" questionable in intentions that it is, than Bush?
http://tinyurl.com/3b66cb
Neocon foreign policy is never-ending war, never-ending nation building and everyone knows that now.
I think it’s irresponsible, arrogant and idealistic to believe that it could possibly be good for any country in the world.
To have someone in charge that wants to continue down the same destructive path we’ve been taking the Middle East and ourselves for the last 8 years is insane. I don’t know how else to describe it.
It will validate extremism and increase terrorism, and our country’s economic condition will continue to worsen, and the list goes on…
It’s not a necessary foreign policy; it’s not even remotely good.
Not that I agree with your characterization of Neocon diplomacy, but I do suggest it's a fact the US truly is superior to much of the world and it's exactly that fact that much of the world resents. For many of those countries, knocking the US down a peg or two, inflates their national self-esteem and is much easier than rising above their own national problems.
Thank you for the article in Foreign Affairs. I thought it was pretty good, though you failed to explain why you took issue with points he made to which you take issue. Clearly you do not like the League of Democracies, because the UN is so incredibly effective? Frankly, I like a candidate with vision who can articulate change, instead of just calling for it.
Ooooh....scary stuff indeed! And you PROMISED to show me how President McCain has no commitment to diplomacy. I'm still waiting, but grateful you provided McCain's own words on the subject.
<gasp> He's going to use ALL instruments of national power to facilitate peace and defeat terrorism? UNTHINKABLE! But wait, there's more...
Yes, I can see how terrifying it is to have a president with vision, fortitude, and a commitment to correcting years of miscommunication of our country's intentions.
...Now if he will only drill for oil in Alaska and abandon the stupid "Cap and Trade" policies that failed in Europe, I might be more supportive of him.
I'm running out the door, but I had to respond on a couple things here.
Sure if you call "articulating change" a plan for disaster.
How are they supposed to demonstrate to John McCain that they are resisting the "well financed campaign of extremism" ? And what is this going to cost?
Like invading Iraq?
Why is it our job to establish open and tolerant societies in the Middle East? I doubt our version of open and tolerant is going to be the same for middle eastern people anyhow.
Nurture a cultue of hope and economic opportunity? Before or after we invade their country?
Arrogant and Idealistic yet again. How did the middle eastern people ever survive without us.
Actions speak louder than words. Our message has been one of hypocrisy so far.
Dear Candace, i absolutely agree with you
Dear Candace, i absolutely disagree with you
C'mon Roger...if you can't make an intelligent contribution, then go back to your spam. One day I'd like to know what you REALLY think instead of your typically lazy offerings.
That's pretty obvious. Democratic societies have a great deal of visibility. Elections, codified personal freedoms that we (some of us) take for granted, media, etc. are all obvious indicators of the direction of a society.
And what is this going to cost? ...A hell of a lot less in blood and treasure than we paid on 9/11 and the resulting wars.
Because when we don't, we pay the price for our ambivalence elsewhere and sometimes at home. At least by doing through a League of Democracies, it's not just our responsibility or cost.
If we've done the former, there will be no need for the latter, will there?
Yes...it's called the Audacity of Hope.
Still no acknowledgement that you were WRONG about McCain's unwillingness to use diplomacy? You asserted it and provided the article that refuted it, and quietly ignored it.
Go ahead and admit you were wrong. You'll feel better and thank me later.
Thats sweet Mike, but I dont think so. My original comment was this:
and yours:
I have to admit the way you worded your response, and what I knew I said was a bit disorienting.
I thought you were commenting on what I actually said not what you thought I said, so you got me there. Your misunderstanding also looked like something I'd say because I do think what a neocon would call diplomacy the rest of us would refer to as antagonism.. so it was kind of accurate.
I'll get back to the rest of your comment later.
So my misunderstanding was accurate? ...which means there was no misunderstanding. I had you pegged from the beginning.
Ah shucks...that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
What I did was extend the logic of your statement to it's most absurd conclusion to make a point. No president will forego diplomacy. But your response is to qualify "Neocon diplomacy" as "antagonism." I assume you mean something along the lines of "gunboat diplomacy" but that's too superficial.
I tend to think McCain is more along the lines of, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The soft approach outlined in the article to nurture tolerance is balanced with the understanding that we need to maintain strength to deter and when necessary, counter terrorist aggression.
Hey you try posting wtih 4 kids running around you asking for different things and getting into stuff because youre online.
No you didn't. You misread what I said and assumed I was talking about something I wasnt, and now you're embarrassed and are for some reason becoming increasingly antagonistic, or is it that diplomatic?
I was stupid enough to post something while being very distracted with whats going on here a couple of times and now you think you have some kind of victory and don't want to talk about anything else. It's getting a little boring for me over here. Can we move on now? Is that ok with you?
Hilarious. You've got to be kidding me. You can also say he's young and friendly and just because you say it, it certainly doesn't mean its the truth.
That sounds like you are talking about Obama. Maybe there's hope for you yet. [i]haha.. see what I did there?[/i] :-)
a video about McCain and Iraq.
Dear Roger,
It's not important if we agree on the topic discussed, only that we share our point of view honestly and in mutual respect. That is an intelligent contribution upon which we could agree. However nicely offered, even your latest offering fails to offer any relevance to the topic at hand.
Lot's of sunshine and candy canes and all that sort of crap,
Your bestest buddy,
IM
I'm hardly embarrassed--more like amused and puzzled why you think I'm antogonistic for daring to not let your assertions go unchallenged. If I misread your original statement, you perpetuated the misunderstanding with more absurd (distracted) assertions like these...
It's bizarre how so many people think that John McCain--due to his supposed Maverick status that has nothing to do with his foreign policy- would be anything other than a more violent version of Bush.
What has McCain said or done that would give me the impression he has patience for diplomacy in the Middle East, or wants to lead us in that direction? He's pretty intent on giving the opposite impression. Don't you think so? Isn't that one of the things you and the rest of his supporters like about him?
...which paint a consistent theme that McCain does not have the patience for diplomacy, but are not as consistent with evidence to support those opinions.
It's clear that you are unaccustomed to being held accountable for your positions; I am not. It's what I do for a living and my positions are challenged constantly. I come here to sharpen those skills. It's not antagonistic and not personal.
So if you are bored and want to move on, that's okay with me. But don't expect me to let positions with which I disagree to go unchallenged--especially if you provide no supporting evidence. I'm not being antagonistic (as you suggest), just doing due diligence on behalf of conservatives everywhere.
You are so full of shit .You never discuss anything of substance you are a propaganda man, just like all of the wingnuts I've ever talked to here.
see ya.
I see.
And this is your example of a discussion of "substance?"
you got something funny weird about me. Just wow.
I guess theres no one on this site who can defend John McCain's plans for a foreign policy. I understand. It is indefensible.
It makes me wonder how anyone could vote for this guy.
You mean you GAVE me something funny weird about you. C'mon Candace, lighten' up and have a sense of humor. If I tease you, it's meant all in fun. I'm not trying to bait or offend you. I respect your opinion and the challenges you face as a mother.
What is there to defend with McCain's foreign policy? He outlined his positions very well in the article YOU provided (which I appreciate by the way).
I know you don't like to be challenged, but I DID answer your questions to which you never replied.
Quote:
How are they supposed to demonstrate to John McCain that they are resisting the "well financed campaign of extremism" ?
That's pretty obvious. Democratic societies have a great deal of visibility. Elections, codified personal freedoms that we (some of us) take for granted, media, etc. are all obvious indicators of the direction of a society.
And what is this going to cost? ...A hell of a lot less in blood and treasure than we paid on 9/11 and the resulting wars.
Quote:
Why is it our job to establish open and tolerant societies in the Middle East?
Because when we don't, we pay the price for our ambivalence elsewhere and sometimes at home. At least by doing through a League of Democracies, it's not just our responsibility or cost.
Quote:
Nurture a cultue of hope and economic opportunity? Before or after we invade their country?
If we've done the former, there will be no need for the latter, will there?
Quote:
Arrogant and Idealistic yet again
Yes...it's called the Audacity of Hope.
I'm sorry, did you have a reply that I missed--a "discussion of substance" of course? I know you have a lot of distractions so perhaps you'd like to address them one at a time.
wha teva. I was hoping someone else would respond.
repost:
Its always nice to have any good news from Iraq what I have a problem with is when this good news is used to defend the invasion and any other plans that have a similar look to them. As if "see, it was all worth it" when it absolutely was not. point Z, might turn out to be an awesome place to be in 100 years but we could have taken a far more humane approach initially in trying to get there.
I have to wonder why McCain and his supporters want patience for war to work but are not willing to accept the same request for diplomacy.
So much disinformation is regurgitated about McCain's foreign policy positions, it makes me wonder if critics actually spend ANY time to read his positions before launching the "Neocon hysteria canard."
Based on the substantial foreign policy speech he gave in March 2007 to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, the following is a brief summary of positions that are pretty moderate--hardly the Neocon monster suggested by Leftist bloggers and pundits.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/872473dd-9ccb-4ab4-9d0d-ec54f0e7a497.htm
The American Role
McCain acknowledges that the days of American dominance over world affairs are past; other countries are gaining significant power. He says the United States must remain politically, economically, and militarily strong. "But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish," he said.
The War Experience
McCain discusses his personal experience with war from the day his father was swept away into World War II to his own days in Vietnam. "I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description," he said. And this blunts one the main charges used against McCain, namely that he is the candidate of "war without end" including another hundred years in Iraq.
Belief in Internationalism
McCain expresses belief in "international good citizenship." He calls for a new Kyoto Treaty, a new partnership among the countries of North and South America, a strong NATO, reorganization of the G-8, and a new Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. He calls for creating, "...a global coalition for peace and freedom - if we lead by shouldering our international responsibilities and pointing the way to a better and safer future for humanity, I believe we will gain tangible benefits as a nation."
Tough on Allies
McCain says the United States has supported "autocrats" for too long, and we need to start supporting democracies. He wants America to rely less on "...the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family." He would like to exclude Russia from G-8 and add in Brazil and India.
Difference From Bush Administration
The difference in both tone and substance from the Bush Administration is striking. No president, Republican or Democratic, has ever reframed America's role in the world quite this way. Unlike President Bush, John McCain seems not to think "treaty" is a dirty word. And conservatives have long been loathe to imply that U.S. action in the world is in any way limited by the wishes or advice of other countries.
Conservative Split Highlighted
The GOPUSA blog offered a stinging critique of the speech, "What McCain is saying is that American interests are now up for veto by the collective 'world body' and we must always get permission before action is taken." The blog goes on to say that McCain's views are neither conservative nor Republican. Conservative columnist David Brooks, on the other hand, wrote highly of the speech in his New York Times column, saying McCain "...signaled that the foreign policy debate of the coming months will be very different from the one of the past six years." http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/b/2008/03/28/the-mccain-speech.htm
These are so "scary" that even Democrats like Lieberman can get behind them.
Joe Lieberman, the neocon is scarier.
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2758
Now Joe Lieberman is a Neocon? You're kidding, right? Is there ANY conservative Republican, Democrat, or Independent that you do not tar with the Neocon brush? Can you name one?...especially since you previously claimed to be more conservative than me.
I've read the foreign affairs article and the speech many times. It's the same message. War: its not our fault, there are some people out there that hate the west and we have to kill every one of them.
But anyway, here are a few bits from the speech:
We will demonstrate the virtues of freedom and democracy by creating [b]international institutions[/b] to advance peace and freedoms we cherish? This will attract others to our cause? What a load of crap.
What about what we do at home?
Responsibility to Americans first! He continually implies >fix America by fixing all the countries that do not think like us< which is outrageously stupid.
We get to sacrifice our freedoms (links will be provided if necessary) so you neocon bastards can give "freedoms" and "democracy" to other countries that don't want you there?
Gee, I wonder what advance our values is supposed to mean and what methods are going to be used.
How do you advance your values in areas of the world where there is a common belief that we're immoral?
And what is our shared interests that we need to defend? Oil? What is it?
What about the collective will of Middle Eastern countries and any others that don't want to be like us? Do we need to listen to their views and respect them? Or is anyone against us a terrorist?
I didn't know that the only way to define conservative was by eagerness to use irresponsible force, or by the lack of tolerance for different opinions, lifestyle culture etc. or by how willing you are to follow politicians who call themselves a conservative, but apparently that is the case.. with neocons anyway.
Strange that you were only commented on my reference to Joe as a neocon and said nothing about the article. Maybe you agree that Hagee should be compared to Moses.
I said nothing about the article because I found nothing worth commenting on. The comparisons between Hagee and Moses were gratuitous and out of context. You said nothing about my Hosanna Obama article, does that mean you agree with author about the anointed one? Silence does not necessarily imply agreement.
You mean you dont see the irony there? Are you pretending to be stupid in order to troll me or are you just trying to troll me?
" Perhaps above all, leadership in today’s world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation." (JM speech)
The best way to lead is by example not by force.
And why do we need a league of democracies? There is no need for it - unless you need an institution to help promote war when ou encounter resistance.
Is the league of democracies going to decide when we go to war?
If we have a problem with our democracy then we need to fix it at home. Our problems are not a result of democracy missing in other countries.
until theres resistance.
And you neocons dont have any beliefs about the middle east based on your religion or polical agendas?
So you are going to impose a society that states its ok to do the wrong thing in the Middle East [i]peacefully[/i]? The land of social conservatism? What if popular opinion disagrees with you? Then what happens to their democratic rights?
In other words: anyone who resists is a terrorist
How haven't they? Who's threatening our democracy?
I'll answer what you said about Joe later
How haven't they? Who's threatening our democracy?
Hello? Two attacks on the WTC, USS Cole, Embassy bombing ring a bell with you? You demand we listen to their views and respect them and deny us reciprocity? Should our respect for their views include radical Islam requiring conversion or death? Or do you cherry pick the views we should respect. Smart move--don't get too specific. Are you sure you're not a foreign policy advisor to Nobama?
Candace: In other words: anyone who resists is a terrorist
In other words, anyone who tries to KILL us is a terrorist. If they wish to resist peacefully, I support their rights to do so. Protest, pray, elect like-minded legislators, are all good democratic examples for us and them.
I said nothing about "imposing a society" at all--more of your distractions (or trolling). I advocated peaceful trade and promotion of democratic values, but acknowledge the downside of democracy---that you cannot have free will and choice without some people making the choice to do wrong. That is not advocacy for doing wrong and you know it.
What if popular opinion disagrees with me? Whose popular opinion are you talking about. If their popular opinion disagrees, then fine...trade with some other country. If domestic public opinion disagrees with me, then we'll have President Nobama.
Repost: And as long as they don't try to kill us, then we can afford to live and let live. But the fact remains that many of these countries have few resources EXCEPT their oil and they cannot eat it; they have to trade with the world community if they want our goods and services. That means they need to listen to OUR views and respect them.
Your responses say a LOT about your ideology and soundly disprove your absurd assertion that you are more conservative than me. Were that true, you would be starting a thread about Nobama's foreign policy instead of slapping pejorative "Neocon" labels on McCain, crudely deriding anyone who supports him with ad hominem attacks as "assholes", and arguing emotional Left wing rhetoric instead of facts.
"John McCain is a neocon."
"Words cannot describe how much I loathe neocons and their asshole supporters."
I have been consistent and so has McCain. In a nutshell, peaceful trade and promotion of democratic values; apply force to counter force when diplomacy fails. No threat, no force. It's pretty simple. To quote YOU, "Are you pretending to be stupid in order to troll me or are you just trying to troll me?" You are doing exactly what you accuse TT of doing. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I didnt read the Hosana article and havent commented on it. you commented on my post about Joe Lieberman and all you found interesting enough to comment on was that I called Joe a neocon, when I probably should have called him insane. comparing Hagee to Moses.
And that's why I would say Moses and Miriam were fortunate that they did not live in the merciless attack-counterattack political culture of our time which would undoubtedly have stressed their shortcomings and ignored their great deeds. I can only imagine what the bloggers of their day would have had to say about Moses and Miriam.
It's easy to condemn someone you don't know. It's easy to take to the airwaves, or type up a blog post, and just like that, write off the life and work of another human being you've never met, on the basis of a sound bite you just heard or an old video you have just seen. That is the world that we live in."
Joe, as everyone knows, has been a strong advocate of bombing Iran.
from the AEI way back in 2006
TO: My Fellow Neoconservatives
FROM: Joshua Muravchik
RE: How to Save the Neocons Operation Comeback
Gosh! even Joe Lieberman? Fascinating.
Mike,
Yes, the US is ‘superior’ to many countries
around the world in many important ways, but also inferior to many countries in
other important ways. That this is a fact isn’t much in doubt but
what is is that this ‘superiority’ has created worldwide envy that has
manifested itself in harsh criticism, or worse, for your country. In fact, I
would suggest it is you who is angry at most of the world, probably because
you’re too damn proud and don’t want to recognize that things aren’t going so well for your country, so you conveniently, and cowardly, blame the rest of the world for all your
countries problems, nice.
Candace, I’m hoping your fellow Americans
are as angry as you are when the head to the polling booth.
Chris,
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was "angry at most of the world" but I agree with you the US is superior to many (if not most) countries around the world in many important ways. And yes, the US may be inferior in some ways, depending on whose measurements (moral, legal, socio-economic, political, etc.) are used. "Superior" is a value judgement with no absolute value.
Acknowledging this as a fact might be perceived by some as arrogant or prideful, but the simple truth it's just stating a fact, especially in the areas of science and military capability few countires can rival the US, but also in personal liberty, codified freedoms, and opportunity for creation of personal wealth.
Nor are these facts easily borne by some countries of the world whose value systems and social mores are much different than ours. I don't "blame the rest of the world" because that's too broad a brush. There are regimes in the world who wish us harm, some who are merely envious, and some who hold the key to solving some of our domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Things are not going as well as I'd like in my country, but our employment rate is still better than most of Europe and despite forecasts, we have yet to experience even ONE quarter of negative growth. Our poor are better off than the middle class of some countries. It's all a matter of perspective.
That's threatening our democracy?
Cherry picking Middle Eastern views = Middle Eastern collective will?
And anyway, you're the one who replied that we should respect their views "Absolutely! As long as no one tries to kill us" Are you anticipating resistance?
What scenario are you talking about (involving the league of democracies) that would cause you to lose your respect for Middle Eastern views: Absolutely!
Resist what?
An attack on the sovereign US or embassies is an attack on our nation's security and the security of our democracy.
Middle Eastern collective will? That's a rather broad generalization or just ignorant given the size of the middle east and the cultures and nations contained within. Israel is part of the Middle East; do you include them in your broad brush of ME collective will? How about Turkey, Bahrain, UAE?
How soon you forget that it was YOU who raised the issue of resistance with the comment,
Candace: In other words: anyone who resists is a terrorist
YOU suggested that McCain equated resistance with terrorism when nothing could be further from the truth. I reminded you that resistance can be peaceful and democratic. You cannot achieve 100% consensus anywhere on anything. Yes--there will be resistance by some to trade with the US, and yes--there will be personal agendas that resist democracy, and yes--as long as they are peaceful, they do not constitute a threat.
are as angry as you are when the head to the polling booth.
Me too. I hope they are angry enough to pull the level for McCain instead of being suckered by Nobama.
Mike,
Recognizing that one is superior should come
with the acceptance of greater responsibility and a higher set of standards, I
know that’s why I hold your country to a higher standard than most. That you
accept certain actions by your government that are borderline third-world
countryesque, (you know what I mean) while shamelessly vocalizing your country’s
superiority is porbably what makes you seem overly prideful and arrogant.
An attack on the sovereign US or embassies is an attack on our nation's security and the security of our democracy. IM
No it isnt. That makes no sense whatsover. Explain to me how it is attacking the security of our democracy - where creating a league of democracies is necessary.
Middle Eastern collective will? That's a rather broad generalization or just ignorant given the size of the middle east and the cultures and nations contained within. Israel is part of the Middle East; do you include them in your broad brush of ME collective will? How about Turkey, Bahrain, UAE? IM
Aha so YOU believe we should cherry pick, I see.
What happens if they want to trade with us but "resist democracy" What happens if they want democracy but the popular opinion is to not trade with the US? What will the L.O.D do then?
How are we, or now acting as the league of democracies going to bring democracy or trade to Middle Eastern countries that will cause anyone in the Middle East to think they need to resist? Can you explain that?
Supposedly this league of democracies was evidence to you that McCain could articulate change.
Why do we need the league of democracies? And will the decisions of this league override the will of the American people? If not, (explain how it wont) what kind of authority or influence will the league of democracies have over our military?
How will the creation of this organization help secure Americans if John McCain wants to create opportunities for resistance in other parts of the world.
You said we should use force after diplomacy fails or resistance to democracy/trade turns violent. What is the situation youre talking about that will warrant diplomacy and if it failed we would use force. What kind of force? How would this force help promote democracy and open trade. ( I wasnt aware that we had any problems with that. Are you talking about oil?) And how does this shed light on your support for the league of democracies?
IM,
I'll be checking back here periodically to see if you were able to answer any of my questions.
I hit the send button and the OD server burped and all was lost. It was brilliant of course. Too busy with my real job to reconstitute right now--will re-post later.
Candace,
You’re mixing apples and oranges. An attack on the US is an attack on the sovereignty and security of the nation and consequently, it is our democracy that is placed at stake. LOD is a different issue.
Middle Eastern collective will? That's a rather broad generalization or just ignorant given the size of the middle east and the cultures and nations contained within. Israel is part of the Middle East; do you include them in your broad brush of ME collective will? How about Turkey, Bahrain, UAE? IM
Aha so YOU believe we should cherry pick, I see.
First you create a nonsensical term, “Middle Eastern collective will” and when I challenge the validity of the term, you accuse ME of cherry picking? Okay…”wha teva” as you like to say.
Another non-issue. They can resist democracy all they want---I don’t care as long as their “resistance” is not in the form of a violent attack upon US sovereignty or interests. If they do not want to trade with us, that’s their business. But the reality in the ME is their primary commodity is oil and if they want to sell it on the open global market to the highest bidder, they will have to trade with the west, including us. The LOD’s role will provide diplomatic and economic incentives that will overcome reluctance to trade.
Sure I can explain that. We aren’t going to “cause” anyone to think they need to resist. People choose what to think. There will always be those who “choose” to resist democracy for a wide variety of personal, religious, or political agendas. So what?
We need the LOD because the UN is impotent to effect significant change. Fifteen years of sanctions failed to produce change Iraq…a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The LOD provides an opportunity for leadership of like-minded democracies to leverage their collective economic and diplomatic power to foster peaceful trade and promotion of democratic values. I see no LOD authority or influence over our military unless some multilateral agreement comes about along the lines of a NORAD type agreement. I haven’t seen that proposed, have you?
I disagree with the premise of the question. I don’t believe John McCain WANTS to create opportunities for resistance…and resistance to what?…democracy? Asked and answered. More distractions without substance.
Iran is a good example of such a situation. Currently we are employing diplomatic and economic pressure (sanctions and incentives) while reserving military options. What kind of force? That force necessary to achieve the desired end state. Force is designed to eliminate threats; promotion of democracy and trade is only possible before war or post-hostility reconstruction. Ever heard of the Marshall plan?
So what you’re saying is the creation of the LOD is for
1. International ideological and economic dominance, by force if necessary
2. Overrule the UN when it gets in our way, to push aside anyone or country who disagrees with what we want to do.
I wonder what kind of alliance Russia and China will make in response to this league.
Reforming the UN would make a lot more sense than creating this organization.
We need to export democracy about as much as Muslims need to export Sharia law to the west. But hey if there are enough people who want sharia law in one of these democracies, we should liberate them and make sure they get what they want. I’m sure Americans will want to send their kids for that cause.
I have an idea let's make an international democracy entitlement fund! The rest of the world is too stupid to know how to create changes they dont know they want, so we can send them all checks after Al Qaeda follows us into their country and they have 100 years of terrorism to look forward to. We’ll remove all of those unnecessary programs in the Us that help Americans, and give it to them for all of their troubles they will now have to live with because of our innocent good natured plans - all the while we will cut taxes for the rich who regardless of how much they invest in companies around the world, and employ illegal immigrants for their economic growth, the rest of us won’t be able to buy their shit until China sends us some money to spend! Yaay China!
*ahem anyhow, on to my most well received opendemocracy discussion:
As far as Iran goes we created the current problem. I don’t see Iran occupying Canada or Mexico. Does Iran have their military in either country threatening or suggesting regime change at different times in the last 4 years after destroying either country?
Iran is easy to understand. They are most concerned about their security which is why they are ignoring demands to stop enriching uranium. They want some nuclear deterrence too. I’m sure that supplying Saudi Arabia with nuclear technology hasn’t helped convince them of the purity of western intentions either.
If Iran is Israel’s greatest enemy we should be trying to be friendly with their government with the intention of diluting that threat for Israel. One public meeting announcement the need for us to get along with Iran (simply put) without all of the nonsense of not taking any option off the table, would do more to decrease the problems with Iran than any sanction.
We should get between them not make things more dangerous for Israel or Iran – which is the current reality for Israel due to the Bush administrations irresponsible direction and actions in the Middle East.
Neocons of the world: Dont you love my plans?
I think the war on terror should be declared over with. There should be efforts against terrorism - all covert - and I don't want to hear about this nonsense anymore.
It time to focus on improving this country.
I just felt like a politician... theres a song in there somewhere.
The most damning criticism of McCain's plan is that it would launch a new cold war between states labeled democracies and autocracies. This is not only dangerous, but incoherent. Russia and China do not "threaten" the "free world" with a powerful ideology and massive armed forces, as they did during the Cold War.
Moreover, on issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation and climate change, America needs Russia and China. Stigmatizing these states as pariahs will not get them on board. (China must learn to behave "responsibly," McCain declares with breathtaking condescension.) In fact, Russia has mostly cooperated with the U.S. in the "war on terrorism."
The world already has a peace-maintaining institution. The UN was created under rules designed to enable states of different political colors to live together. Members accept the obligation not to use force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. The U.S. is frustrated by not being able to get its way at the UN. But the UN exists to protect all states from lawless behavior, including by the U.S. By implicitly bypassing the UN and dividing the world into two armed camps, the league of democracies would increase the risk of war.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996688.html
1. International ideological and economic dominance, by force if necessary
2. Overrule the UN when it gets in our way, to push aside anyone or country who disagrees with what we want to do.
I'm guessing you had problems with the reading comprehension part of the SAT. I said or implied neither of these conclusions.
The LOD in McCain's own words.
"This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to realize this vision.
No where is there any mention of force. I speculated that some type of multi-lateral agreement along the lines of NORAD (which is strictly defensive if you were unaware) MIGHT evolve, but acknowledged that I have never seen anything from McCain on that.
The more I read what McCain is saying about the LOD, the less likely I think any multi-lateral military agreement is in his vision, especially since his goal is for LOD to complement, not supplant the UN. Strengthening NATO provides the military alliances necessary for defense.
Not true. Iran has adamantly defended their nuclear program as strictly peaceful energy production, not defense. Don't you believe them? You think they may be lying about that? If so, what else are they lying about? Do you think they may be lying about any other parts of their agenda that you've bought into?
No offense...but your plans are irrelevant (and so are mine). The only plans of relevance here are Obama's and McCains. Since you clearly do not support McCain, please make the case for Obama's foreign policy...if you can. It was YOU who started this thread with...
When do you plan to move on to YOUR candidate? If you do not support McCain, you are by default supporting Obama because voting any third option will simply be a default vote for either Obama or McCain. Or join forces with our resident anarchist Sprawlkills and rebel impotently by refusing to vote.
I started a thread dedicated to a discussion of Obama's foreign policy, but I notice you have yet to post. Don't be afraid; I'll be gentle...Muah hah hah! <evil Neocons lurking in the shadows, laughing gleefully in anticipation>
It is also specious to argue that collective action by a group of democracies (when the UN is unable to act) would enjoy international legitimacy. The legitimacy of democracies comes from the consent of the governed; when they act outside their own countries, no such legitimacy applies. The reason that decisions of the UN enjoy legitimacy across the world lies not in the democratic virtue of its members, but in its universality. The fact that every country in the world belongs to the UN and participates in its decisions gives the actions of the UN - even that of a security council in urgent need of reform - a global standing in international law that no more selective body can hope to achieve.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/27/unitednations.usa
I disagree. Democratic societies elect leaders to represent them at home and abroad. They do not lose the legitimacy of that representation abroad; that's when the representation is most important.
It's also why it's so impotent to effect change--competing ideologies and interests. Since the LOD (with like-minded ideology and interests) is designed to complement, not supplant the UN, there is an opportunity for synergy not competition.
Now then. When are you going to deal with the REAL issue instead of cutting and pasting other people's work?
When do you plan to move on to YOUR candidate? If you do not support McCain, you are by default supporting Obama because voting any third option will simply be a default vote for either Obama or McCain. Or join forces with our resident anarchist Sprawlkills and rebel impotently by refusing to vote.
I started a thread dedicated to a discussion of Obama's foreign policy, but I notice you have yet to post.
I think the idea of a League of Democracies is excellent. There is a huge difference between a democracy and a tyranny, and it is a tragedy that this point has to be made on a site such as this. It is easy for those who enjoy the benefits of democracy to mouth off - between baking cookies and jumping in the 4x4 to collect the kids from baseball practise - about not promoting these values to countries where the jackbooted dictator holds sway. Had it not occurred that some of the problems in the Middle East are caused because in all those societies there is no democratic outlet for political discontent. There are huge differences between democracies themselves, but there is not a day that dawns when I for one am not thankful that I am a subject of Queen Elizabeth II, rather than a subject of a tyrant like Saddam Hussain. Perhaps some who post on here would benefit from reading the writings of Sir Isaiah Berlin.
You have a problem with cutting and pasting other peoples work? Since when?
I enjoyed reading what I posted and I hoped you would too..
starting to sweat eh?
Oh is that what I would be doing!
That default argument is meaningless to me. I have one vote. I If i choose to vote for someone outside of that vast pool of two then that would be who I am voting for.
I have no idea when I'm going to discuss Obama. I've alread spent too much time on this thread and this isnt my job. I'm doing this on my own time. I guess the answer would be: whenever I feel like it.
You know the LOD is being created to get China and Russia as well as the UN out of our way in order to take action against Iran and any other country we feel the need to fix.
There is no other reason to create this organization.
You can continue with your shameless denial of probable reactions and try to defend the righteousness of the cause; (same argument for terrorism) reminiscent of how the war in Iraq was sold to us but you would be wrong- just like you were wrong about invading Iraq.
Two thumbs down for McCains arrogant, naive and ultimately dangerous idea to create a League of Democracies.
Owly
Well said. One of the greatest epiphanys of my life was serving in third world nation where the people who lived there did not have the freedom to speak their minds and their idea of luxury was a home without a dirt floor. It gave me new appreciation for the definitions of "freedom" and "poverty" which are not truly understood in my country. The difference between us and them is we had freedom of choice; they did not. Success or failure is our own responsibility, not a circumstance of birth.
You are right. How ironic the concept of a League of Democracies would find opposition on a site entitled Open Democracy. I always thought support of democracy was an underlying assumption of those who come here to debate. Well...perhaps with the exception of BC, of course.
Candace,
Hard to believe you are ignorant of the spoiler effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect
The US does not have a coalition government. With a two-party system, your choices are limited and a vote otherwise is a vote to be marginalized.
That's why McCain is my 70% solution and Nobama is my 2% solution. The rest are 0% solutions since none have any possibility of being elected--they can only be spoilers for one or the other major parties.
What I know is your paranoia is showing. I see the LOD as one of McCain's smarter ideas and like the idea of such an organization being able to influence areas in which the UN is impotent.
starting to sweat eh?
Nah...starting to get bored. I'd like someone in love with Obama to defend his candidacy. Ron's arguments are confined to how important is the "inspiration" of his campaign and why that's more important than substance.
Surely there's more to Obama else his 15 minutes of fame will burn out before the fall. Already, there is talk of "Obama Fatigue" and it's suspicious why the presumptive Democrat nominee is not able to trounce the Republican candidate in the polls. Hillary is waiting in the wings for a fall surprise with hints of a roll call vote for her supporters. Should the voting move to the second round without Obama being nominated, she still has a shot. Now THAT's something to talk about.
Yeah I know about the spoiler affect. I thought I answered this earlier. It doesn't influence my decision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2TJWvuNJOQ
ah heck. I'll throw this one in too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns&NR=1
Candace,
I think your paranoia is worsening. There was nothing alarming in either of these sound bites.
The first one made an excellent case for the LOD, emphasizing the Iranian economy is fragile and vulnerable to economic sanctions coupled with diplomacy.
I assumed, since we had been debating whether LOD would use military force or not, that when you referred to "take action against Iran" you meant use of force. If you now mean peaceful action such as economic sanctions, incentives, and diplomacy, then I'm in full agreement with your statement.
With China and Russia embedded in Iran, they will thwart efforts of the UN to take such action, rendering the UN as impotent as ever. Economic sanctions could only be effectively applied by the LOD and would require the economic might of a united LOD to make sanctions exceed the spending power of China and Russia to achieve the desired leverage.
The difference between us is, I think it's a great idea and that we are entitled to use our united democratic economies as a tool to shape the world into a safer, more prosperous world with more individual liberty. Or is that reserved only for a pampered west?
This is peaceful change that I would think you'd support. Oh that's right, you still think Iran is simple and non-threatening. Good luck with that.
The second one acknowledges that we are in a difficult war, we are likely to face war in the future, and we have an obligation to treat our wounded. Sounds reasonable to me. You think perhaps the US will not face any war under any circumstance in the future? That's pretty utopian. Or perhaps you think we do not have an obligation to provide any and all medical treatment to those who are wounded defending YOUR freedom?
Post new comment