Neo-Conservatism and Iran? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 14 years ago
#41
(Original post by Incomplete)
Bush should not claim to be acting in a fashion which is morally correct when it clear his policies are bases on realpolitk.
i) realpolitik and morality are not mutually exclusive.
ii) his policies arent clearly based on realpolitik
iii) Bush makes no claim that morality is his primary concern.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 14 years ago
#42
(Original post by Incomplete)
oh bully for him, why do you have show a clear emerging threat?
and for the stake of stability? are you joking
Iraq is less stable now than ever before in the last 10 years
politicians see the world in terms of decades and centuries, not months and weeks. Bush also referred to global and regional stability, not that of Fallujah or Najaf.
establishing a democracy in the middle east will over time stabilise the region and improve the growing security issue. he is determined to tackle the terrorist problem at source. I would have thought, as a critic of Putin, that you would recognise the foresight of this policy, contrasting with the negligence, stubbornness and denial of the Kremlin.

Isreal knows it has US support what ever it does and hence is seriously threaterning the balance of power leading to more years of conflict.
you would think :cool: :rolleyes:
Israel knows that the US will always defend its right to exist. Im surprised to see someone such as yourself come out with such a loose and inaccurate comment. The US has been as much a critic of Israeli foreign policy as it has been willing to defend its position.
I would not think this was causing any imbalance of power, no.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report 14 years ago
#43
(Original post by vienna95)
i) realpolitik and morality are not mutually exclusive.
ii) his policies arent clearly based on realpolitik
iii) Bush makes no claim that morality is his primary concern.
1. they are in this case
2. yes they are, Bush's only concerns are american security threats.
3. ^ obviously
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#44
Report 14 years ago
#44
(Original post by vienna95)
politicians see the world in terms of decades and centuries, not months and weeks. Bush also referred to global and regional stability, not that of Fallujah or Najaf.
establishing a democracy in the middle east will over time stabilise the region and improve the growing security issue. he is determined to tackle the terrorist problem at source. I would have thought, as a critic of Putin, that you would recognise the foresight of this policy, contrasting with the negligence, stubbornness and denial of the Kremlin.
decades and centuries? so that is why the US looked at the long term aims of its policy in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq and Iran in the 60's and 70's. Their actions in these countries led to greater instablity, terrorist groups being formed and were not thought out.
(Original post by vienna95)
Israel knows that the US will always defend its right to exist. Im surprised to see someone such as yourself come out with such a loose and inaccurate comment. The US has been as much a critic of Israeli foreign policy as it has been willing to defend its position.
I would not think this was causing any imbalance of power, no.
You wouldn't. Its my belief that stability when large number of people are involved can only come about when the long term problems of the conflict are addressed, Bush does not do this. A policy of only side is right is not going to help anyone.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 14 years ago
#45
(Original post by Incomplete)
1. they are in this case
hardly. his policies are equally pragmatic as they are motivated by his moral sense. that has been the consistent point made in relation to the two passages pasted here.

2. yes they are, Bush's only concerns are american security threats.
again, this is contrary to what he asserts in both passages and the points that have been made.

3. ^ obviously
"should not claim to be acting in a fashion which is morally correct "

so you dont believe it is his primary concern, but do believe he is claiming to act in a fashion that is morally correct, yet believe that morals and realpolitik are mutually exclusive in this case?
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 14 years ago
#46
(Original post by vienna95)
hardly. his policies are equally pragmatic as they are motivated by his moral sense. that has been the consistent point made in relation to the two passages pasted here.
he has a moral sense? wow that is a big claim
(Original post by vienna95)
again, this is contrary to what he asserts in both passages and the points that have been made.
see below
(Original post by vienna95)
"should not claim to be acting in a fashion which is morally correct "

so you dont believe it is his primary concern, but do believe he is claiming to act in a fashion that is morally correct, yet believe that morals and realpolitik are mutually exclusive in this case?
in the case of Bush's FP I think that he spins an image of a policy that is based on morality in his actions yet it clear that is just a screen to hid his narrow interest in security.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 14 years ago
#47
(Original post by Incomplete)
decades and centuries? so that is why the US looked at the long term aims of its policy in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq and Iran in the 60's and 70's. Their actions in these countries led to greater instablity, terrorist groups being formed and were not thought out.
um, hence the context of his policies? he actually points this out, and uses it as a platform, in the passages pasted here.

You wouldn't. Its my belief that stability when large number of people are involved can only come about when the long term problems of the conflict are addressed, Bush does not do this.
Bush is the first US president to address a peace policy based on a two state solution that would afford the Palestinians their own state and sovreignity and withdraw Israel to land defined per the 'green line'. According to Palestinian sympathisers, of which I believe you are one, the Palestinians are only motivated by what they see as an occupation of their land. Affording them theyre own legitimate and internationally recognised state is about as long term as one could hope for. Unless you consider the destruction of the State of Israel to be a feasible alternative?

A policy of only side is right is not going to help anyone.
Thankfully this is not one taken by the Bush administration. Inaccurate simplifications of the matter dont further the debate.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 14 years ago
#48
(Original post by vienna95)
um, hence the context of his policies? he actually points this out, and uses it as a platform, in the passages pasted here.
yes but i see no reason for him to be any different in the actions he has taken so far, what gives you so much confidence?
(Original post by vienna95)
Bush is the first US president to address a peace policy based on a two state solution that would afford the Palestinians their own state and sovreignity and withdraw Israel to land defined per the 'green line'. According to Palestinian sympathisers, of which I believe you are one, the Palestinians are only motivated by what they see as an occupation of their land. Affording them theyre own legitimate and internationally recognised state is about as long term as one could hope for. Unless you consider the destruction of the State of Israel to be a feasible alternative?
No i dont consider it an alternative, but I think that at the moment the US hand lies too heavily with the Israelies.
(Original post by vienna95)
Thankfully this is not one taken by the Bush administration. Inaccurate simplifications of the matter dont further the debate.
They don't agreed, but he's alot nearer to that approach than "the lets look at both sides greviences and go from there" approach.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 14 years ago
#49
(Original post by Incomplete)
he has a moral sense? wow that is a big claim
Most human beings have some sense of morality.

in the case of Bush's FP I think that he spins an image of a policy that is based on morality in his actions yet it clear that is just a screen to hid his narrow interest in security.
Im aware of that as this was the assertion you made initially, but faced with two very relevant quotes, I dont believe you have demonstrated it. As I have reiterated, Bush believes that his role as President of the US obliges him to protect US national interest and afford the American people security. This should be the priority, and one that he recognises from the quoted passages. However, he recognises that previous US administrations approached similar concerns with a strong sense of realpolitik that essentially worked against them in the long term. He believes that attempting a more moral approach, by opposing tyranny and dictators, promoting freedom and democracy in assuring US security, will ultimately bring greater stability and security.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 14 years ago
#50
(Original post by Incomplete)
yes but i see no reason for him to be any different in the actions he has taken so far, what gives you so much confidence?
I havent seen anything as yet that would contradict his assertions. I also have a great deal of faith in his character and belief.

No i dont consider it an alternative, but I think that at the moment the US hand lies too heavily with the Israelies.
how? They offer Israel military aid, both in material and financial presence. This is consistent with the American belief that they have a right to exist.
How is Bush not addressing the long term problems of that region? He believes that both peoples should have a legitimate and sovereign right to exist and initiated a peace policy on a massive scale to that effect.

They don't agreed, but he's alot nearer to that approach than "the lets look at both sides greviences and go from there" approach.
What are the Palestinian grievances?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1043)
79.08%
Leave (276)
20.92%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed