Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditToday, Senator Barack Obama will propose setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world. This proposal should be be celebrated. It is a sign of Obama's commitment to a sane security and foreign policy -- consistent with an understanding that the US is safer when it respects international rule of law and cooperation.
This is not a radical proposal--a characterization you're likely to hear from many inside-the-beltway pundits and security analysts. They may try to label Obama as a candidate disconnected from reality. But then they could level the same charges at Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn. All four men, earlier this year, called for a revival of Ronald Reagan's vision of " a world free of nuclear weapons" in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.
As our Peace and Disarmament correspondent Jonathan Schell wrote, "the oped marks a sea change in established opinion, which previously (with the hugely significant exception of Reagan) had formed a solid phalanx of opposition to nuclear abolition." What is increasingly clear, Schell goes on to point out, is how "the nuclear danger is ripe and overripe for public rediscovery, which has in fact already begun. This time, it's clear that the goal of all efforts would not just be amelioration--a freeze or reduction or a test ban--but the long-deferred holy grail of all who have struggled against the danger for more than 60 years: the abolition of nuclear arms."
Obama is a leader who appears to understand what is at stake if the US squanders the post-post Cold War opportunity to build a nuclear-free world. What is encouraging is that he is not alone. According to Peace Action, more than 70 percent of Americans support the global abolition of nuclear weapons.
And in May, Senator John Edwards, in an under-reported event at the Council on Foreign Relations, announced his support for a nuclear-free world. Obama and Edwards understand the imperative of ridding our planet of weapons of mass destruction. Isn't it time to ask the other leading Presidential candidate where she stands on the issue?
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Nice goal....just like reducing CO2 emissions by 40% by year 20EZ....
My goal is even more `grand', no chemical or biological weapons either. This goal WILL BE achieved someday, when, ahem...humans are all gone....HAPPY future, huh?
Posted by Happy at 10/02/2007 @ 12:18pm
Hello Katrina,
Eliminating nuclear weapons sounds fascinating, but you say ".....that the US is safer when it respects international rule of law and cooperation. ....", which implies that we need to be the prime driver to accomplish this, and the lack of "safety" is, of course, our fault.
How do you plan to get Kim Jong-Il of North Korea to get rid of his nukes, or how do you plan to stop Iran from getting nukes?
You undoubtably think if the U.S. disarms (and Israel too) why then there will be world peace! We need to become responsbile members of the world, I guess, and do whatever the rest of the world demands of us. Since when did the rest of the world get this grand wisdom we in the U.S. lack? (well, some of us, because "Progressives" know better and do have the wisdom to know we are always wrong).
It is interesting that you have a "Peace and Disarmament" correspondent. Why? The two do not go together, when you achieve Peace, then death, misery and human suffering usually follow, and since you mentioned Ronald Reagan, you should realize that it was the opposite of disarmament that he promoted that did bring about peace in Eastern Europe.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/02/2007 @ 12:32pm
I agree with SJCHERMAK, why should we always be the "first ones" to give up everything? It's a joke.
Posted by ACook at 10/02/2007 @ 12:46pm
Depending on whom you ask the fall of the Soviet Union had little to do with the arms race. The U.S. was far ahead in the arms race. The collapse of the Soviet Union was an internal event. That being said I think it might be premature to start thinking about nuclear disarmament. I do think we should have a policy that we will never use a nuclear weapon in any circumstance. As a deterrent just being there they may have some value.
Posted by Waltz at 10/02/2007 @ 12:46pm
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/02/2007 @ 12:32pm
actually, it was Solidarity in poland combined with the insane cost of the arms race.
what's the canadian dollar trading at today?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2007 @ 1:08pm
Posted by ACOOK 10/02/2007 @ 12:46pm
maybe because you're the first ones to make them!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2007 @ 1:09pm
i think the elimination of nukes is like the quest for perfection...
a goal toward which we should indeed endeavor without expecting to actually achieve...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/02/2007 @ 1:17pm
Posted by ACOOK 10/02/2007 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person
you set up a false premise. nobody sane says we should unilaterally disarm.
the first big pol i remember who made this a publicly declared goal was mr. reagan.
again - like perfection, a goal to be worked toward without expectation of achievement.
but if the result is a significant reduction of stockpiles and increased cooperation/trust...even better...
keeping enough nukes well guarded to discourage us shaved apes from a world war is not so bad, imo...but the supurfluous stockpiles of sketchily guarded nukes out there is a terrifying menace indeed.
who knows? perhaps one day we may need such destructive power to divert the path of a doomsday astroid or comet...sounds crazy but the scientists say its not...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/02/2007 @ 1:26pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/02/2007 @ 1:17pm
think about a new, clear way of thinking.
what's going to happen when somebody invents the "nano-organo bomb"?
then the nukes will be obsolete.
we need to go forward, not backward.
the pragmatism of "reality" becomes so disheartening sometimes. who really wants these abominations?
maybe .00003% of the world's population.
the rest want water and food and electricity and above all, peace.
but they get to pay for this nonsense instead.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2007 @ 1:29pm
It is interesting that you have a "Peace and Disarmament" correspondent. Why? The two do not go together, when you achieve Peace, then death, misery and human suffering usually follow, and since you mentioned Ronald Reagan, you should realize that it was the opposite of disarmament that he promoted that did bring about peace in Eastern Europe.
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/02/2007 @ 12:32pm | ignore this person
Depending on whom you ask the fall of the Soviet Union had little to do with the arms race. The U.S. was far ahead in the arms race. The collapse of the Soviet Union was an internal event. That being said I think it might be premature to start thinking about nuclear disarmament. I do think we should have a policy that we will never use a nuclear weapon in any circumstance. As a deterrent just being there they may have some value.
Posted by WALTZ 10/02/2007 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person
you are both wrong. It is generally accepted by historians that the arms control negotiations prepared the way for the end of the cold war.
our present policies have not prevented Pakistan from acquiring a nuke, nor prevent the spread of nuke stuff by Pakistan.
both North Korea and Iran should be included in arms reduction negotiations.Even Bush has been negotiating with N Korea. whatsamatter not blood thirsty enough for you, SJ?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/02/2007 @ 1:31pm
when you achieve Peace, then death, misery and human suffering usually follow,
isn't it War that is followed by death, misery and human suffering?
Peace? check out Europe, peace since '45, happiness and prosperity has followed.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/02/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/02/2007 @ 1:34pm
dagnammit!
i agree with the dude and want to further his argument but what's the point.
hey i know. i'm going to ignore myself!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2007 @ 1:45pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/02/2007 @ 1:29pm | ignore this person
who knows what clever nightmares our future may bring...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/02/2007 @ 1:47pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/02/2007 @ 1:47pm
ice-nine cometh.
hey check out what i found this morning:
"It seems to demonstrate that periods of industrial activity in technical syntheses of principles, data, free energy and energy as "matter," find highest employment by the fear-amassed credits of warfare. Therefore the assumption approaches fact that war promotes the major technical advances of civilization...
What has not been clear is that the potential of this emergency-born technology has always accrued to human's prewar individual initiatives taken in a humble but irrepressible progression of assumptions, measurements, deductions, and codifications of pure science." (1947)
bucky fuller
war just gels pre-war advancement in a hurry. if only we were patient.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2007 @ 2:12pm
Can I just ask, Ms vanden Heuvel..
How do we get CHINA who balked for months and months about doing something in Darfur...and who protects the Myanmar junta...and who refuses to sign off on Kyoto (to protect their industrialization)...
to eliminate their nuclear arsenal?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 10/02/2007 @ 2:46pm
Happy and prosperous since 1945?
And your very welcome for that.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/02/2007 @ 2:52pm
Most arguments between countries are with near neighbors. Nuclear weapons are weapons of UNCONTROLLED mass destruction, and any country launching an attack on a near neighbor risks bringing collateral damage upon themselves. They may feel the blast or radiation effects, but they would certainly get blow back in the form of radioactive fallout. The wind always changes direction. I do not buy into the idea that Syria is seeking nuclear weapons. because there use against Israel would destroy Syria. They are useless to Syria for defense purposes. On the flip side, Israel cannot attack Syria or any neighbors with Nuclear Weapons. Any attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would cause several Chernobyls, with the wind eventually blowing in the direction of Israel. The Pakistan/India Nuclear stand off is equally ridiculous and stupid.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/02/2007 @ 3:22pm
Reply to above comments:
Frosty Zoom says "....actually, it was Solidarity in poland combined with the insane cost of the arms race. what's the canadian dollar trading at today?..."
Waltz says "....The collapse of the Soviet Union was an internal event...."
Johannesrolf says "....you are both wrong. It is generally accepted by historians that the arms control negotiations prepared the way for the end of the cold war. ...."
In other words, the people above are saying it was not the efforts of Ronald Reagan, I guess. Problem is, that's wrong. President Reagan caused the Soviets to begin a buildup beyond what the Soviets could withstand. There was no indication that the Soviet Union was headed towards a collapse before that, every indication was that they were motoring along, with a lousy economy, and lousy living conditions for their people, the same as they always had been. Gorbachev probably would not have come to power if it had not been for our buildup and the effect it had on them, even when Gorbachev was chosen it was not a done deal, some factions wanted a hard liner instead.
Soviets who had been in the military back then have commented publicly on the effect President Reagan's policies had on them. Thus it is not a theory, it is fact.
Johannesrolf also said ".....isn't it War that is followed by death, misery and human suffering? Peace? check out Europe, peace since '45, happiness and prosperity has followed....."
Absolutely, because the peace in Europe since 1945 was achieved through victory, not appeasement and capitulation and surrender and blaming one's own country rather than the evil in the world for the lack of peace, which is the kind of peace being advocated today.
Don't forget, Johannesrolf, that the misery in Europe before 1945 took place after Neville Chamberlain achieved "Peace in our time". So it depends what kind of peace one is talking about.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/02/2007 @ 3:28pm
Don't forget, Johannesrolf, that the misery in Europe before 1945 took place after Neville Chamberlain achieved "Peace in our time". So it depends what kind of peace one is talking about.
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/02/2007 @ 3:28pm | ignore this person
this is really bullshit. and the Reagan thing is a myth. you should read a bit of history instead of repeating that moldy old fig.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/02/2007 @ 3:46pm
the collapse of the soviet union was primarily political in nature. Hungary and yes Poland played a big part, as did germany. Russia was and is a major exporter of oil, and its oil revenues were on the increase during this time. Ronald Reagan, the Alzheimer pres, got out of the way, mostly.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/02/2007 @ 4:01pm
Hello Johannesrolf,
To recap, you remarked ".....this is really bullshit. and the Reagan thing is a myth. you should read a bit of history instead of repeating that moldy old fig." and also "....the collapse of the soviet union was primarily political in nature. Hungary and yes Poland played a big part, as did germany. Russia was and is a major exporter of oil, and its oil revenues were on the increase during this time. Ronald Reagan, the Alzheimer pres, got out of the way, mostly......"
Don't forget, though, you haven't (and can't) substantiate what you have said. I have read history, and what I said IS the history. You can not point to any commentary during the 70's wondering if the Soviet Union was changing, nor can you point to any description available now through historical records of evidence of a Soviet collapse beginning to occur back then.
They actually were building up their military, at our expense. We (under both Democrat and Republican presidents) were engaged in detente with them, which enabled them to get away with military spending and not have it severely impact their economy. There is no indication their communism was in decline, or that the people were getting restless.
Ronald Reagan changed that. The military spending, forcing them to spend more, played a part but there were other things too. Calling the Soviet Union the evil empire (for which he was ridiculed by the left and by the media (same thing)) really shook the Soviets up. So did the invasion of Grenada. This invasion is at best ridiculed as frivolous and at worst condemned by the left, but it got the Soviet's attention. For the first time ever, a country that had been communist was now back to being non-communist.
Gorbachev only came to power under these conditions, it is reasonable to assume his star would not have risen had these conditions not existed. His relative youth helped his cause, but I am sure there were younger hard-liners available, too.
Another big turning point was when President Reagan would not agree to get rid of the SDI that Gorbachev wanted him to do, at the summit in Iceland. President Reagan was not going to cave in to communist demands.
It certainly helped that the Pope at the time was Polish and traveled to his home country and helped awaken and embolden resistance to communism. It is possible, however, and this is only conjecture on my part, but I can see where a stronger, more emboldened Soviet Union may have prohibited his visits. They certainly had no problem suppressing the uprisings in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, knowing we would do nothing in response.
And as I said, people who were in the Soviet military have spoken about the effect that President Reagan's policies had in bringing their system down. Why do I have to repeat this again, what part of that did you not understand the first time I said it?
Of course, those who were proclaiming- before the Soviet Union collapsed- that it's existence was inevitable, that the wise thing to do was work with it and cooperate for peace, that it would be foolish to be antagonistic and threatening, and who are we to say who is right anyway?- are now saying that it's collapse was inevitable. Thus history was and is being re-written, on the fly, by the left to serve the it's agenda.
So you want me to read history. As I said, I have and am aware of the history, and maybe you need to read the actual history and not the re-written version.
You on the left seem to have a habit of making statements with no substance (the "Reagan thing" is BS, and old fig, etc) but you do not seem to realize that your statements do not become so just by force of your declaring them so. (although in public school and at most colleges it does work for you). Outside of those arenas, the actual history in the public record contradicts that.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/02/2007 @ 8:05pm
Katrina, you know the press will never press Clinton on where she stands on any issue. In a primary season where there are 2 sets of rules, one for Hillary and one for the rest, you can guess what Hillary's rules would be. Don;t ask her and she won't tell.
Posted by vwcat at 10/02/2007 @ 9:03pm
So did the invasion of Grenada. hahahahahahaha.
you are a braindead aparatchik,
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/02/2007 @ 10:28pm
Calling the Soviet Union the evil empire (for which he was ridiculed by the left and by the media (same thing)) really shook the Soviets up
hahahahahahaha. history as theatre of the absurd.
resident Reagan would not agree to get rid of the SDI
yeah right, a thing that did not work then and still does not work, after how many billions later.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/02/2007 @ 10:32pm
perhaps you could add a reading list, of books you have actually read.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/02/2007 @ 10:34pm
A little off-subject, on a subject The Nation, mmmm..., didn't cover at all! The "we do not have homosexuals in Iran..." comment by AhmaDineInYourJeans while at Columbia U.
Today's WSJ Op-Ed by Bret Stephens: "The Queerest Denial", page A16
The Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls spent a fair bit of time Wednesday night debating what to do about Iran, without once mentioning.....These are the same debaters who in August went before a gay audience to denounce Bush administration policies as "demeaning" and "degrading" toward gays. In the Nation- a magazine that excoriated Ronald Reagan upon his passing for his "inaction and bigotry against gays"-editor Katrina vanden Heuvel has nothing to say about the subject either. Instead, she devotes her latest column to denouncing last week's symbolic Senate vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization.
I think someone needs to tell WSJ's Mr. Stephens to mind his own business! The Nation don't give a damn about gays anywhere else but those "Born in the USA"....and don't give a damn about whatever the Muslims do....The Nation respects their religions' bigotry toward gays, infidels, and women....and their followers' right to kill filmakers, authors and cartoonists! I mean, when was the last time The Nation took issue with Muslim Extremism?
I think a counter attack article by KvH is in order...to put Mr. Stephens (and ?HAPPY?) in his place!
Posted by Happy at 10/02/2007 @ 11:36pm
The anti nuke statements by Obama and Edwards seem rather fake, considering they both echo the AIPAC line of warlike threats against Iran. I think they are rather cynical, and are dredging for peacenik votes (like mine). Let's get real: no nation that currently possesses nukes will give them up. The U.S. was supposed to reduce its nuclear arsenal according to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Instead, the U.S. is now planning a new family of nuclear bombs. The best we can hope for is no nuclear war because of deterrence. MAD lives on.
Posted by philbq at 10/03/2007 @ 08:13am
Let's get real: no nation that currently possesses nukes will give them up.
this does not eliminate nuclear arms reduction. there have been successes in the past. take the targeting of nuclear missiles. both the US and Russia have stopped targeting each other's cities. it's a start.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/03/2007 @ 10:18am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/03/2007 @ 10:57am | ignore this person
you have got to be kidding. first I was born in POSTWAR Austria.
second it is well understood that Russia fought 2/3s of WW2. they had the most casualties and faced the biggest part of the Wehrmacht.
as for the cold war, it ended when the satellites such as Poland and Hungary and East germany had had enough. that and an enlightened leader and yes a more enlightened populace in Russia brought the thing to an end
. the arms reduction negotiations undertaken by the US, yes the US used to negotiate instead of starting aggressive wars, and the soviets paved the way for Perestroika and glasnost.
your pathetic attempts to rewrite history are just that, pathetic. but you see, you're just a gnat to me, because I have the facts and the history, while you cling to outdated myths.
the rest is just shameful smears of me on your part. get behind me Satan. that's you baby.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/03/2007 @ 11:11am
Wrt to Iran, they are responding to the Israeli nuclear threat more than anything else,.....
Posted by ZERO 10/03/2007 @ 10:45am
Israel allegedly has had nukes for quite some time....IF Iran hadn't been using Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel AND IF Iran hadn't been spouting comments like "wipe Israle off the map", there is no reason for it to have any fear of Jewish nukes!
When one (Iran) becomes aggressive, both physical (via proxies) and verbal, one (Iran) needs to be prepared for countermeasures by the `target' of such aggression (Israel).
Posted by Happy at 10/03/2007 @ 11:19am
sted by LVLIBERTY1 10/03/2007 @ 11:15am | ignore this person
another fact free post. the russian front was 1000 miles long. the bulk of the german forces were there. both germany and russia suffered the greatest number of casualties.
while the US and Britain played chase with Rommel in North Africa, the russians fought the siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad.
the invasion of Sicily was useless, as the german troops escaped to the mainland.
the battle for Italy, while very costly to the allies, was of limited strategic value.
I have often spoken of the military historian Liddell Hart, a brit by the way. but you are not interested in facts, just smears. go ahead, try to deny my facts. you haven;t because you can't. you're just a smearmeister.
you have to be taught to hate. I was taught to hate the russians, as were you. I have matured and come to a more complete understanding. you are still in your cold war propaganda world.
incidentally, when I was born Austria, which had been a part of germany since the Anschluss, had no gov't, except for the occupying forces. this was also true of germany.
I have learned more about german culture here in New York than I did in germany, where I lived and went to school for nine years.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/03/2007 @ 11:53am
Posted by HAPPY 10/03/2007 @ 11:19am
one mustn't forget that hezbollah is a product of 20 years of israeli occupation.
and hamas is a product of at least 40 years of israeli occupation.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 11:57am
You on the left seem to have a habit of making statements with no substance (the "Reagan thing" is BS, and old fig, etc) but you do not seem to realize that your statements do not become so just by force of your declaring them so. (although in public school and at most colleges it does work for you). Outside of those arenas, the actual history in the public record contradicts that.
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/02/2007 @ 8:05pm | ignore this person
SJCHERMAK,
During a time period where American conservatives sold an illegal war with Iraq by insisting that that nation was developing nuclear weapons and allied with Al Qaeda--because they said so--you make the claim that some old Soviet military figures stating personal opinions makes your idea factual. Haha...very funny.
In reality, if the Soviet Union was on a wild military spending binge to challenge SDI, which according to you, the Russians feared would make their arsenal obsolete, Soviet military expenditures would reflect this claim. While the US military budget grew at an average of 8 percent per year, the Soviets, while increasing military spending to rate of 4.4 percent through 1987, increased monies for offensive strategic weapons by only 1.4 percent. And in fact, Gorbachev slashed military spending in 1988, reducing them back to 1980 levels. Also, the Soviets, although having their own program for design-work on space weaponry, never mounted any effort to replicate the SDI program of their own. SDI's failures, known to the American public, did not occur in a vacuum. The Soviets, by 1987, did not even consider the program a threat and thus their spending was not affected directly by your Star Wars lemon, as you insist (but offer no proof, outside the heated verbosity of chickenhawk warriors).
Your commentary on Grenada is absurd and quite stupid. The Soviets saw quite a few Developing Nation governments, opposed to American style capitalism (economic barbarism), overthrown by means of violent militarism and terror. Should I list them?
Rather than subject us with tired old cult-of-personality-like slogans theorising how your cowboy actor president single-handedly ended communism, you might ponder your own role in empowering that administration to have pursued policies directly responsible for the outright slaughter of tens of thousands of farmers, students, laborers, members of the Catholic church and innocent civilians with no political affiliation, during the 1980s in Central America.
Just as it would seem rather insane to proclaim and speak of the United States as a monolithic, homogenous society-reduced to the simplicities of those seeking acceptance of their own self-serving caricatures of that society (project the concept to a Hitler type, if you like), your myopic rendering of what happened to the people and governments comprising the old Soviet Union is pathetic and insulting.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/03/2007 @ 1:05pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/03/2007 @ 11:53am | ignore this person
Nice work addressing the idiot gallery.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/03/2007 @ 1:07pm
To Johannesrolf and Oustbush,
Excellent comebacks that would get you a grade of A in High School and a grade of A if Katrina Vanden Heuvel were grading your posts.
They would get you an F in the real world.
You have to remember, and you keep forgetting, what I have said regarding the end of the cold war is in the public record and has been established in more than one way. I am not relying on one person's comment or one source for this. And you have not and can not offer any counterpoint to show that the Soviet Union would have ended even if President Reagan had not done what he did. There was nothing else happening, either external to the USSR or internal to the USSR that would have brought the end about.
The Iraq war was not illegal, most everybody in the world believed Saddam had WMD, they believed so not because President Bush told them so but because of their own analysis of the intelligence data available, and we had no way of finding out what the exact situation was because Saddam would not and did not comply with what was demanded of him.
Letting inspectors in at the end was not compliance. Saddam was required to provide a complete roadmap of where his program stood, and if as he claimed he had no WMD anymore he was supposed to prove it. He never did this, the UN was not going to require him to do this.
Hans Blix eventually would have declared Iraq free of WMD, and then Saddam would have been free to go back and make WMD again. His own people have said this was the plan. There would have been no oversight sufficent enought to stop this.
Saddam probably would have thought twice about just hauling off and destroying a whole city population with WMD by suprise, but he would have had no problem selling the WMD to terrorists (the ones you proclaim he had no link to - but it has been established that he was developing links to terror) and then the terrorists would have used the WMD to kill millions of Americans or Israelis.
And to get another one out of the way that I know is coming back at me, you know full well the Bush administration never claimed that Saddam had links to September 11. That day was a wake up call that we needed to be pro-active and stop terror before it kills us instead - and Saddam was definitely an emerging threat.
This is all been proven in the public domain, it is frustrating to have to keep repeating it to leftists who will not listen to it or agree with it anyway.
What's with the "chickenhawk" comment? As you know, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton avoided military service, yet military people died during his Presidency. How come the left never labels him a "chickenhawk".
Besides, your sloppy in your lingo. The proper term in leftist circles is not "chickenhawk" but "neocon chickenhawk" or "chickenhawk neocon". I am pointing this out as a service to you so you are not embarrased the next time you are having a conversation with your fellow leftists.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/03/2007 @ 1:49pm
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/03/2007 @ 1:49pm
do you walk backwards as well?
?llew sa sdrawkcab klaw uoy do
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 1:56pm
SJCHMERMAK,
One of the most glaring deficiencies in your reasoning and is your consistent ability to close off and narrow the broader perspective. People who disagree with government policies you support are "anti-American," "blame America first," or dissenting views at odds with the ruling institutional doctrine (or dogmna) must be consigned to some other world than what you determine to be the "real" one.
You are the one making the claim that Reagan and his actions were what pulled the legs out from under the USSR, so it is not my burden to "prove" that the Soviet Union would have collapsed without SDI, etc. Since the United States was a principle player in what was a bi-polar world dominated by two superpower states, I will not attempt to completely remove such external events as what Reagan did and then theorize such and such. But to state that without Reagan the USSR would not have unraveled is unprovable. If you're going to reduce such an event as the end of the Soviet Union to one man's actions, I would place much greater empahasis on Gorbachev and glastnost. Contrary to what you say, your claim is not fact, in fact it is not scholarly but more representative of cheap punditry and domestic political campaign rhetoric.
I will offer you an excerpt of an article written in the NYTimes by George Kennan, someone hardly controversial:
"the general effect of cold war extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980's. What did the greatest damage was not our military preparations themselves, some of which (not all) were prudent and justifiable. It was rather the unnecessarily belligerent and threatening tone in which many of them were publicly carried forward. For this, both Democrats and Republicans have a share of the blame. Nobody -- no country, no party, no person -- "won" the cold war. It was a long and costly political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions and strength of the other party. It greatly overstrained the economic resources of both countries, leaving both, by the end of the 1980's, confronted with heavy financial, social and, in the case of the Russians, political problems that neither had anticipated and for which neither was fully prepared. The fact that in Russia's case these changes were long desired on principle by most of us does not alter the fact that they came -- far too precipitately -- on a population little prepared for them, thus creating new problems of the greatest seriousness for Russia, its neighbors and the rest of us, problems to which, as yet, none of us have found effective answers."
As for the Iraq war, the secretary general (former) stated explicity that it was illegal, as the UN failed to sanction the war when Blair and Powell convinced Bush to appeal to the general assembly.
I will administer a letter grade of F to you for reading comprehension: you failed to address my specific and deliberate reference to false allegations concerning nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda alliances, not the generally opague WMD which most people did assume Saddam may have retained. It was not the aging teaspoon-size vials of gas that Bush used to whip up fear, but the imagery of "mushroom clouds" and links to Al Qaeda. Nice dodge. Also, if you were so cowered by the potential for Saddam to possess WMDs, you might reflect on the circumstances your pals cited so often when demonizing Hussein. That is the assistance administered to Saddam by Reagan and Bush One (American satelllite technology Hussein used to locate his targets) which allowed our former ally to poison Kurds and Iranians. That's a rather strange rational: this guy is a danger because he used to poison people with cheical weapons--leaving out the role where you helped in the crime. Well, accountability is not a particularly strong point in the Republican ethos.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/03/2007 @ 4:08pm
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/03/2007 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person
By the way, regarding Chickenhawks, I do not defend Clinton in any selective or special way. My main point is that far too many of those most eager for military conflict were/are too chickenshit to back up their theories and ideas. I will credit Clinton for not serving and speaking out against something he perceived as heinous and immoral; Bosnia is another story and I will not defend him for it. I'm sick of repulsive Cheney-types who loath demcratic ideals in practice as they consider themselves elite and superior to others without the wealth and means to pursue "other priorities" during a national draft to serve in a war he supported.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/03/2007 @ 4:26pm
Hello Oustbush,
Don't forget- Gorbachev and glastnost only came about because of the economic pressure the Soviets faced. It is logical to assume that without this pressure, Gorbachev may not have come to power or even if he was in power he may not have been able to implement Glastnost, or he may have not even wanted to himself.
You talk about unprovable concepts, you on the left are the ones who continually declare Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the end of the Soviet Union.
We won the Cold War because we are not the ones who started it and we survived without being converted to communism, with the Soviet Union no longer there. When the Soviet Union came into being in 1917, Americans did not even pay much attention. The Soviet existence was of no real concern to us until it became apparent that the Soviets wanted more than a communist Russia, they wanted a communist world. Our way of life was at stake, and this became more and more apparent during the 20's and 30's, with awareness during World War II that once that conflict ended, we may be at odds with the Soviets.
This affected a lot of things in our foreign policy over the years, in the effort to stem the tide of communism. We wound up supporting Saddam in the 80's to a degree because we had lost an ally in Iran and having a presence in that region was important in the context of having to fight the cold war. Obviously, we did not know then what Saddam was to become, and it is unfair to blame America for somethings we wound up doing because of the Soviet threat.
And this circumstance has no relevance in the debate now about Iraq. We needed to do in 2003 what was necessary, the fact that we had supported Saddam somewhat in the past was water over the dam.
You indicated the secretary-general of the UN declared the war in Iraq illegal. So what? I do not care what he says, nor should anybody else. The UN has long since established it's inability to meet it's obligations to take necessary actions. The UN did not sanction the war, the UN was never going to force Saddam to comply with what the UN demanded of him, so President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did what the UN could not and would not do.
As far as the Chickenhawk concept, I was pointing out the hypocricy of the left in charging "chickenhawk" but never applying it to Bill Clinton. Besides, on top of that, the "chickenhawk" concept is absurd. The President of the U.S. is charged with the responsiblity to defend the United States, and this sometimes requires military action. This responsiblity can not be dependent on any given President's past background, no matter what amount of military service he or she may have had.
It also ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT be dependent on the whims of the political left - with the political left in charge of making the decision on how the President of the United States can do his or her job.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/03/2007 @ 4:47pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 10/03/2007 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person
not as sharp as you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/03/2007 @ 4:58pm
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/03/2007 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person
moldy old fig. we disposed of this long ago here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/03/2007 @ 4:59pm
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/03/2007 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person
Howdy Sjchermak,
Gorbachev was not in power simply because of the (existing but overstated by you) economic constraints resulting from the Reagan arms build-up. Gorbachev was also a result of the dark pervading ghosts of Stalin still haunting the USSR. Soviet officials were not unaware of how the horrors of the Stalin years infected the whole society. Additionally, beyond the tentacles of the totalitarian past, the Soviet system was stagnant and ossified; Gorbachev genuinely sought to reform and actually did accomplish this by introducing greater freedoms and access to new ideas. Soviet reform was often victimized to the strident militarism related to the US rivalry and the resulting calls for strengthening national security. It must be mentioned however, that Gorbachev also brought on certain difficulites as a result of the reforms, particularly so, via, the anti-alcohol campaign. Vodka addiction was no joke--but as a consequence of the alcohol targeting the Soviet treasury lost 67 billion rubles in 1985-the equivalent of almost 9 percent of the 1985 GNP, which in terms of impact, was nearly four times the sum spent on health care. There were many problems internally that facilitated the USSR's demise.
I didn't actually claim that Reagan was irrelevant to the fall of the Soviet Union--as evidence I posted the late, George Kennan's remarks where he disperses the credit/blame throughout our history and government. Kennan also refrains from reducing the plight of so many to the framing of sports metaphor: win/lose. I do not care for the hero-worship surrounding American figures, such as Reagan and so I feel compelled to point out the rough edges (70,000 killed in Nicaragua, for example, by his contra terrorists) airbrushed from his legacy by conservatives. Did America stop supposedly caring for the well-fare of the Russian people when they replaced communism for thug-gangster-style capitalism which preyed upon that society post-1991? As the standard of living for the majority was decimated during the shock treatment offered to that nation post-communism, Russia was invisible to America. I'm not claiming the old system wasn't rotten, just that the suffering of the Russian seemed to coincide more with mainstream American politcal ideology and opportunism.
It is also incorrect that we did not start the Cold War, since it is a fact that the US, along with Europeans, sent in troops to crush the Bolsheviks and preserve the monarchy during the revolution. The presence of other capitalist nations fighting and interferring in the domestic struggles of Russia was not insignificant towards further crafting the paranoia of brutal dictator, Stalin. I hardly think the Amercian south would have condsidered it inconsequential, if say the the French or Russians swent troops to Richmond, to kill southerns during the American Civil War (hell, I live in Virginia and still see letters to the editor disparaging Lincoln over a century later). But whatever.
I was actually not restricting my chickenhawkism to presidents. I was thinking more of the policy makers who tend to influence presidents.
Saddam was not to become the monster, he already was such a thing. The massacre of Kurds in particular, was done while he was our ally. The Reagan adminstration actually killed a Senate resolution condemning the gassing of Kurds as an act of genocide. This had nothing to do with communism, but was a result of strategic importance to Middle East oil supplies. Iran is another story we could discuss, although it is quite shameful and embarassing to those you support.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/03/2007 @ 6:10pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/03/2007 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person
Thanks Johannesrolf. That was nice to see LeaveLiberty eat crow over his fossilized cold war propaganda!
Posted by Oustbush at 10/03/2007 @ 6:12pm
I agree with SJCHERMAK, why should we always be the "first ones" to give up everything? It's a joke.
Leading by example is what Obama is proposing - something we haven't tried in quite some time.
You can't ask Iran, Syria and other nations to give up their nuclear ambitions unless we show by our own example that we are serious about ridding the world of these destructive weapons.
I read Obama's speech in great detail, and truly was impressed! What a breath of fresh air!
Text of the speech can be found at http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_ob am_27.php
Posted by Metteyya at 10/03/2007 @ 8:23pm
Hello Oustbush,
On the first item, the Soviet Military Spending, it would appear that you, the Lib, are correct, but still wrong. A quick research into this topic shows that the Soviets were impacted by the fact that they knew the military spending required to keep up with the United States would collapse their economy. As a result, they began changes that were intended to use essentially political means in the world arena, rather than military, to spread their influence. These changes (which eventually became Gorbachev's glastnost and peristroika) backfired on them and brought about a result they certainly did not intend for. Without our military buildup, this would not have happened, at least not for a very long time and who knows what damage world communism could have done in the meantime.
Here is the link to an article on this subject:
Pasted from http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/sect_08a.htm
On the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, once again the Lib (you) wins! But your win does not appear to mean what you think it means. A quick research shows that Allied troops were indeed present in the Soviet Union during the latter stages of World War I. And that is the context, apparently- they were there to protect supplies and other forces that had become trapped in Russia, not to attempt to interfere or get deeply involved with what was happening in that country.
Here is a wikpedia link on the subject (broken into two - it won't post otherwise):
Pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Allied_Intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
I had never heard of this, but as I said I do not think your point is really proven, either. And I remember no sense from history that the American populace or leaders were much concerned with the Soviets after that for some time. My rememberance of history is that America went back to an isolationist mode once World War I was over.
There are not enough hours in the day to know everything about every subject, but a quick search for more background on two subjects shows that event though a couple of my premises were incorrect as stated, the main point behind them is still valid.
If you did not say President Reagan was irrelevant, others certainly have many times including on blogs up above, and I still maintain they have not proven this premise. The burden of proof IS on them, because they need to prove the Soviet Union would have collapsed very shortly anyway. I do not believe they can.
You brought up Nicaragua. The Soviets were trying to bring communism into South America. I guess we were not supposed to try and stop that, at least as far as the left is concerned.
It goes back to what I have said already, when you bring up Saddam, Nicaragua, you need to see those things in the context of how we were trying to stop world communism.
The Soviet leaders are on record, all the way back to Lenin, of making statements showing their intention of imposing their way of life on us. American actions over the years were to try and stop communism from being imposed on others and ultimately, us. In other words, defensive measures. If we wanted to eliminate communism from the Soviet Union itself, how come we (and other Allied nations) did not keep going when we had troops there in 1917-1918, and even make a more all out effort, to do that?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/03/2007 @ 9:21pm
SJCHERMAK,
Well done..But it won't be seriously considered here. expect this.
Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2007 @ 09:00am
didn't know about american troops in Siberia? that says it all. not a clue about history. we are arguing with mental midgets.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2007 @ 10:05am
SJCHERMAK, This is Chip. Not that you can't handle you're own, but as a long time "arguer" with JR, I thought I would mention that his "Russian" view of the War and the post-war world is clear and somewhat accurate-They did bear the brunt of the ground war, although his opinions regarding some of the details are open to debate. The difficulty is that JR has a tendency to cherry pick facts that support what he already believes to be true, viewing them in isolation to maintain his preconceptions. He then ignores a multitude of references regarding the subject which put his facts in context. He accuses one of smears, yet in the past two pages of this thread I have seen him do that to others no less than 4 times: If he sees this I'll probably get the same. He is very intelligent and seldom crude, unlike an MT or DR Decibels, but a slave to his preconceptions, and when confronted with other evidence that threaten those preconceptions will simple tell you you are crazy. I hate talking about others but this is visable, so... Good Luck
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/04/2007 @ 11:06am
Hi Johannesrolf,
Above, you proclaimed ".......didn't know about american troops in Siberia? that says it all. not a clue about history. we are arguing with mental midgets....."
However, how is your understanding of the English language? Up above I said "......There are not enough hours in the day to know everything about every subject....."
Maybe you did not understand what I said. Or maybe you think everbody should know everything, because you apparently do!! If so you are one of the few people, Liberal or Conservative, or Otherwise, who are so gifted.
Quick History quiz:
As you may know, the evacuation of the British soldiers from Dunkirk in the year 1940 was the largest naval or maritime evacuation of people in history.
What was the 2nd largest naval/seaborne/maritime evacuation of people in history?
Here is the answer: The evacuation of people from lower Manhattan Island to New Jersey on September 11, 2001.
Did you know that? Hmmm?
Posted by sjchermak at 10/04/2007 @ 11:18am
We know that nuclear weapons don't work for anyone besides those who would be crazy enough to use them, so why do we think any state actor would invite mutual destruction? I don't think that's what's really going here. If it is seen more as a symbolic political act, a free pass to the power that demands other nations treat them as equals, as a grab for leverage and political respect, then a nuclear standdown would be a prodigious symbolic act, and a drastic one at that. But it is just that much harder to accept a course of action that deals with living in the same world through some other communication besides shaking our clenched fists while pointing our high and lofty ideological finger.
It is undeniably ironic that we call for other nations not to pursue the bomb while maintaining one of the largest stockpiles of them in the world, and maintaining the most advanced technology built around them, and flaunting and flexing our military prowess around the world at the same time. Some may say that's the pragmatic solution while totally absolving our foreign policy as the cause for any reactions around the world at all.
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
We should go first because as the leaders of the free world, we set the beat. If fear of aggression is the policy with which we operate, then don't be so surprised when nations respond by vying for aggressive ways to talk back. We have made it abundantly clear that that is the only kind of threat we will respond to. and if that's the way you prefer to think, then don't be so surprised if botched military action in Iran causes even more horrific consequences then we've seen in Iraq.
Posted by justin p at 10/04/2007 @ 3:00pm
Posted by SJCHERMAK 10/03/2007 @ 9:21pm | ignore this person
Good afternoon, SJCHERMAK.
Nice to see that you've crawled out from behind the gloom of some of that conservative propaganda and stale Cold War jargon (of which Liberty still cligns to with the grip of death) to take a peek at events you've not been familar with previously.
Regarding the quibble over Wilson sending Americans into Russia during the revolution, you claim that their only purpose was to maintain supply routes for the war. I will refrain from any snide comments as I point out that it appears as though you failed to thoroughly read your own source. There were 3 reasons given by the Anglo-French allies to whom Wilson was responding to for the military intervention, and while you essentially cite the first 2, here is the third (from your own source):
3. resurrect the Eastern Front by defeating the Bolshevik army with the assistance of the Czech Legion and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force drawn from the local citizenry - and in the process stopping the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.
Now, to be fair, Wilson was personally against the use of American troops directly in the domestic affairs of the Russian civil war; Wilson's main worry was over Japanese forces asserting control over Siberian and Manchurian transportation routes, though he could not say so because Japan was an ally. Publicly, the impression was that troops were there, in large part, to fight against the Bolsheviks. And Wilson's personal feelings did little to mitigate the impact on American/Russian relations. Besides, it wasn't only the Anglo-French allies pushing for violence against the Bolsheviks, as Wilson became ill and unable to function in his duties, officials in the State Department worked to use the American forces as an instrument to defeat the "Reds."
There has always been a fear of socialist ideas in this country. Do you think the Red Scare and communist-bashing originated in the vitriolic sermons of Joe McCarthy? Communist paranoia was not prime and center pre-WWII, mainly because the USSR was a developing nation, and really just one European power among several. After the war, following the defeat of Germany and Japan (the 2nd and 3rd most industrialized economies, thus powerful rivals to America) it was just the US and Russia. And the Red army was the primary force responsible for the defeat of the German army, despite your patriotic subjectivity.
Here's link to some interesting details concerning the Americans in Russia, more than I can give:
http://www.jstor.org/view/00360341/ap000048/00a00040/0?
As far as this theory where you claim the USSR fell because of Reagan, again, Soviet expenditures do not reflect this, specifically against the SDI program and the alleged impact your boys like to claim. The Soviets did spend some money on research, but not on weaponry as SDI was not perceived a real threat. And Gorbachev scaled down the miltary spending significantly. I also find it problematic that you assert Gorbachev to be a mere respondent to the unflinching Reagan. Dehumanizing the other side and essentially stick-figuring Gorbachev as not committed to arms reductions and large-scale reform because he saw it as moral, but due to some desperate reflex or response to the towering and awesome American leader, etc. The Russians had numerous problems, including ineffciency of production, economic stagnation, insufficient levels of consumption, troubling outlays of cash subsidies to members of the "Union," and so on. Your belief that Reagan was THE indispensable catalyst of change is a nice fairytale feel-good story, but too limiting in scope and dimension for my standards.
The comments about Nicaragua are the after effects of too much Kool-Aid consumption from the conservative media sources. The Nicaraguan government Reagan and friends were trying to destroy was not communist, there was an actual communist party seperate from the Sandinistas. Even Fidel Castro, sympathetic to the new government, warned them not to appear too radically leftist, in fear of alienating the Americans as he had done. None of that mattered to the rabid dogs in the Reagan administration. Time and again they sided with authoritarian juntas against popular movements. Do you really blame those who have suffered under brutal, authoritarian, plutocratic governments, where the vast majority have nothing while tiny minorities horde the national wealth--blame them for craving social reforms that resemble what you call socialism? It's nice of you to mention the word 'context,' you might begin to apply it to your rational thought process when forming a coherent worldview.
Enjoy the day.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/04/2007 @ 3:26pm
Hello Oustbush,
I only have a few moments to respond now, so I will not get into any depth, but I am fascinated with the concepts you put forth about "Conservative propoganda" and "Kool aid", etc.
You have a very biased view of things, and I get a kick out of how leftists always seem to lecture and instruct that Conservatives are supposed to see both sides, have a better worldview, etc. do more research, etc. and on and on, but leftists do the exact same thing. (and these are general comments to the left as a whole, I am not quoting your comments exactly). Leftists doggedly stick to their opinions and beliefs and do not change them or consider the opposite viewpoints.
You made the comment "..........There has always been a fear of socialist ideas in this country.......
Gee I wonder why? Could it be that socialist ideas take away personal freedom and opportunity, which is what built this country into what it is to begin with (the most dynamic economy and growth in technology and living standards in human history - that has provided more aid for people at home and abroad than any country ever has)?
And could it be that socialism has failed everwhere it has been tried- so much so that even communists in China are getting rid of their economic communism?
And could it be that the socialist-type ideas promoted by the left since the 60's have failed the very people that these ideas were supposed to help? (Just ask the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina - people who had been under Democrat governance for years and taught to rely on Government - about that)
Gee, I guess that's why!!! Sounds to me like socialism is something to be avoided and stopped, in order to make life better for people (all people). Sound like people need freedom and opportunity and the ability to follow their dream and make their way in the dynamic free enterprise marketplace instead.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/04/2007 @ 4:25pm