Comments on: A neocon view. http://www.junyor.net/2006/03/13/a-neocon-view/ The Blog Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:48:05 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Codiac http://www.junyor.net/2006/03/13/a-neocon-view/comment-page-1/#comment-243 Codiac Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:26:56 +0000 http://www.junyor.net/2006/03/13/a-neocon-view/#comment-243 Wow. I just got a flashback to college, specifically world civ to 1860. That man was a master at getting completely away from the topic at hand. But I digress. Did I approve of us going to war? Absolutely. For the simple reason that we said that we would if Hussein did not allow weapon inspectors into Iraq. Boy who cried 'wolf', anyone? However, I'm really not certain I agree with us putting a democratic government in power. I'm thinking that the only way that democracy is truly appreciated is if it's purchased with the blood of patriots. But that's just me. And I'm not sure what we should have done instead, either, so who am I to point fingers? Wow. I just got a flashback to college, specifically world civ to 1860. That man was a master at getting completely away from the topic at hand.

But I digress.

Did I approve of us going to war? Absolutely. For the simple reason that we said that we would if Hussein did not allow weapon inspectors into Iraq. Boy who cried ‘wolf’, anyone? However, I’m really not certain I agree with us putting a democratic government in power. I’m thinking that the only way that democracy is truly appreciated is if it’s purchased with the blood of patriots.

But that’s just me. And I’m not sure what we should have done instead, either, so who am I to point fingers?

]]> By: Junyor http://www.junyor.net/2006/03/13/a-neocon-view/comment-page-1/#comment-242 Junyor Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:05:20 +0000 http://www.junyor.net/2006/03/13/a-neocon-view/#comment-242 Wow. That is a pretty heavy article for you to post. I am not sure that Fukuyama’s article is helpful in deciphering how the United States should approach foreign policy. (Maybe the book goes into more detail / doubt that I will invest the energy of reading it.) In my opinion this article is, to quote WS, “Full of sound and fury; signifying nothing” You may want to take a look at “<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2137134/" rel="nofollow">The End of Fukuyama: Why his latest pronouncements miss the mark. By Christopher Hitchens</a>” to get a better understanding of the opposition to Fukuyama’s point of view. However, I think both authors miss the point. In my humble opinion, Anti-Americanism is a product of America’s status as the preeminent superpower in the world. It seems to me that the real argument is how to approach foreign policy (soft power – diplomacy & economics) vs (hard power – bombs & troops). To that I only have one response, to quote TR, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" How will history remember this war? I don’t have a crystal ball and I doubt that Mr. Fukuyama does either. Wow. That is a pretty heavy article for you to post. I am not sure that Fukuyama’s article is helpful in deciphering how the United States should approach foreign policy. (Maybe the book goes into more detail / doubt that I will invest the energy of reading it.) In my opinion this article is, to quote WS, “Full of sound and fury; signifying nothing”

You may want to take a look at “The End of Fukuyama: Why his latest pronouncements miss the mark. By Christopher Hitchens” to get a better understanding of the opposition to Fukuyama’s point of view.

However, I think both authors miss the point. In my humble opinion, Anti-Americanism is a product of America’s status as the preeminent superpower in the world.

It seems to me that the real argument is how to approach foreign policy (soft power – diplomacy & economics) vs (hard power – bombs & troops). To that I only have one response, to quote TR, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far”

How will history remember this war? I don’t have a crystal ball and I doubt that Mr. Fukuyama does either.

]]>