SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,401
edits
Changes
User talk:Vince Did 7-14 (view source)
Revision as of 03:33, February 14, 2022
, 03:33, February 14, 2022no edit summary
:::Wait, so you're not Vince Dao? No joke, no sarcasm, I literally thought you were. Ah, well. I'll continue this conversation anyway.
:::Wait, so you're not Vince Dao? No joke, no sarcasm, I literally thought you were. Ah, well. I'll continue this conversation anyway.
::::So to clarify my first point, I was arguing that many undecideds see only ideological arguments within paleocon critiques of neocon/neolib foreign policy, and that they are left unpersuaded for precisely that reason. The only things they seem to get out of those critiques are "George Washington wouldn't want this," and "this is not in our national interests, whatever they are."
::::So to clarify my first point, I was arguing that many undecideds see only ideological arguments within paleocon critiques of neocon/neolib foreign policy, and that they are left unpersuaded for precisely that reason. The only things they seem to get out of those critiques are "George Washington wouldn't want this," and "this is not in our national interests, whatever they are."
::::The keys to overcoming this impasse are as follows: (1) State our core national interests, which are to secure our borders and ensure that our neighbors are not controlled by hostile entities; (2) Identify the geopolitical goals of the neocons and neolibs, which by the way are ''not'' "to spread democracy" or "to spread liberalism," but rather the goals set up Brzezinski in his book; and (3) State why neocon/neolib foreign policy interferes with our ability to either protect our borders or keep our neighbors friendly. And as a bonus, it would be preferable to state why neocon/neolib foreign policy is morally objectionable, which by the way it is, for reasons I'll elaborate upon when I explain the "Eurasian Balkans" concept (I'll get to that later tonight; I gotta get back to watching the Super Bowl. Go Bengals!)--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 21:05, February 13, 2022 (EST)
::::The keys to overcoming this impasse are as follows: (1) State our core national interests, which are to secure our borders and ensure that our neighbors are not controlled by hostile entities; (2) Identify the geopolitical goals of the neocons and neolibs, which by the way are ''not'' "to spread democracy" or "to spread liberalism," but rather the goals set up Brzezinski in his book; and (3) State why neocon/neolib foreign policy interferes with our ability to either protect our borders or keep our neighbors friendly. And as a bonus, it would be preferable to state why neocon/neolib foreign policy is morally objectionable, which by the way it is, for reasons I'll elaborate upon when I explain the "Eurasian Balkans" concept (I'll get to that later tonight; I gotta get back to watching the Super Bowl. Go Bengals! :)--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 21:05, February 13, 2022 (EST)
:::::Alright, I'm back. Bengals lost, by the way.
:::::So, the idea that neocons/neolibs' sole foreign policy goal is "spreading democracy" is totally false. In reality, their true foreign policy goal is to maintain the unipolar world order brought about by the collapse of the USSR. The two big "gurus" of this geopolitical movement are Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. Both Brzezinski and Kissinger have maintained the opinion that the key to ensuring an eternal, American-led unipolar world order is to ensure that no other power dominates the "Eurasian Heartland." A premise originally coined by Halford Mackinder in 1904, the "Eurasian Heartland" theory maintains that Central Asia is the most strategically important region in the world, because whoever controls it is in the best position to control the "World Island," the Afro-Eurasian supercontinent which contains the majority of the world's resources and the world's people.
:::::In 1997, Brzezinski published ''The Grand Chessboard'', which promotes an updated version of the "Eurasian Heartland" theory known as the "Eurasian Balkans" theory. "Eurasian Balkans" theory maintains that "Eurasian Balkans" is the epicenter of the global power void caused by the collapse of the USSR. Thus, the primary goal of American foreign policy must be to ensure American domination of the region. This region consists of: Afghanistan, Central Asia, eastern Turkey, most of the Caucasus, northern Iran, and the Xinjiang region of China. A map detailing the scope of the region is attached [https://fromestopwarscampaign.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/eb_map.jpg here]. In the same chapter, Brzezinski identifies seven potential foils to neocon/neolib aspirations in the region: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Notice any patterns yet?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 22:33, February 13, 2022 (EST)
::Putin uses the 1998 bombing of Belgrade which was not authorized by the UN to bash NATO. So beware; citing this book sets you up as a Putin stooge. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 19:11, February 13, 2022 (EST)
::Putin uses the 1998 bombing of Belgrade which was not authorized by the UN to bash NATO. So beware; citing this book sets you up as a Putin stooge. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 19:11, February 13, 2022 (EST)