Liberal War Hawks and Neo-Cons: A threat to the world?

[Communal concils]

Liberal War Hawk: A Liberal( in American terms) that supports an aggressive foreign policy. Sometimes not just being Pro-war, but also jingoistic .

Neo-Conservative: a term that describes an ideology that supports American domination in the world. Conservative in the sense of supporting continued militarism and war for the justification of "Spreading Democracy"and American "Values". Neo-cons focus more on foreign policy than domestic policy, and support free-markets and extreme Capitalism ( except in military). Conservative in culture, Liberal in social values, and leftist in past.

Do you see them as a threat? Do you see them as destructive ? If you are one of these " Liberal war-hawks" or "Neo-cons" , then explain why you are one,Perhaps we can debate.

My Opinion: they are destructive to the world. The Neo-cons spend more money on military than on infrastructure, health care, education and police enforcement. They waste lives and resources on vague ideals of democracy, and sometimes use the acquired resources for a lazy corporate elite. when it comes to xenophobia, they will call many people "Russian bots". They use the Mueller investigation as a reason why they didn't get elected. They will also use Islamophobia when it fits them, but they get triggered the moment Israel and Zionism get criticize. The atheist Liberal Warhawk dehumanize everyone in the middle east. no matter the actual culture, language or religion, justifying their closet racism with social Liberal values.

[Bear Stearns]

Imperialists are bad, yes.

[Communal concils]

Imperialists are bad, yes.

Indeed.

[Cobra the Enemy]

While I'm certainly not a fan of either group, the fact of the matter is if we don't act imperialist to some degree, China and Russia will gladly take our place.

[Liberal Thermidorian Reaction]

Yes. We should get rid of the hyper-interventionists, as we shouldn't be invading countries that did not attack us. They do pose a threat to world peace.

[Communal concils]

While I'm certainly not a fan of either group, the fact of the matter is if we don't act imperialist to some degree, China and Russia will gladly take our place.

However, focusing at home is more important. Foreign policy is useless, unless you focus on your domestic issues. As for Russia and china, the Neo-cons use that argument for things that don't need American involvement. However, I think that interventionism has became a tool for economic exploitation, which leads to the issues of mass migration from the Global South.

[Communal concils]

Yes. We should get rid of the hyper-interventionists, as we shouldn't be invading countries that did not attack us. They do pose a threat to world peace.

At this point, it's Economic Imperialism. Globalism today is a tool for them to feed of the labor of citizens and other people.

[-Ocelot-]

While I'm certainly not a fan of either group, the fact of the matter is if we don't act imperialist to some degree, China and Russia will gladly take our place.

It's already happening. China's 1 belt 1 road project is going to pull influence away from the US. It controls pretty much the entire region around it and is constantly trying to stretch it's borders in land and sea. China isn't far away from replacing the US as the "ruler" of that region. And Russia invaded Ukraine, still holds stolen land and is preaching about the idea of a "multipolar world" while trying to break Europe apart.

People are quick to blame the US for being "too imperialist" at times, but forget that Russia and China are imperialist all the time and to the highest degree. I'd like to see you trying to criticize Russia in a world where Russia is a global hegemon.

So don't wish for a world where the US is isolated and non-interventionist because you might just get it.

[Bear Stearns]

While I'm certainly not a fan of either group, the fact of the matter is if we don't act imperialist to some degree, China and Russia will gladly take our place.

Likely no one would take our place and we'd have a multi-polar world.

[The South Falls]

Not necessarily. I feel as though that's a vocal minority, though one that is growing stronger.

Neo-Cons and Liberal war hawks are often too roped into the rest of the dichotomy to pose much of a threat.

[Cobra the Enemy]

While I'm certainly not a fan of either group, the fact of the matter is if we don't act imperialist to some degree, China and Russia will gladly take our place.

However, focusing at home is more important. Foreign policy is useless, unless you focus on your domestic issues. As for Russia and china, the Neo-cons use that argument for things that don't need American involvement. However, I think that interventionism has became a tool for economic exploitation, which leads to the issues of mass migration from the Global South.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you that our issues at home should be taking precedent right now. But, it'll be much harder to deal with things at home if we also have to worry about things abroad.

Likely no one would take our place and we'd have a multi-polar world.

You can only say that because right now we aren't letting anyone take our place. If we do, we're screwed. And I'd much rather have a flawed, but free country ruling the world than 2 dictatorships.

[Communal concils]

While I'm certainly not a fan of either group, the fact of the matter is if we don't act imperialist to some degree, China and Russia will gladly take our place.

It's already happening. China's 1 belt 1 road project is going to pull influence away from the US. It controls pretty much the entire region around it and is constantly trying to stretch it's borders in land and sea. China isn't far away from replacing the US as the "ruler" of that region. And Russia invaded Ukraine, still holds stolen land and is preaching about the idea of a "multipolar world" while trying to break Europe apart.

People are quick to blame the US for being "too imperialist" at times, but forget that Russia and China are imperialist all the time and to the highest degree. I'd like to see you trying to criticize Russia in a world where Russia is a global hegemon.

So don't wish for a world where the US is isolated and non-interventionist because you might just get it.

1. I will say that I'm fine with other countries advancing. Russia is just trying to recover from the dissolution of the USSR, and China is modernizing it's self. The united states caring for foreigners over ti's own citizens in unpatriotic, it is not realistic and long lasting. Also, Russia did not invade Ukraine. The Russian portion of Ukraine decided to rise up, and Crimea declared it's independence in 2014. However, Crimea decided that being safe under Russia is a better thing for it's future. In fact, Crimea voted to let in the Russia army.

2. Russia is a presidential republic like america, it is also capitalist. I will criticize it the same way. The world has been around for thousands of years before america, and I see no harm in simple limitations in intervention.

[Bear Stearns]

Likely no one would take our place and we'd have a multi-polar world.

You can only say that because right now we aren't letting anyone take our place. If we do, we're screwed. And I'd much rather have a flawed, but free country ruling the world than 2 dictatorships.

Russia and China do not have the capability to be global superpowers. They'd be about as powerful as they are now, except they'd be competing with more upstart regional powers.

[Communal concils]

Not necessarily. I feel as though that's a vocal minority, though one that is growing stronger.

Neo-Cons and Liberal war hawks are often too roped into the rest of the dichotomy to pose much of a threat.

If they are not a threat, then explain why there is more focus on foreign policy than domestic policy. also, we can clearly see Neo-cons in the Democrats and republicans united on imperialistic policies.

[The South Falls]

Not necessarily. I feel as though that's a vocal minority, though one that is growing stronger.

Neo-Cons and Liberal war hawks are often too roped into the rest of the dichotomy to pose much of a threat.

If they are not a threat, then explain why there is more focus on foreign policy than domestic policy. also, we can clearly see Neo-cons in the Democrats and republicans united on imperialistic policies.

Where? If their primary position is as it is, should there not be more focus on foreign policy? We see their tidings, though their beliefs are repressed from entering into the forefront and amounting to true action.

[Bear Stearns]

It's disturbing the way some American hawks clamor for intervention in Venezuela. Not only will that create the mother of all migrant caravans, it will also make Latin America hate us more than they do now, and bog us down in a war in a mountainous country full of jungle with no end in sight.

[Cobra the Enemy]

You can only say that because right now we aren't letting anyone take our place. If we do, we're screwed. And I'd much rather have a flawed, but free country ruling the world than 2 dictatorships.

Russia and China do not have the capability to be global superpowers. They'd be about as powerful as they are now, except they'd be competing with more upstart regional powers.

I think you're being incredibly naive. Both certainly have the capability to be global superpowers, albeit at the cost of the well being of many of their citizens. The only thing really holding them back right now is the US.

[Communal concils]

However, focusing at home is more important. Foreign policy is useless, unless you focus on your domestic issues. As for Russia and china, the Neo-cons use that argument for things that don't need American involvement. However, I think that interventionism has became a tool for economic exploitation, which leads to the issues of mass migration from the Global South.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you that our issues at home should be taking precedent right now. But, it'll be much harder to deal with things at home if we also have to worry about things abroad.

Likely no one would take our place and we'd have a multi-polar world.

You can only say that because right now we aren't letting anyone take our place. If we do, we're screwed. And I'd much rather have a flawed, but free country ruling the world than 2 dictatorships.

1. I am not oppose to having troops abroad. however, there is too much. There is too much military spending. There is too much funding of foreign rebels. As a result of this thinking, chaos consumed the world. ISIS takes the role of Saddam, Taliban takes the role of the communist of Afghanistan, and slave trade along with a civil war takes the place of Qaddafi's Libya.

2. "Free" nation. Freedom is a vague word. In this case, freedom of the liberal kind has done horrors to this nation especially in cities like Chicago or Atlanta. I would rather have a prosperous dictatorship than a crumbling liberal democracy.

[Thermodolia]

Yes. Though it’s frightening that we agree on something

[Communal concils]

Russia and China do not have the capability to be global superpowers. They'd be about as powerful as they are now, except they'd be competing with more upstart regional powers.

I think you're being incredibly naive. Both certainly have the capability to be global superpowers, albeit at the cost of the well being of many of their citizens. The only thing really holding them back right now is the US.

Fear mongering, that's all. At least China doesn't invade countries on a yearly basis. They offer development to many countries. While Russia's threat is over exaggerated.

[Communal concils]

Yes. Though it’s frightening that we agree on something

If we actually focus on more than one issue, then we can agree on lot's of things. It's that simple.

[Cobra the Enemy]

1. I am not oppose to having troops abroad. however, there is too much. There is too much military spending. There is too much funding of foreign rebels. As a result of this thinking, chaos consumed the world. ISIS takes the role of Saddam, Taliban takes the role of the communist of Afghanistan, and slave trade along with a civil war takes the place of Qaddafi's Libya.

2. "Free" nation. Freedom is a vague word. In this case, freedom of the liberal kind has done horrors to this nation especially in cities like Chicago or Atlanta. I would rather have a prosperous dictatorship than a crumbling liberal democracy.

Well I support a prosperous democracy over a faux capitalist dictatorship. What's the point of good living standards (which neither Russia nor China have btw) if you can't express your thoughts? As long as the US maintains its position in the world, and by proxy its prosperity, then I don't see the problem with a blood sacrifice or two. There are no perfect solutions in this world, only the most pragmatic and least costly.

[The South Falls]

Yes. Though it’s frightening that we agree on something

If we actually focus on more than one issue, then we can agree on lot's of things. It's that simple.

I mean, it's basic things, versus actually relevant issues.

For example, we can agree that the earth is round.

But, we may not be able to agree on whether we should, say, end coal mining to preserve that earth.

[-Ocelot-]

Russia and China do not have the capability to be global superpowers. They'd be about as powerful as they are now, except they'd be competing with more upstart regional powers.

I think you're being incredibly naive. Both certainly have the capability to be global superpowers, albeit at the cost of the well being of many of their citizens. The only thing really holding them back right now is the US.

They are already behaving like superpowers. Both Russia and China act like they own nearby countries. We are past the point of speculation

[Cobra the Enemy]

Fear mongering, that's all. At least China doesn't invade countries on a yearly basis. They offer development to many countries. While Russia's threat is over exaggerated.

China's one-belt one-road is just neo-colonialism disguised as developmental aid. China regularly gives poor countries loans that they can not possibly pay off, and then take a piece of their territory, like say a dock for warships as payment. I agree that Russia is currently a paper tiger, but that's thanks to America's current military funding constantly outpacing them.