policraticus: (Default)
[personal profile] policraticus
In response to a radically changed world situation since the Islamist attacks of 9/11, the United States under George W. Bush has adopted a broad new approach to national security. The Bush Doctrine, as this policy has come to be known, emphasizes the need for preemption in order to “confront the worst threats before they emerge.” It also stresses the need to transform the cultures that breed hatred and fanaticism by—in a historically stunning move—actively

This sweeping redirection of policy has provoked intense controversy, especially but not only over its practicality, and especially but not only over its application to Iraq. At issue as well are the precise nature of the threats faced by the United States and the West, the specific tactics adopted by the Bush administration in meeting them, American capabilities and staying power, relations with traditional allies, the larger intentions and moral bona fides of U.S. foreign policy, and much else besides. Opinion on these matters is divided not only between the Left and the Right in political and intellectual life but, quite sharply, among American conservatives themselves.

Rest of Commentary Article Here

So, I thought that, given the imminent return of Cindy Sheehan to the protest circuit and the current active debate surrounding the authorization and conduct the Iraq War, it would be a good time to re-introduce this topic to the community and see where we all stand. Besides, it has been dreadfully dull and I think this may produce some heat, if not light. So. Commentary asked four sets of pretty general questions and I think they are a good frame for a debate on the Bush Doctrine, the War on Terror and Iraq. Reading the assembled authors at their site is interesting, if somewhat less than user friendly. I am going to respond in the comments, and we can each defend our own positions as best we may.

1. Where have you stood, and where do you now stand, in relation to the Bush Doctrine? Do you agree with the President’s diagnosis of the threat we face and his prescription for dealing with it?

2. How would you rate the progress of the Bush Doctrine so far in making the U.S. more secure and in working toward a safer world environment? What about the policy’s longer-range prospects?

3. Are there particular aspects of American policy, or of the administration’s handling or explanation of it, that you would change immediately?

4. Apart from your view of the way the Bush Doctrine has been defined or implemented, do you agree with its expansive vision of America’s world role and the moral responsibilities of American power?
(deleted comment)

Date: 2005-11-29 06:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johngorentz.livejournal.com
What he said.

Date: 2006-01-08 07:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] madincleveland.livejournal.com

Date: 2006-01-08 09:45 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Your persuasive and thoughtful argument has challenged my assumptions and caused me to look more carefully at my own positions.

Date: 2006-01-09 01:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] madincleveland.livejournal.com
lol okay maybe not but aint that pik da bomb?

Date: 2006-01-09 03:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] poguemahone7.livejournal.com
wut a fukin snob

Date: 2006-02-20 07:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] daethoniel.livejournal.com
We got into a debate about proper advocates for atheism and skepticism a while back. You mentioned Dawkins and one other name. I'm commenting now to make a concession and say that, upon having actually gotten around to reading some of Dawkins' work (my ignorance drew some insults from you, if I remember), I think he's definitely a better advocate than the one I was standing behind when we debated.

I'm also commenting because I've forgotten that second name and kinda want to look him up now.

Date: 2006-02-20 04:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] policraticus.livejournal.com
Is there really someone who, searching for a group of wise and sensitive persons to regulate him for his own good, would choose that group of people that constitute the membership of both houses of Congress? -Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

That was back in December! You are lucky I happen to be re-reading this book! I am not sure if Nozick was much of an atheist or skeptic, really, but he was certainly a libertarian. Other philosophers of this school include Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

That was a very gracious admission, and I hope you continue read and expand your knowledge base.

Date: 2006-04-09 04:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maskmaster.livejournal.com
It's too bad that you're journal appears inactive (though maybe it's because your posts are friends-only, I don't know). I found some of your comments in the debate forum, and I just wanted to let you know that I think you're very bright and I appreciate the wisdom in your replies. If you're journal is still active and you are agreeable, I'd like to add you to my friend's list, so let me know!

Date: 2006-04-20 03:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] policraticus.livejournal.com
Thank you for your kind words, and my apologies for my late reply. As you rightly divine, I am not much of a blogger, in fact I am wretched. You are, however, more than welcome to add me, for what it is worth.

Date: 2007-04-07 12:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] policraticus.livejournal.com

Date: 2007-04-07 12:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] policraticus.livejournal.com
test test test

an ode to code?

Date: 2007-10-26 03:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rosetta--stone.livejournal.com
tl: dr?

ref: we are all won and [livejournal.com profile] laruoccobot Xero?

Re: an ode to code?

Date: 2007-10-26 04:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] policraticus.livejournal.com
Anyone who doesn't understand "tl;dr" has no business posting on [Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com].


policraticus: (Default)

January 2017

1516171819 2021

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 03:15 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios