[Tolik]

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/10/scowcroft-just-doesnt-get-it.html

 

[michaelt]

bump.

[Tolik]

R.J. Rummel:

Those who share Scowcroft's view, which is a good part of the Washington establishment, see the tools of foreign policy as diplomacy, (jaw-jaw, smile-smile) multilateralism, alliances, foreign aid, trade, and the UN, all aimed at developing or maintaining stability in critical regions, like the Middle East, and a stable balance of interests and power. They see the idea of a democratic peace as Wilsonian idealism, utopianism, and as an excuse for a missionary like crusade for democracy.

These "realistic" analysts and experts do not realize that if by realistic one means consistent with history and facts, then it is the democratic peace that is most realistic. Policies based on stability, which when they were applied to the Middle East meant stable dictatorships, have consistently failed. The democratic peace has passed hard empirical tests, such as those below. The policy of realism has not.

Democratic Peace Chart
Tables/Figures/Data

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[satchmodog9]

I always answer my liberal friends bitching about Iraq with"I thought you people loved change, especially when it is just for changes sake'. They don't like that one. Scowcroft is a gutless turd BTW.

[Tolik]

Cross-Reference:

Scowcroft's 'Realism'
RealClearPolitics ^ | October 28, 2005 | By Charles Krauthammer
Posted on 10/28/2005 7:00:56 AM EDT by .cnI redruM

[FreedomPoster]

Good stuff.

I am continually throwing Rummel's work in the face of Leftists.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

[Numbers Guy]

Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, "But we've had fifty years of peace."

Using that logic, we should have tolerated the USSR because, other than the Nazi invasion, the Soviet Union had 65 years of "peace".

Peace is not the antonym of war. Peace is the antonym of violence. The USSR was a violent evil regime even when it wasn't at war with the Nazis. Saddam's Iraq was a violent evil regime even when it wasn't at war with Iran or Kuwait.

Scowcroft's love of "stability" is what led to Bush 41's vile "Chicken Kiev" speech in July 1991, where Bush said that stability was more important than freedom.

"Stability" is what got us Khobar, Tanzania and Kenya, and 9/11. Love of "stability" is what led Scowcroft to go to China a few months after the 6/3/89 massacre and toast their leaders. Love of "stability" has led to many around the world thinking that the U.S. will support dictators over freedom.

One of the main reasons we had such early difficulties in stabilizing Iraq is because the Kurds and Shiites didn't trust us--because Brent Scowcroft encouraged the Bush 41 administration to stand aside after the Gulf War and let Saddam butcher those who were in revolt against him. They had long memories of the U.S. betraying them, thanks to Scowcroft.