Bush (Brezhnev) doctrine

#1
Those of us old enough to remember the Cold War, may well remember the 'Brezhnev Doctrine': to protect communism from outside influences and secure the centralised power of Moscow over its satellites. Bush's neo-socialist - ooops neo-conservative - doctrine is becoming to sound publically even more allied to good old commie thought.

Just heard Bush's latest rallying call in Salt Lake City. I don't have a transcript, but a couple of lines went like this:
We will not leave Iraq until it has a democracy that is friendly with the US and a partner in the war on terror [sic] blah blah blah."
Or, to put it another way: Iraq's independance, sovereignty and democracy is notional and to be confined strictly to what Washington will allow.

Here are Brezhnev's words after the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968:
It has got to be emphasized that when a socialist country seems to adopt a "non-affiliated" stand, it retains its national independence, in effect, precisely because of the might of the socialist community, and above all the Soviet Union as a central force, which also includes the might of its armed forces.

The antisocialist elements in Czechoslovakia actually covered up the demand for so-called neutrality and Czechoslovakia's withdrawal from the socialist community with talking about the right of nations to self-determination.

However, the implementation of such "self-determination," in other words, Czechoslovakia's detachment from the socialist community, would have come into conflict with its own vital interests and would have been detrimental to the other socialist states.
In other words: Czechoslovakia's independance, sovereignty and democracy was notional and was confined strictly to what Moscow allowed.

Just replace 'socialist' with 'democracy' and Bush's words bear striking resemblance to Brezhnev's!!!!
 
#3
#4
Siddar said:
So acording to your warped world view US troops are about to invade france and germany?
How do you reach that conclusion?
 
#5
And????

Shame neither provided a FULL transcript!

However, I think I've found one here, and here's Bush's EXACT words and not my poor memory:
Victory in Iraq will result in a democracy that is a friend of America and an ally in the war on terror.
Full text here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831-1.html
 
#6
Those of us old enough to remember the Cold War, may well remember the 'Brezhnev Doctrine': to protect communism from outside influences and secure the centralised power of Moscow over its satellites. Bush's neo-socialist - ooops neo-conservative - doctrine is becoming to sound publically even more allied to good old commie thought.
Your feeling that neo cons are socialists is bazaar. It is not backed up by the reality of the debate ,but instead is some sort of intellectual transmogrification . Calling a neo con a socialist is a insult and a novel one at that, but I guess that is the whole point. We are more familiar with being called Naiz or religious fanatics and have adjusted to those names.

I have no doubt that the London fops and Russian ones too are all a glitter about the new creative approach you have taken, but really, calling us socialists is a low blow.
 
#7
Highly esteemed mr.Bush said:
Iraq is the central front in this war on terror. If we leave the streets of Baghdad before the job is done, we will have to face the terrorists in our own cities. We will stay the course, we will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed, and victory in Iraq will be a major ideological triumph in the struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)
I was born in the Soviet Union and see something familar. So what is the main objective? To protect streets of American cities form crimi... er... (they are always there) ... from terrorists? Or to feel orgasm of ideological triumph?
 
#8
I was born in the Soviet Union and see something familar. So what is the main objective? To protect streets of American cities form crimi... er... (they are always there) ... from terrorists? Or to feel orgasm of ideological triumph?

Apparently it will be the triumph of socialism from what I being told.
 
#9
NEO_CON said:
Your feeling that neo cons are socialists is bazaar. It is not backed up by the reality of the debate ,but instead is some sort of intellectual transmogrification . Calling a neo con a socialist is a insult and a novel one at that, but I guess that is the whole point. We are more familiar with being called Naiz or religious fanatics and have adjusted to those names.

I have no doubt that the London fops are all a glitter about the new creative approach you have taken, but really, calling us socialists is a low blow.
Interestred to hear what a Naiz is!!!!!

If you consider being called a neo-socialist a low-blow, then it may well do you a favour to take a little more care in choosing which ideology to sign up to. The idea that Iraq can only have a 'democracy' that is a "friend of America" is no different to Brezhnev saying that Czechoslovakia could only have a communist government friendly to Moscow.

And that's the point. Neo-conservative doctrine is all about brutally enforcing regime change on those that step out of line and creating puppet states who are "friend of America". Read your history, and you'll see that is just about precisely what the Soviet Union was trying to achieve post-WW2. Freedom and democracy are wonderfully sounding words, but you ain't free or democratic if all you're allowed to have is a puppet "friend of America" at the helm.

Like I've said before neo-com, you're following and preaching the lefty position - you're just too gullible to see it.
 
#10
And that's the point. Neo-conservative doctrine is all about brutally enforcing regime change on those that step out of line and creating puppet states who are "friend of America". Read your history, and you'll see that is just about precisely what the Soviet Union was trying to achieve post-WW2. Freedom and democracy are wonderfully sounding words, but you ain't free or democratic if all you're allowed to have is a puppet "friend of America" at the helm.

Like I've said before neo-com, you're following and preaching the lefty position - you're just too gullible to see it.


I can only assume both you and Sergey are Pacifists and don't believe in the use of force.
 
#11
merkator said:
Siddar said:
So acording to your warped world view US troops are about to invade france and germany?
How do you reach that conclusion?
Mostly it was from your throwing Chekzlovkia SP? into your argument but then you went and added this gem in a later post.

And that's the point. Neo-conservative doctrine is all about brutally enforcing regime change on those that step out of line and creating puppet states who are "friend of America". Read your history, and you'll see that is just about precisely what the Soviet Union was trying to achieve post-WW2. Freedom and democracy are wonderfully sounding words, but you ain't free or democratic if all you're allowed to have is a puppet "friend of America" at the helm.


So again I ask why US has not invaded france and germany yet?
 
#12
NEO_CON said:
I can only assume both you and Sergey are Pacifists and don't believe in the use of force.
Can't speak for Sergey, but I'm all in favour for a good dose of violence meted out to those truely deserving of it and when it will actually further the stated aims. Sadly, neo-socialist violence meets neither of these criterior - except in the initial operation into Afghanistan in 2001.
[hr]
Siddar said:
So again I ask why US has not invaded france and germany yet?
Again, I cannot fathom why you nominate France and Germany based on what's above. Just why should the US invade them?
 
#13
Can't speak for Sergey, but I'm all in favour for a good dose of violence meted out to those truely deserving of it and when it will actually further the stated aims. Sadly, neo-socialist violence meets neither of these criterior - except in the initial operation into Afghanistan in 2001.
You will use violence to achieve your goals and disagree with trying to set up democracies, too neo-conish, then you must favor using violence to set up dictatorships.
 
#14
NEO_CON said:
You will use violence to achieve your goals and disagree with trying to set up democracies, too neo-conish, then you must favor using violence to set up dictatorships.
Read between the lines neo-com. The doctrine you follow says it is setting-up democracies, but in reality only wants puppet states who are "friend of America." If Iraq remains unfriendly, then what? Hardly a democracy if the US remains there indefinitely is it - memories of Soviet troops in eastern Europe spring to mind. Or what happens if the US leaves, and the Iraqis democratically elect a regime massively opposed to the US. Does the US invade again? Again, memories of the Soviet Union leap forward.

What am I in favour of? Peace, stability and prosperity. Each of these has been undermined severely by recent US foreign policy - and it's getting worse!

PS. Don't forget, violent dictatorships are still acceptable to Washington - as long as they are a "friend of America".
 
#15
Nice dodge, but you said you favored using force when you thought it was warranted , what you won't say is what kind of regime you would leave in place after your force was used.
 
#16
NEO_CON said:
Nice dodge, but you said you favored using force when you thought it was warranted , what you won't say is what kind of regime you would leave in place after your force was used.
No dodge at all. I said I was in favour of peace, security and prosperity. If a dictator offers that, why not? Yes neo-com, I'm a true-blue right-wing realist. I'm not like you at all. I'm not impressed by wishy-washy liberal neo-socialism dressed up as ... well ... who knows what?

Moreover, the 'natural' progression for 'liberal democracies' appears to be a sort of benign dictatorship; less than 25% of UK voting public chose Tony Blair. He often ignores them, his party, and even his own hand-picked ministers - choosing to follow a "higher authority". Is that 'democracy'?

Now tell me neo-com. As someone who is so fervent in his belief of democracy, what have you done to lobby your own regime to get rid of that wicked dictator in Pakistan - you know, the one who seems to have the majority of al-Qaida's training and support facilities located on his territory?
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#17
Funny I was thinking today, as I flicked through the economist, that if President Bush was CEO of a multinational, and ran it as he seems to or desires to with Western hegemony, he would be had up by monopoly commisions left right and centre. Made me smile.

I think the analogy of the original post holds. Talk of left/socialist : right/conservative is a Red Herring. Totalitarianism is what George and Tony are all about, though they like to portray it as only being on the other side. Reminds me of a book on my shelf by Tariq Ali, had a funny cover.

[align=center]
[/align]
 
#18
NEO_CON said:
I can only assume both you and Sergey are Pacifists and don't believe in the use of force.
I'm not a pacifist at all. After the capture of Quwait pacifist methods would be absolutely ineffective. Sometimes there is no alternative to force. But it doesn't mean that force should be used in any possible case.

For example. American army fights with so called Mahdi army. Are they terrorists? Is it a threat to USA? Would Mahdi army invade USA after the wothdrawal? Have they WMD?
 
#19
Neo_Con, Trip_Wire,

Read and inwardly digest: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/082506_nye.htm

Highlight of the piece, IMHO:

A progressive realist policy must advance the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness enshrined in American tradition. Such a grand strategy would have four key pillars: (1) providing security for the US and its allies; (2) maintaining a strong domestic and international economy; (3) avoiding environmental disasters (such as pandemics and global flooding); and (4) encouraging liberal democracy and human rights at home and, where feasible, abroad.

This does not mean imposing American values by force. Democracy promotion is better accomplished by attraction than coercion, and it takes time and patience.

The US would be wise to encourage the gradual evolution of democracy, but in a manner that accepts the reality of cultural diversity.

Such a grand strategy would focus on four major threats. Probably the greatest danger is the intersection of terrorism with nuclear materials. Preventing this requires policies to counter terrorism and promote non-proliferation, better protection of nuclear materials, stability in the Middle East, as well as greater attention to failed states.
 
#20
Note: Trip_Wire has only made one post in this tread. That post was an effort to supply a full text of the Bush speech! Apparently a better document then I posted was found by that person.

I had no comment on this tread, other them trying to post the content of the speech, rather then somebodys, read on it.

Nor would I ever pay any attention to ones comments, that uses 'Che' like poster and a red flag with my screen name with personal insults afixed to it.

Though it isn't 'Che, depicted on numb nuts poster, it might as well be!

Though the person on the RED flag, isn't him, I'm still very happy to be a former member of the parent unit, that aided the Bolivian Rangers track down and kill that communist killer. May he burn in hell!
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top