Bush (Brezhnev) doctrine

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Aug 31, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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:
    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:
    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!!!!
  2. So acording to your warped world view US troops are about to invade france and germany?
  3. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

  4. 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:
  6. 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. 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. Apparently it will be the triumph of socialism from what I being told.
  9. 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. I can only assume both you and Sergey are Pacifists and don't believe in the use of force.
  11. Mostly it was from your throwing Chekzlovkia SP? into your argument but then you went and added this gem in a later post.

    So again I ask why US has not invaded france and germany yet?
  12. 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.
    Again, I cannot fathom why you nominate France and Germany based on what's above. Just why should the US invade them?
  13. 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. 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.