Neo-Conservatism and its Roots in Warfare State Propaganda

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is really stupid. You can't discredit an article simply by stating the publisher is biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

That goofy site ISNT EVEN THE PUBLISHER. The publisher of the book is the Center for Libertarian Studies.

[Luxoris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is really stupid. You can't discredit an article simply by stating the publisher is biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

That goofy site ISNT EVEN THE PUBLISHER. The publisher of the book is the Center for Libertarian Studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

that sure adds to its credibility. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is really stupid. You can't discredit an article simply by stating the publisher is biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

That goofy site ISNT EVEN THE PUBLISHER. The publisher of the book is the Center for Libertarian Studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

that sure adds to its credibility. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you another one-line wonder, or can you actually put together an argument to show us why the publisher has no credibility?

[Case Closed]

When he states that the Soviet Union was a 'chimera' what does he mean? I understand the historical reference but I am not sure if I understand in the sense he is trying to use it. Does he mean that the Soviet Union was an amalgamation of evils formed into one fictional entity that, in reality, holds none of those properties?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make where the stuff is linked from? Defend or critique the arguments contained therein.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[skeptix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is really stupid. You can't discredit an article simply by stating the publisher is biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

That goofy site ISNT EVEN THE PUBLISHER. The publisher of the book is the Center for Libertarian Studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of making something generally known, the website did in fact publish the work. But nitpicking aside, I think we know where we stand when those who would question us use absolutist, circular-logic alongside non-sequitors to "make" their point.

[andyfox]

He means that the threat posed to us by the Soviets (for example, he mentions the notion that they would invade western Europe) was exaggerated out of all proportion in order to get the American people behind the spending for defense and the worldwide commitement to military and econom ic engagement that would be "required" in the face of such a threat.

[andyfox]

McCarthy was right about nothing. There were certainly Soviet spies in the United States, just as there were American spies in the USSR. The wikipedia article on McCarthy is quite good.

I posted some time ago about the New Cold War paradigm and there are indeed many parallels between the old Cold War and the current War on Terrorism. I'll leave it for others to elaborate.

[Case Closed]

I think that he is correct when he says that. Outside of their nuclear weapons the Soviet Union was a greatly exaggerated threat. The people of the soviet union lived in poverty and their style of government stifled all economic growth.

But there is a big problem with his line of thought. We have to put things in historical context or examining history is a worthless adventure. We did not know how weak the soviet union truly was. It's unfair to make comments of that nature in hindsight.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-Was the Soviet threat really a chimera?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see this discussed. My only knowledge of the cold war is that I always heard McCarthyism was bad, then I read "Treason" which said McCarthy was right about a lot of things, but this is coming from Ann Coulter. It's safe to say I know very little about the soviet threat, but it seems that the cold war is incredibly relevant to what's going on internationally now.

[/ QUOTE ]


Cuban Missile Crisis

Cuban Missile Crisis (Wiki)

The threat was real - The actually extent of and which threats were potentially most harmful or dangerous or real can be argued about. And all countries (i.e. governments and public and private entities) trump up the threat of others for various propaganda reasons that are not hard to figure out.

Usually, but not always, the threats as perceived at the time turn out to be less dangerous than judged by the people involved, but this is seldom seen at the moment and the passage of time allows for historical and objective analysis to offer up its judgment. But this is certainly easier accomplished from the comfort of a library or archive and without the tense emotional involvement of the moment, the zeitgeist of the times, and within the context not only of hindsight but with the ability to rubber-stamp your own perspective and bias on the subject of study.


-Zeno