Not World War III
When a war breaks out somewhere, two sound principles for civilized people are: (1) demand an immediate ceasefire and, failing that, (2) keep the war contained--do not broaden it, do not join in.My op-ed"Not World War III" appears today in the Baltimore Chronicle & Herald. It was distributed by The Future of Freedom Foundation.
We can gauge the civility of the Bush administration's neoconservative boosters by the fact that they reject both principles.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
comments powered by Disqus
Sheldon Richman - 7/31/2006
Readers can judge the article for themselves.
Craig J. Bolton - 7/31/2006
Let me clarify, since I apparently wasn't clear the first time around. I see the reference to Grinich and "the Weekly Standard folks" in your article. That isn't, however, a reference to anything in specific. Now I know that the neo-conservatives [particularly their founders] are loons. But I hadn't heard that Grinich is a card carrying neo-conservative or that any neo-conservatives had been advocating WWIII.
The only person I'm aware of that has been prating about WWIII is Tony Blankley, who certainly has a strong historical association with Grinich but also isn't exactly a "neo-conservative."
You know, Sheldon, everytime the people who write for this Forum get off on this topic [Israel] you seem to blend off into invoking evil demons, meaningless generalization, and just plain rants, without even a serious nod to the opposing points of view. In this article, for instance, you seem to be taking the position that this ceasefire would be good because ceasefires are always a good thing. But how many of your readers do you think would buy into such a position? Indeed, I doubt that you would want to defend such a position to a mixed audience containing nonanarchists. So it must be this particular ceasefire that is somehow particularly merited, albeit you never get around to telling us why - other than the people who are opposing it are evil neo-conservatives.
Not very convincing.
Sheldon Richman - 7/30/2006
Did I not mention Gingrich and the Weekly Standard folks? They appear in my version of the column.
Craig J. Bolton - 7/30/2006
But I note that you fail to specifically identify the particular "Bush administration's neoconservative boosters .. [that] are doing their best to expand the conflict by pronouncing it World War III or IV and urging U.S. participation--specifically, by bombing Iran or Syria." Pray tell, who are they?
- How Clinton Could Respond on Supreme Court Vacancy
- Trump and Clinton Way Ahead in South Carolina
- McConnell Says Senate Will Wait to Replace Scalia
- Antonin Scalia Is Dead
- Clinton Says Sanders Would Be Threat to Obama Legacy
- Internal Tracker Shows Trump Leading in South Carolina
- How the Primaries are Rigged Against Sanders
- Carson Sees Fundraising Resurgence
- Trump Has GOP Mega Donors Frozen
- Quote of the Day
- Top GOP Candidates Haven’t Released Tax Returns
- Trump Attack Ads Finally Begin
- Super PACs Gear Up for Clinton
- Cruz App Mines Data from Your Phone
- Trump Way Ahead in South Carolina
- Ben Carson used an apparently fake Joseph Stalin quote — and the Internet loved it
- Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- Historian at the center of Sanders-Clinton debate
- James Loewen Says Additional Baltimore Confederate Statues Should be Removed
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges