If it was moral to "contain" the USSR is it also moral to contain the USA? The claim that the USA is waging wars to turn other countries into democracies is so obviously false and frankly laughable.
Mearsheimer would say 'Yes' to your question, Dragan. His "contain" comment was mentioned at 33:58 and once only, and in the context of the moral compass aligning with the realist compass. He notes that Great Powers will generally align with their realist compass, and only align with their moral compass when it suits them. So, his theory is that Great Powers act to maximise their power - the US containing the USSR - and the US ideology of liberalism happened to align with the US' realist compass. He has in many other places argued that liberalism is doomed.
As to the second part of your trenchant comment, his claim that " in a world where there are not many checks on its ability to use military force it'll be running all over the world trying to turn countries into democracies" (43;35), again it was made within a particular context, that of war's propensity to escalate if nationalism or ideologies such as liberalism are involved. In the unipolar moment, the USA had a liberal interventionist ideology (a theory written by Lawrence Freedman for Tony Blair when he went lecturing around the USA over the head of Bill Clinton). But otherwise I agree with you that in other times the USA showed itself to be an archetypal Great Power overturning governments that threatened its dominance within its sphere of influence even if they were democracies.
When one takes actions such as what was done in Libya, one does not know that it will not turn out worse than it would have been as the world is full of uncertainty, but all things considered, do you think Stalin would have set up a better world order than the Western Nations? Do you think Putin is the same as Biden? There is no moral equivalency in my opinion.
Perhaps you think the UK was wrong to try and end slavery throughout the world?
And Sadam had WMDs, right? Considering how clueless you are, it is kind of pointless to educate you that the UN was supposed to establish the word order. Your kind spews this USA nonsense 24/7.
Useless to talk to him, he supports every war going and repeatedly vindicates all manner of carnage the US implemented during it's Middle Eastern Wars. Doesn't know that Obama saw going into Libya as his worse failure and called it a "shit show".
Yes, but eventually he gets on your nerves, because he doesn't listen, nor does he want to. But if you're having fun, go at it. I did it for a while but then I started to get headaches.
Hello Dragan. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the World Order that the UN was supposed to establish: how was it to be constituted? By whom? With what resources?
Do you have a view on the supposed World Order of its predecessor, the League of Nations, whose obligations the UN took over (as an example only, the LoN Mandate in Palestine)?
How do you explain that after 9/11 before we went into Afghanistan we were we were going to implement a war in Iraq, and already planned to take down 6 more? Reference A Project for a New American Century and see how their agenda was the blue print for our Middle eastern wars, and they said to carry them out all they would need is a New Pearl Harbor which they got on 9/11. Coincidence? Read about the neocon agenda that pushed our wars. Look at the signatories and you will find Cheney's name there, Rumsfeld too, and Jeff bush as well, all the names who were involved in those wars.
It was overly ambitious, and while I supported doing whatever it took to get Bin Laden and make the Taliban pay a heavy price, I was ambivalent about invading Iraq. I was sick of watching the Iraqi people suffer from Saddam, but in the end, I didn't have firm opinions on the right path forward. They were not lying about WMDs but it was necessary to create a legal reason for the invasion; the real reason was to try and make the world a better place. The French were right about that one but they were wrong about Putin invading Ukraine. It was a high-risk venture that worked out poorly, but it could have turned out otherwise and we still do not know that 20-50 years from now, it may be looked back on as a positive development.
Do you think the people of Iraq are better off now? Do you think life in Syria is better now then before with all that destruction which continues? Where is it better? Jeff you don't invade a country based on lies, where destruction reins, and say well, they're better off now that he's gone, and I know millions died and were displaced, but someday. Where did you develop these kinds of perceptions? You know what makes it so easy for you to say what you say, well, here's a hint, they are not bombing and killing you or your sons, or your family, or your neighbors, or blowing up your neighborhood and you don't have to say, well someday someone will be better off for all this destruction.
Also our Middle Eastern wars, none, based on what Mersheimer said, had any validity. Also how would you justify Cheney's black sites, or guantanamo bay where death and abuse were implimented. How do you excuse going to war on the lie of weapons of mass destruction based on what Mersheimer said?
Jeff even Obama referenced his war in Libya pushed by Clinton, Powers, and Rice, all in his administration. Gaddafi was addressing the demonstrations across the country that broke out at a time that is now referred to as the Arab Spring. Cries of genocide caused him to be murdered, sodomized by a sword, and a war pushed by Clinton, notorious for her love of war, and she even laughed when she heard of his death. Pentagon officials even tried to stop the war in Libya, but Clinton had the ear of Obama. Now Libya once a thriving county is no more, and the last I heard even had slave markets. Obama in 2016 admitted that the war in Libya was his biggest mistake. I hear there are and may still be slave markets there which was never true under Gaddfi. Obama blamed England and France, and let Clinton, Rice and Powers escape criticism, but they are the one's who are the most culpable in destroying what was a thriving country.
I think it was good that Tony Blair met with him after he accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. You have to offer everyone an off-ramp back into society but to the extent Libya was a thriving country, it was only because of oil. Some tribal societies in the Middle East are trying to move on and they should always be encouraged as well. If they have to resort to methods that you and I might find objectionable, it is sometimes the price you have to pay, but the no-fly zone was the wide consensus at the time. I did not like the decision as I thought it would make it hard for future tyrants to repent, but it was the one that was made. It was a reasonable decision, and we will never know what the alternative outcome would have been had we let his tribe beat up on another tribe.
Only because of oil? Like we're not interested in oil? Why do you support all our wars? Why? There's not a war you don't like! Not a war, but you support a genocide in Israel, as well. I suspect you even give a thumbs up to our war in Vietnam, entered into on a lie by Johnson, bay of Tonkin. People were pretty well off in Libya, but no more. Did you read that Obama has deep regrets he gave the thumbs up for the war in Libya and let those three hawkish nut jobs get the upper hand? I don't let him off the hook, and maybe it was only those slave markets that got to him. Took it personal. You like Hilary, the war monger? Assange doesn't, and in an interview with John Pilger said she was sick with a need for power. She is sick, and her sickness brings death and destruction.
But what if the States "Internationalize their Security", just like the NATO members did.
What if NATO becomes a Global Security Forum. Then a state's national security, no matter how much power it holds, whether a Great Power or a Super Power, would not have the capability to compete with a Global Security Form.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
I greatly appreciate these lectures and learning from them. It appears a constant state of war in my opinion. A big problem is; our leaders, many of whom like Biden, are intellectual lightweights at best, do not listen to smart people. They’re empty suites who cannot cross the CIA. I’ve tried to pass along John’s and Jeffrey Sachs take on NATO expansion/Ukraine to many liberal friends. It gets zero traction or consideration. They simply do not care. Putin is the devil to them, period end of story. They cry crocodile tears for Navalny and try to make excuses about Assange, to reassure themselves that Biden and neoliberals will make everything okay by reinstating Roe v Wade. Profoundly naive. This is the extent of the civics understanding and the wall of cognitive dissonance is thicker than “Trumps border wall.” They believe the power elite and their echo chamber media 100% without basic questioning because, after all, these people are officially smart elected folks. The people I’m mentioning attended universities and have master degrees. College students are (mostly) not trained to critique systems of power or challenge cultural assumptions. By design, and that has come home to roost in a dangerous way under this current situation. It’s A vs B only. “Too intellectual and too little emotional to be a significant force in history.” Forget the exact quote. Mass culture does sound bites and critical thinking is actually ridiculed. They call it “wasting time.”
Maybe this is too personal, but he mentions his wife said in regard to Trump, he's a no go, and for him the same, but what about Biden who pushed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and continued in the same vein as vice president under Obama, with a proxy war in Syria and then of course moving on to Libya, wars often seen as implementing a neocon agenda. Also they were a duo that supported a coup in Ukraine and used the help of Neo-Nazis to implement it. Obama left him in charge, and his son made out big time at Burisma. Now once again in charge he wants Putin gone, as he said, He is also facilitating a genocide, and who knows what is next for this mindless president, or should I say on the minds of his neocon run administration? I wonder if he or his wife still would prefer him to Trump? I really like Jeffery Sachs, and toward the lead up to the war in Ukraine he's talking about the neocon agenda, and he's doing fine, then interrupts himself to tell everyone for no reason that the whole time Trump was in office he never got a good night's sleep. Crazy! I think bringing Trump into the discussion might draw a laugh, but I don't find it amusing, because people like Bush/Cheney, Obama, Biden, have caused so much destruction base on lies and destroyed millions of lives and for no reason.
I like Mearsheimer and just got his book on the Lobby, but I wish he wouldn't kind of giggle so much when talking about war and he has a tendency to do that all the time.
Great John, as almost every time (except when you get entangled with this abominable judge).
By the way, please, keep on this friendly and enthusiastic manner in giving your lessons. The way you embellish your arguments, your frankly tone, even this ironical smiling, are what gives you the millions of your audience.
Thanks for that, so civilians have to think how not to go for the whole enchilada, and how to constrain the military and opportunity. Where does the UN fit in with the civilian dilemma?
Good question, Gladwyn. When discussing Just War Theory, he argues it permits aggressive war for 3 reasons: pre-emptive strike, UN Security Council resolution, and intervention against mass murder or genocide.
But then goes on to debunk part of JWT. His lecture is about Great Powers and War, and his theory is that they will only adhere to UN resolutions when it suits them. That's why, elsewhere, he explains why Russia invaded Ukraine despite the UNGA's overwhelming votes against it. That is, he doesn't see the UN fitting in with the civilian dilemma much.
If it was moral to "contain" the USSR is it also moral to contain the USA? The claim that the USA is waging wars to turn other countries into democracies is so obviously false and frankly laughable.
I just stopped listening when he said that, and thought about our many middle eastern wars and wondered if he was justifying those on that basis.
Mearsheimer would say 'Yes' to your question, Dragan. His "contain" comment was mentioned at 33:58 and once only, and in the context of the moral compass aligning with the realist compass. He notes that Great Powers will generally align with their realist compass, and only align with their moral compass when it suits them. So, his theory is that Great Powers act to maximise their power - the US containing the USSR - and the US ideology of liberalism happened to align with the US' realist compass. He has in many other places argued that liberalism is doomed.
As to the second part of your trenchant comment, his claim that " in a world where there are not many checks on its ability to use military force it'll be running all over the world trying to turn countries into democracies" (43;35), again it was made within a particular context, that of war's propensity to escalate if nationalism or ideologies such as liberalism are involved. In the unipolar moment, the USA had a liberal interventionist ideology (a theory written by Lawrence Freedman for Tony Blair when he went lecturing around the USA over the head of Bill Clinton). But otherwise I agree with you that in other times the USA showed itself to be an archetypal Great Power overturning governments that threatened its dominance within its sphere of influence even if they were democracies.
Should have let Ghadaffi slaughter civilians?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/12/gaddafi-army-kill-half-million
When one takes actions such as what was done in Libya, one does not know that it will not turn out worse than it would have been as the world is full of uncertainty, but all things considered, do you think Stalin would have set up a better world order than the Western Nations? Do you think Putin is the same as Biden? There is no moral equivalency in my opinion.
Perhaps you think the UK was wrong to try and end slavery throughout the world?
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
And Sadam had WMDs, right? Considering how clueless you are, it is kind of pointless to educate you that the UN was supposed to establish the word order. Your kind spews this USA nonsense 24/7.
Useless to talk to him, he supports every war going and repeatedly vindicates all manner of carnage the US implemented during it's Middle Eastern Wars. Doesn't know that Obama saw going into Libya as his worse failure and called it a "shit show".
True but it's fun to ridicule people like him and sometimes you read some new propaganda point.
Yes, but eventually he gets on your nerves, because he doesn't listen, nor does he want to. But if you're having fun, go at it. I did it for a while but then I started to get headaches.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201015-three-women-loads-of-lies-and-the-destruction-of-libya/
Hello Dragan. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the World Order that the UN was supposed to establish: how was it to be constituted? By whom? With what resources?
Do you have a view on the supposed World Order of its predecessor, the League of Nations, whose obligations the UN took over (as an example only, the LoN Mandate in Palestine)?
It is pointless to discuss a serious issue with someone like you.
How do you explain that after 9/11 before we went into Afghanistan we were we were going to implement a war in Iraq, and already planned to take down 6 more? Reference A Project for a New American Century and see how their agenda was the blue print for our Middle eastern wars, and they said to carry them out all they would need is a New Pearl Harbor which they got on 9/11. Coincidence? Read about the neocon agenda that pushed our wars. Look at the signatories and you will find Cheney's name there, Rumsfeld too, and Jeff bush as well, all the names who were involved in those wars.
It was overly ambitious, and while I supported doing whatever it took to get Bin Laden and make the Taliban pay a heavy price, I was ambivalent about invading Iraq. I was sick of watching the Iraqi people suffer from Saddam, but in the end, I didn't have firm opinions on the right path forward. They were not lying about WMDs but it was necessary to create a legal reason for the invasion; the real reason was to try and make the world a better place. The French were right about that one but they were wrong about Putin invading Ukraine. It was a high-risk venture that worked out poorly, but it could have turned out otherwise and we still do not know that 20-50 years from now, it may be looked back on as a positive development.
Do you think the people of Iraq are better off now? Do you think life in Syria is better now then before with all that destruction which continues? Where is it better? Jeff you don't invade a country based on lies, where destruction reins, and say well, they're better off now that he's gone, and I know millions died and were displaced, but someday. Where did you develop these kinds of perceptions? You know what makes it so easy for you to say what you say, well, here's a hint, they are not bombing and killing you or your sons, or your family, or your neighbors, or blowing up your neighborhood and you don't have to say, well someday someone will be better off for all this destruction.
You have no points, all you have is debunked USA propaganda. The rest of us, with an ounce of grey matter, can only ridicule your kind.
I "bow down" before your thoughtful analysis.
I did not offer any, just some well known facts and ridicule of your idiocy.
Also our Middle Eastern wars, none, based on what Mersheimer said, had any validity. Also how would you justify Cheney's black sites, or guantanamo bay where death and abuse were implimented. How do you excuse going to war on the lie of weapons of mass destruction based on what Mersheimer said?
Jeff even Obama referenced his war in Libya pushed by Clinton, Powers, and Rice, all in his administration. Gaddafi was addressing the demonstrations across the country that broke out at a time that is now referred to as the Arab Spring. Cries of genocide caused him to be murdered, sodomized by a sword, and a war pushed by Clinton, notorious for her love of war, and she even laughed when she heard of his death. Pentagon officials even tried to stop the war in Libya, but Clinton had the ear of Obama. Now Libya once a thriving county is no more, and the last I heard even had slave markets. Obama in 2016 admitted that the war in Libya was his biggest mistake. I hear there are and may still be slave markets there which was never true under Gaddfi. Obama blamed England and France, and let Clinton, Rice and Powers escape criticism, but they are the one's who are the most culpable in destroying what was a thriving country.
I think it was good that Tony Blair met with him after he accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. You have to offer everyone an off-ramp back into society but to the extent Libya was a thriving country, it was only because of oil. Some tribal societies in the Middle East are trying to move on and they should always be encouraged as well. If they have to resort to methods that you and I might find objectionable, it is sometimes the price you have to pay, but the no-fly zone was the wide consensus at the time. I did not like the decision as I thought it would make it hard for future tyrants to repent, but it was the one that was made. It was a reasonable decision, and we will never know what the alternative outcome would have been had we let his tribe beat up on another tribe.
Only because of oil? Like we're not interested in oil? Why do you support all our wars? Why? There's not a war you don't like! Not a war, but you support a genocide in Israel, as well. I suspect you even give a thumbs up to our war in Vietnam, entered into on a lie by Johnson, bay of Tonkin. People were pretty well off in Libya, but no more. Did you read that Obama has deep regrets he gave the thumbs up for the war in Libya and let those three hawkish nut jobs get the upper hand? I don't let him off the hook, and maybe it was only those slave markets that got to him. Took it personal. You like Hilary, the war monger? Assange doesn't, and in an interview with John Pilger said she was sick with a need for power. She is sick, and her sickness brings death and destruction.
Japan definitely said "I quit" before the two nuclear bombs.
Professor Mearsheimer,
War is the nature of International System.
But what if the States "Internationalize their Security", just like the NATO members did.
What if NATO becomes a Global Security Forum. Then a state's national security, no matter how much power it holds, whether a Great Power or a Super Power, would not have the capability to compete with a Global Security Form.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
H.L. Mencken, On Politics.
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/brandon-rotting-in-the-white-house/?
I greatly appreciate these lectures and learning from them. It appears a constant state of war in my opinion. A big problem is; our leaders, many of whom like Biden, are intellectual lightweights at best, do not listen to smart people. They’re empty suites who cannot cross the CIA. I’ve tried to pass along John’s and Jeffrey Sachs take on NATO expansion/Ukraine to many liberal friends. It gets zero traction or consideration. They simply do not care. Putin is the devil to them, period end of story. They cry crocodile tears for Navalny and try to make excuses about Assange, to reassure themselves that Biden and neoliberals will make everything okay by reinstating Roe v Wade. Profoundly naive. This is the extent of the civics understanding and the wall of cognitive dissonance is thicker than “Trumps border wall.” They believe the power elite and their echo chamber media 100% without basic questioning because, after all, these people are officially smart elected folks. The people I’m mentioning attended universities and have master degrees. College students are (mostly) not trained to critique systems of power or challenge cultural assumptions. By design, and that has come home to roost in a dangerous way under this current situation. It’s A vs B only. “Too intellectual and too little emotional to be a significant force in history.” Forget the exact quote. Mass culture does sound bites and critical thinking is actually ridiculed. They call it “wasting time.”
Maybe this is too personal, but he mentions his wife said in regard to Trump, he's a no go, and for him the same, but what about Biden who pushed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and continued in the same vein as vice president under Obama, with a proxy war in Syria and then of course moving on to Libya, wars often seen as implementing a neocon agenda. Also they were a duo that supported a coup in Ukraine and used the help of Neo-Nazis to implement it. Obama left him in charge, and his son made out big time at Burisma. Now once again in charge he wants Putin gone, as he said, He is also facilitating a genocide, and who knows what is next for this mindless president, or should I say on the minds of his neocon run administration? I wonder if he or his wife still would prefer him to Trump? I really like Jeffery Sachs, and toward the lead up to the war in Ukraine he's talking about the neocon agenda, and he's doing fine, then interrupts himself to tell everyone for no reason that the whole time Trump was in office he never got a good night's sleep. Crazy! I think bringing Trump into the discussion might draw a laugh, but I don't find it amusing, because people like Bush/Cheney, Obama, Biden, have caused so much destruction base on lies and destroyed millions of lives and for no reason.
I like Mearsheimer and just got his book on the Lobby, but I wish he wouldn't kind of giggle so much when talking about war and he has a tendency to do that all the time.
Great lecture! Thank you very much John for making this fascinating talk available to us. Also enjoyed the Q&As.
Great John, as almost every time (except when you get entangled with this abominable judge).
By the way, please, keep on this friendly and enthusiastic manner in giving your lessons. The way you embellish your arguments, your frankly tone, even this ironical smiling, are what gives you the millions of your audience.
Thanks for that, so civilians have to think how not to go for the whole enchilada, and how to constrain the military and opportunity. Where does the UN fit in with the civilian dilemma?
Good question, Gladwyn. When discussing Just War Theory, he argues it permits aggressive war for 3 reasons: pre-emptive strike, UN Security Council resolution, and intervention against mass murder or genocide.
But then goes on to debunk part of JWT. His lecture is about Great Powers and War, and his theory is that they will only adhere to UN resolutions when it suits them. That's why, elsewhere, he explains why Russia invaded Ukraine despite the UNGA's overwhelming votes against it. That is, he doesn't see the UN fitting in with the civilian dilemma much.