John Bolton was interviewed in Britain following the Hay on Wye festival. He speaks about the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the situation in Iraq, and fascism. In the interview, Bolton is thoughtful, eloquent, and direct. I have a great deal of respect for the former ambassador to the UN. We need more clear voices like his.
I found the interview at BBC. Bolton’s latest book, Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad , is available through Amazon.
more about “bolton’s newshour interview“, posted with vodpod
Filed under: Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Politics, Terrorism, UN | Tagged: Hay on Wye Festival, Iran, Iraq, John Bolton, Terrorism, UN
He didn’t really speak about the dangers of a nuclear Iran, just about the need to take some kind of action up to and including regime change to prevent a nuclear Iran. This will be problematic for several reason. Reason one is that we will not be able to get UN approval or help. Reason two is that the American public will be resistant to an invasion since we already know how that turns out. Reason three is that the American public will be resistant because this administration has already “cried wolf” in Iraq and there is a complete lack of trust. Reason four is that China and Russia will never allow it.
And as far as fascism goes, if the neo-conservative movement isn’t fascism, then it certainly borders on it. I think we should be mindful of it in our own country.
I will agree with you that Russia and China are big obstacles, and public opinion will probably be against it. Considering the way Iran consistently ignores UN sanctions and warnings, I personally don’t care about what the UN will and won’t do. Outside of Unicef and the High Commission on Refugees, the UN is largely worthless… and egregiously corrupt.
And as far as fascism goes, if political correctness, speech codes, and the modern “liberal” urge to increase the power of the state in areas from health care to social security (you know the two of us are never seeing a penny we’ve been forced to pay into the system) to wealth redistribution and other anti-individualistic measures, aren’t fascist then they certainly border on it and we should be mindful of it in our own country.
I prefer to think of the liberal movement in America more as a socialist type movement. Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, are authoritarian to a scary degree which really disturbs me. In similar debates with another friend I have officially declared this to be the last election that I will attempt to “work within the system.” By this I mean that I plan to vote for one of the two major party candidates. If those candidates, once elected, fail to produce real and positive results, then I will officially be done with them. Then I guess I’ll have to be a Green or Libertarian or LaRouche Democrat or something.
If the Libertarians softened their positions on illegal drugs and weren’t quite so isolationist, I could go Libertarian.
I’ve seen “neo-conservative,” “fascism,” “socialism,” “liberal movement,” and “authoritarian” used as near synonyms in this exchange.
Are y’all labeling political ideology other than Libertarianism with pejorative and derogatory, yet, for the most part, loosely defined, buzz-words (e.g. “authoritarian” and “fascist”) in order to push a Libertarian agenda here?
Just kidding, we all know that, as far as Libertarianism goes, if it’s not anarchy, then it certainly borders on it.
K,
Are you impeding on a friendly disagreement?
No where did I agree that either the Republicans or Democrats were authoritarian or that neo-cons are fascist. Oddly enough, I was looking for common ground with Joey since I know him to be a reasonable and decent human being. As for anarchy, it does have a certain allure.