Duration: 14.55 seconds
And because they inherently see America as a good country and they see themselves as good people, that ultimately the rest of the world will fall into line and recognize that. And I think that's a dangerous thing.
Duration: 10.38 seconds
And I should say these are neo-conservatives who are both Jews and Gentiles -- feel a special kind of moral obligation around that issue.
Duration: 10.61 seconds
And I think a part of that also, for neo-conservatives, is the belief that the United States is morally superior.
Duration: 30.83 seconds
It's better for there to be a dominant military power of the morality of the United States than to have a kind of multi-polar world in which powers that are not nearly as moral as the United States -- like France, like China, like Russia -- can actually get their way -- that that's necessarily going to be bad for the world.
Duration: 7.47 seconds
They equate American influence with goodness in the world.
Duration: 12.65 seconds
To me, neo-conservatives have a much, much more of a moral vision of foreign policy than a political vision. They exist in a moral world rather than in a world of politics
Duration: 21.92 seconds
The question of international law and multilateral institutions that are supposed to be reciprocal in nature and create international law together is a notion that illustrates the moral dimension of neo-conservative thought, in any event.
Duration: 25.23 seconds
Therefore, they believe that it is the responsibility of democratic states -- which because they're democracies are already considered superior to autocratic states or totalitarian states in a moral sense -- it is for them to become militarily very powerful, to deter potential autocrats or Hitlers from getting anywhere.
Duration: 68.23 seconds
And as to the international law part -- or the multilateral institutions, I think their view is based more or less again on the sense of morality. They believe that the United States and Israel -- whose fates they say explicitly are kind of linked on a moral plane -- are bringers of good to the world. And that the United States on its own has the highest morality. And the more it extends its influence in the world the better off the rest of the world will be -- in a moral sense. And therefore, they would think that it's kind of "immoral" for the United States to constrain its freedom of action -- its freedom to bring goodness to the world by agreeing to restrain its actions by lesser powers who are not as moral as the United States
Duration: 26.73 seconds
By definition, if the United States extends its influence, the world will be a better place in a moral sense -- the world will be more redeemed, to use a Puritan word that dates from the beginning of the country. This isn't just a neo-conservative idea about America's goodness and its mission in the world, but the neo-cons really adopted this in a big way -- or jumped on it.
Duration: 27.39 seconds
If the United States agrees to a piece of paper -- to abide by a piece of paper that, for example, would lead to its inability to have the most powerful weapons in the world -- It is, by definition, an immoral proposition. Because it means that the United States is constrained from being more powerful -- from being militarily dominant. And ultimately the world will be better if the United States is militarily dominant.
Duration: 14.08 seconds
If the United States agrees to constrain its action with the UN Security Council -- that it will only go to war if the UN Security Council votes to approve the war -- that is, by definition, immoral.
Duration: 25.13 seconds
So they're saying, "The idea that the United States should sacrifice its moral greatness to a Security Council that consists of moral lessers -- or amoral countries like France, they always cite France, or Russia or China -- is, by definition, immoral."
Duration: 20.29 seconds
I think Human Rights Watch is right that there should be -- to say that there is a number of criteria that should be satisfied before you decide to defy the UN Security Council. But ultimately you should defy the UN Security Council if the moral situation requires it.
Duration: 21.42 seconds
Again, a lot of the human rights movement, I think, exists in a kind of moral world that was largely defined by the Holocaust. But, the cost to international law and to the health and strength of multilateral institutions of that is potentially very great.