- This topic has 420 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
sd_matt.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 16, 2009 at 10:13 PM #471057October 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM #470238
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1]Whoever doesn’t support war is a Neville Chamberlain facing Hitler.
It’s always the same tired argument.[/quote]
Brian: So let’s liven it up, shall we? Let’s move away from Chamberlain and Hitler, circa 1938, and onto something with a little more nuance to it.
That would be the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1935 – 1936). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War
This little war is instructive on a lot of different levels. It exposed the weakness of The League of Nations (precursor to the UN). It showed the willingness of the Western Powers to overlook some of Mussolini’s bad habits (like imperialism) and it showed that even the wisest of leaders (Churchill) could succumb to the charms of a totalitarian fascist.
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII and anyone willing to read “Mein Kampf” or attend one of Mussolini’s Blackshirt rallies could read the writing on the wall. Most chose not to.
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s and as easily dismissed by Putin and Kim Jong-il as it was by Hitler and Mussolini.
It may be remarked on as a tired old argument, but simply because its as old as history itself. I was told that reading Thucydides would provide the template for the rest of recorded history and, sadly, its true. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Do you really believe, Brian, that you are possessed of some inner truth and deeper knowledge that provides a new and heretofore unseen answer? If so, I’d like to hear it. Personally, I still hold to old George Foreman’s boxing axiom: “Everyone has a plan. Then they get hit”. So, you can use reason and your intellect and try to be nice to Messrs. Putin, Jong-il, Chavez, et al and see where it gets ya.
Me? I’ll slap a fresh 30 rounder in the mag well, yank on the charging handle, flip it to full squirt and invite those assholes to my own personal Rock-and-Roll dance party. We’ll compare notes after. Hoo-ah.
October 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM #470419Participant[quote=briansd1]Whoever doesn’t support war is a Neville Chamberlain facing Hitler.
It’s always the same tired argument.[/quote]
Brian: So let’s liven it up, shall we? Let’s move away from Chamberlain and Hitler, circa 1938, and onto something with a little more nuance to it.
That would be the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1935 – 1936). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War
This little war is instructive on a lot of different levels. It exposed the weakness of The League of Nations (precursor to the UN). It showed the willingness of the Western Powers to overlook some of Mussolini’s bad habits (like imperialism) and it showed that even the wisest of leaders (Churchill) could succumb to the charms of a totalitarian fascist.
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII and anyone willing to read “Mein Kampf” or attend one of Mussolini’s Blackshirt rallies could read the writing on the wall. Most chose not to.
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s and as easily dismissed by Putin and Kim Jong-il as it was by Hitler and Mussolini.
It may be remarked on as a tired old argument, but simply because its as old as history itself. I was told that reading Thucydides would provide the template for the rest of recorded history and, sadly, its true. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Do you really believe, Brian, that you are possessed of some inner truth and deeper knowledge that provides a new and heretofore unseen answer? If so, I’d like to hear it. Personally, I still hold to old George Foreman’s boxing axiom: “Everyone has a plan. Then they get hit”. So, you can use reason and your intellect and try to be nice to Messrs. Putin, Jong-il, Chavez, et al and see where it gets ya.
Me? I’ll slap a fresh 30 rounder in the mag well, yank on the charging handle, flip it to full squirt and invite those assholes to my own personal Rock-and-Roll dance party. We’ll compare notes after. Hoo-ah.
October 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM #470774Participant[quote=briansd1]Whoever doesn’t support war is a Neville Chamberlain facing Hitler.
It’s always the same tired argument.[/quote]
Brian: So let’s liven it up, shall we? Let’s move away from Chamberlain and Hitler, circa 1938, and onto something with a little more nuance to it.
That would be the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1935 – 1936). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War
This little war is instructive on a lot of different levels. It exposed the weakness of The League of Nations (precursor to the UN). It showed the willingness of the Western Powers to overlook some of Mussolini’s bad habits (like imperialism) and it showed that even the wisest of leaders (Churchill) could succumb to the charms of a totalitarian fascist.
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII and anyone willing to read “Mein Kampf” or attend one of Mussolini’s Blackshirt rallies could read the writing on the wall. Most chose not to.
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s and as easily dismissed by Putin and Kim Jong-il as it was by Hitler and Mussolini.
It may be remarked on as a tired old argument, but simply because its as old as history itself. I was told that reading Thucydides would provide the template for the rest of recorded history and, sadly, its true. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Do you really believe, Brian, that you are possessed of some inner truth and deeper knowledge that provides a new and heretofore unseen answer? If so, I’d like to hear it. Personally, I still hold to old George Foreman’s boxing axiom: “Everyone has a plan. Then they get hit”. So, you can use reason and your intellect and try to be nice to Messrs. Putin, Jong-il, Chavez, et al and see where it gets ya.
Me? I’ll slap a fresh 30 rounder in the mag well, yank on the charging handle, flip it to full squirt and invite those assholes to my own personal Rock-and-Roll dance party. We’ll compare notes after. Hoo-ah.
October 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM #470849Participant[quote=briansd1]Whoever doesn’t support war is a Neville Chamberlain facing Hitler.
It’s always the same tired argument.[/quote]
Brian: So let’s liven it up, shall we? Let’s move away from Chamberlain and Hitler, circa 1938, and onto something with a little more nuance to it.
That would be the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1935 – 1936). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War
This little war is instructive on a lot of different levels. It exposed the weakness of The League of Nations (precursor to the UN). It showed the willingness of the Western Powers to overlook some of Mussolini’s bad habits (like imperialism) and it showed that even the wisest of leaders (Churchill) could succumb to the charms of a totalitarian fascist.
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII and anyone willing to read “Mein Kampf” or attend one of Mussolini’s Blackshirt rallies could read the writing on the wall. Most chose not to.
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s and as easily dismissed by Putin and Kim Jong-il as it was by Hitler and Mussolini.
It may be remarked on as a tired old argument, but simply because its as old as history itself. I was told that reading Thucydides would provide the template for the rest of recorded history and, sadly, its true. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Do you really believe, Brian, that you are possessed of some inner truth and deeper knowledge that provides a new and heretofore unseen answer? If so, I’d like to hear it. Personally, I still hold to old George Foreman’s boxing axiom: “Everyone has a plan. Then they get hit”. So, you can use reason and your intellect and try to be nice to Messrs. Putin, Jong-il, Chavez, et al and see where it gets ya.
Me? I’ll slap a fresh 30 rounder in the mag well, yank on the charging handle, flip it to full squirt and invite those assholes to my own personal Rock-and-Roll dance party. We’ll compare notes after. Hoo-ah.
October 16, 2009 at 10:22 PM #471062Participant[quote=briansd1]Whoever doesn’t support war is a Neville Chamberlain facing Hitler.
It’s always the same tired argument.[/quote]
Brian: So let’s liven it up, shall we? Let’s move away from Chamberlain and Hitler, circa 1938, and onto something with a little more nuance to it.
That would be the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1935 – 1936). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War
This little war is instructive on a lot of different levels. It exposed the weakness of The League of Nations (precursor to the UN). It showed the willingness of the Western Powers to overlook some of Mussolini’s bad habits (like imperialism) and it showed that even the wisest of leaders (Churchill) could succumb to the charms of a totalitarian fascist.
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII and anyone willing to read “Mein Kampf” or attend one of Mussolini’s Blackshirt rallies could read the writing on the wall. Most chose not to.
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s and as easily dismissed by Putin and Kim Jong-il as it was by Hitler and Mussolini.
It may be remarked on as a tired old argument, but simply because its as old as history itself. I was told that reading Thucydides would provide the template for the rest of recorded history and, sadly, its true. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Do you really believe, Brian, that you are possessed of some inner truth and deeper knowledge that provides a new and heretofore unseen answer? If so, I’d like to hear it. Personally, I still hold to old George Foreman’s boxing axiom: “Everyone has a plan. Then they get hit”. So, you can use reason and your intellect and try to be nice to Messrs. Putin, Jong-il, Chavez, et al and see where it gets ya.
Me? I’ll slap a fresh 30 rounder in the mag well, yank on the charging handle, flip it to full squirt and invite those assholes to my own personal Rock-and-Roll dance party. We’ll compare notes after. Hoo-ah.
October 16, 2009 at 10:55 PM #470248sd_matt
ParticipantBrian
“A tired old observation” would be the better phrase IF people were better versed in their history.
History can be a macro study of human psychology. Read your history with an open mind. Not just something to look for the next ammo against one side of politics.
October 16, 2009 at 10:55 PM #470429ParticipantBrian
“A tired old observation” would be the better phrase IF people were better versed in their history.
History can be a macro study of human psychology. Read your history with an open mind. Not just something to look for the next ammo against one side of politics.
October 16, 2009 at 10:55 PM #470784ParticipantBrian
“A tired old observation” would be the better phrase IF people were better versed in their history.
History can be a macro study of human psychology. Read your history with an open mind. Not just something to look for the next ammo against one side of politics.
October 16, 2009 at 10:55 PM #470859ParticipantBrian
“A tired old observation” would be the better phrase IF people were better versed in their history.
History can be a macro study of human psychology. Read your history with an open mind. Not just something to look for the next ammo against one side of politics.
October 16, 2009 at 10:55 PM #471072ParticipantBrian
“A tired old observation” would be the better phrase IF people were better versed in their history.
History can be a macro study of human psychology. Read your history with an open mind. Not just something to look for the next ammo against one side of politics.
October 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM #470289briansd1
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII
[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s
[/quote]In this case, the USofA dismissed the notion of multilateralism first.
If your point is that we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past, then why bother trying to avoid repeating them? If we are already predestined by God then men can’t make a difference. I believe that men can make a difference.
Yes, similar things to past failures recur but they are never the same. Part of human progress is to take a few steps forward but a few lesser steps back, before moving forward again.
Today, America is militarily vastly superior to any nation (until China eventually catches up decades from now). The other “bad guys” are of little import and they can easily be contained.
The mistake we are committing today is to let insignificant players blackmail into chasing our own tail to defeat them.
In the mean time, we are neglecting the economy, education and technology. China is rising and we are losing ground.
China is who we should worry about, not as a military adversary but as a technology, business, and marketing competitor.
And what did Bush do in Washington? He was pushing for home-schooling, creationism and limits on biological research. As “wholesome” as those values are, they don’t teach science and technology to our kids.
October 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM #470470Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII
[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s
[/quote]In this case, the USofA dismissed the notion of multilateralism first.
If your point is that we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past, then why bother trying to avoid repeating them? If we are already predestined by God then men can’t make a difference. I believe that men can make a difference.
Yes, similar things to past failures recur but they are never the same. Part of human progress is to take a few steps forward but a few lesser steps back, before moving forward again.
Today, America is militarily vastly superior to any nation (until China eventually catches up decades from now). The other “bad guys” are of little import and they can easily be contained.
The mistake we are committing today is to let insignificant players blackmail into chasing our own tail to defeat them.
In the mean time, we are neglecting the economy, education and technology. China is rising and we are losing ground.
China is who we should worry about, not as a military adversary but as a technology, business, and marketing competitor.
And what did Bush do in Washington? He was pushing for home-schooling, creationism and limits on biological research. As “wholesome” as those values are, they don’t teach science and technology to our kids.
October 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM #470827Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII
[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s
[/quote]In this case, the USofA dismissed the notion of multilateralism first.
If your point is that we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past, then why bother trying to avoid repeating them? If we are already predestined by God then men can’t make a difference. I believe that men can make a difference.
Yes, similar things to past failures recur but they are never the same. Part of human progress is to take a few steps forward but a few lesser steps back, before moving forward again.
Today, America is militarily vastly superior to any nation (until China eventually catches up decades from now). The other “bad guys” are of little import and they can easily be contained.
The mistake we are committing today is to let insignificant players blackmail into chasing our own tail to defeat them.
In the mean time, we are neglecting the economy, education and technology. China is rising and we are losing ground.
China is who we should worry about, not as a military adversary but as a technology, business, and marketing competitor.
And what did Bush do in Washington? He was pushing for home-schooling, creationism and limits on biological research. As “wholesome” as those values are, they don’t teach science and technology to our kids.
October 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM #470899Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The point, you ask? Simply this: The more things change, the more they stay the same.The League of Nations was a wonderfully aspirant idea, but ultimately doomed to failure. The Great War (WWI) sowed the seeds of WWII
[/quote][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The UN is a joke. We’ve seen its repeated failures in the Balkans, and Rwanda and Somalia. The notion of “multilateralism” is as pointless today as it was in the 1930s
[/quote]In this case, the USofA dismissed the notion of multilateralism first.
If your point is that we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past, then why bother trying to avoid repeating them? If we are already predestined by God then men can’t make a difference. I believe that men can make a difference.
Yes, similar things to past failures recur but they are never the same. Part of human progress is to take a few steps forward but a few lesser steps back, before moving forward again.
Today, America is militarily vastly superior to any nation (until China eventually catches up decades from now). The other “bad guys” are of little import and they can easily be contained.
The mistake we are committing today is to let insignificant players blackmail into chasing our own tail to defeat them.
In the mean time, we are neglecting the economy, education and technology. China is rising and we are losing ground.
China is who we should worry about, not as a military adversary but as a technology, business, and marketing competitor.
And what did Bush do in Washington? He was pushing for home-schooling, creationism and limits on biological research. As “wholesome” as those values are, they don’t teach science and technology to our kids.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.