Change is in the air

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Whenever you talk with Republicans, for example about the wars, the response is invariably “let’s nuke them.” What else can you add to that?

But with progressives, there would be a discussion about 1) is the war as a good cause, 2) is the war winnable, 3) is the war worth the sacrifice in lives and treasure.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, I hope you’re at least chuckling when you right these little epistles. You are, aren’t you?

Let’s subject your last little missive to a test, shall we? Paragraph 1 is a clear straw man, which we can ignore, but paragraph 2 is more interesting and can be objectively tested.

Let’s use a Progressive president, Lyndon Baines Johnson (Medicare and The Great Society programs) and the Vietnam War, which he escalated to nearly 500,000 Americans in country. Was Vietnam a good cause? Was Vietnam winnable? Was Vietnam worth the lives and treasure?

Given Obama’s present adventurism in Afghanistan, the above questions are certainly topical, timely and germane, aren’t they? So, what do you say in response to my questions above? I’m terribly curious about your answers. If you’re willing to answer, that is.

[briansd1]

Allan, I agree with you on Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam and Obama’s continuation of the wars. Nixon was just as complicit as Johnson in the Vietnam War.

Here’s an interesting interview with Daniel Ellsberg you might be interested in.
http://www.hereandnow.org/media-player/?url=http://www.hereandnow.org/2010/03/rundown-34-2/&title=Daniel%20Ellsberg%20Documentary%20%22The%20Most%20Dangerous%20Man%20In%20America%22&segment=5&pubdate=2010-03-04

As I said before we could have won Vietnam with commerce and capitalism rather than guns and lives.

Too late for Iraq and Afghanistan, but we can still win Iran.
http://hnn.us/articles/123814.html

*

I was just saying that progressives tend to argue among themselves more.

Republicans generally go with one liners such as “let’s nuke ’em”, the Rush Limbaugh way.

I don’t know how it was decades ago (I’m sure it was different when politics stopped at the water’s edge), but the one liners are what I observe today.

To me, life is a shade of gray so we need to evaluate different issues based on the context.

I don’t believe that one has to be either a war hawk or a pacifist. Obama should end the wars immediately but he doesn’t have much choice but to continue them lest be labeled a pacifist.

Too bad our country and our men and women in uniform will suffer because of the politics.

[briansd1]

Allan, I agree with you on Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam and Obama’s continuation of the wars. Nixon was just as complicit as Johnson in the Vietnam War.

Here’s an interesting interview with Daniel Ellsberg you might be interested in.
http://www.hereandnow.org/media-player/?url=http://www.hereandnow.org/2010/03/rundown-34-2/&title=Daniel%20Ellsberg%20Documentary%20%22The%20Most%20Dangerous%20Man%20In%20America%22&segment=5&pubdate=2010-03-04

As I said before we could have won Vietnam with commerce and capitalism rather than guns and lives.

Too late for Iraq and Afghanistan, but we can still win Iran.
http://hnn.us/articles/123814.html

*

I was just saying that progressives tend to argue among themselves more.

Republicans generally go with one liners such as “let’s nuke ’em”, the Rush Limbaugh way.

I don’t know how it was decades ago (I’m sure it was different when politics stopped at the water’s edge), but the one liners are what I observe today.

To me, life is a shade of gray so we need to evaluate different issues based on the context.

I don’t believe that one has to be either a war hawk or a pacifist. Obama should end the wars immediately but he doesn’t have much choice but to continue them lest be labeled a pacifist.

Too bad our country and our men and women in uniform will suffer because of the politics.

[briansd1]

Allan, I agree with you on Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam and Obama’s continuation of the wars. Nixon was just as complicit as Johnson in the Vietnam War.

Here’s an interesting interview with Daniel Ellsberg you might be interested in.
http://www.hereandnow.org/media-player/?url=http://www.hereandnow.org/2010/03/rundown-34-2/&title=Daniel%20Ellsberg%20Documentary%20%22The%20Most%20Dangerous%20Man%20In%20America%22&segment=5&pubdate=2010-03-04

As I said before we could have won Vietnam with commerce and capitalism rather than guns and lives.

Too late for Iraq and Afghanistan, but we can still win Iran.
http://hnn.us/articles/123814.html

*

I was just saying that progressives tend to argue among themselves more.

Republicans generally go with one liners such as “let’s nuke ’em”, the Rush Limbaugh way.

I don’t know how it was decades ago (I’m sure it was different when politics stopped at the water’s edge), but the one liners are what I observe today.

To me, life is a shade of gray so we need to evaluate different issues based on the context.

I don’t believe that one has to be either a war hawk or a pacifist. Obama should end the wars immediately but he doesn’t have much choice but to continue them lest be labeled a pacifist.

Too bad our country and our men and women in uniform will suffer because of the politics.

[briansd1]

Allan, I agree with you on Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam and Obama’s continuation of the wars. Nixon was just as complicit as Johnson in the Vietnam War.

Here’s an interesting interview with Daniel Ellsberg you might be interested in.
http://www.hereandnow.org/media-player/?url=http://www.hereandnow.org/2010/03/rundown-34-2/&title=Daniel%20Ellsberg%20Documentary%20%22The%20Most%20Dangerous%20Man%20In%20America%22&segment=5&pubdate=2010-03-04

As I said before we could have won Vietnam with commerce and capitalism rather than guns and lives.

Too late for Iraq and Afghanistan, but we can still win Iran.
http://hnn.us/articles/123814.html

*

I was just saying that progressives tend to argue among themselves more.

Republicans generally go with one liners such as “let’s nuke ’em”, the Rush Limbaugh way.

I don’t know how it was decades ago (I’m sure it was different when politics stopped at the water’s edge), but the one liners are what I observe today.

To me, life is a shade of gray so we need to evaluate different issues based on the context.

I don’t believe that one has to be either a war hawk or a pacifist. Obama should end the wars immediately but he doesn’t have much choice but to continue them lest be labeled a pacifist.

Too bad our country and our men and women in uniform will suffer because of the politics.

[briansd1]

Allan, I agree with you on Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam and Obama’s continuation of the wars. Nixon was just as complicit as Johnson in the Vietnam War.

Here’s an interesting interview with Daniel Ellsberg you might be interested in.
http://www.hereandnow.org/media-player/?url=http://www.hereandnow.org/2010/03/rundown-34-2/&title=Daniel%20Ellsberg%20Documentary%20%22The%20Most%20Dangerous%20Man%20In%20America%22&segment=5&pubdate=2010-03-04

As I said before we could have won Vietnam with commerce and capitalism rather than guns and lives.

Too late for Iraq and Afghanistan, but we can still win Iran.
http://hnn.us/articles/123814.html

*

I was just saying that progressives tend to argue among themselves more.

Republicans generally go with one liners such as “let’s nuke ’em”, the Rush Limbaugh way.

I don’t know how it was decades ago (I’m sure it was different when politics stopped at the water’s edge), but the one liners are what I observe today.

To me, life is a shade of gray so we need to evaluate different issues based on the context.

I don’t believe that one has to be either a war hawk or a pacifist. Obama should end the wars immediately but he doesn’t have much choice but to continue them lest be labeled a pacifist.

Too bad our country and our men and women in uniform will suffer because of the politics.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I would definitely agree that Nixon was complicit, especially given his involvement in the “secret war” in Laos and Cambodia. However, Nixon also proved willing to go after Haiphong and Hanoi during Operations Linebacker I/II, and this had a huge effect on North Vietnam’s willingness to deal and thus bring the war to a close (for America, at least).

My larger point, and this directly centers on Obama’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, is that partisanship plays a far smaller role than politics and perception does (tying into your comment about hawks versus doves). There was an expression during LBJ’s administration that ran: “The Great Society died in the jungles of Vietnam”. Obama’s domestic agenda will, at some point, run directly into Afghanistan (and what’s left of the Iraq War) and I’d wager that Afghanistan will win.

Rightly or wrongly, Obama is being seen as ineffective on the domestic front (and lack of JOBS is killing him), and, at the same time, his base is feeling marginalized/disenfranchised by his so-called “adventurism” (Gore Vidal) in Afghanistan. Perception being the editor of reality, he is staring squarely in the face of a one-term presidency if he doesn’t turn things around and quickly. And, IMHO, pushing healthcare ain’t the answer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I would definitely agree that Nixon was complicit, especially given his involvement in the “secret war” in Laos and Cambodia. However, Nixon also proved willing to go after Haiphong and Hanoi during Operations Linebacker I/II, and this had a huge effect on North Vietnam’s willingness to deal and thus bring the war to a close (for America, at least).

My larger point, and this directly centers on Obama’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, is that partisanship plays a far smaller role than politics and perception does (tying into your comment about hawks versus doves). There was an expression during LBJ’s administration that ran: “The Great Society died in the jungles of Vietnam”. Obama’s domestic agenda will, at some point, run directly into Afghanistan (and what’s left of the Iraq War) and I’d wager that Afghanistan will win.

Rightly or wrongly, Obama is being seen as ineffective on the domestic front (and lack of JOBS is killing him), and, at the same time, his base is feeling marginalized/disenfranchised by his so-called “adventurism” (Gore Vidal) in Afghanistan. Perception being the editor of reality, he is staring squarely in the face of a one-term presidency if he doesn’t turn things around and quickly. And, IMHO, pushing healthcare ain’t the answer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I would definitely agree that Nixon was complicit, especially given his involvement in the “secret war” in Laos and Cambodia. However, Nixon also proved willing to go after Haiphong and Hanoi during Operations Linebacker I/II, and this had a huge effect on North Vietnam’s willingness to deal and thus bring the war to a close (for America, at least).

My larger point, and this directly centers on Obama’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, is that partisanship plays a far smaller role than politics and perception does (tying into your comment about hawks versus doves). There was an expression during LBJ’s administration that ran: “The Great Society died in the jungles of Vietnam”. Obama’s domestic agenda will, at some point, run directly into Afghanistan (and what’s left of the Iraq War) and I’d wager that Afghanistan will win.

Rightly or wrongly, Obama is being seen as ineffective on the domestic front (and lack of JOBS is killing him), and, at the same time, his base is feeling marginalized/disenfranchised by his so-called “adventurism” (Gore Vidal) in Afghanistan. Perception being the editor of reality, he is staring squarely in the face of a one-term presidency if he doesn’t turn things around and quickly. And, IMHO, pushing healthcare ain’t the answer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I would definitely agree that Nixon was complicit, especially given his involvement in the “secret war” in Laos and Cambodia. However, Nixon also proved willing to go after Haiphong and Hanoi during Operations Linebacker I/II, and this had a huge effect on North Vietnam’s willingness to deal and thus bring the war to a close (for America, at least).

My larger point, and this directly centers on Obama’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, is that partisanship plays a far smaller role than politics and perception does (tying into your comment about hawks versus doves). There was an expression during LBJ’s administration that ran: “The Great Society died in the jungles of Vietnam”. Obama’s domestic agenda will, at some point, run directly into Afghanistan (and what’s left of the Iraq War) and I’d wager that Afghanistan will win.

Rightly or wrongly, Obama is being seen as ineffective on the domestic front (and lack of JOBS is killing him), and, at the same time, his base is feeling marginalized/disenfranchised by his so-called “adventurism” (Gore Vidal) in Afghanistan. Perception being the editor of reality, he is staring squarely in the face of a one-term presidency if he doesn’t turn things around and quickly. And, IMHO, pushing healthcare ain’t the answer.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I would definitely agree that Nixon was complicit, especially given his involvement in the “secret war” in Laos and Cambodia. However, Nixon also proved willing to go after Haiphong and Hanoi during Operations Linebacker I/II, and this had a huge effect on North Vietnam’s willingness to deal and thus bring the war to a close (for America, at least).

My larger point, and this directly centers on Obama’s prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, is that partisanship plays a far smaller role than politics and perception does (tying into your comment about hawks versus doves). There was an expression during LBJ’s administration that ran: “The Great Society died in the jungles of Vietnam”. Obama’s domestic agenda will, at some point, run directly into Afghanistan (and what’s left of the Iraq War) and I’d wager that Afghanistan will win.

Rightly or wrongly, Obama is being seen as ineffective on the domestic front (and lack of JOBS is killing him), and, at the same time, his base is feeling marginalized/disenfranchised by his so-called “adventurism” (Gore Vidal) in Afghanistan. Perception being the editor of reality, he is staring squarely in the face of a one-term presidency if he doesn’t turn things around and quickly. And, IMHO, pushing healthcare ain’t the answer.

[briansd1]

I agree Allan, pushing healthcare is not the answer but backing off would play to the perceptions you’re talking about.

Health care is a noble goal and we should have universal health care in America, eventually.

Obama was trying to fulfill a campaign pledge… People will blame him for trying to keep his promises or for not keeping his campaign pledges.

I don’t think that Obama predicted the depth of the recession. But here on Piggington, we knew.

His advisers though that the recession would pass like other previous recessions.

Obama should have focused on job training, unemployment, infrastructure, export competitiveness and education.

But since we went down the path of health care, then we should pass the legislation and get it done with.

[briansd1]

I agree Allan, pushing healthcare is not the answer but backing off would play to the perceptions you’re talking about.

Health care is a noble goal and we should have universal health care in America, eventually.

Obama was trying to fulfill a campaign pledge… People will blame him for trying to keep his promises or for not keeping his campaign pledges.

I don’t think that Obama predicted the depth of the recession. But here on Piggington, we knew.

His advisers though that the recession would pass like other previous recessions.

Obama should have focused on job training, unemployment, infrastructure, export competitiveness and education.

But since we went down the path of health care, then we should pass the legislation and get it done with.

[briansd1]

I agree Allan, pushing healthcare is not the answer but backing off would play to the perceptions you’re talking about.

Health care is a noble goal and we should have universal health care in America, eventually.

Obama was trying to fulfill a campaign pledge… People will blame him for trying to keep his promises or for not keeping his campaign pledges.

I don’t think that Obama predicted the depth of the recession. But here on Piggington, we knew.

His advisers though that the recession would pass like other previous recessions.

Obama should have focused on job training, unemployment, infrastructure, export competitiveness and education.

But since we went down the path of health care, then we should pass the legislation and get it done with.

[briansd1]

I agree Allan, pushing healthcare is not the answer but backing off would play to the perceptions you’re talking about.

Health care is a noble goal and we should have universal health care in America, eventually.

Obama was trying to fulfill a campaign pledge… People will blame him for trying to keep his promises or for not keeping his campaign pledges.

I don’t think that Obama predicted the depth of the recession. But here on Piggington, we knew.

His advisers though that the recession would pass like other previous recessions.

Obama should have focused on job training, unemployment, infrastructure, export competitiveness and education.

But since we went down the path of health care, then we should pass the legislation and get it done with.

[Author]

Posts