Land of Free

[NotCranky]

O.K. Allan.
I had to take time to process the last few posts we exchanged.Maybe we had a bit of a misunderstanding on the appeasement issue.
I agree that many choices in conflict are between bad and worse. I also suppose that U.S. military dominance creates a feeling of responsibility to act when ‘humanity’ is being violated, even when innocent blood must be shed to pursue something better than the ‘worst’ imbalance. My cynicism comes from the observation that the first U.S. priority is to be self serving or focus on preservation of our imperial power. Sometimes this priority coincides with achieving something better than the ‘worst’.Most obviously WW2. In those cases it’s easy to advertise strength and moral willingness as a means to cover up our primary self serving goals. I think We also deny that strength and moral willingness could be a component of our adversaries’ motivation. Therefore, we feel justified to clothe our self preservation in the robes of justice but clothe those who dare to be different in the black robes of terror. Sometimes our endeavors have nothing to do with how the other parties fare, but only to promote our strategic or economic benefit. Also our goverment frequently fails to interevne when there is obviously good cause for the same wrong reason of self interest and self preservation and also including appeasement of lesser dominant forces.
Ultimately I believe our imperial path is not sancrosant in any way relative to how it has been done before or how another nation might have done it in our stead or will do it in the future. My idealist problem, with this is that we pave the way for war, that might be avoidable , when we deny it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I don’t disagree. I would go so far as to say that for every WWI or WWII type intervention, we have a half dozen or so interventions of a less savory nature.

I do admit to getting hung up on the word “empire”. We are certainly possessed of the military, economic and political power to qualify, but I don’t see us in the same mold as the Romans or the British. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to argue that when the British ran out of gas (post WWII), we picked up the standard and moved forward.

I would say that I am not so much cynical as pragmatic. I would also say that if I were forced into a choice between the US and the Soviet Union, or the US and China, well, the decision is an easy one. Whatever faults we have, we are certainly better than the alternative, from an exercise of power standpoint. Which is to say, that I am not comparing us to Canada, or Denmark, or Nepal for that matter.

We do occupy a different place in the world and, on balance, have been a force for good more often than not. That might sound a little nationalistic or jingoistic, but I think History supports that conclusion.

As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq? I think 12 years of sanctions and endless threats from the UN proved how empty that alternative was, especially in Saddam’s eyes. I also think 50+ years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East gave way to something more sharp edged. Was it the right choice? I can’t say, and I think the verdict is still open.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I don’t disagree. I would go so far as to say that for every WWI or WWII type intervention, we have a half dozen or so interventions of a less savory nature.

I do admit to getting hung up on the word “empire”. We are certainly possessed of the military, economic and political power to qualify, but I don’t see us in the same mold as the Romans or the British. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to argue that when the British ran out of gas (post WWII), we picked up the standard and moved forward.

I would say that I am not so much cynical as pragmatic. I would also say that if I were forced into a choice between the US and the Soviet Union, or the US and China, well, the decision is an easy one. Whatever faults we have, we are certainly better than the alternative, from an exercise of power standpoint. Which is to say, that I am not comparing us to Canada, or Denmark, or Nepal for that matter.

We do occupy a different place in the world and, on balance, have been a force for good more often than not. That might sound a little nationalistic or jingoistic, but I think History supports that conclusion.

As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq? I think 12 years of sanctions and endless threats from the UN proved how empty that alternative was, especially in Saddam’s eyes. I also think 50+ years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East gave way to something more sharp edged. Was it the right choice? I can’t say, and I think the verdict is still open.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I don’t disagree. I would go so far as to say that for every WWI or WWII type intervention, we have a half dozen or so interventions of a less savory nature.

I do admit to getting hung up on the word “empire”. We are certainly possessed of the military, economic and political power to qualify, but I don’t see us in the same mold as the Romans or the British. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to argue that when the British ran out of gas (post WWII), we picked up the standard and moved forward.

I would say that I am not so much cynical as pragmatic. I would also say that if I were forced into a choice between the US and the Soviet Union, or the US and China, well, the decision is an easy one. Whatever faults we have, we are certainly better than the alternative, from an exercise of power standpoint. Which is to say, that I am not comparing us to Canada, or Denmark, or Nepal for that matter.

We do occupy a different place in the world and, on balance, have been a force for good more often than not. That might sound a little nationalistic or jingoistic, but I think History supports that conclusion.

As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq? I think 12 years of sanctions and endless threats from the UN proved how empty that alternative was, especially in Saddam’s eyes. I also think 50+ years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East gave way to something more sharp edged. Was it the right choice? I can’t say, and I think the verdict is still open.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I don’t disagree. I would go so far as to say that for every WWI or WWII type intervention, we have a half dozen or so interventions of a less savory nature.

I do admit to getting hung up on the word “empire”. We are certainly possessed of the military, economic and political power to qualify, but I don’t see us in the same mold as the Romans or the British. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to argue that when the British ran out of gas (post WWII), we picked up the standard and moved forward.

I would say that I am not so much cynical as pragmatic. I would also say that if I were forced into a choice between the US and the Soviet Union, or the US and China, well, the decision is an easy one. Whatever faults we have, we are certainly better than the alternative, from an exercise of power standpoint. Which is to say, that I am not comparing us to Canada, or Denmark, or Nepal for that matter.

We do occupy a different place in the world and, on balance, have been a force for good more often than not. That might sound a little nationalistic or jingoistic, but I think History supports that conclusion.

As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq? I think 12 years of sanctions and endless threats from the UN proved how empty that alternative was, especially in Saddam’s eyes. I also think 50+ years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East gave way to something more sharp edged. Was it the right choice? I can’t say, and I think the verdict is still open.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I don’t disagree. I would go so far as to say that for every WWI or WWII type intervention, we have a half dozen or so interventions of a less savory nature.

I do admit to getting hung up on the word “empire”. We are certainly possessed of the military, economic and political power to qualify, but I don’t see us in the same mold as the Romans or the British. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to argue that when the British ran out of gas (post WWII), we picked up the standard and moved forward.

I would say that I am not so much cynical as pragmatic. I would also say that if I were forced into a choice between the US and the Soviet Union, or the US and China, well, the decision is an easy one. Whatever faults we have, we are certainly better than the alternative, from an exercise of power standpoint. Which is to say, that I am not comparing us to Canada, or Denmark, or Nepal for that matter.

We do occupy a different place in the world and, on balance, have been a force for good more often than not. That might sound a little nationalistic or jingoistic, but I think History supports that conclusion.

As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq? I think 12 years of sanctions and endless threats from the UN proved how empty that alternative was, especially in Saddam’s eyes. I also think 50+ years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East gave way to something more sharp edged. Was it the right choice? I can’t say, and I think the verdict is still open.

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[NotCranky]

Yes I had already decided that you are taking a pragmatic tone compared to my idealistic one.

Even WW2, the U.S. had ulterior motives. Western Europe was our market place. I think overall I won’t fight the “just war” concept that prevailed at the time and still does. I have no doubt that the behind the scenes bankers and businessmen alike were influencing policy and perhaps spin. We also never know if the U.S. would have gone to war with less high motives at the time. What we do know is that we went to war and it played out favorably for our position.

On nationalism or jingoism being part of your motivation for your beliefs, I don’t know and won’t venture to say.I doubt it.

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical. I was really hinting that the U.S. might have used its power better towards avoiding a third world war type conflagration or a future clash of empires in any case.

Here is a second answer to the same question:

“As far as going to war when a more credible alternative exists: Where you speaking of Iraq?”

No, I was being philosophical.
Iraq might be a good case in point though.
The entire middle east for that matter, anything to do with oil. I believe this obligation to protect human rights issues come back up too. I just don’t really buy it as being very focal, regardless of how long sanctions and other “diplomatic” efforts were in effect.

“Diplomacy” = warfare without weapons.

Africa would be the region of interest for my criticism of US willingness to appease other less dominant but powerful nations, that coincidentally happen to be allies, or at least nations we have diplomatic relations with. How is a guy not supposed to be cynical about that?

I will look for any response . I have enjoyed this discussion. I’ll have to get with the program on the domestic front(no pun intended) and will have less time for serious discourse for a while.

My wife and I were discussing this exchange relative to how useful tasks could be created by an educator for his/her students.

One idea: Russ/Allan write a page on everything you learned from each other and include area of the discussion you would like to develop further.

Rus and Allan debate over. Allan you are the idealist,Rus you are the pragmatist for the sake of the exercise.

Or: write and essay incorporating and expanding on the entirety of the views expressed.

Take Care. Rus

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to participate and, believe it or not, I can argue the point of the idealist. I can argue the Wilsonian point of view quite effectively, I just don’t believe in it.

I think WWII is a very good case in point regarding idealism versus cynicism. The US and Britain regarded Nazi Germany as a bulwark against Soviet Bolshevism and only went to war when Hitler went too far and invaded Poland. Once hostilities commenced, the US and Britain allowed the Russians to literally bleed themselves and the Germans white before invading France in 1944. Given that the US suffered approximately 400,000 war dead and the Russians lost 28 million really underscores that point.

As far as Africa goes: There is nothing there from a commercially exploitable viewpoint, and that explains the lack of both US presence and US involvement. Trade follows the flag. Cynical, but true.

One topic I would be interested in following up on would be the state of the world following the US exit from Iraq. This would postulate a US defeat and a hurried departure; something along the lines of our exit from Vietnam in spring of 1975.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to participate and, believe it or not, I can argue the point of the idealist. I can argue the Wilsonian point of view quite effectively, I just don’t believe in it.

I think WWII is a very good case in point regarding idealism versus cynicism. The US and Britain regarded Nazi Germany as a bulwark against Soviet Bolshevism and only went to war when Hitler went too far and invaded Poland. Once hostilities commenced, the US and Britain allowed the Russians to literally bleed themselves and the Germans white before invading France in 1944. Given that the US suffered approximately 400,000 war dead and the Russians lost 28 million really underscores that point.

As far as Africa goes: There is nothing there from a commercially exploitable viewpoint, and that explains the lack of both US presence and US involvement. Trade follows the flag. Cynical, but true.

One topic I would be interested in following up on would be the state of the world following the US exit from Iraq. This would postulate a US defeat and a hurried departure; something along the lines of our exit from Vietnam in spring of 1975.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to participate and, believe it or not, I can argue the point of the idealist. I can argue the Wilsonian point of view quite effectively, I just don’t believe in it.

I think WWII is a very good case in point regarding idealism versus cynicism. The US and Britain regarded Nazi Germany as a bulwark against Soviet Bolshevism and only went to war when Hitler went too far and invaded Poland. Once hostilities commenced, the US and Britain allowed the Russians to literally bleed themselves and the Germans white before invading France in 1944. Given that the US suffered approximately 400,000 war dead and the Russians lost 28 million really underscores that point.

As far as Africa goes: There is nothing there from a commercially exploitable viewpoint, and that explains the lack of both US presence and US involvement. Trade follows the flag. Cynical, but true.

One topic I would be interested in following up on would be the state of the world following the US exit from Iraq. This would postulate a US defeat and a hurried departure; something along the lines of our exit from Vietnam in spring of 1975.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I would be happy to participate and, believe it or not, I can argue the point of the idealist. I can argue the Wilsonian point of view quite effectively, I just don’t believe in it.

I think WWII is a very good case in point regarding idealism versus cynicism. The US and Britain regarded Nazi Germany as a bulwark against Soviet Bolshevism and only went to war when Hitler went too far and invaded Poland. Once hostilities commenced, the US and Britain allowed the Russians to literally bleed themselves and the Germans white before invading France in 1944. Given that the US suffered approximately 400,000 war dead and the Russians lost 28 million really underscores that point.

As far as Africa goes: There is nothing there from a commercially exploitable viewpoint, and that explains the lack of both US presence and US involvement. Trade follows the flag. Cynical, but true.

One topic I would be interested in following up on would be the state of the world following the US exit from Iraq. This would postulate a US defeat and a hurried departure; something along the lines of our exit from Vietnam in spring of 1975.

[Author]

Posts