[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t feel that you and Rus are ganging up on me. The irony is that I completely agree with the idea that we get loose of our dependence on foreign oil. I have said before (and I think on this thread) that we need to revisit our strategy regarding building new nuclear reactors. The French have an excellent energy model in this regard, and it would give a badly needed shot in the arm to our engineering and heavy industrial and construction capabilities.

I agree with nuance, but I also think that there is definitely evil in the world. Sadly, we (America) find ourselves supporting regimes out of necessity that are evil. Bad is sometimes better than worse, but it doesn’t make any easier to stomach. I can say that from experience having spent time in Central America during the 1980s. Did I believe in the mission? Yes. However, even though the ends can justify the means, it doesn’t let you sleep any better at night.

Let’s use Obama as an example. He is intelligent, very well spoken and has an excellent pedigree. He is also a product of the Chicago Democratic machine and has raised a staggering amount of money during his campaign. Isn’t it safe to say that probably a good chunk of that money is coming with strings attached? Same with McCain. I couldn’t agree more that he has gone from maverick to toeing the party line. This is why I won’t vote for either of them. Both are beholden, and that will not ever change, regardless of candidate and regardless of party.

The choices we are facing now transcend partisan politics or policies. I think the American people need to wake up and start making our OWN choices, not those thrust down our throats by politicos with an agenda driven by whose money they accepted.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t feel that you and Rus are ganging up on me. The irony is that I completely agree with the idea that we get loose of our dependence on foreign oil. I have said before (and I think on this thread) that we need to revisit our strategy regarding building new nuclear reactors. The French have an excellent energy model in this regard, and it would give a badly needed shot in the arm to our engineering and heavy industrial and construction capabilities.

I agree with nuance, but I also think that there is definitely evil in the world. Sadly, we (America) find ourselves supporting regimes out of necessity that are evil. Bad is sometimes better than worse, but it doesn’t make any easier to stomach. I can say that from experience having spent time in Central America during the 1980s. Did I believe in the mission? Yes. However, even though the ends can justify the means, it doesn’t let you sleep any better at night.

Let’s use Obama as an example. He is intelligent, very well spoken and has an excellent pedigree. He is also a product of the Chicago Democratic machine and has raised a staggering amount of money during his campaign. Isn’t it safe to say that probably a good chunk of that money is coming with strings attached? Same with McCain. I couldn’t agree more that he has gone from maverick to toeing the party line. This is why I won’t vote for either of them. Both are beholden, and that will not ever change, regardless of candidate and regardless of party.

The choices we are facing now transcend partisan politics or policies. I think the American people need to wake up and start making our OWN choices, not those thrust down our throats by politicos with an agenda driven by whose money they accepted.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t feel that you and Rus are ganging up on me. The irony is that I completely agree with the idea that we get loose of our dependence on foreign oil. I have said before (and I think on this thread) that we need to revisit our strategy regarding building new nuclear reactors. The French have an excellent energy model in this regard, and it would give a badly needed shot in the arm to our engineering and heavy industrial and construction capabilities.

I agree with nuance, but I also think that there is definitely evil in the world. Sadly, we (America) find ourselves supporting regimes out of necessity that are evil. Bad is sometimes better than worse, but it doesn’t make any easier to stomach. I can say that from experience having spent time in Central America during the 1980s. Did I believe in the mission? Yes. However, even though the ends can justify the means, it doesn’t let you sleep any better at night.

Let’s use Obama as an example. He is intelligent, very well spoken and has an excellent pedigree. He is also a product of the Chicago Democratic machine and has raised a staggering amount of money during his campaign. Isn’t it safe to say that probably a good chunk of that money is coming with strings attached? Same with McCain. I couldn’t agree more that he has gone from maverick to toeing the party line. This is why I won’t vote for either of them. Both are beholden, and that will not ever change, regardless of candidate and regardless of party.

The choices we are facing now transcend partisan politics or policies. I think the American people need to wake up and start making our OWN choices, not those thrust down our throats by politicos with an agenda driven by whose money they accepted.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I don’t feel that you and Rus are ganging up on me. The irony is that I completely agree with the idea that we get loose of our dependence on foreign oil. I have said before (and I think on this thread) that we need to revisit our strategy regarding building new nuclear reactors. The French have an excellent energy model in this regard, and it would give a badly needed shot in the arm to our engineering and heavy industrial and construction capabilities.

I agree with nuance, but I also think that there is definitely evil in the world. Sadly, we (America) find ourselves supporting regimes out of necessity that are evil. Bad is sometimes better than worse, but it doesn’t make any easier to stomach. I can say that from experience having spent time in Central America during the 1980s. Did I believe in the mission? Yes. However, even though the ends can justify the means, it doesn’t let you sleep any better at night.

Let’s use Obama as an example. He is intelligent, very well spoken and has an excellent pedigree. He is also a product of the Chicago Democratic machine and has raised a staggering amount of money during his campaign. Isn’t it safe to say that probably a good chunk of that money is coming with strings attached? Same with McCain. I couldn’t agree more that he has gone from maverick to toeing the party line. This is why I won’t vote for either of them. Both are beholden, and that will not ever change, regardless of candidate and regardless of party.

The choices we are facing now transcend partisan politics or policies. I think the American people need to wake up and start making our OWN choices, not those thrust down our throats by politicos with an agenda driven by whose money they accepted.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf/Rus: As to certain jingoistic and jackboot elements of my response: Agreed. I would be the first to admit that my Germanic upbringing gets the best of me. That being said (and here is where it gets tricky), I have also seen the price of being “reasonable” in an unreasonable world.

Here’s an example: The Somoza regime was overthrown by Danny Ortega’s Sandinistas in 1979. In spite of Ortega’s ties to the Soviets, it was by and large thought to be a change for the better. Instead, Ortega embarks on a program of militarizing Nicaragua to the point where it has a military the size of Mexico’s, but is a country six times smaller. He serves as a trans-shipment point for weapons into neighboring countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (to aid the insurgent movements there) and begins a systematic campaign of torture and murder against the Moskito Indians, an opposition group. He consistently promises to have a free and open election, but doesn’t actually allow them until 1990, when the Sandinistas are voted out of power.

Granted, this is a small example, but indicative of the world at large.

And, no, I am not holding the Lefties solely responsible. I think they bear some responsibility, but conservative policies as of late ain’t been so hot, either. I wouldn’t categorize or characterize anyone that doesn’t agree as anti-American, either. I’d be the first to argue that dissent is absolutely necessary and if you don’t agree, speak out. I think a favorite tactic with ideologues on the Right and the Left is to scapegoat and demonize their opponents. It has now become about labels and pigeonholing someone into a category where you can render them voiceless by referring to them as a “liar”, or “war monger” or “war profiteer”. Shades of Orwell there.

I think the problem is that we are tied to certain regions and countries out of economic necessity and thus have little choice in certain instances but to protect our interests. Hence our involvement in the Middle East and our tacit support of the Saudis. Rus and I go back and forth over whether we are an empire or a hegemony. Unlike the British, we are not colonizing India, or parts of Africa, or Singapore. We do use our power to support our business interests so, in that sense, “trade does follow the flag” as the expression goes.

Which means that sometimes our choices aren’t between good and bad, but bad and worse. Nature (and power) abhors a vacuum, and if you think the Chinese or Russians wouldn’t jump at the chance to be the big dog on the block, think again. It would be interesting to see what choices they made and how they imposed their will on the world.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf/Rus: As to certain jingoistic and jackboot elements of my response: Agreed. I would be the first to admit that my Germanic upbringing gets the best of me. That being said (and here is where it gets tricky), I have also seen the price of being “reasonable” in an unreasonable world.

Here’s an example: The Somoza regime was overthrown by Danny Ortega’s Sandinistas in 1979. In spite of Ortega’s ties to the Soviets, it was by and large thought to be a change for the better. Instead, Ortega embarks on a program of militarizing Nicaragua to the point where it has a military the size of Mexico’s, but is a country six times smaller. He serves as a trans-shipment point for weapons into neighboring countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (to aid the insurgent movements there) and begins a systematic campaign of torture and murder against the Moskito Indians, an opposition group. He consistently promises to have a free and open election, but doesn’t actually allow them until 1990, when the Sandinistas are voted out of power.

Granted, this is a small example, but indicative of the world at large.

And, no, I am not holding the Lefties solely responsible. I think they bear some responsibility, but conservative policies as of late ain’t been so hot, either. I wouldn’t categorize or characterize anyone that doesn’t agree as anti-American, either. I’d be the first to argue that dissent is absolutely necessary and if you don’t agree, speak out. I think a favorite tactic with ideologues on the Right and the Left is to scapegoat and demonize their opponents. It has now become about labels and pigeonholing someone into a category where you can render them voiceless by referring to them as a “liar”, or “war monger” or “war profiteer”. Shades of Orwell there.

I think the problem is that we are tied to certain regions and countries out of economic necessity and thus have little choice in certain instances but to protect our interests. Hence our involvement in the Middle East and our tacit support of the Saudis. Rus and I go back and forth over whether we are an empire or a hegemony. Unlike the British, we are not colonizing India, or parts of Africa, or Singapore. We do use our power to support our business interests so, in that sense, “trade does follow the flag” as the expression goes.

Which means that sometimes our choices aren’t between good and bad, but bad and worse. Nature (and power) abhors a vacuum, and if you think the Chinese or Russians wouldn’t jump at the chance to be the big dog on the block, think again. It would be interesting to see what choices they made and how they imposed their will on the world.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf/Rus: As to certain jingoistic and jackboot elements of my response: Agreed. I would be the first to admit that my Germanic upbringing gets the best of me. That being said (and here is where it gets tricky), I have also seen the price of being “reasonable” in an unreasonable world.

Here’s an example: The Somoza regime was overthrown by Danny Ortega’s Sandinistas in 1979. In spite of Ortega’s ties to the Soviets, it was by and large thought to be a change for the better. Instead, Ortega embarks on a program of militarizing Nicaragua to the point where it has a military the size of Mexico’s, but is a country six times smaller. He serves as a trans-shipment point for weapons into neighboring countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (to aid the insurgent movements there) and begins a systematic campaign of torture and murder against the Moskito Indians, an opposition group. He consistently promises to have a free and open election, but doesn’t actually allow them until 1990, when the Sandinistas are voted out of power.

Granted, this is a small example, but indicative of the world at large.

And, no, I am not holding the Lefties solely responsible. I think they bear some responsibility, but conservative policies as of late ain’t been so hot, either. I wouldn’t categorize or characterize anyone that doesn’t agree as anti-American, either. I’d be the first to argue that dissent is absolutely necessary and if you don’t agree, speak out. I think a favorite tactic with ideologues on the Right and the Left is to scapegoat and demonize their opponents. It has now become about labels and pigeonholing someone into a category where you can render them voiceless by referring to them as a “liar”, or “war monger” or “war profiteer”. Shades of Orwell there.

I think the problem is that we are tied to certain regions and countries out of economic necessity and thus have little choice in certain instances but to protect our interests. Hence our involvement in the Middle East and our tacit support of the Saudis. Rus and I go back and forth over whether we are an empire or a hegemony. Unlike the British, we are not colonizing India, or parts of Africa, or Singapore. We do use our power to support our business interests so, in that sense, “trade does follow the flag” as the expression goes.

Which means that sometimes our choices aren’t between good and bad, but bad and worse. Nature (and power) abhors a vacuum, and if you think the Chinese or Russians wouldn’t jump at the chance to be the big dog on the block, think again. It would be interesting to see what choices they made and how they imposed their will on the world.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf/Rus: As to certain jingoistic and jackboot elements of my response: Agreed. I would be the first to admit that my Germanic upbringing gets the best of me. That being said (and here is where it gets tricky), I have also seen the price of being “reasonable” in an unreasonable world.

Here’s an example: The Somoza regime was overthrown by Danny Ortega’s Sandinistas in 1979. In spite of Ortega’s ties to the Soviets, it was by and large thought to be a change for the better. Instead, Ortega embarks on a program of militarizing Nicaragua to the point where it has a military the size of Mexico’s, but is a country six times smaller. He serves as a trans-shipment point for weapons into neighboring countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (to aid the insurgent movements there) and begins a systematic campaign of torture and murder against the Moskito Indians, an opposition group. He consistently promises to have a free and open election, but doesn’t actually allow them until 1990, when the Sandinistas are voted out of power.

Granted, this is a small example, but indicative of the world at large.

And, no, I am not holding the Lefties solely responsible. I think they bear some responsibility, but conservative policies as of late ain’t been so hot, either. I wouldn’t categorize or characterize anyone that doesn’t agree as anti-American, either. I’d be the first to argue that dissent is absolutely necessary and if you don’t agree, speak out. I think a favorite tactic with ideologues on the Right and the Left is to scapegoat and demonize their opponents. It has now become about labels and pigeonholing someone into a category where you can render them voiceless by referring to them as a “liar”, or “war monger” or “war profiteer”. Shades of Orwell there.

I think the problem is that we are tied to certain regions and countries out of economic necessity and thus have little choice in certain instances but to protect our interests. Hence our involvement in the Middle East and our tacit support of the Saudis. Rus and I go back and forth over whether we are an empire or a hegemony. Unlike the British, we are not colonizing India, or parts of Africa, or Singapore. We do use our power to support our business interests so, in that sense, “trade does follow the flag” as the expression goes.

Which means that sometimes our choices aren’t between good and bad, but bad and worse. Nature (and power) abhors a vacuum, and if you think the Chinese or Russians wouldn’t jump at the chance to be the big dog on the block, think again. It would be interesting to see what choices they made and how they imposed their will on the world.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf/Rus: As to certain jingoistic and jackboot elements of my response: Agreed. I would be the first to admit that my Germanic upbringing gets the best of me. That being said (and here is where it gets tricky), I have also seen the price of being “reasonable” in an unreasonable world.

Here’s an example: The Somoza regime was overthrown by Danny Ortega’s Sandinistas in 1979. In spite of Ortega’s ties to the Soviets, it was by and large thought to be a change for the better. Instead, Ortega embarks on a program of militarizing Nicaragua to the point where it has a military the size of Mexico’s, but is a country six times smaller. He serves as a trans-shipment point for weapons into neighboring countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (to aid the insurgent movements there) and begins a systematic campaign of torture and murder against the Moskito Indians, an opposition group. He consistently promises to have a free and open election, but doesn’t actually allow them until 1990, when the Sandinistas are voted out of power.

Granted, this is a small example, but indicative of the world at large.

And, no, I am not holding the Lefties solely responsible. I think they bear some responsibility, but conservative policies as of late ain’t been so hot, either. I wouldn’t categorize or characterize anyone that doesn’t agree as anti-American, either. I’d be the first to argue that dissent is absolutely necessary and if you don’t agree, speak out. I think a favorite tactic with ideologues on the Right and the Left is to scapegoat and demonize their opponents. It has now become about labels and pigeonholing someone into a category where you can render them voiceless by referring to them as a “liar”, or “war monger” or “war profiteer”. Shades of Orwell there.

I think the problem is that we are tied to certain regions and countries out of economic necessity and thus have little choice in certain instances but to protect our interests. Hence our involvement in the Middle East and our tacit support of the Saudis. Rus and I go back and forth over whether we are an empire or a hegemony. Unlike the British, we are not colonizing India, or parts of Africa, or Singapore. We do use our power to support our business interests so, in that sense, “trade does follow the flag” as the expression goes.

Which means that sometimes our choices aren’t between good and bad, but bad and worse. Nature (and power) abhors a vacuum, and if you think the Chinese or Russians wouldn’t jump at the chance to be the big dog on the block, think again. It would be interesting to see what choices they made and how they imposed their will on the world.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Don’t you think your response is a tad too simplistic? It presupposes that the US has been running rampant on the world stage, subjugating everything in our path.

I think if you back up some 30 – 35 years, you’ll see a very different world, and one dominated by the Soviets, with the US just trying to hold the line.

If you were to take Southeast Asia from 1975 forward, you would see that there was indeed a reason for us to be there, and that, following the fall of Saigon in April of 1975, the North Vietnamese moved in and brutally repressed the entire South. You then have the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killing some 2.5MM people out of a population of 7MM.

Around the same period, you have the Soviets and Cubans in Angola, and the Soviets supporting “National Liberation Fronts” in countries throughout Africa, and Central and South America.

The point is that the US was the only counterweight to a very real Soviet plan to dominate the world. We did this on our dime and generally asked little in return. Yes, our policies are sometimes suspect and we have definitely made some serious mistakes in foreign policy. But, if you compare the Shah of Iran to Khomeini, Fidel Castro to Batista, and Danny Ortega to Somoza, you’ll find that sometimes the choices aren’t that easy, and that the alternative is far worse. Just look at the way the Russians are bullying their neighbors in Eastern Europe and China’s response to Tibet and Nepal.

We’re certainly not perfect, and these last few years have been difficult to say the least, but we’re also certainly not the atavistic, war mongering empire some on the far Left insist we are.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Don’t you think your response is a tad too simplistic? It presupposes that the US has been running rampant on the world stage, subjugating everything in our path.

I think if you back up some 30 – 35 years, you’ll see a very different world, and one dominated by the Soviets, with the US just trying to hold the line.

If you were to take Southeast Asia from 1975 forward, you would see that there was indeed a reason for us to be there, and that, following the fall of Saigon in April of 1975, the North Vietnamese moved in and brutally repressed the entire South. You then have the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killing some 2.5MM people out of a population of 7MM.

Around the same period, you have the Soviets and Cubans in Angola, and the Soviets supporting “National Liberation Fronts” in countries throughout Africa, and Central and South America.

The point is that the US was the only counterweight to a very real Soviet plan to dominate the world. We did this on our dime and generally asked little in return. Yes, our policies are sometimes suspect and we have definitely made some serious mistakes in foreign policy. But, if you compare the Shah of Iran to Khomeini, Fidel Castro to Batista, and Danny Ortega to Somoza, you’ll find that sometimes the choices aren’t that easy, and that the alternative is far worse. Just look at the way the Russians are bullying their neighbors in Eastern Europe and China’s response to Tibet and Nepal.

We’re certainly not perfect, and these last few years have been difficult to say the least, but we’re also certainly not the atavistic, war mongering empire some on the far Left insist we are.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Don’t you think your response is a tad too simplistic? It presupposes that the US has been running rampant on the world stage, subjugating everything in our path.

I think if you back up some 30 – 35 years, you’ll see a very different world, and one dominated by the Soviets, with the US just trying to hold the line.

If you were to take Southeast Asia from 1975 forward, you would see that there was indeed a reason for us to be there, and that, following the fall of Saigon in April of 1975, the North Vietnamese moved in and brutally repressed the entire South. You then have the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killing some 2.5MM people out of a population of 7MM.

Around the same period, you have the Soviets and Cubans in Angola, and the Soviets supporting “National Liberation Fronts” in countries throughout Africa, and Central and South America.

The point is that the US was the only counterweight to a very real Soviet plan to dominate the world. We did this on our dime and generally asked little in return. Yes, our policies are sometimes suspect and we have definitely made some serious mistakes in foreign policy. But, if you compare the Shah of Iran to Khomeini, Fidel Castro to Batista, and Danny Ortega to Somoza, you’ll find that sometimes the choices aren’t that easy, and that the alternative is far worse. Just look at the way the Russians are bullying their neighbors in Eastern Europe and China’s response to Tibet and Nepal.

We’re certainly not perfect, and these last few years have been difficult to say the least, but we’re also certainly not the atavistic, war mongering empire some on the far Left insist we are.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Don’t you think your response is a tad too simplistic? It presupposes that the US has been running rampant on the world stage, subjugating everything in our path.

I think if you back up some 30 – 35 years, you’ll see a very different world, and one dominated by the Soviets, with the US just trying to hold the line.

If you were to take Southeast Asia from 1975 forward, you would see that there was indeed a reason for us to be there, and that, following the fall of Saigon in April of 1975, the North Vietnamese moved in and brutally repressed the entire South. You then have the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killing some 2.5MM people out of a population of 7MM.

Around the same period, you have the Soviets and Cubans in Angola, and the Soviets supporting “National Liberation Fronts” in countries throughout Africa, and Central and South America.

The point is that the US was the only counterweight to a very real Soviet plan to dominate the world. We did this on our dime and generally asked little in return. Yes, our policies are sometimes suspect and we have definitely made some serious mistakes in foreign policy. But, if you compare the Shah of Iran to Khomeini, Fidel Castro to Batista, and Danny Ortega to Somoza, you’ll find that sometimes the choices aren’t that easy, and that the alternative is far worse. Just look at the way the Russians are bullying their neighbors in Eastern Europe and China’s response to Tibet and Nepal.

We’re certainly not perfect, and these last few years have been difficult to say the least, but we’re also certainly not the atavistic, war mongering empire some on the far Left insist we are.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: Don’t you think your response is a tad too simplistic? It presupposes that the US has been running rampant on the world stage, subjugating everything in our path.

I think if you back up some 30 – 35 years, you’ll see a very different world, and one dominated by the Soviets, with the US just trying to hold the line.

If you were to take Southeast Asia from 1975 forward, you would see that there was indeed a reason for us to be there, and that, following the fall of Saigon in April of 1975, the North Vietnamese moved in and brutally repressed the entire South. You then have the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killing some 2.5MM people out of a population of 7MM.

Around the same period, you have the Soviets and Cubans in Angola, and the Soviets supporting “National Liberation Fronts” in countries throughout Africa, and Central and South America.

The point is that the US was the only counterweight to a very real Soviet plan to dominate the world. We did this on our dime and generally asked little in return. Yes, our policies are sometimes suspect and we have definitely made some serious mistakes in foreign policy. But, if you compare the Shah of Iran to Khomeini, Fidel Castro to Batista, and Danny Ortega to Somoza, you’ll find that sometimes the choices aren’t that easy, and that the alternative is far worse. Just look at the way the Russians are bullying their neighbors in Eastern Europe and China’s response to Tibet and Nepal.

We’re certainly not perfect, and these last few years have been difficult to say the least, but we’re also certainly not the atavistic, war mongering empire some on the far Left insist we are.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Thank you. I remember reading a book on the German Army in WWI, and reading that they marched into battle with belt buckles that read “Gott mit uns” (God is with us).

I served with NCOs who were products of Vietnam and they were fervently convinced that the most brutal soldier was your average middle class American 19 year old.

We are a very violent, warlike country and do a great job covering that fact up. Like I said, I wish I had something more compelling to say in terms of what we should do, but, in truth, I don’t know.

I do know that I remember watching the footage of what they did to Daniel Pearl and thinking that just dropping a couple of 50 megaton nukes on selected targets in the Muslim world didn’t seem like a bad idea. A buddy of mine in Baghdad told me he misses the Soviets and the good old, bad old days of the Cold War. He said the world seemed a lot simpler and a lot less dangerous than it is now.

[Author]

Posts