Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
Participantmarion: Really? Every single thing? So, our defeating the Soviets in the Cold War was decided by some gypsy and a crystal ball? Wow.
Glad to see you didn’t spend the 80’s reading tabloids and listening to Wham!.
Oy.
Participantmarion: Really? Every single thing? So, our defeating the Soviets in the Cold War was decided by some gypsy and a crystal ball? Wow.
Glad to see you didn’t spend the 80’s reading tabloids and listening to Wham!.
Oy.
Participantmarion: Really? Every single thing? So, our defeating the Soviets in the Cold War was decided by some gypsy and a crystal ball? Wow.
Glad to see you didn’t spend the 80’s reading tabloids and listening to Wham!.
Oy.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: 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.
ParticipantRus: I would agree with you on certain points, and disagree with you on others.
I think Carter’s appeasement of Brezhnev and the Soviet Union, and his willingness to turn a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, as well as doing nothing while the Cubans were running riot in Angola, did tremendous damage to US prestige throughout the world, and encouraged other despots, who no longer feared America as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.
In an earlier time, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, along with France and Britain’s standing idle during the Anschluss and the later annexation of Czechoslovakia, led directly to the invasion of Poland in 1939 and WWII.
Appeasement does not work. I am not arguing for war, rather I am arguing that History is brutally unforgiving when it comes to the weak or the morally unwilling.
As to our being in front, I would argue that the UN’s involvement in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, etc has been nothing short of disastrous. Even a morally divisive war like Vietnam is remarkable for what happened after the US left Southeast Asia, meaning the genocidal actions of the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge following the “liberation”.
I would never argue that the US is always right. Far from it. We have more than our share of blood on our hands, and our actions at times have been far from pure. But sometimes the alternative is not between good and bad, but bad and worse.
-
AuthorPosts
