[felix]

Wow!

I’m struggling to understand how this writer could be so wrong. Unfortunately her view is that of a misguided ideologue. She is trying to use twisted logic and facts to predict and justify her twisted viewpoint.

She writes, “The age of worship of the military and empire building is an era when a general of the army is “above criticism.””

The army above criticism? Where has she been the past 40 years? Clearly since the Viet Nam War, if not before, the military has been scrutinized and criticized. In fact, the military has been reviled by many of own her contemporary’s. The military has not been above criticism. Criticism has come very regularly, almost daily from some.

She also writes, “The culture of the worship of the military has crept upon us”

Worship?

I must have missed the worshiping. Didn’t it take until the 90’s to even welcome those Viet Nam “heroes” home? Didn’t we just elect a neophyte Chicago machine politician with virtually no leadership experience over a genuine war hero in the last presidential election? I must be missing the worshiping.

The fact is the military is far from worshiped. For decades a huge segment of the population hardly even tolerates the military. Some don’t even see a military as a necessary evil. They look upon the military as costly killers of innocents more than protectors of freedom. We do not worship the military.

An even larger problem with this OpEd is that the author doesn’t even understand what the terms she is using.

Does she know what an empire is?

As far as I can tell we are not and have never been an empire so how can we be an empire in decline?

Empires have a single supreme authority. Empires are expansionist and acquirers of other lands.

Our government may be flawed but we are not run by a single supreme authority and it has been over a century since we were expansionist acquirers of land (Manifesting Destiny). In fact, we can’t wait to get out of most of the places we send our troops.

The author doesn’t even mention that we have regularly given up land taken in conflict unlike the other attempted empires. We couldn’t be less like Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

So besides being wrong on the facts and wrong in her logic, she is wrong in her conclusions. Basically, she wastes any thoughtful person’s time with the reading of this OpEd.

[felix]

Wow!

I’m struggling to understand how this writer could be so wrong. Unfortunately her view is that of a misguided ideologue. She is trying to use twisted logic and facts to predict and justify her twisted viewpoint.

She writes, “The age of worship of the military and empire building is an era when a general of the army is “above criticism.””

The army above criticism? Where has she been the past 40 years? Clearly since the Viet Nam War, if not before, the military has been scrutinized and criticized. In fact, the military has been reviled by many of own her contemporary’s. The military has not been above criticism. Criticism has come very regularly, almost daily from some.

She also writes, “The culture of the worship of the military has crept upon us”

Worship?

I must have missed the worshiping. Didn’t it take until the 90’s to even welcome those Viet Nam “heroes” home? Didn’t we just elect a neophyte Chicago machine politician with virtually no leadership experience over a genuine war hero in the last presidential election? I must be missing the worshiping.

The fact is the military is far from worshiped. For decades a huge segment of the population hardly even tolerates the military. Some don’t even see a military as a necessary evil. They look upon the military as costly killers of innocents more than protectors of freedom. We do not worship the military.

An even larger problem with this OpEd is that the author doesn’t even understand what the terms she is using.

Does she know what an empire is?

As far as I can tell we are not and have never been an empire so how can we be an empire in decline?

Empires have a single supreme authority. Empires are expansionist and acquirers of other lands.

Our government may be flawed but we are not run by a single supreme authority and it has been over a century since we were expansionist acquirers of land (Manifesting Destiny). In fact, we can’t wait to get out of most of the places we send our troops.

The author doesn’t even mention that we have regularly given up land taken in conflict unlike the other attempted empires. We couldn’t be less like Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

So besides being wrong on the facts and wrong in her logic, she is wrong in her conclusions. Basically, she wastes any thoughtful person’s time with the reading of this OpEd.

[felix]

Wow!

I’m struggling to understand how this writer could be so wrong. Unfortunately her view is that of a misguided ideologue. She is trying to use twisted logic and facts to predict and justify her twisted viewpoint.

She writes, “The age of worship of the military and empire building is an era when a general of the army is “above criticism.””

The army above criticism? Where has she been the past 40 years? Clearly since the Viet Nam War, if not before, the military has been scrutinized and criticized. In fact, the military has been reviled by many of own her contemporary’s. The military has not been above criticism. Criticism has come very regularly, almost daily from some.

She also writes, “The culture of the worship of the military has crept upon us”

Worship?

I must have missed the worshiping. Didn’t it take until the 90’s to even welcome those Viet Nam “heroes” home? Didn’t we just elect a neophyte Chicago machine politician with virtually no leadership experience over a genuine war hero in the last presidential election? I must be missing the worshiping.

The fact is the military is far from worshiped. For decades a huge segment of the population hardly even tolerates the military. Some don’t even see a military as a necessary evil. They look upon the military as costly killers of innocents more than protectors of freedom. We do not worship the military.

An even larger problem with this OpEd is that the author doesn’t even understand what the terms she is using.

Does she know what an empire is?

As far as I can tell we are not and have never been an empire so how can we be an empire in decline?

Empires have a single supreme authority. Empires are expansionist and acquirers of other lands.

Our government may be flawed but we are not run by a single supreme authority and it has been over a century since we were expansionist acquirers of land (Manifesting Destiny). In fact, we can’t wait to get out of most of the places we send our troops.

The author doesn’t even mention that we have regularly given up land taken in conflict unlike the other attempted empires. We couldn’t be less like Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

So besides being wrong on the facts and wrong in her logic, she is wrong in her conclusions. Basically, she wastes any thoughtful person’s time with the reading of this OpEd.

[felix]

Wow!

I’m struggling to understand how this writer could be so wrong. Unfortunately her view is that of a misguided ideologue. She is trying to use twisted logic and facts to predict and justify her twisted viewpoint.

She writes, “The age of worship of the military and empire building is an era when a general of the army is “above criticism.””

The army above criticism? Where has she been the past 40 years? Clearly since the Viet Nam War, if not before, the military has been scrutinized and criticized. In fact, the military has been reviled by many of own her contemporary’s. The military has not been above criticism. Criticism has come very regularly, almost daily from some.

She also writes, “The culture of the worship of the military has crept upon us”

Worship?

I must have missed the worshiping. Didn’t it take until the 90’s to even welcome those Viet Nam “heroes” home? Didn’t we just elect a neophyte Chicago machine politician with virtually no leadership experience over a genuine war hero in the last presidential election? I must be missing the worshiping.

The fact is the military is far from worshiped. For decades a huge segment of the population hardly even tolerates the military. Some don’t even see a military as a necessary evil. They look upon the military as costly killers of innocents more than protectors of freedom. We do not worship the military.

An even larger problem with this OpEd is that the author doesn’t even understand what the terms she is using.

Does she know what an empire is?

As far as I can tell we are not and have never been an empire so how can we be an empire in decline?

Empires have a single supreme authority. Empires are expansionist and acquirers of other lands.

Our government may be flawed but we are not run by a single supreme authority and it has been over a century since we were expansionist acquirers of land (Manifesting Destiny). In fact, we can’t wait to get out of most of the places we send our troops.

The author doesn’t even mention that we have regularly given up land taken in conflict unlike the other attempted empires. We couldn’t be less like Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

So besides being wrong on the facts and wrong in her logic, she is wrong in her conclusions. Basically, she wastes any thoughtful person’s time with the reading of this OpEd.

[felix]

Wow!

I’m struggling to understand how this writer could be so wrong. Unfortunately her view is that of a misguided ideologue. She is trying to use twisted logic and facts to predict and justify her twisted viewpoint.

She writes, “The age of worship of the military and empire building is an era when a general of the army is “above criticism.””

The army above criticism? Where has she been the past 40 years? Clearly since the Viet Nam War, if not before, the military has been scrutinized and criticized. In fact, the military has been reviled by many of own her contemporary’s. The military has not been above criticism. Criticism has come very regularly, almost daily from some.

She also writes, “The culture of the worship of the military has crept upon us”

Worship?

I must have missed the worshiping. Didn’t it take until the 90’s to even welcome those Viet Nam “heroes” home? Didn’t we just elect a neophyte Chicago machine politician with virtually no leadership experience over a genuine war hero in the last presidential election? I must be missing the worshiping.

The fact is the military is far from worshiped. For decades a huge segment of the population hardly even tolerates the military. Some don’t even see a military as a necessary evil. They look upon the military as costly killers of innocents more than protectors of freedom. We do not worship the military.

An even larger problem with this OpEd is that the author doesn’t even understand what the terms she is using.

Does she know what an empire is?

As far as I can tell we are not and have never been an empire so how can we be an empire in decline?

Empires have a single supreme authority. Empires are expansionist and acquirers of other lands.

Our government may be flawed but we are not run by a single supreme authority and it has been over a century since we were expansionist acquirers of land (Manifesting Destiny). In fact, we can’t wait to get out of most of the places we send our troops.

The author doesn’t even mention that we have regularly given up land taken in conflict unlike the other attempted empires. We couldn’t be less like Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

So besides being wrong on the facts and wrong in her logic, she is wrong in her conclusions. Basically, she wastes any thoughtful person’s time with the reading of this OpEd.

[felix]

I don’t disagree with most of what you wrote. I think I mentioned how important I felt oil was to not only our economy by the world at large.

I don’t know why you are even mentioning 9/11. I sure didn’t. However, if you don’t think Saddam was capable of attempting 9/11 style attack you are naive. Saddam was a megalomaniac and not bright enough to know when to say enough is enough.

Now I am not saying that angle should have been played up as the major reason for renewing active conflict with the Iraqis, there were enough good reasons imo even without WMDs, but it certainly was a possibility, more so against his neighbors though than us.

Also, while oil has spiked and dropped, I am not sure how much of that movement was supply/demand driven. Imo much of the spike was a speculative bubble, like what we saw happen in real estate but for mostly other reasons.

Yes, there were some supply/demand issues like OPEC controlling supply, ethanol refinery issues and growing economies but the dramatic 2008 increase from 70/barrel to 145/barrel and back down below 70/barrel were caused mostly by speculation (or fear of supply issues not real supply issues).

So it was the added risk premium to the crude oil price which largely was responsible for the extreme price spike. When that eased prices dropped almost 4 times as fast as they rose and they rose pretty fast.

Imo concerns about supply is not the same as a lack of supply or an increase in real demand.

Yet, I do agree oil is a key component to all economies and if Saddam wasn’t sitting on a vast amount of oil and threatening our allies we probably wouldn’t have been involved. I don’t have a problem with that though but I know some folks do.

[felix]

I don’t disagree with most of what you wrote. I think I mentioned how important I felt oil was to not only our economy by the world at large.

I don’t know why you are even mentioning 9/11. I sure didn’t. However, if you don’t think Saddam was capable of attempting 9/11 style attack you are naive. Saddam was a megalomaniac and not bright enough to know when to say enough is enough.

Now I am not saying that angle should have been played up as the major reason for renewing active conflict with the Iraqis, there were enough good reasons imo even without WMDs, but it certainly was a possibility, more so against his neighbors though than us.

Also, while oil has spiked and dropped, I am not sure how much of that movement was supply/demand driven. Imo much of the spike was a speculative bubble, like what we saw happen in real estate but for mostly other reasons.

Yes, there were some supply/demand issues like OPEC controlling supply, ethanol refinery issues and growing economies but the dramatic 2008 increase from 70/barrel to 145/barrel and back down below 70/barrel were caused mostly by speculation (or fear of supply issues not real supply issues).

So it was the added risk premium to the crude oil price which largely was responsible for the extreme price spike. When that eased prices dropped almost 4 times as fast as they rose and they rose pretty fast.

Imo concerns about supply is not the same as a lack of supply or an increase in real demand.

Yet, I do agree oil is a key component to all economies and if Saddam wasn’t sitting on a vast amount of oil and threatening our allies we probably wouldn’t have been involved. I don’t have a problem with that though but I know some folks do.

[felix]

I don’t disagree with most of what you wrote. I think I mentioned how important I felt oil was to not only our economy by the world at large.

I don’t know why you are even mentioning 9/11. I sure didn’t. However, if you don’t think Saddam was capable of attempting 9/11 style attack you are naive. Saddam was a megalomaniac and not bright enough to know when to say enough is enough.

Now I am not saying that angle should have been played up as the major reason for renewing active conflict with the Iraqis, there were enough good reasons imo even without WMDs, but it certainly was a possibility, more so against his neighbors though than us.

Also, while oil has spiked and dropped, I am not sure how much of that movement was supply/demand driven. Imo much of the spike was a speculative bubble, like what we saw happen in real estate but for mostly other reasons.

Yes, there were some supply/demand issues like OPEC controlling supply, ethanol refinery issues and growing economies but the dramatic 2008 increase from 70/barrel to 145/barrel and back down below 70/barrel were caused mostly by speculation (or fear of supply issues not real supply issues).

So it was the added risk premium to the crude oil price which largely was responsible for the extreme price spike. When that eased prices dropped almost 4 times as fast as they rose and they rose pretty fast.

Imo concerns about supply is not the same as a lack of supply or an increase in real demand.

Yet, I do agree oil is a key component to all economies and if Saddam wasn’t sitting on a vast amount of oil and threatening our allies we probably wouldn’t have been involved. I don’t have a problem with that though but I know some folks do.

[felix]

I don’t disagree with most of what you wrote. I think I mentioned how important I felt oil was to not only our economy by the world at large.

I don’t know why you are even mentioning 9/11. I sure didn’t. However, if you don’t think Saddam was capable of attempting 9/11 style attack you are naive. Saddam was a megalomaniac and not bright enough to know when to say enough is enough.

Now I am not saying that angle should have been played up as the major reason for renewing active conflict with the Iraqis, there were enough good reasons imo even without WMDs, but it certainly was a possibility, more so against his neighbors though than us.

Also, while oil has spiked and dropped, I am not sure how much of that movement was supply/demand driven. Imo much of the spike was a speculative bubble, like what we saw happen in real estate but for mostly other reasons.

Yes, there were some supply/demand issues like OPEC controlling supply, ethanol refinery issues and growing economies but the dramatic 2008 increase from 70/barrel to 145/barrel and back down below 70/barrel were caused mostly by speculation (or fear of supply issues not real supply issues).

So it was the added risk premium to the crude oil price which largely was responsible for the extreme price spike. When that eased prices dropped almost 4 times as fast as they rose and they rose pretty fast.

Imo concerns about supply is not the same as a lack of supply or an increase in real demand.

Yet, I do agree oil is a key component to all economies and if Saddam wasn’t sitting on a vast amount of oil and threatening our allies we probably wouldn’t have been involved. I don’t have a problem with that though but I know some folks do.

[felix]

I don’t disagree with most of what you wrote. I think I mentioned how important I felt oil was to not only our economy by the world at large.

I don’t know why you are even mentioning 9/11. I sure didn’t. However, if you don’t think Saddam was capable of attempting 9/11 style attack you are naive. Saddam was a megalomaniac and not bright enough to know when to say enough is enough.

Now I am not saying that angle should have been played up as the major reason for renewing active conflict with the Iraqis, there were enough good reasons imo even without WMDs, but it certainly was a possibility, more so against his neighbors though than us.

Also, while oil has spiked and dropped, I am not sure how much of that movement was supply/demand driven. Imo much of the spike was a speculative bubble, like what we saw happen in real estate but for mostly other reasons.

Yes, there were some supply/demand issues like OPEC controlling supply, ethanol refinery issues and growing economies but the dramatic 2008 increase from 70/barrel to 145/barrel and back down below 70/barrel were caused mostly by speculation (or fear of supply issues not real supply issues).

So it was the added risk premium to the crude oil price which largely was responsible for the extreme price spike. When that eased prices dropped almost 4 times as fast as they rose and they rose pretty fast.

Imo concerns about supply is not the same as a lack of supply or an increase in real demand.

Yet, I do agree oil is a key component to all economies and if Saddam wasn’t sitting on a vast amount of oil and threatening our allies we probably wouldn’t have been involved. I don’t have a problem with that though but I know some folks do.

[felix]

Do we make mistakes? Of course.

Do we spend too much on our military? Probably.

Could some be better spent? Of course.

I agree with you there.

I wonder why you mentioned starting wars though if it didn’t matter to you who starts the wars. It was your comment about us starting wars that I responded to. I think it clearly does matter to you “who started what”.

Now you are making comments about “taking the moral high ground”.

Are you also implying America doesn’t take the high ground? Even when we engage in wars thrust upon us? Are we wrong to respond with force against dictators attacking our friends when talking and reason doesn’t work? Or when we are attacked?

I agree we need to do what is right for our country. I also believe we did just that when we stepped up to help the Kuwaitis. I believe defending our allies and trading partners is the right to do for our country.

I also think protecting our economic interests is the right thing to do for our country. Don’t fool yourself, every country tries to take care of their economic interests, not just us. Imo we actually do so with a more even hand than most would given our strength.

[felix]

Do we make mistakes? Of course.

Do we spend too much on our military? Probably.

Could some be better spent? Of course.

I agree with you there.

I wonder why you mentioned starting wars though if it didn’t matter to you who starts the wars. It was your comment about us starting wars that I responded to. I think it clearly does matter to you “who started what”.

Now you are making comments about “taking the moral high ground”.

Are you also implying America doesn’t take the high ground? Even when we engage in wars thrust upon us? Are we wrong to respond with force against dictators attacking our friends when talking and reason doesn’t work? Or when we are attacked?

I agree we need to do what is right for our country. I also believe we did just that when we stepped up to help the Kuwaitis. I believe defending our allies and trading partners is the right to do for our country.

I also think protecting our economic interests is the right thing to do for our country. Don’t fool yourself, every country tries to take care of their economic interests, not just us. Imo we actually do so with a more even hand than most would given our strength.

[felix]

Do we make mistakes? Of course.

Do we spend too much on our military? Probably.

Could some be better spent? Of course.

I agree with you there.

I wonder why you mentioned starting wars though if it didn’t matter to you who starts the wars. It was your comment about us starting wars that I responded to. I think it clearly does matter to you “who started what”.

Now you are making comments about “taking the moral high ground”.

Are you also implying America doesn’t take the high ground? Even when we engage in wars thrust upon us? Are we wrong to respond with force against dictators attacking our friends when talking and reason doesn’t work? Or when we are attacked?

I agree we need to do what is right for our country. I also believe we did just that when we stepped up to help the Kuwaitis. I believe defending our allies and trading partners is the right to do for our country.

I also think protecting our economic interests is the right thing to do for our country. Don’t fool yourself, every country tries to take care of their economic interests, not just us. Imo we actually do so with a more even hand than most would given our strength.

[felix]

Do we make mistakes? Of course.

Do we spend too much on our military? Probably.

Could some be better spent? Of course.

I agree with you there.

I wonder why you mentioned starting wars though if it didn’t matter to you who starts the wars. It was your comment about us starting wars that I responded to. I think it clearly does matter to you “who started what”.

Now you are making comments about “taking the moral high ground”.

Are you also implying America doesn’t take the high ground? Even when we engage in wars thrust upon us? Are we wrong to respond with force against dictators attacking our friends when talking and reason doesn’t work? Or when we are attacked?

I agree we need to do what is right for our country. I also believe we did just that when we stepped up to help the Kuwaitis. I believe defending our allies and trading partners is the right to do for our country.

I also think protecting our economic interests is the right thing to do for our country. Don’t fool yourself, every country tries to take care of their economic interests, not just us. Imo we actually do so with a more even hand than most would given our strength.

[felix]

Do we make mistakes? Of course.

Do we spend too much on our military? Probably.

Could some be better spent? Of course.

I agree with you there.

I wonder why you mentioned starting wars though if it didn’t matter to you who starts the wars. It was your comment about us starting wars that I responded to. I think it clearly does matter to you “who started what”.

Now you are making comments about “taking the moral high ground”.

Are you also implying America doesn’t take the high ground? Even when we engage in wars thrust upon us? Are we wrong to respond with force against dictators attacking our friends when talking and reason doesn’t work? Or when we are attacked?

I agree we need to do what is right for our country. I also believe we did just that when we stepped up to help the Kuwaitis. I believe defending our allies and trading partners is the right to do for our country.

I also think protecting our economic interests is the right thing to do for our country. Don’t fool yourself, every country tries to take care of their economic interests, not just us. Imo we actually do so with a more even hand than most would given our strength.

[Author]

Posts