[NotCranky]

Yeah, Don’t mean to hurt your feelings, sorry if I did.

Are you saying since the U.S. least vulnerable and most powerful this is the cause for an imperative to influence world affairs?

“I also believe that if a Democrat is elected in ’08, we won’t waste any time in trying to get out and as fast as possible.”

You could be right. I watched the debates on you tube,it does sound like they are indicating intentions to do what you are saying. I am not sure I expect them to follow through. I will expect a realignment.

You said that if this happened it gives you concerns of a loss of U.S. prestige. What do you mean by that and what does it matter to you? Do you thing it gives an opening for the balance of power to shift from the “bad” to the “worse”?

We have a afternoon party at home today. I will be busy with that.

Thanks

[NotCranky]

Allan,
I typed you a response yesterday but deleted it because I was uncomfortable with it.

I have no doubt you can support your visions from many angles. I did read up on the Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, Wilsonian,and Jeffersonian influence in foreign policy. I think this discussion has pushed me into deeper studies.

I also came across what I believe is the crux of our draw to debate one another. I believe that we view the concept of “special providence” quite differently. I think the way to handle it is not foreign policy debate because we would go in circles for ever. It shades everything you and I could opine on. It is a philosophical problem to me. So I am agreeable to diasgreeing.

As to your being uncomfortable with the terms word empire and its derivatives I found something that might help explain that too. I will paste it if I can find it.http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2003/nevins1203.html

I agree with arraya on Iraq. There is oil as well as strategic importance there.

Best regards,

[NotCranky]

Allan,
I typed you a response yesterday but deleted it because I was uncomfortable with it.

I have no doubt you can support your visions from many angles. I did read up on the Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, Wilsonian,and Jeffersonian influence in foreign policy. I think this discussion has pushed me into deeper studies.

I also came across what I believe is the crux of our draw to debate one another. I believe that we view the concept of “special providence” quite differently. I think the way to handle it is not foreign policy debate because we would go in circles for ever. It shades everything you and I could opine on. It is a philosophical problem to me. So I am agreeable to diasgreeing.

As to your being uncomfortable with the terms word empire and its derivatives I found something that might help explain that too. I will paste it if I can find it.http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2003/nevins1203.html

I agree with arraya on Iraq. There is oil as well as strategic importance there.

Best regards,

[NotCranky]

Allan,
I typed you a response yesterday but deleted it because I was uncomfortable with it.

I have no doubt you can support your visions from many angles. I did read up on the Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, Wilsonian,and Jeffersonian influence in foreign policy. I think this discussion has pushed me into deeper studies.

I also came across what I believe is the crux of our draw to debate one another. I believe that we view the concept of “special providence” quite differently. I think the way to handle it is not foreign policy debate because we would go in circles for ever. It shades everything you and I could opine on. It is a philosophical problem to me. So I am agreeable to diasgreeing.

As to your being uncomfortable with the terms word empire and its derivatives I found something that might help explain that too. I will paste it if I can find it.http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2003/nevins1203.html

I agree with arraya on Iraq. There is oil as well as strategic importance there.

Best regards,

[NotCranky]

Allan,
I typed you a response yesterday but deleted it because I was uncomfortable with it.

I have no doubt you can support your visions from many angles. I did read up on the Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, Wilsonian,and Jeffersonian influence in foreign policy. I think this discussion has pushed me into deeper studies.

I also came across what I believe is the crux of our draw to debate one another. I believe that we view the concept of “special providence” quite differently. I think the way to handle it is not foreign policy debate because we would go in circles for ever. It shades everything you and I could opine on. It is a philosophical problem to me. So I am agreeable to diasgreeing.

As to your being uncomfortable with the terms word empire and its derivatives I found something that might help explain that too. I will paste it if I can find it.http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2003/nevins1203.html

I agree with arraya on Iraq. There is oil as well as strategic importance there.

Best regards,

[NotCranky]

Allan,
I typed you a response yesterday but deleted it because I was uncomfortable with it.

I have no doubt you can support your visions from many angles. I did read up on the Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, Wilsonian,and Jeffersonian influence in foreign policy. I think this discussion has pushed me into deeper studies.

I also came across what I believe is the crux of our draw to debate one another. I believe that we view the concept of “special providence” quite differently. I think the way to handle it is not foreign policy debate because we would go in circles for ever. It shades everything you and I could opine on. It is a philosophical problem to me. So I am agreeable to diasgreeing.

As to your being uncomfortable with the terms word empire and its derivatives I found something that might help explain that too. I will paste it if I can find it.http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2003/nevins1203.html

I agree with arraya on Iraq. There is oil as well as strategic importance there.

Best regards,

[NotCranky]

I’ll get back with you later Allan.

[NotCranky]

I’ll get back with you later Allan.

[NotCranky]

I’ll get back with you later Allan.

[NotCranky]

I’ll get back with you later Allan.

[NotCranky]

I’ll get back with you later Allan.

[NotCranky]

R.O and M.P.O are not the same people.

MultipleProperty Owner was always Multiple Property Owner and R.O. was a couple of street names and now has been only R.O for a week or two.

[NotCranky]

R.O and M.P.O are not the same people.

MultipleProperty Owner was always Multiple Property Owner and R.O. was a couple of street names and now has been only R.O for a week or two.

[NotCranky]

R.O and M.P.O are not the same people.

MultipleProperty Owner was always Multiple Property Owner and R.O. was a couple of street names and now has been only R.O for a week or two.

[NotCranky]

R.O and M.P.O are not the same people.

MultipleProperty Owner was always Multiple Property Owner and R.O. was a couple of street names and now has been only R.O for a week or two.

[Author]

Posts