When you think we stopped being respected? Wonder what those crying tears on those trails following the Indian Removal Act of 1830 were thinking about the US government. But that was long ago and this is now. Let's give up the nice guy role, right? What we want is respect! Universal acknowledgement of our exceptionalism. Now! Or else?
Smacks of hubris to me, but that's your Grand Old Party. Party hardy! Perhaps there will be fireworks in 2017 and beyond. I'm currently reading some of the works of Robert Olen Butler who is a professor emeritus at FSU and won the Pulitzer Prize back in '93 for a collection of short stories about Nam. He was there. One reviewer observed at the time that "the number of novels and short story collections about the Viet Nam war is now approaching 500. Were I to recommend a single volume that poignantly shows the magnitude and the humanity of the tragedy, it would be this one."
Give it a read. Fair warning though: It's dark! My inclination is to avoid wars of such nature in the future if at all possible. These things should not be entered into lightly and of course those involved did not think that at the time. Did we prove our mettle then?
Well, of course they should not be entered into lightly. Exactly why the US must be the undisputed most powerful country in the world. That's how peace has the best chance to thrive for the most extended period of time.
In our salad days this undisputed most powerful country engaged in a very disputed, in hindsight stupid continuation of what the French failed at in 1954, after years of draining both blood & treasure, fecklessly. Ike had come up with the Dominoe Theory and the military industrial complex he would come to rail against in his farewell speech to Congress in 1960 was off and running. It's all I have ever known of our military incursions during my lifetime (b. 1950): folly.
But here comes your baby, here she comes now, calling Obama feckless for his apparent lack of what, balls enough to engage us in some other sort of feckless foreign war? And try to tell me Nam and Iraq weren't feckless. Had it not been for the less than stellar "experience" in Iraq we still might be wanting to make another Nam; instead, Iraq is the new touchstone. We do not want another Iraq.
Charen opens with these words, with which you surely agree: "The most febrile of Bush haters liked to claim during his tenure that the former president “scared” them. There is far more reason to be frightened by President Obama, because fecklessness and inconstancy trigger wars."
read more at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373852/why-obama-scares-me-mona-charen
Me, I choose the 2nd definition to explain our foreign forays into Viet Nam & Iraq. And your ilk tries to convince me that doing otherwise is feckless. Time will tell.
Definition of feckless (adj)
Bing Dictionary feck·less [ fékləss ]
1.ineffective: unable or unwilling to do anything useful 2.unlikely to be successful: lacking the thought or organization necessary to succeed
The reason we lost in Vietnam is that we lost our resolve. As early as 1968, we were sitting down at a stinkin' "peace" talks table in Paris with the two parties conspiring to obliterate South Vietnam: the North, and the National Liberation Front. Our position should have been the same as it had been since 1954 - no funny business. The South's sovereignty is to be respected. We became confused about whether we were there to defeat the enemy or achieve some kind of "peace with honor."
In Iraq, the problem was mission creep. In a sense, the W administration suffered from the same delusion that plagues the MEC regime: seeing a vasty different culture through Western eyes, and quixotically trying to "spread democracy" where it had never done anything like taking root.
Charen claims fecklessness and inconstancy (shouldn't that read inconsistency?) start wars. How do you explain Cheney-Bush-Rummie-Wolfie starting one then?
No one buys the warmonger charge pertaining to your ilk. Fill me in on what power Rummie, Cheney & Wolfie et al are wielding these days. Public antipathy for Rummie & Wolfie wore thin as the Iraq misadventure wore on, basically prompting Bush to can them. Cheney couldn't have been elected for Dog Catcher by the time his interminable term ended with Bush's. Plenty of people bought it and will buy it again. Just start something big again, whatever their prospective replacements are panting for a return to power.
“They’re just itching, the other candidates are saying, ‘When are we going to go get Syria? Why don’t we start dropping bombs on Syria? When are we going to hit Iran?’” “The Republicans are going to be in trouble unless they come our way and decide they want a president who’s more for peace than for war,” --Ron Paul, March, 2012 (and he was right)
McCain's a Republican isn't he? I know he's not your kind of Republican but a warmonger nevertheless. Guess his prediction got shut down as did Cheney/Bush/Rummie/Wolfie et al. Of course we remember his big shut down back in the election of 2008. You'd think that swarthy killer Americans would die for a President like him, to hear you talk. Actually you'd die if he was President, but you probably like his bellicose views.
View Video of Ron Paul responding to McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement in the Jan. 30, 2012 debate on CNN.
When you think we stopped being respected? Wonder what those crying tears on those trails following the Indian Removal Act of 1830 were thinking about the US government. But that was long ago and this is now. Let's give up the nice guy role, right? What we want is respect! Universal acknowledgement of our exceptionalism. Now! Or else?
ReplyDeleteYou're exactly right, but I doubt that you meant it sincerely: We must be respected as the world's lone hyperpower, or it's darkness for everybody.
ReplyDeleteSmacks of hubris to me, but that's your Grand Old Party. Party hardy! Perhaps there will be fireworks in 2017 and beyond. I'm currently reading some of the works of Robert Olen Butler who is a professor emeritus at FSU and won the Pulitzer Prize back in '93 for a collection of short stories about Nam. He was there. One reviewer observed at the time that "the number of novels and short story collections about the Viet Nam war is now approaching 500. Were I to recommend a single volume that poignantly shows the magnitude and the humanity of the tragedy, it would be this one."
ReplyDeleteGive it a read. Fair warning though: It's dark! My inclination is to avoid wars of such nature in the future if at all possible. These things should not be entered into lightly and of course those involved did not think that at the time. Did we prove our mettle then?
Well, of course they should not be entered into lightly. Exactly why the US must be the undisputed most powerful country in the world. That's how peace has the best chance to thrive for the most extended period of time.
ReplyDeleteIn our salad days this undisputed most powerful country engaged in a very disputed, in hindsight stupid continuation of what the French failed at in 1954, after years of draining both blood & treasure, fecklessly. Ike had come up with the Dominoe Theory and the military industrial complex he would come to rail against in his farewell speech to Congress in 1960 was off and running. It's all I have ever known of our military incursions during my lifetime (b. 1950): folly.
ReplyDeleteBut here comes your baby, here she comes now, calling Obama feckless for his apparent lack of what, balls enough to engage us in some other sort of feckless foreign war? And try to tell me Nam and Iraq weren't feckless. Had it not been for the less than stellar "experience" in Iraq we still might be wanting to make another Nam; instead, Iraq is the new touchstone. We do not want another Iraq.
ReplyDeleteCharen opens with these words, with which you surely agree: "The most febrile of Bush haters liked to claim during his tenure that the former president “scared” them. There is far more reason to be frightened by President Obama, because fecklessness and inconstancy trigger wars."
read more at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373852/why-obama-scares-me-mona-charen
Me, I choose the 2nd definition to explain our foreign forays into Viet Nam & Iraq. And your ilk tries to convince me that doing otherwise is feckless. Time will tell.
ReplyDeleteDefinition of feckless (adj)
Bing Dictionary
feck·less
[ fékləss ]
1.ineffective: unable or unwilling to do anything useful
2.unlikely to be successful: lacking the thought or organization necessary to succeed
synonyms: incompetent · good-for-nothing · useless · hopeless · spineless · feeble
We're wise to the smokescreen of the "you just want to go to war" charge. It's so transparent, no one buys it.
ReplyDeleteThe reason we lost in Vietnam is that we lost our resolve. As early as 1968, we were sitting down at a stinkin' "peace" talks table in Paris with the two parties conspiring to obliterate South Vietnam: the North, and the National Liberation Front. Our position should have been the same as it had been since 1954 - no funny business. The South's sovereignty is to be respected. We became confused about whether we were there to defeat the enemy or achieve some kind of "peace with honor."
ReplyDeleteIn Iraq, the problem was mission creep. In a sense, the W administration suffered from the same delusion that plagues the MEC regime: seeing a vasty different culture through Western eyes, and quixotically trying to "spread democracy" where it had never done anything like taking root.
BTW, I nearly posted a link to the Charen piece. IT's a very important column.
ReplyDeleteCharen claims fecklessness and inconstancy (shouldn't that read inconsistency?) start wars. How do you explain Cheney-Bush-Rummie-Wolfie starting one then?
ReplyDeleteNo one buys the warmonger charge pertaining to your ilk. Fill me in on what power Rummie, Cheney & Wolfie et al are wielding these days. Public antipathy for Rummie & Wolfie wore thin as the Iraq misadventure wore on, basically prompting Bush to can them. Cheney couldn't have been elected for Dog Catcher by the time his interminable term ended with Bush's. Plenty of people bought it and will buy it again. Just start something big again, whatever their prospective replacements are panting for a return to power.
ReplyDelete“They’re just itching, the other candidates are saying, ‘When are we going to go get Syria? Why don’t we start dropping bombs on Syria? When are we going to hit Iran?’” “The Republicans are going to be in trouble unless they come our way and decide they want a president who’s more for peace than for war,” --Ron Paul, March, 2012 (and he was right)
ReplyDeleteMcCain's a Republican isn't he? I know he's not your kind of Republican but a warmonger nevertheless. Guess his prediction got shut down as did Cheney/Bush/Rummie/Wolfie et al. Of course we remember his big shut down back in the election of 2008. You'd think that swarthy killer Americans would die for a President like him, to hear you talk. Actually you'd die if he was President, but you probably like his bellicose views.
ReplyDeleteView Video of Ron Paul responding to McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement in the Jan. 30, 2012 debate on CNN.
If you've seriously swallowed the Ron Paul Kool-Aid, I'm afraid there's no help for you.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul can be right on issues, just like you blind squirrels find an acorn every so often.
ReplyDelete