Rudimentary understanding of US government... (1 Viewer)

[HoustonSaint68]

Our problems, especially with cost, all are rooted in the fact that we are not structured any longer to defend North America, but to be World Policeman and to be everywhere at once.

Amen, brother. And, at the risk of turning this thread into something we've seen a million times before on the EE, that is a traditionally conservative viewpoint. We've over-learned the lessons of Chamberlain in Munich and can no longer distinguish between true national interest (and evil) on the one hand and global adventurism on the other.

 

[BullDawg]

China is not stupid. But they do have ambitions. They're going about it quietly and smartly.

 

[blackadder]

Amen, brother. And, at the risk of turning this thread into something we've seen a million times before on the EE, that is a traditionally conservative viewpoint. We've over-learned the lessons of Chamberlain in Munich and can no longer distinguish between true national interest (and evil) on the one hand and global adventurism on the other.

That's is in part because of a conscious edtorial effort in the media and history books to OVERUSE the appeasement lesson and to call every tinpot dictator a "new Hitler" who "must not be appeased".

The zeal of the interventionist crowd -- which is not conservative at all but really liberal, who like to use force to push their liberal intrernationalist agenda -- has disproportionaly influenced editorial slant and popular mind. The nation is conditioned to react like Pavlov's dog when the any of the words Chamberlain/Munich/Hitler/Appeasement are employed.

And that is by design.

 

[Flipx99]

China

China as leader of the "free world?" Interesting.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

China is not stupid. But they do have ambitions. They're going about it quietly and smartly.

Indeed. Some of the prices the Chinese National Oil Company is paying to get access to oil resources is outrageous. They can outbid private and other state oil companies because their ultimate driver is access to supply, not profit.

Now, in today's world, they will react to nationalization of their oil interests in the same way companies do -- they'll generally run to contractually mandated international arbitration or the World Court in the Hague. But, in a possible near-future world where a billion or more Chinese reach a developed world standard of living which floats on a sea of oil, one wonders about the patience they will show if a fundamentalist revolution takes place in Saudi Arabia, the spigot is turned off, and the disaffection of the Chinese public threatens their rule....

 

[HoustonSaint68]

That's is in part because of a conscious edtorial effort in the media and history books to OVERUSE the appeasement lesson and to call every tinpot dictator a "new Hitler" who "must not be appeased".

The zeal of the interventionist crowd -- which is not conservative at all but really liberal, who like to use force to push their liberal intrernationalist agenda -- has disproportionaly influenced editorial slant and popular mind. The nation is conditioned to react like Pavlov's dog when the any of the words Chamberlain/Munich/Hitler/Appeasement are employed.

And that is by design.

I agree for the most part but we may part company a bit in terms of definitions unless I'm understanding you incorrectly. I'm not sure I'd use the word "liberal" to categorize who's behind the interventionist policy. I think the blame can be spread across the spectrum, but primarily to what is often referred to as the "neo-con" branch of the federal government. In my view, this goes beyond elected Administrations and party. It constitutes those lifelong power players in D.C. who shape policy and federal action regardless of who occupies the White House. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

As a personal caveat, I can break out of my "conservative" national-interest-only viewpoint in some very special excpetions. Rwanda and Darfur, for example. However, that does not necessarily imply American boots on the ground but rather the application of American influence and dollars to help, for example in those specific cases, stable African governments to intervene militarily in such human tragedies. Unfortunately, our own adventurism throughout the world has used up much of the moral capital necessary to persuade others to action. But, in any case, those exceptions that justify our intervention should be rare.

 

[Jeff Miller]

"The world is about to enter a challenging phase where the US – the undisputed leader of the free world for the past 60 years – is going to rapidly cede its place at the head of the line."

Oh really? I wonder who is going to step up.

no one really wants to step up, because then they would become the international whipping boy.

thats why everyone pushes for international consensus, so the responsiblity for inaction is diluted to the point of justification.

its no different then this simple psychology example. You walk buy and see a woman being kicked by a man, you feel a responsiblity to do something about it, so you act.

now that woman is being abused on a streek corner where say 50 people are standing. The resonponsiblity to act is now difused amount 50 people, so no one acts.

Look at Iran. No one wants to act. No one wants to make a decision, and if the responsiblity to act is difused great enough, no one will feel guilty about not doing anything.

 

[Mojomajik9]

But the bigger problem is that, to quote General Smedley Butler, one of my favorite figures in history, " The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag."

Actually just finished reading a little bit about Butler and oddly enough I thought he sounded like a man you'd appreciate, BA. Not to threadjack but I can't believe the details about Butler, and the Business Plot, are not more widely known or discussed. War is a Racket is still a phenomenal book.

 

[blackadder]

Actually just finished reading a little bit about Butler and oddly enough I thought he sounded like a man you'd appreciate, BA. Not to threadjack but I can't believe the details about Butler, and the Business Plot, are not more widely known or discussed. War is a Racket is still a phenomenal book.

Well, my cynicism tells me that there is a reason that such things are left out of the history books.

We had our own version of fascists here in the 30s. Thankfully this is America and they apparently were not able to undermine the system at that point. But you wonder sometimes about the future.

Some claim that among the backers of the plot were Prescott Bush, although I have not had time to really research the evidence.

Interestingly enough, though the Congressional investigation corrborated most details of Butler's testimony, he was sort of shunned after coming forward.

Shoot the messenger.

 

[Saintman2884]

It may have been played up in the media a bit this past simmer but with the recent unrest in Iran with opposition activists and reformers using a close election to decry some of the unmet promises their parents were promised to them 30 years ago, Iran is, if not at a crossroads, trying to find a more moderate ground then the hard-line Islamic Republic that seems more pre-occupied with Palestinian refugees and Hezbollah recruits in Lebanon then the country's infrastructure. Add in a figure head President who ****** off the rest of the Western World, even possible sympathetic Arab countries, it presents an image to the rest of the world your elected leader is a borderline racist, a homophobe, and makes dubious comments about Nazi Germany and the Final Solution. For God's sakes criticize Israel as much as the next guy but please you lose most people when you present even the hint you're a Holocaust denier, or pass it off with indifference. Quite frankly, it insults the intelligence of any in his own country and even those who are critical of Zionism, and most importantly he is in no position to speak as an authority on what went down 70 years ago. It's none of his GD business, he wasn't there, and neither were his parents or grandparents.

I have good reason to think Achmed knows better to start a pissing contest, but I suggest the next time he opens his **** mouth on that issue, he should book a trip to Poland and see the very places he makes ambivalent remarks about where millions of people died. Some might say it's not his prerogative to be called out like that, but I think he should see with his two eyes what Auschwitz really was, and how mentally challenged his comments really are. THEN, maybe he'll think twice the next time he's making a speech on how proud he is to be a Holocaust denier.

/offmypedestal

 

[geoffspins]

...leads to interestingly well written, yet badly misinformed European commentary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/22/obama-un-climate-change-europe

Except Steven Hill, the author, is American.

 

[BuffaloSaint]

In addition, the senate's use of that arcane rule known as the "filibuster" means you need 60 out of 100 votes to stop unlimited debate on a bill and move to a vote. A mere 41 senators, representing as little as 20% of the nation's population, can stymie the other 80%. Given a vastly unrepresentative senate wielding its anti-majoritarian filibuster, it is hardly surprising that minority rule in the senate consistently undermines majority rule, whether on healthcare, financial industry reform, environmental legislation and many other policies.



This could never be said by an American because the founding fathers could've never been wrong in anything they did they're on a mountain for god sakes.

 

[BullDawg]

Except Steven Hill, the author, is American.

Proof positive most Americans also have but a rudimentary understanding of their own government.

 

[Shockmo]

Is it really necessary to understand govt? Or just to mistrust it?

 

[TulsaSaint]

China's an interesting place, with its own history of infighting and factionalism. For a long time the place didn't even speak a single language, though it all sounds the same to me.

A bit of nitpicking, but China still doesn't speak anything near one language. According to the SIL Ethnologue, there are 291 languages spoken in China, 32 of which have more than a million speakers.