Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought the vid was fair because it pointed out there are progressives in both parties that think it is our duty to make the world in the U S image. The jury is still out on the {R}s and won't be decided until we have another {R} POTUS. What I mean by that it seems that the non interventionist foreign policy lead by the Pauls is taking root considering that {R} leaders are against action is Syria. Of course the party still has progressive leadership like Boehner/Canter/Graham and McCain trying to steer the other way. It will be interesting when there is a {R} POTUS will the party go back to it's neo con war mongering ways? and be interventionist again? Will the {D}s revert back to protesting wars, I would not be surprised if the 2 parties that are full of hypocrites will do a big flip flop again since they do not really want to take a position and it keeps the ignorant electorate mixed up.
Considering that that Lincoln was the first GOP prez, I don't think you could say that. The current GOP was shaped by Reagan, and he was not a non-interventionist. There is a large libertarian strain in the GOP and most libertarians are pretty solidly non-interventionist.
I think it is a mixed bag. In 2002 I was initially against going to Iraq. Then I thought that Bush made a pretty good case for it, and changed my mind. Now in retrospect I think it was a bad idea. I don't think it was necessarily an inherently bad idea, but just a case of us biting off more than we could chew. If we could have pulled off the trick of implanting a stable and thriving democracy in the heart of the Mid East, it would have been awesome, but in retrospect we didn't have the wherewithal to do that.
One can call it flip-flopping, but foreign policy has more in common w/ art class than physics class.
We have the wherewithal, but they aren't ready for democracy. That part of the world is too tribal; they need strong rulers. The religion is too strict right now. They need their Reformation and Renaissance before they can understand democracy.
I think the West could have helped speed it along years ago when we struck deals with Saudi Arabia to extract their oil and make them multibillionaires. If only we had demanded civil rights for women or we wouldn't give aid or send workers to the oilfields, but we were too greedy.
Forced integration of schools in the southern United States was amazingly successful in changing perceptions of black people in America. We still have a ways to go, but in 50 years we went from blacks not being allowed to even eat in the same restaurants with whites to being doctors, lawyers, politicians, respected members of society.
Instead, Saudi Arabia's brand of wahhabism is an infection that is spreading throughout the Middle East. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians? Osama bin Laden was from Saudi.
What has ever changed in the middle east and what have we learned over the years? It seems to me not much...
They'll sell their oil till the wells run dry. They'll kill each other till they run out of bodies. The'll be receptive of democracy when mullahs host a pig roast and the only tribe around is the Cleveland Indians coming to town for a game of baseball. Till then the more things change to more they stay the same. All bets are off though when Iran gets the bomb...
All I got from that is an intentional conflation of "Democrat" with "Progressive." There was no nuance as to why we entered those wars and conflicts; dismisses WWII as some policy war that we could have avoided if not for those pesky progressives; and erroneously describes progressive policy as imperialistic. Sorry, but American policy has almost always been imperialistic.
It's amazing watching people twist themselves into knots and suddenly becoming war doves simply because they can't support any policy coming from this President. Personally, I don't think the use of force was ever really the end-goal. The Russians want stability, and the US and Europeans want to have a preferred faction of the rebels take over once Assad does fall. The hawks want(ed) a full on war with Iran, but now they are pretending to be pacifist.
Oh, and Stossel's whole shtick has been to present everything as black or white and feign outrage when it's obvious that problems/issues/policies don't work that way. I hope he's not as much of a simpleton as he seems to be on TV.
The hawks are now doves and the doves are all silent.
Anyway, i see this as a potentially good thing. Republicans have now set a precedent in case they have any designs on going to war once they have the White House again.
a bunch of excellent points in this video. "Neo Con is neither new nor conservative" lol. I always regarded W Bush as very progressive in many ways, but Iraq had not occurred to me as one of them. But it's arguably true.
One of my pet theories is that the left hated Bush so much because he was taking over their turf. Of course, they couldn't admit that to themselves, which was why the Bush-hate culture took on such bizarre forms, such as blaming him for a hurricane.
the hate bush culture took off early on when bush won the florida election under what the democrats thought was suspicious circumstances, and it got worse from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Considering that that Lincoln was the first GOP prez, I don't think you could say that. The current GOP was shaped by Reagan, and he was not a non-interventionist. There is a large libertarian strain in the GOP and most libertarians are pretty solidly non-interventionist.
I think it is a mixed bag. In 2002 I was initially against going to Iraq. Then I thought that Bush made a pretty good case for it, and changed my mind. Now in retrospect I think it was a bad idea. I don't think it was necessarily an inherently bad idea, but just a case of us biting off more than we could chew. If we could have pulled off the trick of implanting a stable and thriving democracy in the heart of the Mid East, it would have been awesome, but in retrospect we didn't have the wherewithal to do that.
One can call it flip-flopping, but foreign policy has more in common w/ art class than physics class.
i had reservations about invading iraq, but recognized the need because saddam constantly violated the cease fire agreement, and in the end had to go. but in reality it shouldnt have taken as long as it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra
1 minute in...
I thought the Kaiser started WW1, not Wilson.
Didn't Hitler and General Tojo start WW2, not FDR?
I'm nitpicking, though.
it isnt so much as who started the wars, but who was president, and their actions in office before and during the wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
All I got from that is an intentional conflation of "Democrat" with "Progressive." There was no nuance as to why we entered those wars and conflicts; dismisses WWII as some policy war that we could have avoided if not for those pesky progressives; and erroneously describes progressive policy as imperialistic. Sorry, but American policy has almost always been imperialistic.
It's amazing watching people twist themselves into knots and suddenly becoming war doves simply because they can't support any policy coming from this President. Personally, I don't think the use of force was ever really the end-goal. The Russians want stability, and the US and Europeans want to have a preferred faction of the rebels take over once Assad does fall. The hawks want(ed) a full on war with Iran, but now they are pretending to be pacifist.
Oh, and Stossel's whole shtick has been to present everything as black or white and feign outrage when it's obvious that problems/issues/policies don't work that way. I hope he's not as much of a simpleton as he seems to be on TV.
i will note that the republicans who are for a war, are in fact progressives. as for stossel, he does present things in black and white for the most part, but there is good reason for that. the things he attacks are government over reach in all areas. he will tell you that he recognizes the need for proper regulation and over sight, but that the government has gone too far in both areas, and that the average person needs to use some common sense.
actually it was invaded grenada, and that was an operation that was limited in scope, and our troops were in and out quickly, and were quite successful in the tasks given to them. or dont you want american citizens rescued when they are being held hostage by a foreign power for no reason other than to embarrass the US?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
