Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
LastLast
  1. #221
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by GoblinP View Post
    Who defines those interests?
    Who pays for the 'securing'?
    Who profits from the interests?

    Mission? - How about this mission, to provide for those who need, and to help those who strive to better themselves or society?
    The world is a sandbox, you don't have to the blob.
    I believe the purpose is that your interests is supposed to be vague and invoke whatever you the listener believe that is without the messyness of specificity and then the next bit is to claim its America's job to be a global Imperium.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    I believe the purpose is that your interests is supposed to be vague and invoke whatever you the listener believe that is without the messyness of specificity and then the next bit is to claim its America's job to be a global Imperium.
    It's not always clear to me either; I'm a bit of a foreign policy novice. But it's ok to admit when you don't know.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    I know this thread was last active a month ago, but I've been thinking about this wants/needs conflict recently, specifically in that a very significant proportion of the American populace is going to take some convincing. The right and the left both had sizable anti-establishment movements that were firmly established in 2016, and both of their policies would result in a reduced role in the world for America as compared to the current consensus, and a significant effect on how the post-war international order is upheld.
    The problem is that the anti-establishment movements don't control remotely enough of the lever of powers. Barack Obama clearly wanted a downscaled US international presence compared to the 00s and 1990s, and tried to arrange for that. But he ran up against hard resistence in the House and Senate that kept giving him budgets to sign that did the exact opposite. And lo and behold, Obama is out a year and the very first Budget Deal that President Trump signs is the exact opposite of what Obama wanted, on steroids. Obama was President, but that wasn't enough to remotely reshape America's role in the world.

    And that's true of Trump as well. For all the early hullaballoo about upending the post-World War II world order a year ago, he signs a budget deal that does the exact opposite, while proposing the opposite.

    Case in point, the Trump Administration's FY2019 State Department budget cuts the budget by 25%. But he basically wasted everyone's time putting that forward, because under the 2 year budget deal that Congress agreed to before he put out the proposal last week, it would actually INCREASE by a few billion, like everything else.

    The anti-establishment voice just isn't big enough. It's not even close.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    The Trump campaign had protectionist and strong nationalist elements to it, diverging from the traditional post-war American positions in regards to trade, NATO, democratic values, etc, and it was clear from the get go that he would shred any remaining moral authority that we had. Yes, Trump is pushing for more military spending, but 1) the Trump campaign was a garbled mess of contradictions with no underpinning ideology to begin with, and 2) I rather doubt that the "America First" crowd's military spending push is based in an intellectual and principled defense of the American military's role and mission abroad. Other than destroying credibility and souring allies, he hasn't yet changed the military's mission in any significant way (correct me if I'm wrong), and despite his bluster about trade deals, not much has come out of this yet.
    It's actually ironic what the Trump Administration has brought about.

    Donald J Trump is the weakest President since the 1880s, and that's especially true within his own Pentagon. He can talk about ISIS until the cows come home, but the three big documents the US Military has presented the last 3 months:
    -The 2018 National Defense Strategy
    -The Nuclear Posture Review
    -The 2018/2019 Budget proposals (+the new 30 year ship building plan).

    All of them say exactly the same thing - the terrorism is a fourth, even fifth place issue... after China, Russia, North Korea and destablization caused by misc factors (including climate change). The military is under Trump, ALL about confronting China and Russia (especially China). The Air Force and Navy especially. And this is a complete change from the Obama era, which tried to emphasis drones, and cyberwarfare and special operations. The Pentagon, now, is all about warships, bombers, cruise missiles, heavy brigades... with the drones and cyberwarfare stuff on top of (rather than instead of) it all.

    So yes, there has been a change, but in completely the opposite direction that Trump's rhetoric would have you think it would be driven. And that's because Donald Trump is too weak and too stupid to stop it, and Congress is on board with it.

    I'm going to make a thread, relatively shortly, about the 2018/2019 defense budget, because it's the foundation of probably the next 20 years of US defense policy, period. And while it does not address the political and social factors addressed in this thread's original post, it does address the military ones.





    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post

    More significantly, since momentum appears to be heading leftward, there is the Progressive/Sanders movement on the left, which from a policy standpoint is overwhelmingly concerned with domestic issues (Indeed, as a Progressive, I freely admit that the biggest weakness of the movement to be an overly moralistic and not particularly nuanced foreign policy). Despite the lack of focus on foreign policy, they do however very much want to slash military spending. This is probably what concerns you the most: these are the people who scoff at the notion that the military is underfunded, remind you how big our military budget is compared to the next several countries combined, and toss up the graph of discretionary spending for good measure.
    Well first I would not mistake anti-Trumpism with the left at all. America is still a center-right country. I will be voting Democratic down ballot for the first time in my life this election, as a matter of principle. Does that make mean I'm being more progressive? No. That means my revulsion to trump has created strange bedfellows because the left, unlike Trump, is not beholden to a foreign power and not quintessentially un-American.

    As we saw with the budget deal though, defense spending is impossible to slash. Why? Look at where Representatives in congress voted.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h69


    Look at the Cartogram map. Notice the how all Connecticut Democrats voted for it and three Massachusetts Democrats did, while the rest were opposed? Because with respect to Connecticut, they're getting huge amounts of money for building submarines. With respect to Massachusetts, those are all the Raytheon / defense job districts in the state.

    Money drives everything, not politics. Bringing home federal dollars is and remains a greater motivator than political beliefs, and few things do that like defense spending.

    Even Liberal Democrats who want to impeach Trump voted for it:
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...l_green/400653

    Why? Because Defense dollars. That's why. Had DACA been included, it would have probably passed with more than 370 votes, just like prior defense hikes.





    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    These are also the people you'll need to convince. And pointing out the importance of maintaining our post-war hegemony isn't going to do it. Demonstrating our global and regional security interests isn't going to budge them. The threat of China advancing (and getting to set the rules) if America recedes isn't going to win many converts. What (if anything) is going to convince them? Domestic policy wins, and economic improvement. And it isn't because the Bernie movement is going to be a left-wing version of the Tea Party/anti-compromise caucus. (They may well turn into that, but that still wouldn't be the reason why). It's because many Americans, especially young and/or progressive Americans, don't believe they are getting a return on their investment.
    Frankly, they don't need to be convinced. They just need to be out voted and have their districts incentivized to vote in favor of maintenance. The left has been talking about rolling back America's global presence since 1968, and they're actually further away from their goal now, then they are then. And that's because the above.

    For most Americans, this big picture stuff is above and beyond them. It was that way during the cold war. Expecting an explict commitment from the American people to maintain our post-war hegemony is not and does not have to be a thing.

    What SHOULD be a thing is a commitment to building up our institutions at home, following procedure, the law, tradition and setting standards. Or to put it another way day to day, Americans should not worry about the political situation in Asia-Pacific. Too abstract. Too far away. But they very much should worry about the ethical standards their elected officials are operating under at all levels. Proper execution of the latter feeds the former. A strong America internally is a strong America externally.





    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    You already know of course that we, as a country, aren't spending so much on our military to uphold the post-war liberal order and maintain our advantage for funzies. Nor out of generosity. We do it because we benefit from it- but voters aren't feeling much like beneficiaries these days. They look at the USA, and see a country with historic (and rising) inequality, the world's most expensive healthcare and higher education, decades of stagnating wages, poor social mobility, rampant legalized corruption, a nation of incarceration, expensive conflicts in the Middle East, and a seemingly eager willingness to let Corporate America set the policy agenda (not to mention our various social issues). They look across the pond, or up north, and see universal healthcare, stronger middle classes, free or low cost universities, more favorable worker rights and benefits, very little gun violence, etc. This is why the Progressive movement wants to trade guns for butter. Progressives don't perceive the average American as the primary beneficiary of America's global military footprint. Donald Trump is the most uninformed president we've ever had, but he did bumble his way into a legitimate and significant concern in this country: we aren't getting a good deal.

    Now of course, some people won't ever be convinced. Some people may yet be convinced by the realities of rising global security threats- a significant portion of the Bernie crowd, after all, was in diapers when the USSR collapsed (if they were even born yet), and take the relative peace of the American Hegemony for granted. But if you want to convince this country that our role as the chief maintainer of the post-war international order is worth preserving, the USA needs to first be convinced that it's citizens are the primary beneficiaries. When the young and future voters of America start seeing this country as the Land of Opportunity again, they'll be far more amenable to maintaining our global position.
    And a lot of that is blatnatly, Americans being spoiled so to speak. We don't know true hardship. We know relative hardship for sure. But compared to what most of the world has known within their life times? People in their 20s and 30s are the... what... fourth generation in a country of plenty, where we have successfully defined down "need" to be something that a century ago was not "need"?

    A major war that America loses will certainly shake us out of our complacency. And, had this defense bill not taken important steps to avoid that eventuality, that was very likely in the cards in coming decades. But barring that, Americans need to start respecting the world for what it is, rather than what they want it to be.

    Frankly, I think it starts with education. Most Americans just do not know enough about the world since 1913. For people in their 30s, 40s and 50s today, if they're against it, they'll likely remain against it. It's the children that matter at this point. The policy makers of the middle part of the next Cold War, right now, are in 5th grade. The Americans living now... we're like the generation that lived through World War I comparatively. We'll see the opening, and maybe first third of the US's Cold War with China for mastery of the international order. We will not live long enough to see its end.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    F "global hegemony" and our "international responsibilities".

    In the behind. With an iron stick.

    1)withdraw from all free trade agreements
    2)withdraw from the WTO
    3)50% tariff on all imports
    4)card check union membership nationwide (public and private sector)
    5)reinstate the ban on exporting US oil
    6)withdraw from all military alliances
    7)pull all US troops back to the 50 states/territories/commonwealths (the US navy guaranteeing freedom of the high seas for American ships being the only exception)
    8)constitutional amendment forbidding the foreign deployment of US troops without a formal declaration of war from Congress
    9)constitutional amendment requiring a 4/5ths majority of Congress to declare war
    10)issue a 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine, stating the US will consider any interference in the Americas (by any power outside of the Americas) an act of war
    11)make it 100% clear that the US will not hesitate to use a nuclear first strike to uphold the new Monroe Doctrine
    12)continue to modernize and update our nuclear arsenal
    13)constitutional amendment setting the floor for NASA's budget at 2% of GDP (up from its current level of .5% of GDP); space should be where the US of the future expands



    “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.” (John Quincy Adams, 1821.)

    (emphasis added is mine)
    I've dismissed this fantasy list on repeated occasions, in detail multiple times. I will not repeat myself.

    Your entire premise is wrong from top to bottom. It reflects your fundamental and stubborn misunderstanding of the world, not what is in America's interests.

    My original post pretty much rebuts every aspect of this list, point by point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    I would also add to @GoblinP's point by saying the divide also consists of a more robust and open schism between the Liberal Conceit of the End of History in which we presume to know all political, social and economic questions and its just a matter of getting certain people(s) out of the way, OR the alternative that we really don't know the answer.

    Skroe does talk a big game about the End of History creating lethargy, but fundamentally in terms of substance, nothing about what he would want to be done or see happen would be any different.
    That's absurd. You're making the claim through this that the US not taking decisive actions to redress it's strategic shortfalls would not have an effect, when the given perscription, when done before in similar circumstances, already has.

    The United States government, for example, spent a good 30 years after World War II scrubbing it and its industrial base of foreign influence, which collected before, during and immediately after the war. This hardened the US against foreign interference in strategic sectors of our politics and our economy. That was an explicit series of actions, not some hand waving thing, done by the FBI/DoJ, through the early 1980s.

    And moving beyond that, the current state of US Counter-Intelligence, regarded by those in the know as something of a joke at the present, was not always so. It got to be like that because we started to decide that people dual hatting their interests while working for or with us, was not a big deal.

    Or when countries like Russia violate international norms and treaties with us... during the Cold War we confronted them. These confrontations often lead to US gains in the Cold War, but at the very least reinforced US red lines. Rapidly. In the post-Cold War era, we've rolled over, and watch them chip away, further and further, banking on the fact that as a status-quo super power, for years on end. Not doing that - doing what we did decades ago - could have put a stop to things like Crimea or the South China Sea, or Russia's INF Treaty violation, years before they metastasized into the significant problems we have now.


    I mean, the entire premise of your comment here is nonsense., pure and simple. It's basically claiming that letting problems fester yields the same outcome as confronting them directly, even though historically, we know that to simply not be true.

    And at home, the modest list of things I proposed that are not defense in nature but more along the lines of policy and ethical behavior would have produced a far more hardened country than the one we have now.

  4. #224
    Keep in mind Skroe, that realitytrembles has previously advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China. He is a few eggs short of a basket.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Locklen View Post
    Keep in mind Skroe, that realitytrembles has previously advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China. He is a few eggs short of a basket.
    Oh I'm well aware. I'm not giving him point-by-point rebuttals anymore. It's not worth my time. He simply doesn't care to separate fact from fantasy.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I've dismissed this fantasy list on repeated occasions, in detail multiple times. I will not repeat myself.

    Your entire premise is wrong from top to bottom. It reflects your fundamental and stubborn misunderstanding of the world, not what is in America's interests.

    My original post pretty much rebuts every aspect of this list, point by point.
    You resist it because it would mean the end of a particular world set-up that you favor.

    Skroe, I do not for one instant doubt that you love this country. As do I. We simply disagree on a direction for it.

    Make no mistake, the US's "East of Suez" moment is coming. The common people of the US tire of and begin to question why it is that American blood and treasure are expended for an ungrateful, complaining world.The foreign policy consensus will not long survive politicians who fear an electorate enraged by the costs of empire.

    You might counter that were a single Power to dominate Eurasia, the US would be drawn in. I say no; we could refuse.

    And make it clear that whatever is done over there is none of our concern, unless the dominant Eurasian power brings their plots over here. Then they will face nuclear fire.

    I repeat words of wisdom:

    “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.” (John Quincy Adams, 1821.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Locklen View Post
    Keep in mind Skroe, that realitytrembles has previously advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China. He is a few eggs short of a basket.
    Why do you think that? Skroe (while raising useless moral objections to my idea) himself conceded that it would work. There would be a United States afterward, and we would have no rival left.

  7. #227
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    You resist it because it would mean the end of a particular world set-up that you favor.

    Skroe, I do not for one instant doubt that you love this country. As do I. We simply disagree on a direction for it.

    Make no mistake, the US's "East of Suez" moment is coming. The common people of the US tire of and begin to question why it is that American blood and treasure are expended for an ungrateful, complaining world.The foreign policy consensus will not long survive politicians who fear an electorate enraged by the costs of empire.

    You might counter that were a single Power to dominate Eurasia, the US would be drawn in. I say no; we could refuse.

    And make it clear that whatever is done over there is none of our concern, unless the dominant Eurasian power brings their plots over here. Then they will face nuclear fire.

    I repeat words of wisdom:

    “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.” (John Quincy Adams, 1821.)
    It's fairly telling that the entirety of what you think supports your position comes from historical foreign policy positions that have no relevance or bearing on the global situation we currently live in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    It's fairly telling that the entirety of what you think supports your position comes from historical foreign policy positions that have no relevance or bearing on the global situation we currently live in.
    Some wisdom is timeless, no matter what those with dreams of global empire might wish.

  9. #229
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    Some wisdom is timeless, no matter what those with dreams of global empire might wish.
    Some wisdom is timeless; foreign policy isn't.

    And please, the US has been an empire since 1776 and will remain such until it finally fractures.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Some wisdom is timeless; foreign policy isn't.

    And please, the US has been an empire since 1776 and will remain such until it finally fractures.
    Notice I said "global", not continental.

  11. #231
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    Notice I said "global", not continental.
    Which is, again, a silly thing to say considering the US has had its hands in the pot of Latin America pretty much off the bat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Which is, again, a silly thing to say considering the US has had its hands in the pot of Latin America pretty much off the bat.
    I'd agree that we've meddled too much in South America. Our only concern there should be a new Monroe Doctrine. Central America and the Caribbean being on the same continent makes them a closer concern.

  13. #233
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    I'd agree that we've meddled too much in South America. Our only concern there should be a new Monroe Doctrine. Central America and the Caribbean being on the same continent makes them a closer concern.
    So much for being isolationist, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    So much for being isolationist, lol.
    You didn't notice what I said about a new Monroe Doctrine? Our backyard is much more my concern than Eurasia, or Africa.

  15. #235
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    You didn't notice what I said about a new Monroe Doctrine? Our backyard is much more my concern than Eurasia, or Africa.
    Yeah, we've already established that you don't know how the globalised economy works.

    Let me put it to you this way; why would I, as an educated and affluent individual, bother remaining in America if I could find better opportunities in say, China.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    You resist it because it would mean the end of a particular world set-up that you favor.
    And because you're factually wrong in pretty much every conceivable way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    Skroe, I do not for one instant doubt that you love this country. As do I. We simply disagree on a direction for it.
    Your way is an utter disaster and there is ample historic precedent to prove it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    Make no mistake, the US's "East of Suez" moment is coming. The common people of the US tire of and begin to question why it is that American blood and treasure are expended for an ungrateful, complaining world.The foreign policy consensus will not long survive politicians who fear an electorate enraged by the costs of empire.
    People have been saying this since after Vietnam, and the opposite keeps happening.

    have you seen the 2018 and 2019 defende budget? or the National Military Strategy? Or the Nuclear Posture Review. yet again, the exact opposite has happened.

    Your "East of the Suez" moment, is not coming. Period. We are paying for the exact opposite. Countries on the verge of East-of-Suez moments don't radically and rapidluy scale up their expeditionary military forces, as we are.

    This is something I've been trying to say for about two days now. We can talk about what people would LIKE to happen. Insofar as what is ACTUALLY happening, that boat has sailed, and it is not remotely what you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    You might counter that were a single Power to dominate Eurasia, the US would be drawn in. I say no; we could refuse.
    And we will not, because as I wrote in post #1 in this thread, as our wealth grew, so did our interests and where "our border" was, which is the way of things with powerful countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    And make it clear that whatever is done over there is none of our concern, unless the dominant Eurasian power brings their plots over here. Then they will face nuclear fire.
    Pure fantasy talk. Pure, pure fantasy. And not the first time you made it. You do realize that if North Korea launched a nuclear weapon at the US (for example), it is far more likely the US responds with an overwhelming conventional strike than a nuclear one, right? The US has the most to lose by normalizing the use of nuclear weapons, and as such, will basically never use them. Which is why the Pentagon's 40 year crusade has been to make our nuclear arsenal the cheapest possible: so money gets spent on stuff we'll actually use, rather than stuff we won't.

    If we won't nuke North-fucking-Korea after aiming a nuke at us, we're not going to be tossing "nuclear fire" around like your fantasy describes, period.

    I won't even dignify this with a response anymore. You're blatantly ignorant on this.



    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post

    I repeat words of wisdom:

    “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.” (John Quincy Adams, 1821.)

    - - - Updated - - -
    Correct words for a broke, newborn country in the early 19th century. COmpletely obsolete in the industrialized and post-industrialized world.

    The founders, including JQA's father, were also steadfastly against standing armies; something the US really didn't have until World War I. History has made it so that their perspective on that was obsolete within decades of their death. The founders also didn't even have Federal Income Tax, instead financing the US Government through tariffs.

    They had most of the great ideas. But the country necessarily evolved since their foundation. It had to. The world changed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    Why do you think that? Skroe (while raising useless moral objections to my idea) himself conceded that it would work. There would be a United States afterward, and we would have no rival left.
    I never did that. What's with people putting words in my mouth today?

    Your ideas are nuts.

  17. #237
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    That's absurd.
    You type a lot of words for someone who says so little. In the end, you advocate us following the logical conclusion of the "End of History" thesis by Fukuyama without actually believing in it. Making your rantings nothing more than a bizarre hyped screed justifying Imperialism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  18. #238
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    You type a lot of words for someone who says so little.
    Pot, kettle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    You type a lot of words for someone who says so little. In the end, you advocate us following the logical conclusion of the "End of History" thesis by Fukuyama without actually believing in it. Making your rantings nothing more than a bizarre hyped screed justifying Imperialism.
    I said an incredible amount, in detail. You just have no counterpoint. Which to long time observers of your forum behavior, is the least shocking thing in this entire thread.

    And if that's your takeaway, then your reading of both Fukuyama and my own writing is... how shall we say... decidedly lacking.

    I mean I'll just throw this out here, but go through the prior 13 pages. What do you see? A lot of people saying "interesting post, what do you think about X Y and Z", and me answering.

    Point is, other people got a lot from it and it stirred up conversations that participants found insightful. Hell, this thread was dead 2 weeks, and JUST REVIVED because it spurred some thoughts in some people.

    That you didn't, Theo, at this point is a 'you' problem. I'm not going to wipe your ass.

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I never did that. What's with people putting words in my mouth today?

    Your ideas are nuts.
    You most certainly did. I recall distinctly that you said that a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China would destroy their missiles on the ground mostly. The rest would be caught by our ABM defense. I then said we could nuke their navy /air force out of existence. Your words were:

    "Yes, we'd win. Yes, there would be a United States afterward. "

    and then something about how the rest of the world would turn against us

    I respect your obvious education on lots of subjects, Skroe.

    However, on the policy question of how involved the US should be internationally, I must disagree.

    Especially now, even. Technology has given us a method of destruction that no one wants to see used on the scale we could. We could leverage that to demand we be left alone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •