Kimball posted:He would then reply "¡Yo tambien!"
darthdrago posted: Kimball posted:He would then reply "¡Yo tambien!" Can't believe you missed that, KK.
Gonk posted: I can respect the notion of "what you state is in the theoretical" -- Japan was not close to California, nor Germany to North Carolina. But we should not hinge our long-term approach to foreign policy on mere chance. If one approach to foreign policy is more benficial than another such as negotiating from a position of strength and avoiding one of weakness, it should apply just as well to France as to America. Or Germany or Japan or Iraq or Brazil.
Gonk posted: If America can rely on this sort of thinking, it is not by the superiority of the method that it succeeds, but the luck of the position of the Oceans. And that luck is ultimately a crutch.
Gonk posted: No, and that's precisely my point -- the latter one, anyway. In 1918 things were still up in the air but ultimately the foreign policy persued was an extension of the thinking prior to 1914, largely led by the French. That refused to acknowlege German pre-eminent power had usurped thier position on the continent. They had about 20 million more people. They had superior resources. And the Germans for thier part weren't excactly making grand overtures of peace themselves. But both sides were playing exactly the rules you've been setting out to thier own interests. Trying to dictate terms to the other, to manuever into a position of strength, each one assuming that political failure on thier part meant unacceptable consequences. It was clearly not going to end well, and as technology has advanced, there needs to be a better approach to foreign policy than the world of 1914.
Gonk posted: As for crushing the Axis, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on that as it's effectiveness as an example. By that argument Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait. Or North Korea would not have invaded South Korea. Over time, people are not going to acknowledge what happened to the Axis; they will simply conclude that they will be smarter. In fact, they might be emboldened by the fact that it was a war that some could arge that they very nearly won. Again, we can't assume people are going to read past events the way we would like them to read. Whether it's because they're stupid, wise, brave or cowardly is not the point. The point is that -- they don't. For every human that sees that big stick they're threatened with and is silent, another will step up and think they can grab it for themselves.
Gonk posted: Again, it depends on the point of view. If they had chosen to go another route, would the state still be divided? Had Ho Chi Minh waited out DuGaulle, would the French of today really try to to hold on to it? Highly, highly doubtful. Millions arguably died for a reality that they could possibly have gotten without bloodshed by waiting until 1965 or so when it was clear to the French and British that colonialism was dead. So Vietnam is really a good example on all sides of what I'm talking about: millions died for the sake of America not understanding what the Vietnamese wanted, for the Vietnamese not understanding America and other ways of dealing with the French, and the French not understanding the painfully obvious.
Gonk posted: It can be. But clearly, there are other ways to go about it. And again, as technology ramps up and proliferation becomes a greater and greater reality, war is not going to be something that can be effectively relied upon for results as we run into more and more scenarios of -- if not full-on MAD, then onesided MAD versus localized metropolitain obliteration.
Gonk posted: Right, well clearly they had to fight back if they were to keep things going. But have things really changed for them? More importantly have things changed for the Arabs who also adhered to similar concepts of using force? And if they had changed, it would only have been through the deaths of millions.
Gonk posted: And so again -- there's gotta be a better way to do it.
Jabbadabbado posted:Noting Bush's monumental incompetence in the face of pressing foreign policy concerns, his gross negligence in handling a series of unprecedented domestic catastrophes coupled with the unchecked expansion of federal spending under the Republican-led congress has brought serious, lasting harm to our nation, yet 60% of republicans continue to cheer him on. Luckily, 40% have seen reason, enough to make sure Obama gets elected in November. Period. At the end of the day, people can compare Obama's association with reverend Wright with the criminal invasion of Iraq and the Stalinist Patriot Act and the negligence in the federal response to Katrina and recognize their relative significance. And they will make those comparisons.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10366.html
darthdrago posted:He'll stay neutral until it's clear that Obama will eventually go over the top in the delegate count--meaning that once he gets enough of the supers to declare in his favor, then Dean will be a little more forceful in telling Hillary to put it to bed. But that's presuming that Hillary herself doesn't exit before the supers go Obama's way. Yesterday didn't make it look like she'd do that anytime soon. Despite the fact that she's still hemmorhaging funds, she still seems hellbent on grinding her campaign through the remaining primaries. Seems totally futile to me, but maybe she's hoping that decent showings in the remaining primaries will strengthen her case to seat Michigan & Florida's delegates.
