Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

He seems to have a fairly good idea on what needs to be done, but you'd never expect this from where he's at!
Link

Any thoughts on this?

[sonerohi]

A stupid concept. Fixing America by focusing on problems in America? Why do that when we can ruthlessly pursue irrelevant issues on foreign soil? Honest reaction: Thank god someone with some sway isn't retarded. We're like the drunk best friend at the party, right now. All making an ass of ourselves by doing stupid shit with the best intentions.

[Phmcw]

Hmmm yes. The issue may be more complicated, but yes, your military budget is dragging you down. The republicans had identified that threath ages ago, before submitting to it themselves.

[RF]

Seems like common sense, to be honest.

Then again, that's apparently a rare quality in American politics.

[Myroc]

That's quite a rare quality in America.

[Earthquake Damage]

Further reduction:  That's quite a rare quality.

[RedKing]

Hmm..I'll have to give that a closer read. The Sources of Soviet Conduct were required reading when I was in grad school, and it's interesting to critique them with the advantage of massive hindsight. Yes, the Kennan essay argued for containment rather than direct aggression, arguing that we could wait out the Soviets because their economic system was unsustainable. But it was horribly cartoonish in its base assertions regarding Soviet goals and psychology.  And it can be argued that containment didn't kill the Soviet Union, engagement in the late 1980's did. To a large extent, Gorbachev did more to topple the Soviet Union than Reagan ever did.

And debacles like the Vietnam War were a direct product of containment.

[Il Palazzo]

Seems like common sense, to be honest.

Then again, that's apparently a rare quality in American politics.

This statement(and the next couple ones) misses the point of the article. Y argues that common sense is indeed quite prevalent in the minds of Americans, and it's the source of the nation's current "declinism". Common sense being the way of thinking dating to the Cold War - USA as the leader of the 'Free World', protecting it from the 'Empire of Evil' with it's military strength.
Common sense is bad, you see - it prevents you from using your mind to analyze the situation, and instead relies on subconscious automation of decision-making stemming from past experiences, which USA as a nation seems to be doing. It used to be known as the guardian of the 'democracy and freedom', and thinks it still is, or needs to be.

[SalmonGod]

I've always hated general use of the term common sense, anyway.  People mainly abuse it to scold others for not subscribing to their own thought processes.  It shouldn't be applied to anything less basic than "Don't stick your hand in a fire" or "Don't drink cleaning chemicals."

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Well, I must disagree with "Mr. Y."  The review painted him/them as rather uninformed and sophmoric.  Perhaps the real post is better.  Anyone have a link to the real essay?

[Phmcw]

Well, I must disagree with "Mr. Y."  The review painted him/them as rather uninformed and sophmoric.  Perhaps the real post is better.  Anyone have a link to the real essay?

The second word in the article link to a pdf of the essay.

[woose1]

sophmoric

O_o

I agree with certain elements of 'Mr. Y's conjecture, IE; investing in education and infrastructure, and prioritizing that higher than military spending. Certainly down here in Florida, the vast majority of the votes go towards retirement bills.

However, until humanity can evolve past the pseudo imperialism that it is today and was 200 years ago, there's a need for a global military force to stop radicals from gaining power; otherwise we'd allow dictatorships and secret police and all that. Not to say that any amount of military presence the US has donated thusfar has been anything but ham-handed.

[Leafsnail]

However, until humanity can evolve past the pseudo imperialism that it is today and was 200 years ago, there's a need for a global military force to stop radicals from gaining power; otherwise we'd allow dictatorships and secret police and all that. Not to say that any amount of military presence the US has donated thusfar has been anything but ham-handed.

...I'd go further and say that the US has no interest in preventing "radicals" from gaining power, or in stopping dictatorships and secret police.  If the world needs such a "global military force" of this nature, it doesn't currently have one.

[woose1]

However, until humanity can evolve past the pseudo imperialism that it is today and was 200 years ago, there's a need for a global military force to stop radicals from gaining power; otherwise we'd allow dictatorships and secret police and all that. Not to say that any amount of military presence the US has donated thusfar has been anything but ham-handed.

...I'd go further and say that the US has no interest in preventing "radicals" from gaining power, or in stopping dictatorships and secret police.  If the world needs such a "global military force" of this nature, it doesn't currently have one.

Well, it's the closest thing we have so far, maybe on the same level as Great Britain back in the day. The UN certainly doesn't help. :/

[Burnt Pies]

However, until humanity can evolve past the pseudo imperialism that it is today and was 200 years ago, there's a need for a global military force to stop radicals from gaining power; otherwise we'd allow dictatorships and secret police and all that. Not to say that any amount of military presence the US has donated thusfar has been anything but ham-handed.

...I'd go further and say that the US has no interest in preventing "radicals" from gaining power, or in stopping dictatorships and secret police.  If the world needs such a "global military force" of this nature, it doesn't currently have one.

Well, it's the closest thing we have so far, maybe on the same level as Great Britain back in the day. The UN certainly doesn't help. :/

No no no, we just went around claiming other peoples countries and killing them when they objected. If we saw someone who might threaten us (Napoleon) we smacked them down as hard as we could before they were too scary. We also had a cool Navy. I don't think we ever tried world policing.