Behind a mind-set that invites the burden of policing a rules-based global order is a conventional assumption: War, though tragic, is a boon for economic vitality and patriotic vigor. This assumption is at best outmoded. The economy is no longer fueled by wartime industries in the same way. When wars are fought by a smaller corps of volunteers and financed by borrowing from financial institutions and foreign governments more than taxes and war bonds, a public spirit of common cause hasnât materialized. In fact, Americaâs most recent military misadventures contributed to the steady accumulation of more than $30 trillion in debt â now being weaponized by partisans in Congress for political gain.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, Elliott Abrams, who led Middle East policy in the Bush administration and Iran and Venezuela policy in the Trump administration, insisted that the United States should seize the ânew Cold Warâ opportunity to foster bipartisan consensus.
Well, I haven't seen the Labor Party spouting Russian talking points, not saying that they haven't. I mean some of the old timer's still call each other comrade. But yeah I'd say they still are overall left-leaning with the caveat that if something helps a heavily unionised business they tend to support it (I'm looking at you, coal companies).
But if you don't like left leaning then maybe "progressive?" "non-extreme right wing?" "woke"? I dunno, but I think even you get the idea of who I was trying to characterise in a general sense realising that generalisations are just that and are imperfect.
I don't care about your use of the term (being leveled at westslope, who may or may not identify), but the facile characterization of repeating/being susceptible to Russian talking points. I guess the flip side would be the vast majority of boring centrists repeating NATO/US talking points.
If you start off with a hilarious characterization of "left-leaning" (does that incl. Aussie Labour?) (For some weird reason they are the Labor Party) and just dismiss arguments (as fuzzy logic) or distort them beyond recognition, then there's really no point in repeating or continuing them. Carry on as usual.
Well, I haven't seen the Labor Party spouting Russian talking points, not saying that they haven't. I mean some of the old timer's still call each other comrade. But yeah I'd say they still are overall left-leaning with the caveat that if something helps a heavily unionised business they tend to support it (I'm looking at you, coal companies).
But if you don't like left leaning then maybe "progressive?" "non-extreme right wing?" "woke"? I dunno, but I think even you get the idea of who I was trying to characterise in a general sense realising that generalisations are just that and are imperfect.
*strawman? Unwilling to clarify? Wants to keep safe in the land of inuendo?
I admit that it is sometimes hard to figure out the salient points from a rambling RP discussion thread.
If you start off with a hilarious characterization of "left-leaning" (does that incl. Aussie Labour?) and just dismiss arguments (as fuzzy logic) or distort them beyond recognition, then there's really no point in repeating or continuing them. Carry on as usual.
Can't see the tweet but whatever. You are simultaneously arguing that the anexation is bad but the US should ignore it when Russia does it but shouldn't ignore it when Israel does. That's some fuzzy logic. And by the way we shouldn't ignore the jews getting the boot out of Palestine because it happened long ago but should be against the establishment of Israel becaus it happend in your lifetime. That last bit is truly one of the complicated ethical questions world wide. I mean was it ok for the Navajo to do in the Anasazi but bad for the Europeans to do in the Navajo? I don't have an easy answer to that one. Then again, I'm reasonably comfortable with grey areas.
Yeah, perfectly happy was a minor overstatement because lip service condemnation with perhaps a few ineffective sanctions. The main take away is that the US was not doing anything to promote a war in Ukraine and was willing to let the agression slide. Now, you and others are trying to cast USA as aggressors in the region who somehow wanted the war that Russia started. To be fair, though, I don't think there was much the US could have done back then because western Europe wasn't behind any response.
The Golan article is a total red herring and I have no idea why you think it is relevant. But for the record, I think Israel totally screwed up with Lebanon by screwing Lebanon. Unfortunately the Lebanese government was probably too weak to take on Hamas (or whatever group was there) and left themselves vulnerable. In any case it wasn't really under government control.
Well Uncle Joe "Terrorist" Biden finally accomplished what MAGA Republicans wanted all along.
Slimy ethnic cleanser Joe is particularly proud of all the dead Ukrainians and he knows the American people are eagerly awaiting more dead Ukrainians. But as long as enough Russians die, all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that left-leaning people are as susceptable to Russian talking points as right-leaning people. Look Biden was perfectly happy with the detante of letting Russia anex part of Ukraine and control a big chunk of the rest. He was happy to let Russia do their own internal slide into authoritarianism. From the nearly as far right as the traditional republican side of the democratic party was conserned, it was all tolerable as long as the global economy ticked along.
Hint, ethnic cleanser Joe isn't the one lobbing missiles into appartment buildings to get rid of Ukrainians in their own country. Putin is extending the Soviet strategy of moving Russians into other countries in the "union" as ethnic cleansing of the populations.
Well Uncle Joe "Terrorist" Biden finally accomplished what MAGA Republicans wanted all along.
Slimy ethnic cleanser Joe is particularly proud of all the dead Ukrainians and he knows the American people are eagerly awaiting more dead Ukrainians. But as long as enough Russians die, all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
But when it comes to the escapades of arrogant gringos, no sampling of tales would
be complete without the somewhat unique but revealing story of William Walker,
a filibusterer who made himself president of Nicaragua, carrying south the expansion
that predecessors like Daniel Boone had carried west. Walker is not secret CIA
history. The CIA had yet to exist. During the 1850s Walker may have received
more attention in US newspapers than any US president. On four different days,
the New York Times devoted its entire front page to his antics. That
most people in Central America know his name and virtually nobody in the United
States does is a choice made by the respective educational systems. (...)
Walker got himself the command of a North American force supposedly aiding
one of two warring parties in Nicaragua, but actually doing what Walker chose,
which included capturing the city of Granada, effectively taking charge of the
country, and eventually holding a phony election of himself. Walker got to work
transferring land ownership to gringos, instituting slavery, and making English
an official language. Newspapers in the southern US wrote about Nicaragua as
a future US state. But Walker managed to make an enemy of Vanderbilt, and to
unite Central America as never before, across political divisions and national
borders, against him. Only the US government professed "neutrality."
Defeated, Walker was welcomed back to the United States as a conquering hero.
He tried again in Honduras in 1860 and ended up captured by the British, turned
over to Honduras, and shot by a firing squad. His soldiers were sent back to
the United States where they mostly joined the Confederate Army.
Walker had preached the gospel of war. "They are but drivellers,"
he said, "who speak of establishing fixed relations between the pure white
American race, as it exists in the United States, and the mixed, Hispano-Indian
race, as it exists in Mexico and Central America, without the employment of
force." Walkerâs vision was adored and celebrated by US media, not to mention
a Broadway show.
US students are rarely taught how much US imperialism to the South up through
the 1860s was about expanding slavery, or how much it was impeded by the US
racism that did not want non-"white," non-English-speaking people
joining the United States.
