Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The_Jazz, you can call it "editing games", or you can argue against each of my points. In 1964, our government still saw the need to fake the Gulf of Tonkin attack to justify escalation of the Vietnam war. In 2003, all that was required was a slide presentation of phony intelligence before the UN....
|
Each of your points? You didn't make any. That was MY point. The Washington Doctrine was thrown out before either of us was born - and I have a fairly good idea how old you are. We stopped being an isolationist state c. 1939. Roosevelt buried the Washington Doctrine. Truman heaped NATO on its grave. Eisenhower went door to door dressed as it for 8 Halloweens in a row.
In other words, the Washington Doctrine of avoiding entangling alliances has been roundly ignored for about 70 years. We stood beside Great Britain while they invaded the Fauklands. How many American troops were there? We stood by Israel last summer while they fought Hezbollah. How many American troops were there? The US historically intervenes when it is convenient to the US, not because they are beholden to Israel. I doubt you can find a single conflict where American and Israeli troops have fought shoulder-to-shoulder.
The Gulf of Tonkin and Enduring Freedom have little to do Obama's foreign policy unless you presuppose that he is going to commit illegal acts while in office. So I'll just go ahead and say it:
YOU THINK OBAMA IS A FUTURE WAR CRIMINAL.
The elephant's in the room now. It's over there. Let's talk about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Do you deny that Obama's foreign policy is positioned to the right of Eisenhower's, and can you explain how it is that "the most liberal US senator" is "left thinking" if he declares that
|
Is it to the right of Eisenhower? Sure, why not? What you didn't understand is that I don't think that it's at all relevant. Hey, Obama's to the left of Millard Filmore! And to the right of Jackson! But he's left of Johnson - Andrew, that is - on .... who the hell cares.
Let's see... what's the name of the doctrine that Obama is following here? It's right on the tip of my tongue... Do you know? I really wonder.
If you need a hint go
here.
I think that pretty much puts Obama to neither the right nor left of Eisenhower, but right smack dab on top, not that it matters. What matters is that the man is being consistent with 50+ years of foreign policy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
...because "Reagan did it"?
or...after a huge era of increasing military spending, the "liberal" advocates for increasing ground forces by 92,000.....
You neglected to respond to my assessment of how the "centrist left" voting majority has used the power of the vote, compared to Europeans, these last 50 years.....
|
Sorry, I missed this part since I think we were cross-posting. It wasn't intentional.
The centrist left in the US has consistently voted against class interest for 50 years, if not longer. The reason? The vast majority of centrist left voters have cast their ballots based on single social issues rather than what's best for them. And "centrist left" in the US does not mean what it does in Europe since the two party system makes identifying which candidates represent what ideology much harder to identify. The lower middle class has been effectively marginalizing themselves for 20+ years because they back candidates that are socially AND economically conservative because the voters see the social issues as paramount to the economic ones. It's been a long bizarre road, but it looks like the journey might be winding down a bit.
And that, my friend, is the reason for my point way back in Post #23 that masses have been known to cross party lines and vote for the other side's candidate. Reagan was just the most recent example. It happened for FDR and Grant before him. Is it going to happen to Obama? I'm not saying that at all - just that it's a larger possibility than I've seen it before.