An amusing analogy for America

I think it would be former; but it really is losing the forest from the trees at this point. Originally Posted by discreetgent

It comes down to making misleading statements, starting a shitstorm and then not coming back and owning up to those misleading statements. Hell poor Lina took one on the chin for Lauren and Lauren never looked back to offer a helping hand!

On top of that she wrongly accused me of ''antisemitic nonsense''! How in the hell am I going to ever get another loan with that hanging over my head!

Ask her to come back to eccie, we still love her!

Wow, that's quite the contradiction, and down right antisemitic nonsense. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

121 posts. Really?

The thread is tired. Yawn.

121 posts. Really?

The thread is tired. Yawn. Originally Posted by FLWrite

And thats just counting WTF's





Remember the last line in the movie Shane?

An interesting thread of revisionist history, along with some fairly mindless U.S.-bashing, and a dose of Canadian sensitivity.

Up front: has the U.S. committed major mistakes? Of course. One only has to look at the war in Iraq, the result of George W's Oedipal complex, to see that. And there have been others.

Does the U.S. have internal problems. Of course. There is still injustice, poverty, etc. But the arc of American history has always been toward more freedom, more equality, and more opportunity. Not perfect, but we're trying. Not that other countries are always paragons of justice and equality, either. For example, the Roma in Europe. And I've seen some of the First Nations villages in Canada.

But - has the U.S. been a greater force for good (both tangible and intangible) than any other country? Undoubtedly. Get past your reflexive anti-Americanism and you can see that. Think Marshall Plan. Or Kosovo. Or Haiti.

Did the U.S. win WWII by itself? Of course not. Could the other western powers have won without the U.S.? Not hardly. Churchill was quite candid that the only way Britain could stave off an unfavorable negotiated peace was to bring in the U.S.

Yes, the Soviets fought heroically and suffered mightily. But, was the possibility of a Soviet/Stalinist victory and subsequent domination of all Europe a particularly better prospect than a German one? After all, Stalin killed more Soviet citizens than Hitler, one reason the Germans were greeted as liberators in many non-Russian areas of the Soviet Union (e.g., Ukraine).

Yes, the U.S. came 'late' to the war, but when it did, it supplied the bulk of the men and equipment for the fighting in western Europe, while simultaneously defeating the Japanese in the Pacific with no real assistance from allies as we advanced.

And (Lauren), at the time of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was essentially already in the war in the Atlantic. U.S. Navy ships were escorting convoys, attacking German submarines, and being sunk by them (c.f., the destroyer Reuben James). U.S. marines occupied Iceland. Roosevelt knew the U.S. had to enter the war, but also knew that the people had to be led to it in incremental steps to overcome the traditional isolationism. He had already put in place many of the steps needed such the draft, the large naval expansion, Lend-Lease, etc. (Lina - the U.S. was not paid for the Lend-Lease equipment in almost all cases, including the equipment sent to the Soviets).

And then there's the Cold War - where western Europe sheltered behind the U.S. military and economic power for 35 years. A power which was not used to coerce the allies (e.g., the French during the Gaulist years, Willi Brandt's Ostpolitik).

We could hash this history forever. But, fast forward to now. It's easy to create silly 'puppy' analogies and criticize our actions. But then, it's very easy to criticize when you don't have the responsibility or ability to actually do anything. There is always criticism of the U.S. until something needs to be done. Then, the refrain is that the U.S. needs to be involved and do something. Example? The Balkans in the early 1990's. Despite the ineffectual efforts of the Europeans and the UN, there were massacres and genocide, ethnic cleansing, and intense fighting, which everyone seemed powerless to stop. Remember the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Sbrencia (mis-spelt, I know). It was only when the U.S. got involved and Richard Holbrook 'reasoned' with the various leaders at Dayton that peace came. Or how about Kosovo? Same story -- ethnic cleansing of the Albanians until the U.S. got involved. Northern Ireland? The peace settlement was pushed by Clinton and brokered by George Mitchell. The Southeast Asian nations are worried about China's actions in the South China Sea. Who do they turn to? (Hint - not Canada.) An earthquake in Haiti -- who is expected (and is) to be the major assistance provider?

The U.S. military bases in Japan were mentioned. While many Japanese don't like them, the Japanese government wants them there for their security. If they really wanted them out, we would leave, as we did in the Phillipines in the 1990's (Clark Field and Subic Bay). A while back when the Economist was discussing Kashmir, it suggested that the U.S. would need to get involved. Kuwait would still be part of Iraq if they had relied on other powers. And on it goes.

The 'big bumbling giant' analogy for the U.S. has been around since the 1940's. However, that has not stopped anyone from demanding that when something needs to be done, that the U.S. 'do something'. It's easy to criticize when you're essentially a bystander.

An interesting thread of revisionist history, along with some fairly mindless U.S.-bashing, and a dose of Canadian sensitivity.

Up front: has the U.S. committed major mistakes? Of course. One only has to look at the war in Iraq, the result of George W's Oedipal complex, to see that. And there have been others.

Does the U.S. have internal problems. Of course. There is still injustice, poverty, etc. But the arc of American history has always been toward more freedom, more equality, and more opportunity. Not perfect, but we're trying. Not that other countries are always paragons of justice and equality, either. For example, the Roma in Europe. And I've seen some of the First Nations villages in Canada.

But - has the U.S. been a greater force for good (both tangible and intangible) than any other country? Undoubtedly. Get past your reflexive anti-Americanism and you can see that. Think Marshall Plan. Or Kosovo. Or Haiti.

Did the U.S. win WWII by itself? Of course not. Could the other western powers have won without the U.S.? Not hardly. Churchill was quite candid that the only way Britain could stave off an unfavorable negotiated peace was to bring in the U.S.

Yes, the Soviets fought heroically and suffered mightily. But, was the possibility of a Soviet/Stalinist victory and subsequent domination of all Europe a particularly better prospect than a German one? After all, Stalin killed more Soviet citizens than Hitler, one reason the Germans were greeted as liberators in many non-Russian areas of the Soviet Union (e.g., Ukraine).

Yes, the U.S. came 'late' to the war, but when it did, it supplied the bulk of the men and equipment for the fighting in western Europe, while simultaneously defeating the Japanese in the Pacific with no real assistance from allies as we advanced.

And (Lauren), at the time of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was essentially already in the war in the Atlantic. U.S. Navy ships were escorting convoys, attacking German submarines, and being sunk by them (c.f., the destroyer Reuben James). U.S. marines occupied Iceland. Roosevelt knew the U.S. had to enter the war, but also knew that the people had to be led to it in incremental steps to overcome the traditional isolationism. He had already put in place many of the steps needed such the draft, the large naval expansion, Lend-Lease, etc. (Lina - the U.S. was not paid for the Lend-Lease equipment in almost all cases, including the equipment sent to the Soviets).

And then there's the Cold War - where western Europe sheltered behind the U.S. military and economic power for 35 years. A power which was not used to coerce the allies (e.g., the French during the Gaulist years, Willi Brandt's Ostpolitik).

We could hash this history forever. But, fast forward to now. It's easy to create silly 'puppy' analogies and criticize our actions. But then, it's very easy to criticize when you don't have the responsibility or ability to actually do anything. There is always criticism of the U.S. until something needs to be done. Then, the refrain is that the U.S. needs to be involved and do something. Example? The Balkans in the early 1990's. Despite the ineffectual efforts of the Europeans and the UN, there were massacres and genocide, ethnic cleansing, and intense fighting, which everyone seemed powerless to stop. Remember the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Sbrencia (mis-spelt, I know). It was only when the U.S. got involved and Richard Holbrook 'reasoned' with the various leaders at Dayton that peace came. Or how about Kosovo? Same story -- ethnic cleansing of the Albanians until the U.S. got involved. Northern Ireland? The peace settlement was pushed by Clinton and brokered by George Mitchell. The Southeast Asian nations are worried about China's actions in the South China Sea. Who do they turn to? (Hint - not Canada.) An earthquake in Haiti -- who is expected (and is) to be the major assistance provider?

The U.S. military bases in Japan were mentioned. While many Japanese don't like them, the Japanese government wants them there for their security. If they really wanted them out, we would leave, as we did in the Phillipines in the 1990's (Clark Field and Subic Bay). A while back when the Economist was discussing Kashmir, it suggested that the U.S. would need to get involved. Kuwait would still be part of Iraq if they had relied on other powers. And on it goes.

The 'big bumbling giant' analogy for the U.S. has been around since the 1940's. However, that has not stopped anyone from demanding that when something needs to be done, that the U.S. 'do something'. It's easy to criticize when you're essentially a bystander. Originally Posted by davec.0121

Interesting observations and well-written piece. However, I'm not sure the world's "need" for a cop nation justifies the paternalistic attitude and conduct of the US. We seem to swing between isolationism and colonialism (or the current US version). I'm not happy with isolationism since it seems to put global blinders on us. Nor am I happy with our activist conduct in the world as a cop nation because we tend to throw our weight around much more than we should. In the end, I think we should be active, but not intrusive. And we definitely exceed our boundaries when we go to war on specious grounds (read false allegations of WMDs).

An interesting thread of revisionist history, along with some fairly mindless U.S.-bashing, and a dose of Canadian sensitivity.

Up front: has the U.S. committed major mistakes? Of course. One only has to look at the war in Iraq, the result of George W's Oedipal complex, to see that. And there have been others.

Does the U.S. have internal problems. Of course. There is still injustice, poverty, etc. But the arc of American history has always been toward more freedom, more equality, and more opportunity. Not perfect, but we're trying. Not that other countries are always paragons of justice and equality, either. For example, the Roma in Europe. And I've seen some of the First Nations villages in Canada.

But - has the U.S. been a greater force for good (both tangible and intangible) than any other country? Undoubtedly. Get past your reflexive anti-Americanism and you can see that. Think Marshall Plan. Or Kosovo. Or Haiti.

Did the U.S. win WWII by itself? Of course not. Could the other western powers have won without the U.S.? Not hardly. Churchill was quite candid that the only way Britain could stave off an unfavorable negotiated peace was to bring in the U.S.

Yes, the Soviets fought heroically and suffered mightily. But, was the possibility of a Soviet/Stalinist victory and subsequent domination of all Europe a particularly better prospect than a German one? After all, Stalin killed more Soviet citizens than Hitler, one reason the Germans were greeted as liberators in many non-Russian areas of the Soviet Union (e.g., Ukraine).

Yes, the U.S. came 'late' to the war, but when it did, it supplied the bulk of the men and equipment for the fighting in western Europe, while simultaneously defeating the Japanese in the Pacific with no real assistance from allies as we advanced.

And (Lauren), at the time of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was essentially already in the war in the Atlantic. U.S. Navy ships were escorting convoys, attacking German submarines, and being sunk by them (c.f., the destroyer Reuben James). U.S. marines occupied Iceland. Roosevelt knew the U.S. had to enter the war, but also knew that the people had to be led to it in incremental steps to overcome the traditional isolationism. He had already put in place many of the steps needed such the draft, the large naval expansion, Lend-Lease, etc. (Lina - the U.S. was not paid for the Lend-Lease equipment in almost all cases, including the equipment sent to the Soviets).

And then there's the Cold War - where western Europe sheltered behind the U.S. military and economic power for 35 years. A power which was not used to coerce the allies (e.g., the French during the Gaulist years, Willi Brandt's Ostpolitik).

We could hash this history forever. But, fast forward to now. It's easy to create silly 'puppy' analogies and criticize our actions. But then, it's very easy to criticize when you don't have the responsibility or ability to actually do anything. There is always criticism of the U.S. until something needs to be done. Then, the refrain is that the U.S. needs to be involved and do something. Example? The Balkans in the early 1990's. Despite the ineffectual efforts of the Europeans and the UN, there were massacres and genocide, ethnic cleansing, and intense fighting, which everyone seemed powerless to stop. Remember the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Sbrencia (mis-spelt, I know). It was only when the U.S. got involved and Richard Holbrook 'reasoned' with the various leaders at Dayton that peace came. Or how about Kosovo? Same story -- ethnic cleansing of the Albanians until the U.S. got involved. Northern Ireland? The peace settlement was pushed by Clinton and brokered by George Mitchell. The Southeast Asian nations are worried about China's actions in the South China Sea. Who do they turn to? (Hint - not Canada.) An earthquake in Haiti -- who is expected (and is) to be the major assistance provider?

The U.S. military bases in Japan were mentioned. While many Japanese don't like them, the Japanese government wants them there for their security. If they really wanted them out, we would leave, as we did in the Phillipines in the 1990's (Clark Field and Subic Bay). A while back when the Economist was discussing Kashmir, it suggested that the U.S. would need to get involved. Kuwait would still be part of Iraq if they had relied on other powers. And on it goes.

The 'big bumbling giant' analogy for the U.S. has been around since the 1940's. However, that has not stopped anyone from demanding that when something needs to be done, that the U.S. 'do something'. It's easy to criticize when you're essentially a bystander. Originally Posted by davec.0121

Very, VERY well said, Davec. Owning the leadership role always invites criticism. Are we perfect? Absolutely not. But we are always the first to step up and support what we believe is right, even when it has little to do with national security.

I kinda find it odd that we're being criticized by citizens of countries who actually joined us in both Iraq AND Afghanistan. Among other military actions through the years.

And apparently Lauren is showing the lesser side of Canadian values by doing the disappearing act. Oh wait, she's probably just very busy enjoying the lifestyle afforded her by her southern neighbors. Frankly, the Canadians I've known have been far more supportive and strong-willed.

She might make a great governor for our 51st state though!

PSD

...
And apparently Lauren is showing the lesser side of Canadian values by doing the disappearing act. Oh wait, she's probably just very busy enjoying the lifestyle afforded her by her southern neighbors. Frankly, the Canadians I've known have been far more supportive and strong-willed.... Originally Posted by PSD

Or maybe she's just tired of this thread.

I can't imagine how that would happen.

Or maybe she's just tired of this thread. Originally Posted by FLWrite

Ya think?

Or perhaps I assume that most don't care

Forgive my simplistic bait, Lauren, but I indeed hoped to your your response!

Interesting observations and well-written piece. However, I'm not sure the world's "need" for a cop nation justifies the paternalistic attitude and conduct of the US. We seem to swing between isolationism and colonialism (or the current US version). I'm not happy with isolationism since it seems to put global blinders on us. Nor am I happy with our activist conduct in the world as a cop nation because we tend to throw our weight around much more than we should. In the end, I think we should be active, but not intrusive. And we definitely exceed our boundaries when we go to war on specious grounds (read false allegations of WMDs). Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Charles that is basically what davec.0121 said. It is what everyone has said at one time or other in this thread. But some of you keep missing the point.

What you and Lauren and other seem to be missing is that it is the nature of the beast. Much like a cop, you are not happy about seeing cops at DWI checkpoints but you cry like a baby when a relative is killed by a drunk driver and wonder where the cops were.



But things must be viewed in a realistic way, not some Pollyanna 'Perfect World' lens. That ultimately is what was being questioned. I and others took time to explain the reality. Not that the cops are perfect but does the world want the alternative? Which is isolationism from our power. Fine if so but the reality is that there will just be another country that steps in the void. That is the reality.

In keeping with the cop analogy , Iraq was our Rodney King moment. We eventually changed cops but that does not mean we should do away with law enforcement....We Canada the top cop they would be catching the exact same crap from some other country about one thing or another. You will never be able to please everyone but making braod general statements like the orginial posters premis does nothing to advance ones cause.

Or perhaps I assume that most don't care Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Oh we care about politics on here! (Well except for FL, he got this groovy cosmic karma going on right now. I wish he would share sum a dat chit!)

Probably where the most lively discussions stem from politics.

Sort of, but you missed my second supposition that it was almost certainly a former ambassador. Originally Posted by discreetgent

The problem is an extremely complex one, in an environment where even for grand masters of diplomacy like Britain or France it's almost impossible to keep a mission.
(recent press snippet re. this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11768199 )

She as a former ME ambassador should really know this.

ps: I really do like your POV in general and very often agree with you. However if she really made such an unreflected and misleading statement during a (semi)-public lecture I have to agree with Camile: epic fail.

Or perhaps I assume that most don't care Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I certainly do care -- very much in fact. (Personally, I'm very concerned about certain recent events in the Persian Gulf and in Central Asia -- the Iran having nuclear power as shocking it might be is not even my main concern.)

Given her avtar name was Niveveh you can image that she also does care.

So do several other posters here (Camille, Clerkenwell, DG, et al)

That said implying that the Canadian position or the European positions are so much better or that your hope lies on Israel, really made me doubt if you do in fact really realize the severity of the situation.

That said implying that the Canadian position or the European positions are so much better or that your hope lies on Israel, really made me doubt if you do in fact really realize the severity of the situation. Originally Posted by ..

I tend to agree. I'm not convinced a Jewish homeland in Palestine is tenable much longer. (Get your popcorn folks). Thats not a popular thought, but consider the following.

The rogue extremism of Hamas to her south and Hezbollah to her north; the very wealthy, well-armed, militant Iranians on the verge of becoming a nuclear state; and the way their last incursion into Lebanon played out all seem (IMO) to point to a very vulnerable Israel these days.

Frankly, I dont see Obama supporting any kind of US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. In fact, with 100k+ US troops in Afghanistan, 35k+ US troops in Iraq, as well as Iranian promises to include attacks on US troops in any type of retaliatory action, I'd think Obama would want to avoid any type of action....but then this...

Anyone see the recent news that we are offering 20 F-35 Stealth fighters to the Israelis as part of a deal for a 90 day extension of the construction freeze? 20 F-35s for 90 days? What am I missing? They expect to solve the Palestinian state issues in 90 days? Or...are we filling a gap they found when they did their 600 aircraft war games....

Next question: can Israel survive an all-out missile barrage from Hezbollah and Iran? Israel is not a large country and Tel Aviv is easily within reach of Iranian missiles...

Now, about that whole idea of Zionism....not so wise...isnt this just another form of Apartheid?

Like I said, get your popcorn and please, civility first....

PSD