Thread: The Obama Boom.
View Single Post
Old 10-28-2009, 08:27 AM   #367
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos View Post
My point is that mavsog's view is quintessentially Liberal. He's left of Woodrow Wilson. The White Man's Burden was Kipling's way of encouraging the USA to take up Britians role as an imperial power and it was the progressives that really took up the call.

The notion of using war as a means of social progress is prototypically left-wing. That republicans in the US also support war as a means for social
progress is a testament to their leftiness. Nothing whatsoever anomolous about lefties touting war as a means of progress...it's in their DNA.
the history of america is not one of the "usa [taking] up britain's role as an imperial power", and a look at modern political dynamics show that it was america who led the cause of the end of european colonialism. your neo-isolationism clouds your vision.

odd, at no time have I been guilty of "touting war". looking at history and the affects of conflicts is not akin to "touting", it is a easy exercise of understanding outcomes. I'll leave the "touting" to the neo-conservatives who brought us the unnecessary war with iraq.

as it stands you have not answered the questions about the two koreas, or of the afganis, or of the muslim albanians that were aided by american intervention.

have their been mistakes and wrong decisions by americans? sure. the numerous strongmen who were beneficiaries of american support while at the same time were plundering their countries. geopolitics is a very messy affair, and we are not without errors.

yet that is not the point of the discussion, which to recap is your statement
Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Greneda, Vietnam, Somalia, Korea, etc., etc...

....none of these have/had jack shit to do with freedom.
that is not accurate in the least.

you're wrong, you're judgement is falacious.

not all conflicts are easy to put in a box, for instance was ww2 about freedoms or about economies? the answer is: both.

and if you are believing that ww2 was not a pivotal battle for the direction of freedoms you and I enjoy, you have a lot to learn.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote