5 ms·

Braggart is perhaps the wrong word, but I couldn't think of a more suitable one - perhaps you can pick up the gist from the rest of the comment. There's some t

by sho 18y ago

Braggart is perhaps the wrong word, but I couldn't think of a more suitable one - perhaps you can pick up the gist from the rest of the comment. There's some truth in what you say, of course, and I agree envy would also be a factor, especially coming from citizens of, say, Iran, or whereever. Your textbook love/hate relationship there. However, when said "braggart" is in possession of the largest military in the world, and is inclined towards its enthusiastic use, ignoring them is not really an option. I am talking about, of course, the Iraq war, whose justification really boils down to "because we're America, and we can do whatever we want, and we feel like doing this". Who cares? Everyone who does not like the idea of one country invading others at whim, that's who, anyone who respects life. It is hard to overstate the loss in prestige, in basic respect, the Iraq war has precipitated for America. Anyway, not trying to endorse this view, just trying to explain it to the GP.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
So aside from changing the rules for U.N. Security Council Chapter Seven binding resolutions, which call for member states to use force to uphold them ( and which Iraq was in violation of more than a dozen of them), I believe you're saying that because people didn't like the Iraq invasion, they'd like to see the Chinese or somebody else have the capability to sink U.S. (and other nations too) carriers at will. Sort of to even the score? (That's all I'm going to say on Iraq, and that probably was too much) No mention of the Chinese invading Tibet? Or the Soviets taking half of Europe? Just as long as somebody comes along to take down those yanks a notch or two? Makes some sense to me -- I guess. I know as an American I'm tired of us being the only superpower. I sincerely wish other countries would take a hint from how we grew (less regulation, more creative chaotic growth, change of leadership on a regular basis) and catch up. That seems more productive than wishing ill or any person or country, but I guess wishing the other guy falls down is easier than picking up your own pace, eh? Not my cup of tea. Thanks for explaining it some more. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but then again, most public opinion things don't!
- sho 18y ago
  Who is saying they would "like" to see US carriers at risk? Whether they wish that or not is irrelevant. The carriers are vulnerable, or not, wishes irregardless. I think the article is bunk, anyway, for reasons stated in the parents to this comment. What I meant is that Iraq is a very good example of why the "braggart" could not be ignored. That's all I meant. I didn't mean to get into a discussion of UN resolutions, etc. Let's not go there, OK, it's been done to death. Suffice to say that the US has not been too interested in enforcing, militarily, any other UN resolutions in approximately forever. That was just a pretext - we all know it. Anyway, it's done, and I don't think it will happen again. China's record is terrible, as is Russia's. But America is a western liberal democracy and is held to a higher standard, as it should be. I think we actually agree on many things. America needs a counterweight, it needs to play a game with an opponent. If it sits too long on the throne of absolute power, it grows corrupted by it, and its best attributes wither. The rise of China could be the best thing that has happened to America in half a century, and I truly hope that America's noble character comes again to the fore.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    I like being an American. I think Americans have always liked being Americans -- long before the end of WWII. I'm perfectly happy with 19th century America: mostly agrarian, no income tax, weak federal government, little or no world power. Back in those days Europe was the place to go for nationalism and jingoism. They had war after war. Intrigue was thick. Quite frankly Americans were sick of it and didn't want anything to do with it. After WWII, America was deeply concerned that the Europeans not draw them into another world war. At any cost, they wanted a stable Europe. What ended up happening was that they got exactly what they wanted: Europe has basically no capability for force projection and is peaceful even in the face of terrible atrocities. They simply don't have the ability to do a lot. The Americans were left holding the bag that Europe had in the 1800s -- projecting force, ensuring trade, meddling in foreign conflicts. In general, I'm not buying into a pretext argument unless a person can demonstrate some kind of ulterior or true motive. Otherwise it's just arm-waving and innuendo. A legitimate reason is not a pretext. This was not Germany invading Poland. Having said that, there is a great difficulty is trying to pick a single reason for a legislative body to vote the use of force. There are probably dozens. So yes, I'm totally happy with America sharing the world stage. Wouldn't it be much better to share it with Australia or France though? Aren't there dozens of better choices than a country stuck with a political system that is bound to collapse at some point?

by sho 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

So aside from changing the rules for U.N. Security Council Chapter Seven binding resolutions, which call for member states to use force to uphold them ( and which Iraq was in violation of more than a dozen of them), I believe you're saying that because people didn't like the Iraq invasion, they'd like to see the Chinese or somebody else have the capability to sink U.S. (and other nations too) carriers at will. Sort of to even the score? (That's all I'm going to say on Iraq, and that probably was too much) No mention of the Chinese invading Tibet? Or the Soviets taking half of Europe? Just as long as somebody comes along to take down those yanks a notch or two? Makes some sense to me -- I guess. I know as an American I'm tired of us being the only superpower. I sincerely wish other countries would take a hint from how we grew (less regulation, more creative chaotic growth, change of leadership on a regular basis) and catch up. That seems more productive than wishing ill or any person or country, but I guess wishing the other guy falls down is easier than picking up your own pace, eh? Not my cup of tea. Thanks for explaining it some more. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but then again, most public opinion things don't!

sho 18y ago
Who is saying they would "like" to see US carriers at risk? Whether they wish that or not is irrelevant. The carriers are vulnerable, or not, wishes irregardless. I think the article is bunk, anyway, for reasons stated in the parents to this comment. What I meant is that Iraq is a very good example of why the "braggart" could not be ignored. That's all I meant. I didn't mean to get into a discussion of UN resolutions, etc. Let's not go there, OK, it's been done to death. Suffice to say that the US has not been too interested in enforcing, militarily, any other UN resolutions in approximately forever. That was just a pretext - we all know it. Anyway, it's done, and I don't think it will happen again. China's record is terrible, as is Russia's. But America is a western liberal democracy and is held to a higher standard, as it should be. I think we actually agree on many things. America needs a counterweight, it needs to play a game with an opponent. If it sits too long on the throne of absolute power, it grows corrupted by it, and its best attributes wither. The rise of China could be the best thing that has happened to America in half a century, and I truly hope that America's noble character comes again to the fore.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  I like being an American. I think Americans have always liked being Americans -- long before the end of WWII. I'm perfectly happy with 19th century America: mostly agrarian, no income tax, weak federal government, little or no world power. Back in those days Europe was the place to go for nationalism and jingoism. They had war after war. Intrigue was thick. Quite frankly Americans were sick of it and didn't want anything to do with it. After WWII, America was deeply concerned that the Europeans not draw them into another world war. At any cost, they wanted a stable Europe. What ended up happening was that they got exactly what they wanted: Europe has basically no capability for force projection and is peaceful even in the face of terrible atrocities. They simply don't have the ability to do a lot. The Americans were left holding the bag that Europe had in the 1800s -- projecting force, ensuring trade, meddling in foreign conflicts. In general, I'm not buying into a pretext argument unless a person can demonstrate some kind of ulterior or true motive. Otherwise it's just arm-waving and innuendo. A legitimate reason is not a pretext. This was not Germany invading Poland. Having said that, there is a great difficulty is trying to pick a single reason for a legislative body to vote the use of force. There are probably dozens. So yes, I'm totally happy with America sharing the world stage. Wouldn't it be much better to share it with Australia or France though? Aren't there dozens of better choices than a country stuck with a political system that is bound to collapse at some point?