[iltos]

maybe some of you smarty pants have sources to help this discussion along...i haven't bothered to look.

but i was listening to a blurb about the pakistani election today, and how it looks like musharaff is going down in flames....post election, the parliment may have the power to just impeach him

the commentator made the point that his presence in pakistan is probably the only thing keeping that country's interests friendly towards the united states....then he went off about islam and how the taliban is a much more acceptable alternative in a lot of muslim states.

i'm not sure i agree with all of that, but it got me to thinking

historically, it is much easier for me to identify america's military actions as primarily defensive, whether they were an ideological defense (for freedom and justice) or an economic defense (resources).....somebody -hitler, hussein- blatantly ignored a line somewhere, and we mobilized to defend that line, and to push the aggressor back to the other side of it.

and the line was about two things...maintaining the soverignty of america, and maintaining the strenght of alliances the allowed that soverignty a right to exist on the world's geopolitical stage.....

whether that was "fair" or not has little to do with this topic......except for this.....
it stands as a baseline to measure our current stance in foreign affairs, and thus, for the sake of this discussion, must be assumed to be "fair"

the only arguement i can see "for" that assumption is the international respect we have historically maintained.

in terms of that respect, the cold war becomes an war of economic posturing....somewhere deep in the minds of soviet leadeship was the belief that we capitalists would destroy ourselves, and all they really had to do was hold on and keep a reasonably low profile....the soviet union and america played a game of risk, with most of the confrontations being diplomatic and/or economic....communism couldn't keep up, and went bust.

china was much smarter....it has played the game on our terms

long intro...sorry

the question of this thread is: is america still acting internationally to defend its reality as a nation....or are we becoming blind to that reality, and instead defending the memory of what we were?

[lotuseclat79]

We have short memories foisted upon us by a 4th estate that has lost their calling to keep our government honest in concert with that government. Where is the reality of our nation if not within our Constitution which has long been ignored by this administration. We are both blind and seem to prefer ignorance to reality.

I agree with what Lee Iococca has to say - where's the leadership?

Our Foreign Policy has been hijacked by the NeoCons - and needs to be completely rebuilt with the next administration.

-- Tom

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

We have short memories foisted upon us by a 4th estate that has lost their calling to keep our government honest in concert with that government. Where is the reality of our nation if not within our Constitution which has long been ignored by this administration. We are both blind and seem to prefer ignorance to reality.

I agree with what Lee Iococca has to say - where's the leadership?

Our Foreign Policy has been hijacked by the NeoCons - and needs to be completely rebuilt with the next administration.

-- Tom

Typical hysterical rhetoric. Have you ever offered anything--a post, a thread of any substantive value here? Because I can't recall anything. And I'm not just talking about taking a side, I'm talking about offering something so people actually learn--like what I continually do!

[izme]

I still believe that the best way to defend America is with the 25 million strong women's PMS movement

[bassetman]

Should be interesteing to see how this plays out!

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Typical hysterical rhetoric. Have you ever offered anything--a post, a thread of any substantive value here? Because I can't recall anything. And I'm not just talking about taking a side, I'm talking about offering something so people actually learn--like what I continually do!

Muldie,

You, of all people, should talk! You can't recall, because your sound-bite memory has wasted away - must be a left-coast thing.

What you continually do is post nonsense which if anyone actually learns from it is that your an old duck whose feathers no longer shed water, but are all wet!

You start your post with a presumptive conclusion with no backup, then ask questions that support your non-argument with no evidence - shame on you - and your a liarwyer, you ought to know better! You're not even as smart as Forrest Gump, and he was a fictional character!

-- Tom

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

..., I'm talking about offering something so people actually learn--like what I continually do!

Only if you count "fishing" for Red Herrings!...

(...oh no, there goes my ESP again! here comes the flame thrower again!!!...)

[WarC]

Originally Posted by iltos

...in terms of that respect, the cold war becomes an war of economic posturing....somewhere deep in the minds of soviet leadeship was the belief that we capitalists would destroy ourselves, and all they really had to do was hold on and keep a reasonably low profile....the soviet union and america played a game of risk, with most of the confrontations being diplomatic and/or economic....communism couldn't keep up, and went bust.

china was much smarter....it has played the game on our terms

long intro...sorry

the question of this thread is: is america still acting internationally to defend its reality as a nation....or are we becoming blind to that reality, and instead defending the memory of what we were?

I read this topic yesterday but declined any comment because it was worth more consideration. It's a complicated question you pose, iltos!

IMO, the Cold War served a secondary purpose of (one we may have only been partly conscious of) polarizing the internatonal community one way or the other.

That is, people either identified with the US, or the Soviets. There were clear deliniations of character and policy - I think it helped "define" us as a nation and as allies to other nations across the globe. Because of the Cold War, we could engage in some pretty sketchy activities and conflicts using the spectre of our nemesis as a justification for that activity. And it was because of that differentiation of character that we in many ways eagerly grasped the image of our nation as one who "sticks up for the little guys". People bought into that.

But, you are right - The purpose for that is largely selfish - Not that that is bad, also as you pointed out - It just "is" - That is the role a nation plays in this world, to proliferate its own ideals and take care of itself economically and politically for the sake of its people and its allies.

So, to me, the game has not changed much at all - We've just been lacking the anti-thesis to our brand of foreign policy...That won't be true for long, though, as there will always be new conflicts of interest. Whether it be a resurgence of Russia (which appears more and more likely each passing year since the Soviet Union's fall), or a rising China - Or even a rising unified Muslim world...

[iltos]

Originally Posted by WarC

I read this topic yesterday but declined any comment because it was worth more consideration. It's a complicated question you pose, iltos!

IMO, the Cold War served a secondary purpose of (one we may have only been partly conscious of) polarizing the internatonal community one way or the other.

That is, people either identified with the US, or the Soviets. There were clear deliniations of character and policy - I think it helped "define" us as a nation and as allies to other nations across the globe. Because of the Cold War, we could engage in some pretty sketchy activities and conflicts using the spectre of our nemesis as a justification for that activity. And it was because of that differentiation of character that we in many ways eagerly grasped the image of our nation as one who "sticks up for the little guys". People bought into that.

But, you are right - The purpose for that is largely selfish - Not that that is bad, also as you pointed out - It just "is" - That is the role a nation plays in this world, to proliferate its own ideals and take care of itself economically and politically for the sake of its people and its allies.

So, to me, the game has not changed much at all - We've just been lacking the anti-thesis to our brand of foreign policy...That won't be true for long, though, as there will always be new conflicts of interest. Whether it be a resurgence of Russia (which appears more and more likely each passing year since the Soviet Union's fall), or a rising China - Or even a rising unified Muslim world...

thank you WarC....a very thoughtful reply
you've made the question seem much, much more intelligent

you've distilled out at least one valid point from your insights into the cold war

We've just been lacking the anti-thesis to our brand of foreign policy

as the premier advocate for capitalism on this planet, and one which for many years was able to virtually dictate beneficial international policy, we can hardly now look at rapidly developing, generally-considered-to-be third world nations (in the economic sense) and point to them as an anti-thesis to our ideals and values....the same can be said about most of the middle east vis-a-vis the management of their resources.

whether other countries like it or not from a "cultural" standpoint, we have sown the seeds of captialism very successfully....the fact that those seeds -taking root on foreign soil that is struggling with issues of history and self determination and multinational corporate build outs- has now infested our own economic success like some sort of kudzu weed competing for our consumer dollar and the alliances allowing access to the global resource pool, just "is"

as a nation, tho, it seems to me that we have developed a sense of entitlement viz a viz the feeling the proliferation of competition is "wrong" (in the same way any kudzu infestation is wrong), perhaps because a feeling that our standards of international generosity and of "sticking up for the little guy" have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are deserving of the upper hand.

while it is, in truth, maybe closer to the application of karma....."you reap what you sow"

still....we could choose to feel a sort of parental pride about rampant capitalistic success....it is, after all, a demonstration that the world has understood us so damn well that is seeks to emulate what has made us rich and powerful.

whether we actually do experience that pride or not could have profound ramifications for our foreign policy, imo....allowing us to use our economic wisdom, and the lessons we've learned, to maintain a leadership role in a changing world.

which is a role that we seem to both expect and to want for ourselves....but, so far, it doesn't seem to be working out as we'd planned ....rather than "cutting the apron strings" with the pride of parents, we seem to be throwing a tantrum that our "children" have grown up and are branching out.

perhaps because there is really no "anti-thesis" in globalization.

and you seem to be saying that we "need" one to maintain our perspective as a political and economic system..... perhaps because we were a nation born from an ideological struggle of self-determination, we must either find or create our anti-thesis to maintain a collective self-image that continues the past.

but it isn't the past the creates the future.....it's the present....