-
New World Order?
March 1, 2012 | 74 comments
-
The Last Republican?
February 3, 2012 | 382 comments
-
Wade and Nancy
November 9, 2010 | 23 comments
-
National Patronizing Radio
October 22, 2010 | 126 comments
-
Good News
September 24, 2010 | 39 comments
Special Report
Ninety-Two Years and Counting
Even our president doesn’t know just how long the U.S. has been guilty of a “failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role.”
(Page 2 of 2)
Europe was not overrun by Russian tanks. So France, under De Gaulle, pulled out of NATO as a gesture of gratitude.
The United States, innocent to the last, hung in. Until, finally, the Berlin Wall came down and we were, truly, not needed any longer. NATO was irrelevant — a mere social club that existed as an excuse to maintain a headquarters and conduct lavish conferences. This point was most emphatically driven home when a genocidal conflict erupted on Europe’s flank, in the very region where the events that had precipitated the world’s stupidest war had occurred. NATO — Europe — couldn’t manage a response. The United States, eventually, did.
“Some damned fool thing in the Balkans,” Bismarck had said when asked what would bring war to Europe. He was right. August, 1914 turned Europeans into cynics and fatalists and maybe with reason. They didn’t have an especially good century and they became bitter, cautious, and touchy. If a nation’s birthrate is a measure of civic optimism, then Europe is populated by pessimists.
Americans don’t see the world that way and don’t really need to apologize for being arrogant, derisive, and dismissive. We’ve groveled enough before the airy sophisticates. Let them keep the headquarters in Brussels for meetings. They can assemble all their combined military might on the parade ground (since the troops certainly won’t be in Afghanistan or anywhere that actual fighting is being done) for a full-dress review after which the ministers and their aides can adjourn for a good luncheon. That’s the sort of thing they are good at.
We, meanwhile, can look north, south, and west where the next opportunities and threats will come from.
And write the last 92 years off as an honest, well-intentioned mistake.
Robbins Mitchell| 4.8.09 @ 6:39AM
Well,give the boy credit...at least he knows how long his liege lord's family...the House of Saud...has been Kings of the Sandbox...a whole 90 yrs since they were invented out of whole cloth by the Crown of England....so at least his chuckleheadedness is consistent...making him a 'world class' buffoon
Trackback| 4.8.09 @ 7:55AM
The American Spectator : Ninety-Two Years and Counting, on PunditKix, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
rick| 4.8.09 @ 8:32AM
dumb question probably. Are there moderators on this site or can we post any evil, insane messages that we want?
Big J| 4.8.09 @ 8:52AM
Nothing like a little trash-talk-tango while touring Europe. Why didn't he say how he really felt?
America sucks, and I plan to destroy it.
What a disgrace to our country.
And he's running it????
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 9:12AM
->“Americans don't see the world that way and don't really need to apologize for being arrogant, derisive, and dismissive.”
The “ugly American” used to be mostly myth and untrue.
Today it would seem that it might not be.
It certainly isn't here at home.
This is a new behavior for Americans.
It is repugnant.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 9:20AM
->“Let them keep the headquarters in Brussels for meetings. They can assemble all their combined military might on the parade ground (since the troops certainly won't be in Afghanistan or anywhere that actual fighting is being done) for a full-dress review after which the ministers and their aides can adjourn for a good luncheon. That's the sort of thing they are good at.”
One should not be so “arrogant, derisive, and dismissive.”
Not to mention Ungrateful.
The Europeans, Japanese and Saudis do more to Support Our Troops” than do Americans.
The U.S.A. is not capable of supporting its own military forces overseas.
The new reformed U.S.A. is no “arsenal of democracy” any longer and no longer capable of sending “all manner of materiel across the Atlantic,”Pacific, and the Indian Oceans. Then necessary to support the American, Russian, British and Chinese war machines.
Now necessary to support the American war machine in sothwest & south-central Asia, northeast Africa.
Americans couldn’t support the further advances being made into south-central Asia, notheast-to-northwest and Sub-Saharan Africa, if they wanted to.
Americans, it seems, are primarily fit for the role of a colonial militia and (now, being developed) colonial office corps' of Urbanized ‘bad-hillbilly-stereotype’operators and administrative clerks.
Equipment operators and clerks, certainly shouldn’t be so “arrogant, derisive, and dismissive” toward those they rely upon for supporting them.
Which is what propaganda pieces like this Teach Them To Be.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 9:37AM
Ooops!
Don’t forget the new garrisons of the new Advanced Bases in the new expanded NATO in eastern Europe, or the American soldiers, and soldierettes, serving as United Nations organization (UN) “peace keepers” on the Balkan peninsula.
Americans aren't able to “Support Our Troops” in Europe either.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 10:04AM
->‘Bad-hillbilly-stereotype’
The term is mine.
I refuse to use the unfortunately revived term, “trash,” and I especially refuse to the miserable term “trailer trash,” that tens of millions Have Been Taught to use, so easily and flippantly.
The real “hillbillies,” or those that would have fallen into the racial grouping, aren’t my people, or people that I’m descended from.
However, I’ll defend them, because they were never as vulgar and disgusting as the stereotypes of them presented them to be: Neither the lazy, shiftless, draft-dodging, nor low-sexual ethic aspects. Mostly they were clean, descent people who preferred to mind
their own business (the “draft-dodger” calumny, ala Andy Griffith’s “No Time For Sergeants,” and Sergeant York of W.W.I fame).
Their now-fully urbanized, rootless, and increasingly debauched, progeny are another matter, unfortunately. I won’t even attempt to defend their behavior.
Hence my use of ‘Bad-hillbilly-stereotype.’
Characters like James Webb, a disgusting man himself, are now actually teaching young Americans to form themselves in just this miserable bad, and unjust, stereotype. Webb purged the old “draft-dodging” element and has replaced it with the “born fighting” theme (the title of his latest book) that he’s been developing and propagating since his 1978 novel, “Fields of Fire.”
No wonder the romanticizing of the American civil war, the two world wars: For all of the “service” and “sacrifice” cant, these are the three wars in American history, to that time, that relied primarily on Conscription to field the huge militaries (a detail usually left out of the romanticizing, re-enactment groups, and about all of the absurd neo-Confederate organizations).
The militarization of American youth and middle-age "Xers", is disturbing, wrong, and bad for this country.
Nick| 4.8.09 @ 10:06AM
Mr. Norman,
Excellent essay. A more concise and expert recitation of the history of the past 90+ years I have not seen in some time.
I wonder if B.O.'s doctor had to surgically remove his lips from Europe's backside?
pete the mediocre| 4.8.09 @ 10:08AM
Since America is such a horrible place now that we've reached third world status I would think you would like to get away as soon as possible. Need some help packing?
L. Ross| 4.8.09 @ 1:33PM
Paul Crowley:
Wow, you sure are an expert on the military capabilities of the U.S. I've been at bases all over the world, and trust me, we don't get a tremendous amount of host nation support. We are not only capable of supporting our own bases, we DO support our own bases. Heck, I don't even know why I am dignifying any of the drivel that came off your keyboard with a response. Let's just say that you obviously have no direct experience in anything you wrote about with such authority.
By the way, up until the early 1970s, the U.S. was an oil Exporting nation. We were very far from being beholden to the wahabbist whack-jobs in Saudi Arabia for most of the last century. Finally, what on earth are you talking about "the militarization of American youth?" Military service is on the decline, as we have been reducing the size of the military fairly steadily since the Reagan buildup of the 80s. You, sir are an idiot.
Regarding the infantalization of Europe the above article mentioned, why did the author not mention how critical U.S. defenses are for their ability to maintain a welfare state. If they had to pay anything like their fair share for defense, they would not possibly be able to hand out all the governmental freebies to their rapidly declining populations. All the while, they are importing muslims to supplement their rapidly declining workforce, not realizing that they are infecting their own cultures with a nightmarish cancer which will destroy them, and cover Europe with mosques, minarettes, and hijabs.
By the way, loved to see B.O. bowing to the Saudi sheik. Just like he was taught in his Indonesian madrass. Dipshit.
Mother Red Dog| 4.8.09 @ 1:46PM
I see that Axelrod is posing as Paul today. That has to be it. No one else, except maybe for Robert Gibbs, could make such ludicrous statements. Is it any wonder that people believe that Obeyme is Muslim or that he is not an American citizen? His actions certainly don't do anything to dissuade those who believe he's not qualified. Now I see that Chavez, the Black Cacus, and all of the rest of the loons are out in full force taking advantage of Obeyme's surrender to the muslim world. We need to trade Obeyme for Hannan. At least we'd get someone who isn't afraid, knows what he's doing, and thinks that America is the greatest country in the world and has nothing to apologize for.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 1:48PM
"I see that Axelrod is posing as Paul today." [Mother Red Dog]
No. I'm posting for myself. Using my own name, and my own thoughts and observations, while doing so.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 1:49PM
p.t.crowley@world.att.net
=>“Since America is such a horrible place now that we've reached third world status I would think you would like to get away as soon as possible. Need some help packing? ” [pete the mediocre]
Hi pete the mediocre:
Did you direct this to me?
If so, then I never said that America, as in the U.S.A., has “reached “third world status.”
In numerous ways, the debauched American population is a different consideration.
But, again, was this directed to me?
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 1:59PM
=>“now that we've reached third world status” [pete the mediocre]
One should not confuse the inability of Americans to “Support Our Troops” as meaning that the U.S.A. has “reached third world status.”
The inability of of Americans to “Support Our Troops” is the simple reality of the present situation: A consequence of the radical restructuring of our country, 1956-present.
It does not make the U.S.A. a ‘third-world country.’
American logistical support of its military overseas, has undergone steady, incremental decline since at least the preparations for the Korean War began, 1948-1950, and the war itself. It has declined sharply, 1971 onward, and by about 1989 was minimal.
From about 1980 onward, much in the American war machine has ceased to be American made, even if the ships and other weapons are American assembled.
Again, this is simply the physical reality at this point in time.
At present, it would be impossible for Americans to “Support Our Troops.”
The U.S.A. does not have sufficient, or even the necessary, industrial production, shipping, or portion of the population with the necessary logistical and manufacturing expertise to perform the task itself.
In the comments section of the essay using Obama’s Prague speech in Prague, Big Leo made the statement:
“America's dependence on foreign oil is at this point nearly absolute. We cannot run our economy without it.”[Big Leo|]
I noted in response:
“American dependence on ‘foreign oil is at this point’ is not even close to ‘nearly absolute.’ ”
If by “America’s” and “our economy” one means the U.S.A., as I did, then my statement is true.
If by “America’s” and “our economy” one means the American military, and the key industrial countries of the American-Anglo-French Bloc of countries that support it, as I never would, then my statement is false.
It is true that all of western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the British Commonwealth country, now being rapidly industrialized and militarized, India (the ‘Hindu Raj’), do have a “nearly absolute” dependence upon “foreign oil is at this point.”
Further, it is also true that the American military now has a “nearly absolute” dependence upon industrial production of the countries of western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Persian Gulf region, and, increasingly, India (especially 1998 onward): Especially since the military advance into the Indian Ocean basin, 1971-72 onward, into north-east Africa, 1975 onward, into the Persian Gulf, 1979 onward, across Saharan Africa, east to west, 1980-89, and, now the ground advance into south-central Asia, 2001
onward.
So maybe by “America’s” and “our economy,” Big Leo meant the countries in the American-Anglo-French Bloc of countries?
I don’t know, and won’t presume to claim to know if his meaning was anything other than same as mine: The United States of America.
I’ll have to post the question to him and see his response.
Richard Szathmary| 4.8.09 @ 2:15PM
If this is the same Geoffrey Norman who was once an editor at "Playboy" (and for a time took a strong interest in the racial politics of Newark), it's good to see him "back." (Though I'm sure he was never really very far away.) And he writes as beautifully, strongly and cogently as ever.
Marc Jeric| 4.8.09 @ 3:04PM
Good article. After I escaped from a communist country in sophisticated Europe I am an American now. Visiting the Omaha Beach in 1984 and seeing that American cemetery with 9,000-plus dead American soldiers, I asked myself "Why"? Why did these guys, mostly in their 20's, from Kansas and Oklahoma, died for those sophisticated European shits enjoying their presumed superiority while sipping cognac in their salons? Who introduced the world to the blessings of communism and socialism? Why did our Community Organizer-in-Chief Abu Hussein from Kenya stooped to kiss their fat asses?
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 3:15PM
=>“I've been at bases all over the world, and trust me, we don't get a tremendous amount of host nation support” [L. Ross|].
The “host nation” support is indispensable, or there wouldn’t be a base for you to have been on in the first place, “trust me.”
That's just a beginning.
=>“We are not only capable of supporting our own bases, we DO support our own bases.” [L. Ross|].
So you ate a hamburger on an American military base.
Where did the meat, lettuce, onions and tomato come from? How were they shipped to the base? Who prepared them (the plural is not the wrong tense)?
More importantly, and more to the point:
I never said that American clerks are not managing the local supply systems on the bases, or that Supply Corps officers and enlisted clerks are not managing the supply system, world-wide.
I certainly made no claim that there’s a shortage of enlisted clerks, basic maintenance men and operators in the American military.
Where did the bases come from?
Where did the materials come from to produce the construction materials?
Who processed those materials?
Who manufactured the construction materials?
Who used the construction materials to build the bases?
Who manufactured the equipent (boilers, generators, water treatement systems, and so forth . . . ) critical to the base’s operations?
Who manufacturers the parts critical to maintain equipment and the bases?
Managing the supply system is not the same as mining the minerals, growing and harvesting crops, processing the materials, processing the chemicals, including fuels, manufacturing the parts, producing the clothing, designing the weapons, assembling the vehicles that the operators drive, the weapons system the operators use, and then transporting all of it, world wide. . . .
The American military is HIGHLY dependent upon technologically-advanced processing and manufacturing in Europe, the western Pacific, and the Indian Ocean, and upon Anglo-Japanese shipping, for support of its Advanced Bases overseas.
=>“We were very far from being beholden to the wahabbist whack-jobs in Saudi Arabia for most of the last century.” ” [L. Ross|].
The American military used fuels refined by other countries from oil produced by other counties, since the Korean War, due to our government’s own actions and policies.
The American military has been increasingly reliant upon oil produced by Arab countries, refined in Japan and Europe, especially due to its advance into the Indian Ocean basin, 1971 onward, due to our government’s own actions and policies.
The American military is heavily dependent upon fuels processed by the Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, for its advance into Iraq and south-central Asia, due to our government’s own actions and policies.
India is another country that has massive modern refining (which came online by about 1998) and relies heavily upon petroleum imports from the Persian Gulf (refineries are useless without it).
Unless you believe that Americans on the bases merely pumping the fuels makes Americans “capable of supporting our own bases,” then I repeat:
Due to our government’s own actions and policies, Americans are not capable of “Supporting Our
Troops.”
How about reading and then addressing what I wrote, and not what I didn’t write, L.Ross.
In doing so, it will keep “You, sir” from looking like “an idiot.”
Dai Alanye | 4.8.09 @ 3:31PM
Doesn't it appear as if Paul Crowley is having an argument with himself? Certainly his logic is difficult to follow, bordering on the incoherent.
Point 1: He says, "The “ugly American” used to be mostly myth and untrue."
If a person wishes to haul out the Ugly american stereotype he should first read the book. The Ugly American is a hero as depicted by the author who created the character. "Ugly" refers to his appearance from the point of view of Asians, and has nothing to do with politics or social opinions.
Point 2: Foreign nations that allow America to rent land at exorbitant prices are not "supporting America," nor is selling us goods at a pleasant profit "supporting America." That's completely backwards—WE are supporting THEM not only militarily but economically.
Geoff Norman is on target when he suggests we let the Western Europeans, Koreans, etc defend themselves. At present they are the layabout slacker brothers-in-law of our republic.
Dustoff| 4.8.09 @ 4:24PM
Geoff Norman is on target when he suggests we let the Western Europeans, Koreans, etc defend themselves. At present they are the layabout slacker brothers-in-law of our republic.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Works for me.
Alan Brooks| 4.8.09 @ 4:31PM
zee french zay are so sweet, so cultured, but though it iz wrong to dump zee huddled masses into France, dumping zem into America iz acceptable because Americans are inferior-- ZAY ARE NOT FRENCH!
Alan Brooks| 4.8.09 @ 4:40PM
you zee, ze Europeans it was zay who built America, so eet eez entirely fair for us to dump more immigrants into your uncultured inferior Americain 'nation' (i.e. dumping ground) so az to make it even funkier zan it already eez.
After all, zee proud Cross of Lorraine must be protected even at the expense of the vulgar NON- FRENCH predator bald eagle zat preys on zee life of zee cultured superior master race, er, I mean to zay FRENCH people, descended from zee Romans and not a polyglot inferior Americain mongrel NON FRENCH...
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 4:57PM
=>“By the way, loved to see B.O. bowing to the Saudi sheik.” [L. Ross|].
Hi L. Ross:
I’ll address your question to me about “militarization of our youth,” but have to come back (I'd appreciate your patience).
After that, just to be clear, regarding your above statement about Obama in your comments to me:
I made no comments at all about President Obama, one way or the other.
I didn’t vote for him, or for McCain last year.
I found the presidential election last year to be a more miserable, and depressing, election than that of 2004 (another "lose-lose" for the country).
One of my neighbors made a mistake in assuming that I was a “republican.” and that he could defend the “democrats” by repeating Michael Moore’s line about the number of Saudi hijackers on 911, and that the only reason we didn’t attack Saudi Arabia is due to
the Bush family ties to the Saudis. . .
I don’t touch this kind of stuff. . .
I'm not a "republican" or a "democrat" (we don't have to declare to vote in the primaries where I live. If we did then I would register Independent). Regardless, at this point in time, if I was prone to so identify myself, then I wouldn't claim either, or "liberatarian" (the worst of both). I'm not a "Buchananite" (who's a creature of the libertarian organizations) either.
Just to you know: Slights against Obama, as comments to any of statements by me, are as much a waste of time as my neighbor’s slight on “Dubya” was.
Alan Brooks| 4.8.09 @ 5:56PM
Paul, don't be so nice!
this is a conservative blog, you don't have to be squishy like at a lib-blog. You can diss Obama if you like.
I don't, because Dubya opened the door to nationalized socialism. Bush is no longer responsible for what happens, but for Bush to call Obama a socialist would be like Jimmuh calling Reagan a pansy.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 9:51PM
=>“Finally, what on earth are you talking about "the militarization of American youth?" Military service is on the decline, as we have been reducing the size of the military fairly steadily since the Reagan buildup of the 80s.”[L. Ross|].
Hi L. Ross:
I’m not referring to the size of the American military, manning or equipment, wise.
Reductions in Department of Defense (DoD) manning, have been primarily technology related.
I’m referring to so-called “popular culture,” especially via the education system element of the mass-communications media, 1989 onward, and the entertainment element of it, in the 1980s and 1990s, through to such as the new alliance with Hollywood, recently established.
The militarization of American youth that I’m referring to is that of Americans born about 1974-2001, the so-called “Generation Y” age bracket (born 1974-87) and the unnamed “Generation Z” age bracket (born 1988-2001). It’s especially the “Ys,” who began coming of military-service age (17 years old), starting about 1991, and that the country was ready for, that a sharp change in attitude can be seen in.
Just to clarify your “80s” generalization:
The decline of military service by Americans is primarily due to scaling back and withdrawing the American ground forces in Vietnam, and the introduction of the All Volunteer Force (AVF), during the Nixon administration, and due to the technological nature of, and manning needs of, the modernizing and modernized military equipment, 1979 to present.
The rapid decline in the proportion of the American population of Americans who are veterans that we’re going through is due to the death rate of pre-AVF era veterans and the AVF.
This first sharp decline in military service among the population of American males came with the members of the so-called “Me Generation,” those born about 1953-73: Latter-half of the so-called “Baby Boom” age bracket (born 1946-59), and the so-called “Generation X” age bracket (born 1960-73). Americans who came of military age (17 years old) 1970-90, and American males who came of draft age (18 years old), 1971-76.
From 1977-80, when all those entering the military were solely volunteer, the American military was still primarily made up of a majority of young, single males. The number of young married enlisted increased slightly during this period, following reforms made during the Nixon and Ford administrations.
The sharp boom in young married and female enlisted, came following the pay and personnel reforms implemented during the Carter administration in 1980. That was also the time that large numbers of veterans returned (which was already increasing, 1971-79, from regions of the country where industry was being shut down, and minerals shut in).
The next sharp rise in the number of young females followed the reductions established during the G.H.W. Bush administration, and implemented during the Clinton administration, 1992 onward.
I would argue that since 1980 onward, the overwhelming number of Americans have joined the military primarily because they need a job or due to the hope of receiving job, training or education opportunities, due to lack of, or limited opportunities where they grow up.
As to size of the military, equipment wise, the buildup” that you mention:
The reform of our military, equipment and personnel, began during the Nixon administration (which Ford completed about the last 3 years of), 1969-77.
Much of the shrieking about ‘slashing’ the size of conventional military forces, and the subsequent “weakness” it caused, that was sensationalized during the Ford and Clinton administrations was nonsense. In both instances, the reductions began in the preceding administrations (Nixon and G.H.W. Bush, respectively) and was mostly a matter of decommissioning equipment that was due for it and implementing personnel reforms (among some other reasons during the Clinton administration, including such as transfer of the upgraded Kidd Class DDGs to reinforce Taiwan, completed during the G.W. Bush
administration).
The post-Vietnam equipment modernization of our military was underway, 1975 onward (new commissions).
The so-called “Reagan buildup of the 80s” (new equipment, and modernization of older equipment, commissioned circa 1958-65), actually began during the second half of the Carter administration, 1979-81, was continued through to the end of, and further
increased by, the Reagan administration.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 9:56PM
=>“Doesn't it appear as if Paul Crowley is having an argument with himself?” [Dai Alanye]
Actually the only one who appears to be “having an argument with himself.,” in this string of comments that I can see is Dai Alanye.
=>“Point 2: Foreign nations that allow America to rent land at exorbitant prices are not ‘supporting America,’ nor is selling us goods at a pleasant profit ‘supporting America.’ ” [Dai Alanye]
I don’t know who Dai Lanye is quoting here (twice), with “supporting America,” but it isn’t me. I never made any such a claim.
=>”Point 1: If a person wishes to haul out the Ugly american stereotype he should first read the book.” [Dai Alanye]
I referred to the stereotype of the “Ugly American.”
I was not t referring to a character in a book.
The stereotype of the “Ugly American” dates back to at least the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and was commonly understood in popular American language: Americans traveling abroad who are ill-tempered and arrogant toward the locals.
“Arrogant, derisive, and dismissive” is a fair enough description, as well.
Dai Lanye doesn’t give the name of the book that he’s referring to, so I don’t know if I’ve read it or not. But, either way, it’s irrelevant since Dai Alanye is confusing the stereotype with a work of fiction that he’s read.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 10:33PM
=>“WE are supporting THEM . . ..” [Dai Alanye]
Dai Alanye does come close to arriving at some of the consequences of “our government’s own actions and policies,” from 1946-present (When Lend-Lease was ended during the Truman administration, before variations of it, under different names, and with major differences were later employed).
Just as military bases have to be constructed, and maintained, then so does forward-area industrial production, a distribution system (Lines of Communication, in the military sense of the term: Maritime, maritime ports, rail, road, air, and information technology, and logistics command and control). On a world-wide scale, it is a vast undertaking, that renders the multi-billion dollar Advanced Base projects, air bases, in Iraq, 2003-08,
which the Iraqi, and other resistance movements, was NOT able to even slow the construction of, puny. And made their construction possible.
Industrial development in the European and Asian countries that now “Support Our Troops” required “Free Trade” policy and Finance.
One can say that the American Department of Defense (DoD) and State Department have developed a very large portion of the world.
Since American taxpayers are incapable of “paying” for this, then the charges have been made to us via the our National Debt.
This is why I noted, among a good bit else, in my comments in the NATO article, that:
”American citizens continue to bear many of the costs, definitely those in the form of consequences, for which the American government uses the alliance: Global Military advance and geo-political advance.”
To paraphrase (and quote) a popular self-styled conservative” writer, P.J. O’Rouke, commenting on the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, last year:
‘Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for higher spending. Republicans want higher spending,’ “for which the taxpayers will pay.”
O’Rouke is considered a “humorist.” I didn’t find his observation amusing.
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 10:45PM
Personally, I spit on these kind of "conservatives."
It's been a tremendous cost to this country, and to our people, and far more than only the financial and debt costs.
"Liberal" ceased to be an option to identify myself by, 1972 on, through to today.
From 2003 on, do to the advent of the right-wing version of Jimmy Carter, G.W. Bush, and his look-and-sound stupid acts, and the bastards going "transparent" since 1998 (which is not to say, "clear," forthright" or "honest"), then I don't hesitate, for one minute, to let people know that "I'm not a libertarian" (and never have been) and "I am not a conservative."
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 10:49PM
=>“Paul, don't be so nice! this is a conservative blog, you don't have to be squishy like at a lib-blog.” [Alan Brooks]
Hi Alan:
Thanks for the advice (I got a good chuckle when I read it!).
Truth to tell, though, I speak the same, on the interenet, or off.
Because it’s in written form here, then my statements are more formal, since, writing is more formal.
I’ll leave the exercises in “creative writing” and the “pithy” one-liners to the propagandists and the folks being taught to repeat them.
Maybe that’s what you confuse as being “squishy?” I’m not.
Contrary to “nice,” another person, in a different section confused it as “arrogance and pomposity.” I’m neither.
=>“You can diss Obama if you like.” [Alan Brooks]
Thanks, but I’m not just being polite because this is a self-labeled “conservative” website (for the continued Formation of self-styled “conservatives,” from the appearance of it) and not a self-labeled “liberal” website (for the converse).
I think all of the focus on the presidents is unhealthy, and only a distraction.
As if we have only a one-man government and these men become omniscient, a split second after the oath of office on 22 January.
->“Bush is no longer responsible for what happens” [Alan Brooks]
My statement to the neighbor who was trying to bait me with the Bush-Saudi bit (actually a friend of his who was visiting him), was that George Bush wasn’t running for re-election and would be leaving, regardless of the results (I got sick of hearing the guy
focused on, in the context of the elections).
But as to “responsibility,” then, no, it doesn’t work that way:
A great deal of what will be done in the future will be the responsibility of the what was done during the G.W. Bush administration, the laws enacted, the precedents set, the infrastructure developed, the programs begun. . . all due to documents that have his signature on them.
Thanks again, especially for the chuckle!
Paul Crowley| 4.8.09 @ 11:03PM
=>“ 'Free Trade' policy and Finance."
A correction:
"Free Trade" policies, not "policy" [they were continually reformed ("evolved," as many Have Been Taught to say), and varied, country to country.
The Financial systems had to be developed and reformed, as well.
They're now going to go through another reform, bloc-of-countries wise, via the G-20 meeting in London.
David Govett | 4.9.09 @ 4:34AM
What hope for this country is there, when patriots are in the minority? Next time, if ever, Republicans control the White House and Congress, they should admit and naturalize about 30 million East Europeans, who are familiar with the wonder that is socialism.
Voice of Reason| 4.10.09 @ 9:34AM
Dear Mr Crowely, I hate to tell you but this country was was able to declare it's freedom from England's Monarchy because of those "Bad Hillybilly" Types you are referring to. If you ever decide to get off your High Horse and see what that with all it's faults the USA contributes more to world than any other nation has been a crutial benefactor to countries that even Europe has turned their back on. So continue to trash it's people and it's policies but it's not those Bad Hillybilly that will destroy our country it's liberals like you! GOD BLESS THE USA
Paul Crowley| 4.10.09 @ 6:42PM
=>“those ‘Bad Hillybilly’ Types you are referring to.” [Voice of Reason]
Hi V.O.R.:
I never made any such reference.
My statement was:
“Americans, it seems, are primarily fit for the role of a colonial militia and (now, being developed) colonial office corps' of Urbanized ‘bad-hillbilly--stereotype’operators and administrative clerks.”
I then clarified my meaning of the term “Bad-hillbilly-stereotype.”
=>“it's liberals like you!” [Voice of Reason]
I’ve already addressed this, but I’ll repeat it for you:
I’m not a “liberal” (as effectively redefined in this country, 1972 onward).
I’m not a “libertarian” (and never have been) (which also rules out the so-called “paleo-libertarian” movements, such as Buchanan’s self-named “paleo-conservatives” and such).
I’m not a “conservative.”
As I stated to L.Ross: “How about reading and then addressing what I wrote, and not what I didn’t write.”
To do otherwise is unreasonable.
Paul Crowley| 4.10.09 @ 7:13PM
=>“Next time, if ever, Republicans control the White House and Congress, they should admit and naturalize about 30 million East Europeans, who are familiar with the wonder that is socialism.” [David Govett]
Hi David:
You should hold off on calling for this.
The “Times They Are A Changin’,” again.
It’s been 20 years since the G.H.W. Bush-Gorbachev statements, ending the Cold War (1946-89), and 17-20 since the Warsaw Pact countries were given independence by Russia.
Memories of the Red Army occupation of eastern Europe, and the brutal de-culturization, and re-culturization imposed up its populations, have faded, and will continue to.
An entire generation of eastern Europeans have now come of age who have no memories of it.
Most importantly, for the present moment, then from the ‘Baltics to the Adriatic,’ most of the eastern Europeans aren’t doing so well now right now. The World Financial Crisis is hitting those countries quite hard, as a result of the reforms of the past 20 years, since the end of the Cold War.
The Czech Republic might seem to be a little better off, for a time, but that’s mostly due to the expansion of NATO, and soon, the erection of the Advanced Bases for the fire-control radars as part of our global missile battery (which should help the western European’s, a bit, as well).
Shortly, however, as things continue to get worse, then “about 30 million East Europeans,” with memories of their one-time industrial production, might just be a seed for advocating some form of “socialism.”
Paul Crowley| 4.10.09 @ 9:15PM
=>“We were very far from being beholden to the wahabbist whack-jobs in Saudi Arabia for most of the last century.” ” [L. Ross|].
One should not denigrate as a “sheik,” or as “whack-jobs,” a King, or a country, that is firmly integrated in an American-Anglo-French “economic” Bloc, and that the American military is highly dependent upon for the refined products that keep it moving.
And, if he lives in the eastern states of the U.S.A., that he may be inter-dependent upon for the refined products necessary to his life.
I addressed, as a starting point, the necessity of the Saudi’s in the logistical “Support” of “Our Troops” overseas.
For millions of Americans who live in the eastern states, the Saudi’s also play a major role in the logistical “Support” of “our republic” (to quote Dai Alanye).
The largest refinery modernization in America is being made by an Anglo-Dutch-Saudi corporation, equally owned by Royal Dutch Shell and Saudi Refining, the four refineries of which (in Texas, Louisiana, and Delaware) are major gasoline suppliers to the eastern states of the U.S.A., and Refined Petroleum Products, nation wide.
It’s taking place on the Gulf Coast, in Texas, at what used to be a Texaco refinery, the first of the (then) Texas Company (1903-88) and then an equally-owned American-Saudi corporation (1988-2001) (as is common: A “Delaware Corporation”).
The Anglo-Dutch-Saudi refinery in Texas has a fuels plant and a lubrications plant (all of the Havoline sold, and consumed, in the U.S.A., and much that used to be exported overseas, used to be produced by it).
The modernization will result in what will be the largest petroleum refinery in the U.S.A. when completed in four years.
Paul Crowley| 4.10.09 @ 9:44PM
=>“zee french zay are so sweet, so cultured, but though it iz wrong to dump zee huddled masses into France, dumping zem into America iz acceptable because Americans are inferior-- ZAY ARE NOT FRENCH!” [Alan Brooke]
Hi Alan:
I saw your cringe-inducing, sophomoric, posts.
However, I didn’t notice that it was you who had penned them, when I responded your “nice” comment the other day.
This kind of nonsense, that so many Have Been Taught to write, is something that you’ll definitely never see penned by me.
As to the French:
Today, “Zay” are not “dumping” anything, and never did.
However, “Zay” may be providing the gasoline that powers YOUR automobile.
And, via the chemicals produced by one Total-BASF-Shell, joint venture, the “products:” "That Make Your Life Better.” (to quote BASF’s commercials).
The “huddled masses,” as you probably know, was penned by a young Jewish-American girl [counted among those dubbed “hyphenated Americans” by some of the WASP types (the “just American” Americans), especially 1915-25. A large segment of the sub-population of these have been re-styled as “Scots-Irish Americans,” about 1969 onward (“just Americans” reformed into what is becoming the last “hyphenated Americans” to exist now, among white-skinned Americans].
In the same Texas city, across town from the Anglo-Dutch-Saudi plant modernization that I mention in my comment on L. Ross’ derogatory statements, there is a major chemical plant-petroleum refinery expansion also taking place: At a petroleum refinery that is now wholly French owned: The Total corporation (Post-WWII, it began as the French national oil company).
The plant began as an Atlantic refinery, and then became an Atlantic-Richfield refinery (both one-time American company and corporation, that now no longer exist).
Atlantic-Richfield (ARCO) was absorbed by AMOCO (which began as Standard Oil of
Indiana).
AMOCO and ARCO have now been absorbed by British Petroleum (BP) (a major employer of many “self-sufficient” Alaskans, and other Americans, and a major supplier of energy and refined petroleum products in the U.S.A.).
This one-time ARCO refinery was obtained by FINA, a Belgian corporation.
FINA was absorbed about eight years ago by TOTAL, in the merging of all of the French and Dutch corporations.
No question, that in 1986 bunker fuel refined by Total was used to power the American warships of the 6th Fleet Task Force 66 in its operations against Libya, January-April.
No question, that in 1986 jet fuels refined in western Europe were used to power the warplanes, naval and air forces, in their operations against Libya, January-April.
No question that today, Total plays a major role in the logistical “Support” of “Our Troops” in the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) unified command, U.S. Central Command.
No question that today, Total plays a major role in the logistical “Support” of “our republic” (to quote Dai Alanye).
Paul Crowley| 4.10.09 @ 11:16PM
=>“Geoff Norman is on target when he suggests we let the Western Europeans, Koreans, etc defend themselves. At present they are the layabout slacker brothers-in-law of our republic.” [Dai Alanye|]
The “Western Europeans, Koreans, etc:”
“etc” is rather vague.
These are countries of western Europe and the western Pacific, and now south-central Asia and the Indian Ocean basin, which are all now heavily integrated, and INTER-DEPENDENT, Financially, Industrially, Logistically, and Militarily. All in what I’ve called an American-Anglo-French Bloc of countries. This is so due to the actions and policies of the American government (“leader of the Free World,” to use the old Cold War phrase that is still employed by some today). The inter-dependence has been dubbed with the euphemism, “globalism.”
The “Western Europeans, Koreans, etc:” are most certainly not the “layabout slacker brothers-in-law of our republic.”
Where Industrial Production, and World-Wide Distribution of Industrial Products is concerned, then the American military, the U.S.A., and Americans, are heavily dependent upon Japanese and European “Know How,” production and distribution.
There is nothing that should make anyone suspect that this is going to change.
Relocating American troops from the Republic of Korea, Japan (Okinawa), and western Europe, is not going to change this.
The modernization of industry in the U.S.A., underway for about ten years now, is not going to change this.
The Relocation of American troops from the Republic of Korea, Japan (Okinawa), and western Europe, is Going To Happen anyway, Geoff Norman’s propaganda piece or no, due to the actions and policies of the American government:
It Has Been, and Is Happening now.
Paul Crowley| 4.11.09 @ 1:05AM
=>"Ninety-Two Years and Counting" [Geoffrey Norman]
No.
TWENTY YEARS and COUNTING.
Post-Cold War (1946-89), 1989-2009.
Reading the essays in the “American Spectator,” and many of the comments made, this past week, one would think it was 1990, not 2009.
Rich Rostrom| 4.11.09 @ 1:32PM
Mr. Norman quotes:
"America should have ... stayed out of the World War," [Churchill] told an American newspaper editor. "If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany..."
No, he didn't. This alleged interview was a fraud. Churchill himself denied ever speaking with the "reporter" who published it.
L. Ross: The U.S. has been a net importer of oil since 1945 (74.3 million barrels imported, 33.0 Mb exported). In 1956 the U.S. imported 341 Mb and exported less than 29 Mb.
Rich Rostrom| 4.13.09 @ 4:08AM
Correction: Churchill admitted being interviewed by the New York Enquirer, but repudiated the alleged content of the interview as published. The Enquirer's publisher sued Churchill, but his suit was dismissed as having no factual basis.
Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 5:12AM
Misquoting an Ally links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: