You mean PajamaBoy's haughty raised eyebrows won't be enough of a deterrence against the ChiComms?
Posted on 01/09/2014 8:12:34 PM PST by traumer
In the 1920s, Japan began to translate its growing economic might — after a prior 50-year crash course in Western capitalism and industrialization — into formidable military power.
At first, few of its possible rivals seemed to care. America and European colonials did not quite believe that any Asian power could ever dare to threaten their own Pacific interests.
Japan had been a British ally and a partner of the democracies in World War I. Most of its engineering talent was trained in Britain and France. The West even declared Japan to be one of the “Big Five” world economic powers that shared common interests in peace, prosperity and global security.
Occasional parliamentary reforms had convinced many in the West that Japan’s growing standard of living would ensure cultural and political liberality.
That was a comforting dream, given that by the 1930s, Americans were disillusioned over the cost of their recent intervention in the Great War in Europe. They were weary of overseas engagement and just wanted a return to normalcy. A terrible decade-long depression at home only added to the popular American desire for isolation from the world’s problems.
(Excerpt) Read more at dispatch.com ...
Syria revolution which was initiated by Obama’s misguided meddling is now beyond our control. As are most of the “Arab Spring” countries.
Yes, yes, but it was George Bush who said he was launching a democracy revolution in the middle east, by invading Iraq. Obama is just carrying on what Bush started.
The wars of the last fifteen years do not compare with the eight trillion dollars in national debt
How much have the wars of the last 15 years cost? I’ve seen estimates of $3 trillion. What estimates have you seen?
Assad played Obama and Kerry for fools and Putin collected the chips.
So do you think we should have bombed Syria? If not, then how have we been “humiliated”? By not getting into another stupid war? I think China would have been glad to see us tied down fighting in Syria. They’re also probably glad we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. Because all those wars have weakened us, easing the obstacles to China’s rise. Hanson supported all those wars, and a reasonable unbiased reader of his column would have to infer he’s upset that we haven’t gone to war against Assad as well.
I dunno. A couple thousand years ago or so? According to Wiki, the Chin dynasty was from 221 to 206 BC.
You mean PajamaBoy's haughty raised eyebrows won't be enough of a deterrence against the ChiComms?
That is the whole point. Bush successfully prosecuted a war in Iraq. He also used a small group of specialists to disrupt terrorist camps in Afghanistan.
Obama has reversed everything that Bush did and turned the rest of the middle east into a chaotic bloodbath.
The 800 lb. gorilla nobody has addressed so far is that, unlike Japan, China has over a billion young men who, because of the one-child policy and infanticide of girl babies have little chance of ever getting laid, let alone finding a woman to marry and settle down with. Tends to make a country rather militaristic.
Bush successfully prosecuted a war in Iraq.
Bush’s invasion led to chaos in Iraq, a resurgency of shiite extremists (who Saddam had kept down through brutal means) - and the establishment of a shiite government that today is Iran’s closest ally, and whose constitution says Sharia is the primary source of law. Also, the near total destruction of the Christian community in Iraq. And U.S. expenditures of $1 trillion or more. That’s the legacy of Bush’s invasion. Along with the shiite risings in Arab countries - the Middle East democracy revolution that Bush advocated. Obama has carried it on.
Nobody gained more from our invastion of Iraq (and being tied down there for a decade) than China, because the invasion cost us so much and weakened our economy and military. Well, maybe Iran was the biggest gainer (because our invasion turned Iran’s biggest foe - Saddam Hussein’s Iraq - into its closest ally, the shiite-led Iraq government of today)
All of this is true, but it only happened well after Bush was gone and Obama took over as "Commander in Chief".
All of this is true, but it only happened well after Bush was gone and Obama took over as “Commander in Chief”.
Not true. Go back and look at the news articles from the mid-2000s. The surge was implemented in response to the total chaos that had been created. And the shiite government was in place before the surge. And Christian churches were being shot up as early as 2004, and continuously thereafter. The whole idea of trying to impose democracy on this country (and to liberate the shiites from Saddam’s oppression) was flawed from the get-go. One of the big reasons — though obviously not the only one (think Great Recession of 2008) — that Bush has gone down as a failed president.
You're assuming that the only choices in any conflict between nations are war and no war.
Not true. We enjoined a diplomatic contest, then lost it and were, thereby, humiliated diplomatically.
It was threatening war, via Obama's "red line" statement, that started the exercise. And it was a clumsy mistake -- because we had to back off from it (and damn well should have).
So, what makes you think I (or Hanson) wanted to bomb Syria? Because neither of us so much as suggested it.
“We”??
I do not consider the actions of Obama and his ilk to represent “we”. I was not humiliated by what happened.
I was only embarrassed that my countrys President took the side of Al Qeada and the Islamic Brotherhood in such a dispute.
It wasn't just Obama who was humiliated. It was the United States of America. And that's "we".
I wasn’t humiliated that Obama lost, I was happy!
So, what makes you think Hanson wanted to bomb Syria?
He’s covered his behind by writing ambiguously, but it’s a safe inference. He doesn’t say Obama humiliated himself (by drawing a red line), he says Assad humiliated Obama - which suggests Hanson is angry that Assad didn’t get a whooping by the United States. That’s not just a reasonable inference from Hanson’s sentence construction, it’s reasonable inference from Hanson’s consistent support for the US to get involved in war, war, and more war in the middle east, go back many years.
Hanson was, in no way, promoting the bombing of Syria. His previous columns on the subject have dwelt on the abject incompetence of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
There has been no suggestion of attacking Syria. Quite the contrary, in fact.
there was no great recession. There was a minor downturn after a years of advances. A standard correction in the economy.
However, Obama and his cronies saw an opportunity to loot the government. Trillions of dollars were spent on "shove ready jobs". The money actually went to government labor unions to give raises and hire people that were not needed.
After that they looted the treasury once again to steal General Motors from the investors and hand it over to the auto workers unions and their lawyers. I believe Washington Mutual was destroyed by Senator Schumer starting a run on the bank by initiating false rumors. The assets of Washington mutual were then basically given to Goldman Sachs. Again cronies of the Obama administration profited and Americans lost out.
Lets not forget about the green energy scam that enriched the Obama supporters and undoubtedly Obama himself.
I could go on but I think the pattern is clear.
Even if Obama does not end up in prison, he will definitely go down in history as the worst president, the biggest liar, thief, and greatest enemy of the American people.
“there was no Great Recession”
you’re delusional. I can’t converse with somebody who does deal in reality. good bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.