       |
 |
  |
Getting these concepts accross to Joe and Jane Swingvote is proving difficult.
n a global clash of civilization?
I think that should be reframed to civilization 7th century barbarians.
Where they live, where they move into, their "philosphies" keep their people trapped in the 7th century cult practices. This entrapment produces third world conditions. They do not have the capacity to generate the social goods. France? Germany? Feeble Britain? All will suffer deterioration as the cult dilutes western progress.
The exceptions to this are trust beneficiaries of Henry Ford and his invention... the gas guzzling automobile. Take away their revenue and they will regress to illiterate sandpeople. Bloodthirsty , jealous, impoverished and illiterate.
The cult? Truly a barnacle riding on progresses hull.
IMO
sorry,
second sentance should read
I think it should be reframed as civilization VS 7th century barbarians
Hilary Wants All US Troops Out of Iraq Before She Assumes the Presidency in 2009
Speaking at a gathering in Iowa, site of the first test for 2008 presidential hopefuls, U.S. presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said that President Bush must withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq before he leaves office, saying it would be “the height of irresponsibility to pass the war along to me.”
“I’ve had enough of cleaning up after one president,” Clinton said. “I don’t want to have to clean up after another.”
Pressed for details, Clinton angrily suggested that Bush “should put the troops back where he found them. He knows very well where they belong. When you take something out you have to put it away when you’re done with it. I went through these battles with Bill. I don’t think I should have to go through them with George Bush.”
The White House criticized Senator Clinton’s remarks as “out of line.” “Hilary’s not my mama,” Bush said. “I’ll put the troops back when I’m finished. It might be before I leave office. It might not. The commanders in the field will tell me when. I’m not going to be bossed around by Senator Clinton. I’m the decider, not her.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Europe's strength has come primarily from the United States shouldering the burden of their common defense for over 60 years.
Jean Francois Carry notwithstanding, there is a trend toward isolationism in the US. The current isolationist trend is founded in the "cut & run" from Iraq brigades.
The looming isolationist trend will rear its head in 2009, should a Democrat President take office. The tendency for Democrats is to involve our military forces in humanitarian missions, such as Africa, or in missions not tied to our national security interests, such as Bosnia.
As we speak, Democrats are painting themselves into a corner on the use of military force. They will not be able to make a case for such deployments for at least 10 years after we have left Iraq, assuming that our drawdown will commence within 18 months. Based on their oft-stated goals to "redeploy" from Iraq, Democrats should fully describe their definition of a "vital national security interest."
The rest of the world, particularly Europe, will rue the day they did not join with us in Iraq, and other battles in the War on Terror. Our younger generations have no recollection of the Cold War, and are not nearly as likely to come to the aid of Europe, Taiwan, or the rest of our allies. Let's face it: the money will not be there, as Social Security will collapse under the weight of retiring Baby Boomers.
One part of me loathes the thought of the US becoming isolationist, while another part relishes the thought of sending a big "FU" to those countries that have fought us diplomatically in the UN, and the War on Terror.
|
|
|
|
|
From where I sit, all the outcomes appear absolutely awful. Can anyone point me to an argument for the idea that "it won't turn out so bad if we leave early?"