Posted on 08/01/2018 5:27:08 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
“The USA was founded as a trading nation; the “city on a hill” stuff was ex post facto propagandizing, to help us feel good about ourselves.”
Really? Wow, didn’t know that. Explains perfectly why we’re involved in a trillion dollar, 50 year cold war with “allies” that stab us in the back every chance available.
“No trading nation can cut itself off.”
A nation isn’t a trading nation if all it can do is print money, buy imports and fight (others) wars.
“we think we’re too good, too moral to dirty our hands with the problems of the rest of the world.”
No, completely wrong.
We think we’ve spent too much time, treasure and blood with “the problems of the rest of the world.”
“...Explains perfectly why we’re involved in a trillion dollar, 50 year cold war with “allies” that stab us in the back every chance available. … No, completely wrong.
We think we’ve spent too much time, treasure and blood …” [JPJones, post 21]
Difficult to plumb the depths of irony here: that many Americans, shielded by two oceans, weak and/or backward neighbors, and armed might, have become convinced they have “spent too much” after suffering only a tiny fraction of the loss and societal upset that afflicted so many other countries during the 20th century. Hesitation to intervene in both World Wars can only be seen as morally puny.
But the worst conceptual mistake Americans make is this: looking at less-than-perfectly-executed intervention in (for example) Southeast Asia, or Korea, or the earlier World Wars, and judging after the fact that involvement was not worth the effort, or a strategic error. The two aspects of the problem are not related.
Of course trade deficits are troubling. And allies do not behave exactly as we’d like them to. Could all of it have been done better? Quite likely. But none of that should furnish an excuse to withdraw. Unless we enjoy being intellectually dishonest.
“Difficult to plumb the depths of irony here: that many Americans, shielded by two oceans, weak and/or backward neighbors, and armed might, have become convinced they have “spent too much” after suffering only a tiny fraction of the loss and societal upset that afflicted so many other countries during the 20th century.”
Ah yes the irony, since so many countries were “afflicted” then it’s only fair that the USA inflict same damage unto itself; such National self-flagellation is the only path to prove our worth in this world and to our European superiors as they reap the benefits of our atonement.
“Hesitation to intervene in both World Wars can only be seen as morally puny.”
Straw-man arguments are the fallacious hobgoblins of lost arguments and intellectual subordinates.
“But the worst conceptual mistake Americans make is this: looking at less-than-perfectly-executed intervention in (for example) Southeast Asia, or Korea, or the earlier World Wars, and judging after the fact that involvement was not worth the effort, or a strategic error. The two aspects of the problem are not related.”
The worst conceptual mistake Americans make is this:
Our globalist politicians and their enablers really care about this country, it’s health, wealth and prosperity.
Since Trump has been elected it’s become self-evident to a critical mass of Americans, they don’t.
“Of course trade deficits are troubling. And allies do not behave exactly as we’d like them to. Could all of it have been done better? Quite likely. But none of that should furnish an excuse to withdraw. Unless we enjoy being intellectually dishonest.”
It’s the very definition of insanity to continue to behave in a certain manner and expect different results.
Furthermore to claim in one post that this country was founded on the idea of being a “trading nation” and then to ignore other founding ideas such as “avoid foreign entanglements” smacks of the double-standard typical in intellectual dishonesty.
Or just plain ignorance or facts.
Most likely both.
“...it’s only fair that the USA inflict same damage unto itself; … as they reap the benefits of our atonement. … fallacious hobgoblins of lost arguments and intellectual subordinates. … intellectual dishonesty.
Or just plain ignorance or facts.
Most likely both.” [JPJones, post 23]
Interesting words: I have to admit to curiosity as to just what an “intellectual subordinate” is.
Word choice aside, here’s a fact that JPJones and the other members of the forum may find unpalatable:
George Washington and the other Founders were moral, fallible persons, not Divinely inspired oracles. If we take every word they wrote, every phase they uttered to the bank, we are making big mistakes of our own.
What’s more, George Washington’s Presidential farewell address is not a “founding idea,” but an observation based on the President’s experience and judgment to that date (they could hardly be based on events that had not yet happened as he left office), of the practicalities - the ups and downs - of foreign affairs. Nothing then was what it is now, when it comes to the relative position of nations, in terms of power and foreign affairs. That includes our own United States. Falling on our faces in deference to “timeless truths” and “unchanging verities” takes us nowhere - though chanting those terms over and over can comfort children, the ignorant, and the lazy.
It’s another mistake to say that the USA inflicted damage on itself, by intervention in the World Wars and the Cold War. The damage was inflicted by adversaries: US personnel were killed in action by hostile personnel, not by our own people. To insist otherwise is not “America First,” it is “nothing exists but me” - a level of egotism approaching insanity.
I’m not often intrigued by another forum member’s screen name, but JPJones has chosen one that stirs the curiosity a little. If he can tell us why John Paul Jones wasn’t the foremost American naval hero of the American War of Independence, and how he came to be so regarded, I might consider taking those accusations about ignorance of facts more seriously. At least a little.
“George Washington and the other Founders were moral, fallible persons, …” [my post 24]
Talk about word choices … my inept typing turned “mortal” into “moral.” Though - if I had to bet - I’d rate the Founders as owning the edge in being moral, compared to we Americans now living. If indeed comparisons have any validity.
“George Washington and the other Founders were moral, fallible persons, not Divinely inspired oracles. If we take every word they wrote, every phase they uttered to the bank, we are making big mistakes of our own.”
And yet you are the biggest perpetrator of that “big mistake”:
“The USA was founded as a trading nation;”
Again, intellectual dishonesty or stupidity on display.
“Falling on our faces in deference to “timeless truths” and “unchanging verities” takes us nowhere - though chanting those terms over and over can comfort children, the ignorant, and the lazy.”
The only “timeless truths” I keep hearing are from the likes of you: “Free trade” you cry over and over.
I find no comfort there, although it’s clear you do.
“I have to admit to curiosity as to just what an “intellectual subordinate” is.”
No problem google: Dunning-Kruger.
“...intellectual dishonesty or stupidity...’Free trade’ … I find no comfort there … Dunning-Kruger.” [JPJones, post 26]
I am beginning to see where you became confused: I typed the word “trade,” not “free trade.” Lots of readers skip essential elements, or become convinced they have read something that wasn’t there.
Few things should be more self-evident than the early and extensive association of the British Atlantic seaboard colonies with trade. The disputes that arose in the mid-18th century between the Colonists and Britain’s home government revolved around trade. It wasn’t a bunch of rock-ribbed pioneering isolationist backwoods subsistence farmers who revolted against British rule.
The historic fact of trade cannot be disputed, no matter how much forum members might be displeased with the way trade was conducted then, or is today. Everyone is free to feel comforted, or discomfited as they see fit. Their feelings won’t change any of it.
Defending a preferred policy position by calling on the authority [sic] of research by the likes of David Dunning and Justin Kruger won’t get you anywhere. Most hard science types, and those of us who performed applied science as part of their professions, cannot take much of psychology very seriously. It was pretty much the same with intellectuals, philosophers, attorneys, academics, economists, and the leadership hierarchy. Without descending into personal attacks, I can say that if we got anything done at all, it was in spite of the people on that list, not because of any help they gave us.
I did spend 29 years in uniform, some of it at the cutting edge of human perception, and in consultation with system designers and engineers who were looking to improve human/machine interfaces. So what people perceive or don’t perceive, and how they do it and why, was important to us. And conclusions drawn from our work was of great interest to those in the armed forces who were going in harm’s way.
When I wasn’t doing that, I was (among other things) explaining to high rankers, accountants, IG inspectors, and colleagues in different fields just what we were doing and why. Some of them had to be tutored extensively, and get talked to using very small words.
But for all that, I don’t feel slighted. There are plenty of misconceptions out there; if someone (or all of us) want to cling to this or that one, I never take it personally.
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.