20th century ideological history

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree American interests remain unchanged.

However, I don't equate Obama's interests with American interests.

Agreeing with such interests is quite different from their very American origins.

That's why you have a national healthcare bill in effect now. That's why GM is being run by the government? That's why the banking industry is on the verge of being nationalized? That's why he is apologizing for America to the rest of the world.

The Americans implemented expensive national health care programs many many years ago, and Obama's incremental success continues the trend going back to Teddy Roosevelt. Bailout precedence has only been exceeded in scale for GM and Wall Street, not fact. Apologies are consistent with a "good cop - bad cop" political framework.

[bloodyminded]

Reverted? America has traditionally had a perspective of sovereignty and other nations have looked to it for leadership. Obama is moving it toward a commonwealth of nations - if that's a return to centuries of doctrine but I thought that was what the American revolution was about.

But I disagree with your conclusions here. Yes, America has always had a perspective of sovereignty, which is reasonable surely; and it still does under Obama. He couldn't move it towards a "commonwealth of nation" even if he wanted to...which he doesn't.

[Pliny]

But I disagree with your conclusions here. Yes, America has always had a perspective of sovereignty, which is reasonable surely; and it still does under Obama. He couldn't move it towards a "commonwealth of nation" even if he wanted to...which he doesn't.

I think he does. But we can disagree.

[Jack Weber]

Pliny, I appreciate your perspective on this. There are certainly examples of 'blind spots' in the media that don't appear to be ideologically driven. Spain was a dictatorship into the 70s I believe. Likewise, Chile had an oppressive regime that executed peaceful protesters and students in that era.

My question is: how many of those blind spots persist today and what are they ?

Blind spots today?

Most sub-Saharan African regimes are horrendous dictatorships...Cameroon comes to mind under Paul Biya.

Check out the Cameroon Coat of Arms and notice the two crossed objects in the back.

The fairly recently deceased former President of Gabon was another winner...

Robert Mugabe is'nt the only nut under the Sahara Desert...

Edited May 22, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Pliny]

Blind spots today?

Most sub-Saharan African regimes are horrendous dictatorships...Cameroon comes to mind under Paul Biya.

Check out the Cameroon Coat of Arms and notice the two crossed objects in the back.

The fairly recently deceased former President of Gabon was another winner...

Robert Mugabe is'nt the only nut under the Sahara Desert...

Apparently, the powers that be are giving Africa back to the Africans.

[Pliny]

Agreeing with such interests is quite different from their very American origins.

The Americans implemented expensive national health care programs many many years ago, and Obama's incremental success continues the trend going back to Teddy Roosevelt. Bailout precedence has only been exceeded in scale for GM and Wall Street, not fact. Apologies are consistent with a "good cop - bad cop" political framework.

I'm not sure I completely get what you are saying here but it's clear you are defending Obama as doing nothing more than continuing a long line of successive Presidents that have "implemented" socialist concepts over the last century.

As you are probably aware I view socialism as a progressive means of achieving it's inevitable end of total government. Thus, I view what you are saying as obvious. The question is, how far down the line is America in becoming the complete socialist State? Will Obama be the great implementer bringing America in lockstep with the rest of the world eliminating America's role of being any kind of cop - good or bad and centralizing the power of "cop" in the hands of global interests?

It seems he is seeking higher status than just President of the United States.

He has some really trying times ahead of him domestically and I think will be neutered in the 2010 elections becoming a lame duck President like Bush was in his final two years.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure I completely get what you are saying here but it's clear you are defending Obama as doing nothing more than continuing a long line of successive Presidents that have "implemented" socialist concepts over the last century.

America has teetered back and forth about a mean that has slowly realized more and more of its theoretical underpinnings for all social and economic classes, not just freemen landowners. Whenever that reach has extended too far (e.g. labor movement and communism), there has been a strong backlash to prevent total capitulation to full blown socialism.

As you are probably aware I view socialism as a progressive means of achieving it's inevitable end of total government. Thus, I view what you are saying as obvious. The question is, how far down the line is America in becoming the complete socialist State? Will Obama be the great implementer bringing America in lockstep with the rest of the world eliminating America's role of being any kind of cop - good or bad and centralizing the power of "cop" in the hands of global interests?

I am less concerned about such an outcome because it would violate the prime directive of American autonomy. A reduced role for America is not inconsistent with the rise of something else to replace current circumstances. This is particularly true if one remembers that the primary driver for American leadership is stability and trade to feed the mothership; if that ceases to exist or is greatly diminished, then so does the role.

It seems he is seeking higher status than just President of the United States.

Indeed, as he will need far more power than the office can provide to achieve his alleged socialist goals.

He has some really trying times ahead of him domestically and I think will be neutered in the 2010 elections becoming a lame duck President like Bush was in his final two years.

Probably the likely outcome, if only because of natural mid-term ebb and flow for Congress. President Obama has arguably achieved less than President Reagan even with the advantage of House and Senate majorities. He has expended much political capital on health care reforms that won't even be realized until 2014.

Edited May 22, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Back to Spain. Franco gets a break because he stayed neutral during WW2. This was huge. If he had allied himself with the Axis, the British would have lost Gibraltar shortly followed by Malta and Suez. Without the need to fight a simultaneous campaign in North Africa, the possibility of a German victory in Russia would have been much greater.

[Bonam]

Without the need to fight a simultaneous campaign in North Africa, the possibility of a German victory in Russia would have been much greater.

Not really. People in the West seem really miseducated about the relative scale of the various campaigns. The Eastern front consumed the vast majority of Germany's manpower and resources as is, rerouting the comparatively meager forces they had in North Africa wouldn't have mattered one iota. Much like Napoleon before him, the moment Hitler decided to invade Russia, he lost the war.

[Wilber]

Not really. People in the West seem really miseducated about the relative scale of the various campaigns. The Eastern front consumed the vast majority of Germany's manpower and resources as is, rerouting the comparatively meager forces they had in North Africa wouldn't have mattered one iota. Much like Napoleon before him, the moment Hitler decided to invade Russia, he lost the war.

It's true the ground forces they had in North Africa weren't large compared to Russia but when Tunisia fell the allies took 275,000 POW's which would have been very welcome in Russia. The effect of 275,000 additional troops and their equipment might quite possibly tipped the balance at Stalingrad or Kursk. The Germans had to also commit large air assets in an attempt to eliminate Malta and lost large amounts of equipment trying to supply their forces in North Africa. They also had to garrison many parts of the Mediterranean to counter any threats from allied forces in the area. Without an allied presence in the Mediterranean the Germans would have had free access to the Middle Eastern oil fields. Without an allied victory in North Africa, the invasions of Sicily and Italy would have been impossible. With the loss of Suez, it would have been much more difficult for the British to continue the war against the Japanese in South East Asia, with even the possibility of the Germans linking up with the Japanese from the west.

The scale of the military campaigns may have been very different but the their strategic importance was not.