American Ineffectualism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


TheHeretic -> American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 8:26:55 AM)

Here's a good bit of analysis on the Syria debacle, and where it leaves us.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358480/american-ineffectualism-mark-steyn





mnottertail -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 8:34:13 AM)

Jeez, I found it vapid, vacuous, and cloyingly stupid. I wonder how a Canadian can analyze the 'ineffectualism' of American foreign policy with such inside insight, whose end result has yet to occur?




DesideriScuri -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 9:26:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Here's a good bit of analysis on the Syria debacle, and where it leaves us.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358480/american-ineffectualism-mark-steyn


Holy shit was this part funny!!!
    quote:

    This is what happens when you elect someone because he looks cool standing next to Jay-Z. Putin is cool mainly in the sense that Yakutsk in February is. In American pop-culture terms, he is a faintly ridiculous figure, with his penchant for homoerotic shirtlessness, his nipples entering the room like an advance security team; the celebrities he attracts are like some rerun channel way up the end of the dial: Goldie Hawn was in the crowd when Putin, for no apparent reason, sang “I found my thrill on Blueberry Hill,” which Goldie seemed to enjoy. In reality, Putin finds his thrill by grabbing Obama’s blueberries and squeezing hard. Cold beats cool.


Agree or disagree with the statements, you have to admit Mark Steyn is quite the wordsmith. Damn.

Marco Rubio was brought up and linked to his response to Putin, in support of American Exceptionalism. I think it is important to read what he wrote, so I'm quoting it.
    quote:

    In this morning’s New York Times, Russian president Vladimir Putin argued that America is not exceptional, and that American leadership does not make the world safer. I could not disagree more strongly.

    While Russia and the U.S. did work together to defeat the Nazis in World War II as Putin points out, our histories since then tell two very different stories. While strong U.S. leadership rebuilt a free and prosperous Western Europe after the war, the Soviet Union did the opposite, spreading a Communist ideology that imprisoned people behind walls and on islands. The U.S. won the Cold War because of our willingness to lead the free world, and today we remain the world’s sole super power. The question facing our nation now is whether we will continue to lead in the future. I believe we must.

    History teaches us that a strong and engaged America is a source of good in the world. No nation has liberated more people or done more to raise living standards around the world through trade and charity than the United States. We remain a beacon of hope for people around the world.

    History also teaches us that the best way to preserve the peace is to have the military power to win any war. We must ensure that our military power remains unquestioned and unequaled. That is why I support investing in our military — because failure to do so will ultimately prove even more costly and more dangerous.

    In his op-ed, President Putin said that action in Syria without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council would “constitute an act of aggression.” I believe that while we should always work to build international coalitions and consensus, we cannot place all of our faith in or compromise our sovereignty to the international community. The United Nations is a fine forum for debate, but time and again it has proven unreliable when it comes to actual action. The U.S. should never abdicate our national security to anybody — especially an international body that includes many who don’t share our democratic ideals.

    America’s national security should focus on providing for our security without violating our liberties. Our foreign policy should sustain and deepen our relationships with our allies, including those who are threatened because of their willingness to stand with America.

    If we follow these principles, the world will be safer, freer, and more prosperous, and the 21st century will be another American century.


I fully believe that, if this was 2016, Marco Rubio has demonstrated his complete lack of understanding in running the country and foreign affairs. He could get some learning in, in the next 2½ years, but he's not ready. He's even OMG not ready.

Based on his claim that calling on the UN to dictate actions in Syria would be the US abdicating National Security to the UN is beyond ridiculous. Almost anything could be (mis)construed as impacting US National Security. If it's a negative impact, apparently, Senator Rubio wants to be able to unilaterally attack any country, any time.

That's fucking dangerous.




DaddySatyr -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 9:50:10 AM)

I agree with DS' assessment of Marco Rubio. I'll go further; I think what he describes is exactly the kind of misconception of "American Exceptionalism" that is the reason why it is used as vitriol.

I agree, in essence, with the letter that DS posted from the Heritage Foundation(?) in that we are exceptional by way of being unique in the principles upon which we were founded and our (sometimes meager) efforts to uphold that tradition.

I have said this before and I will repeat it: I am sick to death of cleaning up everyone's messes around the world and recovering only a depletion of our most precious blood, economic instability, and hatred from most of the world for our efforts.

Chemical weapons in only three countries could affect us (Canadia, Mexico, and Cuba). Nuclear weapons would be a whole nother issue but you can bet your bottom dollar that the normally useless UN would saddle up for that.

What people do to themselves (civil war) in other parts of the world may be heartbreaking but, I'd rather not break our own hearts (deaths of our children), our pocketbooks, or our reputation than to become embroiled in another lose/lose situation.




dcnovice -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 10:34:58 AM)

FR

Interesting read. The author has a certain verve and bite that no doubt made the piece very tasty for the target audience.

I was disappointed, though, by the shortage of substance. As Disraeli pointed out, it's easier to be critical than correct. Steyn does an entertaining job of the former but makes no effort at the latter. It would have been interesting to know what course he advocates vis-a-vis Syria. What would be the costs and benefits of that strategy? It would also have been illuminating to hear what he thinks Obama should have done. He seems to feel the President should not have drawn the red line, but he doesn't tell us what would have been a more effect response to the situation. Strikes? Multillateral police action? Sanctions? Nothing? Perhaps he sees Syria as "a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing"?

I was intrigued when Steyn mentioned Theodore Roosevelt, because his essay had already brought two of the Bull Moose's views to mind:

-- "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

-- "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."




dcnovice -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 11:01:57 AM)

FR

Me again.

As a gay man, I was intrigued by Steyn's deployment of the word "homoerotic." A few thoughts:

-- If Obama's topless photos are homoerotic, are Putin's as well?

-- I gather homoeroticism is a bad thing in the mind of National Review readers. Perhaps Steyn's invocation of it is an effort at an elegant way to call the President a "girly man"?

-- The essay itself struck me as homoerotic. Steyn seems to have a bit of a boy-crush on the domly Russian leader.




DomKen -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 11:04:52 AM)

So if the Syrians give up their chemical weapons without us even dropping one bomb or launching one missile how would the President be ineffectual




VideoAdminChi -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 11:18:18 AM)

FR,

A number of posts have been removed. Please stick to the topic and do not make other posters the topic.




Winterapple -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 11:36:19 AM)

I will give the boys at National Review points for word choice.
No doubt Buckley smiles in the other realm when one of his
acolytes uses the word codswallop.

But, yes one did get a sense that the writer was crushing on Putin
a bit. Obama hate springs from and takes its supplicants to some
interesting places.




crazyml -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 11:37:42 AM)

Excellent observation - Putin's pr is fantastically homoerotic.




crazyml -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 11:38:51 AM)

Would we be where we are had Obama not raised the stakes?




OrionTheWolf -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 1:48:38 PM)

That same could then be said for all the strong stances that Russia, China and even Syria has taken. Assad said that if the US were to strike that everything they had would be used. When you have chemical weapons and not afraid to use them, then saying anything can happen is raising the stakes all the way to the top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Would we be where we are had Obama not raised the stakes?





DesideriScuri -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 1:55:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
FR
Me again.
As a gay man, I was intrigued by Steyn's deployment of the word "homoerotic." A few thoughts:
-- If Obama's topless photos are homoerotic, are Putin's as well?
-- I gather homoeroticism is a bad thing in the mind of National Review readers. Perhaps Steyn's invocation of it is an effort at an elegant way to call the President a "girly man"?
-- The essay itself struck me as homoerotic. Steyn seems to have a bit of a boy-crush on the domly Russian leader.


Actually, Steyn was talking abouyt Putin's topless photo's as being homoerotic. "Homoerotic" was used properly, but it likely was not supposed to convey a positive meaning.






cloudboy -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 2:00:41 PM)


Are you going to pick a proposed course of action or not?

You views really seem like a kid in a classroom who doesn't like his teacher.




Yachtie -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 2:03:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, Steyn was talking abouyt Putin's topless photo's as being homoerotic. "Homoerotic" was used properly, but it likely was not supposed to convey a positive meaning.


Agreed as to westerners nominally, though to a Russian such is interpreted differently. Putin's macho pics are, to my understanding, like a heavy-weight boxer is to Americans.




dcnovice -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 3:51:29 PM)

quote:

Actually, Steyn was talking abouyt Putin's topless photo's as being homoerotic. "Homoerotic" was used properly, but it likely was not supposed to convey a positive meaning.

My bad; I misread that. I agree that "homoerotic" was not used as a compliment.




getoutnow -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 4:05:38 PM)

.




DarkSteven -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 4:39:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I agree with DS' assessment of Marco Rubio. I'll go further; I think what he describes is exactly the kind of misconception of "American Exceptionalism" that is the reason why it is used as vitriol.

I agree, in essence, with the letter that DS posted from the Heritage Foundation(?) in that we are exceptional by way of being unique in the principles upon which we were founded and our (sometimes meager) efforts to uphold that tradition.

I have said this before and I will repeat it: I am sick to death of cleaning up everyone's messes around the world and recovering only a depletion of our most precious blood, economic instability, and hatred from most of the world for our efforts.



Agreed.

Rubio starts off with things with which I agree regarding the US and Russia. That said, stating them out loud will do nothing more than provoke the bear (and score points at home with 2016-voting conservative voters, of course). Then he makes a very dangerous detour from us providing an ideal to shoot for, to our manifest destiny to invade any sovereign nation we please, just because we're so damned virtuous.

Regarding our "cleaning up everyone's messes" - IMO we created more messes than we solved in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. I see no reason why Syria would be different.




DarkSteven -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 4:42:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So if the Syrians give up their chemical weapons without us even dropping one bomb or launching one missile how would the President be ineffectual


1. If the whole thing was a high stakes bluff, then the stakes were too high for me.
2. If it was a bluff, then the reason it worked was because Bush did the same thing and didn't accept concessions but invaded anyway when not expected to (else the international community would not have authorized force). Weird.
3. As some retired general stated in a CNN opinion piece, verifying the destruction of weaponry will involve boots on the ground. In hostile territory where both sides would love to collect US scalps. It will NOT be effortless and painless.




DomKen -> RE: American Ineffectualism (9/14/2013 5:56:13 PM)

I'm guessing the verification will be done by Hans Blix and his UN inspectors not by US troops.

As to whether it was a bluff, I don't think it was. I see it as Syria and Russia jumping at any chance to prevent the strikes they thought were inevitable.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875