today’s sacrifice may produce a longer-term and more substantial advantage.
But the task at hand is even more complex. China, Iran, and Russia are >political models that, at their core, challenge the idea of liberal >democracy. Each in its own way sees itself in civilizational opposition to >the liberal West, of which the United States is the most prominent
exemplar. So the competition cannot be reduced to materiel and arms. The >spirited rejection of liberalism — a seemingly inevitable and repeating >byproduct of liberalism’s success — needs to be met with a renewed >attachment to liberal democracy and the liberal order it fosters.
What sustained America in its fights against Nazi Germany and the Soviet >Union was not simply the threat they posed but the view that there was >something exceptional about our way of life that deserved to be preserved
and spread, where possible. Ronald Reagan’s call to “tear down this wall”
was not so much a specific policy proposal as the spirited advancement of
an agenda around which the U.S. and its democratic allies could rally.
It may be, as President Obama once suggested, that all nations consider >themselves exceptional. But by definition they cannot all be exceptional.
And more to the point, such relativism undermines the sense of right that >must ultimately animate any democratic statecraft that aims to be
sustainable over time. In fine, resisting the rise of the revisionist
powers requires knowledge of the character of those states, an
understanding of the benefits in doing so, a sense of how best to go about >the task, and, finally, as Abraham Lincoln might say, a singular
dedication to the proposition that liberal democracy is the most just form
of government and that its preservation and advancement is good both for
us and for the world.
### - iow: (and if ya need it spelled out...) it's either us or them!
(ya just can't stop what's coming huh...)
reluctance as an opportunity to advance their own plans and have done so
in a manner that the American public has noticed. Even absent a major
confrontation, American politicians may sense greater instability and
greater prospects for conflict. This may lead them to argue the case for
reversing course and, with the help of our allies, obtaining the
benefits
of deterring and containing the revisionist powers. To paraphrase
Tocqueville, when it comes to American statecraft, Americans need to
relearn the merits of acting on “self-interest rightly understood” — >> that
is, not simply looking to one’s immediate interest, but understanding
that
today’s sacrifice may produce a longer-term and more substantial
advantage.
But the task at hand is even more complex. China, Iran, and Russia are
political models that, at their core, challenge the idea of liberal
democracy. Each in its own way sees itself in civilizational opposition
to
the liberal West, of which the United States is the most prominent
exemplar. So the competition cannot be reduced to materiel and arms. The
spirited rejection of liberalism — a seemingly inevitable and repeating
byproduct of liberalism’s success — needs to be met with a renewed
attachment to liberal democracy and the liberal order it fosters.
What sustained America in its fights against Nazi Germany and the Soviet
Union was not simply the threat they posed but the view that there was
something exceptional about our way of life that deserved to be
preserved
and spread, where possible. Ronald Reagan’s call to “tear down this
wall”
was not so much a specific policy proposal as the spirited advancement
of
an agenda around which the U.S. and its democratic allies could rally.
It may be, as President Obama once suggested, that all nations consider
themselves exceptional. But by definition they cannot all be
exceptional.
And more to the point, such relativism undermines the sense of right
that
must ultimately animate any democratic statecraft that aims to be
sustainable over time. In fine, resisting the rise of the revisionist
powers requires knowledge of the character of those states, an
understanding of the benefits in doing so, a sense of how best to go
about
the task, and, finally, as Abraham Lincoln might say, a singular
dedication to the proposition that liberal democracy is the most just
form
of government and that its preservation and advancement is good both for
us and for the world.
Bloated and repetitive, it's still a good article. It's also common
sense in its conclusions.
The hottest of these hot spots is of course the South China Sea, which
is very close to Japan, Taiwan, ROK and other lesser nations. It's
also reasonably close to us in Australia but less concerning to us due
to lack of proximity and our protection as a vast island/continent.
America will not stand idly by and let Japan, ROK and Taiwan be
bullied. Japan could produce nuclear weapons in an instant and so
could we if necessary. ROK as well and if push came to shove, so
could Taiwan.
### - iow: (and if ya need it spelled out...) it's either us or them!
(ya just can't stop what's coming huh...)
Nice insight there, Slider. Good well considered commentary.
import — will fade.
If there is any “good news” here, it is that recent administrations’ >>> decisions to pull back from America’s traditional leadership role, to
retrench, and to lead from behind have not resulted in a less
problematic
world. To the contrary, China, Iran, and Russia have all read
Washington’s
reluctance as an opportunity to advance their own plans and have done so >>> in a manner that the American public has noticed. Even absent a major
confrontation, American politicians may sense greater instability and
greater prospects for conflict. This may lead them to argue the case for >>> reversing course and, with the help of our allies, obtaining the
benefits
of deterring and containing the revisionist powers. To paraphrase
Tocqueville, when it comes to American statecraft, Americans need to
relearn the merits of acting on “self-interest rightly understood” — >>> that
is, not simply looking to one’s immediate interest, but understanding
that
today’s sacrifice may produce a longer-term and more substantial
advantage.
But the task at hand is even more complex. China, Iran, and Russia are
political models that, at their core, challenge the idea of liberal
democracy. Each in its own way sees itself in civilizational opposition
to
the liberal West, of which the United States is the most prominent
exemplar. So the competition cannot be reduced to materiel and arms. The >>> spirited rejection of liberalism — a seemingly inevitable and repeating >>> byproduct of liberalism’s success — needs to be met with a renewed
attachment to liberal democracy and the liberal order it fosters.
What sustained America in its fights against Nazi Germany and the Soviet >>> Union was not simply the threat they posed but the view that there was
something exceptional about our way of life that deserved to be
preserved
and spread, where possible. Ronald Reagan’s call to “tear down this
wall”
was not so much a specific policy proposal as the spirited advancement
of
an agenda around which the U.S. and its democratic allies could rally.
It may be, as President Obama once suggested, that all nations consider
themselves exceptional. But by definition they cannot all be
exceptional.
And more to the point, such relativism undermines the sense of right
that
must ultimately animate any democratic statecraft that aims to be
sustainable over time. In fine, resisting the rise of the revisionist
powers requires knowledge of the character of those states, an
understanding of the benefits in doing so, a sense of how best to go
about
the task, and, finally, as Abraham Lincoln might say, a singular
dedication to the proposition that liberal democracy is the most just
form
of government and that its preservation and advancement is good both for >>> us and for the world.
Bloated and repetitive, it's still a good article. It's also common
sense in its conclusions.
The hottest of these hot spots is of course the South China Sea, which
is very close to Japan, Taiwan, ROK and other lesser nations. It's
also reasonably close to us in Australia but less concerning to us due
to lack of proximity and our protection as a vast island/continent.
America will not stand idly by and let Japan, ROK and Taiwan be
bullied. Japan could produce nuclear weapons in an instant and so
could we if necessary. ROK as well and if push came to shove, so
could Taiwan.
### - iow: (and if ya need it spelled out...) it's either us or them!
(ya just can't stop what's coming huh...)
Nice insight there, Slider. Good well considered commentary.
### - well, you weren't 'getting' what i was 'less-academically' >saying/suggesting otherwise, without it perforce all first being rendered >into some kinda appropriate 'lingo' (hehe) that you could more easily >recognise/get-hold of, instead of intuiting things more as i myself do + >always encourage 'you' to do too heh! ('coz it's easier/less >restricting/far-faster you pedantic git lol)
iow: this (the above article) is what i've only 'been' basically >saying/suggesting all along! and that you always take such objection to!
and now here you are nearly agreeing with me instead?! (but only because
it's a reasonable argument/observation! right?)
but ok, if you can accept the above as a working premise, a template if
you will, then lol we can 'finally' move on from merely haggling over >'concept' to actually discussing the problem! (at last whew! + lots'a >hahaha's...)
a 'problem' that utterly presupposes lincolns proposition that liberal >democracy is the most just form of government and that its preservation
and advancement is good both for us and for the world... which, on the >surface of things, at least 'sounds' reasonable enough 'and' has tons of >appeal, but to what extent and at just what cost exactly to maybe 'other' >cultures and shit in the process?? and that is until it's applied, for >example, to native americans and we see just exactly what happened (and
what was ultimately applied) to them?? in which case; one *wouldn't* in
the present climate exactly wanna be russian, chinese and/or muslim with
THAT lot coming up over the hill atcha' now would ya?! (riiight...)
and 'coz we already 'know' precisely where THAT'S all going don't we!?
bye-bye native americans!
truth is... islam ain't actually any good at all this? they're only new to >all this! thus they're a pushover! russia & china, however, are a
completely different ball game!?
AND... they damn well KNOW what's coming!
whoa! did ya see what they just did to their own injuns? and we're next?? >('chatter' hehehe...)
ya see, the problem with the red indians, was that they'd lived their own
way for sooo very long indeed, and were so completely happy with it, that >they just couldn't now 'be' reprogrammed to fit into a completely
new/alien paradigm!
of course, our problem now, is that we actually kinda regret wiping 'em
all out? and the fuckin' WAY we did it too?! damn! - and now here's 3 NEW >sets of injuns to deal with as well??
so, do we merely resort to type for old-times sake, or... evolve?
well it's all hanging in the balance currently sport! as though on a
scaffold heh...
just swingin' in the fuckin' breeze lol... our/their whole future & fate!
meanwhile... back in wallyworld... in the land of the dumbed-down...
"Life goes on much the same. In the face of terrifying dangers and
golden political opportunities, people just keep-on keeping-on in a
sort of twilight sleep in which they're conscious of nothing but the >daily-round of work, family life, darts at the pub, exercising the
dog, bringing home the supper, beer, etc, etc."
--George Orwell - walking around 1940's London during the fucking blitz
haha ;)
***
well my friend, have ostensibly done/changed all yer filters & fluids etc, >upgraded your various pumps and washers, have even tuned the old gal up
quite a fair bit for ya's in the process too... and 'now' all we gots to
do is see just how she runs & handles when we fire her up a bit + just
hope she don't blow out one of yer' new gaskets hahaha! :D
(smiling, slider slowly wipes his oily hands on an old rag as thang drives >off...)
bon voyage + happy landings me old sport!
looks good! not bad, not bad at all...
for a cunt! hehehehehe... ;)
really a matter of policy choices and priorities.
To take the revisionist challenge seriously requires the American body >>>> politic to relearn the value of American leadership in defending the
liberal order it largely created after World War II. It requires
political
leaders to make the case for the benefits that leadership and primacy
bring to America. Like an understanding and appreciation of American
government itself, this is something that every generation of
Americans
must (re)learn. Left untaught, it — and the historical memory of its >>>> import — will fade.
If there is any “good news” here, it is that recent administrations’ >>>> decisions to pull back from America’s traditional leadership role, to >>>> retrench, and to lead from behind have not resulted in a less
problematic
world. To the contrary, China, Iran, and Russia have all read
Washington’s
reluctance as an opportunity to advance their own plans and have done
so
in a manner that the American public has noticed. Even absent a major
confrontation, American politicians may sense greater instability and
greater prospects for conflict. This may lead them to argue the case
for
reversing course and, with the help of our allies, obtaining the
benefits
of deterring and containing the revisionist powers. To paraphrase
Tocqueville, when it comes to American statecraft, Americans need to
relearn the merits of acting on “self-interest rightly understood” — >>>> that
is, not simply looking to one’s immediate interest, but understanding >>>> that
today’s sacrifice may produce a longer-term and more substantial
advantage.
But the task at hand is even more complex. China, Iran, and Russia are >>>> political models that, at their core, challenge the idea of liberal
democracy. Each in its own way sees itself in civilizational
opposition
to
the liberal West, of which the United States is the most prominent
exemplar. So the competition cannot be reduced to materiel and arms.
The
spirited rejection of liberalism — a seemingly inevitable and
repeating
byproduct of liberalism’s success — needs to be met with a renewed >>>> attachment to liberal democracy and the liberal order it fosters.
What sustained America in its fights against Nazi Germany and the
Soviet
Union was not simply the threat they posed but the view that there was >>>> something exceptional about our way of life that deserved to be
preserved
and spread, where possible. Ronald Reagan’s call to “tear down this >>>> wall”
was not so much a specific policy proposal as the spirited advancement >>>> of
an agenda around which the U.S. and its democratic allies could rally. >>>>
It may be, as President Obama once suggested, that all nations
consider
themselves exceptional. But by definition they cannot all be
exceptional.
And more to the point, such relativism undermines the sense of right
that
must ultimately animate any democratic statecraft that aims to be
sustainable over time. In fine, resisting the rise of the revisionist
powers requires knowledge of the character of those states, an
understanding of the benefits in doing so, a sense of how best to go
about
the task, and, finally, as Abraham Lincoln might say, a singular
dedication to the proposition that liberal democracy is the most just
form
of government and that its preservation and advancement is good both
for
us and for the world.
Bloated and repetitive, it's still a good article. It's also common
sense in its conclusions.
The hottest of these hot spots is of course the South China Sea, which
is very close to Japan, Taiwan, ROK and other lesser nations. It's
also reasonably close to us in Australia but less concerning to us due
to lack of proximity and our protection as a vast island/continent.
America will not stand idly by and let Japan, ROK and Taiwan be
bullied. Japan could produce nuclear weapons in an instant and so
could we if necessary. ROK as well and if push came to shove, so
could Taiwan.
### - iow: (and if ya need it spelled out...) it's either us or them!
(ya just can't stop what's coming huh...)
Nice insight there, Slider. Good well considered commentary.
### - well, you weren't 'getting' what i was 'less-academically'
saying/suggesting otherwise, without it perforce all first being
rendered
into some kinda appropriate 'lingo' (hehe) that you could more easily
recognise/get-hold of, instead of intuiting things more as i myself do +
always encourage 'you' to do too heh! ('coz it's easier/less
restricting/far-faster you pedantic git lol)
What a patronising and condescending cunt you can be sometimes.
Do
you speak to your friends or relatives like this, or anyone in real
life? Good lord...
iow: this (the above article) is what i've only 'been' basically
saying/suggesting all along! and that you always take such objection to!
and now here you are nearly agreeing with me instead?! (but only because
it's a reasonable argument/observation! right?)
Oh don't be so amazed and ingenuous. I will always agree with facts,
how can I not? Even if a mangy dog spouted a fact, I would agree.
but ok, if you can accept the above as a working premise, a template if
you will, then lol we can 'finally' move on from merely haggling over
'concept' to actually discussing the problem! (at last whew! + lots'a
hahaha's...)
Lotsa bulldust you mean :)
a 'problem' that utterly presupposes lincolns proposition that liberal
democracy is the most just form of government and that its preservation
and advancement is good both for us and for the world... which, on the
surface of things, at least 'sounds' reasonable enough 'and' has tons of
appeal, but to what extent and at just what cost exactly to maybe
'other'
cultures and shit in the process?? and that is until it's applied, for
example, to native americans and we see just exactly what happened (and
what was ultimately applied) to them?? in which case; one *wouldn't* in
the present climate exactly wanna be russian, chinese and/or muslim with
THAT lot coming up over the hill atcha' now would ya?! (riiight...)
and 'coz we already 'know' precisely where THAT'S all going don't we!?
bye-bye native americans!
Survival of the fittest unfortunately. Since chimpanzees and humans
branched off the primate line, there have been many many species of
humans - evolution at work.
Only we have survived. It's hypothesised that for each of these
extinct species has been eliminated by others, generally the
succeeding evolutionary step until, we come to us. There's evidence
that we shared this world with Neanderthal for a while, but we
probably killed them off, as our preceding species killed off their predecessors as well. When we evolve into the next big-brained step,
I guess we'll be killed off in turn.
It's just the way of nature and the world slider. No need to get your knickers in a twist over it.
truth is... islam ain't actually any good at all this? they're only new
to
all this! thus they're a pushover! russia & china, however, are a
completely different ball game!?
AND... they damn well KNOW what's coming!
What are you on about? If Putin had known what the push back from
NATO would have been after he took the Donbass and poverty stricken
Crimea, he would never have done it.
Now, there's a revitalised NATO
presence all through the Baltics, Poland, and right down to Romania
and Hungary. He miscalulated. Putin can't read a crystal ball, nor
can anyone else. You're talking nonsense again.
whoa! did ya see what they just did to their own injuns? and we're
next??
('chatter' hehehe...)
ya see, the problem with the red indians, was that they'd lived their
own
way for sooo very long indeed, and were so completely happy with it,
that
they just couldn't now 'be' reprogrammed to fit into a completely
new/alien paradigm!
of course, our problem now, is that we actually kinda regret wiping 'em
all out? and the fuckin' WAY we did it too?! damn! - and now here's 3
NEW
sets of injuns to deal with as well??
What rubbish. They haven't all been wiped out at all. Same as our aboriginals, they haven't been wiped out either (just the Tasmanian
ones).
so, do we merely resort to type for old-times sake, or... evolve?
You do realise don't you that when we do evolve, the new man will look
at homa sapiens in the same way we look at chimpanzees. And dangerous chimpanzees at that, with the finger on the nuclear button. It's
likely that when we evolve into the next species, we will be rendered
extinct by the new species.
well it's all hanging in the balance currently sport! as though on a
scaffold heh...
just swingin' in the fuckin' breeze lol... our/their whole future &
fate!
meanwhile... back in wallyworld... in the land of the dumbed-down...
Which doesn't include you, right?
"Life goes on much the same. In the face of terrifying dangers and
golden political opportunities, people just keep-on keeping-on in a
sort of twilight sleep in which they're conscious of nothing but the
daily-round of work, family life, darts at the pub, exercising the
dog, bringing home the supper, beer, etc, etc."
That's bullshit pure and simple. The majority may well hide behind
such comforts, but even the majority are fully aware of the various
perils confronting the world. The minority, all hundred million or
so, are even more aware of all of the perils confronting us and our
species.
--George Orwell - walking around 1940's London during the fucking blitz
haha ;)
Orwell was a writer and like everyone else, he got it wrong from time
to time. He was also commenting on the stolid and brave demeanour of
the Brits under the seige. A lot of British after the war considered
the Blitz to be the highlight of their entire lives, the period under
which they were most aware and awake. Hardly a recollection of an
entire people who were asleep.
***
well my friend, have ostensibly done/changed all yer filters & fluids
etc,
upgraded your various pumps and washers, have even tuned the old gal up
quite a fair bit for ya's in the process too... and 'now' all we gots to
do is see just how she runs & handles when we fire her up a bit + just
hope she don't blow out one of yer' new gaskets hahaha! :D
(smiling, slider slowly wipes his oily hands on an old rag as thang
drives
off...)
bon voyage + happy landings me old sport!
looks good! not bad, not bad at all...
for a cunt! hehehehehe... ;)
Silly metaphor.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 103:41:30 |
| Calls: | 2,071 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,135 |
| Messages: | 947,038 |