Two America's

[Nighteye]

Written by a former Senator in his book in about 1966:

"There are two Americas. One is the America of Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson; the other is the America of Teddy Roosevelt and the modern superpatriots. One is generous and humane, the other narrowly egotistical; one is self-critical, the other self-righteous; one is sensible, the other romantic; one is good-humored, the other solemn; one is inquiring, the other pontificating; one is moderate, the other filled with passionate intensity; one is judicious and the other arrogant in the use of great power."

J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, The Arrogance of Power

I support the former america, not the latter. Comment.

[Nighteye]

Two America's

[GunnyPete]

I like that, and the reason I like that is that we can be both.  That is what makes us America.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Nighteye

Written by a former Senator in his book in about 1966:

"There are two Americas. One is the America of Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson; the other is the America of Teddy Roosevelt and the modern superpatriots. One is generous and humane, the other narrowly egotistical; one is self-critical, the other self-righteous; one is sensible, the other romantic; one is good-humored, the other solemn; one is inquiring, the other pontificating; one is moderate, the other filled with passionate intensity; one is judicious and the other arrogant in the use of great power."

J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, The Arrogance of Power

I support the former america, not the latter. Comment.

I don't understand this comment.  He mixes the responses.  At first he describes one if we assume each comment is reflective of one party vs the next as narrowly egotistical and self righteous.   If you follow the same one vs the other, he also describes the same party as romantic, solemn, pontificating, passionate intensity, and arrogant in great power.

This looks more like a collection of different aspects of each party than it looks like a comparison.

Either party could apply all the postives to itself and the negatives to the other party.  Since this is written by a Demorat, I think we all know who he would label what

[mikevalla]

Well, some of those 'answers' may be reflected somewhat as positives; however, given the more negative beginning, it is more likely to be interpreted as negative for the more modern party.

HOwever, look at it this way, folks.  After the Civil War, Lincoln insisted on rebuilding the South.  Why?  To make the average citizen feel that they were well-cared for, by their own government.   This would, of course, have quelled most major uprisings, leading to a decrease in the chances of a second Civil War.  However, after the Iraq War (the majority of the destruction, that is), most Americans were shocked to hear that the US would be held responsible, in large part, of the rebuilding of Iraq.  Also, it doesn't seem, in retrospect, that good old Dubya had thought that much through in his plans (or that it was mentioned, but ignored; for whatever reason, you can insert your own opinion).  I ask you, then, why is it so shocking that we should be held responsible for the rebuilding of a country we helped tear down?

[Reflex]

Originally posted by: GunnyPete

I like that, and the reason I like that is that we can be both.  That is what makes us America.

I second this statement, and further I'll state that I feel both personality types are valuable at different times in our history.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: mikevalla

Well, some of those 'answers' may be reflected somewhat as positives; however, given the more negative beginning, it is more likely to be interpreted as negative for the more modern party.

HOwever, look at it this way, folks.  After the Civil War, Lincoln insisted on rebuilding the South.  Why?  To make the average citizen feel that they were well-cared for, by their own government.   This would, of course, have quelled most major uprisings, leading to a decrease in the chances of a second Civil War.  However, after the Iraq War (the majority of the destruction, that is), most Americans were shocked to hear that the US would be held responsible, in large part, of the rebuilding of Iraq.  Also, it doesn't seem, in retrospect, that good old Dubya had thought that much through in his plans (or that it was mentioned, but ignored; for whatever reason, you can insert your own opinion).  I ask you, then, why is it so shocking that we should be held responsible for the rebuilding of a country we helped tear down?

I really didn't get the feeling that America was shocked that it would be held responsible for helping to rebuild.

And lets not mince words here, Bush did an incredibly poor job invading and keeping the peace in Iraq for at least a year.   There was a military guy on a few nights ago that said we lost 18 months of training due to poor planning.    Its sad and a major screwup but we are there now and can't leave until they are strong again to fight terrorists trying to take over when we leave.

[Rocky]

"we are there now and can't leave until they are strong again to fight terrorists trying to take over when we leave. "

I agree with that 100%

"I really didn't get the feeling that America was shocked that it would be held responsible for helping to rebuild. "

I dont agree with that though. For whatever reason we are there now, the biggest reason we went to war with Iraq was because America was convinced that Saddam was a threat to us.  We have since proven that he was in no way as big of threat to us as we were lead to beleive. The average person didnt think we were going there to make Iraq a great place, we went there cause they were a threat. Also people were told that we'd be fitting the bill for all rebuilding efforts.

[Babar]

Fulbright? While he had some good thoughts now and then there's some validity to President Johnson's nickname for him: Senator Halfbright.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Babar

Fulbright? While he had some good thoughts now and then there's some validity to President Johnson's nickname for him: Senator Halfbright.

haha  but Johnson could be an ***** even though he was a good man

His highway sucks though.  Too much traffic

[ScutMonkey]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Originally posted by: GunnyPete



I like that, and the reason I like that is that we can be both.  That is what makes us America.

I second this statement, and further I'll state that I feel both personality types are valuable at different times in our history.

I always wonder what this country and the world would have been like if we hadn't been such power grubbing jerks at various points in our history?  There's nothing romatic or noble about the way we stole all the land from indians or how we fed Napolean money for his wars by ripping him off over the Lousianna purchase (something with Jefferson did illegally and could have been impeached and thrown out over).  Teddy and his various wars/Imperialism?  Roosevelt and his conniving to get us into WW2 (Japan just made it easier).  These have been very, VERY good things for the US, but they weren't very noble things to do.

[ScutMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"we are there now and can't leave until they are strong again to fight terrorists trying to take over when we leave. "

I agree with that 100%

"I really didn't get the feeling that America was shocked that it would be held responsible for helping to rebuild. "

I dont agree with that though. For whatever reason we are there now, the biggest reason we went to war with Iraq was because America was convinced that Saddam was a threat to us.  We have since proven that he was in no way as big of threat to us as we were lead to beleive. The average person didnt think we were going there to make Iraq a great place, we went there cause they were a threat. Also people were told that we'd be fitting the bill for all rebuilding efforts.

Regardless of whether or not we went to war to help the Iraqi people or for our own safety, you'd have to be a naive idiot/moron to think we weren't going to be there cleaning up the mess for a damn long time and at great financial cost if we won.  That's the history of all our wars in the 20th century.  Why would the 21st be any different?  It's just not the American way for us to demolish something and leave.  Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, the Phillipeans, Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc...  Only time we don't is when someone won't let us (Vietnam, Cuba after Castro).

[Rocky]

I think you'd have to be an idiot/moron of a leader if you didn't tell the American people that before they went to war.

[ScutMonkey]

I'm sorry, it can't be much clearer:

Tonight I also have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in and near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lie ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you.
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This Nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means - sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military - and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food, and medicines, and supplies...and freedom.

There you go.  Told it was going to cost us in Human lives and that we'd be bringing food, medicine, supply, in other words we'd be bringing then things necessary to rebuild, just as we did in Afghanistan.

http://www.c-span.org/executiv...e=bush_admin&year=2003

[Rocky]

Sorry Scut I dont think that really told us anything other than people die in war. No mention of the costs or how we plan on paying fo rit.

[Babar]

If war is forced upon us

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Scut, thanks, I needed that laugh.

Saddam refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction FORCED THIS WAR UPON US!!!

President Bush outlines Iraqi threat

We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

(Psst...we gave them those chemical weapons)



Forced to, my butt.

[ScutMonkey]

Well see, now you're not making sense, Babar.  If we GAVE Saddam chem weaps, then where are they?  Either they had them or they didn't.  

You know what, I'm not even getting into this again.  I've had this argument over and over and over again and now there's even a book on the Duelfer findings which shows Saddam had the precursors (rockets, chemicals, people) to make them but hadn't yet.  Everyone's going to believe what they want to believe regardless.

[Reflex]

I'm just going to point out that both chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life.  Most of what we gave Saddam during the 80's would be gone by now.  THe concern as I understood it was his ability to manufacture such weapons and stockpile them, which is something else entirely.

[fall-apart]

The UN should have been forced under the terms of the 91 agreement to go to war... I don't know why you're laughing Babar.  It is clear that Saddam violated numerous provisos according to which the UN should have intervened militarily sometime between 92 and 03... that they didn't condemns them as just as weak and futile as the League that preceded them.

[Rocky]

"Either they had them or they didn't. "

Theres the count chocula argument again.  So by that measure the United States has slaves?

[Babar]

Ahhhhh, my dear Scut... Reflex got to you before I could respond, but I'll just point out one other thing... Ever hear of the 1991 Gulf War? Perhaps you would agree that the United States destroyed whatever was left of what they gave Saddam. Logical, too, now that I think about it.

[fall-apart]

IIRC, the US didn't go into Iraq in 1991 - they just pushed them out of Kuwait... can someone confirm?

[GunnyPete]

We did go into Iraq in 1991.  We did a lot of bombing during the air campain.  During the ground war, it was mostly Marines, British and Kuwaiti forces that went into Kuwait. The Army went went into Iraq (almost up to Baghdad) then cut right and down.  After the war we had military and CIA up with the Kurds for a while trying to get them to revolt, but then we pulled out and just ended up getting a lot of them killed.  Also the no fly zone went into Iraq quite a ways.

[fall-apart]

Was the no-fly zone enforced from the ground?

[GunnyPete]

Not in any way that would have affected WMD's.  And as far as I know all the ground anti-aircraft weapons where not within the Iraq border.