Thaddeus Russell Talks to John Stossel on Progressive War
Historian Thaddeus Russell talks to John Stossel on why progressives are some of the biggest warhawks:
Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com
Pingback: Thaddeus Russell Talks to John Stossel on Progressive War | Alternative News Alert!()
Point of fact, I was in the USMC during the American Invasion of Somalia, I got recalled from a great school 'Marine Swim Instructor School) and had to cancel my Christmas leave because my battalion was deploying in 30 days (and we had not even started our training cycle yet to prepare for our every other year deployment) …. They Canceled my Christmas leave and Bill Clinton took office in mid January
Oh we were suppose to ship out December 23rd at 19:00 hours, every thing I owned was in storage or in my pack and one sea-bag. The 5-tons were late, then we slept on our packs, with spotless squad bays (yes squad bays) not 50 feet away. then at 0700 the Battalion commander called us to attention and said "the Pentagon is so pleased with the Amphibious landing in Somalia they are scaling back the operation, we are not going Sgt Major get the battalion gear stowed away then get these Marines free on a 96 hour pass as quickly as possible"… That was the shortest speech that guy ever made. It was the morning of December 24 and I had $2.11 in my pockets, and one set of clothes which were not battle gear.
Although it may always make sense to ideologues of any, and all, strips that the perceived "other side(s)" always have been, and always will be, in favor of the unpopular ideas at any given point in time and the cause of all of life's problems—even if their statements in the past may have indicated their 'intentions' were otherwise…even though this 'may' 'make sense' to some, it's just not accurate…
This is not a "progressive" 'problem' any more than it is a "conservative" problem anymore than it is a "libertarian" problem anymore than it is a "communist" problem any more than it is a "fascist" problem any more than it is a "anarchist" problem any more than it is an Israel problem…
In the end, similar to the debt ceiling, all this crap is an 'American People' "Problem". Blaming the "other side(s)" seems to be a sort of abdication of 'responsibility'…and an escape from reality.
The "American People", as an aggregate…based on recent polling data…could be close to a 'tipping point', if it hasn't already been reached–a 'point' where the 'shared' sentiment seems to be: enough is enough…
I think it's important to keep in mind many in politics aren't necessarily "ideological" at all. For example: "movements" tend to attract 'opportunists'… John Kerry was the almighty "Antiwar 'peaceful protester'" back some time ago…wasn't he? What is John Kerry now? Was the Viet Cong the model of Kerry's elusive "moderate rebels"? Is this why they can't be produced in Syria???
Is Obama a "progressive", "conservative", "libertarian", "moderate", independent, etc…??? Or is Obama 'really' just about Obama? Is Obama simply a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', so to speak? Does it even matter?
You are one smart dude, Ben.
Ben, The point you miss is that the system we have is progressive, IE the implementation of the progressive ideology. Liberals & conservatives, Republicans & Democrats are just different, & sometimes unwitting, wings of the progressive movement.
US history classes should discuss what is and was the USA's fault in world affairs. Spain did nothing to the USA during the Spanish American War, the USA took land away from Mexico during the Mexican War, invaded Hawaii and imprisoned Queen Liloukalani . The USA has intervened in foreign affairs before the Roosevelts and Woodrow Wilson's times. If the US citizens in Mexico did not like it there, the US government should have just asked them to return to the US and let Mexico keep its land.
History should clearly define the U.S. as the aggressor nation. Every time it is the U.S. either invading another country, stealing land and toppling governments it didn't like, as in Mexico, the Phillipines and Haiti, or starting a fight with a fading imperial power like Spain. The war with Spain was the realization of the Monroe Doctrine in practice.
There was no such event as "The Mexican-American War". It was the U.S. War Of Aggression Against Mexico, followed by others like the Philippines, and Haiti. Mexico was that rare smash and grab invasion for stealing land. Most of the time the U.S. was invading a country in one way or another to impose a government to its liking on an unwilling local population.
Ditto for the being no such event in history as the "Vietnam War". It was the U.S. War Of Aggression Against Indochina, namely, North Vietnam, and the rural societies of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Odd that the country that on paper was the U.S. "ally" in that war, South Vietnam, was the one most devastated by the U.S. invasion of Indochina. Every time there are more declassified revelations about Indochina, we always learn that the U.S. behaved far more savagely in rural Indochina than previously believed. Easily our most shameful legacy of military savagery post-World War II Today an enthusiastic participant in that war, and post war apologist, John Kerry, is adopting a high moral tone about Syria's conduct of its civil war. He does so without any media questioning of his criminal and murderous past in rural South Vietnam, and the long term suffering endured by rural South Vietnam as a result of chemical warfare with Agent Orange.
I was just looking for this details for a while. After six time of continuous Googleing, finally I got it in your web page. I wonder what exactly is the deficiency of Search engines strategy that do not place this kind of useful sites in top of the record. Usually top sites are finish of junk.
Crimea is dirt poor, even by Ukranian standards, and was intensely dependent on government aid. The regime change brought about a lot of philosophical shifts in government, but the big change from the Crimean perspective was economic in that
Advertise on Antiwar.com
Copyright © Antiwar.com 2016