Hold on, this blog may accelerate or decelerate suddenly
This bugs me: "Political objectives can be categorized as either unlimited or limited. Unlimited political objectives are usually positive, ethically clear-cut, and easily explained (for example, ridding the world of Hitler)."
Is the author implying that 'ridding the world of Hitler' was one of the major causes of or justifications of, our entry into WWII?
Wasn't it Pearl Harbor that really drew us into the war in a larger way than providing arms to Britain and other countries?
Getting rid of Hitler was of course the right thing to do. (Well, getting rid of the regime at any rate, as there have been arguments that Hitler wasn't the greatest military leader and so 'helped' the Allies' cause whereas someone else might have been more competent.)
Further more, now the spinster can make the comparison between a popular war (WWII) and removing a dictator (Hitler) and an unpopular war (according to the media anyway) the Global War on Terrorism and another dictator (Saddam). It's over-simplified for one thing: "Well, if going into WWII was the right thing to do, then the GWOT is the right thing to do."
I think comparing Hitler/Germany and Saddam/Iraq is a little more complicated than that. Have Americans become more or less discerning since WWII?
I just hate the spin is all I'm saying. Tell it like it is. I'm not making a judgment call here, so that makes me a better journalist than some guys on Fox news.
Food for thought: We still have troops and bases in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Okinawa as a result of WWII and the Korean War. So now how long do you think we'll have troops in the middle east?
I'm not judging, I'm just saying. Something to think about.
Yeah we went from Cheech Marin to socio-political issues. I told you to hang on.
Is the author implying that 'ridding the world of Hitler' was one of the major causes of or justifications of, our entry into WWII?
Wasn't it Pearl Harbor that really drew us into the war in a larger way than providing arms to Britain and other countries?
Getting rid of Hitler was of course the right thing to do. (Well, getting rid of the regime at any rate, as there have been arguments that Hitler wasn't the greatest military leader and so 'helped' the Allies' cause whereas someone else might have been more competent.)
Further more, now the spinster can make the comparison between a popular war (WWII) and removing a dictator (Hitler) and an unpopular war (according to the media anyway) the Global War on Terrorism and another dictator (Saddam). It's over-simplified for one thing: "Well, if going into WWII was the right thing to do, then the GWOT is the right thing to do."
I think comparing Hitler/Germany and Saddam/Iraq is a little more complicated than that. Have Americans become more or less discerning since WWII?
I just hate the spin is all I'm saying. Tell it like it is. I'm not making a judgment call here, so that makes me a better journalist than some guys on Fox news.
Food for thought: We still have troops and bases in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Okinawa as a result of WWII and the Korean War. So now how long do you think we'll have troops in the middle east?
I'm not judging, I'm just saying. Something to think about.
Yeah we went from Cheech Marin to socio-political issues. I told you to hang on.
Comments