“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
A "centrist" party? I could not disagree more. It is a party FULL of unrealistic ideologues. I find it strange you make these claims when it sure didn't seem to stop them from pushing their ideologies through with little or no bipartisan support.The second is that Democrats have less compulsion than Republicans to disagree with their opposition; they're a centrist party with a small liberal and conservative wings, tethered together by a slim majority of moderates who would freely vote for a Republican if they had to. 'Disagreeing' with Republicans or asserting themselves against Republican presidents 100% of the time isn't usually in their advantage because even their core voters aren't against Republicans 100%; just 60-70% of the time.
This is not a bad thing IMO. These countries NEED to brought out of the middle ages and into the modern world. They are a scourge on society in general.The third was that corporate America was intrigued by the possibilities of the war; a democratic Iraq could be a lucrative source of trade and capital investment, compared to an autocratic Iraq whose markets were closed due to sanctions. Corporate America enjoys representation in both parties.
Another wonderful goal IMO. I don't know how realistic it is though.The fourth is that the military and military industrial complex were intrigued by the possibilities of the war; an Iraq powered by democracy and Western modernization could be employed as a cats paw against Iran and help America influence the political future of the region.
I can agree with this much. We don't fight wars to win anymore. We fight wars from a politically correct perspective. You just cannot win that way, especially when your opponents will fight no holds barred.By the way these last two reasons had some merit; however, Corporate America is out of control and frequently imposes on the safety and generosity of the broader American public. Policies that make them more powerful should be eyed very critically by the average American on the street. The last was even more promising, but the war was mismanaged; its goals may have even been unobtainable from the beginning.
I disagree immensely. He shows his strength to those who threaten our safety and security, NOT to those he is obliged to, and he IS obliged to us citizens. We want action and we want explanations. We are sick and tired of how things have been going, and we want change!As for the other point, I'm not wrong: a leader humbling himself before the people is an interesting exercise that all of them should be subjected to just for the sake of experiencing what it is like to be humble and small, but on the whole leaders that defer to those beneath them can't command the respect they need to lead; making a leader debase themselves or challenging and embarrassing them publicly undermines the entire point of having one at all. Like having a CEO around so you can blame him for when things aren't going well, and for no other reason than that.
We could use a good old-fashioned thing called "intelligence." However, we SUCK at that now. We have completely LOST OUR EDGE as being a powerful country because of a portion of our population who are complete wimps and do not realize that it IS a dog-eat-dog world out there. If you are weak, people WILL take advantage of you. Yes they will.2. You can't go in because (1) you don't know where they are (2) they can (and will) execute their hostages. Even if you know (1), the complexities of (2) might put the strike team in an area so dangerous they are at risk from assault at all sides, killing every single one of them and the hostage. The Taliban knows this, so they can afford to drive a hard bargain; terrorists usually know how to get the reactions they want (for example, Osama bin Laden wanted to draw the American military into the Middle East to inflame the region with anti-Americanism and compel Muslims to rise up in arms against Western-backed governments; Bush gave them exactly what they wanted). If Obama had allowed the soldier to die, then the Taliban could have used that to their advantage as well; it proves that America can't or wont do what is necessary to protect their own, a powerful message of propaganda that would have rattled Afghanistan's conviction that America can be a good ally.
We have MUCH power that we are capable of using, we don't do it out of fear of "offending" people. THIS is why we will lose our status in the world and WE will be the weak ones eventually.At the end of the day, you can't refuse to negotiate with people who have the power to cause you harm *unless* you have an unqualified power to stop them. Despite its enormity and strength, the ability of the United States to fight back against terrorism is not unqualified.
I really don't see what that has to do with our current day political issues. The problem is we have politicians who do NOT care about us or our country. They are BORN politicians I think.3. Because of the political situation. For example, Abraham Lincoln was able to get the Democrats in the North to cooperate with him because the branch of the party that opposed him most fiercely had been incorporated into the Confederate States of America; an entire wing of Congress that had opposed Republican policies for decades disappeared overnight, leaving their chairs empty and leaving a power vacuum giving Lincoln more strength to control Congress than he would have otherwise enjoyed. Lincoln's presidency if the South hadn't seceded from the Union would strongly resemble Obama's, because every southern representative would have undermined him in every way they could until the situation changed and Republican presidents became less dangerous to their future; once they danger decreased, they could cooperate again.
I'm sorry, but if you object to what the President is putting forth, and he is not good at communicating it or selling it, then that is what will happen. In the end, the buck stops with the POTUS. PERIOD.Political situations differ from the time period; at times, it is useful and fully consistent with Republican goals to cooperate with Democrats. Until their party can safely be in a position to win the presidency again, however, it is highly in their interest to undermine the plans of any Democratic president that gets in their line of sight. Every time period has its own unique political situations, its particular set of the "realities of power."
Obama Surrounds Himself with the Most Extreme Appointees in American History
White House Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy Over Past Activism | 44 | washingtonpost.comJones, who joined the administration in March as special adviser for green jobs at the CEQ, had issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war" and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.
His one-time involvement with the Bay Area radical group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which had Marxist roots, had also become an issue. And on Saturday his advocacy on behalf of death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, threatened to develop into a fresh point of controversy.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK