A new "Age of Reason"?

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081107/118196981.html

"The Times they are a changin' "

At least I hope so.

I realize we will have strife and discord in this world until the Lord returns.

But of late it seems that our goal as a country has been to promote resentment and rancor against us amongst the world community of nations.

Not just with respect to our so-called "enemies", but with our friends as well.

I hope that we are witnessing the dawning of a new age vis-a-vis our relations with our international neighbors and we will once again be respected and looked upon as a model for other nations to emulate.

That "bright and shining city on a hill".

Yeah, that's a great idea. We should use the architect of the collapse of the Soviet Union as our example. Then the world will like us.

Why the obsession with being liked so much? It's worse then middle school cheerleaders.

We as a nation are respected as anytime someone needs defending, it is us they call. There's also been talk of the world moving away from the dollar and our economy but the results show who's economy is clearly the driving force in the world community.

You can be liked. I'd rather be respected.

Why not be both liked and respected?

Did you raise your children to believe that life is a popularity contest and being liked is paramount?

As I said, I don't care about being liked.

Aaron wrote:We as a nation are respected as anytime someone needs defending, it is us they call.

Oh really? More often it's that the U.S. invades a nation, then says some like, "Don't worry. We're here to defend you from yourselves."

"The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells."

John Flynn, 1944

So what is your contention Frank, that it is not the United States the world calls in via the UN when military action is needed?

Aaron wrote:So what is your contention Frank, that it is not the United States the world calls in via the UN when military action is needed?

Did "the world" call for the U.S. invasion of western hemispheric nations dozens of times over the past century and a half? The United Fruit Company is not "the world".

Did "the world" call for the U.S. to engage in Vietnam? Truman and Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson were not "the world".

Did "the world" call for the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Ahmed Chalabi and PNAC are not "the world".

Yes, yes and yes.

Aaron,

I have to hand it to you.

When you decide to shovel shit......you shovel a ton.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article5882.html

Well this is an interesting take.

According to some, the incoming Obama foreign relations bunch may be even more bent on persistent conflict than the Bush group has been.

And more proficient.

"It is particularly worrisome that Brzezinski appears to be involved in the planning. Brzezinski, Holbrooke and Albright form the "Imperialist A-Team"; these are not the bungling "Keystone Cops" neocons like Feith and Rumsfeld who trip over themselves getting out of bed in the morning. These are cold-blooded Machiavellian imperialists who know how to work the media and the diplomatic channels to conceal their genocidal operations behind a smokescreen of humanitarian mumbo-jumbo. They know what they are doing and they are good at it. They're not fools. They have aligned themselves with the Obama camp and are preparing for the next big outbreak of global trouble-making. This should serve as a sobering wake-up call for voters who still think Obama represents "Change We Can Believe In".

Richard Holbrooke appeared on Tuesday's Jim Lerher News Hour with resident neocon Margaret Warner. Typical of Warner's "even-handed" approach, both of the interviewees were ultra-conservatives from right-wing think tanks: Richard Holbrooke, from the Council on Foreign Relations and Dmiti Simes from the Nixon Center.

According to Holbrooke, "The Russians deliberately provoked (the fighting in South Ossetia) and timed it for the Olympics. This is a long-standing Russian effort to get rid of President Saakashvili."

Right. Is that why Putin was so shocked when he heard the news (while he was in Beijing) that he quickly boarded a plane and headed for Moscow? (after shaking his finger angrily at Bush!)

Holbrooke: "And I want to stress, I'm not a warmonger, and I don't want a new Cold War any more than Dimitri does....The Russians wish to re-establish a historic area of hegemony that includes Ukraine. And it is no accident that the other former Soviet republics are watching this and extraordinarily upset, as Putin progresses with an attempt to re-create a kind of a hegemonic space."

It is impossible to go over all of Holbrooke's distortions, half-truths and lies in one article but, what is important is to recognize that a false narrative is being constructed to demonize Putin and to justify future hostilities against Russia....

So why are Brzezinski and his backers in the foreign policy establishment demonizing Putin and threatening Russia with "ostracism, isolation and economic penalties?" What is Putin's crime?

Putin's problems can be traced back to a speech he made in Munich nearly two years ago when he declared unequivocally that he rejected the basic tenets of the Bush Doctrine and US global hegemony. His speech amounted to a Russian Declaration of Independence. That's when western elites, particularly at the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute put Putin on their "enemies list"..."

By "interesting," Sod, I hope you mean "deluded." Nearly every country on earth has to some extent or another opposed the Bush doctrine. It is Putin's actions, not his speeches, that have isolated Russia.

Be careful, Randall.

You'll be labeled a rightwing whacko next.

...[I]t seems that our goal as a country has been to promote resentment and rancor against us amongst the world community of nations.

Where have we promoted resentment and rancor exactly?

Now that we have regained our status as world benefactor, it is good to know that the world likes us again:

"Where have we promoted resentment and rancor?"

Well in Sherman's house, for starters....

The world loves us now, of course.

Just like they did on 9/10/01.