New York Times, 60 years ago
- Thread starter barry2952
- Start date
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Some things never change. NYT = bird cage lining.
That's not too far off from what they really printed that day...
In all fairness, I think the New York Times was still denying the hollocaust at the point and still considered Stalin to be a good guy and a world model.
In all fairness, I think the New York Times was still denying the hollocaust at the point and still considered Stalin to be a good guy and a world model.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Those who do not learn from history will be forced to repeat it.
fossten said:
A truer statement has never been made. The question is, did the US learn anything from it? How many other times have we turned a blind eye to slaughter elsewhere in the world? Recent events would say that we only come to the aid of oppressed people if they sit on oil. BTW, that's not a slam on the current administration. Both sides of the aisle have been guilty of this in the past.
barry2952 said:
I do think the statement is a bit unfair.
It would be fair to say that we only consistantly come to the aid of people if it offers us a strategic or national security advantage. But even that statement is contradicted by the U.S. involvement in Somalia, Bosnia, and the various other peace keeping and humanitarian missions through out the world.
To argue that Iraq was purely about oil, which I recognize Barry hasn't done, is foolish. There was a grand idealistic foreign policy attempt in Iraq. The oil itself was supposed to help facilitate this attempt to democratize the nation. Democratization in Iraq, with was supposed to have at least a 20th century infastructure and oil revenue, was to both provide staging areas in the event of an attack on Iran, and to influence the region and spread Democracy.
It's interesting, because this is very grand approach at liberal or idealist foreign policy- contrasted to the realist approach typically favored by a Kissinger.
Needless to say, this hasn't worked according to the plan. Iran, clearly aware of the goal (unlike the New York Times), has taken steps to destablize this.
Back on point- the big questions for the century are WHERE IS THE UN. Where was the UN in Africa while Muslims were slaughtering Christians in the Sudan. And where were they when the same Muslims were later slaughtering the blacks in Sudan. Where was the UN in Bosnia? Where was the UN in Timor? Where was the UN during any international crisis or genocide?
The United States is a reluctant Super Power, in the traditional definition. We really don't want the obligation, responsibilty and expense of being the global hegemon. We can only address so many of the problems. Why aren't the Europeans, who bear much of the responsibility for the messes in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, taking responsibility? Why don't we see the EU or the UN doing anythin of value?