The US, The UN and Iraq

The politicians of his day were preplexed and dismayed at Twain's disdain and dismissal of their own self-absorbed importance (or impotance, whichever one prefers). You read what was a basic and integral cynicism toward politics in his later writings and realize that it could easily be written today.

Setanta,

I didn't intend to accuse you of excess piety. Instead I was attampting to leverage off your post to answer the criticisms of Blatham and others to wit, that the United States is remiss in not following international "mandates" and proposed international treaties with sufficient energy, and is placing too much value and importance on its own sovereignty. My point was that, in my view at least, the general state of political development among the nations of the world has not yet reached the point that this is a reasonable possibility, and that many of the issues surrounding the Law of the Sea and ICC treaties in particular were based on precisely that point. Further the 'least common denominator' of policy acceptable to the main players in the UN is hardly an acceptable basis for the high stakes matters we (and others) face. I don't think I was effective in persuading them.

Blatham: so i take they a good time was had by all?

blatham, That is one disturbing piece of GOP politics. How can people continue to support them? cheeese, you ruined my day, my week, and the next two years. c.i.

Blatham,

Do you suggest that the Salon.com piece by Michelle Goldberg you posted here represents an accurate or even balanced view of this conservative group? Do you suggest (or believe) that the behavior of the miscreant she described is characteristic of the conservative coalition?

What is your point?

Sounds like the typical conservative coalition I see in my parts of the woods!

"Do you suggest (or believe) that the behavior of the miscreant she described is characteristic of the conservative coalition?"
well, yeah must have been buyers but i suppose you could say it was democrat moles.

Really? Where exactly do you see them? I'm fairly conservative on a number of issues, yet I have never run into this bunch, or any obvious grouping of conservatives.



Anyone else see the similarity? :wink:
========================================
This has been a test of the emergency sense of humor system.
If you were offended in any way, please contact authorities in
your area to find out where to go for help. BEEEEEeeeeeeppp.
========================================

Look, I'm sure we all recall tales of Hillary's goonsquads sanitizing audiences prior to her subjecting herself to the mercies of the expected-to-be-receptive crowd. That entreprenuers with poor taste and rednecks of even less discretion may find one another at a Republican Gathering is refreshing. It shows convincingly that The Republicans are tapping the wellspring of The American Public.


If George the Younger suddenly shows a great and supporting interest in Winston Cup Racing, there will be much consternation amongst the scions of many generations of Southern Democrats



timber

timber, they call themselves Republican now!!!!!!!!!

Isn't that a rather broad generalization?

Some of Twain's writing of that period were withheld in an act of censorship -- Blatham's statement is not a generalization.

Edited because of the COPS!!

Let me refresh your memory, Anon, my good friend:

You wrote:

To which I replied:


As I stated above, you led with insults, to which I replied that you should feel free to refrain from responding to me if you could have nothing to offer but pointless insults.

Please discuss the issues, and leave the garbage at the door.

Edited because of the COPS!!!!

It is indeed a generalization - and a broad one at that - to say that ;

"Mark Twain's anti-imperialist writings are relatively unknown today because of the nation's inability to deal with that part of its past."

In the first place Mark Twain's writings on the subject are well-known to me and many others I know. In the second, it is also a broad generalization to assert that the nation is unable to deal with "that part of its past" - The reference clearly being to our acquisition of the debris of the Spanish Empire in Puerto Rico and the phillipines, and possibly to our 1843 (about) war with Mexico. Both events are thoroughly addressed in high school history classes throughout the country.

Contemporaneous with "that part of our past" the UK was solidifying its hold on a huge empire in south and east Africa, turning a previously independent Egypt into a protectorate after a contrived default on canal bonds, consolidating its rule of major parts of India and its protectorates over others into a unified rule over the entire subcontinent, and (after 1900) working hard to undermine the Ottoman Empire and seize ports and protectorates in Aden, Oman, and Kuwait. France was busy with the conquest of Algeria, Morocco and other colonies five times the size of France in central and west Africa, islands in the Indian ocean and the south Pacific. Not to be outdone, Germany seized southwest Africa, Zambia and islands in the southwest Pacific. Each of these dwarfed - by a large margin - the territories the U.S. seized (in an equivalent manner) from Spain.

Apparently the unstated presumption here is that these European nations have "dealt with" their pasts in a way we have not.

Anon and Tres

This is a very active (and good) thread. If we have to lock it down I will personally come to both your houses and FORCE you to eat my ex-wife's tapioca pudding. YOU DON'T WANT THIS. End this now.

george...please note the quotation marks...and the link to the quote itself, with other relevant data.

George says: "Oooookay, nevermind!"