Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
American foreign policy is at a crossroads. One path for the US is global cooperation. The other is a burst of militarism in response to frustrated ambitions. The future of the US, and of the world, hangs on this choice.
Comments
Only cooperation can deliver peace and the escape from a useless, dangerous, and ultimately bankrupting new arms race, this time including cyber-weapons, space weapons, and next-generation nuclear weapons.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 01/14/2017 - 4:14pm
Your article sees only two options, " One path for the US is global cooperation. The other is a burst of militarism in response to frustrated ambitions." It assumes that the choice is cooperation or domination. It presumes that there are willing leaders in other countries willing to compromise. I'm all in favor of increased cooperation but it requires two parties to make it work. It requires some shared goals that are a priority for both parties that allow each to give up some of the lesser priority goals to reach a mutually beneficial compromise.
I'm pretty sure the middle east radical fundamentalists are not open to cooperation or compromise. I have my doubts that Putin's Russia is willing to compromise. I think it's possible that China is open to cooperation and compromise but I'm not overly optimistic over the long term.
I don't like articles like this. it was so general that it said almost nothing. It lacks specificity and nuance. Each country and each negotiation has its own set of problems and needs different responses There are numerous shades of grey between cooperation and domination. For some cooperation is the way to go. For others containment and confrontation when they overstep bounds is the best response. Hopefully successful containment and confrontation will lead them to see the value in compromise and cooperation. Economic and other sanctions can convince some that cooperation is a better way forward. I think they were successful in bringing Iran to the negotiating table. Unfortunately for some situations only a military response will work. Walking those lines is difficult and requires knowledgeable and skilled diplomats.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 01/14/2017 - 5:54pm
The author’s idea is that we have come to a fork in the road and we should take it because the one we have been traveling is taking us to a bad place. There is nothing vague about that idea, it is actually quite specific and that idea is what the author was trying to get across. He is suggesting a change in geo-political philosophy from one which tries to dominate through military and economic pressure or warfare if necessary to one which reallocates resources to human needs. You reject it because he does not offer a detailed map showing all the potholes to be avoided and all the bridges that must be crossed. You say his idea is too general, too vague, and is lacking specifics and so in effect says almost nothing. I read the article as being very specific in saying that we better change while we can. The reasons seem so obviously self-evident even if the road never before taken can be expected to have some bumps in it too. To change we must first recognize and acknowledge the need to change.
Your counterpoint deals almost entirely with nation-state versus nation-state relations after dismissing the idea that radical fundamentalists are open to compromise. On that point I mostly agree. But, I think the only chance of dealing with radical fundamentalists successfully in the long run is to first deal with the nation-state conflicts which have created the fertile ground for the breeding and cultivation of radicals willing to fight and kill or die to change the nature of the world they live in. I believe one thing is clear and indisputable. Bombing radicals back to the stone age, which means destroying the infrastructure supporting their neighbors while killing a lot of them too, is not working. Neither is attempting to starve out others who don't bow before our exceptionalism.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/15/2017 - 11:34am
You reject it because he does not offer a detailed map showing all the potholes to be avoided and all the bridges that must be crossed.
I reject it because it sees the world in black and white ignoring the complexity of the situations and numerous possible responses. As I clearly stated in the first sentence of my comment, Your article sees only two options, " One path for the US is global cooperation. The other is a burst of militarism in response to frustrated ambitions."
Not only the first sentence but the constant theme throughout my comment. I'm amazed you didn't get it. I really try to be concise and to the point when commenting on your posts. Honestly I think a reasonably well educated high school student would have understood my post. Here's a real world answer to your "fork in the road" metaphor. Real world forks usually have four prongs.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/15/2017 - 2:11pm
I'm reminded of a Yogi Berra quote "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Berra used the statement to give directions to his house. Whether you went right or left, the road curved around and took you to his house.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/07/25/fork-road/
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 01/15/2017 - 2:20pm
Good article, but as Kat notes big on generalities and grand concepts.
Republicans, who have lost the national popular vote in every election except one for the past 24 years, now control all 3 branches of our government. They do not cooperate with Democrats, nonetheless the multipolar world, and use every anti-democratic tool they can get by with to hold power. They exploit religion and race and deny science. The GOP will not be interested to do this:
because they only want to win the next election. The prospects that the purists, squabblers and disillusioned of the American left can gain dominance over the plutocrat/Fox News/hate radio/both sides corporate media complex seems distant indeed.
With Trump we are not at a crossroads, but on a narrow one way track into a minefield with a map from Infowars and a narcissistic con man driving, concentrating more on his twitter than on where we and the world is headed.
by NCD on Sat, 01/14/2017 - 7:02pm
Your description of Republicans dealings within our country seems to fit as a description of our country's dealings with the rest of the world. You blame it all on the Republicans. I think our foreign policy is a bi-partisan product.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/15/2017 - 11:38am
Actually, I think the description of this country's dealings with the rest of the world is far better than the way Republicans deal in general.
If the Republicans had done ANY governing in the last 8 years we would have a good health care system for all, infrastructure rebuilding would be a force driving the economy, taxes would be fairer, Medicare and Social Security would be well-financed and secure, and the world would not be collectively biting their fingernails in fear of what Hillary Clinton would do as President.
I think his description of Republicans is very apt. But I agree that all of our policies SHOULD be a bipartisan effort. With the tea-baggers and their selfish colleagues, that ship sailed and sank.
edited for spelling
by CVille Dem on Sun, 01/15/2017 - 12:13pm
LuLu... This doesn't work . . .
With deadly radicals.
Trust me.
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 01/15/2017 - 6:49am
Sigh, another fatally flawed article..
Yes, we negotiate with Europe, with Latin America, with Canada, with China. We even negotiated TPP with the other Pacific countries, but still, everything's quite copacetic with China.
We negotiate with the Mideast, and are even heading a 5- or 6-group coaltion overtaking Mosul as we type. We negotiated a nuke deal with Iran. We negotiated peace and a breakaway state with South Sudan. Even our worst blunders we did in cooperation with other states - not a go-it-alone policy. We're even negotiating with Cuba, finally.
The only real kicker in all this is Russia, your seeming new girlfriend. Drop it - she's poison - literally. Okay, there's Turkey, heading the wrong direction, sadly. Maybe in 10-20 years can try again. Anything else? Thought not.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/15/2017 - 10:19am