Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by mark blazejewski
You can't even know how many years I've been saying Nixon is to blame for originally opening the door for China to walk right in. People seem to forget these things
HipKat, most people don't see it the way we do. Most think that the United States is immune from the fallout of previous foreign policy screw-ups.
The Chinese took us to the cleaners since Nixon in 1972. We sold-out Formosa. Let them play games with Vietnam in 1979. They have beaten us economically at every turn. We sold them missile technology... blah, blah...
Furthermore, we turned a blind eye to their every provocation, including a Stalinist crackdown of their own people in 1989, not to mention missile testing off of our shores in 2010.
And, for what? Trade and money: an economic system that they manipulate? Excuse me, both parties sucked in their handling of China.
Yea, Obama and Clinton are to blame, but so too are Bush, and Bush. Reagan was disappointing, and Nixon, what did he get out of his break-through China strategy? Sure, he was playing the Russians off the Chinese, but exactly how brilliant was it to set-up the Chinese as the major power in Asia?
Barry Goldwater was correct in 1975, when he observed, at that early date: "The Red Chinese are now positioned to do what the Japanese could not do; they can march their armies all the way down to the Straights of Malacca."
Forty-two years later, it is not just Indonesia and Australia that may be imperiled. It seems that the Chinese may surging towards a position by which they can march their armies across the Pacific, to the U.S. mainland: a military sequel to their economic blitzkrieg.
Regrettably, even if the Red Chinese peacefully end this North Korean crisis, they will get the unjustified and misplaced accolades for solving a problem which they deliberately created, IMHO.
The Americans will be the grateful suppliant child submissive at the stern parental knee.
No good options here HipKat.
You can't even know how many years I've been saying Nixon is to blame for originally opening the door for China to walk right in. People seem to forget these things
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
Amen HipKat.
People slobber all over the Nixon-Kissinger Globalist Axis. No BS, I was pouring concrete the July night in 1971, when I heard on radio, Nixon announce his visit to the PRC, and I threw the freakin' trowel. That type of bi-polar foreign policy is not what I expected from the 1968 election.
I sort of understand the "Triangular Diplomacy," the U.S. playing the USSR and China against each other, but IMHO, that could have been accomplished without laying the ground work for a one-China policy.
I never thought much of Chiang-Kai-shek, but Mao was a murdering bastard, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousand Americans in Korea, and to a lesser extent in Vietnam. As FDR said of Samoza, he may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch.
I simply could never understand why the great Cold Warrior, Nixon, would kiss-up to Mao to such an extent as to throw Taiwan, aka Formosa, under a bus. I believe, and perhaps it is just me, the answer resided with the Kissinger-Rockefeller influence, as well as that of the lower-profile, Globalist, prep-boy, U.N. Ambassador, George "Read my lips" Bush.
Moreover, the China component to the so-called "era of peace" which Nixon purportedly so valued, can seemingly be viewed as an insult to all of those American lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, and in a tangential way, throughout the entire Pacific in World War Two.
It was the resistance to the Nixon-Kissinger, pro-China, anti-Taiwan policy, that, in part, attracted me to Reagan in 1976.
Last edited by mark blazejewski; August 13th, 2017 at 04:40 PM.
And, I'll say one more thing HipKat.
How T F do these establishment Republicans harmonize their obsessive criticism of Obama for kissing-up to Cuba, with their "grab your ankles" acceptance of a "One China" policy, which strengthens the Reds every day, and the de facto, albeit peaceful, conquest of Hong Kong? They should be screaming about ALL of these situations.
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama's for policy sucked. But if there is one thing I detest more than incompetence, it is hypocrisy.
Now, it is up to the independent-minded Trump, flawed perhaps as he is, to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Good luck with that Mr. President. My prayers are with you.
You're absolutely correct on the above, except now, the triangle diplomacy has Russia and China playing us
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
Hmmm???
Yep, you may be right. Putin is sitting on the sidelines, merely calling for "calm." You would think he would use his influence to take a more active role to bring the U.S. and Chinese closer together in strategic thinking; an effort to make the Chinese see that North Korea is just not a threat to the U.S. and the periphery of the Pacific, but the world.
As such, one would think that, Putin, in a non-cynical, common sense world, would articulate that the Chinese policy of passive "neutrality" is an insufficient response to a North Korean aggression, and outright support for North Korea in the event of preemptive action, is the equivalent of holding the United States and the World hostage to the fanciful whims of a fat maniac.
Excellent point HipKat.
What a dilemma for an unaffiliated registered voter trying to determine which is the more hateful and violent group, the alt-right or the alt-left. They are both morons! But then again, I am a deplorable. Who am I to judge.
If the Charlottsville tragedy was not a false flag, and I have no reason to believe that it was, it was a senseless act of alt-right violence. That behavior tends to airbrush us deplorables with a toxic primer coat.
The same holds true for the alt-left jerk that shot Congressman Scalise.
Trump was right in referring to acts of violence, and not doing those criminals the honor of institutionalizing their barbarism with a formal label.
Perhaps this analogy makes my opinion somewhat clearer: If a war is fought honorably, a defeated foe can be honored for their devotion to their country, and their bravery. But, if the defeated foe is a mirror image of the SS in World War Two, they are properly treated as war criminals.
Ergo, political speech, no matter how repulsive, unfortunately must be tolerated, provided that it is articulated in accordance with the First Amendment. The cure to repulsive free speech is reciprocal rebuttal.
But, speech asserted with violence must be dismissed as unprotected, incendiary rhetoric, which seemingly serves to camouflage the true intention of the participant: violent behavior.
No need to refer to a group or a title. The perpetrators of such behavior have a label: criminals.
The more I hear in the news, the more uncomfortable I am getting with this statement. I may be starting to hedge my bets.If the Charlottsville tragedy was not a false flag, and I have no reason to believe that it was,
I promise I won't say I told you so.....
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
HipKat, I really honestly do not want to comment on this until I can get rational and dispassionate information. To do so, would be irresponsible. But much of the news I have received today leans towards the false flag deal. But, we'll see.I promise I won't say I told you so.....
Another side of the story
Trump was right to call out all political sides for bigotry and violence. There are indeed morons on fringes of both political sides using hate speech to enhance their agendas. And, hate speech should not be protected for only the one side.
Ok folks, here’s what REALLY happened in Charlottesville – and what everyone is missing
By Allen West - 10:11pm, August 13, 201
This past weekend, I was honored to be in a most picturesque place with some great and hospitable folks in Prescott (Yavapai County) Arizona. I was there to address the Republican Women of Prescott, the nation’s largest Republican women’s club, on their 75th anniversary. The scenery there was just breathtaking and there was just a sense of solemnness that we all need experience from time to time. How great a contrast it was from what was happening across the country in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Let me begin by saying, I deplore any form of supremacist view — white, black, Hispanic, Islamic. I will be the first to openly state and embrace a sense of American exceptionalism and supremacy that is rooted in our founding principles and values. Any and all else that is contradictory is to be condemned. What I have witnessed post the events of Saturday 12 August is the typical Rahm Emanuel mentality and political posturing: “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Therefore, I seek to assess what really happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.
First, may God rest the soul of 32-year-old Heather Heyer who tragically lost her life. My sincere condolences to her, her family and the others who were injured. I fully support seeking the death penalty for 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio who committed this horrific act of violence. But, how did we get to this place?
This all began because someone decided, as other elected officials have across the country, to cave in to partisan political pressures and seek to erase American history. History is not there for us to love or hate, but for us to learn from and seek to not repeat its mistakes.
If there are those who truly believe we protect ourselves by trying to revise history due to false emotions, then we miss out on who we are as a nation, and our evolution. The statues of long since deceased leaders of the Confederate Army do not stand to remind anyone of oppression. And if a statue can oppress you, then I submit that you have greater issues.
I certainly did not appreciate former President Barack Obama taking a photo op in Cuba before the image of Che Guevara, nor do I enjoy seeing anyone wearing said image on t-shirts here in America…but I do not go into some whimsical state of “oppression.”
And so it is that we do possess in this Constitutional Republic a freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It would appear that said group who didn’t wish to see the statue of Virginian, General Robert E. Lee, who was a commissioned U.S. Army officer, graduate of West Point, and served the nation in the Mexican War, taken down did apply for a permit to hold a rally. We can dislike these individuals, but they took proper measures to secure permission to express their First Amendment right.
Contrary to their position, the word went out for a counter-protest to occur which included groups from a different side of the political spectrum, who have also been very guilty of hateful rhetoric and violence. What should have happened is that these two groups should have been kept miles apart. I do not understanding why any local law enforcement agency would allow these two groups close proximity…first lesson learned. And we must also ascertain, did the counter-protest group seek permit or did they just “show up” in order to provoke, and elicit a response they could use “politically?” Yes, motivations are important to understand in this case, if we’re serious about getting to the bottom of what happened in Charlottesville and not just the typical media-driven frenzy.
I find it rather odd that so many are seeking to lay blame on President Trump for what happened in Charlottesville. And there are some voices out there who want to blame all white people, and all Republicans. How odd that when it was the New Black Panther Party outside a voting precinct in Philadelphia in black fatigues and with clubs, nothing was said. As a matter of fact, they weren’t even prosecuted for voter intimidation. And when it was the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore fueled by media false narratives and a presidential administration’s rhetoric, there was no blame laid on Barack Obama. It appears to me that there is a blatant hypocrisy when an individual commits a horrible crime, such as in Charleston, South Carolina, and a collective group of people are to be held accountable.
But, when there’s an Islamic terror attack people say, “we cannot rush to judgment” or “this is not indicative of all Muslims”…to wit I agree, but why not call the enemy for what it is” militant Islamic terrorism or jihadism? Why must some be browbeaten into condemning the actions of a few, yet we have others who have fully admitted their support to groups calling for a “resistance?” And where were the voices to condemn the violence in Washington DC on Inauguration Day, or even at UC-Berkeley…or the violence committed against those who support the current president or hold beliefs aligned with Constitutional conservatism?
If we want to condemn groups such as the neo-Nazis and others, then we must also condemn groups such as BLM and Antifa. And we need to stop the cherry-picking, as they all should be investigated. Let’s end this absurdity of trying to connect the Republican Party with the Ku Klux Klan, since it was a creation of the Democrat Party. And I seem to recall Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, infamously known as a grand wizard of the Klan, lauded over at his memorial by Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was Senator Byrd who was vehemently against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who supported its passage.
The one thing I do agree with is erasing history. Like in another thread, the Taliban did it in Afghanistan, ISIS has done it, by removing or destroying artifacts. I could side with state removing the confederate flag, but not monuments to our history. However, many of those statues were placed in the early 1900's when Woodrow Wilson rolled back desegregation laws. And wasn't it Wilson (Or Coolidge) that was blasted for playing Birth of A Nation in the White House? Regardless, that was during a tumultuous time when the Klan was at full force, was active in influencing elections and more Blacks were killed and lynched than any time in history.
So, I'm torn on the idea, but in the end, History is not meant to make us feel good. History is meant to record events in time and these monuments are reminders of what we gone through as a country. A testament to the people who for better or worse had a profound impact on our country.
I think the problem with Trump is that he has misspoke on so many occasions that it's not only his duty as President to calm the nation and denounce hate groups, specifically racist hate groups, and reassure the people that he is not the racist he has been made out to be. In this instance, he failed, miserably and instead by placating the "Alt-right" (Our new keyword of the week), has put himself further beneath the microscope.
Let me articulate this for you:
"I'm not locked in here with them. They're locked in here with me!!"
HipKat's Blog
Spot on!
And too often many of us in the middle are trapped by the hate speech and identity politics with unfounded and mean-spirited labels.
Yeah we should erase everything that we don't like.. surprised that we haven't washed over wounded knee.
SJW's are misguided petulant children that should have been spanked during their formative years.
There are currently 22 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 22 guests)
Posting Permissions
