You have hit on an important point in this piece. If the US admits that retaking Crimea, or the Donbas for that matter is very unlikely, yet the standard for negotiations is the removal of Russian forces from these areas, then the US is admitting that there is no way for Ukraine to win, therefore no end to the war.
War is immoral enough, but to knowingly continue a slaughter with no prospect of victory is the height of war criminality (which is present on both sides). Of course, the US has been here before as McNamara's admission of his knowledge of the futility of the Vietnam War came long before the US extricated itself. You cannot claim that the empire is inconsistent.
Yes. The response of the Biden administration would likely be "try try again" with more and newer weapons.
As you said, the empire is nothing if not consistent in waging long futile wars. Though in this case they see the war as fruitful because it weakens Russia and generates plenty of weapons sales. Best of all, it reinforces the idea of a new Cold War, leading to even more wanton spending at the Pentagon. What a "win"!
It's the opinion of a fair number of what I'd call rational and informed analysts and writers that the U.S. would be content with (and therefore will pursue) a long, "frozen" war - one that keeps Russia (and Ukrainians, but who cares about those suckers, amiright?), bleeding and weakening.
Perhaps the neocons at State to whom Biden has apparently entrusted all foreign policy may have thought at some point that they could actually get Ukraine to retake Crimea and put NATO's weapons, including ABMs across Russia's western border. (Checkmate ! ); but having read that pertinent 2019 Rand Corp. memo, it's more likely that they are following the script for bleeding and weakening Russia so that it can't provide any real challenge to American hegemony in Europe and Eurasia, (nor the hegemony of the dollar in gobal financial systems including currency exchange.). If this is correct, and we have every reason to think so, then there is one solid objective by the architects of this war: to keep it going for as long as possible, just as you hint here. We can be certain that Russia wants the opposite. It sought (and nearly had in hand, until the coup) a mutually beneficial long-term economic and security deal with Ukraine). When that was scotched and threats to national security were steadily escalated, it sought to remove those. One can argue that it shouldn't have resorted to war to do that, but she did, and that's where we're at now.
This alone gives lie to the propaganda line that Russia is bent on absorbing and/or colonizing all of Europe, piece by piece. and that the proxy war is intended to stop her.
The US philosophy hasn't changed since Vietnam: "In for a dime, in for a dollar" as we used to say in Texas. There's already too much invested to pull out.
Agree completely, but urging Joe Biden to pursue peace with Russia is like asking Trump to be humble. Joe Biden has been mucking around in Ukraine for well over a decade since his VP days. This is Joe's War, and he's sticking to it. I am surprised though that the Ukrainians haven't figured out that they are the dupes in this whole disaster. The loss of life and total and complete destruction playing out on their territory is going to leave social and infrastructure scars for decades to come. The people of Ukraine are the real victims here, and the US and NATO are the primary perpetrators. Russia was all set for a peace deal over a year ago, until Biden sent Johnson to make sure to not give peace a chance.
It may well be that some or many Ukrainians have figured this out but no doubt the government of Ukraine is all in. The government's desire is often different from the desire of the people involved. I'm guessing, for example, a lot of the US troops (draftees) never wanted to fight in Vietnam but they were there rather than go to prison.
Alex isn't the "government" of Ukraine a bunch of Neo-Nazi's hand-picked by Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and her henchmen. Lead by first the oligarch Poroshenko then by his successor Zelenskyy. Their "government" has consolidated the country's television outlets and dissolved all rival political parties.
Political opponents, like the pro-Russian billionaire Viktor Medvedchuk, were arrested and his business assets seized. Today I believe in Ukraine that there are no anti-government opposition forces. All Ukrainian politicians are united in opposition to Putin's Russia. This is the "government" that the US says they are fighting for - to protect Ukraine's democracy.
Like a lot of the US troops (draftees) never wanting to fight in Vietnam towards the end of the war who went out on patrol and hid and did drugs and fragged their officers, one has to believe a lot of these press-ganged Ukrainian troops (kids) are hiding out in their days in the "war" drinking Vodka rather than engaging in fighting the enemy.
Zelenskyy is clearing out political rivals before the 2024 presidential election. Before the war, he was a deeply unpopular president.
If Ukraine tries to join the European Union. Not only does it have to win its war against Russia, it'll have to prove it's a stable government with democratic institutions like a free press. Not likely. Ukraine's future is bleak.
Do you believe Trumps claim that he will end this war in 24-hrs? Sadly, even if that happens, it's what - 20-months away?
Speaking of Nuland, this from Seymour Hersh's substack: "Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has resigned, and her last day in office is June 30. Her departure has triggered near panic inside the State Department about the person many there fear will be chosen to replace her: Victoria Nuland."
Tucker Carlson points out that the federal "government" of the US is pissing away all its money on the MIC, and that all politicians think the Ukraine is more important than fixing anything in America. Everybody, except Donald Trump, who is against the war machine and does not want war with Russia.
A third of the country watched Tucker Carlon's 3rd podcast and probably agree with him. And this scam indictment is Trump's best campaign component.
True, Trump is willing to negotiate with Russia, which I agree with.
But I wouldn't say Trump is "against the war machine." Not when he was boosting its budget and bombing everything in sight.
Only candidates like Cornel West speak of dismantling the empire and resisting militarism. You won't hear that message from Trump. He knows what sells.
As far as America's MICC is concerned, the longer that war goes on, the better. After all, every bit of all that arms, ammo, and gear that is sent to Ukraine has to be replaced.
The MICC's [and the Media's] main, real hope is that before that one does finally actually end, the possibility and opportunity for a new one with China over Taiwan will have become a reality.
We are told that Ukraine has to keep fighting to improve their position at the negotiating table. But in a war of attrition, which is what the Ukraine war has become, the longer the war goes on the more the advantage goes to the side with more soldiers and more weapons. Which in this case is Russia. See for example, the US Civil War, in which the southern armies were ground down under "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. That didn't turn out well for the south and this will not turn out well for Ukraine.
Yet people still have hope, Alex, that Ukraine can turn an attritional war into one of maneuver in which superior allied weaponry will provide a winning edge. Such hopes are much exaggerated, I believe.
Sounds like what the German High Command was hoping in December, 1944. And their armies could go all the way to Antwerp and cut the allied armies in two!!
I don't think Ukraine has the skill and materiel to launch a war-winning offensive. Seems like the Pentagon admits this too. So the war will simply keep going, which is supposedly better for Ukraine than pursuing diplomacy.
I think the real reason for our war in Ukraine is "to kill Russians" (Lindsay Graham formulation) and "to bleed Russia" (Hillary Clinton formulation). Say, wasn't Clinton the Sec. of State who gave Putin that "Reset" button? I wonder if he knew that's what she meant.
Speaking of Trump: To read what David Stockman ~ US Congressman from Michigan from 1976 to 1981, and Director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan Regime ~ has to say about Corporal Bonespurs and his performance as POTUS Maxximmuss XLV, see any [or better, all] of the following:
Here are some questions for all You Trumpatistas, MAGAts, and devotees of Trumpatismo out there… :
When Your Hero, Supreme Leader, and Savior pledges to "Make America Great Again,” that implies that America was once “Great” ~ whatever that means or ever meant ~ but is not any more. That being the case:
~ 1] When, exactly, did America become "Great"?
~ 2] Exactly How and Why did it become "Great"?
~ 3] When, exactly, did America stop being "Great"?
~ 4} Exactly How and Why did it stop being "Great"?
Like Alex said, MAGA is an emotive slogan, and a good one. It suggests a Trump supporter can help make America great again, without defining greatness or stating how America is to be made that way "again." Except, of course, by electing Trump, who is greatness personified.
Compare to Obama's slogans of "hope" and "change," both vague and left undefined, and both suggesting that Obama was hope and change personified.
Zelensky was recently asked if the offensive has started. "If you feel that it has started," he said, "then it has started." That's the kind of thing we used to say in college when we were, shall we say, relaxed.
So i asked 4 essentially meaningless questions about an equally meaningless
~ and one could add, given who it is directed at and is buying it wholesale, mindless ~ political campaign slogan.
Well then, Bill, let me ask You: Was America ever "Great," however You ~ a retired US military field grade officer, historian, and educator ~ define it?
That's the problem, Jeff. How do you define "great"?
In terms of power, America was unquestionably great after World War II. From 1945 to the 1970s, America had a growing middle class. But was America "great" for everyone? Not so much for Blacks, who needed a determined and often violent civil rights movement to move toward equality (still not fully achieved).
We could go on and on about "greatness." It's a remarkably vague and labile word, very useful to a con man like Trump.
Now, a question for you, MSG. Has America ever been "great" in your view and by your definition? If so, when? If not, why not? Can any country/nation in history truly be described as "great"? If so, which? And what are your criteria?
Eagerly awaiting your reasoned and detailed response!
Bill: This is my definition of “Great,” and my criteria for determining “Greatness” as they both apply to Nation-States [and Empires].
A Nation-State [or Empire] is “Great” to the degree that the sole function and purpose of its government and system of governance is to preserve and protect the Human Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy, and the Pursuit of Happiness of ALL of its Citizens against All enemies, domestic and foreign; and the facilitating of the fulfillment of the Human Responsibilities of each, every, and all of its Citizens.
And the more that a government and system of governance is in the business of meeting the Human Needs and satisfying the Human Wants of Health, Prosperity, Literacy, Security, and the Pursuit of Wants of SOME of its Citizens, the less “Great” that Nation-State [or Empire] is.
And the reason for that is the simple fact that, because governments themselves produce nothing, the only way they can meet the Human Needs and satisfy the Human Wants of SOME of its Citizens ~ those “Special Vested Interests” who have access to that government’s political and legal power, administrative authority, and most importantly, its spending capability, so as to satisfy the individual, group, organizational, or institutional agendas of those VSIs ~ the ONLY way governments can do that is by violating the Human Rights and undermining the Human Responsibilities of at least some, if not of All, of the rest of its Citizens.
Based on that definition and criteria, i would say that America has never been “Great” for the simple reason that VSIs have Always had access to that power, authority, and capability so as to advance their own agendas. In fact, it was a very elite group of VSIs that set up the American system of government and governance in the first place, back in Philadelphia in the late 1780s. Including, just for starters, writing Slavery into the Constitution and Women out of it.
And also based on that definition and those criteria, i would also say that no Nation-State in history ~ let alone any Empire ~ has ever been “Great” either.
The bottom-line, bullet-hits-the bone historical fact of the matter is that, throughout Human History, the greatest, most grievous, deadliest, and most consistently recurring cause, perpetrator, and perpetuator of Human Pain and Suffering has been Government in the hands of individuals and groups with an agenda that does not include Human Rights or Responsibilities at all. And puts meeting the Human Needs and satisfying the Human Wants of Some People at the very top of its list of priorities. And typically, those prioritized Needs and Wants are nobody else’s but their own.
[Note: The second most powerful and persistent cause, perpetrator, and perpetuator of Human Pain and Suffering throughout Human History has been and still is Organized Religion, particularly of the “Abrahamic” variety; ie, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And when one of those Religions can get hooked up with the political and legal power, the administrative authority, and the spending capability of some Government, the ability to unleash literal, physical Hells on Earth is virtually limitless.]
Hope that’s reasoned and detailed enough, Bill. If it isn’t, please let me know how and why it’s not. Thank You, and have a Great day. ~ jeff
i have been asking myself ~ and pondering ~ those questions since i first brought the issue up 4 hours ago, Bill: What i ~ as a self-educated amateur historian retired US Army senior noncommissioned officer ~ think and believe about: 1] the definition of “great"; 2] whether America has ever been “great,” and 3] whether there has ever been in human history a “great” Nation-State or, particularly, Empire.
i will attempt to provide a “reasoned and detailed response” later this evening, my time up here in Alaska. i have some Boat Work that needs immediate tending to at the moment.
But in the meantime, i would have to challenge Your assertion that America was “great” ~ however defined ~ from the end of WWII up to the 70s. And not just because of the status of Blacks; but, as You noted earlier this week, also because of the status of Native Americans and, particularly, American Women.
And whatever claim to “greatness” America may have had by being on the winning side in WWII began to end at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And then continued to demise with its bankrolling and equipping the French attempt to reestablish their colonial empire in Indochina in the late 40s and early 50s, along with its war in Korea. And then ended completely with its own war against the People, Land, Countries, and Nations of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in the 60s and early 70s.
You have hit on an important point in this piece. If the US admits that retaking Crimea, or the Donbas for that matter is very unlikely, yet the standard for negotiations is the removal of Russian forces from these areas, then the US is admitting that there is no way for Ukraine to win, therefore no end to the war.
War is immoral enough, but to knowingly continue a slaughter with no prospect of victory is the height of war criminality (which is present on both sides). Of course, the US has been here before as McNamara's admission of his knowledge of the futility of the Vietnam War came long before the US extricated itself. You cannot claim that the empire is inconsistent.
Yes. The response of the Biden administration would likely be "try try again" with more and newer weapons.
As you said, the empire is nothing if not consistent in waging long futile wars. Though in this case they see the war as fruitful because it weakens Russia and generates plenty of weapons sales. Best of all, it reinforces the idea of a new Cold War, leading to even more wanton spending at the Pentagon. What a "win"!
It's the opinion of a fair number of what I'd call rational and informed analysts and writers that the U.S. would be content with (and therefore will pursue) a long, "frozen" war - one that keeps Russia (and Ukrainians, but who cares about those suckers, amiright?), bleeding and weakening.
Perhaps the neocons at State to whom Biden has apparently entrusted all foreign policy may have thought at some point that they could actually get Ukraine to retake Crimea and put NATO's weapons, including ABMs across Russia's western border. (Checkmate ! ); but having read that pertinent 2019 Rand Corp. memo, it's more likely that they are following the script for bleeding and weakening Russia so that it can't provide any real challenge to American hegemony in Europe and Eurasia, (nor the hegemony of the dollar in gobal financial systems including currency exchange.). If this is correct, and we have every reason to think so, then there is one solid objective by the architects of this war: to keep it going for as long as possible, just as you hint here. We can be certain that Russia wants the opposite. It sought (and nearly had in hand, until the coup) a mutually beneficial long-term economic and security deal with Ukraine). When that was scotched and threats to national security were steadily escalated, it sought to remove those. One can argue that it shouldn't have resorted to war to do that, but she did, and that's where we're at now.
This alone gives lie to the propaganda line that Russia is bent on absorbing and/or colonizing all of Europe, piece by piece. and that the proxy war is intended to stop her.
The US philosophy hasn't changed since Vietnam: "In for a dime, in for a dollar" as we used to say in Texas. There's already too much invested to pull out.
The Brits are saying "in for a penny, in for a pound".
Agree completely, but urging Joe Biden to pursue peace with Russia is like asking Trump to be humble. Joe Biden has been mucking around in Ukraine for well over a decade since his VP days. This is Joe's War, and he's sticking to it. I am surprised though that the Ukrainians haven't figured out that they are the dupes in this whole disaster. The loss of life and total and complete destruction playing out on their territory is going to leave social and infrastructure scars for decades to come. The people of Ukraine are the real victims here, and the US and NATO are the primary perpetrators. Russia was all set for a peace deal over a year ago, until Biden sent Johnson to make sure to not give peace a chance.
It may well be that some or many Ukrainians have figured this out but no doubt the government of Ukraine is all in. The government's desire is often different from the desire of the people involved. I'm guessing, for example, a lot of the US troops (draftees) never wanted to fight in Vietnam but they were there rather than go to prison.
Alex isn't the "government" of Ukraine a bunch of Neo-Nazi's hand-picked by Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and her henchmen. Lead by first the oligarch Poroshenko then by his successor Zelenskyy. Their "government" has consolidated the country's television outlets and dissolved all rival political parties.
Political opponents, like the pro-Russian billionaire Viktor Medvedchuk, were arrested and his business assets seized. Today I believe in Ukraine that there are no anti-government opposition forces. All Ukrainian politicians are united in opposition to Putin's Russia. This is the "government" that the US says they are fighting for - to protect Ukraine's democracy.
Like a lot of the US troops (draftees) never wanting to fight in Vietnam towards the end of the war who went out on patrol and hid and did drugs and fragged their officers, one has to believe a lot of these press-ganged Ukrainian troops (kids) are hiding out in their days in the "war" drinking Vodka rather than engaging in fighting the enemy.
Zelenskyy is clearing out political rivals before the 2024 presidential election. Before the war, he was a deeply unpopular president.
If Ukraine tries to join the European Union. Not only does it have to win its war against Russia, it'll have to prove it's a stable government with democratic institutions like a free press. Not likely. Ukraine's future is bleak.
Do you believe Trumps claim that he will end this war in 24-hrs? Sadly, even if that happens, it's what - 20-months away?
Speaking of Nuland, this from Seymour Hersh's substack: "Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has resigned, and her last day in office is June 30. Her departure has triggered near panic inside the State Department about the person many there fear will be chosen to replace her: Victoria Nuland."
Tucker Carlson points out that the federal "government" of the US is pissing away all its money on the MIC, and that all politicians think the Ukraine is more important than fixing anything in America. Everybody, except Donald Trump, who is against the war machine and does not want war with Russia.
A third of the country watched Tucker Carlon's 3rd podcast and probably agree with him. And this scam indictment is Trump's best campaign component.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNVtYNNWSok
True, Trump is willing to negotiate with Russia, which I agree with.
But I wouldn't say Trump is "against the war machine." Not when he was boosting its budget and bombing everything in sight.
Only candidates like Cornel West speak of dismantling the empire and resisting militarism. You won't hear that message from Trump. He knows what sells.
We think we have had this debate before eh Bill. LOL
And I think agreed to disagree.
Cornel is running as a "Green" now I see. Is that right?
Cornel West is all hat and no cattle.
With an iceberg's chance in hell of affecting the trajectory of the country.
Wasting your vote.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!
Cheers! No worries
Rest In Peace, Daniel Ellsburg.
This nation and planet could use about a dozen or so more Warriors For Truth like You. If not hundreds. If not thousands. If not tens of thousands.
Thank You for Your Service and Inspiration.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-papers-whistleblower-daniel-ellsberg-dead-after-terminal-cancer-2023-06-16/
war is a racket….
sooner this current racket is done the less chance us’ unilateral disarmament is made obvious
As far as America's MICC is concerned, the longer that war goes on, the better. After all, every bit of all that arms, ammo, and gear that is sent to Ukraine has to be replaced.
The MICC's [and the Media's] main, real hope is that before that one does finally actually end, the possibility and opportunity for a new one with China over Taiwan will have become a reality.
We are told that Ukraine has to keep fighting to improve their position at the negotiating table. But in a war of attrition, which is what the Ukraine war has become, the longer the war goes on the more the advantage goes to the side with more soldiers and more weapons. Which in this case is Russia. See for example, the US Civil War, in which the southern armies were ground down under "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. That didn't turn out well for the south and this will not turn out well for Ukraine.
Yet people still have hope, Alex, that Ukraine can turn an attritional war into one of maneuver in which superior allied weaponry will provide a winning edge. Such hopes are much exaggerated, I believe.
Sounds like what the German High Command was hoping in December, 1944. And their armies could go all the way to Antwerp and cut the allied armies in two!!
Yes. Hope and hype over reality.
I don't think Ukraine has the skill and materiel to launch a war-winning offensive. Seems like the Pentagon admits this too. So the war will simply keep going, which is supposedly better for Ukraine than pursuing diplomacy.
I think the real reason for our war in Ukraine is "to kill Russians" (Lindsay Graham formulation) and "to bleed Russia" (Hillary Clinton formulation). Say, wasn't Clinton the Sec. of State who gave Putin that "Reset" button? I wonder if he knew that's what she meant.
Speaking of Trump: To read what David Stockman ~ US Congressman from Michigan from 1976 to 1981, and Director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan Regime ~ has to say about Corporal Bonespurs and his performance as POTUS Maxximmuss XLV, see any [or better, all] of the following:
~ WHY THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE ORANGE MAN at https://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com/why-the-buck-stops-with-the-orange-man-2/
~ THE MOUNTEBANK WHO ENTHRALLED THE GOP at https://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-mountebank-who-enthralled-the-gop/
~ THE GREAT TRUMPIAN INFLATION at https://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-great-trumpian-inflation/
~ THE SWAMP DWELLER VERSUS THE CEASARIST, PART 1 at https://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-swamp-dweller-versus-the-caesarist-megalomaniac-part-1/
~ THE CEASARIST DANGER IN PLAIN SIGHT, PART 2 at https://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-ceasarist-danger-in-plain-sight-part-2/
~ THE ONCE AND FORMER MAGA ECONOMY—HOW THE DONALD BROKE IT, PART 3 at https://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-once-and-former-maga-economy-how-the-donald-broke-it-part-3/
~ THE IMPENDING OCTOGENARIAN CAGE MATCH THAT PORTENDS RUIN at https://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-impending-octogenarian-cage-match-that-guarantees-ruin/
And that’s just in the last two months.
Here are some questions for all You Trumpatistas, MAGAts, and devotees of Trumpatismo out there… :
When Your Hero, Supreme Leader, and Savior pledges to "Make America Great Again,” that implies that America was once “Great” ~ whatever that means or ever meant ~ but is not any more. That being the case:
~ 1] When, exactly, did America become "Great"?
~ 2] Exactly How and Why did it become "Great"?
~ 3] When, exactly, did America stop being "Great"?
~ 4} Exactly How and Why did it stop being "Great"?
It's just a slogan. It's meant to have emotional appeal like all such slogans. It's really not meant for intellectual parsing.
Tell that to the Trumpatistas, MAGAts, and Trumpatismo devotees.
And is that because those folks are incapable of "intellectual parsing," and Donny Boy [and his handlers and script writers] know that?
So let me ask You, Alex: Was America ever "Great," however You use the term?
Like Alex said, MAGA is an emotive slogan, and a good one. It suggests a Trump supporter can help make America great again, without defining greatness or stating how America is to be made that way "again." Except, of course, by electing Trump, who is greatness personified.
Compare to Obama's slogans of "hope" and "change," both vague and left undefined, and both suggesting that Obama was hope and change personified.
Zelensky was recently asked if the offensive has started. "If you feel that it has started," he said, "then it has started." That's the kind of thing we used to say in college when we were, shall we say, relaxed.
Remember the Alamo!
Remember the Maine!
54-40 or Fight! (an oldie but a goodie)
Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!
Ahhh; i see.
So i asked 4 essentially meaningless questions about an equally meaningless
~ and one could add, given who it is directed at and is buying it wholesale, mindless ~ political campaign slogan.
Well then, Bill, let me ask You: Was America ever "Great," however You ~ a retired US military field grade officer, historian, and educator ~ define it?
That's the problem, Jeff. How do you define "great"?
In terms of power, America was unquestionably great after World War II. From 1945 to the 1970s, America had a growing middle class. But was America "great" for everyone? Not so much for Blacks, who needed a determined and often violent civil rights movement to move toward equality (still not fully achieved).
We could go on and on about "greatness." It's a remarkably vague and labile word, very useful to a con man like Trump.
Now, a question for you, MSG. Has America ever been "great" in your view and by your definition? If so, when? If not, why not? Can any country/nation in history truly be described as "great"? If so, which? And what are your criteria?
Eagerly awaiting your reasoned and detailed response!
Bill: This is my definition of “Great,” and my criteria for determining “Greatness” as they both apply to Nation-States [and Empires].
A Nation-State [or Empire] is “Great” to the degree that the sole function and purpose of its government and system of governance is to preserve and protect the Human Rights of Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy, and the Pursuit of Happiness of ALL of its Citizens against All enemies, domestic and foreign; and the facilitating of the fulfillment of the Human Responsibilities of each, every, and all of its Citizens.
And the more that a government and system of governance is in the business of meeting the Human Needs and satisfying the Human Wants of Health, Prosperity, Literacy, Security, and the Pursuit of Wants of SOME of its Citizens, the less “Great” that Nation-State [or Empire] is.
And the reason for that is the simple fact that, because governments themselves produce nothing, the only way they can meet the Human Needs and satisfy the Human Wants of SOME of its Citizens ~ those “Special Vested Interests” who have access to that government’s political and legal power, administrative authority, and most importantly, its spending capability, so as to satisfy the individual, group, organizational, or institutional agendas of those VSIs ~ the ONLY way governments can do that is by violating the Human Rights and undermining the Human Responsibilities of at least some, if not of All, of the rest of its Citizens.
Based on that definition and criteria, i would say that America has never been “Great” for the simple reason that VSIs have Always had access to that power, authority, and capability so as to advance their own agendas. In fact, it was a very elite group of VSIs that set up the American system of government and governance in the first place, back in Philadelphia in the late 1780s. Including, just for starters, writing Slavery into the Constitution and Women out of it.
And also based on that definition and those criteria, i would also say that no Nation-State in history ~ let alone any Empire ~ has ever been “Great” either.
The bottom-line, bullet-hits-the bone historical fact of the matter is that, throughout Human History, the greatest, most grievous, deadliest, and most consistently recurring cause, perpetrator, and perpetuator of Human Pain and Suffering has been Government in the hands of individuals and groups with an agenda that does not include Human Rights or Responsibilities at all. And puts meeting the Human Needs and satisfying the Human Wants of Some People at the very top of its list of priorities. And typically, those prioritized Needs and Wants are nobody else’s but their own.
[Note: The second most powerful and persistent cause, perpetrator, and perpetuator of Human Pain and Suffering throughout Human History has been and still is Organized Religion, particularly of the “Abrahamic” variety; ie, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And when one of those Religions can get hooked up with the political and legal power, the administrative authority, and the spending capability of some Government, the ability to unleash literal, physical Hells on Earth is virtually limitless.]
Hope that’s reasoned and detailed enough, Bill. If it isn’t, please let me know how and why it’s not. Thank You, and have a Great day. ~ jeff
i have been asking myself ~ and pondering ~ those questions since i first brought the issue up 4 hours ago, Bill: What i ~ as a self-educated amateur historian retired US Army senior noncommissioned officer ~ think and believe about: 1] the definition of “great"; 2] whether America has ever been “great,” and 3] whether there has ever been in human history a “great” Nation-State or, particularly, Empire.
i will attempt to provide a “reasoned and detailed response” later this evening, my time up here in Alaska. i have some Boat Work that needs immediate tending to at the moment.
But in the meantime, i would have to challenge Your assertion that America was “great” ~ however defined ~ from the end of WWII up to the 70s. And not just because of the status of Blacks; but, as You noted earlier this week, also because of the status of Native Americans and, particularly, American Women.
And whatever claim to “greatness” America may have had by being on the winning side in WWII began to end at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And then continued to demise with its bankrolling and equipping the French attempt to reestablish their colonial empire in Indochina in the late 40s and early 50s, along with its war in Korea. And then ended completely with its own war against the People, Land, Countries, and Nations of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in the 60s and early 70s.
i’ll get back to You on this after bit.
It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. - Vladimir Putin
And then there's Bernie Sanders - "Feel the Bern". For some reason I never could get into that.
Bern Baby Bern...! lol