Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is well worth a listen. Brian and I talk about the tense standoff with Iran, and the prospects for war, as well as the tense standoff in the Democratic Party over who will be the guy (or the gal) who loses to Trump. High drama! Historically, Brian and I also talk about the Berlin Airlift, the formation (and legacy) of the United Nations, and the role of the British Empire in World War II. Check it out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiOlD8OYOHI&feature=youtu.be
P.S. I'm painfully aware of the irony of the image above. The "United Nations" started out as a powerful military alliance dedicated, not to "fighting for freedom," but to the defeat of a common foe: fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. Once that foe was vanquished, the major powers got back to squabbling, as per usual. The United Nations never succeeded in keeping the peace, because its structure made it impossible for it ever to act against the interests of any of the five most powerful countries of the world. In other words, the U.N. is frequently paralyzed -- and that, curiously enough, may be among its best features, because it's kept it going all these years...
Another great interview.
ReplyDeleteTucker Carlson: I agree, Dr. Waddy. I do believe there is not an appetite for a full scale war. I agree, the USA needs to keep the moral high ground. I also believe isolation is not the answer. I can understand why President Trump is treading lightly.
The Presidential Candidates: After last nights 1st debate (or lack of)- I think I need to retake Biology (being funny/sarcastic). Honestly, if they keep up this nonsense, the election will be a breeze. Keep up this talk of trans abortion, speaking Spanish and lastly, the talk of "free" everything and Trump will win--I am concerned about the 2024 election, not so much the 2020. Was reading the comments on various news pages and so far nearly 70% of people feel the same way.
The U.N.: Just my opinion, the U.N. is obsolete. I'm not sure if it serves a purpose anymore, Dr. Waddy. It sure seems they voice their opinion against the U.S. a lot. Now, I believe its important to have debates and discussions, I would just like to remind the UN members who butters the bread, so to speak. Being in a college setting (especially a liberal one who does not correct or even have a discussion of the concept(s) of my further explanation below, I might add), there are a lot of young folks who think the UN should make our rules/laws. I admit, I think a lot of that is due to misinformation and eight years of the former president. It is just shocking to me how many people think the UN should be a governing body. I also realize the United Nations main objective is to maintain world peace and security. I just wonder how much of that can be achieved when the middle east countries and China sit on the Human Rights Council (for instance) and who can be referred as "non democracies". If I seem to remember, the neocon former President Bush (the younger) did not rejoin that group, however Obama did. I just think a lot of the UN is just "lip service"--maybe at some point in time, they did a great service, I am just not so sure it is that way now. Also, doesn't the UN state “Rights are bestowed by governments and treaties, whereas American traditions and jurisprudence are based on the idea that rights come from the Creator alone, and that governments exist merely to protect them." To me, it/the UN is just contradictory ---we as Americans value our rights and freedoms, and it seems the UN does not. It is time to get out of the UN and secure the United States Constitution and what it embodies. Just my opinion. I am just having a hard time following the globalist agenda and perhaps, I could be classified as extremist in my view points (Oh right, I am, according to Hillary Clinton and the democratic party, grin).
Linda and Dr. Waddy: I do favor our withdrawal from the UN but I am concerned about Dr.Waddy's notation that the General Assembly, which is dominated by reflexive Israel haters, is subordinate to the Security Council, in which we have a veto. Under President Trump this would of course, protect Israel from those who would countenance its physical destruction: Russia China, perhaps even spineless France or (God forbid) the U.K. under some near future leftist regime.
ReplyDeleteHistorically, even though few nations enjoy Security Council membership, their surrogates have flourished (eg.Russian and Chinese Marxist infestation in Africa and Latin America).
Dr. Waddy: I agree with you and Tucker that President Trump was right to refrain. A good President is a decision maker and President Trump does not shrink from that responsibility.
I am grateful to the 1970's and '80's neocons, who, through President Reagan, helped to do the USSR to death. I perceive that the definition of the term neocon has undergone a transformation and that it may encompass one who would advocate all out attack on Iran. I do not believe that necessary NOW, to counter that nation's threat to Israel. Our counterthreat , coordinated with that massive effort of which Israel is, known to all on all sides, fully capable,is, I am sure, enough to deter the Islamists.
Linda, I agree that the biggest takeaway from the Democratic debates is how thoroughly the party has lost its marbles. I listened closely, and as far as I can tell not a single Democratic candidate sees it as a problem that thousands of people are violating our border every day. Or rather, the only problem they see is...how can we make the gate-crashers feel more welcome? Amazing. I would hope that this "open borders" stance will sink the Dems in 2020, but I fear the media will use constant misdirection to prevent that.
ReplyDeleteLinda, you make some good points about the UN. It falls short in countless ways, and it COULD become the nucleus for a world government someday, and that would be very concerning. Jack is right, though, that our presence in the UN serves to "keep it honest" to a point. We bankroll it, to an extent, and our veto ensures that it can't do ANYTHING that we judge to be adverse to our interests. To me, that makes the UN sufficiently harmless that we can continue our membership without undue risk. Moreover, I would say it isn't so much the UN that endangers our liberty and our sovereignty -- it's an internationalist elite, infused with Marxist principles, which does that. Much of that elite is located WITHIN our borders too, so that the real threat is much more complex, and much more dangerous, than anything that could emanate out of the UN headquarters. To summarize, I view the UN as a sideshow, by and large. I would leave it be. President Trump's ongoing reaffirmation of our sovereignty makes the UN increasingly redundant anyway.
On Iran, I concur with Jack that an all-out attack isn't necessary to safeguard our interests and those of Israel. However, if we're serious about preventing Iran from acquiring nukes, we may soon have to face the fact that only bombing can achieve that goal. A negotiated compromise ought to be achievable, but it's looking like the Iranian regime just won't play ball... Unfortunately, given the global media's contempt for Trump, the Iranians may believe they can thumb their noses at the U.S. with impunity. We may need to prove them wrong.
Agree Dr. Waddy--you're just more eloquent in stating it/the facts, smiles.
DeleteDr. Waddy: The world was so traumatized by WWs I and II that the victors thought they had to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to prevent recurrences. Stalin grudgingly supported it but saw it as yet another battlefield. The UN turned out like a New Year's resolution. Its symbolic empowerment of tinhorn dictatorships on disingenuously named agencies such as the Human Right's Council serve only to provide them forums for fanatic antisemitism and unending condemnation of Israel.
ReplyDeleteSo Warren is this month's fancy? I wish her very well up until election day. She is a scold and a perfectionist who projects a very obvious intellectual disdain for the real America. The Dem plunge to the bottom appears to have gained much momentum this week with their frantic scrum to be seen as "most commie". Their "campaign" is a tawdry spectacle.
Oh, travel before the interstates was real keen, especially in the summer.I'd like to see those who excoriate them because they encouraged the use of the unforgiveably free automobile take a pledge to use only the two lanes. Uh huh, that's what I thought.
After Napoleon, France long enjoyed a reputation as an exemplary land power. Civil war Generals had been trained to see the French Army as nonpareil. The Franco-Prussian war marred but did not completely discredit that view. Though France fought well in WWI they could not have beaten the Germans on their own. Their yet still considerable military prestige greatly exacerbated the shock and astonishment at their defeat in 1940.
I would respectfully attribute the stalled allied effort in Normandy to their underestimation of the barrier the Norman hedgerows posed but mainly to the so often proven harrowing ability of the German army to fight with terrible resolve.
Jack, I don't think Warren is the flavor of the day...what I watched for two evenings in a row--I wish all the candidates well--not one, in my opinion no one has what it takes to beat the current President; "Free this", "Abortions/Reproductive Rights for trans", Health care for illegals, but not for Americans, Reparations. Grab the popcorn, its going to get interesting. smiles
ReplyDeleteAgain, thanks Jack for the smiles and at times the fits of laughter.
Linda and Dr. Waddy: One has to wonder; surely there are Democrats who are appalled at the prospect for Dem catastrophe in 2020,no?But we are not hearing from them or of them. Maybe like most incipient totalitarians the Dems are good at keeping their counsel and it is still early in the process. I'd like to know what some of them may be mulling in their atavistic refuges. Is there such a thing as a Dem to the right of Phil Donahue anymore?
ReplyDeleteYou're too kind, Linda. :)
ReplyDeleteJack, as always you size up the competition incisively. Warren is indeed a "scold". She seems to specialize in a sour expression of hostility (accessorized with a finger-wag) to the alleged fat cats who have supposedly made us all so miserable. I celebrate her rise, because it portends the Dems' fall.
You're right -- both the highways and the automobile have boosted our quality of life immeasurably. No one is prepared to give them up. The lefties will see endless films and read endless books idealizing the "simple life" of peasants, sure, but not one in a hundred thousand is prepared to try it.
Personally, I would see the temporary bottling up of the Allied armies in Normandy as part of their overall plan. They needed to build up their forces before "breaking out," and Monty was notoriously hesitant about it. Granted, they did mount a number of stalled offensives. I'd say it always just a matter of time.
I'll save my comments on the debates for a separate post.