A clairvoyant now. Nah you had no idea what polyembolokoilamania meant. Fence sitting to the point (!) of pleasure. Obviously, its a metaphor, not that you are anally inserting fence posts for pleasure. You are spineless because you are neutral when posting on a deeply partisan forum. I never underestimate. I challenge you to an arm wrestling contest. So 9 years in, you still its too early to judge? Really? Leave the parents out, or I might make sarky comments about your Mum. You are also hectoring me, and others. Again, use the sodding Block function if you don't like my posts, or does that go against your neutral/fence sitting instincts? You still aren't ignoring me. You post lots of opinions. You have posted opinions supportive of drugs on this forum. You have expressed an opinion that Thai dual pricing is unfair. You have expressed opinions that are supportive of prostitution in certain circumstances. You have expressed an opinion that you view Thai culture as immoral. You express opinions that Thailand is better now than 25-30 years ago. You have expressed an opinion that abortion is immoral. You've previously stated "Opinions mean nothing. Facts stand". But that's an epistemological position. The is you don't recognise the difference between a fact and an opinion. For you, your opinions are actually fact, and therefore you take umbrage when people challenge your opinions Now attacking people's education. Interesting. You claim to have "been into nutrition" for 50 years, and studying psychology for 35 years, but the best you come up with is " anal, petulant and childish". If you don't want to debate, then don't. Sit back and read. But you post because you want to be heard, to affect the debate. So back to the nub. This is a thread about the US President's apparent decision to annex the Straits of Hormuz. In the second quarter of the 21st Century, that ought to evoke a black or white response. But you display moral evasiveness, which is odd when one wants to express an opinion; why post if you genuinely have no opinion on the matter. In reality, you have an opinion, but its like reading tea leaves because of your moral evasiveness. I discern you support this action by your country. I discern some opposition to these actions. I say some, because you have added in a policy that no one, to my knowledge, has expressed; the incorporation of Cuba into the state of Florida (there is suggestion about a forcible change of government, rather than imperialism). Lets park that Freudian slip. Well, the first statement isn't technically correct, but maybe it reflects the common man's understanding, but the second part? If this was coming from a non-American (and non-Iranian), there might be a neutral opinion uttered like this; that it might be possible for the US to become an imperialist power. Non-Americans might argue whether or not the US is an Imperialist power (I think since 1945, they are not. The non-American territories they control/rule came about because of a World War, and the new International Order decided the US was the party that could assume responsibility for the care and welfare of people rendered without government. The US dabbled in Imperialism at the turn of the 20th Century, and failed to heed Kipling's warning about the "White man's Burden"). You've just marked 250 years of your nation, reflecting on its exceptionalism, achievement and accomplishments. But to the question about whether it should now become an imperial power, your response is, essentially, "dunno, why not?". Its mealy mouthed' Americans ought not be neutral about how they see their own country. The response could have been "Hell Yeah. USA Number 1. We Rule!". Its a very definitive position to take, inline with the sentiments expressed by the current government. Or the response could have been "This is wrong. This is not the nation was are. We are not like the old European powers. We are America. Land of the Free etc etc." In 1956, the UK, with France and Israel, attempted to assert control over the Suez Canal, for reasons similar to today's events. That somehow access to the Suez belonged to the world, that the Egyptians had no right to it etc. Eisenhower opposed it for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was he possessed moral clarity about the US position in the world' it was not an Imperial power. He held the view that the US should form alliances with Arab states on the basis of genuine friendship and because of coinciding interests. He feared if the US sided with the British and French, the Arabs would, correctly, assume that the Americans were more of the same, another lying imperial power only interested in subjugation. If you think about it, it was one of the most moral decisions taken by a US President. Yes, he probably knew that Nasser was sliding towards Soviet influence, and maybe it would have been easier to stand with old allies. Possibly it would have been a better military decision to support the British. But he knew he was no longer a General. He had to be the Statesman. 12 years earlier, he coordinated the greatest act of liberation in history; its never going to be surpassed (no matter what ridiculous statements come out from the present incumbent). He stood shoulder to shoulder with other Allied generals, who had seen their homelands pulverised by the Nazis, their citizens shackled and massacred. He lead an operation that restored, without judgement, legitimate government and democracy across Western Europe, creating one of the most enduring alliances in history. He likely knew many of the commanders who were going to take part in the Suez operation, but I think he possessed absolute, and correct, moral clarity. Funnily enough, there is another reason Eisenhower acted as he did which resonates to today. The Soviet Invasion of Hungary was happening at the same time, WW3 might be happening. What the blazes were the British and French doing at such a time. Similarly in Iran. Israel kicked this off, largely because of a domestically struggling government, and the Americans had no choice but to go along. But Ukraine. Why the <deleted> did Israel pick this time (unless they are all a bit pro-Russian). So Americans did have and can have moral clarity. They held clear views about their country's destiny. I think you do, but you are afraid to express them. Its either wrong or right for America to annex the Straits of Hormuz. I can acknowledge my country's past, but I am clear, I don't want the British Empire to be reconstituted, certainly not in the way is was constituted (conquest, enslavement etc). Past US elections show the vote confounding opinion polls; the Trump vote was underestimated because more people supported him than they were willing to admit.
Create an account or sign in to comment