BrentWil
BrentWil's JournalAnyone ever been to New Delhi, India?
I am going this summer (awful time to go) to do research for my PhD dissertation. Anyone been? Any advice?
Would You Open War Crimes Trials for OUR Soldiers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace"A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing". This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace."
If Iraq was a war of aggression, should we now turn to dealing with this now that Iraq is over? Should we start to seek justice from not just President Bush but from those who executed his policy?
Pakistan goes to war with India.. We have troops in Afghanistan... what is our response?
Each presidential debate, I submit this question. I think it is a legit and complex question. India and Pakistan have a long history, and it is one in which Pakistan is nearly always the aggressor (1971 was an odd case) . The last one in 1999, the Kargil War, almost resulted in the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan. Again, Pakistan was the aggressive nation.
Given that South Asia is one of the most populated areas of the globe and given the fact that we do have military involvement in Pakistan and Afghanistan, how should the US respond if Pakistan again is aggressive and goes to war with India? Keep in mind that the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan is not out of the question.
What was the last "Republican" Policy or Idea that was enacted and was actually a good idea?
I was trying to think about this question. There are things in the far past that were "Republican" ideas and were good. For example, freedom of the slaves and trying to grant freed slaves rights (Though the later was a defacto failure until the 1960s). I was trying to put some thought into this. I have some thoughts, but wanted to ask the board.
And let me qualify that. The idea has to be purely or mostly "Republican". For example, NAFTA was a policy supported by both parties (President Clinton and President Bush), so that wouldn't count. (Not that NAFTA is something that people here are crazy about)
If President Obama goes to war with Iran, would you be open to listening to the case for it?
If President Obama goes to war with Iran, would you be open to listening to the case for it? Or is it a non-starter, unless Iran directly attacks the United States?
SImple Question. Just curious if anyone thinks that after Iraq there could be a case that anyone would listen to? Anyone of the left, that is.
Why is Southern History so Romanticized?
The south has many wonderful people and has a wonderful culture. This post is not meant to attack anyone in the south. However, it is meant to have an open and honest debate about history and the myths of history. Below I will write in general and regional terms, even though I know that some in the south were not with the general public sentiment during any of the periods I mention. This is meant to spark debate about how we understand history, not demean anyone.
With the said, the South has one of the most difficult and painful histories in the United States. From slavery, to reconstruction, to the civil rights fight, and today's racism, the South has a history that is ugly and has historically been on the wrong side of every cultural issue that this country has ever faced. Yet, America as a whole, not just southern America, has romanticized southern history and culture. From the Civil War movies today that minimize slavery in southern society, The Birth of a Nation in the 1920s, to school books that minimize difference in the Civil War and Reconstruction: America has a version of southern history and culture that is distorted. It is more like Gone with the Wind then the real ugly history. The myth of the south and its "lost cause" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy ) dominant the historical narrative.
This is compared to the history of the North. Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and other radical republicans stood for freedom and equality during the civil war period. Yet, they are almost totally forgotten. Even the few individuals that did fight for freedom and are somewhat remembered, such Frederick Douglass, are less known then someone like Robert E. Lee. We have forgotten that there were many people in the North that felt strong about slavery and wanted to end it. They were a driving factor in the creation of the Republican Party and the reason why that party was seen as such a threat by the South. They also fought hard for equality after the end of the civil war. Yet they are nearly forgotten.
My question is why? Why is the south so romanticized?
A little bit of complaining about a Jury Decision
This was my hidden message:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002222807
I can understand the comments of the jury members. However, to me this is simply a controversal subject. Is there any real argument about the "truth" of my post or that it isn't at least a debatable subject. My base point was that that southern history is "white washed", and the myths of history are important. If we can't talk about the past and how it is viewed, I think it is a sad day for DU.
i would say, if I had to rewrite it, I would have written in a way that did indicate that I don't think everyone from the south is a bad person. However, I wanted to start a decision about history and the myths of history. I thought this was a means to do that. I really think DU members and juries should have allowed the post to stay.
Results Below:
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
This is a topic that lends itself to divisiveness and rancor. This sort of post never ends well. It is insensitive to today's Southerners.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jan 25, 2012, 11:05 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Tough call. Initally I thought to leave it alone, but the alerter is correct it pointing out that this post can not end well, and is if nothing else, picking a fight. It also stereo types all southerners vs. all northerners. After thoughtfull consideration, this post is divisive, if not pointless.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: This is a broad brush attack even if the author wants to smear himself among many others. Hide it.
If the GOP wasn't crazy, they would nominate Mitch Daniels...
This guy would win or at least have a much better shot then Newt and Romney. Nothing like being saved by the insane nature of the opposition.
Can Rick Santorum Win the GOP Nomination?
The establishment HATES Newt and wants to take him down. Plus he is an has no discipline. Mitt has the money and organization to help, but no one wants to vote for him. Newt could very well win FL. If he does, the next few contests are caucuses (Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota) and a primary (Missouri). Santorum has a core of social conservatives and some social conservative leadership has lined up behind him. He could carry some caucuses and get momentum before Super Tuesday. If he times it right, and becomes the flavor of the month on Super Tuesday, could he be the ultimate dark horse and win this thing?
Thoughts?
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Apr 25, 2010, 10:54 PMNumber of posts: 2,384