03-31-2017, 01:03 AM
The dictionary definition of fifth column is “a group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.” As we’re not at war, as the groups you mention are concerned with domestic issues, I’m inclined to say you are totally abusing the phrase ‘fifth column’. This is typical of extreme partisans, along the lines of claiming all Republicans are Fascists. If one redefines a word, one can apply it to all sorts of people, but in the process the word loses any meaning. I'll insist that you are neither Noah Webster or Humpty Dumpty, free to mangle the English language with impunity.
Certainly, we're not going to eliminate the BLM movement by preventing Muslim immigration.
OK. Perhaps I am a bit out of touch. My first question was whether the Bureau of Land Management was really a terrorist organization?
If one’s primary method of fighting racism is to not become a racist, one is supporting the continued existence of the status quo. I consider this to be an example of extreme partisan double think. You seem to have been able to convince yourself given your selfish values, but anyone with a conscience isn’t apt to buy it.
In general I'm somewhat sympathetic with much of the above. I'd note, though, that most of the navy still runs on oil. We still have a wide net of bases and a lot of tanker ships. The politics of having a network of naval bases all over the world hasn't really gone away, but most folks don't seem too upset about the status quo. (The locals of Okinawa are one exception. I'm sure there are others.)
I'd also note we don't have a defensive navy. We have a navy designed to project power far abroad. We want a capability of fighting and supplying a conflict anywhere in the world that has access to the ocean. This has been a useful geopolitical tool, but I think it prudent to keep track of how it is used. Powell's Questions, rah rah rah.
Certainly, we're not going to eliminate the BLM movement by preventing Muslim immigration.
OK. Perhaps I am a bit out of touch. My first question was whether the Bureau of Land Management was really a terrorist organization?
If one’s primary method of fighting racism is to not become a racist, one is supporting the continued existence of the status quo. I consider this to be an example of extreme partisan double think. You seem to have been able to convince yourself given your selfish values, but anyone with a conscience isn’t apt to buy it.
(03-30-2017, 10:44 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm not keen on TR's imperial expansion but that has to do with the logic of violence and geopolitics of the era as well as the geographical situation the US finds itself in (which has not changed). Bordered on the north by a friendly nation without a military tradition, bordered on the south by a less than friendly nation with no military tradition, and on the east and west by fish.
As such the the US' defense priorities should be focused on the Navy (and more recently the Air Force). Of course during the time period this required coaling stations. That need has passed with the rise of nuclear propulsion.
In general I'm somewhat sympathetic with much of the above. I'd note, though, that most of the navy still runs on oil. We still have a wide net of bases and a lot of tanker ships. The politics of having a network of naval bases all over the world hasn't really gone away, but most folks don't seem too upset about the status quo. (The locals of Okinawa are one exception. I'm sure there are others.)
I'd also note we don't have a defensive navy. We have a navy designed to project power far abroad. We want a capability of fighting and supplying a conflict anywhere in the world that has access to the ocean. This has been a useful geopolitical tool, but I think it prudent to keep track of how it is used. Powell's Questions, rah rah rah.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.