Hagel leaving politics?

[epo]

<p>I've seen this <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/30/hagel-leaving-politics/">story reported</a> and to me it's an udder shocker.&nbsp; Personally being liberal,&nbsp;Chuck Hagel (a Nebraskan Republican) has&nbsp;always has seemed like the most honest guy in the room and the political world would dearly miss his candor.</p><p>A bigger question is: Is the beginning of the predicted fragmentation of the Republican party?&nbsp; The two wings Neo-Con/Evangelical and Libertarian/Traditional Small-Government clearly have no time for each other.&nbsp; </p>

[pennington]

He's been a close supporter of McCain for years. He's probably figuring on a cabinet position if McCain wins, maybe Secretary of Defense.

[A.J.]

Could be.&nbsp; But like many pols, they retire when they end up in the minority.

[NewYorkDragons80]

<strong>epo</strong> wrote:<p>A bigger question is: Is the beginning of the predicted fragmentation of the Republican party? The two wings Neo-Con/Evangelical and Libertarian/Traditional Small-Government clearly have no time for each other. </p><p>&nbsp;Not quite.&nbsp; There's significant overlap.&nbsp; I'm a neo-con/traditional conservative; like this bruthah:</p><p>&nbsp;<img src="http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trp3.jpg" border="0" width="220" height="323" /></p>

[phixion]

tr a conservative? i always considereed him a progressive.

[NewYorkDragons80]

<strong>phixion</strong> wrote:<br />tr a conservative? i always considereed him a progressive.<p>When it comes to being a corporate watchdog and environmentalism (Which I agree with him on), he would be by modern standards.&nbsp; But where do you think the Neo-cons get their inspiration?&nbsp; When did we become a superpower and gain extra-continental territory?&nbsp; The Spanish-American War?&nbsp; The Panama Canal?&nbsp; Great White Fleet? WWI Interventionism? </p>

[phixion]

<p>When did we become a superpower and gain extra-continental territory</p><p>&nbsp;i would argue we became a superpower after wwi,&nbsp;ive had professors argue&nbsp;that we became a superpower&nbsp;during wwi before we intervened while we&nbsp;were making money off it.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;the land your mentioning has done little if anything to strengthen america.&nbsp;philipines&nbsp;for example sure they wanted to be free of spanish rule but they didnt want be under americas thumb either. &nbsp;and they still dont like us over there thats why radical islam has a foothold over there. plus roosevelts own ambition is why the philipines were invaded, he was&nbsp;given no order to move the pacific fleet, one could take that insubordination. and the spain we beat wasnt the same country that had existed centuries before. the silver in south america had long since dried up and they&nbsp;had little funds.&nbsp;as for the&nbsp;panama canal we bought the land and promised to hand it back to them and we did, i cant count that as american imperialism. and the spanish american war is an abomination. it occurred because of good old yellow journalism and jingoism. we rushed to judgement and blamed people for something that they probably&nbsp;never ever did. </p>

[NewYorkDragons80]

<strong>phixion</strong> wrote:<br /><p>When did we become a superpower and gain extra-continental territory</p><p> i would argue we became a superpower after wwi, ive had professors argue that we became a superpower during wwi before we intervened while we were making money off it. </p><p> the land your mentioning has done little if anything to strengthen america. philipines for example sure they wanted to be free of spanish rule but they didnt want be under americas thumb either. and they still dont like us over there thats why radical islam has a foothold over there. plus roosevelts own ambition is why the philipines were invaded, he was given no order to move the pacific fleet, one could take that insubordination. and the spain we beat wasnt the same country that had existed centuries before. the silver in south america had long since dried up and they had little funds. as for the panama canal we bought the land and promised to hand it back to them and we did, i cant count that as american imperialism. and the spanish american war is an abomination. it occurred because of good old yellow journalism and jingoism. we rushed to judgement and blamed people for something that they probably never ever did. </p><p>&nbsp;The Phillippines and Guam proved to be invaluable refueling stops for our navy vessels and Panama is THE MOST important protectorate in American history.&nbsp; Not only do I disagree with your point that the possessions gained between 1898-1909 did &quot;little if anything&quot; to strengthen America, but I would argue that we would not be a superpower if it weren't for the aforementioned territories.</p><p>As for the Phillippines, sure a fair amount of the locals were none too pleased about the likes of Ferdinand Marcos and the American military government that predated him, but that has absolutely nothing to do with radical Islam.&nbsp; Islam predates Christianity in the Phillippines by over a hundred years, and the southern islands where Islam is the dominant religion have been in a constant state of rebellion since the arrival of Spain. </p><p>In Panama, we reached a deal with the Panamanian government (frustrated Colombian generals), and carved out the Canal Zone as de facto American soil.&nbsp; Then we imported a settler population (military, construction workers, oversheas shippers, etc. with special privileges and it wasn't until the 70s that we agreed to hand that territory over to Panama.&nbsp; That's imperialism.&nbsp; Imperialism is a weighty term that's associated with horrific atrocities like the Belgian Congo, but that isn't true in every case.&nbsp; This isn't to say Philippine civilians were privied to our humanitarianism in the early 1900s, but we have a better track record that virtually any empire, IMO.</p><p>As for the Spanish-American War, Spain never attacked the Maine, but they had established concentration camps in Cuba to put down Cuban indpendence and maintain their presence in the Western Hemisphere.&nbsp; As a human rights violation, that's unacceptable.&nbsp; From a military standpoint, that's a threat to their neighbor to the north.&nbsp; Yes, the Maine was the straw that broke the camel's back, but the US and Spain knew the war was coming and could not be avoided. </p>

[phixion]

<p>first of all dragon i love historical argumetns so keep it up.........</p><p>about refueling stations, as long as we had hawaii i believe we couldve gotten away without a refueling stations in the philipines. in fact personally i believe that if yamamoto had actually bombed our oil tanks at pearl harbor then the pacific theatre wouldve have been a much much longer war. granted they didnt have the right shells to burn the oil but hey when u have the opportunity u have to take it. </p><p>as for the us not being superpower without being imperialistic, again i point to wwi. the us came into the war extremly late, and we were extremely well supplied.&nbsp; meanwhile the germans were looting the land they gained for&nbsp;rations and gas, the americans came in with care packages and full stomachs, thats what made us a superpower. if we never entered the war the germans wouldve been happy to keep the stalemate going, american intervention is what forced the germans to lose. so at this point the major industrial powers of the day were england, germany, and the US. germany and england were decimated by war, that left us as the default superpower. also in the years post war we got rich off the dawes plan. </p><p>i can see ur a big fan of the roosevelt corollary, as a&nbsp;west indian i look at the roosevelt corollary as a slap in the face. we dont need american intervention, its americans that think we do. its americans that think we cant handle our own affair, to me its condescending. that being said i do roosevelt as a president, hes not quite his little cousin but no president ever was/is/will be.</p>

[NewYorkDragons80]

<strong>phixion</strong> wrote:<br /><p>first of all dragon i love historical argumetns so keep it up.........</p><p>about refueling stations, as long as we had hawaii i believe we couldve gotten away without a refueling stations in the philipines. in fact personally i believe that if yamamoto had actually bombed our oil tanks at pearl harbor then the pacific theatre wouldve have been a much much longer war. granted they didnt have the right shells to burn the oil but hey when u have the opportunity u have to take it. </p><p>as for the us not being superpower without being imperialistic, again i point to wwi. the us came into the war extremly late, and we were extremely well supplied. meanwhile the germans were looting the land they gained for rations and gas, the americans came in with care packages and full stomachs, thats what made us a superpower. if we never entered the war the germans wouldve been happy to keep the stalemate going, american intervention is what forced the germans to lose. so at this point the major industrial powers of the day were england, germany, and the US. germany and england were decimated by war, that left us as the default superpower. also in the years post war we got rich off the dawes plan. </p><p>i can see ur a big fan of the roosevelt corollary, as a west indian i look at the roosevelt corollary as a slap in the face. we dont need american intervention, its americans that think we do. its americans that think we cant handle our own affair, to me its condescending. that being said i do roosevelt as a president, hes not quite his little cousin but no president ever was/is/will be.</p><p> From a strategic standpoint, it's always better not to but all your eggs into one basket, especially when it comes to</p><p><img src="http://www.allthingsyank.com/uhf15/kunibw.jpg" border="0" width="188" height="260" /><br /><font size="5">SUPPLIES!</font>So having Guam, Hawaii, the Philippines, etc. was essential. </p><p>The fact that the US ended WWI in less than a year only reinforces the idea that we were a superpower before, not after World War I. If the Depression didn't even out post-WWI gains, the aviation gap certainly did. While Western Europe was making strides in military aviation, we didn't stop using French military aircraft until after WWI. The only thing keeping us strong as a military was the massive navy which was a byproduct of the Roosevelt presidency and could only be sustained by friendly island refueling stations.</p><p>When it comes to the Roosevelt Corollary, it was originally meant not just as an American police force, but as the Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans, and Americans protecting Latin America from Europe and each other. It's obviously drifted to more unilateral uses and its had its successes and failures, but I do agree with its principles.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 1-5-07 @ 3:10 PM</span>

[Fat_Sunny]

<p><font size="2">&quot;A Choice, Not An Echo&quot;.&nbsp; This Was The True American Libertarian-Conservative!:</font></p><p><font size="2"></font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/redir?src=image&amp;clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wi llisms.com%2Farchives%2Fbarrygoldwater.gif&amp;moduleI d=stgD_image_details.jsp.M&amp;clickedItemDescription= Image Details" border="0" width="468" height="700" /></font></p>