[nutmeg]

read later bump

[MattAMiller]

This makes a lot of sense. You'll notice that most of the arguments over the war had little to do with actual war. Mostly people (here and abroad) just want to restrain the US for the sake of restraining the US. And after the war began frustration was voiced not so much with civilian casualties but with the the fact that the US didn't "listen."

[ReleaseTheHounds]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920335/posts

Victor Davis Hansen's piece in yesterday's NRO (posted on the Freep above) is a much better read and much better assessment of "how things have changed" since the collapse of the Evil Empire. Doesn't touch the economic side of things -- but that's another story.

Friedman has fallen into that "highly overrated" situation from believing his own press clippings. The fawning interviews on PBS and Imus, the high celebrity from his NYT Editorial Page post -- yes, his book will sell but it better be more insightful than this synopsis if it hopes to have any lasting value... Oh, yeah: he's just writing it to pay for his daughter's tuition, so no need for lasting value. JMHO.

[WaterDragon]

This business of the Europeans wanting to control America's power is not new. In World War I there was an ongoing battle over this. France and Britain wanted to parcel out American farm boys into their units (to use as cannon fodder). Pershing was a brick....he absolutely refused to consider placing Americans under the slovenly, inept British and French command, and President Wilson backed him up.

The Europeans have a different view of things. To them, they have a right to take their neighbor's earnings for themselves (that's what the welfare state is about), so naturally they think they should have control and use of the earnings of Americans, too.

But Americans have a different view.....we earned the wealth of this country on our backs and we'll be the ONLY ones in control of its use. Just like Pershing.

[jwh_Denver]

btt