And the disdain you show for the silly American/NATO actions in Boznia and the like under Clinton is shared by a lot of true conservatives with respect to Iraq. Where is America’s interest there, save in some pie-in-the-sky Wilsonian nation-building (the most liberal of all government activities) quest?

Democrats are inconsequential. I’d prefer that the ‘Pubs face their own faults head on, and halt their seemingly inexorable slide to the liberal left.

I think the more interesting question when it comes to seemingly blind allegiance and fiery debate is how do people compromise their differences when those differences are so utterly fundamental to the structure of a person’s thinking. Like someone telling me I should fear god because of hell, obviously; and me replying that i just don’t believe there is a hell.

history will always be biased according to those beliefs and the only way to get a view of what happened is to read the left, the right, and the middle. what seems to be happening now is to just ignore that the other side is valid in any way.

i don’t think the world necessarily wants the US to be brought down. its very clear that any nation (even when the us was run by democrats) will work at first to preserve its own strategies and interests. however, like the fear of corporate exploitation, i think the world would just like to know that the US will not simply piss -at their leisure- on everyone else in order to do so.

and being that we all occupy the same planet and the residents of each nation just very arbitrarily happen to find themselves there, it doesn’t seem like that extreme a request now, does it?

ben: i wasn’t trying to bring up WWII, i should have prefaced that with eg. but since we’re talking about it, that war is a good example of revisionism in mainstream american history; look at even the debate on why the bomb was dropped at all — but really, could you imagine that they would have dropped the bomb on europe? that would have been so much crazier than dropping it on an island.

1. Did the Democrats obstruct Reagan’s policies in Central America? Answer: Yes.

2. Did the Democrats oppose every single weapons system that modernized our military in the 1980’s? Answer: Yes.

3. Have the Democrats obstructed, whined, complained, and called for retreat from Iraq? Answer: Yes.

4. Do you want me to go on? Just where is this “truth” coming from “the same side of the fence?”

These are facts. They are stubborn things. If you can show me that Democrats have supported or suggested supporting American military action in defense of its own interests - not “NATO’s” interests as we did with Bosnia and Kosovo who had absolutely no strategic value to the US - then I will retract some of those statements.

The fact is, you cannot because the Democratic party - with very few exceptions - has become the party of simpering internationalism. And when most of the world would like nothing better than to see the US brought down a peg or two in the international order, internationalism won’t work.

Let’s leave revisionism in the hands of the experts and focus on *making* history instead.

And to Kim, of course we would have had a rather difficult time defeating the Nazis if they had not engaged the Russains. However, we did get the big bomb first so it was only a matter of time. Regardless, there are many truths in this article and I don’t think a related opinion on potential outcomes of WWII has a lot of bearing on the rest of them.