"American Isolationism" Topic

YouTube link

I love all the stuff Simon Whistler produces. This one I am inclined to not agree with because…

1. He does not take into account China's liabilities and overrates China in my opinion. He imagines a world where China swoops in and takes over everything.

2. He does not take into account what happens when foreign aid drys up and blows away. God help the countries that expect it if goes away in an instant.

3. He does not take Bretton Woods into account and the USA withdrawing from patrolling the sea lanes.

4. He does not take into account countries having to provide for their own defense and how that will strain their budgets.

5. He does not take into account countries settling old scores without the global cop USA to prevent it.

6. His entire theme is the world has a Kumbaya moment, comes together and the USA suffers while everyone else moves onto some form of Nirvana. I think his European arrogance and dislike for our policies is creeping into his narrative. Simon not the usual balanced analysis I have come to know and love from your presentations..

Too much of a European fantasy based on personal dislike for our policies?

However this one is gold…

YouTube link

This is the advice concerning foreign policy left by George Washington in his farewell address, and it remains the most coherent American foreign policy ever conceived:

"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence ( I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good--that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism-- this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated."

K

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."

Wise words. Peacetime alliances only lead to war. Because of said alliances, one has no real option if an ally is invaded. No alliance, you have maneuverability.

"We start WW3 because Russia invades Estonia and Estonia is in NATO"

What option do you have? War or abandonment of the alliance? By the time you could respond conventionally, Russia would be through them.

But I've said before, I am not a proponent of peace time alliances. I like options. Alliances led directly to both World Wars.

Oh well.., What does this man Washington know anyway and who the H#ll is he to give us advice?!! 😉

Nah, he's not reading this right and he makes silly assumptions.

1. ALL nations are about [NATION] First -- do you think France put's Greece's concerns ahead of its own?

2. Trump has never said or proposed Autarky, he's instead promoted the concept of Fair and Reciprocal Trade, Energy Independence and rebuilding the US Manufacturing base. These are all rational and achievable goals.

Btw -- the US did largely practice Autarky up until the beginning of the Cold War. It had all the resources necessary to do so and a large sophisticated manufacturing base. Prior to the Cold War the US largely only imported luxury goods from abroad. But US leadership saw a need to create a more stable "new world order" that would minimize international conflicts and use fair trade as a primary mechanism to do so. So the US CREATED THE GLOBAL TRADE SYSTEM we have today! It deliberately ENDED AUTARKY and made itself subject, voluntarily, to global trade constraints via the Breton-Woods, GATT, and other agreements.

It also VOLUNTARILY restricted its own power to reduce the chance it would be tempted to global empire and reduce global fears that it would via the CREATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS and the IAEA to which it gave some power over its own interests.

That's pretty amazing stuff that this pundit doesn't recognize and seems to take for granted. And now many Americans feel that after almost 80 years of this, as other powers have emerged and grown strong and wealthy off the system we put in place to deliberately restrain ourselves that maybe that whole system has run its course, and the nation needs a new path that includes acting more in its own economic interests again.

*Trump ended NAFTA and re-negotiated trade deals with Mexico and Canada, resulting in overall trade growth and a shift towards the US in terms of trade balance. That is, all three countries benefited from increased, fairer trade.

* The US was energy independent at the end of Trump's first presidency, leading to economic growth and reduced the oil income of Iran and Russia.

*Bad trade deals compounded by bad economic policy led to massive off-shoring of US jobs, some of these can come back to the US.

3. Tariffs and Trade Wars --here he ignores Trump's own actions in hist first term, and his statements, that he views tariffs largely as a trade negotiation tool, not as a means to generate revenue or impose autarky. He's speaking as if this hasn't already happened and it's theoretical. Trump has already SUCEEDED with tariffs on China and that pushed China to negotiate fairer trade AND ended steel dumping on the US market.

4. Isolationism? No, more like Less Interventionism. Trump's criticism of allies is based upon meeting mutual agreed upon defense goals and reciprocity. He was right to criticize NATO countries for free riding on US defense spending. He's also right to be skeptical of calls for war and nation-building after 20 years of strategic failures. Can you honestly say the world a more stable place after 20 years of US nation building in Afghanistan followed by a self-imposed rout and handing control and $80 USD billion in military equipment to the Taliban? Is the world a better place after the US and NATO STARTED A WAR in Libya to topple Khadaffi in order to secure French oil interests??

Btw, there's so much left-bias and acceptance of globalist world views, and a sort of ignorance of Trump's first term in this video that it's just going to be too much work to unpack it all.

"By the time you could respond conventionally, Russia would be through them"- 35thOVI

"When the call is not to defend it is for revenge." (Heavy Metal Movie 1981 Taarna)

YouTube link

Europe should be able to collectively deter aggression, not rely on us to liberate them or avenge them after the fact…

"Europe should be able to deter aggression, not rely on us to liberate them or avenge them after the fact…"

If we were not in peacetime alliances, that could be sooo true.

What are others in the US opinion of peacetime alliances?

With modern technology the Earth is flat. There is an interdependency of economy worldwide. International trade is going on in almost every corner of the world. Isolationism is really not the answer. However, with better leadership, the USA can do better for itself. America first is a good concept, but we still have to deal with the rest of the world economically and otherwise.

Most importantly many on the planet are not our BFFs. So, a strong military/national security and a good economy have to be #1. Not saddled with the woke progressive far left liberal agenda. Which as we see the vast majority of Americans don't support … or don't care …

We certainly could do less of being the "world's LEOs". But that requires good dynamic leadership. And we have to remember "nation building" no longer a viable option. E.g. Vietnam and A'stan, and even Iraq still has its problems …

However, many Ret. Senior Officers, etc. have seen with the currently USA leadership over the past 4 years does not think the USA is ready to go to war. We don't want to go to war but what if we have no choice, e.g. 9/11 ?

As I and many others repeatedly have said, with the priorities of our current leadership does not have the right stuff. The far left liberal woke progressive minority hijacked the Biden admin et al.

Even a Dem on the news today, said they have to start to be careful of who they take $ from. As many were a wealthy vocal minority that were pushing woke progressive agendas. And since most don't care about the USA, they don't want the US to spend all the money they on National Security and the making a strong economy. Those things that affect the vast majority of Americans. In the Heartland, Middle America … the places between NYC and CA.

"There is an interdependency of economy worldwide"-Legion

I don't believe the USA is going to stop trading. We need to take care of our own, employee Americans and not be held captive to convoluted supply chains.

I personally don't like the idea of getting involved in the rest of the worlds religious squabbles, tribal warfare or gross mismanagement brought on by their own incompetence. That is what I think of when I think of isolation.

If we are going to be global cop we should be paid for it and recover that 35 trillion in debt we have… Perhaps the rest of the world can pony up and buy military hardware from us to recover that 35 trillion and then they can be responsible for their own security?

Just two random reactions.

Without quoting, it was said alliances got the world wars going. True enough, but the most important thing is that alliances WON for the West both wars.

Also, the idea that the US can't handle the world's problems AND solve our own is false. The US waged world war, across the Pacific and Asia, the Atlantic and Europe simultaneously when those things that make the nation truly rich were fewer in supply than now. Honest issues of waste and misuse of our wealth aside, the US has never been richer than it is now. The only thing that may be wanting in the argument of "solving our problems at home" and remaining fully engaged cohabitants of the world is the will to do both.

TVAG

Armchair

"Without quoting, it was said alliances got the world wars going. True enough, but the most important thing is that alliances WON for the West both wars."

No issue with wartime alliances, just peacetime. Wartime are necessary. Peacetime force you into wars. We were not part of the alliance system in the previous 2, so we were not forced immediately into the wars in Europe.

"and remaining fully engaged cohabitants"-The Virtual Armchair General

Does that mean writing endless checks? Does that mean other countries don't have to take personal responsibility? Define "fully engaged"?

"What are others in the US opinion of peacetime alliances?"-35thOVI

I have mixed feelings… (Had to think about this one…)

1. If it is a deterrence like the Cold War then good.

2. If we are getting sucked into a BLEEP show because of a bunch of morons we have no control over then hell no.

It's gratifying to see how far this argument has come in two years. I said it then, and I'll say it again: Europe has two nuclear weapon states and four of the G-8 economies. They should not need the US to deter Russia.

Nine, read the Gallup poll I posted elsewhere in another Ukraine thread. Even the majority of Ukrainians are ready to end this.

It seems to me that it's past time for a negotiated solution. I don't object to Ukraine being excluded from NATO, as long as the Russians agree to guarantee its integrity. I think Ukraine is likely to lose some territory, but remain independent. That seems to me like the best deal they are likely to get.

Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk will remain in Russian hands.

Ukraine will not achieve NATO membership.

Russia will agree to assure Ukrainian independence.

War will end. For now.

I predict Ukraine will acquire nukes if they do not get NATO membership.

Which would serve everyone involved right. They agreed to give them up in the first place because everyone was willing to guarantee their independence.

Nine Pound,

You would really expect Russia to live up to any treaty or assurances Putin would give?

Relevant analysis worth watching (as ever)
YouTube link

Personally I think Ukraine is screwed short of a nuclear armed power(s) giving cast iron security guarantees the moment the negotiators pull their chairs in at the table. Otherwise Russia will prevaricate long enough to reconstitute enough forces for what Putin may perceive as a final push. Zelensky is politically dead if he signs away Ukrainian territory – at least based on current opinion polling. The US's national security advisor in waiting also made the blindingly obvious point that handing Putin something that looks like a win will devalue US security guarantees – though he was speaking about specifically about China.

Another war the west chose not to win will end in uneasy truce, IMO. I think that the US is far more ready to fight a modern war than anyone else, including China. The reality of relative military strength remains unchanged, other than the gutting of Russian conventional forces. The incredible wealth of the US remains unmatched

But the US internal divide is still sucking too much energy out of its resolve and and focus. Putin and Xi manipulate and exploit this as much as they can, as do American politicians/elites cashing in. US isolationism may give them new spheres of influence to exploit. What happens in the era of unprecedented global connectivity and technology when the world's policeman goes on strike?

Not indefinitely, Grattan. But I would expect the European powers to guarantee it along with Russia, and it would be up to them to build up the military resources to give the guarantee sufficient teeth for that guarantee to be an effective deterrent. A joint guarantee of Ukraine's neutrality accomplishes the most important of the aims of an alliance, which is preventing invasion. The internal subversion question will have to be Ukraine's to deal with.

We've extended ourselves way too far on this issue already, and it's illustrative of the dangers of a permanent alliance. The US has little of no intrinsic interest in Ukraine's independence: for most of our history, it was a component of Russia, and none of its previous attempts at secession bothered us much.

The fact is that the Atlantic alliance is past its sell-by date, and it's time the European allies stood on their own. They can; there are more of them now than there were in 1990. They have the wealth to buy the force they need to make a guarantee stick, and nuclear forces sufficient for deterrence, if they can get their act together.

From the NYT, which has been pretty much pro-Ukrainian. They are saying what we have been expressing.

"But Ukraine is still at a significant disadvantage overall on the battlefield, where its outmanned forces are slowly retreating under intense Russian assaults.

Even with the new permission to strike deeper into Russia, "Ukraine is rapidly approaching a point where, if it does not address the manpower issue, then it will struggle to defend the length of the front," the Royal United Services Institute, an analytical group affiliated with the British military, wrote of Ukraine's prospects. Without more soldiers, the analysis said, "the collapse in fighting positions will accelerate."

Russian assaults by Saturday had reached the outskirts of another Ukrainian stronghold, Velyka Novosilka, in the east, battlefield maps showed. And after weeks of fighting, Russian troops were close to surrounding the town of Kurakhove, threatening to encircle the Ukrainian garrison inside."

Subject: What's Behind Ukraine and Russia's Missile Brinkmanship? – The New York Times


link

Now matter where the borders end up. The UN should set up a DMZ like in Korea and Cyprus.

Maybe with this new DMZ, Ukraine will not have to be NATO member. At least not anytime soon.

The Russians cannot be trusted to keep any treaties. agreements, etc.

No, they can't – but if Europe is serious about guaranteeing Ukraine's independence, Europe will have to rearm to a level that's sufficient to deter the Russians. And they will have to be prepared to do it without the US.

Subject: Adm. Sam Paparo warns Ukraine aid depleting U.S. missile stocks – Washington Times


link

Also remember not so long ago the US told Ukraine to give up their nukes as the US would protect them … Hmmm ?

Maybe no American isolation after all, with hell to pay in the ME on the calendar now.

I reality the world is flat … the US can't really an isolationistic nation.

Agreed…

"Ukraine to give up their nukes as the US would protect them"-Legion

Does the word "protect " or defend Ukraine appear in any of the Ukraine nuclear disarmament treaty?

The Budapest Memorandum was explicitly not a treaty- for example, it was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification as such. It was an agreement, but it lacked legal standing. Probably for good reason.

Does the word "protect " or defend Ukraine appear in any of the Ukraine nuclear disarmament treaty?

Have not read it, but everything I heard said that if the Ukraine gave up their nukes the USA would come to their aid … But no I don't know if anything was directly said or how. But the Ukraine still gave them up, AFAIK.

It was an agreement, but it lacked legal standing. Probably for good reason.

That probably makes more sense. I should have learned to pay more attention to detail when I hear something in the media ! DOH !

Regardless Ukraine gave up their nukes based on what the US gov't said or insinuated.

Then I guess it was a mistake on their part to trust us, as some here have said.

" Hey you trusted us … you fd up ! " – Animal House …

"Trust no one, forgive nothing !" – WH 40K

Yep -- Ukraine never should have given up the nukes they inherited from the fall of the USSR.

There were a lot of optimistic commitments made by policymakers during the end of history. My own involvement with some of those follies was the beginning of my belief that the US had fewer enduring interest outside the Western Hemisphere than was generally supposed at the time.

"To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine's territory or political independence."

The USA and the UK have honored the agreement, neither country has threatened Ukraine's territory or political independence. Neither country has threatened to use force or used force against Ukraine. No where in any of the documents does it say we will protect or defend Ukraine. (For the record I am 100% on Ukraine's side)

Russian KGB kleptocracy had a BLEEPING tantrum when their BLEEP stain puppet was deposed by the people of Ukraine. The Russians violated the agreement. I expect Cuprum to come along with his alternative reality…

I expect Cuprum to come along with his alternative reality…

That would be a safe bet …

Meanwhile the rewriting of US history continues …

link

I defer to Legion on all things Ranger and Army, but I would not expect Quantrill to have been included in this group. The rewriting of Civil War history was 100 years overdue when work began on the myths of the Lost Cause narrative a few decades ago. This work has undone a few of the legends of the South, but has generally given us a clearer picture of everybody, especially Grant, and also the role of slavery as a cause of the war.

The Trade Wars appear about to begin. Many posts about oil and the US., Biden and big oil have appeared here. I am not a Biden fan, but I felt the oil companies were the problem, not the government, as oil production and profits hit record highs during this time and the government does not own the oil produced in the US.

Now it seems that Europe is being threatened with tariffs unless they buy more US oil. How does that help US consumers? This is not about helping everyday people, IMO.

link

"Now it seems that Europe is being threatened with tariffs unless they buy more US oil. How does that help US consumers? This is not about helping everyday people, IMO."

Selling our oil to Europe and elsewhere, brings money into our coffers to help pay off our enormous debt. It makes countries less dependent on Russian and Middle Eastern oil (which we get no benefits from) which makes possible military options unnecessary due to interruptions of their oil.

Tariffs are only fair if necessary, as others use them against us.

I am not a Biden fan, but I felt the oil companies were the problem, not the government, as oil production and profits hit record highs during this time and the government does not own the oil produced in the US.

Why do I care if they earn a profit on the products they sell? Under Trump's "Drill, baby, drill" policies the US was *energy independent* and a net exporter of energy which 1) drove down prices at the pump so MY costs were lower and 2) depressed the oil revenues of nasty countries like Venezuela, Iran and Russia while insulating the US from energy embargoes. And an expanded oil & gas industry means more jobs for hardworking Americans who truly bust their a$$es. I wouldn't last a day on an oil production site!

Under Trump I paid $2.70 USD/gallon in pricey California, while under Biden the cost cracked $6 USD/gallon!

And the tariffs are conditional behavior related, not pure protectionism. Trump's made it clear that in the case of Canada and Mexico, the tariffs are linked to action to improve border security and help stop illegal immigration. Do that, no tariffs. Don't do that, tariffs until you start helping -- then no tariffs.

Helps the USA offset the cost of being in NATO and patrolling the sea lanes…

Again, I just don't see your point. US oil has experienced record production and profits recently, but we got no break at the pump. It's Biden's fault and now prices will go down? The US doesn't export energy, Chevron does.

We have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs for hardworking Americans in other sources of energy. Without diverse production sources we are vulnerable. Exxon has experienced the fastest cash asset growth in its history in the past 5 years, far more than in the Trump years. This will continue….because it doesn't matter to them who the President is!

I defer to Legion on all things Ranger and Army, but I would not expect Quantrill to have been included in this group.

Well he led a group of Irregular Cav. They were raiders, guerilla warfare, recon, and direct attacks. And committed war crimes in Lawernce KS in 1863. Killed 180 civilians. If the history is accurate, and I think it is.

However, raids, recon, etc. were/are standard for US Army Rangers. It's more about the tactics than anything else, as the article said about Mosby. So, I can see both sides of having or not having Quantrill on the monument …

The rewriting of Civil War history was 100 years overdue when work began on the myths of the Lost Cause narrative a few decades ago. This work has undone a few of the legends of the South, but has generally given us a clearer picture of everybody, especially Grant, and also the role of slavery as a cause of the war.

On that I can mostly agree … However, with the current CRT/1619 dogma still around. I fear that type of thinking may influence rewriting the truth about the ACW.

I agree and hope that will not be the case. History needs to be objective and not agenda driven.

Agreed … history needs to be accurate about the good, the bad, the ugly and the very ugly. However, as we see too much about history and many other things today are agenda driven …