... Two problems: This does not define the boundaries of what it calls "Nanyue" geographically. I will contend that this is what the Chinese called the region, and it did not extend to the south as far as most of "South Vietnam". Second: are you sure it's "Nanyue" and not "Yuenan"? (Yuenan is "Vietnam", at least in modern day Mandarin, meaning 'south of Yueh' an ancient kingdom in the south of China).`...

Ok, but why would that matter? The original USA is not the exact same territory as the present day USA; but the USAians are a 'people' are we not? Perhaps I miss your point; if so please clue me in. (if you care to, it is not a huge issue with me)

As to your points about the anti-war movement, I can only say that everyone but myself was military. My uncle lost a leg and he kept sending other disabled vets to my mother's house since we were in a nice warm climate. I met scores of injured that way and learned about the war from them. They were the most anti-war people I have ever met; yes, up until this very day.

As a side note; my grandmother had all 3 of her boys in the war at one time. That was illegal and she complained. The government told here that one was not in the war since Cambodia was a classified action. Bummer. (but they all lived at least)

I think I'll step out of this one; the memories are unpleasant.

-b1

That one is easy. I raise my hand like Arnold Horshack of sweathog fame.

The first thing to do is to return to only using the military in case of war. The US House must declare a war under our Constitution before the military can be used in a 'police action', 'humanitarian rescue', 'nation building', 'war', or whatever.

How can that be done? How can we make the executive follow the Constitution?

At this point, I guess we need to amend the Constitution to say that any president that starts a war without a declaration of congress will be hung on the steps of the white house. (might work, and I have rope) ;-)

Note: Yes, I realize that congress might be fooled into a war even after televised debate; but it would be much harder to do.

WT: "Mmm.... Perhaps it's because we're discussing a more restricted subject, I find myself agreeing with much of what you've said today. Should I see a shrink...? ;-)"

Only if you have insurance for that sort of thing. I know from real life that even children's therapists are damn expensive.

On the other hand, perhaps we will find areas of disagreement to savor tomorrow, eh? ;-)

Williams was not a 'court historian' and could call an empire when he saw one. How could one not call America an empire?

It is said that Williams inspired a generation of historians to re-think the Cold War; well I hope so. We do not need a William F. Buckley, Jr. view of the time to be the historian herd memory.

Does the U.S. risk repeating the mistakes that led to the Great Depression? The Bank for International Settlements’ annual report, released Sunday, suggests that it does, and offers a remedy steeped in the doctrine of Austrian economics.

In the 1930s adherents of the “Austrian school,” named for its Austrian-born proponents Ludwig von Mises, Joseph Schumpeter and Friedrich Hayek, argued the Great Depression represented the unavoidable remediation of misallocated credit and overinvestment in the 1920s. The Austrian school largely failed to become orthodoxy as first Keynesian demand management appeared to end the Depression and later monetarism blamed the Depression on inadequate attention to the money supply.

Austrian economics, however, has enjoyed a minor revival in the last decade, most prominently at the Basel, Switzerland-based BIS, which has few formal banking duties but is an important talking shop (it is sometimes called the “central bankers’ central bank.”) The BIS’s leading “Austrian” is a Canadian, William White, the head of the bank’s monetary and economic department and sometimes-rumored successor to retiring Bank of Canada governor David Dodge. In a 2006 paper Mr. White wrote that under Austrian theory, “credit creation need not lead to overt inflation. Rather…. the financial system … create[s] credit which encourages investments that, in the end, fail to prove profitable.” This leads to an “an eventual crisis whose magnitude would reflect the size of the real imbalances that preceded it [because] the capital goods produced in the upswing are not fungible, but they are durable. Mistakes then take a long time to work off.” He argued that in recent decades, “financial liberalisation has increased the likelihood of boom-bust cycles of the Austrian sort.” ...

---

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/06/25/
amid-financial-excess-a-revival-of-austrian-economics-in-basel/

It is odd that Glenn writes so well and so very carefully, and yet attracts a few who just mindlessly attack that witch they do not know or understand. I wonder why.

Why Sophia of course; the only witch that matters to those which have awakened. :-)