The Republican Airline Pilot a paradox?

[TonyC]

Re: Re: The Republican Airline Pilot a paradox?

Originally posted by Rez O. Lewshun
The Republican Airline Pilot; an inherent paradox?
...
A RAP is like an anti capitalist punishment type working as a gas chamber operator.

You are correct about saying that a Republican is an "anti capitalist punishment" guy. Why should capitalists be punished? Isn't our country, our economy founded on the principals of capitalism and free enterprise? Why should we punish the very core of our economy? (And what does that have to do with operating a gas chamber?)

I am disappointed that nobody picked up on my attempt at Rosanna Rosanadana -type humor.



Never mind.

 

[surplus1]

Timebuilder,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I'll try to keep this one as short as possible, so I won't quote you directly (except for the opener that let's you know which post, of yours, I'm responding to)

Originally posted by Timebuilder
Thanks for the steer on the book, but what does it contain that refutes my position, or my interpretation of the quote attributed to Churchill?

The book outlines Mr. Churchill's political philosophy, i.e., did he see himself as a "liberal" or a "conservative". I think that was the issue.

In your reply you outline your experiences with the Democratic Party and your disenchantment with its liberal philosophy and its political methodology. I have no problem with any of that. In other words I do not agree with you and I do not disagree with you.

I would point out to you that I am neither a member of the Democratic Party or of the Republican Party. I am an independent and don't belong to any "party".

If I were to describe my opinion of the Republican Party and its neo-conservative philosophy and its political methodology, it would differ little from your fitting description of the Democrats.

There are differences in the two "philosophies", but there is little difference in the methodology used by either party in its efforts to convince and influence the general public.

You seem determined to paint me as supporting one party in favor of the other. The truth is I do not support either one. They are essentially "birds of a feather" each trying to brainwash as many people as it can in the struggle for political power.

On a personal level there are many so-called "conservative views" that I share and support and an equal number of so-called "liberal views". I do not allow myself to be fenced in by the narrow thinking of either group.

Based on what you have written, I see you as expressing deep resentment towards the "liberals" whom you think tried to brainwash you. At the same time you appear more than willing to now be brainwashed by the neo-conservatives. Why don't you take a stab at not being brainwashed at all?

I will admit to you that if I am forced to choose between these two evils, I can reject the neo-conservatives far more readily than I can the liberals. Among other things, I think that the founders of this Republic, in the context of their time, were liberals when compared to their opposition, i.e., the British Crown. That is a time in history when the success of the liberals, as opposed to the conservatives, satisfies me in the extreme. History tells us that the forefathers were in fact democrat/leftist/hate England first/ political operatives. Please note that I have substituted the word England for your use of the word America. Apart from that the two phrases are identical.
Were it not for their "liberal" philosophy and "political operative" stance we Americans might all be British Subjects today. Three cheers for the liberal democrats on that one.

There is in fact no mantra of conservatism or liberalism that is best for each and every circumstance. Our national leaders should be serving in the interest of our country, and not on the basis of advancing a particular ideology that they happen to favor at the moment.

You do not like my opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I make no apologies for that. I am convinced this war is wrong, it was done for the wrong reasons and, in my opinion, it will ultimately be far more detrimental to our country than it already has been. We will pay, as a nation, a very high price for this serious mistake in judgement on the part of our leaders.

When we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. This preventive war of intervention into a foreign state that has not attacked the United States and which was obviously in no position to do so, is unjustified, and is probably illegal by international standards. Plain and simple it is hegemony.

Amazingly, at least to me, the way we got into this debacle is remarkably similar to the disaster of our intervention in Vietnam, the longest war in our country's history.

For reasons I can't understand as yet, the current Secretary of State appears to have given Bush the same type of advice that Eisenhower got from John Foster Dulles. I had thought that a man like Colin Powell, if he could not bring sense to the Administration, would have at least had the courage to resign. So far he hasn't. This false sense of loyalty has virtually destroyed his credibility.

Our current Secretary of Defense and his deputy bring back far too many memories of Robert MacNamara and the "advice" that he gave to Kennedy and Johnson.

Just as in the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon years and the Vietnam case, we have today in our government some of the brightest minds our country has to offer. Most of them were there and involved directly or indirectly in the Vietnam disaster. Why then are they repeating the same type of mistake?

If you weren't around for the VN war, I suggest you read "In Retrospect" by Robert MacNamara. He knows all too well how many thousands, theirs and ours, died needlessly. Here's an excerpt from the preface to his book.

"We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong".

In case you haven't guessed I was just as opposed to the war in Vietnam as I am to this war. You might also note that war involved two Republican administrations and two Democrat administrations. My opposition has nothing to do with which political party happens to be in office. This isn't about being a liberal or a conservative, it's about being an American.

We are now blaming "faulty intelligence" for the decision. Whatever that means it's the easy out. In 'Nam we "justified" our direct military involvement via an alleged attack on one of our naval vessels. An attack that we now know never took place and that was deliberately "faked" by the sitting President (a Democrat) in order to rest a blind "resolution" from the Congress. This time it was "weapons of mass destruction", which so far have mysteriously vanished, and yet another "resolution" authorizing a President to engage in war. Did Bush copy Johnson?

In both these cases the Congress abdicated its responsibility and authority to Declare War as outlined in our Constitution. Knee-jerk reactions/resolutions based on phony information provided by arrogant leaders.

Why do we do this? I believe that decisions of this type are made primarily due to extreme arrogance based on our perception that our status as a Super Power and the excellence of our military, permit us to be "right" no matter what we do. This behavior appears to be based on an overall attitude of superiority on our part with respect to other peoples. We have little understanding of other cultures and we do not really seek to understand. We already know that we are "better" in every respect. Most of our population seems to suffer from this malady. The only people more arrogant than the French are Americans. Is it any wonder we don't like them?.

We're the richest, the smartest, the most powerful, the most righteous and therefore, by God, we can do whatever we want with impunity. Just ask us and we'll tell you so. Why did we invade Iraq? Well, because we can. "Pride goeth before the fall".

Perhaps the Democrats did want you to be one of the "correct people" as you put it. Well, guess what, so do the neo-conservatives. You yourself, as one of them, have implied that I "hate America first", that I am anti-American because I don't share some of your extremist conservative views and therefore don't fit your view of "correctness". Your Republican right-wing group is trying to do to other Americans, and me exactly what you accuse the Democrats of doing to you. You preach a good story, but if I am to believe your rhetoric you don't practice what you preach.

You dislike what the Democrats defined as being the "correct people" but you are willing to condemn my views because I don't match your new version of what is correct and what is not. You should support Mr. Bush for you sound just like him, i.e., "my way or the highway". I hope you will see more light before you see more darkness.

__________________
Courage.....Honor.....Conquer

PS. The above is your "signature". I like the courage and the honor. Your philosophy is embodied in the last word ….. Conquer. Sorry, but I do not want America to become a nation of conquest.

 

[46Driver]

Surplus,
I am going to have to disagree with you on a number of things.

First of all, Vietnam. Vietnam was necessary. Our job was to contain the Soviet Union. Although in the end, we were forced out of Vietnam, we did show that we were going to fight. As part of Kennan's containment policy (which specifically dealt with Europe) and expanded by Eisenhower and JFK into a worldwide struggle. In the end, it was the right thing to do because communism had to grow or die. It eventually died.

Second, our policy concerning Iraq (which I am sure you know was made by Churchill's White Paper when he was Colonial Secretary in 1921) is just part of a large portion to re-arrange the entire Middle East. I seriously doubt if you will see the US use miltary action anywhere else - the Iraqi invasion already has had the desired results in making Iraq the first domino to fall. If we did not do something, the Middle East was going to fester and grow worse until Muslim fundamentalism overthrew the House of Saud and continued across the Arabian Penisula. WMD's? A convenient and logical excuse for the American people to get behind the war - although both Republicans and Democrats, as well as most foreign intelligence services thought Saddam had them.

I don't think you can put Iraq back together again - much like Yugoslavia was held together by Tito and fragmented after his death, Iraq has no real national identity (compared to say Iran). I think eventually, you will see it broken into 3 parts: a Kurd section in the north (despite Turkish objections), a Sunni section in the middle, and a Shiite section in the South. Only time will tell.

 

[Timebuilder]

You seem determined to paint me as supporting one party in favor of the other. The truth is I do not support either one. They are essentially "birds of a feather" each trying to brainwash as many people as it can in the struggle for political power.

Truthfully, I was responding, right or wrong, to what I saw as your assertion that my observations about the democrats belonged only in some sort of Rush Limbaugh forum. Usually, this means the writer (or caller) is a defensive democrat in denial. I have no argument with independent voters or thinkers, other than their role as lame duck voters for spoiler candidates like Perot.

If I were to describe my opinion of the Republican Party and its neo-conservative philosophy and its political methodology, it would differ little from your fitting description of the Democrats.

Well, I'm not sure why you would call the republican philosophy neoconservative, but since I articulated what I thought was the democrat philosophy, perhaps I should articulate what I think about the republican philosophy.

Basically, I see this philosophy as the founders saw America: that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. In other words, that rights don't come from ourselves, although they are somewhat codified in the constitution, they come from God. That ability to believe is not limited to closed rooms, to darkened cellars, or to church buildings. The first amendment guarantees that the expression of those beliefs are not to be impeded. This has already happened with the misinterpretation of the so-called "establishment clause." The founders never intended that religious expression be banned from schools or the public square. In fact, the success of our democracy, as the founders saw it, was predicated on the idea that we are a moral people. If they could see us now...

Governemnt is to serve us as individual citizens, not to repress us. This does not mean a state of anarchy, where we can do whatever we like, such as partaking in prostitution or recreational drugs or disgraceful halftime shows. It means that when people step outside the bounds of decency, a stable society should be able to apply corrective measures to discourage further instances. These are some of our most difficult problems, because people are not raised to be moral in many places, so they lack an understanding of moral people or moral behavior. According to the founders, they are not equipped to participate in our representative republic.

We, as Americans, are promised an opportunity, not a guaranteed outcome. The republican idea is that no matter who you are or where you live, you can rise if you apply yourself. Men like Walter Williams are examples of this. He will tell you that "affirmative action" is a form of discrimination, a particularly onerous kind because it proceeds from the assumption that entire groups of people are unable to continue to compete without this type of legislation. What happened to being admitted to college or being hired for a job based on your merits? The sad truth is this: any child, any where, can find books in the library after school that more than make up for any lack of texts that may plague a school. With a few inquiries, any number of qualified people at the school can help that child enough to get into Harvard.

Why does this not happen? Three words: it's not cool. In fact, as I have written before, for many african americans, it is considered to be "acting white." In other words, the predominant hip-hop, gansta rap culture in these communities is the reason children fail, not because of larger classes or five year old books. And not because they are minorities.

Republicans know that this is a matter of will and desire, not billions of dollars spent by the federal government.

Opportunity, not outcome.

Republicans see this as the land of opportunity, where how your life turns out is based on things like your willingness to be a moral person, to work hard, and use your God-given talents. Democrats see this as a fight between the halves and the have nots, and they think the haves should be taxed until the have nots have "enough." That is not the basis of America. It is socialism.

There are differences in the two "philosophies", but there is little difference in the methodology used by either party in its efforts to convince and influence the general public.

Based on the differences I have shown, how could this statement ring true? I did not change parties because I thought the republicans were "democrat lite." I changed because of the fundamental differences with respect for what American is supposed to be, based on the founders of our nation.

No two groups could be less alike in basic philosophy.

Now, if you want to talk about how the political mechanism has been modified in washington to blur party lines, I'm with you. There, we no doubt have much in common.

On a personal level there are many so-called "conservative views" that I share and support and an equal number of so-called "liberal views". I do not allow myself to be fenced in by the narrow thinking of either group.

I am not burdened by a group either, only the intentions of those who created our nation and the God that created them.

Based on what you have written, I see you as expressing deep resentment towards the "liberals" whom you think tried to brainwash you. At the same time you appear more than willing to now be brainwashed by the neo-conservatives. Why don't you take a stab at not being brainwashed at all?

Actually, I changed my ideas BEFORE I changed my party. What does that indicate to you? To me, it indicates that I happen to agree with conservative ideas because I had already reached those conclusions myself. No brainwashing necessary.

That is a time in history when the success of the liberals, as opposed to the conservatives, satisfies me in the extreme. History tells us that the forefathers were in fact democrat/leftist/hate England first/ political operatives. Please note that I have substituted the word England for your use of the word America. Apart from that the two phrases are identical.

I'm sure you are aware the the words liberal and conservative don't apply today in the same way as they did in the founder's time. In fact, they were radicals, but the did NOT "hate England first" as you suggest. These men were inspired by God to form the basis for a nation that permitted His worship as a founding principle. In fact, the cap shield of my Alma Mater shows Washington at Valley Forge. He is kneeling, and praying. There is no comparison between the founders and those you describe.

As moral men, these were certainly "conservatives" as we understand the word today. England was more of a totalitarian state under their king than they are now with the monarchy as figureheads. It was their home, and they were regretful to take up arms against it. They had a new country to defend, and they made their choice prayerfully.

There is in fact no mantra of conservatism or liberalism that is best for each and every circumstance. Our national leaders should be serving in the interest of our country, and not on the basis of advancing a particular ideology that they happen to favor at the moment.

The ideology of conservatism is indeed in the very lifeblood of our founding documents. Reading them is easy. Their meaning is clear. That is the basis for everything that is the interest of our citizens and our nation. It is the intention of the founders that we follow these ideas in ALL circumstances. Not to advance an "ideology", but to maintain our nation and our freedom. A freedom tempered by a moral people.

You do not like my opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I make no apologies for that. I am convinced this war is wrong, it was done for the wrong reasons and, in my opinion, it will ultimately be far more detrimental to our country than it already has been. We will pay, as a nation, a very high price for this serious mistake in judgement on the part of our leaders.

I merely think that you are wrong. I'm glad you have an opinion.

Amazingly, at least to me, the way we got into this debacle is remarkably similar to the disaster of our intervention in Vietnam, the longest war in our country's history.

I lived through that time, and I see no similarity. This recent action is the smartest and best action we could take, other than taking this action sooner and remaining to install a free Iraqi government after the gulf war. Waiting too long was a big mistake on our part. See? I'm not without the ability to question our actions. We were late to the table for this one. At least we were wise enough to catch up.

I can appreciate your analysis of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. It never should have happened. Once in, we should have done the necessary work and handled the DMZ like Korea.

I wouldn't try to draw too many parallels between the Johnson administration and the Bush administration. Everything is different, and the pieces don't fit interchangeably, even if some think that they do. While the gulf resolution was based on a lie, I never saw WMD's as the reason for invading Iraq. I saw the refusal to abide by the cease fire agreement as the ONLY thing we needed to go back in. WMD's were only an added uncertainty that was supported by the intelligence community, such as it was, in its weakened state thanks to the Clintons.

 

[Timebuilder]

Why do we do this? I believe that decisions of this type are made primarily due to extreme arrogance based on our perception that our status as a Super Power and the excellence of our military, permit us to be "right" no matter what we do. This behavior appears to be based on an overall attitude of superiority on our part with respect to other peoples. We have little understanding of other cultures and we do not really seek to understand. We already know that we are "better" in every respect. Most of our population seems to suffer from this malady. The only people more arrogant than the French are Americans. Is it any wonder we don't like them?.

I can only point out to you that people from all over the globe are still flocking here like no other country on earth. It's only "arrogance" if we are not the best. We still have better intel than any other country, with the exception of the Massad in the mideast. They aren't as "nice" as we are, though.

We're the richest, the smartest, the most powerful, the most righteous and therefore, by God, we can do whatever we want with impunity. Just ask us and we'll tell you so. Why did we invade Iraq? Well, because we can. "Pride goeth before the fall".

Not because we could, but because we had a responsibility to do so. Big difference.

You yourself, as one of them, have implied that I "hate America first", that I am anti-American because I don't share some of your extremist conservative views and therefore don't fit your view of "correctness".

Only inasmuch as I expect you to be a patriot, sir. That is the "correct" position for an American. This is far different from the "hate America first" bunch. They don't like the ideas of the founders, they legislate and use judges to make their founding principles illegal. The "correct" bunch for the dems is an intellectual elite that is "fit to lead" according to their standards of "progressive thinking", which strips away parental rights and indoctrinates children into the NEA way of "diversity". Here's a secret: in the National Education Association, it's all okay as long as it is not based in white christian culture. A Muslim? We'll give you a hall pass and a special room where you can pray. Christian? You can meet out by the flagpole before school starts. And, hey! Don't mention God in any class or assignment.

That's just a small example of what I am talking about. This kind of bigotry is not the basis of America, but it is permitted because of who is being restrained and limited, and those who hate what America is are the ones who are doing it.

You dislike what the Democrats defined as being the "correct people" but you are willing to condemn my views because I don't match your new version of what is correct and what is not. You should support Mr. Bush for you sound just like him, i.e., "my way or the highway". I hope you will see more light before you see more darkness.

My place in the light is bright and clear. I don't know what views you hold that I "condemn", but I do think that you are wrong on several counts.

My signature below is the cadet motto of my academy. What is to be "conquered" is the job set out before us, in the classroom, the workplace, or if need be, the battlefield.

To meet the challenges we find in life is a positive and affirming experience. We conquer those challenges.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[FlyFlyFly]

Surplus,

You call one side liberal and th other neo-conservative. By your choice of labels, you have CHOSEN a party.

Quit trying to pass yourself off as an independent and go join your pals at DU.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,
I am going to have to disagree with you on a number of things.

First of all, Vietnam. Vietnam was necessary. Our job was to contain the Soviet Union.

With all due respect, that flies in the face of history. When we made the decision to intervene in Vietnam, the Soviet Union was not in Vietnam, nor did it enter Vietnam during the course of the war.

History tells us that France established, by force, a colonial regime that occupied Vietnam from 1885 to 1954, except for a brief period in 1945, when the Japanese invaded Vietnam (and were resisted by the Vietnamese). Vietnamese nationalists fought for nine years to remove the French from their country, just as we fought to remove the British from ours.

The treaty that ended the French colonial occupation called for the holding of nationwide free elections, within a year, throughout all of Vietnam, with the resulting reunification of one country and the removal of the artifical, European imposed division. We did not agree with that treaty and we intervened to support an illegal government in "South Vietnam" and devide the country into two. The Vietnamese chose to resist and I think they were right to do so.

If you recall, we fought a civil war among ourselves when one group tried to divide our country into two. Why were we surprised that they would do the same?

There is and there was never any "South Vietnam". That was an invention of foreigners, imposed by force against the will of a majority of the Vietnamese people. That is not my opinion, that is history.

We allege that we went there to prevent the spread of communism and the now infamous "domino theory". We failed to realize that we were not fighting communism in Vietnam, we were fighting revolutionary nationalists who did not want their country to be occupied by ANY foreigners or divided into two parts. That includes, the French, the Russians, the Chinese and the Americans.

Our military intervention accomplished nothing other than the killing of thousands of American youth, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, the division of our own country and the loss of great treasure. It was wrong then and it remains wrong today.

Communism died in spite of the Vietnam war, not because of it. Communism is not a political system, it is an economic system. It is not a good economic system and that is partly why it failed. It imploded on itself, not because of any miracle that we performed, but because it was being imposed, against the will of the people, by a corrupt and totalitarian political system.

Capitalism is another economic system, and so is socialism. I happen to prefer capitalism and think it is the best of the three economic systems. However, the truth is that NO economic system can function or survive if the people are not free and cannot chose to modify it when they see fit to do so. If the United States were to become a totalitarian state, which is what the Soviet Union was, capitalism would fail just as readily as communism did.

The Swedes are renowned for being the premeir advocates of a socialist economic system. However, the Swedes are a free people. Thus, when there economic system of socialism began to founder, they were able to modify it and it continues to survive in that modified state. The economic system is now a blend and the Swedes are doing very well.

Here in the United States we call ourselves "Capitalists" but the truth is that our economic system is not pure capitalism. It is a blend in which capitalism predominates. Our free society allows us to make the necessary modifications to pure capitalism that allow it to function.

Man is inherently free and I argue that is the key element in all of these issues. When the political system is free, as in a democracy, any of the economic systems can function although some may function better than others. In any case, that is for the people of that country to decide. It cannot be imposed upon them, more than temporarily and by force, by another people from a foreign land. We would not allow that to happen to us and we must not expect other people to br willing to allow us to tell them what system is best for them.

Second, our policy concerning Iraq (which I am sure you know was made by Churchill's White Paper when he was Colonial Secretary in 1921) is just part of a large portion to re-arrange the entire Middle East.

It will be hard to convince me that the policy of the United States should follow in the footsteps of the British Colonial Empire. Not in Iraq or in any other part of the world. For my money, the British Empire ranks among the greatest rapists known to modern man. I am happy that the sun has finally set on the British Empire, and I do not want my country the United States of America to emulate any of those policies, whether espoused by Churchill or any other Briton.

They are indeed responsible for most of the mess that we call the Middle East and the best thing we can do, as far as I am concerned, is to forget their legacy of imperial hegemony and adopt a policy of our own making that is devoid of that heritage.

I seriously doubt if you will see the US use miltary action anywhere else - the Iraqi invasion already has had the desired results in making Iraq the first domino to fall. If we did not do something, the Middle East was going to fester and grow worse until Muslim fundamentalism overthrew the House of Saud and continued across the Arabian Penisula. [/quote]

I do hope that I won't see any more militaristic adventures. That almost sounds like you are advocating a war against Islam. I advise caution. However, I agree that religious fundamentalism, is a threat of monumental porportions. That holds true of Christian fundamentalism as well as Islamic fundamentalism. Let us not forget the Crusades of the Spanish Inquisition.

All of this "fundamentalism" gains footing where education of the masses is lacking and is then fueled by poverty and political tyrrany. If it were not for the education and wealth of the general population in the USA, christian fundametalism would take over here and we would soon be at war with the rest of the non-christian world.

Noone has ever been able to defeat or wipe out any "religion", although many have tried. Don't forget that the great super power of the Roman Empire came apart in its effort, among other things, to eliminate Christianity. However, where education and the resulting economic development prevail, and become available to the majority of the population, the fundamentalists lose ground and fade into obscurity.

WMD's? A convenient and logical excuse for the American people to get behind the war -

There are two operative words in that phrase, convenient and excuse. In my opinion, neither one of them justifies taking the United States to war. I hope that is not what our President and our government did. You seem to think it was.

I don't think you can put Iraq back together again - much like Yugoslavia was held together by Tito and fragmented after his death, Iraq has no real national identity (compared to say Iran). I think eventually, you will see it broken into 3 parts: a Kurd section in the north (despite Turkish objections), a Sunni section in the middle, and a Shiite section in the South. Only time will tell.

Unfortunately, you may be right about that. If it breaks apart, that will happen after what we are now imposing collapses, and a civil war ensues. Thousands more will die and we will wind up with and Independent Kurdistan, a Sunni dictatorship like the one we just overthrew, and an Islamic fundamentalist state, similar to Iran. If that happens I wonder how it will solve the problems in the Middle East and, more importantly, who will say what to the American families that have sacrificed their sons and daughters (once more) in an ill-advised war that accomplishes nothing.

I would much have prefered a concentrated reconstruction of Afghanistan where we have liberated a people that do have the ability and the desire, with help, to develop a free society, along with the continued pursuit of the terrorists that attacked us.

This adventure in Iraq will only serve to create more terrirosts. If our leaders felt that there was a real need to remove Saddam because of his despotism and evil supression of the Iraqi people, I could better handle that than the cloak of "convenience" and "excuses" (in other words lies) that has been used.

We would have the world's leading nations all on our side and we would be seen as doing something in the tradition of our country's willingness to help the oppressed, as the intervention in the Balkans has come to be regarded.

Instead, we have alienated our friends, damaged our credibility, and further incensed our enemies. Bad policy and pi$$ poor execution.

JMO

 

[Noam]

Surplus,

You are way too intelligent to be a pilot. So, tell us, where did you get your edu'macation?

 

[surplus1]

I have a Phd. (cum laude) from the University of Life. It is located at 666 Rue Historique, Humanity, Earth 98765 - 4321.

Where did you get yours?

 

[jetexas]

Holy Cow. I just did a little online comparison regarding the pres. candidates. As if I didn't already know, Kerry is so far to the left that we would skip Socialism and go straight into Buddism or Hare Christna as a form of Government. Geesh!

 

[bart]

Yeah, but Kerry knows how to knock down the rich dames.

My old man always said: "you can make more money in thirty minutes than you can in a whole lifetime."

 

[46Driver]

When we made the decision to intervene in Vietnam, the Soviet Union was not in Vietnam, nor did it enter Vietnam during the course of the war.


However, the Soviet Union had managed to extend communism to China, North Korea, etc and was spreading wider. There were certainly communist "advisors" and supplies in North Vietnam.





There is and there was never any "South Vietnam". That was an invention of foreigners, imposed by force against the will of a majority of the Vietnamese people. That is not my opinion, that is history.


The same can be said of North and South Korea.




Communism died in spite of the Vietnam war, not because of it. Communism is not a political system, it is an economic system. It is not a good economic system and that is partly why it failed. It imploded on itself, not because of any miracle that we performed, but because it was being imposed, against the will of the people, by a corrupt and totalitarian political system.


Communism is the desired end state of Marx's economic system and true communism could not be implemented until the entire globe had rid itself of capitalism. As long as the West remained outside the sphere of Lenin, then communism could not succeed.




It will be hard to convince me that the policy of the United States should follow in the footsteps of the British Colonial Empire. Not in Iraq or in any other part of the world. For my money, the British Empire ranks among the greatest rapists known to modern man. I am happy that the sun has finally set on the British Empire, and I do not want my country the United States of America to emulate any of those policies, whether espoused by Churchill or any other Briton.

They are indeed responsible for most of the mess that we call the Middle East and the best thing we can do, as far as I am concerned, is to forget their legacy of imperial hegemony and adopt a policy of our own making that is devoid of that heritage.




Britain is also responsible for the Magna Carte as well as having counted among its offspring the successful nations of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and the United States. Out of all the global empires of the last 2000 years, I believe the British left the greatest legacy.





I do hope that I won't see any more militaristic adventures. That almost sounds like you are advocating a war against Islam. I advise caution. However, I agree that religious fundamentalism, is a threat of monumental porportions. That holds true of Christian fundamentalism as well as Islamic fundamentalism. Let us not forget the Crusades of the Spanish Inquisition.


Fundamentalist Islam already considers itself at war with the West in general and the US & Israel in particular - there is no middle ground.






We would have the world's leading nations all on our side and we would be seen as doing something in the tradition of our country's willingness to help the oppressed


Are you saying the people in Iraq were not oppressed??????





Instead, we have alienated our friends, damaged our credibility, and further incensed our enemies. Bad policy and pi$$ poor execution.


Follow the money. France, Germany, and Russia all benefited heavily from Saddam - and many were paid off by him to insure their support. Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it is unpopular.

 

[Snakum]

Noone has ever been able to defeat or wipe out any "religion"

Oh yes they have ...

A couple thousand years ago Buddhism was the religion of the area now known as India, but was completely wiped out by invading Moslems. It continued only in very small, isolated pockets, but has been, for all practical purposes, eradicated in the land of it's birth, and is only now making a comeback as the Harijan convert from Hinduism to escape limitations of the Caste system.

Minh

 

[surplus1]

Oh yes they have ...

A couple thousand years ago Buddhism was the religion of the area now known as India, but was completely wiped out by invading Moslems. It continued only in very small, isolated pockets, but has been, for all practical purposes, eradicated in the land of it's birth, and is only now making a comeback as the Harijan convert from Hinduism to escape limitations of the Caste system.

Minh

My history book tells me that while it is true that the Muslims attempted to wipe out Buddhism in India circa 1193, by that time Buddhism had spread all over the far east, to China, Nepal, Tibet, Japan, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. Therefore, the Muslim invasion of India did not even come close to eradicating Buddhism as a religion.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Try again.

 

[Snakum]

In India, Dippy ... I said 'In India' ...

"What a maroon!"

Minh

 

[Timebuilder]

With all due respect, that flies in the face of history. When we made the decision to intervene in Vietnam, the Soviet Union was not in Vietnam, nor did it enter Vietnam during the course of the war.

I think that what was meant was that communism was taking a foothold in Vietnam, and without the benefit of hindsight that we now enjoy, many in the US thought it was necessary to try and contain that spread. In those days, images of Joe Stalin and Mao were frightening indeed, and one needed to look back less than two decades to remember the horrors of WWII, making the spread of communism frightening in a very similar way.

We did not agree with that treaty and we intervened to support an illegal government in "South Vietnam" and devide the country into two. The Vietnamese chose to resist and I think they were right to do so.

Actually, the South Vietnamese, however they came to be known in that manner, asserted that this election had been engineered by the nationalists to obtain the desired result, which is easy to do in an undelevoped coutry. We provided advisors to the South, which snowballed in short order into fightiing the nationalists, then taking on the name "Viet Cong". I think it is a little unrealistic to say "The Vietnamese chose to resist" as if to say that the entire penninsula was acting against an invading US army. In fact, we were acting in support of those who wanted to remain free of a communist dictatorship that was quickly developing in Hanoi under Chinese communist influence. The Gulf of Tonkin fiasco was seen by the administration as a necessary tool. I don't agree with that, personally. Then again, I too have the benefit of hindsight.

Our military intervention accomplished nothing other than the killing of thousands of American youth, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, the division of our own country and the loss of great treasure. It was wrong then and it remains wrong today.

What we were wrong about was our underestimation of the communist influence, and the determination of the Chinese to extend communism into Vietnam along the Ho Chi Mihn Trail. In a conflict where everyone can look alike, where only the NVA regulars had consistent uniforms, we needed to do a better job in controlling ingress to the South. We didn't. Instead, we took the same hill several times, and sought to see body counts as an indiction of "winning" when we didn't have the political will to really win. What is wrong is the sacrifices we made in our blood without being willing to get the job done.

While our goals were indeed laudable, we needed to make a realistic assessment of the situation and withdraw if we were unwilling to win. That is perhaps our greatest mistake.

Brother has fought against brother and countries have been divided for eons. This is not a reason to think that it is never advised to engage in these conflicts. In fact, one can say that our resistance (if you will) against the British crown was similar to the struggle of free Vietnamese against the growth of communism and its influence. We cannot look at such struggles as static entities without considering the reasons an motivations of those invovled in the conflict. If the Viet Cong meant to impose a communist dictatorship on free people in the South, then they cannot also be "freedom fighters" seeking to expel an "invading" US force. Similarly, if Iraqi insurgents seek to drive out the US and return a Bathist regime of terror and torture, they cannot be described as freedom fighting nationalists, either.

You have to look at the big picture. Freedom is a worthy goal. Three decades later, we cannot say that Vietnam would be the country it is today without French and American influence. That would require the ability to see an alternate timeline. We can easily see now, from our present day perspective, that Vietnam could have been handled far better than it was.

We can, in addition, say that Iraq would still be a place of torture and mass murder were it not for the action we are taking there right now, finishing the job that we left unfinished when we took Sadaam at his word as a part of the ceasefire agreement.

We cannot say precisely what positive message of freedom that will spread throughout the arab world as a result of the toppling of Sadaam, but we can clearly see it is better than the alternative.