Fox News Jokes About Killing Obama

[Lights]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

:laugh:

[catd]

Lordy - these people are nuts

[Lights]

Lordy - these people are nuts

I'm surprised. Even though it is Fox, I kinda expected they would rescind or apologize for the comment. This kind of hatred is scary and completely illogical.

[Dreamer]

Well, considering the kind of anti-bush drivel seen during "peace" protests...

Go fox!:cheesy:

[Lights]

Well, considering the kind of anti-bush drivel seen during "peace" protests...

Go fox!:cheesy:

I don't care if it is Bush or Obama, it isn't intelligent or mature to advocate this kind of thing. In fact, I'm surprised to see an NT post such a response. Not exactly what I would consider very "rational".

Are people so brainwashed by partisan politics that they have just flushed their values down the crapper?

[azelismia]

I don't care if it is Bush or Obama, it isn't intelligent or mature to advocate this kind of thing. In fact, I'm surprised to see an NT post such a response. Not exactly what I would consider very "rational".

Are people so brainwashed by partisan politics that they have just flushed their values down the crapper?


Uh, it makes just as little sense to get out-raged over such a thing. It's coming from Fox. They are a propaganda station. there's nothing you can do to change it other than not to watch. There are always going to be stupid ignorant people out there and it's far better to laugh at them then to get your knickers in a knot over it. Getting your knickers in a knot doesn't change the situation and gives you increased amounts of stress which have been linked to many grave illnesses.

[Lights]

Uh, it makes just as little sense to get out-raged over such a thing. It's coming from Fox. They are a propaganda station. there's nothing you can do to change it other than not to watch. There are always going to be stupid ignorant people out there and it's far better to laugh at them then to get your knickers in a knot over it. Getting your knickers in a knot doesn't change the situation and gives you increased amounts of stress which have been linked to many grave illnesses.

You know, it is that kind of attitude that is why our country doesn't protest anymore. We used to have college campuses that would protest injustice and idiocy but now the people are like, "Oh, don't worry about this kind of thing, it's bad for your health if you do." I'm sorry, but I think its alright to be a little pissed when people on national TV are joking about "knocking off" people simply because they don't like them. I wouldn't be a very good NF if I wasn't.

[Dreamer]

You know, it is that kind of attitude that is why our country doesn't protest anymore. We used to have college campuses that would protest injustice and idiocy but now the people are like, "Oh, don't worry about this kind of thing, it's bad for your health if you do." I'm sorry, but I think its alright to be a little pissed when people on national TV are joking about "knocking off" people simply because they don't like them. I wouldn't be a very good NF if I didn't.
Ironic that you advocate "protesting" as a good way for the left to bring about change.

How is a couple hundreds of people screaming such ingenious slogans as "no blood for oil" and "Capitalism is bad for children and other living beings", blocking traffic, burning Bush effigies, spitting on LEOs, serving as enemy propaganda are going to help intelligent debate?

If I were a liberal,I would most likely avoid protesters like plague.





Dreamer added to this post, 2 minutes and 30 seconds later...

I don't care if it is Bush or Obama, it isn't intelligent or mature to advocate this kind of thing. In fact, I'm surprised to see an NT post such a response. Not exactly what I would consider very "rational".

Are people so brainwashed by partisan politics that they have just flushed their values down the crapper?

Actually,I just felt like raising your blood pressure a wee bit. I don't care one iota about her statement, as it is unlikely to have neither a negative or positive ipact on the outcome of the 08 election.

[Lights]

Ironic that you advocate "protesting" as a good way for the left to bring about change.

More partisan BS. :rolleyes: Can't you see past that crap to the values that are being lost here? Why does every damn thing have to be a left and right issue with you folks?

How is a couple hundreds of people screaming such ingenious slogans as "no blood for oil" and "Capitalism is bad for children and other living beings", blocking traffic, burning Bush effigies, spitting on LEOs, serving as enemy propaganda are going to help intelligent debate?

Indeed. The partisan politics of this nation are disgusting on both sides of the fence. I could just as easily cite Fred Phelps as a religious right protester. However, protesting is all we have, and some things should transcend party lines.

If I were a liberal,I would most likely avoid protesters like plague.

Huh?

Actually,I just felt like raising your blood pressure a wee bit. I don't care one iota about her statement, as it is unlikely to have neither a negative or positive ipact on the outcome of the 08 election.

Yeah, I'm sure that is why you were taking so long to reply to it. :laugh:

It won't have an impact. That wasn't the point. The comment is just simply atrocious and if you could see past your partisan politics then you could understand. Maybe when somebody starts joking about killing McCain or Ron Paul, then you will understand.

[Dreamer]

More partisan BS. :rolleyes: Can't you see past that crap to the values that are being lost here? Why does every damn thing have to be a left and right issue with you folks? Which ones?

It isn't freedom of speech.Your argument reminds me of muslims who taught that "respect" should take precedence over humor.

And what is wrong with partisan politics? I taught that a vicious opposition was a healthy thing for a Democracy.


Indeed. The partisan politics of this nation are disgusting on both sides of the fence. I could just as easily cite Fred Phelps as a religious right protester. However, protesting is all we have, and some things should transcend party lines. Wow,Fred Phelps is nowhere near mainstream and is virtually detested by everybody including most if not all in the Republican party. Conservative protesting have been nowhere near left-wing protesting in volume(or violence).

Protesting left-wing whackjobs on the other hand have been used by enemies of the USA as propaganda ever since the Depression.

So protesting is all you have..hmmm... How about trying to publish something intelligent for a change? Or stopping to use extremly graphic images of the war without ANY context whatsoever or any overview of the big picture whatsoever?


Yeah, I'm sure that is why you were taking so long to reply to it. :laugh::rolleyes:


It won't have an impact. That wasn't the point. The comment is just simply atrocious and if you could see past your partisan politics then you could understand. Are you expecting the Republicans to make a coup if McCain isn't elected or what?

It was meant as a humourous quip not as some manifesto for political change through assassinations.

If you are actually offended by it, then well...

Maybe when somebody starts joking about killing McCain or Ron Paul, then you will understand. Be my guest.It's part of your freedom of speech. I will certainly not lose any sleep over the fact that some of your political brethens want to kill McCain or Ron Paul.:rolleyes:

[Lights]

Which ones?

It isn't freedom of speech.Your argument reminds me of muslims who taught that "respect" should take precedence over humor.

And what is wrong with partisan politics? I taught that a vicious opposition was a healthy thing for a Democracy.

We don't live in a democracy.

Wow,Fred Phelps is nowhere near mainstream and is virtually detested by everybody including most if not all in the Republican party. Conservative protesting have been nowhere near left-wing protesting in volume(or violence).

Protesting left-wing whackjobs on the other hand have been used by enemies of the USA as propaganda ever since the Depression.

So protesting is all you have..hmmm... How about trying to publish something intelligent for a change? Or stopping to use extremly graphic images of the war without ANY context whatsoever or any overview of the big picture whatsoever?

:laugh: So partisan that you think one side has less blood on their hands than the other. That's cute.

By the way, when have I ever used "extremly graphic images of the war without ANY context whatsoever or any overview of the big picture whatsoever"? You are so stuck in the "us vs. them" mentality that you haven't realized that you are arguing with someone completely removed from partisan politics.

:rolleyes:

Are you expecting the Republicans to make a coup if McCain isn't elected or what?

It was meant as a humourous quip not as some manifesto for political change through assassinations.

If you are actually offended by it, then well...

Be my guest.It's part of your freedom of speech. I will certainly not lose any sleep over the fact that some of your political brethens want to kill McCain or Ron Paul.:rolleyes:

At least we agree on one thing. People are free to make jackasses of themselves.

[sriv]

They're all rednecks. Of course they're immature.

Plus...they're probably getting a bigger fanbase out of it anyway.

[Dreamer]

We don't live in a democracy.

Well good for you! A vicious opposition is also healthy in a Republic,fortunatly.

So which fundamental values are betrayed to generate so much attention for that quip?


:laugh: So partisan that you think one side has less blood on their hands than the other.
As you said,all you have is protesting and protesting has to be the crudest mean to get your political view across. I taught that it was pretty much a given that protesting was a left-wing past-time? Of course,minus the loons like Fred Phelps(who are anyway pretty much rejected by the right-wing mainstream).

And how am I a partisan? And if I am, how does it change anything as long as I am right? If I get commissioned by Hitler to write about the blue sky or paint a picture, does the quality of what I am saying change?

Am I supposed to preach about some socialists' hidden qualities simply to make sure that I am not a 'partisan'?

That's cute.
I am glad that you think I am cute! I have been thinking about modeling,personally.


By the way, when have I ever used "extremly graphic images of the war without ANY context whatsoever or any overview of the big picture whatsoever"?
You tell me, I'm not here to monitor every one of your posts.
And I wasn't targeting you specifically, stop being so ego-centric.

You are so stuck in the "us vs. them" mentality that you haven't realized that you are arguing with someone completely removed from partisan politics. See above.

[azelismia]

You know, it is that kind of attitude that is why our country doesn't protest anymore. We used to have college campuses that would protest injustice and idiocy but now the people are like, "Oh, don't worry about this kind of thing, it's bad for your health if you do." I'm sorry, but I think its alright to be a little pissed when people on national TV are joking about "knocking off" people simply because they don't like them. I wouldn't be a very good NF if I wasn't.


oh, I missed the part where you were an NF right...

well protests are pointless. a waste of energy. they're just an occasion for NF's to get together and feel good together ( or good and morally outraged but that equals the same thing)

[catd]

I'm surprised. Even though it is Fox, I kinda expected they would rescind or apologize for the comment. This kind of hatred is scary and completely illogical.

I agree. Next they'll have a call in poll on how to do it. The media is sick and corrupted, it's not funny, it's very scary.

We are apathetic and we have the government we deserve because of it.

[Dreamer]

I sense references to the vast right-wing conspiracy happening soon :laugh:

[sriv]

I sense references to the vast right-wing conspiracy happening soon :laugh:

We're in the middle of it. Bush's regime.

[azelismia]

We're in the middle of it. Bush's regime.

correction: end of it..

[sriv]

correction: end of it..

His stench will live on. Obama/Hillary will have a hard time getting rid of it.

[azelismia]

His stench will live on. Obama/Hillary will have a hard time getting rid of it.

eh, sooner or later we'll be back at normalcy though. It might be years but at least bush won't be there.

[catd]

correction: end of it..

Not so sure about that.

[Dreamer]

So...Catd, in your opinion,will this quip result in stormtrooper divisions suddenly being raised from the GOP headquarters?

If so,I need to warn my liberal relatives in New York to prepare for the arrival of the Republican/fascist hordes.

[PHS Philip]

No, no, Dreamer, you've got it all wrong. The right wingers are supposed to send pot to the liberals, who will (since everyone knows all liberals are hippies) be content forever after. Liberals like us LIKE being oppressed, because it gives us the chance to shout slogans!

In all seriousness, Bush is worse than most, but Hillary/Obama aren't much better. It's more a failing of the country than individuals. Arguably it's the failing of democracy, although that's a topic for another thread. Politicians, especially with term limits, have no particular incentive toward long term planning.

[Ool]

Well, it’s still better than the alternative—considering it in all seriousness…

[catd]

So...Catd, in your opinion,will this quip result in stormtrooper divisions suddenly being raised from the GOP headquarters?

If so,I need to warn my liberal relatives in New York to prepare for the arrival of the Republican/fascist hordes.

I just think that this next year is going to be interesting.

[Lights]

well protests are pointless. a waste of energy. they're just an occasion for NF's to get together and feel good together ( or good and morally outraged but that equals the same thing)

I'm sure people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King would love to know that. After all, they only brought about massive social change via nonviolent means of protest. :laugh:

I agree. Next they'll have a call in poll on how to do it. The media is sick and corrupted, it's not funny, it's very scary.

We are apathetic and we have the government we deserve because of it.

Precisely! This is exactly why I left journalism. There are no ethics or standards anymore.

[Ool]

eh, sooner or later we'll be back at normalcy though. It might be years but at least bush won't be there.

And you’ll finally quit hiding your shame behind a fake glasses and moustache disguise, I hope…

[catd]

This is exactly why I left journalism. There are no ethics or standards anymore.

True. It's all about selling advertising. $$$

[Lights]

Yay! An apology!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wait. Did that sound a little condescending? :suspicious:

[catd]

Didn't sound like she really cares one way or the other to me.

[Firelie]

Yay! An apology!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wait. Did that sound a little condescending? :suspicious:

Sounded more like a "Shit, did I said that out loud?" than an apology. Notice she only apologized to the people she offended, not the people she wished dead...

[Lights]

Didn't sound like she really cares one way or the other to me.

When you have been in the business as long as she has, then you are probably pretty much bullet proof. To see her humble herself to put out a half hearted apology to "anyone I may have offended" is probably about as good as it is going to get.

Although, I wish the bitch was fired. :p

[catd]

Sounded more like a "Shit, did I said that out loud?" than an apology. Notice she only apologized to the people she offended, not the people she wished dead...

:laugh: True

[sriv]

Although, I wish the bitch was fired. :p

Lol, don't take things too seriously.

[meanlittlechimp]

I don't care if it is Bush or Obama, it isn't intelligent or mature to advocate this kind of thing. In fact, I'm surprised to see an NT post such a response. Not exactly what I would consider very "rational".

Are people so brainwashed by partisan politics that they have just flushed their values down the crapper?

It's not the values that went down the crapper, it's their brain that went down the crapper long before supporting Bush.

Just today (CNN,NYtimes), Scot McClellan, Bush's former Press secretary and member of his inner circle since his Governor days, admitted that Bush's administration are lying pieces of shit. They outed a CIA operative potentially putting her and others in harms way, because her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson was stating there were no WMDs while in Iraq (which was obviously true). Does this even bother Bush supporters? Patriots my ass...

Actually they probably aren't aware of it, Fox watchers, probably missed it since the Nytimes reading level is a tad too high for the bible belt crowd.

.
well protests are pointless. a waste of energy. they're just an occasion for NF's to get together and feel good together ( or good and morally outraged but that equals the same thing)

That's why Bush Sr. was against the civil acts right of 1964, when they were protesting. Silly NFs protesting to let those smelly black people drink from the same water fountains. Dreamer and the Fox anchors are probably still upset about it.

Vietnam war? We should have napalmed and carpet bombed em to oblivion, killing millions of Gooks, wasn't quite enough. Those dangerous rice farmers were obviously a threat to the American way of life, just like them towel heads. Stupid NF protesters ruin everything.

We should have never protested, "no taxation without representation" and stayed a British colony too.

[Beery Swine]

His stench will live on. Obama/Hillary will have a hard time getting rid of it.

Don't be so sure either of them will be in the White House. McCain may be really old, but he's white, not very right wing, says "god" just enough and is friends with some crazy pastors (the white kind). Never underestimate this nation's stupidity.

[Lights]

@meanlittlechimp

:thumbsup:

Don't be so sure either of them will be in the White House. McCain may be really old, but he's white, not very right wing, says "god" just enough and is friends with some crazy pastors (the white kind). Never underestimate this nation's stupidity.

I think I'll join the army if McCain wins. I've always wanted to visit exotic places like Iran and North Korea. :thumbsup:

[Dreamer]

It's not the values that went down the crapper, it's their brain that went down the crapper long before supporting Bush...
Actually they probably aren't aware of it, Fox watchers, probably missed it since the Nytimes reading level is a tad too high for the bible belt crowd
Maybe,or maybe not. I'd say that America's populace is pretty stupid overall. Any populace who taught that the communists would respect the cease-fire agreement in 1973 or that taught that Jimmy Carter would make a good president doesn't rank very high in IQ.

The NYTimes is a fairly crappy newspaper (although it is always useful to know what the opposition is saying), you should try the Wall street journal for a change.

In any case,the stupidity of the US populace doesn't detract from the fact that a policy may have well-founded If Mountain Joe wants to believe that MLK was correct because he is as black as he is or because he believes that MLK will give him ice cream, it doesn't change the fact that MLK's ideas on segregation were correct.

Any slandering of the opposition(which you seem to take from largely anecdotal evidence) is merely a distraction from the question at hand: Does it work?
It is merely a tactic by liberals insecure in their own intellectual abilities to feel better/superior about themselves.


Just today (CNN,NYtimes), Scot McClellan, Bush's former Press secretary and member of his inner circle since his Governor days, admitted that Bush's administration are lying pieces of shit. Oh, but Bush isn't perfect alright. He is the lesser of two evils.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As for WMDs,ask yourself two questions: knowing that Saddam used WMDs on his kurdish populace and the Iranians in the 80s...
What happened to them? If Saddam destroyed these weapons, why did he resist weapons inspectors until right before the war started?
What about the stockpiles of WMD from 1990 found in Iraq?


That's why Bush Sr. was against the civil acts right of 1964, when they were protesting. Silly NFs protesting to let those smelly black people drink from the same water fountains. Dreamer and the Fox anchors are probably still upset about it.
Protesting itself is a neutral weapon. It can be used to effectively bring publicity upon one's cause.

In any case, it is a machiavellian one that comes at the price of dumbing down everybody in the process and discouraging intelligent debating.I think we can agree that the quest for emotional slogans by protesters is hardly a process requiring much more than a dozen of gray cells. It is preferable to make use of more intelligent means like for example, the printed press.

Lights actually taught that a remark made by a news anchor warranted a protest? The remark is so petty and has been made by a private party. Reminds me of Thais protesting because a Cambodian actress made an anti-thai remark(resulting in counter-protests and a temporary closing of commercial relations) , or muslims burning embassies. SO much energies wasted for absolutly nothing:rolleyes:

I guess we should all venerate each other, because obviously respect takes precedence over freedom of speech.Maybe we should regulate humour as well? After all,all those crude sexual and sometime violent jokes about politicians are betraying a fundamental value which nobody can name, but the betrayal of such a value is scary nonetheless.


Vietnam war? We should have napalmed and carpet bombed em to oblivion, killing millions of Gooks, wasn't quite enough.
Those dangerous rice farmers were obviously a threat to the American way of life, just like them towel heads. Stupid NF protesters ruin everything. America leaving Vietnam had the effect that it letted the Communists run amok in South-East Asia with the well-publicized effect of the Khmer Rouges overruning Cambodia and the much-less publicized massacres conducted by the Vietcong and the Pathet Lao on the populace they were sensed to protect.

It diminished America's prestige in the world and ended as a propaganda victory for the Communists(and anybody who had a stake into defeating American troops). Vietnam is pretty much the textbook case of defeating US troops. No doubt that the 80s saw an increase of communist insurgencies.

By the way,why are you portraying the Communists as victims?
If anything,their military strategy actually called for hiding among civilians and operating in civilian clothes.

The protests in the States did nothing to end the Vietnam war. It polarized the US, it helped the communists stay in the fight,they served as propaganda vehicles for communist ideals. The war was winnable, read books by Col. Bui tin,he gives a pretty good view of the North vietnamese side of the conflict (if you dare look at the military side).

The US is pretty much the laughing stock of South-East Asia now, and rightly so. And by the way towel heads sitting on a large mountain of black gold can do more than their share of damage to what we know as "the western world".


We should have never protested, "no taxation without representation" and stayed a British colony too. I remember a nasty little war in North America in the 1770s pitting separatist guerillas and loyalist Red coats with french military support throw in .Between that and protesting, which do you think influenced the most the issue of American independence?

[Karamazov]

Say what you will about the Fox News propagandists...but man do they get paid :cool:

[meanlittlechimp]

America leaving Vietnam had the effect that it letted the Communists run amok in South-East Asia with the well-publicized effect of the Khmer Rouges overruning Cambodia and the much-less publicized massacres conducted by the Vietcong and the Pathet Lao on the populace they were sensed to protect.

Pol pot and Khmer Rouge rose up BECAUSE we murdered millions of cambodians by carpet bombing defenseless civilians there who did nothing to the US. This is the main reason Pol Pot got into power. He was considered a fringe extremist before US bombing, but after we butchered close to 2 million Cambodians, support for him swelled. Kids still get their arms blown off to this day because of all the land mines we left in that country.

See the pattern here? We overthrow the rightful Iranian government and install a puppet, the country goes markedly extremist and backwards, because the conservative elements in their society gain more sympathy. German hyperinflation after WWI, you get Hitler. If our economy goes completely down the shitter, this country will become far more right wing blaming everything on liberal universities and minorities stealing jobs.

You think we invaded vietnam to save SE asian people from tyranny? Carpet bombing millions of defenseless civilians is a good way to do that. What a joke. Just like we're saving the Iraqis. But to republicans like you, those gooks had it coming. Ho Chi Minh, would have had 90% of the popular vote (so democracy isn't what we were after), and spent a decade fighting French occupation. Of course after the French leave, we thought it would be good to give 'em our brand of capitalism and democracy.. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

The NYTimes is a fairly crappy newspaper (although it is always useful to know what the opposition is saying), you should try the Wall street journal for a change.
I do read the wsj and highly doubt you read much of it. They're actually pretty left wing and are left to the NYtimes on several occasions/issues (the journalism that is). They were the only paper to admit we attempted a coup on Chavez, the Nytimes wouldn't touch the story.

The op ed section is very right wing however, but that's the part without any pretense to journalism or scholarship.


By the way,why are you portraying the Communists as victims?


Considering we murdered millions of defenseless civilians (including women, children the elderly etc) through carpet bombing and napalm. We dropped more explosives on tiny Vietnam than all the explosives ever set off in the entire history of warfare (including the atomic bombs in WWII).

What exactly did they do to us, before all this? You think the Cambodians or Vietnamese were going to show up on our shores and attack Americans or did anything to deserve massive indiscriminate bombing of their civilians? What would justify a foreign power bombing our citizens? If we elected a socialist/communist leader? I'm sure you would want the British or a "capitalist" nation to bomb us to save us from ourselves. But if it's the gooks or the mud people....., bomb first, ask questions later. Typical republican redneck.

[] 11 Saudis kill 4 thousand at the Trade Center = ALL Arabs/Persians are bloodthirsty terrorists (specially the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq; though not the ones in Saudi Arabia).

[] We kill over 4 MILLION Cambodians, Vietnamese and Laotians = liberators spreading democracy and capitalism.

[Dreamer]

Pol pot and Khmer Rouge rose up BECAUSE we murdered millions of cambodians by carpet bombing defenseless civilians there who did nothing to the US. This is the main reason Pol Pot got into power. He was considered a fringe extremist before US bombing, but after we butchered close to 2 million Cambodians, support for him swelled. Kids still get their arms blown off to this day because of all the land mines we left in that country.

The Khmer Rouges were a Vietnamese invention. They were originally propped up by the regime in North Vietnam.

The Khmer Rouges would NOT have come to power had the US decided to properly support the Lon Nol government in Cambodia. In fact,had the US decided to take a more active stance outside South Vietnam, they could have effectively cutted the Ho chi minh trail and they would have won the war(imagine no more North Vietnamese regulars). The Khmer rouges came to power out of LACK of US intervention.

The Khmer rouges weren't popular, Sihanouk was popular,and it was only after Sihanouk joigned with the Khmer Rouges that they gradually got more and more recruits. The bombings started one year before Sihanouk was deposed,but during his reign, the Khmer rouges were no more than a fringe group,as you say.


See the pattern here? We overthrow the rightful Iranian government and install a puppet, the country goes markedly extremist and backwards, because the conservative elements in their society gain more sympathy. And then you fail to properly support said "puppet" because of liberal weakness, thinking that somehow the extremists will play nice with you simply because you are a liberal pacifist and not an Evil American Imperialist Warmonger.

Jimmy Carter,anyone?


You think we invaded vietnam to save SE asian people from tyranny? If not ideology then what? It seems to me that the amount of men and material expanded in South East Asia far outstrip the economic value of Vietnam.

America has always been a moralistic nation and the war has always been justified on moral grounds.


Carpet bombing millions of defenseless civilians is a good way to do that. What a joke. Just like we're saving the Iraqis. The Vietcong hid among those civilians you are speaking about. It was a very deliberate tactic of them to have the US butcher as much of them as possible.

But to republicans like you, those gooks had it coming. Ho Chi Minh, would have had 90% of the popular vote (so democracy isn't what we were after), and spent a decade fighting French occupation.
If a country is turning communist, it is time for a revolution to happen,whether it is triggered from inside or outside doesn't matter. Did Uncle Ho turn North Vietnam into a beacon of social democracy after Diem flipped him the finger? He was no democrat and I see no reason to have supported the rule of that bastard other than a blind and stupid belief that American ideals can be applied universally.


Of course after the French leave, we thought it would be good to give 'em our brand of capitalism and democracy.. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DNSo you decide to show me very graphic images of the war,trying to use emotional strategy to sway opinions.

Typical liberal. All hearts and no brains.


Considering we murdered millions of defenseless civilians (including women, children the elderly etc) through carpet bombing and napalm. We dropped more explosives on tiny Vietnam than all the explosives ever set off in the entire history of warfare (including the atomic bombs in WWII). Ah,but then that is thanks to technological advances in tactical bombers, the payload would be increased for each sortie (and the fact that strategic ones were used for tactical missions i.e. B-52 bombers. It was said that for each B-52 run,only a few Vietcong would be killed).

It was nothing like WWII. Hanoi was largely spared from bombs. Johnson, in fact, limited bombing targets to worthless military targets like SAM sites. THe majority of US bombs(70%) in Vietnam fell in 10% of the South Vietnamese territory. And in those 10% the Vietcong and NVA were said to be extremly active.

So no,there was no "indescriminate bombings of civilians".


What exactly did they do to us, before all this? You think the Cambodians or Vietnamese were going to show up on our shores and attack Americans or did anything to deserve massive indiscriminate bombing of their civilians? Nothing really. It is simply moral to help small nations preserve their independance from a Communist power which is grossly more powerful then they are because of backing from China and the Soviet Union.

What would justify a foreign power bombing our citizens?
If we elected a socialist/communist leader? I'm sure you would want the British or a "capitalist" nation to bomb us to save us from ourselves. But if it's the gooks or the mud people....., bomb first, ask questions later. Typical republican redneck. I would totally support foreign help if the circunstances call for it. In fact, I would denounce my countrymen whom I judge to be subversives.

Patriotism is not standing blindly with the decision of your political elite(unlike what the liberals like to do,since them plebs...er I mean citizens do not have the brains to vote for a liberal,hahaha), it's doing what's right for the country. If I were a German under Nazi Germany, I would most likely welcome the allied invasion instead of letting an irrational nationalism run amok inside my head,despite the fact that Hitler was democratically elected. I would gladly go against my government. If I were a Cambodian under Lon Nol, I would gladly go against my neighbours whom I think would be Vietcong/Khmer Rouges/etc, despite the fact that the Sihanouk/Khmer Rouges alliance was highly popular in the countryside.

In South East Asia, the conditions were set.
Cambodia and Laos espescially,had little chance to resist the Communist onslaught. What could they realistically have done against Hanoi?
Even "King" Sihanouk letted it known to US diplomats that he wasn't opposed to hot pursuits of Vietnamese forces inside Khmer territory despite the fact that he held some fairly strong socialist views. There was simply no way the non-communist nations were going to survive the communist onslaught by themselves.

And it is not like the Lon Nol government did not have popular support, when Lon Nol called for Cambodians to arms against the Vietcong, many Cambodians signed up to the newly formed Republican army and some even assaulted innocent Khmer-vietnamese citizens, unfortunatly. Under the Lon Nol government, and the South Vietnamese ones, they were a lot more "free" than their North Vietnamese counter-parts.

It is truth, the Indochinese wars were costly but then freedom has usually been paid in human lives. How much do you think your freedom of speech is worth? One? two? 5 men?

Oh,and I am a proud republican redneck,by the way. If by republican redneck you mean having an opinion which does not concord with nor support Communist/Islamofascist foreign policy.

[Karamazov]

The Khmer Rouges were a Vietnamese invention. They were originally propped up by the regime in North Vietnam.

The Khmer Rouges would NOT have come to power had the US decided to properly support the Lon Nol government in Cambodia. In fact,had the US decided to take a more active stance outside South Vietnam, they could have effectively cutted the Ho chi minh trail and they would have won the war(imagine no more North Vietnamese regulars). The Khmer rouges came to power out of LACK of US intervention.

It was due to our intervention in Vietnam in the first place that elicited sympathy for the North Vietnamese by the young Pol Pot, thus the Khmer Rouge gained traction, seeing the U.S. presence as merely a continuation of French colonialism.

And then you fail to properly support said "puppet" because of liberal weakness, thinking that somehow the extremists will play nice with you simply because you are a liberal pacifist and not an Evil American Imperialist Warmonger.

Jimmy Carter,anyone?

Carter didn't need to prop up said "puppet" to clean up the blow back from the zealous right-wing American government who helped install him in the first place, at the time. His bringing in of the Shah only made matters worse. Backed by British greed and a woefully ignorant but paranoid American leadership (thanks to red scare hysteria at the time), Operation Ajax deposed the uncooperative leader who didn't cow tow to our expectations and led the way for the wonderful backwards government in place right now. So you can chalk it up as another foreign policy blunder under republican leadership. So save the ad hominems.

America has always been a moralistic nation and the war has always been justified on moral grounds.

The Spanish American War is always a good example of American morals at work during the time period. Remember the Maine..and all that right? Of course expansionist policies into all those nice Spanish territories in Guam, the Philippines, etc, had nothing to do with it. Oh and don't get me started on WWI...wouldn't know where to begin, with so much morality in those trenches.

The Vietcong hid among those civilians you are speaking about. It was a very deliberate tactic of them to have the US butcher as much of them as possible.
So clearly all civilian casualties can be attributed to this? Hmm..

Typical liberal. All hearts and no brains.
As opposed to making wishful thinking seem rational?

Oh,and I am a proud republican redneck,by the way. If by republican redneck you mean having an opinion which does not concord with nor support Communist/Islamofascist foreign policy.

Well good for you. So does his opinion which doesn't concord with yours, make you a Fascist/Imperialist? Let's stop the pigeon holing please.

[Antares]

Well, being apathetic to the welfare of Obama, or any politician in general, I won't be angry at something as petty as that. Let them hate Obama all they want. If they want to kill him, it's their choice.

[meanlittlechimp]

It was due to our intervention in Vietnam in the first place that elicited sympathy for the North Vietnamese by the young Pol Pot, thus the Khmer Rouge gained traction, seeing the U.S. presence as merely a continuation of French colonialism.
Exactly, kind of like how many formerly moderate Iraqis, are becoming more extremist today. Exactly,why the Iranians became so extremist after we overthrew their secular democracy under Mossadegh.

Shit, if some foreign power overthrew our government or carpet bombed us; I might get a lobotomy and turn into an republican too (our version of violent religious zealot).

The Vietcong hid among those civilians you are speaking about. It was a very deliberate tactic of them to have the US butcher as much of them as possible.


This is how you explain 4 million dead due to carpet bombing and napalm? Considering the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh, almost the ENTIRE population was the Viet Cong or supported their cause.

The viet cong were the civilians stupid. Millions dead is only an abstraction, to an armchair warrior for our "freedom", like you.
The protests in the States did nothing to end the Vietnam war.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
By 1970, the U.S. Army had 65,643 deserters, roughly the equivalent of four infantry divisions. In an article published in the Armed Forces Journal (June 7, 1971), Marine Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr., a veteran combat commander with over 27 years experience in the Marines, and the author of Soldiers Of The Sea, a definitive history of the Marine Corps, wrote:

“By every conceivable indicator, our army that remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non-commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous. Elsewhere than Vietnam, the situation is nearly as serious… Sedition, coupled with disaffection from within the ranks, and externally fomented with an audacity and intensity previously inconceivable, infest the Armed Services...”


Did Uncle Ho turn North Vietnam into a beacon of social democracy after Diem flipped him the finger? He was no democrat and I see no reason to have supported the rule of that bastard other than a blind and stupid belief that American ideals can be applied universally.

He was no democrat? The person who would have won 90% of the popular vote is no Democract? While the foreign power who kills millions of civilians supporting him are Democracts? Do you realize how insane you sound?

After they won the war, WHAT HORROR BEFELL US FROM THIS EVIL COMMUNIST REGIME? hmmm. But you think it's ok to bomb millions of people just in case something like POST VIETNAM activities, could befall us again?

You have no heart OR brains.... You're the kind of guy that will tell his grand kids 50 years from now, how Saddam did have WMDs, and that's why we went into the iraq war. When the icecaps are melted, you'll still believe GW is a leftist conspiracy. It won't bother you much though, since you probably have the sanctimonious belief that you and your republican friends will be cool in Heaven, while the bloodthirsty Viet Cong, Iraqis, native americans, and everyone else murdered in the name of democracy and God, will be burning in hell.

America has always been a moralistic nation and the war has always been justified on moral grounds.
You mean the massacre of the indigenous peoples already in "America', because they were godless savages and we wanted their land?

You mean invading Iraq under the pretense of WMDs? The bombing of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam because they elected leaders we didn't like? The assassinations or coups against, Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Nasser (Egypt), Arbenz (Guatemala) ,Velasco (Ecuador), Lumumba (Zaire), Sukarno (Indonesia), Sihanouk (Cambodia), Allende (Chile), Mossadegh (Iran), etc... The funding of the Contras to massacre over 50 thousand civilians. The invasion of East Timor and the Phillipines (2 million dead).

I just listed several democracies (or governments with popular support) we've overthrown.

CAN YOU NAME ONE DEMOCRACY WE INSTALLED EXCLUDING WWII? This should be easy since, you say we love democracy and always fight wars on moralistic grounds.....

[Dreamer]

It was due to our intervention in Vietnam in the first place that elicited sympathy for the North Vietnamese by the young Pol Pot, thus the Khmer Rouge gained traction, seeing the U.S. presence as merely a continuation of French colonialism. The Khmer Rouges weren't a significant force until King Sihanouk decided to form a coalition with them. They had 10 years to gain traction from sympathy to the Vietminh, didn't happen.

You ignore several hundreds years of rivalry between the Khmers and Vietnamese.


Carter didn't need to prop up said "puppet" to clean up the blow back from the zealous right-wing American government who helped install him in the first place, at the time. His bringing in of the Shah only made matters worse. Carter did not support the Shah of Iran. Ajax was a fait accompli, just closing your eyes and letting the shah die in his own pool of caca because of


Backed by British greed and a woefully ignorant but paranoid American leadership (thanks to red scare hysteria at the time), Operation Ajax deposed the uncooperative leader who didn't cow tow to our expectations and led the way for the wonderful backwards government in place right now. So you can chalk it up as another foreign policy blunder under republican leadership. So save the ad hominems.
It is nice in theory but in practice it just doesn't happen.

That repression will bring added sympathy for the communists is a myth.Take Argentina for example. When communists tried to bring down the democratic government, "conservatives" installed a dictatorship and pretty much destroyed the communist insurgency. There was no revolution on the scale of Iran, but then the USA did not publicly cut every tie to Argentina.


The Spanish American War is always a good example of American morals at work during the time period. Remember the Maine..and all that right? Of course expansionist policies into all those nice Spanish territories in Guam, the Philippines, etc, had nothing to do with it. Sure, prior to the Spanish american war, the press gave good coverage of Spanish atrocities in Cuba.


Oh and don't get me started on WWI...wouldn't know where to begin, with so much morality in those trenches. War is hell, what can I say?

I doubt you can find something more "moralistic" than Wilsonian ideals in terms of foreign policy.


So clearly all civilian casualties can be attributed to this? Hmm.. Most of them anyway. WW1 civilian casualties account for about 5% of the total casualties. As we both knows, despite the occasional german atrocities, both sides fought in uniform and did their best to avoid civilian villages.

Now,if you told your troops to give up their uniforms, to dig in bunkers in civilian villages and use them as supply depots, to commit terrorist activities(and yes each of these activities can be fully documented,sources availble on request), do you think that civilian casualties would go up or would they go down?


As opposed to making wishful thinking seem rational? Do you have any more brillant one-liners like this one or are you actually going to try and prove your point?


Well good for you. So does his opinion which doesn't concord with yours, make you a Fascist/Imperialist? Let's stop the pigeon holing please.Neither. I didn't call him on his crap because his views didn't concord with mine, but because his views seems to concord fairly well with the ones espoused by Hanoi.

Whenever I read his posts,I feel like I was reading something from Giap or Ho chi minh.





Dreamer added to this post, 73 minutes and 4 seconds later...

Exactly, kind of like how many formerly moderate Iraqis, are becoming more extremist today. Exactly,why the Iranians became so extremist after we overthrew their secular democracy under Mossadegh. Repression doesn't lead automatically to extremism, if the repressive regime is properly supported and stable enough.

Argentina and Chile are both examples of this.


Shit, if some foreign power overthrew our government or carpet bombed us; I might get a lobotomy and turn into an republican too (our version of violent religious zealot). Good for you. It means that you are easily swayed


This is how you explain 4 million dead due to carpet bombing and napalm? Prove this claim. You took


Considering the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh, almost the ENTIRE population was the Viet Cong or supported their cause.


I showed the pictures, because only a moron could think millions of people were dying because they were "hiding" among the civilians.


The viet cong were the civilians stupid. Well that explains the gargantuesque civilian bodycount, you count Vietcong terrorists as civilians. Sure the USAF killed a lot of VC no doubt.

How about the NVA? Are they civilians because they fought in civilian clothes too?


Millions dead is only an abstraction, to an armchair warrior for our "freedom", like you. Like I've never seen that picture before.:rolleyes:

Well if it makes you feel better to show a picture out of context,I'm not going to oppose myself to it on the ground that I am helping your shaky mental situation.

Warrior? I didn't know you had to be a medal of honour recipient to voice an opinion on the matter. But by these harsh standards I guess it makes you even lower than that. A communist sympathizer who thinks anybody who doesn't parrot the party line should be silenced. Unless of course you're some kind of Navy Ninja commando who merely looks down upon his non-serving counterparts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
By 1970, the U.S. Army had 65,643 deserters, roughly the equivalent of four infantry divisions. In an article published in the Armed Forces Journal (June 7, 1971), Marine Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr., a veteran combat commander with over 27 years experience in the Marines, and the author of Soldiers Of The Sea, a definitive history of the Marine Corps, wrote:

“By every conceivable indicator, our army that remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non-commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous. Elsewhere than Vietnam, the situation is nearly as serious… Sedition, coupled with disaffection from within the ranks, and externally fomented with an audacity and intensity previously inconceivable, infest the Armed Services...” Sure the fastest way to end a war is to lose it by sapping the moral of the armed forces. So much for patriotism. :rolleyes: The more men the pacifists can get killed in the field, the more shaky Nixon's support and thus the faster the war will end right?

Well,I won't argue with you that the hippie culture did not have a negative effect upon army culture.Still,there was no mass (as in whole units) desertion,or surrendering, unlike WWII. The US Army kept a very high kill ratio in its favour throughout the war. It was never defeated in battle.

And more than that, the pacifists provided moral and popular support to the Vietnamese communists, had the US populace rejected those communist sympathizers, they would have won the war. Vietnamese communists would have come to the bargaining table had they judged that they couldn't win the war politically in the States.


He was no democrat? The person who would have won 90% of the popular vote is no Democract? You tell me, instead of asking rhethorical and emotionally-charged questions, ask yourself what happened to the North Vietnamese state after Ho chi minh the alleged democrat took power there?

Whoops, look like Uncle Ho was nothing more than a popular tyrant after all.

While the foreign power who kills millions of civilians supporting him are Democracts? Democrats. I don't know what a Democracts is.


Do you realize how insane you sound? ;)


After they won the war, WHAT HORROR BEFELL US FROM THIS EVIL COMMUNIST REGIME? Nothing, the USA successfully contained the communist expansion into South-East Asia. But ask the Cambodians, the Montagnards, or the Hmong, or the Vietnamese themselves what they think of the regime in Hanoi at this moment.

Nevertheless,the loss of Vietnam was a major loss of prestige for the USA. Do you think that it is a coincidence that the Communist bloc went on the offensieve straight after the loss of Vietnam?

Nicaragua,Afghanistan . Does it even bother you that anti-US leaders from Che Guevara to Osama bin laden refer to Vietnam as the proof that US forces can be defeated in battle through political subversion?

hmmm. But you think it's ok to bomb millions of people just in case something like POST VIETNAM activities, could befall us again?


You have no heart OR brains.... You're the kind of guy that will tell his grand kids 50 years from now, how Saddam did have WMDs, and that's why we went into the iraq war. When the icecaps are melted, you'll still believe GW is a leftist conspiracy. You mean invading Iraq under the pretense of WMDs? Ah yes, for WMDs, I am still awaiting your answers to my questions. You can throw poop at me all night but if you're not even willing to discuss it, then you're just slowing down the debate(and making the thread boring,I hasten to add).

So please stop contributing to the slowing down of the debate.


It won't bother you much though, since you probably have the sanctimonious belief that you and your republican friends will be cool in Heaven, while the bloodthirsty Viet Cong, Iraqis, native americans, and everyone else murdered in the name of democracy and God, will be burning in hell. Hehe, wrong on all counts.;)

If you're going to rant about somebody,at least get the little details right. I for one am not even a republican nor do I believe in Heave or Hell(although Soviet Russia might apply for the Hell position). In fact,I am not even an american for that matter.

It's all about keeping your opponent in the game.You want to have flame wars with people. Fine, but please do not make the flame war boring by making gross generalizations or copy/pasting old rants from your hard drive.


You mean the massacre of the indigenous peoples already in "America', because they were godless savages and we wanted their land? Well, I think that both indians and americans were fairly uncivilized in that conflict.


The bombing of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam because they elected leaders we didn't like? That's bollocks and you know it. None of these countries elected their leaders,or like in Ho's case, if they did they, they quickly gained a dictatorial grip on the country. There is no reason why a communist,even if popularly supported, shouldn't be opposed by all means possible.

Many of the leaders you have mentionned in your little "black list of the USA" were dictators.

Sihanouk? Nasser? Trujillo? Sukarno("guided democracy"?hmmmm....)?Velasco?

I am surprised you didn't name Castro,but maybe he is too far to the left even for you?

As for democracies who got propped up as a result of US policy.On top of my head... Greece, the Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, the Weimar Republic, about everything behind the Iron curtain, South Korea, Thailand,etc...

I must go for the time being but will come back to you on the last part.

[meanlittlechimp]

Prove this claim.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million "Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war."

And that's not including Cambodian and Laotian casualties from indiscrimminate carpet bombing.


As for democracies who got propped up as a result of US policy.On top of my head... Greece, the Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, the Weimar Republic, about everything behind the Iron curtain, South Korea, Thailand,etc...Nicaragua: We tried to overthrew the rightful government there and set up death squads financed by cocaine smuggling. What are you talking about? We invaded with mercenaries. Somosa was a dictactor reviled by his own people, the Sandinistas had overwhelming popular support and would have won any election easily. You know nothing about the history of the region. Talk to a Nicaraguan, or get a book and a clue. Do you even know what the Iran-Contra affair was?

Korea: We installed a dictator - Park Chung He, the democracy part happened later on their own accord through protest and open revulsion against his repressive regime.

Chile: Are you referring to our overthrow of DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende, and our installation of a military dictatorship - Pinochet? We called Allende a "communist" because he didn't want to allow the US to plunder it's resources. Allende had nothing against free trade or capitalism.

Weimar Republic: We did not install the Weimar Republic. I can't fathom where you would get this idea.

Greece:The USG created the Greek secret police (KYP) and backs military coups in 1949, 1967 and 1973. Dictatorships ruled with US backing during the periods of 1949-1952 and 1967-1974.

"Fuck your parliament and your constitution."
--President Johnson to Greek Ambassador, Alexander Matsas, June

Phillipines: Have you ever heard of Marcos? He was the dictatorship we installed for over 20 yrs. We brutally supressed all pro-democracy movements for decades. We labeled the anti-Marcos movement (overwhelming majority of the pop.) "communist" again because they didn't want to live under a dictatorship. They were seekers or democracy (we didn't want elections because that meant our man, Marcos, would easily be voted out). Do you think Filipinos read Karl Marx or think about economic systems or communism at all? They just didn't want a brutal dictator, but any protest against Marcos is dubbed "communist" by the sheep, who no nothing of history.




You tell me, instead of asking rhethorical and emotionally-charged questions, ask yourself what happened to the North Vietnamese state after Ho chi minh the alleged democrat took power there?

Whoops, look like Uncle Ho was nothing more than a popular tyrant after all. My point if you read it, was after they did WIN the war, what exactly happened to the US because of it? The answer is nothing. But if they blew up a plane, they would be bloodthirsty terrorists right?

Millions dead was definitely worth preventing this outcome however, right? They were NEVER a threat to the US, but we should bomb em anyways? If the situation was reversed, at what point would a foreign power have the right to kill 5 million Americans on our soil? If we elected a "communist"? If Norway elects a communist, I suppose we should bomb them too?

Ah yes, for WMDs, I am still awaiting your answers to my questions.
Which question? Couldn't find it.

I am surprised you didn't name Castro,but maybe he is too far to the left even for you?
We didn't overthrow him, in case you didn't notice; but not through lack of effort.

Does it even bother you that anti-US leaders from Che Guevara to Osama bin laden refer to Vietnam as the proof that US forces can be defeated in battle through political subversion?
Getting out of a war because the US populace doesn't support it is not political subversion. Affecting change through debate (or protest) is what democracy is supposed to be about. The government following the will of the people etc. Sound familiar? Nevermind.

Using false pretenses to invade another nation is political subversion. Political subversion is secret bombings of civilians without congressional approval as we did in Cambodia. Political subversion is outing CIA operatives because family members are stating that WMDs did not exist. Political subversion is overthrowing elected democracies like Mossadegh and replacing them with corrupt dictatorships.

Many of the leaders you have mentionned in your little "black list of the USA" were dictators.
Some of them were, some of them weren't. Nasser overthrew a corrupt monarchy (he was not a corrupt dictator). Some of them were dictatorships we installed then got sick of and took out later. Just like we did with Diem and Saddam.

[Karamazov]

You ignore several hundreds years of rivalry between the Khmers and Vietnamese.
No I haven't. It was relatively stagnant and sedate until they had a common enemy.

Carter did not support the Shah of Iran. Ajax was a fait accompli, just closing your eyes and letting the shah die in his own pool of caca because of I never said he did. He did let him in country though, which ignited quite the firestorm. Big mistake.


It is nice in theory but in practice it just doesn't happen.

That repression will bring added sympathy for the communists is a myth.Take Argentina for example. When communists tried to bring down the democratic government, "conservatives" installed a dictatorship and pretty much destroyed the communist insurgency. Anti-American sentiment is still very much present in Latin America. Operation Condor allowed for the make-up of the continent to take a brutal and tumultuous shape, in the form of death squads, government sanctioned kidnapping, torture, etc. The body count far exceeded anything leftist guerrillas ever did, and it was these dictatorships that initiated this plan first, to stifle any descent. Today? Most of the major cities retain a populist sentiment. So nothing, in effect, was done.

Sure, prior to the Spanish american war, the press gave good coverage of Spanish atrocities in Cuba.
Yellow Journalism

Do you have any more brillant one-liners like this one or are you actually going to try and prove your point? I did. Read again.

Neither. I didn't call him on his crap because his views didn't concord with mine, but because his views seems to concord fairly well with the ones espoused by Hanoi. Hanoi is a location, not a person. Your views could be said to concord with Diem's, If I were to use your same scrutinizing lens. So instead of hyperbole, try and support yourself with facts (if any)

Whenever I read his posts,I feel like I was reading something from Giap or Ho chi minh.

Well, you certainly do "feel" quite a bit for an INTJ

[44sunsets]

In all seriousness, Bush is worse than most, but Hillary/Obama aren't much better. It's more a failing of the country than individuals.

How could you say Hillary or Obama aren't much better than Bush when they haven't even had a chance at leading the country yet?

Bush, Cheney and co. are about as bad as you could get without actually turning the USA into an overt fascist dictatorship.

I still shake my head when people say they support neoconservative thugs like Bush and Cheney. That's apart from the obvious trolls like Dreamer, of course.

A country can get screwed up by just a few individuals in power. They have the ability to twist a country into something truly magnificent, or horribly grotesque. I wish it wasn't so, but that's how the world works.

[meanlittlechimp]

I still shake my head when people say they support neoconservative thugs like Bush and Cheney. That's apart from the obvious trolls like Dreamer, of course.


I wouldn't say he's a troll. Almost half the population agrees with most of his views. And I would say the overwhelming majority thinks we do go around spreading democracy historically. We were doing this far before the neo-cons got into power. Johnson was a democrat and didn't have a problem bombing defenseless civilians either.

I think it's mainly due to racism. We wouldn't have bombed a European nation for the same reasons. We massacred 2 million Filipinos from 1899 -1913. It's not even considered a genocide by most, for this simple reason. They were seen as sub-human by many, then and now. Though obviously less so now. America has definitely become more progressive every generation; I personally can't wait for more old people to die off so they can stop voting. I spent years reading foreign policy journals and looking up obscure government documents before the Web made everything so easy. I would have probably agreed with many of Dreamer's ideas when I was a teenager; before I actually took the time to study foreign policy.

In fact much of what I know now, I learned by trying to disprove the same argument that was posed to me years ago - how many democracies have we installed since WWII, and how many have we dismantled. It's an eye-opening question that had a profound impact on how I view politics and history. The information was always there, but I just assumed the history books in school weren't lying or conveniently glossing over the real history.

[Karamazov]

In fact much of what I know now, I learned by trying to disprove the same argument that was posed to me years ago - how many democracies have we installed since WWII, and how many have we dismantled. It's an eye-opening question that had a profound impact on how I view politics and history. The information was always there, but I just assumed the history books in school weren't lying or conveniently glossing over the real history.

During WWII, we razed out many European cities that were believed to be supporting the Axis powers militarily (Dresden, etc) and It turned out there was little credence to support the bombings in the first place but it happened anyway. Pragmatically, in a war, It makes logical sense but morally, it gets fuzzy.

[Snowdragon]

Fox News should change their name to Faux News. Any media source that claims to be "unbiased" is biased. Their right-wing bias is as subtle as a Mack truck.

[meanlittlechimp]

During WWII, we razed out many European cities that were believed to be supporting the Axis powers militarily (Dresden, etc) and It turned out there was little credence to support the bombings in the first place but it happened anyway. Pragmatically, in a war, It makes logical sense but morally, it gets fuzzy.

My theory on Dresden is that Mcnamara and others in the US leadership had something to prove. We hid in the back, for most of the war like pussies, until the Russians destroyed the German Army. Mostly we provided munitions (which was critical), but only joined in fully, when they were already crippled. We wanted to make a statement to make up for our guilt or maybe show off our new strength.

Dresden was nothing - in terms of killing defenseless civilians. That's always the example brought up as the most egregious violation of the Geneva accords, committed by the US, during WWII; which is odd considering this...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Dreamer]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million "Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war." Doesn't say squat about US bombings. This figure includes all civilians, which means those killed by the Vietcong and the ARVN.

Second, this figure comes from Hanoi. Why should you expect people to simply gobble it up without questioning? Governments tends to grossly over or underinflate casualties and an accurate bodycount is a difficult task in any case (even when your forces have complete control of the battlfield).

Palestinians for example have been known to include informers killed by fellow arabs in their civilian bodycount.


Nicaragua: We tried to overthrew the rightful government thereIf a dictator is elected, does that make the government legitimate? If the people of the US decided to elect a Nazi or a Stalinist, would you sheepingly support it because it has "popular support"?

Not that Ortega was elected. He was merely the strongest man militarlu and the 1984 election was actually conducted under severe restrictions on the opposition. This hardly legitimizes Ortega’s government.


and set up death squads financed by cocaine smuggling. I'm not going to deny the fact that the contras were no angels(although I believe your 50 000 figure to be grossly exagerated). War is hell, you gotta do what you gotta do. However,what they did provide were results,the sandinistas eventually let go of power and did democratic elections in the 1990s,and then the insurgency for the most part stopped.

So yes, Nicaragua became democratic as a result of US backing of the Contras.


We invaded with mercenaries. A mercenary is a foreign soldier accepting pay to fight in another country.

The contras were largely indigeneous.Many of the contras were former sandinistas that got disgusted by the new regime(Commander Zero would be a good example of this). Others were miskito indians who were tired of the rascist policies of Ortega.


Somosa was a dictactor reviled by his own people,Truth, nobody said Somosa was an angel. But then Ortega lost by a landslide in the 90s and the contras went on for quite some time.

No insurgencies no matter how well equipped can succeed if they don't have a legitimate cause to fall back upon and if they are not popularly supported to some extent. No popular support =/= no insurgency.


the Sandinistas had overwhelming popular support and would have won any election easily.Is that why they got thrown out of power in the 1990s? Is that why the Contras kept on coming despite the alleged overwhelming popular support of the Sandinistas?

Supporting a given force temporarly to gain better leverage against a more repulsive one is one thing. Keep supporting it when the threat(Somoza) is no more is sheer buffoonery.


Korea: We installed a dictator - Park Chung He, the democracy part happened later on their own accord through protest and open revulsion against his repressive regime. [/quote]Sometime a workable foreign policy requires that we support the lesser of two evil.

Do you think this would have been possible had North Korea won?


Chile: Are you referring to our overthrow of DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende, and our installation of a military dictatorship - Pinochet? We called Allende a "communist" because he didn't want to allow the US to plunder it's resources. Allende had nothing against free trade or capitalism.

How in the world does massive government intrusions in the economy and nationalization of major industries subscribe as "capitalist"? I'm sorry but even Allende taught himself a socialist. I taught that was a commonly accepted fact even among the left,how come you -such a good student of history- doesn't know about it?

Allende was a minority leader who overstepped his constitutional boundaries many times. His policy of pushing for socialism no matter what the cost and the opinion of the opposition effectively led Chile on the brink of civil war with a winner impossible to determine. There were openly Marxist parties(such as MIR) that promoted violence in his coalition. His failing economic vision did not help either.

Pinochet eventually got out of power,and left a stable democracy in his wake.


Weimar Republic: We did not install the Weimar Republic. I can't fathom where you would get this idea.
I doubt the Weimar Republic would have come if US troops did not intervene in WW1. Also,wasn’t the establishment of a civil government a condition to the end of Wwi?


Greece:The USG created the Greek secret police (KYP) and backs military coups in 1949, 1967 and 1973. Dictatorships ruled with US backing during the periods of 1949-1952 and 1967-1974. Danger of communist take-over.The regimes of the colonels eventually reverted back power to a civilian authorithy.


Phillipines: Have you ever heard of Marcos? He was the dictatorship we installed for over 20 yrs. We brutally supressed all pro-democracy movements for decades. We labeled the anti-Marcos movement (overwhelming majority of the pop.) "communist" again because they didn't want to live under a dictatorship. Yes if we discount the New People’s army, I guess this statement would be truth.

They were seekers or democracy Of democracy I presume?


(we didn't want elections because that meant our man, Marcos, would easily be voted out).Untrue, the US started supporting elections in the mid-80s.

Do you think Filipinos read Karl Marx or think about economic systems or communism at all? In other words, you think that Filipinos are too dumb to read Marx?

That is both quite a racist and a patronizing attitude that is surprising to find in an enlightened individual such as yourself(and completely unfounded, I hasten to add).


They just didn't want a brutal dictator, but any protest against Marcos is dubbed "communist" by the sheep, who no nothing of history. In your professional opinion(by the size of your ego alone, I judge you must at least have not one but several Ph.d in history and international relations), do you think that those sheeps included the Huks or the NPA?


My point if you read it, was after they did WIN the war, what exactly happened to the US because of it? The answer is nothing. I already answered your point. The loss of prestige and the propaganda boost from a perceived US defeat have incited US

On another tangent,maybe what happened to the US is the wrong question to ask? Let’s see what happened to the Asians instead?

The pacifists like to accuse others of racism (and often very loudly), however it is interesting to note that the consequences of a US withdrawal in Vietnam and communist atrocities upon the Asian populace are happily ignored. Not to mention the fate of those ethnic minorities who decided to bet on the US horse(and who had very legitimate grievances against the ethnic majority, e.g. Laotian and Vietnamese).

Maybe the pacifists are a little more ethnocentric and selfish than they accuse others to be? After all, General Patton used to say that we need only to look at what a man criticsized the most to judge his weaknesses.


Millions dead was definitely worth preventing this outcome however, right? The continuation of the war would have given a chance to Cambodia and South Vietnam to democratize further,as have happened in Korea and elsewhere. The pro-US regimes in the region, for all their warts, allowed more freedom to their citizens then their left-wing predecessors (Lon Nol for example, was a definite improvement over Sihanouk) and represented an improvement.

I think that had the war been properly conducted, the casualties could have been kept much lower than that.

They were NEVER a threat to the US, but we should bomb em anyways? They were simply a threat to the countries around them.

It was also a question of american credibility. What kind of insurance is it if you do not back up your claims by force? Many in the far east credit the Vietnam campaign as helping organizations like ASEAN form and effectively containing the spread of Communism in Asia.

Which question? Couldn't find it. Are you even reading my posts? Certain things in your posts lead me to believe that you are copying things pell mell from your hard drive or are skipping whole parts of my posts. I remember they were directed at you and that you effectively replied to the post but not to the questions.

Go look again,I’m not going to repeat myself. If we are to discuss something you have to learn how to read your opponent’s points, as I am currently doing.


Getting out of a war because the US populace doesn't support it is not political subversion.Correct. It isn't.

A foreign power spreading disinformation in the US press to support a communist policy is. Fabricated evidence of US atrocities by the left also is political subversion(see the various gaps in the so-called Winter Soldier investigation, for example).


Affecting change through debate (or protest) is what democracy is supposed to be about. Correct. I am not opposing freedom of speech for left-wing idiots, I am criticizing the left-wing idiots themselves.

Was that directed at me? If so, please refrain from using stickmen in the future.

The government following the will of the people etc. Sound familiar? Nevermind. I am less criticiszing the decison of the government to follow the will of the people than the pacifists themselves.

Please refrain from using stickmen in the future. It slows the discussion down and it only make you look like you were “grabbing for straws”, as you once so poetically put it.


Using false pretenses to invade another nation is political subversion. Political subversion is secret bombings of civilians without congressional approval as we did in Cambodia. Political subversion is outing CIA operatives because family members are stating that WMDs did not exist. Political subversion is overthrowing elected democracies like Mossadegh and replacing them with corrupt dictatorships. Agreed. What I am defending are the policies themselves, not the way they are enacted or brought into the public forum. I would have prefered a fighting president who would have brought these operations into broad daylight.


Nasser overthrew a corrupt monarchy (he was not a corrupt dictator).Incorrect, he may(or may not) have been corrupt but he was definetly an un-elected dictator.


In fact much of what I know now, I learned by trying to disprove the same argument that was posed to me years ago - how many democracies have we installed since WWII, and how many have we dismantled. It's an eye-opening question that had a profound impact on how I view politics and history. The information was always there, but I just assumed the history books in school weren't lying or conveniently glossing over the real history That’s the problem with you Americans. When you want something you want it now and without compromise. Maybe by taking a few steps back, it may give you enough breathing space to consolidate your gains and go forward?

Rigid idealism break under pressure, but pragmatism bends with the wind.

No I haven't. It was relatively stagnant and sedate until they had a common enemy. If by “relatively stagnant and sedate” you mean Cambodia and Vietnam were not formally at war with each other, then I agree completely with your statement.

Rivalry between Vietnam and Cambodia is deeply engrained into both cultures.

Even during the civil war, Khmer rouges forces sometime clashed with their Vietcong counter-parts and racial tensions between Cambodian and Vietnamese troops pretty much precluded the forming of truly multi-ethnic units on both side of the conflict. So “sympathy for the Vietnamese in face of a common enemy”? Maybe among leaders but certainly not among the common folks.

The Khmer Rouges did not gain traction until Sihanouk formed a coalition with them and this despite a 10 years+ US presence in Vietnam. This alone effectively disproves the theory that the Khmer Rouges gained traction principally as a result of the US presence in Vietnam(this was your original statement).

The persecution of the Vietnamese residing in Cambodia following the 1970 coup is also a testimony to the intense rivalry between Vietnam and Cambodia.

I never said he did. He did let him in country though, which ignited quite the firestorm. Big mistake. Maybe, I’m not very interested at the public relations scandal fiasco following the demise of the Shah.That’s completely irrelevant and it was too late to do anything at this point.

What I am interested in was how Carter supported the Shah before. It is clear that proper support(option that was excluded due to Carter’s views on foreign policy) would have prevented his regime from falling.


Anti-American sentiment is still very much present in Latin America. Operation Condor allowed for the make-up of the continent to take a brutal and tumultuous shape, in the form of death squads, government sanctioned kidnapping, torture, etc. The body count far exceeded anything leftist guerrillas ever did, and it was these dictatorships that initiated this plan first, to stifle any descent.Today? Most of the major cities retain a populist sentiment. So nothing, in effect, was done. Well,I think we can agree on the fact that there is still rampant leftism throughout Latin America today. However, saying that nothing was done is a slap in the face of reality. Insurgent groups such as the Shining Path have successfully been squashed. The dirty war in Argentina has been won. There are few countries where there are political parties who promote open violence.

How many governments in Latin America have been toppled in favour of communist dictatorship due to repressive regimes? One. And that was because Somoza was largely an incompetent. As I said, repression does not lead automatically to a dictatorial regime on the opposite end of the political spectrum as evidenced by Pinochet, and the likes.

Columbia is the only place where communist-inspired violence is still widespread. And even then, there is no possible way they could win anytime soon.

As for the bodycount, how can you say in all certainty that government backed “death squads” have caused more casualties then leftist guerillas? Bodycount is usually grossly inflated whether they come from the left or from the right, it is difficult even when your forces effectively police the battlefield.


Yellow Journalism Could be, the US populace still bought it.


I did. Read again. Another brillant one-liner.


Hanoi is a location, not a person.I think we both know what I meant. Can you please stop slowing down the discussion?


Your views could be said to concord with Diem's, If I were to use your same scrutinizing lens. Feel free. If you were say my views concord with Diem, I would reply that survival of the Diem regime might have saved the US a lot of pains.

I don’t think I am especially scrutinizing. Anybody who paints Ho chi minh with the “democrat” brush while ignoring his blatant disregard for “democracy” in the 1950s and onward (and even before that) has a very biased vision of foreign policy.


So instead of hyperbole, try and support yourself with facts (if any)
Your advice is excellent advice.And since it’s you that have been speaking with largely one-liners since the beginning,I recommend strongly that you follow it.


Well, you certainly do "feel" quite a bit for an INTJ If you say so. I think the MBTI is fairly irrelevant to this discussion...

[Caesar]

Congratulations - you guys were a source of several sleepless nights due to my having to advance my knowledge in history after just about every post. Keep it up. So far I'm with the chimp for the most part.
Cheers.

[Karamazov]

Oh, hey you're back! How have you been?


Even during the civil war, Khmer rouges forces sometime clashed with their Vietcong counter-parts and racial tensions between Cambodian and Vietnamese troops pretty much precluded the forming of truly multi-ethnic units on both side of the conflict. So “sympathy for the Vietnamese in face of a common enemy”? Maybe among leaders but certainly not among the common folks.

Whatever the will of the leaders may concern, is easily adopted by those being led, no matter what little understanding they have of what they're leader wants. So it's not far fetched that sympathy of the leaders toward North Vietnam (while being carpet bombed themselves) is easily transmuted into the "common folks" own outrage.

The Khmer Rouges did not gain traction until Sihanouk formed a coalition with them and this despite a 10 years+ US presence in Vietnam. This alone effectively disproves the theory that the Khmer Rouges gained traction principally as a result of the US presence in Vietnam(this was your original statement).

1. Mere speculation is not proven fact.
2. You seem negligent in not questioning as to why a man who was once enemies with the Khmer Rouge, suddenly achieved pariah status. Perhaps you should take a look at this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Maybe, I’m not very interested at the public relations scandal fiasco following the demise of the Shah.That’s completely irrelevant and it was too late to do anything at this point.

What I am interested in was how Carter supported the Shah before. It is clear that proper support(option that was excluded due to Carter’s views on foreign policy) would have prevented his regime from falling.

It was due to fall the moment a puppet government was illegally installed. Indignation for a tyrannical leader, seemingly put in place as a direct result for not bowing out towards economic pandering to Britain. Do you think the public somehow retained a lapse in memory to this fall out? Carter's only mistake was showing how cordial a relationship he had with the Shah and consequently letting him in after he was deposed. You are correct, concerning Carter's support for the Shah, but as I've said already, it was only cordial. Tangible U.S. support effectively stopped in the 1960's and Carter pretty much inherited an impossible dilemma.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well,I think we can agree on the fact that there is still rampant leftism throughout Latin America today. However, saying that nothing was done is a slap in the face of reality. Insurgent groups such as the Shining Path have successfully been squashed. The dirty war in Argentina has been won. There are few countries where there are political parties who promote open violence.

I'm afraid you're doing the slapping here. Elections in full support for leftist governments, can be found in Venezuela, Bolivia, etc, (not including F.A.R.C)
and momentum seems to be growing. Anti-Americanism is far more pervasive than simple leftism, attributed to the American government's support for state sponsored terrorism by right-wing puppet's on it's own people, where virtually anybody could be guilty as a leftist.(not forgetting, of course, the generous accumulation of royalties from these installed capitalist dictatorships) If if what you are postulating became a shining success, it is merely an appeal to consequences.

Could be, the US populace still bought it.

There is no "Could be", It was. Argumentum (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) ad populum
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Another brillant one-liner.

Followed by another one in retort.

I think we both know what I meant. Can you please stop slowing down the discussion?

Feel free. If you were say my views concord with Diem, I would reply that survival of the Diem regime might have saved the US a lot of pains.

I wouldn't say your views have anything in common with Diem's. The only nexus I see is of his inevitable self-destruction for his despotic treatment that didn't sit well with his people. It imploded, like your argument.

I don’t think I am especially scrutinizing. Anybody who paints Ho chi minh with the “democrat” brush while ignoring his blatant disregard for “democracy” in the 1950s and onward (and even before that) has a very biased vision of foreign policy.

Your advice is excellent advice.And since it’s you that have been speaking with largely one-liners since the beginning,I recommend strongly that you follow it.

If you say so. I think the MBTI is fairly irrelevant to this discussion...

No one is painting Ho chi mihn with any brushes. Instead of seeing his agenda for what it truly was, you choose to ignore his wanting to unify Vietnam under a socialist banner, a symbolic rallying cry and not a plea for socialism, after promises from a defeated French military to make this happen. Instead the French, backed by the U.S. even then, partitioned it off. The common rice farmer could care less what socialism was or for your brand of "democracy", all he/she wanted was enough rice to last through the week.

My one liners are all in good fun, some of which are what's only needed to refute your baseless arguments.You have yet to substantiate your points with any tangle evidence.

I thought this thread let out it's presumed death rattle, but you've been so kind as to resurrect it. Do keep this up, it's entertaining.

[meanlittlechimp]

Doesn't say squat about US bombings. This figure includes all civilians, which means those killed by the Vietcong and the ARVN.


Are you serious? Are you purposely just trying to be obstinate?

I knew you were ignorant of basic history when you brought up completely erroneous examples of these "democracies" we've installed. First you deny my numbers (which were applied to 3 nations - Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos), than after I show you a link supporting my claim, then you refute it by cupping your hands over your ears, and claim the Vietnamese just killed their own people? We're they murdering their own people while they were kicking out the French too or only when they were fighting the Americans?

We bombed almost every square inch of that country. There are still huge swaths of land that are barren from vegetation because of the chemical agents and bombs we dropped. Do you comprehend at all that we dropped more bombs in Vietnam alone, than in all the warfare up to that point in history by all nations combined (measured in explosive power)? That includes the firebombing of Japan and the atomic bombs, all the bombing on both sides in WWII (England, Germany, Russia etc) and the Korean War. The numbers are staggering.

Impressive defense of your position, you should definitely apply for work with the Neo-cons, they could use your rhetorical skills.

If a dictator is elected, does that make the government legitimate?

Umm... yes. That is, if you believe in democracy.

If someone is ELECTED, it means they aren't a dictator by definition. What don't you get about that? I think you're confused by our propaganda to label someone a dictator (when they weren't), as a pretense to invade.

You also seem to be implying that if a sovereign nation ELECTS people we don't like, we have the right to invade them. We call them evil communists and dictators while we overthrow DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments. The Orwellian hypocrisy is amazing.


How in the world does massive government intrusions in the economy and nationalization of major industries subscribe as "capitalist"? I'm sorry but even Allende taught himself a socialist. I taught that was a commonly accepted fact even among the left,how come you -such a good student of history- doesn't know about it?

How in the world does allowing the US own all their natural resources at the behest of a foreign state imply capitalism? Do you think we were trying to install capitalism when we invaded Nicaragua at the behest of United Fruit 50 years earlier? do you think the US was trying to install "capitalism" when we overthrew Mossadegh for the same reason.

The massive intrusions of government you mention were merely getting ownership of their own resources instead of being plundered by a foreign power. Do you think it's a capitalist system that would allow BP and Texaco to own all the oil in Iran? Do you think the US government would allow a foreign state to own our oil fields? The socialist/communist label was the exact same thing as the terrorist label. An excuse to steal shit. Even the Neo-cons leadership know this, even if most of their ignorant followers are not.


I'm not going to deny the fact that the contras were no angels(although I believe your 50 000 figure to be grossly exagerated). War is hell, you gotta do what you gotta do. However,what they did provide were results,the sandinistas eventually let go of power and did democratic elections in the 1990s,and then the insurgency for the most part stopped.

I love the War is hell line. We lie to the public, sell cocaine, and arms to Iran to fund mercenaries to murder priests, educators and pro DEMOCRACY movement leaders - all in the name of DEMOCRACY. Do you even hear yourself? The Somoza dictactorship rose to power via a rigged election the US implemented. This is declassifed and a matter of public record but when the populace wants to run their own country and force out a US backed puppet, they're dangerous commies who should be murdered? Yes the Sandinistas eventually got voted out, that's how democracies work. They would have had a democracy MUCH earlier had we not installed the Somoza regime or hired death squads against civilian leaders to prevent elections, which would have ended the corrupt dictatorship and created a democracy there FAR earlier.

I don't even know how to respond to that.. It's so absurd, you would have to lie and hide it from the public (oh yeah they tried). They get caught, and you think all those people are better off for it? We prevent their democracy by gunpoint and brag we installed a democracy much later (because we didn't like who would have won in the first place). Truly impressive reasoning. I don't even think the bible belt republicans would buy that line of shit.

Untrue, the US started supporting elections in the mid-80s.
Only because the anti-US sentiment got so severe the despot we put in power was going to crumble anyways. We stopped any attempt at elections for the decades prior. Every Filipino knows this, talk to one. But I guess in your view, it shows how pro-democracy we are.

I'm not going to deny the fact that the contras were no angels(although I believe your 50 000 figure to be grossly exagerated)

Just realized I didn't address this. Wasn't sure if you were saying I exaggerated the number, or that the official reports were exaggerated to begin with. All these links back up my number (so you know, I didn't pull it from my ass) Any links you can provide that you think are more informed or accurate would be welcomed. Note, I didn't read most of these links, just grabbed the first 3 that popped up in google. I got the original number from a book I read a long time ago, that I can't recall now.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is there a reason you think it's exaggerated or is it just a gut feeling you have? Not that the actual numbers really matter that much, but just curious why you think all my numbers are fabrications.

[Dreamer]

Meanlittlechimp,do you simply wish to be unpleasant or are you simply insecure of the soundness of your positions? Your posts read as though you wanted to throw poisonnous darts at me. Discussions of political nature, who are lengthy and time-consuming in nature, should exclude flames and hidden insuations as to maximise its value.

I also have my opinion on your little person and your type but I actually exercice far more restraint out of respect for other outside observers. Alas, I have no intention of pursuing a discussion with somebody who is not willing to return at least partially the courtesies which I am applying to you.


Whatever the will of the leaders may concern, is easily adopted by those being led, no matter what little understanding they have of what they're leader wants.
Fratricide between “allied” units(especially among irregulars) and massacre of Vietnamese should be telling you something about what the ranks & file taught about the Vietnamese people.

In other word, what you say is nice in theory(to you only), but evidence points elsewhere. "The will of the leaders" is not as easy to impose as you believe.


1. Mere speculation is not proven fact.That is your opinion and it is quite and arrogant statement at that,considering you’ve been throwing one-liners since the beginning.


2. You seem negligent in not questioning as to why a man who was once enemies with the Khmer Rouge, suddenly achieved pariah status. Pariah to Washington, Laos, Saigon... Certainly, but not pariah to his own people as evidenced by the major rally to the GRUNK after his ousting.

The king was always popular among the people, and Khmer Rouge propaganda actually focused on it,in fact,the stated policy of GRUNK was to restore him to power. You ignore the fact that the bombings started before the 1970 coup .


Perhaps you should take a look at this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).I told you once.[/quote]
The article you posted is relying heavily upon soundbites(the Kissinger/Haig quotes as taken out of context).The military aspect is clearly underplayed. No mention is made of the intelligence available or the enemy forces present in most cases nor of ROE.

Carter's only mistake was showing how cordial a relationship he had with the Shah and consequently letting him in after he was deposed.
The Shah was fearful of American criticism and weak in character, he repeadtly sought American support for any sort of action during his last days. The major failure of the Carter administration was not “showing how cordial a relationship he had with the Shah” but being wishy-washy about backing military actions from him. Or any kind of policy for this matter.

In any case,it was not an excuse for the Administration not to push for such an option early on. Regardless of the nescissity of reforms in the long run, if the government cannot survive on a tactical level, it all amounts to nothing.


You are correct, concerning Carter's support for the Shah, but as I've said already, it was only cordial. Tangible U.S. support effectively stopped in the 1960's and Carter pretty much inherited an impossible dilemma. The US did not need to supply arms on the back of the US taxpayer after the 1960s, Iran was in a perfect position to have afforded them itself. I am less criticizing Carter for his arms policies but his indecisiveness if not negligence when handling the fall of the Shah.


Elections in full support for leftist governments, can be found in Venezuela, Bolivia, etc, (not including F.A.R.C)
and momentum seems to be growing. Anti-Americanism is far more pervasive than simple leftism, attributed to the American government's support for state sponsored terrorism by right-wing puppet's on it's own people, where virtually anybody could be guilty as a leftist.(not forgetting, of course, the generous accumulation of royalties from these installed capitalist dictatorships).If if what you are postulating became a shining success, it is merely an appeal to consequences.
Again,the situation was by far worse in the 1980s. Most if not all South American nations,whether democratic or not, saw some sort of Marxist-inspired violence. They have been pretty much contained within the period of the dictatorships.

the disappearance of said movements(with the exception of the FARC) is a marked improvement,considering the difficulty of waging counterinsurgencies successfully. Also, the left is far milder and less extreme than it was during the Cold war. For example in Chile,although the ruling party is centre-left, it enacts policies far more right-wing then what Allende taught was appropriate.

The “full-support” you speak of is not as unanimous as you believe. At the very least, you could say that the countries in South America are polarized,but that Socialist leaders have “full support”?No.For example, protests against Chavez and the very tight majority he holds prove that he does not have unanimous support among his countrymen. None of the currently elected leftist leaders to my knowledge won by a landslide.

So if this is not a vast improvement, what would you qualify as such? Election of a Republican party of South America to every Latin capital? Granted, Latin America is not a free market paradise, but it is nowhere near the hotbed of communist insurrection it was during the cold war.


I wouldn't say your views have anything in common with Diem's. The only nexus I see is of his inevitable self-destruction for his despotic treatment that didn't sit well with his people. Nah, the North's equally despotic treatment of its dissidents.

Diem was not perfect,but he did insure a semi-stable state unlike the series of coups and counter-coups that followed.


No one is painting Ho chi mihn with any brushes. You’re not even reading the thread. I was primarly referring to chimp's attitude toward Ho. If the purpose of discussion is exchange of ideas, is there even a use speaking to you,young fella? Or do you simply wish to throw arrogant one-liners as though you were Julius Caesar?

[Karamazov]

You’re not even reading the thread. I was primarly referring to chimp's attitude toward Ho. If the purpose of discussion is exchange of ideas, is there even a use speaking to you,young fella? Or do you simply wish to throw arrogant one-liners as though you were Julius Caesar?

I did read the thread, though he could tone it down a bit, he wasn't sympathizing Ho. I think we've already exhausted any further exchange of debate, though we could go on, I stated my evidence to back up my views. I've lost interest (as I'm sure you may have as well) So let's let it die...or you could always continue with chimp.

[Cygnus]

When the vice-president shoots someone and then the man that was shot makes a public apology for getting himself shot...Cheney did not speak publicly about the incident until February 15 in an interview with Fox News, four days later. Tells one all they need to know.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Serpent7]

Ya know, for a forum dedicated to celebrating our intellects, I see an awful lot of rhetorical fallacies.
Can't anyone make -and support- a rational argument anymore?