U.S. soldiers: Heroes or Dupes?
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Heroes or Dupes?
by Laurence M. Vance
Americans love their war heroes. It doesn’t matter where the war was fought,
why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every battlefield
is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what is
it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously depends
on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not
heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead
dupes?
Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and Republicans
who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief
that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent
five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. But one does not have to be
a prisoner of war to be considered a war hero. The Department of Defense
maintains a website that highlights "the military men and women who have gone
above and beyond the call of duty in the Global War on Terror." Every soldier
who died fighting in the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is also considered to
be a war hero.
After McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, he became a naval
aviator. During the Vietnam War he rained down death and destruction on the
people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions. After being shot down,
he was imprisoned instead of receiving the death sentence his bombs delivered
to the Vietnamese. So why is he considered a war hero? If he got what he
deserved, there would be 58,257 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in
Washington D.C. instead of 58,256. Pilots like McCain who drop napalm from the
safety of their cockpit are lauded as heroes by the government, the media, and
Americans ignorant enough or gullible enough to swallow the myth that there
can be heroism in the performance of evil. McCain was even well received by
the Vietnamese government in 2000 when he traveled to Vietnam in pursuit of a
bilateral trade agreement.
Begun in September of 2006, the DOD "Heroes’ Archive" contains the names of
116 U.S. soldiers who performed some heroic deed fighting in Iraq or
Afghanistan. Of the four soldiers currently featured, two were awarded the
Bronze Star, one was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service
Cross, and the fourth was awarded the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan
Campaign Medal, and the Outstanding Service Medal. Now, unlike General
Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat. Yet,
the fact remains, as Catholic Eastern Rite priest Charles McCarthy has
recently stated, "Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder."
Both IraqWarHeroes.org and AfghanistanWarheroes.org are "dedicated to our
deceased Heroes that have served in Iraq & Afghanistan." The list of "deceased
Heroes" contains the names of 4,591 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I don’t know where these sites are getting their information
from. The "Casualties in Iraq" page at Antiwar.com shows a total of 4,528
deaths. But regardless of the exact number, the point is that every soldier
who died fighting in the war on terror is said to be a hero. It doesn’t matter
if they were killed by enemy fire, roadside bombs, friendly fire, disease,
accident, or carelessness – they are all heroes. But since the war in Iraq is
senseless, immoral, and criminal does it really matter how these soldiers
died? Again, I refer the reader to Father McCarthy:
Authentic heroism is freely taking a grave risk in order to try to do good.
Evil does not become a scintilla less evil because a person put his or her
life in jeopardy to do it and is subsequently designated a hero.
This means that whatever we call U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, we should not
call them heroes.
Some of these "heroes" are mercenaries. The "large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny" that our
Founding Fathers protested against in the Declaration of Independence are now
fighting for the United States in Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has
granted citizenship to over 32,000 foreign soldiers. All it takes now is one
year of service in the military to be granted citizenship.
Many of these "heroes" are killers for hire. For them, the enlistment bonuses,
the tuition assistance, the student loan repayment plans, the assignment
incentive pay, the career training, the thirty days of vacation each year, the
free medical and dental care, and the generous retirement benefits are enough
to erase any concerns about the morality of traveling thousands of miles away
from U.S. soil to kill people they have never met or seen, and that posed no
threat to America or Americans.
Most of these "heroes," however, are dupes. They think they are fighting for
our freedoms when instead they are helping to destroy our freedoms. They think
they are retaliating for 9/11 when instead they are paving the way for another
terrorist attack. They think they are preventing terrorism when instead they
are making terrorists. They think they went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda when
instead al-Qaeda came to Iraq because of them. They think they are protecting
Israel when instead they are contributing to increased hatred of Israel. They
think that our cause is just when instead it violates every just war principle
ever formulated. They think they are fighting injustice when instead they are
committing a crime against the Iraqi people. They think they are defending the
United States when instead they are helping to destroy it.
One of the saddest cases of a duped hero is that of Marine Staff Sergeant
Marcus Golczynski. He died fighting in Iraq on March 27 of last year while
assigned to the Marine Forces Reserve’s Third Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment,
Fourth Marine Division, in Nashville, Tennessee. He had been in the Marine
Reserves for twelve years, and was thirty years old when he died.
About a week before he died, Golczynski sent home this e-mail:
I want all of you to be safe. And please don’t feel bad for us. We are
warriors. And as warriors have done before us, we joined this organization and
are following orders because we believe that what we are doing is right. Many
of us have volunteered to do this a second time due to our deep desire to
finish the job we started. We fight and sometimes die so that our families
don’t have to. Stand beside us. Because we would do it for you. Because it is
our unity that has enabled us to prosper as a nation.
At his funeral in Lewisburg, Tennessee, the eight-year-old son he left behind
was presented with the flag from his father’s casket. This was captured in a
heart-rending photograph that has circulated around the Internet. But
Golczynski was not the only one who was duped. Instead of being outraged about
his son’s death, his father said that "we owe a debt of gratitude that we will
never be able to pay." And instead of resenting the government that sent the
father of her son to fight and die in a senseless foreign war, his wife said
that her husband "made the sacrifice for my freedom."
The terrible truth, of course, is that Sergeant Golczynski, like all of the
other soldiers who died in Iraq, died for a lie. He was duped by his commander
in chief who said our cause was just. He was duped by the secretary of defense
who said the war would be over quickly. He was duped by his commanding
officers who said he should obey orders. He was duped by veterans who said he
was fighting for our freedoms. He was duped by Republicans who said he needed
to follow the president’s leadership. He was duped by politicians who said we
should trust them. He was duped by pundits who said we had to fight them "over
there" lest we have to fight them "over here." He was duped by preachers who
said we should obey the powers that be. He was duped by Christians who said we
must fight against Islamo-fascism. He was duped by Americans who said he was a
hero. He was duped by the lying and killing machine known as his own
government.
Marcus Golczynski was not alone. Millions of Americans were duped as well.
Millions of Americans remain duped. The fact that McCain can talk about being
in Iraq for a hundred years and still be greeted by cheering crowds and
receive millions of votes says a lot about just how much Americans are duped.
The love affair that Americans have with all things military must be ended.
The United States has become a rogue state, a pariah nation, an evil empire –
all made possible by the dupes in the U.S. military we call heroes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
April 18, 2008
Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book
is a new and greatly expanded edition of Christianity and War and Other Essays
Against the Warfare State. Visit his website.
Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com
Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance140.html
Immortalist
> Heroes or Dupes?
> by Laurence M. Vance
>
Already just in the title I can see a false dilemma since "heros OR
dupes" doesn'r exhaust the possibilities nor does it seem prima facie
to "mutally exclude" other possibilities, this since any short time of
thinking reveals that people could be heroes AND dupes, and NIETHER
heros or dupes;
The informal fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which
only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other
options. This fallacy is also called false dichotomy, the either-or
fallacy, and bifurcation. Closely related are failing to consider a
range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-
and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma"
means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but
there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the
fallacy of false choice.
...When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not
always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can
lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the
options are (mutually_exclusive), even though they need not be.
Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being
(collectively_exhaustive), in which case the fallacy can be overcome,
or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps
by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
The title should be "What if our heroes have been duped and what
constitues heroism?"
From the text below;
1. what is it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero?
2. Since it obviously depends on the criteria employed, is it possible
that American war heroes are not heroes at all?
3. Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead dupes?
Could be but to argue for that would be an "appeal to ignorance." I
think;
The argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by
lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that
a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a
premise is false only because it has not been proved true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Famous in the history of science is the (argument _ad_ignorantiam)
given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of
his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen
through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced
that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian
science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see
what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect
sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an
invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
I suppose there is an instinct in people to commit the self serving
bias when it comes to their group, but this is a seperate issue and I
think the missing premise in this argument. Maybe a colussion of group
bias and deception by authority. But even if that is the case, this is
all really an argument about the criteria needed to judge the dup-ers,
those who decieve and are in an authority position. A rather perverted
form of abuse is to mislead those who want to self-sacrifice and help
their communities or country or even all humans. These dupers who
decieve the heros are like a kid prank calling the fire department to
put out a fire that doesn't exist; dispicable! Onto some supports for
this paragraph all in order;
(1) A group of bozos on a city street agree to join a social
experiment.
(2) Subjects (bozos) are divided into groups on basis of trivial
criteria like flipping a coin to deterimine if one is in Group X or
Group Y.
(3) Subjects do not interact, either within or between groups.
(4) Members of own group and other group remain anonymous.
(5) Subjects are then asked to allot money to two other subjects,
designated only by code number and group membership (X or Y). Subjects
own outcomes will not be affected by their allocation decisions.
(6) Despite minimal nature of these groups, subjects allocations
consistently favored other members of their own arbitrarily designated
groups, at the expense of members of the recently typed "outgroups".
[Tajfel] argues that the reason for this allocation strategy is to
create a differentiation between the groups which permits their group
membership to enhance their social identity.
------------------------------------------------
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
Unreflected Ingroup Favoritism
One who reflects does not discriminate?: On the role of unreflected
cognitive processes for the occurrence of ingroup favoritism between
artificial groups; A categorization of individuals in two groups based
on completely trivial criteria like flipping a coin to determine which
group one is assigned (Group X or Group Y), can be sufficient to cause
mutual preferences for one's own group.
Social identity theory assumes a fundamental striving towards a
positive distinction of one's own group from other groups. The
tendency to a preference for one's own group is clearly reduced in a
situation involving intergroup judgments on negative comparison
dimensions or distribution decisions on negative stimuli (burdens,
aversive stimuli), in comparison to those in the positive realm.
These basic judgment processes may be the fundamental determining
factors of and conditions for social discrimination. Of some influence
may be the role which evaluations of oneself play for the positive
evaluation of minimal social groups. It is assumed that an unreflected
cognitive process is critical for this, in the course of which, as a
rule, the positive self-image is transferred to the new ingroup. Due
to the lesser degree of similarity to oneself, an outgroup cannot
benefit from such a generalization process.
Correspondingly, a positive distinctiveness of one's own group can
result solely from the self-ingroup relation, independent of an
ingroup-outgroup comparison. There is a generalized positive attitude
to the ingroup, and demonstrating the role of a low degree of
reflection for the occurrence of favoritism in minimal intergroup
situations and considerations of outgroups.
The randomly assigned individuals generally act as if those who share
their meaningless label are their good friends or close kin. Subjects
indicate that they like those who share their label. They rate others
who share their label as likely to have a more pleasant personality
and to have produced better output than outgroup members. Most
strikingly, subjects allocate more money and rewards to those who
share their labels.
In other related social experiments at political rallies it has been
noted that researchers faking injuries, were helped more or less
depending on whether their protest sign, and slogans supported or went
against those around them who could help.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
A hero (male) and heroine (female) has come to refer to characters
that, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of
weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is,
heroism, for some greater good, originally of martial courage or
excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero
Self-sacrifice, the act of deliberately following a course of action
that has a high risk or certainty of suffering or death (which could
otherwise be avoided), in order to achieve a perceived benefit for
certain others, is a powerful theme with a well-established place in
many cultures, myths, and societies. Self-sacrifice may also be more
broadly defined as selflessness, or the readiness to inflict pain upon
yourself to save others...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice
Community service refers to service that a person performs for the
benefit of his or her local community. People become involved in
community service for a range of reasons — for some, serving community
is an altruistic act, for others it is a punishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_service
Aside from the main task of extinguishing fires, the goals of
firefighting are (in order) saving lives,. saving property and
protecting the environment. Firefighting is an inherently difficult
occupation. As such, the skills required for safe operations are
regularly practiced during training evolutions throughout a
firefighters career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter
A villain is an "evil" character in a story, whether an historical
narrative or, especially, a work of fiction. The villain usually is
the bad guy, the character who fights against the hero. A female
villain is sometimes called a villainess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain
Mich...@gmail.com
that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.
It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
he associates the events they participated it.
Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
that was promised.
I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
provides is a hero.
By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero. Certainly they
do not get paid enough for the risk they take and it can be reasonably
presumed that they took those risk for (and did their duty in the face
of said risks) for some higher purpose - to serve their country and
their fellow soldiers.
While individual events (during both war and peacetime) may involve
failure and/or directions that prove to be wrong or misguided. It is
the soldier's duty to carry out every (legal) direction that they are
given. To rationalize the merit of a soldier conduct after the fact
based upon the leadership with which they were saddled does a
discredit to all soldiers.
Also the logical outcome of this type of reasoning is that soldier
would become political in nature. I.E. Refusing to serve a leader
whose agenda was of a different political bent from their own. I
don't really think that is what you want (unless you are trying to
encourage some sort of military over through of the government).
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> On Apr 23, 4:00 am, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
>>Heroes or Dupes?
>> by Laurence M. Vance
>>
>
>
> Already just in the title I can see a false dilemma since "heros OR
> dupes" doesn'r exhaust the possibilities nor does it seem prima facie
Yep, there is a question mark in the title which has caused you much trauma.
Much sympathy, you poor thing.
;-)
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
> that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
> article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.
>
> It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
> mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
> he associates the events they participated it.
>
> Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
> afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
> upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
> that was promised.
>
> I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
> as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
> provides is a hero.
>
> By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
> the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.
Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout history
is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all equally heros.
As Vance said in his 1st paragraph:
Sean
"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote in message
news:SqudndSCqr56i5LVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@toastnet...
>
> Heroes or Dupes?
> by Laurence M. Vance
>
> Americans love their war heroes. It doesn’t matter where the war was
> fought,
> why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every
> battlefield
> is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what
> is
> it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously
> depends
> on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not
> heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are
> instead
> dupes?
>
> Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and
> Republicans
> who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief
> that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent
> five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese.
SNIPPED
>
> The love affair that Americans have with all things military must be
> ended.
> The United States has become a rogue state, a pariah nation, an evil
> empire –
> all made possible by the dupes in the U.S. military we call heroes.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> April 18, 2008
>
> Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest
> book
> is a new and greatly expanded edition of Christianity and War and Other
> Essays
> Against the Warfare State. Visit his website.
>
> Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com
>
> Find this article at:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance140.html
Hi, not a bad article, albeit leading. But that's what most articles are
when designed to present a specific point of view, or world view.
I too have pondered why McCain is oft introduced as a 'war hero'. Seems to
me when compared to other heroes such as those who have won the Victoria
Cross [ British Commonwealth award ] and the likes of others awarded all
manner of Medals for heroism it appears to me that McCain could be better
described as a "great survivor".
Anyway, I saw the following doco recently with Rober McNamara.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War
I think the benefit of hindsight appraisals by McNamara pointedly clarify
the "real" issues being raised by Mr Vance in the above article and worth
considering.
Two points made in the doco are
7.. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
8.. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.
Seems most appropriate regarding Iraq, and all war for that matter.
From the doco regarding the USA's faulty "reasoning and beliefs" still
active today.
Lessons from Vietnam
1.. We misjudged then - and we have since - the geopolitical intentions of
our adversaries . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of
their actions.
2.. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own
experience . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3.. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to
fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4.. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance
of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the
personalities and habits of their leaders.
5.. We failed then - and have since - to recognize the limitations of
modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine.
6.. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning
the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7.. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and
frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military
involvement . before we initiated the action.
8.. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off
our planned course . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we
were doing what we did.
9.. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are
omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best
interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international
forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our
image or as we choose.
10.. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . should
be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully
(and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11.. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other
aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate
solutions . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons
of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex
range of political and military issues.
Cheers, hope that helps.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 4:00 am, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
> >>Heroes or Dupes?
> >> by Laurence M. Vance
>
> > Already just in the title I can see a false dilemma since "heros OR
> > dupes" doesn'r exhaust the possibilities nor does it seem prima facie
>
> Yep, there is a question mark in the title which has caused you much trauma.
>
> Much sympathy, you poor thing.
Actually I don't want to stop the conversation but there are other
alternatives that should also be discussed here, else it would seem
one sided.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBXal1GAA4A
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fFmhWlsMjjY
Mich...@gmail.com
> Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> > While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
> > that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
> > article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.
>
> > It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
> > mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
> > he associates the events they participated it.
>
> > Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
> > afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
> > upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
> > that was promised.
>
> > I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
> > as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
> > provides is a hero.
>
> > By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
> > the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.
>
> Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout history
> is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all equally heros.
Not every soldier. Every soldier who performed the legal directives
given to him by his leaders in an honorable way.
Certainly both many American and German soldiers during WWII were
heroes. To discredit the duty of an enemy (simply because he was on
the opposite side of the fight) does a discredit to our own soldiers
(which you seem bent on doing anyways). That does not mean that all
actions carried out by soldiers were honorable. Many soldiers during
WWII did horrible things.
Huns and Vikings were primarily driven by a profit motive so I don't
know if they really qualify. Also I am somewhat to far removed (in
time) to judge the mindset of the military mindset of 1/2 a century
ago (either of those fighting or those affected by those fighting).
Mich...@gmail.com
> "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote in messagenews:SqudndSCqr56i5LVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@toastnet...
Although I am not a big John McCain supporter, I respect his military
service. As the son of the leading Admiral, the North Vietnamese
offered to release him as a POW. He refused until every one of the
men with which he was detained was also released. Sounds like
something a hero would do.
Mich...@gmail.com
engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
for our failure in Vietnam.
1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
2.) We failed to use the level of force required (in the areas where
it was required) to win.
Taking the battle to North early in the war could have ended it
all right away.
3.) The political leaders directing the war were more concerned with
how US strategy would be perceived in the Media (and how it would
affect their electability) then in how it would help the military
defeat the enemy.
Ironic that this is exactly what certain people in Washington
are doing today.
ZerkonX
> Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead dupes?
Americans aside, one does not necessarily negate the other. This is
forced. One can be a heroic dupe or one who has been duped but who also
does heroic acts.
The enemy of a hero can also, themselves, be heroic. The enemy hero might
not be given the honor but the heroic act remains, honored or not. Honor
is given by the audience. The hero is defined by the act not by intent
nor the politics in which the act takes place.
ZerkonX
> The love affair that Americans have with all things military must be
> ended.
The reason for this 'love affair' is that some Americans are a distant
and cheering audience to war. War and games of war have little difference.
This same audience has very little interest in military people once they
have served their entertainment. For instance, DU, the rape of military
women, base pay, medical needs.. are just a few things most war
cheerleaders have no interest in.
"Chickenhawk" says it all.
Also, I would not overly generalize here. "Commercial culture" is not
necessarily American culture. What MUST end is the love affair money has
with war. This MUST end and soon.
ZerkonX
> Two points made in the doco are
> 7.. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
> 8.. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.
Also that people like McNamara can walk off into quite a lucrative sunset.
> Lessons from Vietnam
Control information.
gfna...@nospam.net
04/24/2008
>What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
>engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
>for our failure in Vietnam.
>1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
> North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
Wrong. It was considered and the analysis was that it would start WWIII.
>2.) We failed to use the level of force required (in the areas where it
>was required) to win.
> Taking the battle to North early in the war could have ended it all
>right away.
Son you are right wing kook. You plan would have ended with the start of
WWIII.
gfna...@nospam.net
04/24/2008
Or someone afraid of daddy, or what daddy would think.
gfna...@nospam.net
04/24/2008
>On Apr 23, 6:59 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote: >
>Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
>> > that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
>> > article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.
>>
>> > It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
>> > mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
>> > he associates the events they participated it.
>>
>> > Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
>> > afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
>> > upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
>> > that was promised.
>>
>> > I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
>> > as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
>> > provides is a hero.
>>
>> > By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
>> > the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.
>>
>> Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout history
>> is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all equally heros.
>Not every soldier. Every soldier who performed the legal directives
>given to him by his leaders in an honorable way.
That is utter nonsense. It means anyone who served and didn't end up in
jail is a hero. Sorry son. Wrong.
>> >>Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat.. Yet,
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> 3.) The political leaders directing the war were more concerned with
> how US strategy would be perceived in the Media (and how it would
> affect their electability) then in how it would help the military
> defeat the enemy.
> Ironic that this is exactly what certain people in Washington
> are doing today.
Losing in war makes getting re-elected difficult.
Andrew Swallow
Billzz
news:NuednXQZH5yPv4zV...@bt.com...
"There is no medal for losing with dignity" - Henry Kissinger
(He said that some years after he received the Nobel Peace Prize)
I often thought that was an odd statement, and I was in the room when he
said it. No one said anything.
Ledraychere
Hello Michae and Zerkon :
Long time ,no see . Yoda and I have been gone for several months
and so we haven't been following all you've discussed but I thought I
would stop and say a word about Vietnam and the definition of hero .
Both are highly charged political words . They are used by both
sides effectively to make their opposing political points of view .
So ,
no answer will be produced by any discussion of Vietnam . I did ,
however wish to clarify the reason the U. S. stayed in Vietnam as
long as it did . It is the same fundamental reason we will remain in
the gulf . Both reasons are essentially so the dictatorial regimes
which were located in both places could be given assurance by
our deeds and not our words that we were going to stand with them
in both respects . They were terrified of being overthrown in both
instances ,and with good reason . That's the reason , I leave it to
you to decide if it was correct or not in either case .
Also , I wanted to say the definition of hero is not the same as
it was . The alteration has been subtle but significant . Today , a
hero ,is indeed , someone who makes a sacrifice of some kind
for something other than selfish reasons . This ,of course , could
encompass anything at all . Originally , a hero had a special added
dimension . It was really something which we do not honor anymore.
It was the personal attributes of endowed ability , grand
achievements ,
and noble qualities of character . I know of no such special honor
given to any man or woman today anywhere in the world for an
exhibition of these qualities alone .
It was nice to visit again , perhaps I shall return soon .
Perhaps ,
in a thousand years . But Yoda and I shall return .
Ledraychere
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> On Apr 23, 6:59 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
>>Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
>>>that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
>>>article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.
>>
>>>It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
>>>mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
>>>he associates the events they participated it.
>>
>>>Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
>>>afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
>>>upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
>>>that was promised.
>>
>>>I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
>>>as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
>>>provides is a hero.
>>
>>>By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
>>>the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.
>>
>>Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout history
>>is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all equally heros.
>
>
> Not every soldier. Every soldier who performed the legal directives
> given to him by his leaders in an honorable way.
This is where we differ. Performing an immoral act, regardless of how "legal"
it is, is not ever honorable and not ever heroic.
The U.S. military has done a good job of brainwashing that morality is
irrelevant and only "legal" is relevant.
A legacy, "lesson learned", from the Vietnam era.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
> engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
> for our failure in Vietnam.
>
> 1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
> North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
Son, that was considered...very seriously and often.
It was decided to avoid the likely nuclear war.
...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...
;-)
(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
>
> The hero is defined by the act not by intent
> nor the politics in which the act takes place.
IMHO, a heroic act must be a moral act. No immoral act is ever heroic, no
matter how brave or well intended (duped) the bad guy is.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
>
>>Lessons from Vietnam
>
>
> Control information.
A well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a building
in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is producing
propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
[psyops - psychological operations]
Horvath
<na...@nobull.com> wrote this crap:
>
>A well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a building
>in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is producing
>propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
>
>[psyops - psychological operations]
Is that what you believe? Is that what they want you to believe? Is
it much more than that?
I can't tell you what to believe. These aren't the droids you're
looking for. Move along, move along.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
ZerkonX
> IMHO, a heroic act must be a moral act. No immoral act is ever heroic,
> no matter how brave or well intended (duped) the bad guy is.
A heroic act is judged by a moral standard which can change. The act
itself however does not change. 'Good' and 'Bad' can also change. The use
of such simple, rigid and unrealistic terms either ensures their own
defeat or forces stupidity into history.
ZerkonX
> Psyops is producing
> propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
Making the American people an enemy.
ZerkonX
> The love affair that Americans have with all things military must be
> ended.
Another thing here....
This 'affair' is being driven not with all things military, it is a love
affair with a policy and economic which may use the military.
Part of 'psyops' is to equate policy with military personnel. "Support
Our Troops" is a lie. "Support Our Policy" is the actual demand. Troops
are used, quite literally, as 'human shields'.
Mich...@gmail.com
Exactly the point. They were more concerned with getting elected then
winning the war.
Mich...@gmail.com
I assume you are also providing your own definition of what morality
is? Just because an action is distasteful does not mean it is
immoral. I like dogs, but if a dog threatened my children (or was
perceived to threaten my children), I would remove it as a threat by
any means necessary. The level and imminence of the threat would be a
factor in my actions.
I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.
I disagree. I would much rather have the US be proactive in
preventing threats then waiting to punish those who committed them.
Especially since I and those I love could very well be dead in your
scenario.
> ...
>
> read more »
Professor Irwin Corey
>In <79df24a7-036c-421f...@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, on
>04/24/2008 at 09:16 AM, Mich...@gmail.com said:
>>Although I am not a big John McCain supporter, I respect his military
>>service. As the son of the leading Admiral, the North Vietnamese offered
>>to release him as a POW. He refused until every one of the men with
>>which he was detained was also released. Sounds like something a hero
>>would do.
>
>Or someone afraid of daddy, or what daddy would think.
So THAT'S your problem ...
Professor Irwin Corey
<na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
>> engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
>> for our failure in Vietnam.
>>
>> 1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
>> North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
>
>Son, that was considered...very seriously and often.
>
>It was decided to avoid the likely nuclear war.
>
>...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
>...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
>only have one more chance...
>
>;-)
>
>
>(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)
Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
mirages.
Professor Irwin Corey
<na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>ZerkonX wrote:
>>
>>>Lessons from Vietnam
>>
>>
>> Control information.
>
>A well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a building
>in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is producing
>propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe
gfna...@nospam.net
Typical; a right wing kook non-thinking idiot response to the fact that
many during the Vietnam served and/or went out their way to not dishonor
their parents.
Run along son. You don't have the brains to troll here with the big boys.
In <pik4141p72vnadnja...@4ax.com>, on 04/25/2008
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:404f9338-0ccc-48fb...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
> engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
> for our failure in Vietnam.
>
> 1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
> North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
>
Well this is why people like yourself really need to go and review some of
the "real truths" about Vietnam, and re-jigg your historical knowledge base.
eg go watch the Doco you're commenting on, before commenting would be a good
start Michael.
remember this in my post?
Two points made in the doco are
7.. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
8.. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.
It applies to you perfectly.
There's a line in the doco from a nth viernamese general ... goes something
like "didn't you know anything about history, we have been fighting the
Chinese for 1000 years. we were fighting for our survival as a nation."
Michael, be prepared to re-examine your reasoning!! :-)
> 2.) We failed to use the level of force required (in the areas where
> it was required) to win.
> Taking the battle to North early in the war could have ended it
> all right away.
>
One can never end something the right way, when they never started it the
right way. The whole "premise" for the war was flawed from the start ... and
that continued to the bitter end. That's why it was so "bitter".
Same goes for Iraq .... just another pattern repeat untill someone "gets the
lessons".
> 3.) The political leaders directing the war were more concerned with
> how US strategy would be perceived in the Media (and how it would
> affect their electability) then in how it would help the military
> defeat the enemy.
> Ironic that this is exactly what certain people in Washington
> are doing today.
>
Wrong again ... but I won't belabour the point.
eg
>> 7.. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and
>> frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale
>> military
>> involvement . before we initiated the action.
NOTE : .... "before" ... and full and frank discussion vs hyped up bullshit
about WMD that never existed in the first place.
Ever played "shadows on the wall" Michael ..... as a child we all knew it
was make believe .... grown-ups often degenerate with age. ;-)
Sorry your precious dearly held beliefs seem so easily rattled. [ albeit
understandable ] I suggest you DON'T watch the doco or anything else like
it. Not good for your health and overall balance.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Yes, just as we all do...every one of us. As you will now demonstrate...
> Just because an action is distasteful does not mean it is immoral.
See...your own personal definition of morality.
And who in the fuck ever said distasteful and immoral were
equivalent...they are not...you are either a moron or attempting to obfuscate.
I claim that killing innocent Iraqi people is immoral...murder.
I claim that the *continued* killing of innocent people is immoral...murder.
I like dogs, but if a dog threatened my children (or was
> perceived to threaten my children), I would remove it as a threat by
> any means necessary. The level and imminence of the threat would be a
> factor in my actions.
>
> I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
> has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
> world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.
Son, you perceive incorrectly. The U.S. may defend itself. The U.S. may
not make up fictitious and hysterical reasons to invade other countries.
>
> I disagree. I would much rather have the US be proactive in
> preventing threats then waiting to punish those who committed them.
>
> Especially since I and those I love could very well be dead in your
> scenario.
Son, you're a fuckin rightwing warmongering moron.
;-)
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.
For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national independence.
HTH,
;-)
(OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the U.S.,
and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)
ZerkonX
>> A well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a
>> building
>> in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is
>> producing propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
> Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe
What they WANT you to believe is that this is something 'new' forced by
'new' demands.
gfna...@nospam.net
That's correct. The right wign kooks no long have the commies to fight
forever, so they have created a new group; a bunch arab desert dweller
that have to be fought for the next 100 years... Not to mention the need
to capture their natural resources, so American companies can still steal
from the world's people.
The right wing kooks are begging for the chance to use nuclear weapons
too.
Shrikeback
"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <na...@nobull.com> wrote in message
news:m66dnfHd8aHUn47VnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@toastnet...
> Professor Irwin Corey wrote:
>> In <w4-dnXVJLLQPq4zVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@toastnet>, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
>> <na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
>>>>engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
>>>>for our failure in Vietnam.
>>>>
>>>>1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
>>>> North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
>>>
>>>Son, that was considered...very seriously and often.
>>>
>>>It was decided to avoid the likely nuclear war.
>>>
>>>...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to
>>>blame...
>>>...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
>>>only have one more chance...
>>>
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)
>>
>>
>> Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
>> mirages.
>
> Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.
No, what made it obvious they were a surrogate was the
establishment of a carbon copy totalitarian state. Another
franchise operation. Well, and, of course, their utter
dependence on Soviet ICBMs for care and comfort.
> For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
> The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national
> independence.
Nationalism and Marxism. Two great tastes that taste
totalitarian together.
Well, it could be said that the Soviet colony in Vietnam
hastened the collapse of the empire, for all colonies of
the Soviet Empire were money pits, requiring huge
subsidies from Party Central.
This blindness the Olllldddd Left had for Soviet imperialism
was their own internal contradiction. Any time a group of
communist thugs were prevented from imprisoning more
millions, it was a net boon for humanity. Provided, of course,
that the cost was not too great. One cost that is too great
is if you have to fight a war that will result in as many deaths
as the totatalitarian bloodbath you would prevent.
Regardless, the idea that the commies were angels in white
proves something about such alleged peaceniks. But it was
okay; back then, radical was chic.
> (OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the U.S.,
> and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)
Well, we could compare the afterlife of North Korea to the
afterlife of South Korea to see what a difference it would
have made. But one should never overcommit, which is the
real lesson of Vietnam.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
No son.
For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national independence.
Second, the DRV was not a "carbon copy", but it was at non-stop war from 1945 to 1989,
with all that that implies (defeating 3 major military powers France,U.S.,China).
>>(OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the U.S.,
>>and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)
>
>
> Well, we could compare the afterlife of North Korea to the
> afterlife of South Korea to see what a difference it would
> have made. But one should never overcommit, which is the
> real lesson of Vietnam.
Well, shithead, how about you look at Communist Vietnam today. Our friend.
It must really piss off you rabid anti-communists that Communist Vietnam is our friend.
ha!
Zomby...@cox.net
Nope, not the same & different lessons. At least in Vietnam there was
some level of unity & there was not all these little in-faction fights
going on over power grabs. The people of Vietnam (majority) wanted
National Unity and the expulsion of outsiders. Within Iraq they still
don't have a "National" purpose. If one "good" thing can be said
about most Communist States is that it does get rid of the stupid
fighting over religion -- what a stupid thing to fight over.
>
>> 3.) The political leaders directing the war were more concerned with
>> how US strategy would be perceived in the Media (and how it would
>> affect their electability) then in how it would help the military
>> defeat the enemy.
>> Ironic that this is exactly what certain people in Washington
>> are doing today.
>>
>
>Wrong again ... but I won't belabour the point.
>
>eg
>>> 7.. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and
>>> frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale
>>> military
>>> involvement . before we initiated the action.
>
>
>NOTE : .... "before" ... and full and frank discussion vs hyped up bullshit
>about WMD that never existed in the first place.
>
A poor excuse is better then no excuse at all. Depending on one's
definition of WMD, they did exist. However, what they never were was
a threat to the US as there was no delivery system for them (capable
of reaching US) even when they were at their peak of existence.
>
>Ever played "shadows on the wall" Michael ..... as a child we all knew it
>was make believe .... grown-ups often degenerate with age. ;-)
>
But what to we usually make with those shadows on the wall --
monsters!
>
>Sorry your precious dearly held beliefs seem so easily rattled. [ albeit
>understandable ] I suggest you DON'T watch the doco or anything else like
>it. Not good for your health and overall balance.
>
I learned a long time ago not to fuck with most peoples belief
systems, it is a losing battle. The Teacher can teach, but that
doesn't mean the student will learn.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli
Zomby...@cox.net
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:00:55 -0700, Dr. James West, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>> The love affair that Americans have with all things military must be
>> ended.
>
>Another thing here....
>
>This 'affair' is being driven not with all things military, it is a love
>affair with a policy and economic which may use the military.
>
The use of "our" Military is in direct proportion to the failure of
our Diplomacy & it's policies. The cause of the use of Military
Forces is failed policy & diplomacy.
>Part of 'psyops' is to equate policy with military personnel. "Support
>Our Troops" is a lie. "Support Our Policy" is the actual demand. Troops
>are used, quite literally, as 'human shields'.
>
Bullshit, one can vehemently disagree with policy & still support the
Troops -- and I mean direct support not just flappin your jaws.
Zomby...@cox.net
Because everyone's definition of what is & is not Moral is a
culmination of each individuals life experiences there will always be
disagreements over whether a certain act is immoral or not. To me it
would be immoral to NOT remove an immediate threat to your family. I
also think it would be immoral to allow situations were threats were
allowed to rise to the level of immediate. Reacting after the event
is vengeance, a thing most would agree is not highly moral, regardless
of its satisfaction level.
>
>I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
>has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
>world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.
>
Not acting in one's own self-defense must be in & off itself immoral.
>
>I disagree. I would much rather have the US be proactive in
>preventing threats then waiting to punish those who committed them.
>
As would I, not only externally -- but internally as well. It is the
same problem with the current "Law Enforcement" mentality.
Preventing/removing/mitigating the threat is much more important then
punishing it after the fact. Punishment affects the perpetrator, not
the victim(s).
>
>Especially since I and those I love could very well be dead in your
>scenario.
>
Well there could be a real good reason why Military Basic Training
doesn't include training on the Philosophy of following orders, only
the legality of it.
Colin Campbell
In a way he does have something of a point. Most of the people who
claim to 'support the troops but oppose the war' do not really support
the troops - they just say that because it sounds good.
Personally, I use the 'defense' test to see who really 'supports the
troops.' If somebody who opposes the war challenges claims of torture
and abuse committed by US troops - then I will accept that they truly
do support the troops but oppose the war. If they repeat those claims
or remain silent - then their claims of 'support' are empty rhetoric.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
La N
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:63h91416b9laqe9n0...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:21:31 -0400, Zomby...@cox.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:13:03 +0000, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:
>>
>
>>>Part of 'psyops' is to equate policy with military personnel. "Support
>>>Our Troops" is a lie. "Support Our Policy" is the actual demand. Troops
>>>are used, quite literally, as 'human shields'.
>>>
>>Bullshit, one can vehemently disagree with policy & still support the
>>Troops -- and I mean direct support not just flappin your jaws.
>
> In a way he does have something of a point. Most of the people who
> claim to 'support the troops but oppose the war' do not really support
> the troops - they just say that because it sounds good.
>
B.S.
- nilita
Ledraychere
> "Colin Campbell" <activated_...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
> messagenews:63h91416b9laqe9n0...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:21:31 -0400, Zomby-W...@cox.net wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:13:03 +0000, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Part of 'psyops' is to equate policy with military personnel. "Support
> >>>Our Troops" is a lie. "Support Our Policy" is the actual demand. Troops
> >>>are used, quite literally, as 'human shields'.
>
> >>Bullshit, one can vehemently disagree with policy & still support the
> >>Troops -- and I mean direct support not just flappin your jaws.
>
> > In a way he does have something of a point. Most of the people who
> > claim to 'support the troops but oppose the war' do not really support
> > the troops - they just say that because it sounds good.
>
> B.S.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Zomby w
Said , "not acting in one's own self defense is ,in and of
itself ,immoral."
This statement has never been true with respect to Christian
morality .
It may be true with others , but not with the Christian principles
which
are stated by many to be the foundation on which this nation was
established .
This is why those who say these are the foundation principles have two
distinct doctrines from which to choose . They must either advocate
that
this nation is based on these principles and abandon the concept that
acting
in one's self defense is moral . Or they must abandon the Christian
principle foundation idea and declare the moral principle of self
defense ; which
is clearly a human principle ,not a Christian one , based on mankind's
values
of state , tribal , and cultural and religious sectarian
preservation .
This is the fundamental reason the founding fathers discarded the idea
of
the United States being a Christian nation . Had it been so , the
concept
of self defense would have either had to be abandoned or the nation
would have
been obligated by Christian brotherhood to preserve the religion of
Christianity
by force of arms, if necessary effectively nullifying the
fundamental principle
of the Christian faith itself on the one hand and removing all
separations
between church and state on the other .
It was a "no brainer" for them . By making this a secular nation .
They preserved
the nation's options with respect to self-defense and the preserved
the pacifist
religious doctrine that lies at the foundation of the Christian
faith .
Ledraychere
Mich...@gmail.com
>
> news:404f9338-0ccc-48fb...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
> > engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
> > for our failure in Vietnam.
>
> > 1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
> > North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
>
> Well this is why people like yourself really need to go and review some of
> the "real truths" about Vietnam, and re-jigg your historical knowledge base.
Where do you think all the Jets and SAMs that the North Vietnamese
used came from? Surely you are not going to say they made them (or
even that they bought them on the open market). And this is just an
obvious example of support from their over lords. I'm not saying that
the relationship was not a contentious one. However, there is no such
thing as a fair war. We should have knocked out their ability to re-
supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.
Mich...@gmail.com
What does someone have to do before you will acknowledge that they are
a threat to you? US has the moral authority and duty to eradicate
terrorist organizations that are bent on doing us harm. Since these
cowards hide in the shadows we have a duty to drag them out of the
shadows (or burn them in their caves). The Bush doctrine has clearly
stated that if you harbor terrorist we will treat you like a
terrorist. While certainly not all of the people who have died are
guilty of terrorism, I wonder how you propose destroying the enemy
without be willing to use deadly force against them? There will be
innocent casualties, but that is the cost of war. Or would you rather
that we fight this war on American shores so that the innocent
casualties were American?
> ...
>
> read more »
Mich...@gmail.com
>
> >>(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)
>
> > Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
> > mirages.
>
> Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.
>
> For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
> The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national independence.
>
> HTH,
> ;-)
>
> (OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the U.S.,
> and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)
I'm not your son (thank goodness), and surrogate is the correct term
to use. Vietnam was a cold war stand off between the forces of free
western society led by the US against Communist (and their now proven
failed system) led by the USSR and China.
Mich...@gmail.com
> In <pan.2008.04.26.12.53...@X.net>, on 04/26/2008
Let me guess you think the US was behind 9/11 also. Just want to see
which ward of the mental institute you escaped from.
gfna...@nospam.net
Run along junior and play somewhere else. Saddam had nothing to do with
9-11, and was no threat to the US. It was all a right wing kook lie --
that you love, or you would not be here whining.
In <8795140c-9c1a-4169...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
gfna...@nospam.net
Son, stop your right wign kook nonsense. There was no thread from Iraq.
bush and his cabal lied to make a war there. They thought it would easy
and good for the coming 2004 election.
Learn to deal with reality, not the right wing replacement for the god
awful commies that you characters wanted to fight forever.
In <c4eb62aa-d78f-47f2...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> We should have knocked out their ability to re-
> supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.
ha ha ha!!!
...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...
ya fuckin Crybaby Vet moron
;-)
Mich...@gmail.com
There is no such thing as cheating with regards to War. We lost
because of our leadership. I don't begrudge the enemy doing
everything it could do to win, I just wish our side had the same
resolve.
Mich...@gmail.com
> Run along junior and play somewhere else. Saddam had nothing to do with
> 9-11, and was no threat to the US. It was all a right wing kook lie --
> that you love, or you would not be here whining.
>
> 04/28/2008
> at 08:25 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:
>
> >On Apr 26, 10:55 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> In <pan.2008.04.26.12.53...@X.net>, on 04/26/2008
> >> at 12:34 PM, Zerkonx <Z...@X.net> said:
>
> >> >On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0400, Professor Irwin Corey wrote: >> A
> >> >well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a >>
> >> >building
> >> >>> in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is
> >> >>> producing propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
> >> >> Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe
> >> >What they WANT you to believe is that this is something 'new' forced by
> >> >'new' demands.
>
> >> That's correct. The right wign kooks no long have the commies to fight
> >> forever, so they have created a new group; a bunch arab desert dweller
> >> that have to be fought for the next 100 years... Not to mention the need
> >> to capture their natural resources, so American companies can still steal
> >> from the world's people.
>
> >> The right wing kooks are begging for the chance to use nuclear weapons
> >> too.
> >Let me guess you think the US was behind 9/11 also. Just want to see
> >which ward of the mental institute you escaped from.
I understand that old people get senile so I wont begrudge you the
fact that somehow you think I am your son, but I'm not. However, to
address another one of your "senior" moments I'll talk slow.
The war on terrorism is not to avenge 9/11 but to prevent it from
happening again. Our military actions are aimed towards that goal.
It seem fairly obvious after the fact but Iraq contains elements that
are involved in terroristic activities. Fortunately for us we can
kill them over there without having to wait until they come here. I
know maybe you were confused and thought we were talking about "a
rack" instead of Iraq. I hope this clears things up.
Please for all of our sakes make sure you dentures are firmly in place
before replying.
Mich...@gmail.com
> bush and his cabal lied to make a war there. They thought it would easy
> and good for the coming 2004 election.
No of course not. They all love us over there don't they. I'm sure
all we need to do is lay down our weapons and open our arms and they
will greet us as brothers. (of course they like to kill their
brothers but that is neither here nor there).
>
> Learn to deal with reality, not the right wing replacement for the god
> awful commies that you characters wanted to fight forever.
>
> In <c4eb62aa-d78f-47f2-8433-9938aec06...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, on
> 04/28/2008
> ...
>
> read more »
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> On Apr 28, 12:51 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
>>Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> We should have knocked out their ability to re-
>>>supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.
>>
>>ha ha ha!!!
>>
>>...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
>>...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
>>only have one more chance...
>>
>>ya fuckin Crybaby Vet moron
>>;-)
>
>
...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...
> I just wish our side had the same resolve.
...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...
Son, does it piss you off that today Communist Vietnam is our friend?
Or that Communist China is our friend? (since 1971)
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
>
> all we need to do is lay down our weapons and open our arms and they
> will greet us as brothers.
Son, we've already been told they would greet us as liberators.
What went wrong?
ya fuckin rightwing warmongering moron
;-)
...drip...
gfna...@nospam.net
Run along and play right wing dumbass somwhere else junior. -->There was
no connection between 9-11 and iraq.
In <4fd99850-121a-49dc...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
gfna...@nospam.net
04/28/2008
Vietnam was was not worth a nuclear war son. That's why we did not invade
North Vietnam.
Try to understand it.
gfna...@nospam.net
Son bush and his cabal made a war for nothing with lies. It can't be won
and wasn't needed.
Give up your right wing nonsense.
In <9ffa8b8b-cd62-4ca6...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
>> >> Yes, just as we all do...every one of us. As you will now demonstrate....
>>
>> >> > Just because an action is distasteful does not mean it is immoral.
>>
>> >> See...your own personal definition of morality.
>>
>> >> And who in the fuck ever said distasteful and immoral were
>> >> equivalent...they are not...you are either a moron or attempting to obfuscate.
>>
>> >> I claim that killing innocent Iraqi people is immoral...murder.
>> >> I claim that the *continued* killing of innocent people is immoral...murder.
>>
>> >> I like dogs, but if a dog threatened my children (or was
>>
>> >> > perceived to threaten my children), I would remove it as a threat by
>> >> > any means necessary. The level and imminence of the threat would be a
>> >> > factor in my actions.
>>
>> >> > I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
>> >> > has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
>> >> > world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.
>>
>> >> Son, you perceive incorrectly. The U.S. may defend itself. The U.S. may
>> >> not make up fictitious and hysterical reasons to invade other countries..
Professor Irwin Corey
<na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>Professor Irwin Corey wrote:
>> In <w4-dnXVJLLQPq4zVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@toastnet>, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
>> <na...@nobull.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
>>>>engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
>>>>for our failure in Vietnam.
>>>>
>>>>1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
>>>> North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
>>>
>>>Son, that was considered...very seriously and often.
>>>
>>>It was decided to avoid the likely nuclear war.
>>>
>>>...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
>>>...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
>>>only have one more chance...
>>>
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)
>>
>> Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
>> mirages.
>
>Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.
>
>For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
>The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national independence.
It's always laughable when Communist governments choose to use "Democratic"
in their names, even though the only thing democratic about the government
IS the name. DPRK, DRV, GDR ...
>HTH,
>;-)
As for the surrogacy, perhaps you need an education beyond your sad little
prejudices. I doubt you'll seriously consider it, being firmly entrenched in
your comfortable little world, isolated from reality.
>(OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the U.S.,
>and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)
Whatever trips your trigger, pal. You've never let accuracy stand in your
way before. Why should this be any different?
Now edit the stuff you dislike out of your response, call me 'son', as if
that really makes a difference, fling a few insults over your shoulder and
run off like a good little crank.
There's a good boy.
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6137358-6c2b-478a...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 25, 8:50 pm, "Sean" <waz...@bro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> <Michae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:404f9338-0ccc-48fb...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
>> > engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
>> > for our failure in Vietnam.
>>
>> > 1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
>> > North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
>>
>> Well this is why people like yourself really need to go and review some
>> of
>> the "real truths" about Vietnam, and re-jigg your historical knowledge
>> base.
>
> Where do you think all the Jets and SAMs that the North Vietnamese
> used came from? Surely you are not going to say they made them (or
> even that they bought them on the open market). And this is just an
> obvious example of support from their over lords. I'm not saying that
> the relationship was not a contentious one. However, there is no such
> thing as a fair war. We should have knocked out their ability to re-
> supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.
>
LOL Ok so if i go to McDonald's to buy a burger, then THEY are my
"overlords" are they? mmmm
Michael, I repeat , it wouldn't hurt re-jigg your historical knowledge base.
Oh, and maybe watch the doco, cross check the info contained therein, and
then re-jigg. :-)
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b57c35f8-0802-47e0...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
15 year involvement, up to 500,000 troops at one time, ... US trained and
supplied, more bombs dropped on nth vietnam than the entire WWII, most
powerful nation on earth bar none, gung-ho Generals itching to win,
Political leaders itching to win, secret bombing & infiltrations into Laos
and Cambodia, and you put it all down to a "lack of resolve"????????????
Um, ok, if that's what you want to believe.
Mich...@gmail.com
Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.
We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.
Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
wonder what side you are on.
On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
> Run along and play right wing dumbass somwhere else junior. -->There was
> no connection between 9-11 and iraq.
>
> In <4fd99850-121a-49dc-ae76-a72a2e385...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, on
> 04/28/2008
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c290109-1a0a-4631...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Believing it, and saying it even repeatedly, does NOT make it true or even
close to the truth or the facts.
Try this .... Vietnam was a people's rebellion and a civil war, first to get
the french out, and second to get the US out, and third to re-unite the
ancient country. As soon as the US left, the civil war resolved, peace came
to Vietnam.
Nothing to do with any great cold war standoff, or domino theory, or war by
proxy, it was about an impoverished nation fighting for it;s right to exist
in a self-determined state against the might of the USA who were propping up
un-democratic corrupt regimes in sth vietnam, and ignoring all Peace
Treaties regarding Vietnamese self-determination.
Any other slants only exist in like minded heads who were sold a big lemon
labeled as a noble undertaking ..... and subsequently lost because just like
in the Western movies, the bad guys always lose. Sorry about that.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
This "MichaelNJ" clown is just another Crybaby Vet. When Clark
Clifford became Defense Secretary in 1968 he quickly discovered
that the U.S. military had no plan. It was an arrogant Klusterfuck from the beginning.
Here are the pertinent FAQs:
--------------------------------------------------
2.9 Did the U.S. military get defeated?
Yes. The U.S. had military personnel in Vietnam from 1950 to 1975.
At the height of U.S. involvement (1969) the U.S. had half a million
soldiers in Vietnam, the generals were asking for more soldiers and
equipment, and there was no end in sight. The expensively equipped
U.S. soldiers could not subdue a poverty-stricken nation. In time,
the extraordinary resolve of the ordinary Vietnamese people wore down
the U.S. military.
Some proponents of the war, in hindsight, claim that the U.S.
could have easily won by nuking or invading "North" Vietnam. What
they fail to mention is that there was a very real threat that either
the U.S.S.R or China would retaliate with nukes or ground forces.
Many people think the U.S. military was in a no-win situation
from the very beginning.
"Yes, we defeated the Americans" - Pham Van Dong, Prime Minister
--------------------------------------------------
2.10 What advantages did the U.S. military have?
The rich U.S. outspent the Vietnamese victors by 90:1 (FAQ 2.23)
U.S. civilians were safely 10,000 miles away.
The U.S. had:
B-52 bombers
Aircraft carriers
Battleships
Destroyers
Guided Missile Frigates
Jet fighters
Laser Guided Bombs
Cruise Missiles
Helicopters
Cargo planes
Gunships
Expensively outfitted soldiers
Flak jackets
Boots
Satellites
Tanks
A nuclear arsenal
The U.S. military had sanctuaries in Thailand, the Philippines,
Japan, Turkey, and many other countries around the world.
The U.S. dropped more bombs on Vietnam, before Tet in '68, than was
dropped on all of Europe during WWII.
The U.S. dropped more bombs on Vietnam, by the end of the war, than
were dropped to defeat both the Germans AND the Japanese in WWII.
The U.S. dropped more bombs and artillery on Cambodia than was
dropped on all of Europe during WWII.
Each U.S. soldier fired an average of 10,000 bullets for every
Vietnamese soldier killed (includes training and "panic spraying"
method of fighting).
--------------------------------------------------
2.11 What disadvantages did the U.S. military have?
The U.S. was 10,000 miles away.
The ordinary Vietnamese people did not want more foreign domination.
The U.S. military did not understand guerrilla warfare.
The U.S. was on low moral ground (eroded support when exposed).
The U.S. public never supported the war. But the American people
did support an "honorable" disengagement.
--------------------------------------------------
2.12 Was the U.S. military purposefully kept from victory.
No.
See FAQ 2.9.
Many proponents of the war claim that it was the politicians who
lost the war, but it was in fact the military leaders who led the
military.
The U.S. military had a free hand in "South" Vietnam.
The U.S. military could not invade "North" Vietnam, Cambodia, or
Laos, because of fear of involving the U.S.S.R. or China. Also, since
the war did not have the approval of the American people, American
leaders were always afraid to escalate.
The U.S. military had no plan for winning.
The U.S. military grossly under estimated the will of the Vietnamese
people.
By the time of the '68 Tet Offensive, the American people were
constantly being told by the military leaders that the enemy was nearly
crushed. After Tet, they said they had defeated the enemy. Then, the
military asked for 206,000 more soldiers. Public sentiment
dramatically changed.
The U.S. military never did understand that the enemy was
everywhere, including all of "South" Vietnam.
The U.S. military conducted many secret operations...secret from the
American people, not the enemy (who knew what was happening to them).
--------------------------------------------------
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4eb62aa-d78f-47f2...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
What does someone have to do before you will acknowledge that they are
a threat to you? US has the moral authority and duty to eradicate
terrorist organizations that are bent on doing us harm. Since these
cowards hide in the shadows we have a duty to drag them out of the
shadows (or burn them in their caves). The Bush doctrine has clearly
stated that if you harbor terrorist we will treat you like a
terrorist. While certainly not all of the people who have died are
guilty of terrorism, I wonder how you propose destroying the enemy
without be willing to use deadly force against them? There will be
innocent casualties, but that is the cost of war. Or would you rather
that we fight this war on American shores so that the innocent
casualties were American?
Sean ponders:
All interesting questions Michael.
Johnson and others lied about Vietnam.
Ford and others lied about Vietnam.
Nixon and others lied about Vietnam.
What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?
What makes you think Bush and co are telling the whole truth about al queda,
and "terrorism" in general?
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe matters such as 9/11, Vietnam, and
Iraq are more the result of blatant USA incompetence than anything else?
I mean, even as a minute possibility, that you and many others might be
actually totally wrong about what you believe because of what you've been
told [sold]?
Think about it. Maybe even dig a little deeper and challenge yourself to
question "on what basis of fact/knowledge are you basing your beliefs upon"?
And why do you choose to believe it?
THX
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
> Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
> these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.
>
> We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
> again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.
>
> Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
> like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
> wonder what side you are on.
Stalinist liberals? Ha Ha Ha!!!
fail? what about the easy victory and "mission accomplished"
oh...you warmongering assholes "mis-calculated"...now blame "stalinists"...ha ha ha
whatafuckinmoron
;-)
fnij...@nospam.net
Ah yes, thank you for the right wign idiot theory that attacking Mexico
will keep Canada from invading Cuba.
In <0ff908be-5aba-406b...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, on
04/29/2008
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ff908be-5aba-406b...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
> these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.
>
> We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
> again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.
>
LOL What's more scary than any potential terrorism, is that you and so many
others really believe what you just wrote.
> Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
> like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
> wonder what side you are on.
>
If you really cared about your nation and it's people, you wouldn't be so
damn gullible and ill-informed, and you sure wouldn't be spreading this
mindless propaganda based on illusions and spin, imho.
But that's life on planet earth isn;t it? :-)
Here's another "trick" question.
Can you describe the Worldwide Organisational Structure of the Al Queda
Terrorist Organisation and how it operates - and point to clear evidence to
back up any claims as to it's existence and personell, and connections?
Furthermore .. how does one go to War against something that isn't really
there?
Here's a clue ... In Vietnam the USA was in a pitched battle to stop the
Dominoe Theory from becoming a reality.
The problem .... it was just a "theory" ... it wasn't really real. How can
one win a war against some entity or word or theory that isn't even real?
Mich...@gmail.com
>
> What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
> invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?
What issues of truth are in doubt in your mind? Do you question who
was behind 9/11? Do you question whether there are still groups out
there like those that caused 9/11 that are seeking to do "us" harm?
Do you questions whether the areas being targeted by the US military
harbor such groups? Or do you question whether we are fighting them
(or if it is all a grand illusion)? The only debacle is the liberal
response to our efforts to preserve our way of life.
>
> What makes you think Bush and co are telling the whole truth about al queda,
> and "terrorism" in general?
<please see above>
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe matters such as 9/11, Vietnam, and
> Iraq are more the result of blatant USA incompetence than anything else?
So if a mugger breaks into your house and kills your children and
steals your stuff, is it your fault that you did not have a good
enough "deterrent". <maybe> Do you consider this as a viable excuse
for the muggers actions? <I would think not> And ... what is most
important ... does the fact that your deterrent was not sufficient in
the past dictate that you not defend your home from here on out?
Certainly their have been issues with US foreign policy that have
fostered some of the conditions that we see today (the entire Jimmy
Carter fiasco in handling Iran comes to mind), but unless you belong
to the lunatic fringe that thinks the Jews/US were behind 9/11 that
does not mean we should role over and just give in to those who would
use terror against us. Primarily for two reasons: 1) they wont stop
just because we tell them we agree with them and 2) whether right or
wrong our political leaders need to protect American interests today
irregardless of the past.
>
> I mean, even as a minute possibility, that you and many others might be
> actually totally wrong about what you believe because of what you've been
> told [sold]?
It appears that your argument is that your distrust of the current
political environment is greater then your fear of the what the
terrorist would do to the US. The view point assumes that our current
political leaders hate us and wish us harm (what other motives would
they have). You may believe that but I do not. It does not match
their previous actions.
>
> Think about it. Maybe even dig a little deeper and challenge yourself to
> question "on what basis of fact/knowledge are you basing your beliefs upon"?
Do you even see the world events that are happening. Do you see what
is happening in Europe, Asia, the Middle East. Their are forces at
work which hate western culture and that seek power. They are more
then willing to kill anyone that stands in their way and use the
religion of Islam to accomplish their goals. Do you somehow not see
this? Do you think the 9/11 bogeyman does not exist? If you do see
this, what is your plan to combat this evil?
Mich...@gmail.com
> Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
> > these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.
>
> > We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
> > again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.
>
> > Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
> > like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
> > wonder what side you are on.
>
> Stalinist liberals? Ha Ha Ha!!!
>
> fail? what about the easy victory and "mission accomplished"
>
> oh...you warmongering assholes "mis-calculated"...now blame "stalinists"...ha ha ha
>
> whatafuckinmoron
> ;-)
>
We have not failed and I'm fairly confident that we will succeed -
despite your best efforts.
Which side were you on again?
Billzz
news:481753b7$0$13945$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
It was pretty real to the South Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory
Mich...@gmail.com
> <Michae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It is not necessary that I make you stop hating me (hypothetically
speaking) it is only important that you fear me. The war on
terrorism will be won when the despots of the world fear the US more
then they hate us or more then the fear the terrorist active inside of
their borders. Terrorist organizations can be neutralized (although
not eliminated) by eliminating those that would fund them and those
that would allow them to operate without deterrent.
If we get into a mode were we only attempt to attack terrorist who are
in the act of attacking us we have already lost.
That is unless you have some better method?
fnij...@nospam.net
Sorry son, but the South Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians did not dream
up the Domino theory. That was done by Ike and the boys to support their
wish for a war there.
In <51437$48175efc$9440b19b$12...@STARBAND.NET>, on 04/29/2008
fnij...@nospam.net
04/29/2008
>>
>> What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
>> invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?
>What issues of truth are in doubt in your mind? Do you question who was
>behind 9/11?
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD THAT THERE WAS NO
CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9-11? --Or are you plina stupid?
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Son, those people could not have cared less about the "domino theory".
However they were well aware of French and U.S. Capitalism and warmongering.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Yes, son. Eliminate the reasons they want to attack us: our decades-long attacks on them.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Then you have nothing to be worried about, do you son...
> Which side were you on again?
Son, I damn sure ain't on *your* side, you rightwing warmongering asshole...
;-)
Mich...@gmail.com
Oh so it is that simple is it? How exactly would you do that? Should
a simple press conference do the trick or did you have something else
in mind?
Mich...@gmail.com
So can I assume from that you are on the side of the people who tried
once and have stated that they intend to try again to kill us.
Mich...@gmail.com
> In <0e66e10e-02ad-4525-ac44-e812c4d6f...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, on
> 04/29/2008
> at 10:41 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:
>
>
>
> >> What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
> >> invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?
> >What issues of truth are in doubt in your mind? Do you question who was
> >behind 9/11?
>
> WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD THAT THERE WAS NO
> CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9-11? --Or are you plina stupid?
On not sure how to respond? Are you reading off of a script? Does
your keyboard only type certain things. The military is in the
middle east and Asia to prevent the NEXT 9/11. There is nothing we
can do to stop the last one (unless you happen to have a time
machine). The goal of the military is to destroy groups that WOULD
LIKE to conduct another 9/11. The military is where the enemy is.
Which judging from your statements , maybe should include whatever
cave you are huddling in.
Matt Wiser
>
Bravo, Sean. While we can't prevent 9-11 unless someone invents a time machine, the
military can sure prevent the next one by hunting down, and either killing or capturing, those
who would be behind such a plot. And their supporters, foot soldiers, sympathizers, and
wannabes. Dead terrorists don't plot, and they sure don't attack. Something the far left,
in its lunacy, doesn't think we should be trying to do.
Shrik...@gmail.com
> Shrikebackwrote:
> > "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote in message
> >news:m66dnfHd8aHUn47VnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@toastnet...
>
> >>Professor Irwin Corey wrote:
>
> >>>In <w4-dnXVJLLQPq4zVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@toastnet>, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
> >>><n...@nobull.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
> >>>>>engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
> >>>>>for our failure in Vietnam.
>
> >>>>>1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
> >>>>> North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.
>
>
> >>>>It was decided to avoid the likely nuclear war.
>
> >>>>blame...
> >>>>...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
> >>>>only have one more chance...
>
>
> >>>>(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)
>
> >>>Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
> >>>mirages.
>
> >>Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.
>
> > establishment of a carbon copy totalitarian state.
>
> No son.
> For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
> The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national independence.
>
> with all that that implies (defeating 3 major military powers France,U.S.,China).
The DRV couldn't have withstood against the US or China without
the threat of Soviet nukes. When survival depends on that, it is
inevitable that the actions of the beneficiary are in the interests
of their benefactor.
> >>(OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the U.S.,
> >>and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)
>
> > Well, we could compare the afterlife of North Korea to the
> > afterlife of South Korea to see what a difference it would
> > have made. But one should never overcommit, which is the
> > real lesson of Vietnam.
>
> Well, shithead, how about you look at Communist Vietnam today. Our friend.
Our "friend," but still the enemy of the people who are forced to
live under that prison state. You seem to believe that the goal
of the commies was to help their slaves, somehow. How did they
help them again by preventing them from joining the free-speaking
world?
> It must really piss off you rabid anti-communists that Communist Vietnam is our friend.
Being a rabid anti-comminist is just as honorable a thing as
being a rabid anti-fascist or anti-Nazi. Sometimes commie
states were as brutal as the Third Reich (see Democratic
Kampuchea, or Stalinist USSR), other times, they were
comparable merely to Fascist Italy (see DRV or post-Stalinist
USSR). But always they were totalitarian.
What should really piss off you communist apologists is that
Communist Vietnam is the friend of corporations such as
Nike, providing them with some of the cheapest and most
oppressed labor in the world. No browsing for internet porn
for the proles in Vietnam, no sirree. Ideal servants, with none
of the distractions provided by free speech.
> ha!
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e66e10e-02ad-4525...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
>> invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?
>
> What issues of truth are in doubt in your mind? Do you question who
> was behind 9/11? Do you question whether there are still groups out
> there like those that caused 9/11 that are seeking to do "us" harm?
> Do you questions whether the areas being targeted by the US military
> harbor such groups? Or do you question whether we are fighting them
> (or if it is all a grand illusion)? The only debacle is the liberal
> response to our efforts to preserve our way of life.
>
I was asking you "what makes you think xyz" and your response is off the
mark and redirected to asking me questions about 9/11.
But of course it is obvious there are people, and small groups that would
love to do harm to the US. So what?
I ask so what because if your immigration/travel system worked as it was
supposed to, most of the people who carried out 9/11 would have been
arrested at the airport on arrival and either arrested or deported.
I really can't find a rational sane reason for declaring a "war on terror"
or invading Iraq because of flaws in your arrivals security system due to
incompetence and flaws.
Furthermore, the UN sec council had declared the Taliban in breach of
resolutions for harbouring Osama Bin Laden in Jan 2001, calling for him and
al queda to be turned over to authorities [ those being the USA promarily
due the Cole and African bombings.
There was a prima facie international legal option for the USA to act in
Afghanistan with military force to capture Bin laden etc. From Jan 2001 the
USA failed to act in any way. It's quite possible that from this the
resulting outcome of that "incompetence" was 9/11.
What happened instead was that the Bush administration was giving US$ to the
Taliban, and negotiating deals with Oil companies to build pipelines thru
Afghanistan. Wasn't Osama bin Laden a bigger more pressing issue than
financially supporting the Taliban regime who was listed as a Nation that
supported and gave safety to KNOWN terrorists, namely Al Queda?????
Any idea why the Bush administration wasn't totally Impeached for
consciously supporting and trading with a known terrorist supporting Nation
whio harboured those responsible for the Cole attack, and USA Embassy
bombings as well as the previous bomb attack on the WTC in New York a decade
earlier?
Bush was President then. None of the above negates any responsibilty upon
those who perpetrated 9/11, but what of the "authorities" responsibilities
re lack of action/competence. Why did you and others continue to believe
what he told you then, as well as now?
Just doesn't make rational sense to me, so I'm wondering why does it make
rational sense to you?
>>
>> What makes you think Bush and co are telling the whole truth about al
>> queda,
>> and "terrorism" in general?
>
> <please see above>
>
You please see above.
And maybe do some research on how the UK, Australia, Spain, Germany, France,
Netherlands, Indonesia and many other nations around the world are dealing
with "terrorist" cells [that does not include the invasion of other nations,
or a (ir)rationale that it's best for them to fight them "over there"], and
the approach they have to finding out why terrorists have become terrorists
and the lessons learned about how to stop individuals from doing so.
IOW why always view the issue thru the myopic "they all hate and want to
kill Americans in America because they want to destroy America"?
>>
>> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe matters such as 9/11, Vietnam, and
>> Iraq are more the result of blatant USA incompetence than anything else?
>
> So if a mugger breaks into your house and kills your children and
> steals your stuff, is it your fault that you did not have a good
> enough "deterrent". <maybe>
The issue isn;t about "fault" Michael, I think it's about responsibility.
Truth is there's nothing I can do about a potential mugger, or any criminal,
what they do is their choice. MY responsibility though is to defend my home
as best as possible.
However, if I knew there a plan to break into my house and kill my children,
and i did nothing [ as is the case with Bush and Co ] then I sure as hell
carry a very heavy responsibility for my lack of action.
BUT, that action needs to be appropriate, specifically targetted to the
relevant criminals, and not just anyone in the neighbour because I'm afraid
of what "might happen" one day.
> Do you consider this as a viable excuse
> for the muggers actions? <I would think not>
No, nothing excuses things like muggers, home invaders, car thieves or even
9/11. But you cannot arrest or kill them PRIOR to the crime being committed
either, no matter what except on the proven grounds of "conspiracy", but if
we live in a civilised world then such matters get handled under the Law,
not by vigilanty mobs, or vigilanty Nation States who cower in fear.
and in my book, nothing excuses flawed incompetent invasions of nations like
Iraq with NO due cause, and without UN Security Council support for a
specific invasion that includes regime change by force.
> And ... what is most
> important ... does the fact that your deterrent was not sufficient in
> the past dictate that you not defend your home from here on out?
>
No, not at all.
There's difference between defending my home though, and terrorising the
whole neighbour because of my own self-importance. Just because I was
attacked by one group of people, doesn't give me the right to go out and
kill all other people who "appear to be the same" when they are NOT. If i
did that in the real world I would be rightly arrested and thrown in jail
......
Do you follow these analogies you offered and how they don't actually stand
up to the most basic rational analysis and life in a civilised society?
> Certainly their have been issues with US foreign policy that have
> fostered some of the conditions that we see today (the entire Jimmy
> Carter fiasco in handling Iran comes to mind),
any reason why you don't also mention Iran-Contra in this?
Carter was not responsible for the Iranian Revolution, many factors there
which included both UK, Europe and US foriegn policy, but more
repsonsibility lays with the Shah, and the Iranians themselves.
Just like Bush II isn't responsible for 50 years of Middle-east policy, but
he IS responsible for his actions and decisions as President during his
term, as are the American people collectively because he "represents" them,
and they voted him in, twice.
So when the really bad blow-back from invading and screwing up in Iraq comes
"home to roost" yet again, remember that when you point the finger of blame,
there are three fingers pointing back at yourself [ collectively ]. Up to
you then, what you chose to do about it, but that too will have
consequences, either positive or negative. Such things are always up to YOU
and not any potential villian in the shadows.
Criminals, terrorists, and all manner of folks do NOT operate in a vacume
but infact respond to what they are confronted with, or believe they are
confronted with.
These beliefs are best based as close to reality, and the whole truth as
possible, or further errors cannot help but be made repeatedly.
Here's another tip ..... look very closely at Vietnam .... in all it;s glory
with the WSDOM of hindsight, especially from people like McNamara who have
"seen the light" ..... and then , have a really good look at Iraq and the
excuses, and the spin, and the blatant lies, and the sheer incompetence of
the handling of the post invasion senario there, and remember to count the
"body bags" and the casualty lists both US and Iraqi. ALL are real people,
with family and friends.
> but unless you belong
> to the lunatic fringe that thinks the Jews/US were behind 9/11 that
> does not mean we should role over and just give in to those who would
> use terror against us.
Why do you so quickly jump to assumptions and get so distracted from the
topic at hand?
I never said anything about 9/11 or the Jews, or suggested that the USA
should "roll over" in any way shape or form. I asked you to maybe
re-consider YOUR thinking, and your beliefs, and asked why is that after all
that has happened people like you still choose to "believe" Bush and Co and
the Policy approach they are still following?
Because given the experience to date in Iraq, given that both Johnson and
Nixon lied thru their teeth to the American people about Vietnam, and given
the senario is so similar re "screw ups" all over the place, and moving goal
posts, and claims of winning followed by more death and destruction and
limited real progress.
Does anyone in America now realise why Suddam ruled the Iraqi people with a
rifle in his hand? Has anyone worked out that the Bush admin had NO CLUE
about anything about Iraq, and it;s people before they invaded?
Have you not seen any documentaries or detailed books etc about what's
unfolded in Iraq and therefore not been able to connect the dots of
incompetance that mirror just what happened in Vietnam all those years ago?
> Primarily for two reasons: 1) they wont stop
> just because we tell them we agree with them and 2) whether right or
> wrong our political leaders need to protect American interests today
> irregardless of the past.
>
Yes. OK. The question is ARE yoiur leaders actually protecting your American
interests or is it just a load of bullshit like what happened in Vietnam? Is
it not just a pattern repeat of a lesson America failed to realise 50 years
ago?
Why do you keep believing that what Bush has done, and is still doing
equates to a safe and protected America? No one saw 9/11 coming? It was
surprise?
Are you all that naive still 7 years after that event?
>>
>> I mean, even as a minute possibility, that you and many others might be
>> actually totally wrong about what you believe because of what you've been
>> told [sold]?
>
> It appears that your argument is that your distrust of the current
> political environment is greater then your fear of the what the
> terrorist would do to the US. The view point assumes that our current
> political leaders hate us and wish us harm (what other motives would
> they have). You may believe that but I do not. It does not match
> their previous actions.
>
Jumping to assumptions again Michael, and totally mis-reading and
mis-representing what I was asking/saying and then totally avoid my question
above.
But in a way you do tell it correctly. I do distrust the "current" politicos
in the White House far greater than I fear what a terrorist would do, namely
because I do not live in fear of terrorists like you and others apparently
do.
I choose freedom, not fear as a way of life. Why you persist in choosing
fear is your problem, not mine. Why you persist in following along with
flawed policies that can only lead to an increase in people choosing terror
as weapon against Americans is beyond my capacity to rationally hold such
faulty thinking within my head.
If I were you, then I would would be more concerned about your current crop
of politicos and the Agencies that work for them because of their recent and
ongoing proven history of sheer incompetence both in regard to 9/11 and
especially everything connected with Iraq & Afghanistan from the get go,
than any immeditate threat of terror in America, or some drama out of Iran.
It simply beggars belief that so many people like you, depsite all the
available evidence and information out there now, that you still choose to
support the bs rhetoric of Bush, Cheney and Co.
There's a reason why all the top Military brass quit soon after the Iraq
invasion was successful. Do you know what that is? It wasn't because they
preferred going fishing in their old age.
There's a reason why there was NO workable post-invasion plan for Iraq.
There's a reason why Rumsfelt finally was pushed out of office, I'd say that
happened 6 years too late.
There's a reason why Powell quit and didn't return after Bush's re-election.
There's a method in the madness of the neo-cons, but it's still madness.
There's a number of reasons why Iraq has been such a total disaster from
start to finish, but primarily it's because Bush was President, and the
American people voted him and his crowd into office twice.
You seem to not have noticed that the USA is in the biggest mess of it's
existence since the Civil War, but the reasons for this isn't because Muslim
terrorists hate America, and nor is it because 9/11 happened. I think the
trouble may lay in an inability to connect all the dots and clearly see how
various things are connected.
>>
>> Think about it. Maybe even dig a little deeper and challenge yourself to
>> question "on what basis of fact/knowledge are you basing your beliefs
>> upon"?
>
> Do you even see the world events that are happening. Do you see what
> is happening in Europe, Asia, the Middle East. Their are forces at
> work which hate western culture and that seek power. They are more
> then willing to kill anyone that stands in their way and use the
> religion of Islam to accomplish their goals. Do you somehow not see
> this? Do you think the 9/11 bogeyman does not exist? If you do see
> this, what is your plan to combat this evil?
>
SANITY & AWARENESS OF WHAT IS!!!
Works for me.
PS Please do yourself a favour and contemplate the following two lists VERY
carefully:::
The 11 Lessons from Vietnam [ All repeated in Iraq fiasco, bar none ]
The origin of the film's lesson concept is the eleven lessons in McNamara's
1996 book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam:
1.. We misjudged then - and we have since - the geopolitical intentions of
our adversaries . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of
their actions.
2.. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own
experience . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3.. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to
fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4.. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance
of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the
personalities and habits of their leaders.
5.. We failed then - and have since - to recognize the limitations of
modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine.
6.. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning
the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7.. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and
frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military
involvement . before we initiated the action.
8.. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off
our planned course . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we
were doing what we did.
9.. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are
omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best
interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international
forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our
image or as we choose.
10.. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . should
be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully
(and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11.. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other
aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate
solutions . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons
of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex
range of political and military issues.
--------------------------------------------------------
McNamara's additional ten lessons
These were written as a companion to the film and are included in the
Special Features of the DVD.
1.. The human race will not eliminate war in this century but we can
reduce war, the level of killing, by adhering to the principles of a just
war, in particular of proportionality.
2.. The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons
will lead to the destruction of nations.
3.. We are the most powerful nation in the world - economically,
politically, and militarily - and we are likely to remain so for decades
ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with
similar interests and similar values of the merits of the proposed use of
that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely
requirement to defend the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii.
4.. Moral principles are often ambiguous guides to foreign policy and
defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major
goal of U.S. foreign policy and, indeed, of foreign policy across the globe
: the avoidance in this century of the carnage - 160 million dead - caused
by conflict in the 20th century.
5.. We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility
to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them
advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy,
health, and employment.
6.. Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between
a soft heart and a hard head. Of course, they have responsibilities to their
employees, their customers and to society as a whole.
7.. President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president -
indeed "the" primary responsibility of a president - is to keep the nation
out of war, if at all possible.
8.. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or
within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we
should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court -
that the U.S. has refused to support - which would hold individuals
responsible for crimes against humanity.
9.. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we
must develop a sense of empathy - I don't mean "sympathy" but rather
"understanding" to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
10.. One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk that terrorists
will obtain access to weapons of mass destruction as a result of the
breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Regime. We in the U.S. are contributing
to that breakdown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War#The_film.27s_eleven_lessons
Now, think about it some and especially before being such an eager but naive
spokesperson for incompetents and their flawed policies and the shortcomings
in personal abilities relative to the positions of responsibilty they hold.
IOW seek wisdom. There's no future in fear, except even more fear. It's no
way to live. At least, that's how I see it today.
So thanks for the opportunity to present what I have. I hope it helps.
Goodnight, and Good Luck!
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b927c49-279d-442d...@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 2:00 pm, fnijnd...@nospam.net wrote:
>> In <0e66e10e-02ad-4525-ac44-e812c4d6f...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> on
>> 04/29/2008
>> at 10:41 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
>> >> invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?
>> >What issues of truth are in doubt in your mind? Do you question who was
>> >behind 9/11?
>>
>> WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD THAT THERE WAS NO
>> CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9-11? --Or are you plina stupid?
>
> On not sure how to respond? Are you reading off of a script? Does
> your keyboard only type certain things. The military is in the
> middle east and Asia to prevent the NEXT 9/11.
Wake up Michael .... that's what actually CAUSED the road to 9/11.
How about your Military goes back to barracks in America, and then there's
no reason for Saudi's to want to plan another 9/11.
Your troops are in Arab lands, and your nation protects and supports
Israel's action against the Palestinian occupation .... which part of that
do you not understand?
Your naval ships under Reagan bombarded civilian buildings in Beirut Lebanon
and in the process killed thousands. Why is that so difficult to comprehend
that not every action of the USA is seen by civilised people as being
perfect or justified? Because it is not justified in their point of view.
America's actions in Iraq have basically destroyed that society and
infrastructure. The place is a mess. 2 million left and live refugees now.
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, [ real people, real human beings ] have
been maimed or killed since 2003 and the day America invaded it became
totally responsible for the "governance" of that nation, and the 4000+ dead
US soldiers sent home in body bags.
America has failed in that regard. More Arabs hate America now, than before
2003, more have become terrorists since 2003 than before.
America is not one iota safer or more protected from a terrorist style
attack now than it was in 2001.
There is nothing we
> can do to stop the last one (unless you happen to have a time
> machine). The goal of the military is to destroy groups that WOULD
> LIKE to conduct another 9/11. The military is where the enemy is.
> Which judging from your statements , maybe should include whatever
> cave you are huddling in.
>
No military has ever been able to successfully stop terror/guerrilla
attack/s. Unless you intend to carry out Genocide and kill every single Arab
and Muslim on the planet so you can sleep at night without being scared.
Where your military is, they ARE the enemy. Your biggest enemy is already in
the USA, ...... your own illformed beliefs and ignorance of reality!
You need to put things into perspective. Americans are not more human or
more important than anyone else on the planet. The sooner you get that part
of the lesson, the better off your nation can and will be.
Good luck with that.
PS don't forget that the very SMALL group of "people" who carried out 9/11
are already dead. They died on 9/11, so if you're seeking vengence you can
only kill a man once. Anyone else, [ bar co-conspirators ] are totally
innocent. OK? :-)
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:182f5c5c-9e9b-4dab...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
That's bordering on insane!
If they are already willing to die as a martyr in a terror attack, what on
earth is there for them to fear from America?
You're incredible naive here Michael. Nothing the USA can or will do would
make these people "fear you". To belive such a thing really is dis-connected
from reality.
Why do you believe this sort of stuff? It's ludicrous, and only creates more
terrorists, and more people who hate what America stands for based upon it's
callous behaviour.
Turning your military into "terrorists" won;t ever save America from
terrorism, because you all become just like them.
Terrorist organizations can be neutralized (although
> not eliminated) by eliminating those that would fund them and those
> that would allow them to operate without deterrent.
>
> If we get into a mode were we only attempt to attack terrorist who are
> in the act of attacking us we have already lost.
>
> That is unless you have some better method?
There already are better methods Michael, and luckily most nations have
adopted such an approach. One day, hopefully after the next election,
America will follow a similar sane path than the one you and Bush seem to
prefer.
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e21e1f90-690c-49e7...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
YES .................. oh shit YEAH .... it's that simple!!!!!!!!
> How exactly would you do that? Should
> a simple press conference do the trick or did you have something else
> in mind?
Humility, and an ability to admit prior mistakes would be a great start ...
followed by a sincere apology for errors of the past, and asking for
forgiveness ... and then dealing with these people in the middle east with
honesty and integrity and good faith.
Unlike what has gone on in the past.
Clinton made a great effort with Iran before he left office, and relations
were improving greatly. Then some dumb moron got up to give a speech and
labeled Iran as part of an Axis of Evil .... doh, 8 years of positive
bi-lateral negotiations and fence building down the drain in 3 seconds.
Great job George! Doh!
Do you know why North Korea pursued nuclear weapons ... because they live in
fear, paranoid fear that at any time the USA with all it;s might could
obliterate them off the face of the earth. of course, that is well, an
irrational fear, no more irrational that believing that terrorists hate
America's freedoms and want you all dead because you have a democracy and
aren;t muslim. Totally irrational.
What's rational is what Osama bin laden says, that's rational. maybe
criminal, but it's damn rational. He saw the buildings get bombed by US
naval warships in support of Israel ... thousands of innocents, women and
children killed and maimed, he saw that with his own eyes .... believing in
karma and a desire for the US to feel the same kind of pain he supported
9/11. Sad, but true.
I don;t support him, but nor did I support the US or Israel in lebanon, and
I sure as hell never supported the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan YES, no
problem.
Sean
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:51437$48175efc$9440b19b$12...@STARBAND.NET...
If it wasn't just a theory, then Vietnam would have invaded and brought
communism to laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, and elsewhere immediately
after winning the war against America and the South.
It didn't now did it?
Vietnam NEVER EVER invaded anyone, or exported Communism anywhere to anyone
for any reason EVER.
Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good flawed theory though.
Right?
Yes, people "believed" it all over the place. That's why Govt's love to use
propaganda tools that support their own interests and goals. Funny that,
that "advertising" actually works to affect people opinions and beliefs.
But people believe Santa is real too. Doesn't make it so.
Sean
<fnij...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:LmJRj.2445$Yo2.784@trndny01...
>
>
> Sorry son, but the South Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians did not dream
> up the Domino theory. That was done by Ike and the boys to support their
> wish for a war there.
>
>
not to mention some subtlties like::
China supported teh Khemer Rouge in Cambodia, but it was the Vietnamese that
fought and toppled that genocidal regime.
OR
In 1950, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of
China (PRC) recognized each other diplomatically. The Soviet Union quickly
followed suit. U.S. President Harry S. Truman countered by recognizing the
French puppet government of Vietnam. Washington, seemingly ignorant of the
long historical antipathy between Vietnam and China, feared that Hanoi was a
pawn of the PRC and, by extension, Moscow.[7] As historian and former Hanoi
foreign minister Luu Doan Huynh has commented, "Vietnam a part of the
Chinese expansionist game in Asia? For anyone who knows the history of
Indochina, this is incomprehensible."[7] Nevertheless, Chinese support was
very important to the Viet Minh's success, and China largely supported the
Vietnamese Communists through the end of the war.
The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 marked a decisive turning point. From
the perspective of many in Washington, what had been a colonial war in
Indochina was transformed into another example of communist expansionism
directed by the Kremlin.[8]
[ A FALSE ASSUMPTION BY THE AMERICANS, AND THE ONLY ONES WHO BELIEVED
ANYTHING LIKE A DOMINO THEORY WAS REAL ]
At the Geneva Conference [1954] the French negotiated a ceasefire agreement
with the Viet Minh. Independence was granted to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
As a U.S. Army study noted, France lost the war primarily because it
"neglected to cultivate the loyalty and support of the Vietnamese people."[12]
More than 400,000 civilians and soldiers had died during the nine year
conflict.
THE CLINCHER - anti-democratic paranoid self-interested America at it's
best!!!!!!
As dictated by the Geneva Conference of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was
meant to be only temporary, pending national elections on July 20, 1956.
Much as in Korea, the agreement stipulated that the two military zones were
to be separated by a temporary demarcation line (known as the Demilitarized
Zone or DMZ). The United States, alone among the great powers, refused to
sign the Geneva agreement.[16] The president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh
Diem, declined to hold elections. This called into question the United
States' commitment to democracy in the region, but also raised questions
about the legitimacy of any election held in the communist-run North.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed U.S. fears when he wrote that, in
1954, "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho
Chi Minh" over Emperor Bao Dai
.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Exit_of_the_French.2C_1950.E2.80.931954
Then we have the likes of Robert McNamara tell it like it was, and yet still
people don't want to "get it" 50 years later!!! <sheesh>
Shrik...@gmail.com
> "Billzz" <billzzstr...@starband.net> wrote in message
>
> news:51437$48175efc$9440b19b$12...@STARBAND.NET...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sean" <waz...@bro.org> wrote in message
> >news:481753b7$0$13945$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
Cambodia and Laos were indeed taken over by communists.
Then, in 1979, Vietnam did invade Cambodia, to kick
out the Chinese communist regime and replace it with a Soviet
communist regime. To be sure, the Chicoms were worse, but
still....
Matt Wiser
Vietnam analogy to Iraq is not correct. Several things to point out: 1) There is no NVA
equivalent waiting in Syria or Iran to jump in once the U.S. leaves. 2) You're lumping all
Iraqis under the anti-American banner. The Kurds sure don't want us to leave. And the
Shia who don't like the Iranians, or their puppets (Sadr and his thugs-and many of them
are thugs cloaked in the name of religion) feel the same way. And in the ultimate irony, the
Sunnis who haven't left want the U.S. to stay to keep the Kurds and Shia from removing the
Sunnis from the country-in the traditional local manner (extermination or forced relocation).
3) There is no major power supporting the insurgents, who btw, are of many stripes: AQ,
other jihadis not connected to AQ, Saddam loyalists, Sadr's bully-boys, etc, unless you
count Iran. 4) Most Iraqis want democracy, even if it's a bit authoritarian. Few want any sort
of either secular dictatorship (Saddam's loyalists want this), or religious dictatorship (either
Sunni-AQ's goal, or Shia-what Sadr and his Iranian paymasters want). 5) As long as the U.S.
has strategic interests in the Middle East, U.S. forces will be in the neighborhood. And if the
mad mullahs in Tehran do get a nuke, these zealots will be reminded that for a Trident-II
SSBN, delivery will be in 30 minutes, if they're crazy enough to launch one or give one to
Hezbollah or Hamas to use. Even the two Democraps still running admit that U.S. forces will
still be in the region, even after any Iraq drawdown, even if they have to appeal to their loony
left (Moveon.org, Code Pink, etc) base to get the nomination.
Sean
<Mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c290109-1a0a-4631...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> >>(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)
>>
>> > Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
>> > mirages.
>>
>> Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.
>>
>> The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national
>> independence.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> (OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the
>> U.S.,
>> and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)
>
> to use. Vietnam was a cold war stand off between the forces of free
> western society led by the US against Communist (and their now proven
> failed system) led by the USSR and China.
>
PS there's a big difference between
A) Our enemy is also your enemy, therefore we will help you out.
and
B) You are a part of our Communist Empire, and we want to use you to fight
the demon America, so do what we say, and we'll provide you with all the
arms you need.
and
C) Gee thanks, we are screwed in our battle to unite our nation of Vietnam
without arms and other support. So thank you China and USSR, we gratefully
accept your gifts to help defend ourselves against those insane Americans
who are over here on our land!
Versus
D) Oh yes massa China and USSR, we are at ur beck and call and will do
anything for you, including being a servile surrogate to your needs and
puppet state over and above our own self-interests .... your wish is our
command and we will die for the glory of the socialist dictator state
beating western capitalism into the ground worldwide.
Of course, I realise that some folks just can't see any shade whatsoever
when the world is so black and white as they would like it to be. :-))
Sean
<Shrik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dab10d83-8082-405e...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> ha!
LOL ... and the last time you were in Vietnam observing this horrible Soviet
style totalitarian oppresssion was ...................???????????
A: In your dreams maybe.
OMG there goes a "communist" walking down the street, oh lordy preserve us
and save us from this demon lest we fall victim to their evil ways. Quick
wear's me gun ma?
<shaking my head>
Billzz
I was there. In the Mekong Delta 1968, in a special forces camp, with
thirty Cambodian mercenaries. They were very afraid that the communists
would overthrow South Vietnam, and Cambodia (the Khymer Rouge, which was the
Red Cambodians) and Laos (the Pathet Lao) And they did. And many millions
of people died. Many millions of people died. You remember "The Killing
Fields?" The killers were not Americans.
You do not seem to know very much, or you are a communist apologist.
"Vietnam NEVER EVER invaded anyone," you say. The Viet Minth movement was
to cover all of the former Indo-China, so they had different names, but they
were all Viet Minth communists. And they invaded South Vietnam, Cambodia,
and Laos. And killed millions of people. They also, once they had control
of Vietnam, actually invaded China, and got their asses waxed.
You do not seem to know very much about this subject other than being
articulate about things that are wrong. But they are still wrong.
You might want to explain this to the many millions of people that were
killed by the communists, for no reason.
Don't bother answering me. I've learned to save my sanity by not responding
to people who have not been there, and want to argue.
Sean
<Shrik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b1dad8b-7ff3-4b65...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
------------------------
Sean
And Vietnam had what exactly to do with that? They were "friendly"? oh
goodness me what a disaster.
Did the world stop turning and revolving around the sun?
Was 60,000 US soldiers and 2 million Vietnamese lives really worth the
failed attempt to curtail Communism in SE asia .... post Colonial
French/British/German style?
-----------
Then, in 1979, Vietnam did invade Cambodia, to kick
out the Chinese communist regime and replace it with a Soviet
communist regime. To be sure, the Chicoms were worse, but
still....
---------------
Sean:
To kick out the Khmer Rouge NOT the "chinese communist regime" there was NO
Chinese communist regime there, they were CAMBODIANS ..... Vietnam did what
no one else was prepared to do, USA included, after the world knew about the
Killing Fields.
The similarities between the Khmer Rouge and any other Communist style
system was like comparing an elephant with floating space .. iow zero.
Why do you guys get so hung up on labels, like communist and terrorist, and
then try and dumb down the reality of the nuances of life and politics to
play doe? The world is one of colour, not black and white. [ ala America
all good and perfect, all else an axis of evil - sheesh ]
Sean
Yes I know. Millions died indeed. They weren't Americans for sure, BUT they
weren't "Vietnamese" either, they were Cambodians killing Cambodians etc -
their so-called "politics" is irrelevant, they were totally insane /
misguided people.
Howver, that doesn't change the issue that Millions also died in Nth
Vietnam, [ plus cambodia and laos despite denials ] and those killers were
Americans, under orders from the top.
SE Asians, and Americans, both killed millions of SE Asians.
> You do not seem to know very much, or you are a communist apologist.
>
I'm a communist apologist. Make you happy now? You like playing the man, not
the info I see.
> "Vietnam NEVER EVER invaded anyone," you say. The Viet Minth movement was
> to cover all of the former Indo-China, so they had different names, but
> they were all Viet Minth communists. And they invaded South Vietnam,
> Cambodia, and Laos. And killed millions of people. They also, once they
> had control of Vietnam, actually invaded China, and got their asses waxed.
>
I was talking about Vietnam, the nation state, fighting for it's survival.
IT never invaded anyone.
Yes in used Laotion territory for the ho Chi Minh trail, but that's not an
"invasion" ala Iraq. The Viet Minh [ militia ] were not the Government that
won the war against america and the south vietnamese. See the difference?
Vietnam had had border disputes with China for 1000 years, the so called
"invasion" you refer to was another such skuffle. They weren't invading
China or carpet bombing it like the USA did in Laos, Cambodia and Nth
Vietnam.
> You do not seem to know very much about this subject other than being
> articulate about things that are wrong. But they are still wrong.
>
Your entitled to your opinions, as am I. What shall we do about this
impasse?
> You might want to explain this to the many millions of people that were
> killed by the communists, for no reason.
>
Not my responsibility. Everyone has a "reason", no matter how crazy it is.
My view is that had the US Govt in the 50's and early 60's not prevented the
UN sanctioned democratic vote to occur without fear or favour, the whole
Vietnam/Indo China issue would have resolved very quickly with no millions
killed, and not one US soldier killed.
IOW, it was the US involvment itself which created the environment where the
Khmer Rouge came to power, and the killing fields occured. That's my
opinion, disagree if you want.
The bottom line for me is this. Post France, the Indo Chinese people were
best suited to resolve their own problems, and if that meant civil war, and
cross border wars then that was their responsibility. Nothing to do with the
USA, or Australia, and history shows that as soon as Australia, and then
America pulled out, the situation resolved itself within months.
Unfortunately, in the 15 plus years it took to do that, a lot of unnecessary
shit went down, and millions were killed for all sorts of reasons ... mainly
the instability created by such a long running civil war.
Mistakes were made and just about all of them were political ones.
> Don't bother answering me. I've learned to save my sanity by not
> responding to people who have not been there, and want to argue.
>
By all means maintain your sanity, it's precious.
I don't argue, I put my point of view and opinion. If you don't agree, then
that's just fine by me.
Just because you were there, doesn't mean you automatically have an inside
running on all the politics involved that put you there. No one really knows
the whole story because so many have different pieces of it.
I have no problem with Vets who were there, wouldn't change places with you
for millions. You did what you had to do, and I respect that.
The politics of it, the choices made by ongoing US and Australian govts on
the other hand were seriously flawed and short sighted and deadly.
I hope that Special Forces aren't still in Iraq for as long as they were in
Vietnam. It's a total waste of life for everyone involved. I admire McNamara
for continuing to speak out about the errors of the past, and the lessons
there in for today.
take care, and stay sane!! :-)
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
I would add that the U.S. never had any intentions of being fair to the
Vietnamese people, as the U.S. was a very racist society back then. We
supported our white French allies for decades before 1950.
Two U.S. ships were used to bring the French military back in 1945, and I
have a dvd which shows U.S. military markings on the military vehicles
the French drove off the ships in 1945. i.e. we gave them military equipment
to use then.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Son, it is not a prison state. That is a stupid lie, very easy for you to refute.
For starters, Vietnam gets millions of tourists every year who say they can
freely go anywhere and freely talk to the ordinary Vietnamese people. Hardly a prison.
Only a fuckin moron would swallow the shallow propaganda lies you believe.
;-)