[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003)
We lost a major conflict in Vietnam, not just because they were supported by the Soviets, not just because we were overly confident in our technological prowess in the face of an entrenched populace that found our presence highly unpopular, and not just because we allowed domestic politics to overwhelm tactical strategy in the field that compromised the security of our forces, we lost because we grew tired of being an oppressor occupying someone else's country, a people whose desire for freedom every common soldier could sympathize with, a country where the corruption of the leadership was evident and we were the bulwark that supported those despots and tyrants.
Contradiction is paradox, we can't keep going around talking about how we defend liberty, justice, and socioeconomic freedom while at the same time for reasons of "Real Politick" prop up every tin pot dictator that is convenient for our purposes and cause an almost unprecedented consolidation of wealth in fewer hands on a global scale.
Kissinger said:
I agree with your overall assessment of why we lost Vietnam. Keep in mind that all of the elements that you listed were partially responsible, especially domestic politics influencing tactical strategy. We were simply unwilling to pay the price that the North Vietnamese were willing to pay. The North Vietnamese lost 1.1 million, we lost 58,000. Its all a matter of how far you are willing to go.
[/quote]
Yes, How far are you willing to go?
The Pentagon is currently examining the feasibility of utilizing Bunker Busting Nuclear Weapons. If this is such a lopsided conflict, if they represent no viable threat to us then why are we contemplating this unprecedented application of technological superiority in the name of denying the opposing party the ability to access this same type of weapon?
Such tactics don't give the impression to either our allies or our enemies of confident strength and disciplined ethical standards of foreign relationships, it instead presents us as cowardly hypocrites and panicked spoiled bullies that are all too willing to respond to a small threat with irrational excess.
"Overkill" is not a rational "Foreign Strategy" unless we are intent on eventually killing all opposition. I don't believe that our government will opt for this approach but it is time to realize that as long as we keep such an arsenal in existence that eventually we run the risk of a leadership cadre of weaker ethical character that will succumb to the easy temptation for their use. When do we discuss openly it will take for us to put down our arms?
Perhaps unilateral disarmament is only slightly more rational than MAD but it is the difference of potential outcomes that the two strategies hold that makes a vital distinction.
[quote]
The corruption of the South Vietnamese leadership is a different matter all together. It is hard to set up a viable democracy under such hostile circumstances. If we were able to win in Vietnam I think that Vietnam would have eventually resembled a present day South Korea. A thriving capitalist democracy.
[/quote]
What if...?
I happen to agree with the basic sentiment that we were on the wrong side of that conflict, and had been since we betrayed our WWII alliance with Ho Chi Min established through the OSS to fight the Japanese. But in this we are not the lone gunman, the sole guilty party, in fact we were little more than the hired thugs brought in by our more sophisticated cousins and partners the French and British.
We nobly and ignorantly moved in to prop up French and British Colonial interests in that region because they were in no position to after the war's end. Did you know that we released divisions of Japanese Prisoners of War and rearmed them to go back in and occupy Vietnam in the immediate period after WWII's conclusion because there were no available Allied troops? We used the Japanese troops as some of the first "Peace Keepers" in that region and ironically they were many of the same troops that had been the Imperial Forces of Occupation just a few years before.
The division and corruption of Vietnam was a legacy created by European Colonization and their willing complicity at manipulating the local populous through graft and suppression. We were too ignorant of the details, blind to the pleas of our own field operatives, and complicit in the corrupt acquisition of profits from drugs (the illegal kind), oil, rubber and territory. The territory was seen as a political expedient and necessary for creating a ring around China and the Soviet Union. Do you play dominoes?
When French operatives silenced our field observers through murder, our own Chief of Security (Allan Dulles) at the OSS turned a blind eye. It also quieted the reports coming from that region that the character of the nationalist interests of Ho Chi Min weren't fanatical demagoguery's of communism but in fact closer to Social Democracy that had a strong free market tradition. One that could have been exploited in exactly the fashion you have described in order to bring peace and security to the region. Of course then the French would have had to leave and the British investors in that region would have been seriously impacted financially and the entire process would have been excruciatingly slow to develop.
[quote]
When you speak of propping up dictators I assume you are referring predominately to the Middle East. The reason that we have done this in the past is because regimes that we have in our pocket are easy to control. [/quote]
So we have turned a blind eye to murder, oppression, and tyranny simply because it was easy?
We have encouraged torture and trained operatives in these tactics world wide because at the same time we can say that we do not intentionally bomb civilian targets; we do it ignorantly, incompetently, and with the apparent sacrifice of our own friendly forces. All for the importance of plausible deniability?
The motive and lure of extravagant excess profits (as distinguished from "legitimate profit motive"), petty greed, blind ambition and the avarice of power had nothing to do with this? Certainly not the convenient loss of "Uriah like Officers" and their civilian loving soldiers of Cincinnatus, those damn drafted citizen's that won't shoot their neighbors?
The fog of war has historically been used to cover many, many crimes. Crimes whose motives were causal, not just risked in the battles being waged. Crimes against comrades in arms not just the fallen foe. When you go to war you had better trust those that cover your back.
What of our own nation's illustrious domestic history in all this? Tell us all please of the difference between Caesar and Cincinnatus? And the importance of a League?
Address Eisenhower's (A Republican General and President) farewell speech from executive office, please compare it to George Washington's; do you sense a common theme?
Please explain this apparent subversion of these quintessential leaders and military men to such "Left Wing" notions? For grins and giggles try to explain why Grant tried to kill himself with drink? And old "Bully Pulpit" Teddy "Bear" Roosevelt's (Another radical environmentalist socialist predator and Republican President General) conversion to such misguided doctrine and policy toward the end of their rule?
Yes you do come to see it is all about profit. So tell us all please of the ethical difference between illegal and legal profit? Or do you as some argue, see this as a false dichotomy?
[quote]
A regime will do what is in its own self interest. Does this inequality in the Arab world breed terrorism?
[/quote]
Before I return to your answers to these questions I'll like to take this moment to interrupt your rhetoric and answer for myself.
But while you prepare your repartee please ponder first another question to your question.
Define the Self-Interest of a Nation?
Make sure that this is not an application of the Royal "We". Your self interest is not necessarily my self-interest. Demonstrate how we are defending common interest?
In fact show me how our self-interests are not in fact in competition?
You have made a big assumption that because of statistics and averages that you even know my self-interest. In fact you have never bothered to ask and I have not said.
Peace is in my self-interest.
Whoops... Uh oh... That means I'm a Left Wing...
Oh, no lets get our terminology right...
Radical Commie Tree Hugging Extremist with a cell waiting at Camp X-Ray, so I couldn't really be self-interested in global peace and security, I must have an ulterior motive.
Yes, we are complicit in pandering and profiting from collusion with these same groups that you are writing off as little more corrupt thugs beyond redemption. So what part do you think we play in their redemption or is it all just a matter of retribution?
Now here is your answer.
[quote]
Yes, but its not the only factor. The real problem with the Arab world is that their culture is inferior.
[/quote]
I can't let this go by...
Can you spell ignorant, arrogant, pompous, ass?
Could you please turn your head for this simple profile of the Ugly American?
You said something about having ambitions of the diplomatic corps?
Quaint...
[quote]
They have never had an enlightenment.
[/quote]
Please demonstrate how you have been enlightened by killing Iraqi's?
Oh no, now we aren't talking about Iraqi's, no you have expanded the theme, we are referring to the entire Islamic world, Sufi's and B'hai alike. No impression of a disguised evangelical message of Crusade here...
Of course they are not enlightened, they aren't like us...
So we just have to go and try to fix em, eh?
Could you also talk a little of what you are so confident you know of Islam?
And when did conversion become the issue?
I thought that we were only talking about regime change?
And WMD disarmament?
[quote]
I am not sure that we can reform them effectively. Iraq is going to be the test case.
[/quote]
And who do we have lined up for our next test?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I will get into antidisestablishmentarianism if you like make an attempt to disabuse you of such faith in your official position but I really would prefer that you simply try enlightening someone, anyone, take me for example.
Can you prove (to me if no one else) that killing is enlightening?
[quote]
If we can't initiate effective reform in Iraq, then we will have to rule them with an iron fist, focusing on suppressing terrorist organizations in the Middle East and having superior homeland security.
[/quote]
When you say reform, spell it out, put terms on the table and negotiate them, but be ready to back your hand and that means putting your money where your mouth is not just weapons in hands. All Europe and Asia are watching Afghanistan and they don't see such a glorious success as the American public is lead to believe.
We started it and now it is our responsibility to finish it but instead we have decided to change theaters of operation and everyone is asking why?
And now implying that this somehow directly links to al Qaeda is something few buy into even if it has more than a grain of truth.
We helped create al Qaeda too, bin Laden is a Harvard gradute and his Muhajedeen got their original organizational training and funding from some of the same men now trying to kill him.
I guess it is a case of practice makes perfect and his possible ties with his former enemy are just more important than the fact that he is now an enemy of his former friend.
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003)Iraq is just the beginning and there is no end in sight.
I agree completely.
[/quote]
Good, I 'm so glad we got that out of the way.
Ünd now?
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003)What we have not done is lay out a strategy that deals with this relationship in a realistic and respectful manner that will garner more long term support instead of making enemies that will pursue our destruction for generations to come. We have yet to define the true character of Pax Americana. History is not yet written on this issue. We are writing it now.
Iraq is a surrogate, a diversion, and a devious ploy at manipulating the global political scenario by creating an example for global edification. The example could backfire as the President did with regard to Korea. Yes they had flagrantly disregarded the "concessions" the Clinton administration had given, but we could have timed our rhetoric to have caused less distraction when we sought to focus our attention on specific, still poorly met threats.
I agree that we must address the concerns about the legitimacy of government in a modern global state, I agree that we must determine the legitimate areas of technological development that do not foster MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as the basis of political relationships and I agree that now is the time to determine the course of human development for years to come by the actions that we, not just a Nation, but as the First World take, the reasons for them, and the results that we reap.
And you replied:
Argh, your foreign policy is so liberal! "...respectful manner that will garner more long term support instead of making enemies that will pursue our destruction..."
How can you be so confident that the people you are trying to win over can be won over?
Second, are you willing to allow our foreign policy to be restrained because we are afraid of a negative reaction from the Arab world?
[/quote]
I already addressed your name calling separately.
I am an experienced traveler. I have traveled and done business abroad extensively, managed minor legal issues with foreign governments. Do you understand how to communicate cross-culturally?
Please before we continue this vein explain how to do business with people that don't share your language and customs, or even your standards of currency?
I will give you a piece of advice.
You start by being polite.
Generally speaking wearing weapons to diner is frowned upon and when I have felt the need to do business armed as a measure of market character I have found that it was time to change professions.
You know, Mutually Assured Support sounds so much more intriguing than Mutually Assured Destruction.
Oh but such long term interdependent relationships can be so tiring, exasperating, and demanding.
Kind of like Social Welfare programs.
Oh I forgot...
[!] Achhh CIRA... [!]
Different thread...
Is it really?
Perdon moi
[quote]
Once again, it all depends on whether reform in the Arab world is possible.[/quote]
You learned how to wipe your ass early I see, Which hand do you use?
Most certainly, you are a born diplomat.
[quote]
And then you go and bring up North Korea. You have a lot of balls trying to pin that one on the current administration. I'm sick of playing the blame game on North Korea. The problem spans over many administrations. I'll just say that the Clinton administration was naive and history will not look favorably upon it's policies of appeasement and deferment. Be honest, he front loaded the 94 Agreed Framework.
[/quote]
I am quite honest, dangerously so. It is frightening to many people the level of honesty I demand, first of myself and then of the universe. The openness of deep space is not a threat but a promise.
I didn't bring Korea up, the President did...
A year ago tonight.
All you say of Clinton is true and more I might add.
I didn't vote for him, did you?
[quote]
MAD is indicative of the human condition. We don't trust each other. [/quote]
Here you have for once said something that I can respectfully agree with. If you had only stopped to think at this point.
How do we build such trust?
[quote]
The problem with MAD is that we are no longer willing to grant MAD status to small rogue states. When the relationship between two nations is so disproportionate MAD turns into nuclear blackmail. That is one of the reasons we are developing missile defense. The other reason is that the principles of MAD are no longer intact. A DoD study that took place last year found that a missile launch from a cargo ship with an erect mobile missile launcher was not only possible, but probable. Such an attack would have no signature (return address), thus MAD would not be applicable in such a scenario.
[/quote]
The problem with MAD is that it is a logical certainty that the longer we rely on this underpinning for foreign relations the more probable its final application.
Ending Mutually Assured Destruction as an official government policy should take precedence over ending Affirmative Action as one. But they share the aspect of policies of limited return with greater and greater levels of unacceptable loss the longer they are applied.
I may not be a liberal but I am kinda lively for an ol' coot, in fact I down right cherish life.
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003) Why? Oil? Get a bike.
You said succinctly:
Get real
[/quote]
I am quite real.
I don't need the oil, obviously you do.
I guess we will have to talk about your "neediness" in this matter.
Or perhaps I didn't make myself quite clear...
Keep the oil, in fact I think we can do much better with less.
Self-interest you say.
I think that the market would slow down quick if people stopped using it, kinda like other addictive substances. The hardest thing about overcoming any addiction is getting past the denial phase.
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003)Both, independently were failed Democratic experiments before the war and we destroyed the forces that had come to internally overrule the democratic intentions of an evolving educated populace. We did so at enormous cost both in lives and wealth and we reaped a profit historically by the greatest advantage any experienced combatant will comprehend, we turned an enemy into a friend.
Our security rests in having succeeded in ameliorating the forces of militarism, poverty, and ignorance that were the fertile fields of traditional opposition to change. But while we helped and cultivated these post war fledgling democracies they could not, nor would not exist today were it not the desire of these peoples.
Our security does not rest alone upon the fact that we still have bases of operation that represent occupational forces in these Nations to this day almost 60 years after the conflict is over. These democracies do not exist solely because of our security forces in place.
You said:
Japan was never a democracy until after WWII.
My only point about the troops was to point out that when we put our troops somewhere they stay there. Of course it is absurd to suggest that the only reason there is democracy in Germany and Japan is because of our troops. The troops are symbolic and political in nature. And sometimes a trip wire, like in South Korea.
Thinking that the entire Arab world will become democracies over night is naive, but over the course of many decades it may be possible. I am an optimist. Until that point in the utopic future, force may be needed in many instances. By making Iraq home turf we will have an easier time in pursuing offensive operation against other nations in the region.
If you really want to make a comparative analyses between Germany/Japan and the modern Arab world you would have to conclude that we first have to conquer, then enlighten.
[/quote]
So you do agree that we will have to bring back the draft in order to maintain these occupational forces spread out on a global scale?
Naww, no resemblance what so ever to the Roman Legionnaire Forts spread to the corners and intersections of their Empire. You must be right, I don't seem to see the importance of raising repeated historical examples of parallel behaviors from former founding ruling political state models, do you?
I called MacArthur the "American Shogun", usually they like to refer to him as Caesar.
The debate among those that care is whether the only two endgame strategies are Marshall Plan versus NATO's Bosnia.
Thomas, I think from what I know of you would prefer the Bosnia Plan over the go it alone approach.
Or would you like us to just jump in and get it the hell, over kick their butts and move into the neighborhood for a half century or two?
That happens a lot over there I hear.
I am open to hear some new options.
I love creative thinking. It is so much more pleasurable than thinking about destroying things. Oh and worse, then having to clean up the mess. It is always so much more cost effective to just blow up neighborhoods then go through all the political hassle of negotiating with the citizens in order to do something good for them.
How about this for a diplomatic test,
Have you ever been a beat cop diffusing a riot?
What part of Parens Patria includes the Patronizing Patriarchal part?
[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003)Calling the mullahs of Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" has as much political validity as them calling US the "Great Satan". It hasn't helped to poke sticks angrily into every nest of hornets we see. A little subtlely would go much farther. There is an untested Democratic tradition in Iran that our interest in is suspect, and the interests of both ourselves and our European allies are mistrusted. And there is good historical reason to find us wanting.
and you said:
One word for you and Iran--Carter.
[/quote]
One word is not an answer, and in this case it is merely a petty attempt to change the subject. Carter didn't create the Ayatollah's revolution anymore than he created SAVAC.
In fact as I already alluded to your namesake was a member of the cadre that in fact did create SAVAC. The excesses of our puppet Peacock contributed as much if not more to the problem. Now instead of continuing quiet negotiations that had been bearing fruit we instead throw caution to the wind along with opportunity.
Killing is so easy, and it beats feeding the sick uneducated poor children, go ahead and just write them off as collateral damage. See how long the American public likes seeing the burning babies.
Oh that's right''. Silly me.
I forgot we don't show those pictures anymore, bad for ratings, bad for business, bad for keeping the masses in line and they don't really want to see those kinds of things now do they? Oh no they would much rather drive around in a SUV, imagining them self on safari.
Anyway that stuff is all classified, gotta protect the troops after all.
[quote]
You are missing the whole point in labeling Iran part of the Axis of Evil. First, the term "Axis of Evil" was made directly after the 9/11 attacks. No one was criticizing Bush at the time. Second, it is not the people of Iran that are "evil", it is the regime. We were putting Iran on notice--"Stop state sponsoring terror or we're going to stomp you."
[/quote]
Oh my, I see. I missed the whole point.
Tell me what you know of the Iranian regime, politics, and people?
Tell me of their language, poetry, and history?
When you've said Wahaddhi you've said it all I suppose?
Shya! Whadda country!
The Sunni you start talking about the nuances of your chosen enemy the sooner you stand a chance of doing something constructive.
I apologize for my rudeness after all I can't help myself the pun is the lowest form of human.
[quote]
Why do we have to be subtle? Are you afraid we will offend them?
[/quote]
You are correct you are not very subtle. You are also not very effective at making a friend out of an enemy. Define winning?
And while you are examining that add the difference between revenge and victory?
The first step to victory for any warrior is to know the enemy. Actually Neitzche like Jesus even says it is to love one's enemy.
[quote]
Thomas added:
I agree with Kissinger here.
I hope, US will be strong enough, to prevail against almost all other (hypocritical) countries in this case.
- Thomas
--------------------
Singularity ... too good, to not make it true!
[/quote]
Actually I can honestly say I happen to agree with you Thomas and more than anybody else's, I pray we prevail against our own hypocrisy.
I addressed this earlier in the text as well and I added the following in response to one of your argument's, Kissinger:
Link BackSlashing in fencing, like debate, is useful for deflection, but you only score with the point.
This topic is locked
