RE: State of the Union

RE: State of the Union (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mnottertail -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 11:31:23 AM)
http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview.html

farglebargle -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 11:33:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Again ... when were these "free elections" held? Come on FirmhandKY. Talking about free elections is disingenuous, they only count if people vote in the right government. The Palestinians voted in Hamas and the US and the west won't recognize them. Why did the Palestinians vote in Hamas? Because no one took their moderate government seriously. So much for free and fair elections. More to the point, Why didn't the US want an election to happen in Vietnam, as mandated by the Geneva Accords of 1954, scheduled for 1956?

farglebargle -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 11:38:01 AM)
I was going to bitch about needing to follow a link and read, but then I caught THIS nugget. "Diem passed a series of acts known as Law 10/59 that made it legal to hold someone in jail if they were a suspected Communist without bringing formal charges." Substitute "Terrorist" for "Commie" and it rings true even today, doesn't it?

mnottertail -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 11:39:54 AM)
FB, consider me as part of the silent majority/minority----- LOL, go get 'em Tiger!!!!! Ron

NorthernGent -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 1:31:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Genuinely, I'm not here to talk bollocks. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't say it but in truth I've read countless posts consumed with US casualties and with no regard for Iraqi civilians. Maybe this board isn't representative of the US?, I'll hold my hands up if this is the case. As far as I know, this board is representitive only of the people who regularly post to this board, so I wouldn't base your overall views of the US on what you read here. Still, even if you were to do so, I'm just not seeing people here saying that the only/main reason they are against the war is the casualty count. If you're using other sources to come up with this conclusion, I'd love to hear what they are. No other sources, only this board. As said, it's a recurring theme. I assumed this would be a board of those Americans predisposed to an open mind - maybe I'm wrong. quote: I suppose I'm making a step in the dark by connecting this thought process with opinion polls which once suggested majority support for the invasion (but no longer). The telling point is why these polls changed course - was it due to heavy casualties or something entirely different? You don't follow them, fair enough. I don't follow them because they're generally meaningless. Without knowing a significant amount of data regarding how/where the polls were taken, the "results" they produce are highly suspect at best. It's too easy to put your thumb on the scale to make a poll produce results that "support" a particular position. I'll go with this. There needs to be an understanding of who has been polled and the nature of the questions. Agreed but why do you believe they are "highly suspect at best" if you don't know the circumstances of the poll? Too easy to make a poll to support a particular position? Yeah, there is nothing on this planet that is incapable of being doctored but to dismiss anything out of hand without good evidence? Doesn't make sense to me. ~stef

FirmhandKY -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 1:38:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Also Sinergy never said "popular", that was you putting words in his mouth, he is out making a living right now, but when he gets home I will refer him to your post to him . He just does not happen to be home right now, so I am NOT arguing his point, which what he states is pretty much the way I learned about the tet offensive myself. To be honest, it is getting rather tiresome to read every little attack, every time you take someone's words out of context, restating their positions, why do you not just take what mod 11 asked of us all in that thread and try avoiding the petty go arounds.. I am positive most people on this board are completely sick and tired of what always boils down to a snarkfest No, julia, he never used the word "popular". What he said was "when the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt". If the "entire country" did something, that by definition makes it "popular". *** ... so I am NOT arguing his point ... Yes you are. *** ... it is getting rather tiresome to read every little attack ... As I've mentioned before, there is that little "Block" button. Feel free to use it. Also, I find it ... interesting ... that whenever I correct your, or Sinergy's "facts", it is considered an "attack". Posting a correction to a mis-stated fact isn't an "attack" in my book. It's a public service. [:D] *** ... you take someone's words out of context, restating their positions, ... No, but that is exactly what Sinergy did with caitlyn, and what you did with swtnsparking. The worst I am guilty of, is restating someone's position in a manner that is unappealing to them, in an effort to show them either the hyprocrisy of their position, or to show them the logical conclusion of their arguments. When I do so, I freely admit it, and explain it if it's not understood. I do not do so out of animousity, but from reasons of rhetorical development. *** I am positive most people on this board are completely sick and tired of what always boils down to a snarkfest. uh huh. I'll agree with that. FirmKY

NorthernGent -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 1:52:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I think bush's speeches are well-prepared and intended to satsify customers i.e. the American public. These people are not going to sacrifice what they have - least of all through a lazy, ill-prepared speech. I mean, they have the moeny to buy and pay for a thousand speech writers. If I were American, I'd be much more concerned that people seem to be objecting to Iraq only because US soldiers are dying. For my money, this thought process is fucked up - the idea that it's ok to send the army to another country (knowing full well civilians will die) providing US casualties are kept to a minimum. I would say the neo-cons taking and holding power can be linked to the aforementioned thought process. NorthernGent: I am afraid you have it exactly right. Just like in Viet Nam it was not until middle class white boys started comming home in rubber bags that anyone said anything about how immoral the war was. As long as it is some other nations blood no one gave a shit. Too often we in America look upon these things with a football mentality. My team vs. their team. It is such a laugh to hear someone tell me how many Iraquies died at the hands of the horrible dictator Sodammed Insane...we have killed sooooo many more than he ever did...but then god is on our side and those poor ignorant wogs need to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Then there is the oil and the class A butt fucking the american taxpayer is getting from Haliburton. thompson Nice post thompson. There is an air of superiority in the West which is dangerous because it allows for blatant disregard, racism and, at the extreme end of the spectrum, invasions. One of Tolstoy's main thrusts in War and Peace was don't blame the government. Meglomaniacs give orders but the key to understanding history and events is in understanding why men follow and why society either aggressively supports such actions or passively stands by and watches. With the exception of a few completely despotic regimes, it is ridiculous to explain history through the actions of a government. This is the hypocrisy of the right - they're all "personal responsibility" but when the government does something they don't like it's "blame the government" - complete inconsistency. In my opinion, governments or extremists in any society are not the problem. We all have them. It is the majority who believe themselves to be upstanding citizens but hold barely concealed delusions of ethnic superiority - both culturally and on religious grounds. It is this that breeds Islamophobia and bigotry and in its extreme allows a government to invade a country and murder civilians. It's not that far removed from the Nazis demonisation of the Slavs and Jews - they were unter-mensch and the underpinning factor was ethnic superiority - they took it to an extreme but the root of the issue was the same. All you need is an imperialist government, economic instability (both growth and recession) and a sense of ethnic superiority and it is a lethal cocktail. The insecurity is there, the scapegoat is there and the driving force is there. Blaming the government is the get out of jail free card. A large slice of soul-searching is in order - why did so many Americans and British support what is basically slaughter for economic gain. Those who consider themselves respectable but support/ed this are far more dangerous than the extremists. The christian right can only flourish because there is a shared common denominator among the civilian population.

stef -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 2:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent No other sources, only this board. As said, it's a recurring theme. Can you point out instances of this recurring theme? I honestly don't recall anyone voicing that particular view here. quote: I assumed this would be a board of those Americans predisposed to an open mind - maybe I'm wrong. This board has just as many people "predisposed to an open mind" as most other public venues. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. quote: I'll go with this. There needs to be an understanding of who has been polled and the nature of the questions. Agreed but why do you believe they are "highly suspect at best" if you don't know the circumstances of the poll? Because without being able to somehow verify the validity of the poll, the numbers have no weight. quote: Too easy to make a poll to support a particular position? Yeah, there is nothing on this planet that is incapable of being doctored but to dismiss anything out of hand without good evidence? Doesn't make sense to me. Then we can simply agree to disagree. I've seen too many skewed polls, a couple even offered as 'proof' of a particular point in these forums, to take them at face value. You're welcome to believe whatever you wish. ~stef

swtnsparkling -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 2:20:58 PM)
quote: juliaoceania You know I have noticed that many on these boards tend to get bent out of shape yes you do below you say: quote: No one has to base their opinions on facts so which is it? no one has too but if they dont , quote: they fail to support what they say quote: Ya know, it is not bullying to ask someone to explain their position It is when some one tells you any number of times what their opinion is- but you wont let go of it . Just accept that is what they think- and you dont agree. quote: No one has to base their opinions on facts, but those who do tend to be better at debate and also are more persuasive than those who do not do so. Are not better at debating you just say the same thing over and over. Of course you move words around- add words never said -replace one word with another - (oh yes and stick some links in there) Your still still saying same thing and it's not persuasive at all. It's boreing

NorthernGent -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 2:27:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent No other sources, only this board. As said, it's a recurring theme. Can you point out instances of this recurring theme? I honestly don't recall anyone voicing that particular view here. No, I don't record them. I'll give you a shout when I see one. quote: I assumed this would be a board of those Americans predisposed to an open mind - maybe I'm wrong. This board has just as many people "predisposed to an open mind" as most other public venues. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. I would have thought there has been a fair amount of soul-searching gone on within the BDSM community - hence, open mind - hence, considered opinion. quote: I'll go with this. There needs to be an understanding of who has been polled and the nature of the questions. Agreed but why do you believe they are "highly suspect at best" if you don't know the circumstances of the poll? Because without being able to somehow verify the validity of the poll, the numbers have no weight. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. If you share something with me I have to be able to shed some light on the weakness of your argument befor I pour scorn on it. Same with a poll. quote: Too easy to make a poll to support a particular position? Yeah, there is nothing on this planet that is incapable of being doctored but to dismiss anything out of hand without good evidence? Doesn't make sense to me. Then we can simply agree to disagree. I've seen too many skewed polls, a couple even offered as 'proof' of a particular point in these forums, to take them at face value. You're welcome to believe whatever you wish. Of course I am. I wouldn't take a poll as gospel but neither would I dismiss it out of hand. A poll is like scholarly research. It's primary source information, you look at the author and look at the extent of the research and then make a judgement. It seems wanton to dismiss a poll without knowing who has done what. ~stef

caitlyn -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 5:16:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania It makes about as much sense as you referring to someone as a bully because they were trying to debate an issue based upon facts ... Sinergy was not accused of beng a bully for wanting to debate with facts. He was accused because he got after people for not answering questions, that he never asked in the first place. People responded. What did you expect them to do? I know you have a relationship with him, and are doing your duty. That's admirable, but doesn't change the words that everyone here can read for themselves. My final word ... before it turns into flames, with people I respect too much to flame with. [:D]

farglebargle -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 5:30:27 PM)
You know what? I ask the same freaking question over and over and NEVER get an answer....

FirmhandKY -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 5:39:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Just because the actions took place within the borders of South Vietnam, doesn't make it a "revolt" unless you are making the argument that Vietnam was a single nation, and that the invasion by the North was nothing more than an attempt by the legitimate government trying to regain control over rebellious provinces. I do hate repeating myself, but it's apropos. True or False? By the Geneva Accords of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending free elections for a national leadership. The Diem government refused to enter into negotiations to hold the stipulated elections. The government of South Vietnam justified its refusal to comply with the Geneva Accords by virtue of the fact it had not signed them. FB, I haven't argued the Vietnam war for years, nor studied it in at least 15 years, but that is really immaterial to my reply to your point. You seem to trying to make a point that the war was illegitmate because it was the US's fault that "popular elections" were never held. My point is that they weren't held for the simple fact that it was recognized that the Communist North had no interest in open, fair "popular elections". It was just a propaganda ploy on their part (and on the part of their supporters - knowingly or unknowingly) to paint the US as an imperialistic power in order to win the propaganda war. An effective one, as demonstrated by your continuing support of that position. But the fact that they never were interested in open and fair elections is borne out in that even now, more than 20 years after they gained control of the entire country, they have yet to have "open, fair and free elections". So, arguing the minutiae of the 1954 situation is pointless. What are your reasons for doing so? FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 5:41:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You know what? I ask the same freaking question over and over and NEVER get an answer.... Patience is a virtue, FB. Get some. [:D] FirmKY

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 5:51:55 PM)
vietnam and the middle east is whole different ball game.WE are in the mid east on a major oil grab and in vietnam we were invited to help save their country.WE would have too except the bleeding heart liberals that demanded a with draw.I am totaly against our involvement in the middle east any where but our troops are there and I will support them to the end.BUSH got us there and he knows it not his problem now but the next president job..AS one that was taken off the roof of our embassy, I never want to see our troops in that position again...WILLIAM

Sinergy -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 6:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The sea change in Vietnam was after years of Johnson et al, telling people that it was a police action with minimal activity on the part of the US, came when the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt during the Chinese New Year (Tet offensive) and attacked each and every US military base in the entire country. People started to go "huh" and the term "credibility gap" was born. Incorrect "fact" here. Again. The "entire country of Vietnam" did not raise up in revolt. The Tet Offensive was the effort of the North - through primarily it's conventional armed forces - to finish the war once and for all. It was totally unsuccessful, militarily. The North Vietnamese Regular armed forced were basically destroyed, and not used for a major offensive again until the American services had been pulled out in the early 70s. It was a resounding military defeat for the NVA regulars. However, a certain well known and respected media personality (Cronkite) - who had no understanding about military affairs, and is - now - a well known "left of center" individual, took it upon himself to declare military defeat, without knowing or understanding what exactly had transpired. As a result, he caused the preception of the war within both the American public, and at the White House to change. A major propaganda defeat for the US effort. But "entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt" is misleading, inaccurate and ... not a "fact". FirmKY Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a complete and utter failure. What it did do was let the people in the United States know that all of Johnson's twaddle about police action and being supported by the people of Vietnam was incorrect. As far as the whole North / South thing, you are aware that the United States partitioned the country in two, thinking that all the good people would go south and the bad people would go north. The fact that the United States created an arbitrary border does not logically prove the fact that North was all bad and South was all good. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 6:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY No, julia, he never used the word "popular". What he said was "when the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt". If the "entire country" did something, that by definition makes it "popular". This is incorrect. The logical device you are using is "Straw Man." I used the term "entire country" as a means of indicating that the military action on the Tet new year covered an entire geographic area. You took my use of the term "entire country" to mean that every Vietnamese was involved, and then developed an entire argument to try to shoot down what you thought I meant. I am not going to apologize for your misunderstanding. If you were uncertain about my meaning, you could have theoretically asked for clarification, as opposed to launching an all-out attack. Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 7:14:28 PM)
The sea change in Vietnam was after years of Johnson et al, telling people that it was a police action with minimal activity on the part of the US, came when the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt during the Chinese New Year (Tet offensive) and attacked each and every US military base in the entire country. People started to go "huh" and the term "credibility gap" was born. Sinergy Sinergy: That just is not so....perhaps you ought to consult a history book before you make such a statement. thompson

Sinergy -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 7:21:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The sea change in Vietnam was after years of Johnson et al, telling people that it was a police action with minimal activity on the part of the US, came when the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt during the Chinese New Year (Tet offensive) and attacked each and every US military base in the entire country. People started to go "huh" and the term "credibility gap" was born. Sinergy Sinergy: That just is not so....perhaps you ought to consult a history book before you make such a statement. thompson I have. There were a number of sea changes, I did not mean to sound exclusive. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: State of the Union (1/25/2007 7:24:40 PM)
quote: My point is that they weren't held for the simple fact that it was recognized that the Communist North had no interest in open, fair "popular elections". Wrong. that is nowhere near the or a fact. I am from an age when it was French-Indochina and The Ugly American was a popular read. I see your age and know what history you studied. Perhaps, if you wiki Nguyen Cao Ky or read the vassar link you will widen the perspective, then again, at the age you were indoctrinated with that horseshit, you may never be shed of it. Ron

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02