Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: State of the Union


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: State of the Union Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 7:28:01 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

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.


I didn't ask for an argument. I asked a question, in 3 parts.

In THEORY I should have gotten back, some sort of combination of "TRUE" and "FALSE".

quote:


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.


No, I am asking a 3 part True/False question.

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".


Well, that's not the way it reads. Looks like the UN, and everyone else EXCEPT Diem wanted them. What did Diem have to fear from elections? open and fair? We can't do Open and Fair in fucking OHIO according to the convictions handed down this week, so that's a strawman, isn't it?

quote:


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.


quote:


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".


Why should they? They were SCHEDULED for 1956, and it's the US's fault ( via Diem ) and the UN, so why should anyone give a shit what Just Another Broken Treaty means?

quote:



So, arguing the minutiae of the 1954 situation is pointless. What are your reasons for doing so?



The ends do not justify the means. If you begin in evil or stupidity, you will end in evil or stupidity.

Just because it looked like "The Wrong Party" would have won the 56 elections, was no reason for the US to meddle.

And it cost what? 50,000 Dead Americans? 5,000,000 Dead Vietnamese?



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 7:31:27 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER

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


I am with you for quite a bit of this, other than the withdraw and invite, I never saw an ARVN that passed up a vacation when it was time to do the deeds, nor did I ever see the cocksuckers in the thick of the fray....your milage might have been better, but you got some time on me, but again, you say the roof, so maybe you seen shit I didn't but I doubt it..  AS I HAVE stated when war is (right or wrong) KU FU CHI SUI KA and especially KA...and we ain't got it, and we ain't gonna get it so get the fuck out.

End of joke.

Ron


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BOUNTYHUNTER)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 7:32:42 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

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.


Your exact words were:
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.

The common sense meaning of the phrase "the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt" does not include a sense of geography in the manner you are now claiming.  In other words, a "country" as in "terrain" can't "raise up in revolt".  It's the people who revolt.

The hidden context of your statement is that the US was unpopular with the population of the South, that the SV government was unpopular with the population of the South, and they "rose up in revolt" against the imperialistic US and it's puppet government in SV by attacking "each and every US military base".

Whether or not you recognized this inherent bias, or whether or not you intentionally phrased your statement the way you did - on purpose - is immaterial.

It is a factually incorrect statement the way it was phrased.

Now, "attacked each and every US military base in the entire country" has a geographical sense, and I'd accept your geographical reasoning in that part of the statement.  But that's the second, reinforcing phrase to your main thesis.  In other words, it attempts to strengthen your original false claim that "the entire country of Vietnam raised up in revolt".  It has no meaning otherwise.

As far as any "launching an all out attack",  please reference my words to julia about the difference between an "attack" and the correcting of inaccurate statements of fact. 

I choose not to address your "I am not going to apologize for your misunderstanding" statement.

FirmKY

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 7:39:59 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The hidden context of your statement is that the US was unpopular with the population of the South, that the SV government was unpopular with the population of the South, and they "rose up in revolt" against the imperialistic US and it's puppet government in SV by attacking "each and every US military base".



My hidden context?

Get that off the psychic hotline?

You are lumping all the people in the South as being pro-US, and all the people in the North as being anti-Us.  I am simply pointing out that it was never so cut and dried, despite how much McNamara and Johnson wanted it to be so.  An arbitrary line was drawn between the two, and people in the US were told that all the Bad People were to the north, while all the Good People were to the south. 

Argue against it all you want, but despite the carpet bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail, Laos, Cambodia, and most of Vietnam, what would be considered "terrorist" attacks continued over most of the south.

Sinergy

quote:



Now, "attacked each and every US military base in the entire country" has a geographical sense, and I'd accept your geographical reasoning in that part of the statement. 



But this would be factually incorrect, so I am unlikely to make that claim.

But feel free if you want to.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 7:42:15 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

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.


Not wrong.

Nguyen Cao Ky and his election and political career has nothing to do with the proposed "popular election" mentioned in the Geneva Accords in 1954 for the reunification of Vietnam.

We are talking entirely different issues.

FirmKY

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 7:46:39 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		Your words condemn you better than I ever could.

FirmKY


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 7:58:49 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Juliaoceana:
I find the wikipedia analysis  of the 68 tet offensive less than accurate.  I spent a little time there and as I remember it in 1965 the ARVN forces were deserting at a rate about 10 times higher that your post.  Closer to 100 per 1000.
The ARVN forces seldom inflicted heavy losses on any one.  Their flag pretty much summed it up red for the blood they seldom shed and yellow for the reason why.  There were a few top notch units in the ARVN but you could count them on the fingers of one hand and have left overs.
As for the tet offensive of 68 breaking the back of the NVA,  I would suggest you check with someone from the 26th. marines who had to deal with the broken back of the NVA for almost 3 months at Khe Sahn before we could get them some relief.
thompson

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 8:03:59 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

The ARVN forces seldom inflicted heavy losses on any one.


Other than by their lack of conviction, motherfuckers.....on RA(regular army for those who don't know, as well as those who might have been of a different branch)  

End of Joke.

Ron


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 8:05:09 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		My point was that  the Tet Offensive was primarily a military operation intended to subjugate another nation, and not any kind of "popular" revolt, as Sinergy seemed to be implying.

FirmhandKY:
I do not know why you think Viet Nam was two countries.  It never was.  It was not then and is not now.
thompson

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 8:17:21 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Well, my point being, don't waltz in to anywhere to save a motherfucker that don't want saving, unless you are gonna own the fucking country, you are just gonna put an eye out, and owning shit by proxy  has never and never will work.

Never teach a pig to fly; they can't,
and it just pisses off the fuckin' pig...

Iran/Iraq/Vietnam  --- it is all the same fuckin deal, regardless of what perfume you stuff up its ass and regardless of who the speechwriters are and how they write it so a fuckin idiot can read it.  The only thing not said, 'We  are winning the war of attrition.' is the deal of escalation and throwing good money after bad, we ain't doing good work and handling any kinda shit in there by tossing 20,000 more bodies at it....police actions are worthless we aint good police, kill motherfuckers, or stay home.

Right or wrong, there is no other alternative---the shit is called war.

Ron


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 8:23:47 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

My point was that  the Tet Offensive was primarily a military operation intended to subjugate another nation, and not any kind of "popular" revolt, as Sinergy seemed to be implying.

FirmhandKY:
I do not know why you think Viet Nam was two countries.  It never was.  It was not then and is not now.
thompson



It sticks in my mind that that Tet Offensive was never intended to subjegate the country.  What it was intended to do was to convince the US occupying forces that they were not actually wanted in the country, in the same sense that Dien Bien Phu convinced the French to pack up their toys and go home.

It has been 26 years, but if I can remember the source I will post it.

Militarily it was a resounding defeat, but it went a long way towards convincing the rest of the world and the non-jingoistic red-paranoid American's that our involvement in Indochina was not something the locals wanted.

Sinergy



_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 8:26:49 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

The ARVN forces seldom inflicted heavy losses on any one.


Other than by their lack of conviction, motherfuckers.....on RA(regular army for those who don't know, as well as those who might have been of a different branch)  

End of Joke.

Ron



Ron:
I was never in the army but I do know what RA means
thompson

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 8:29:45 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Dear Mr Thompsonx,

I meant absolutely no disrespect to the suck, by my explication.  Chesty Puller is a fuckin hero of mine.

Ron


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 8:57:38 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Dear Mr Thompsonx,

I meant absolutely no disrespect to the suck, by my explication.  Chesty Puller is a fuckin hero of mine.

Ron



Ron:
.
There is a new and somewhat more accurate biography by Jon Hoffman ...it is titled Chesty.  It is a pretty good read and well footnoted.
thompson

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 9:17:32 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		I will give it a read, seriously...am I gonna lose another hero?

Ron


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 10:26:51 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Juliaoceana:
I find the wikipedia analysis  of the 68 tet offensive less than accurate.  I spent a little time there and as I remember it in 1965 the ARVN forces were deserting at a rate about 10 times higher that your post.  Closer to 100 per 1000.
The ARVN forces seldom inflicted heavy losses on any one.  Their flag pretty much summed it up red for the blood they seldom shed and yellow for the reason why.  There were a few top notch units in the ARVN but you could count them on the fingers of one hand and have left overs.
As for the tet offensive of 68 breaking the back of the NVA,  I would suggest you check with someone from the 26th. marines who had to deal with the broken back of the NVA for almost 3 months at Khe Sahn before we could get them some relief.
thompson


I will never claim to be 1) a statistician or 2) an expert on all things Vietnam. If you can support what you state in this post, please notify Wikipedia so that it becomes an even more reliable source of information... that is why ol Wiki works



_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: State of the Union - 1/25/2007 10:48:29 PM   
newflowers


Posts: 292
Joined: 5/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

I will read the text of his speech tomorrow.  If I watch him,
it will ruin the whole evening.  Mostly I am interested in
how Congress will react to his new plan to send an
additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. 
 



Because it negatively impacts my family, I have a partial answer to this point. Soliders are not being allowed to end their tour of duty. Those who have completed their tour are being returned from within the next 72 hours up to the next two months. Additionally, soliders who are up to retirement join units of others for whom retirement is imminent - these units are being deployed - retirement is not a possibiity until one returns stateside.

Papers are processed says that a solider has completed his/her year of duty; then, the papers are processed sending them back, or, in some cases, not allowing them to return. Tada! More troops; no congressional approval required. No need to fete the American people.

While it can be said that soliders signed up of their own volition, and they have various benefits (quite a few of which have been and are being rescended), I think it reasonable that they expect honorable treatment from the commander in chief who proports to support the American military.

Of course, that is exactly what they have isn't it?

newflowers

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: State of the Union - 1/26/2007 3:00:38 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I think it reasonable that they expect honorable treatment from the commander in chief


From someone who cannot give an accounting from April 1972 to October 1972 of his own service?

Expecting Honor from George Bush is like expecting your dog not to eat shit. Sure it would be NICE, but reality is, the dog is going to eat their own shit.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to newflowers)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: State of the Union - 1/26/2007 9:10:43 AM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

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.

You misunderstood my question.  I meant what does openmindedness have to do with this discussion, in particular, believing the results of polls?  Believing anything that comes down the pike without questioning the methods is not openmindeness, it's gullibility.

quote:

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.

This isn't a court of law, so any such of presumption of "innocense" is a red herring, as is comparing a poll to an argument. 

quote:

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.

To you.  Scholarly research follows a set plan and they publish their research methodology with the results.  Polls rarely do either.  As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

~stef

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: State of the Union - 1/26/2007 10:05:54 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

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.

You misunderstood my question.  I meant what does openmindedness have to do with this discussion, in particular, believing the results of polls?  Believing anything that comes down the pike without questioning the methods is not openmindeness, it's gullibility.

My open-minded point is this: the BDSM community believe themselves to be independent thinkers. Thus, if the people on this board buy into an invasion which will blatantly kill civilians then I'll make the next step and say this will be mirrored in wider society.

quote:

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 before I pour scorn on it. Same with a poll.

This isn't a court of law, so any such of presumption of "innocense" is a red herring, as is comparing a poll to an argument. 

It is a turn of phrase in this context. If you disregard a poll without understanding who has done what then that is your call. My point of view is an argument/poll/interpretation is there to be trashed if you so wish but in the interests of credibility you must have good reason to trash it. The poll is out there, I'm sure their research methods are there for all to see - if your point that it's rubbish is to be taken seriously you need to tell me why it's rubbish.

quote:

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.

To you.  Scholarly research follows a set plan and they publish their research methodology with the results.  Polls rarely do either. 

I don't agree with this point. Ipsos Mori always state the methods used in their polls. Surely, you have respected polling bodies over there?
 
As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree

I think you're right. It's careering towards a chat about opinion polls. Not for me and I'm sure it's not for you.

~stef


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: State of the Union Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078