Originally posted by StarValleyWyI suggest both are equally unimportant to the one under the thumb.
Leagallity? hmmm. Which is most important to people under the thumb of a dictator? Legal or Moral?
What is important is getting out from under the thumb by whatever means are most effective and least costly.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenSurprisingly... sadly...no. De or E ... anyductively no.
Mike, I abhor that as much as you do. But strictly speaking it is not the affair of the US government to intervene. Other places have human rights records far worse, and the US has not done anything. That is why that argument is fal ...[text shortened]... ly supported arguments saying I'm wrong. I look forward to it 🙂
I supported the removal of mr. hussein. I knew going in that there would be about 2000 americans and 20,000 iraqi military and 1000 iraqi civillian killings. <notice ... no euphamisms here. Dead is dead>
I was wrong on the number of deaths, but not sorry about that...
Intervene... Hmmmm... Leave that for now.
Other places do indeed have EQUALLY BAD human rights records. I agree. The US is greedy. Ok. Small minded.Ok. Wanting only that which benefits US. Ok. Then... so? The US gave up in Viet Nam. Result? Pol Pot. 1.5 million dead. Edi Amin, 1 half million dead. Viet Nam... 2 million dead. Reagan supported Saddam against Iran. 2 Million dead. Isn't that reason enough to want to make things right? If you screw up... admit it and go on. Reagan was wrong on Saddam.
Being a conservative is like being a scientist. No Dogma. When wrong, there is no shame in saying... "oops... wrong... sorry. Let's try this..."
Pol Pot killed 1.5 million people because the US failed to eliminate popular insurgency in Vietnam?
That's like saying Hitler murdered 10 million people because Rennenkampf failed to win the battle of Tannenberg in 1914 (if the Russians had won...no treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany would have been decisively defeated, no crushing war reparations from the Allies, no Hitler...see how ridiculous stretched historical conjecture is?).
I think maybe some underlying idea might serve better than stumbling from error to error (same reason why I prefer theoretical to empirical science in some ways), but we are not going to agree on politics.
Originally posted by royalchickenYes. The Kennedy rationale was "Domino's". If you fail to face evil it will take over. It was ignored. It took over. You are wrong... the captured papers of the s21 , aka "special security brothers of the uncle" ... the secret police of pol pot, tell over and over of their "waiting" for the US to "be destroyed" so that "uncle can at last strike justice" into the heart of the nation. There is written record of the implementation of "special orders" upon the fall of Saigon... "do for the Uncle as a knife. Cut the heart from the enemy." It happened immediately upon the US defeat. Not hardly like your spurious comparison.
Pol Pot killed 1.5 million people because the US failed to eliminate popular insurgency in Vietnam?
That's like saying Hitler murdered 10 million people because Rennenkampf failed to win the battle of Tannenberg in 1914 (if the Russians had won...no treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany would have been decisively defeated, no crushing war reparations f ...[text shortened]... refer theoretical to empirical science in some ways), but we are not going to agree on politics.
1 edit
Ok. I was unaware of that, so I no longer uphold my comparison as a valid point of argument. However, can you show that the Americans' presence in Vietnam starting from 1954 was designed to stop human rights abuses? I think not. Instead, the United States wa acting out of a dogmatic fear of Communism, whether justified or not. A total gut reaction. Indeed, given the French colonial human rights record, I think it is delusional to think the US acted through any altruism. Pol Pot was just and evil opportunist who took advantage of the instability in the region.
EDIT You are about the right age to have been in Vietnam. I don't know if your were, but you understand I mean none of this personally.
Originally posted by royalchickenthe US... then as now, only had it's own interests at stake. The fear was really a holdover from a meeting between french and US ambassadors... trying to figure what to do when it became evident that the french had to leave to support their real interests in africa. Algeria. The US took too literally the dictum that "As goes asia, so goes the world." You can thank that flowery bit of non-sense to the french ambassador. And the US was then as now reactionary. They reacted by Kennedy sending in 500 "advisors" and 50 helicoptors... against the advise of Averel Herriman and president Eisenhour. The rest is history.
Ok. I was unaware of that, so I no longer uphold my comparison as a valid point of argument. However, can you show that the Americans' presence in Vietnam starting from 1954 was designed to stop human rights abuses? I think not. Instead, the United States wa acting out of a dogmatic fear of Communism, whether justified or not. A total gut reaction ...[text shortened]... been in Vietnam. I don't know if your were, but you understand I mean none of this personally.
Originally posted by royalchickenOne of my three scholorships was an appointment to West Point as the top graduating National Guard member from the state of Wyoming. Each governor can thus appoint said candidate. I was disqualified because i have (and had) chronic psoriasis. That is disqualifying for being an officer in the US armed forces. It wasn't discovered until my physical at Ft. Leonard Wood two weeks before i was to enter the acadamy. The sad part is i had given up the academic and football scholorships to the University of Wyoming in order to accept the West Point nomination. Oh well. Worse things than being a carpenter.
EDIT You are about the right age to have been in Vietnam. I don't know if your were, but you understand I mean none of this personally.[/b]
Originally posted by huntingbearA very good post HuntingBear. The only schools near where I live that have chess taught are Catholic.....The won't play with a poor agnostic like me. That and they're mostly 10. 😛
If I ruled the world, I'd have chess taught in our schools! (if you live in a country where chess is respected and/or taught in schools, I envy you!)
-huntingbear
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou should have filed for a waiver. I was suppose to go to a military school myself but something about my ECG exam was the reason that I did not make the cut. It was too late when I found out I could file for a waiver.I guess we are not meant to save the world are we?😉
One of my three scholorships was an appointment to West Point as the top graduating National Guard member from the state of Wyoming. Each governor can thus appoint said candidate. I was disqualified because i have (and had) chronic pso ...[text shortened]... st Point nomination. Oh well. Worse things than being a carpenter.