Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

How does one have the authority to order someone else to commit suicide over the internet? I suggest that you think about it (look at it) that way before you do anything like you're used to doing from now onward. You had a poster removed because they made some nasty comments about you or accused you of being a bad person. I guess that means I have grounds to remove you too.

The Threadmaster has the authority to delete objectionable content and ban a poster who puts out objectionable content. I read the post in question and tried to find some ambiguity in it. There was none. Telling someone to commit suicide is grossly wrong.

The other person that I got kicked off this Forum about whom you speak accused me of being a "homosexual child molester". I let the accusation of homosexuality slide because I accept the existence of homosexuality. I became pro-gay once I was gay-bashed, paradoxically on the conservative ground of law and order. Child molestation is a horrible crime whether it is "straight" or "homosexual". Accusing me of child abuse attacks a core qualification for a job that I have held in the past and will hold again soon.

I have gotten people removed form this and other Forums for

spamming
hate speech
threats
obscenity
encouragement of criminal activity

Libel? Of course. If it were of someone else I would have done the same. But I am in the best position to know whether something derogatory about me is a libel. That poster libeled me, and the threadmaster banned that poster.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Threadmaster has the authority to delete objectionable content and ban a poster who puts out objectionable content. I read the post in question and tried to find some ambiguity in it. There was none. Telling someone to commit suicide is grossly wrong.

The other person that I got kicked off this Forum about whom you speak accused me of being a "homosexual child molester". I let the accusation of homosexuality slide because I accept the existence of homosexuality. I became pro-gay once I was gay-bashed, paradoxically on the conservative ground of law and order. Child molestation is a horrible crime whether it is "straight" or "homosexual". Accusing me of child abuse attacks a core qualification for a job that I have held in the past and will hold again soon.

I have gotten people removed form this and other Forums for

spamming
hate speech
threats
obscenity
encouragement of criminal activity

Libel? Of course. If it were of someone else I would have done the same. But I am in the best position to know whether something derogatory about me is a libel. That poster libeled me, and the threadmaster banned that poster.

Agreed. You're the one who knows whether or not you're a child molester. I'm the one who knows whether or not my response to a pesky young liberal poster using the guilt trip was intended to be taken serious and used accordingly or not. Who made you the judge over me? I know it wasn't God. I know it wasn't Craig. I know it wasn't me. I assume that you were aware that the exchange occurred between a conservative and a liberal poster within the 4T Forum at the time. I assume that you were aware that were liberal insults, attacks and libel comments involved in all the exchanges that proceeded it. If not, you were as worthless and clueless as Craig was at being the judge of the situation at the time.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It's simple. There is no evidence that American interventions have been net beneficial for America during my lifetime. The only major positive outcome was Korea and that was more than sixty years ago.

Your arguments are based on comparison with what actually happened to a hypothetical awful outcome that would have happened had we not intervened. I can point to an actual case where we KNOW what would have happened had we not intervened; Vietnam. What we were trying to prevent by intervening was a Communist takeover of South Vietnam. We failed to achieve this objective and what we were trying to prevent happened anyway and so we were forced to live with the awful consequences that supporters of invention argued would happen had we not intervened. And what has been the consequence of our failure to successfully intervene? Well, nothing much for us Americans.

Just above I give an example of one of your hypothetical outcomes. The rise of Chinese power in the South China Sea. I agree this is a problem for the Japanese, for Vietnam, for the Philippines, and perhaps, for Indonesia. But it is not a problem for America. You try to make a case for an economic impact in the form of depression, citing history. So I replied with the most applicable historical example, the beginning of WW I, which closed the stock market for four months, far, far longer than the closure in 1873 or the brief closure after 911. Yet the negative impact on American markets (once they re-opened) and economy was very small. In the broad market the 1913-1914 decline was the 12th largest, behind the 2007-9 bear, the 2000-2002 bear and the 1973-74 bear. Amongst surrounding bears it was smaller than 1906-7 and 1920-21. In short it was not the big deal you imply a conflict could create. And this was a world war involved nations whose financial systems were closely coupled with ours (that is why the market was closed for four months--it was THAT big). And yet it had little effect on us until...we decided to get involved.


Consquential, certainly. Eating 5000 calories as day is consequential for most people, but is it desirable? My point is we have enough data to show that the results of our interventions over the past half century for Americans has not been positive. You have failed to show any evidence that had be not intervened Americans would be worse off that we are. (And this is not considering the positive impacts that could have been achieved at home from the resources employed in interventions)

If evidence is facts, I'm merely pointing out that your collection is highly selective and incomplete, and likely purposefully done so, consciously or not, to arrive at a predetermined conclusion - in this case, that interventions have no positive consequences.

For example, Vietnam. The concern at the time was for the "domino effect" - fact. As evident by its Soviet as well as its Chinese support as well as its eventual victory over the US, Vietnam had at the time a much greater military capacity over all of its SE Asia neighbors - fact. During the time that Vietnam was obviously capable of dominance over SE Asian countries, it was preoccupied with a civil war and the US for over a decade - fact. Outside of it hegemony over Laos and its incursion into Cambodia, Vietnam did not take over Indochina or the rest of SE Asia - fact. Looking at that alone, one might conclude that the US incursion prevented the domino effect through Vietnam military incursions into the rest of SE Asia - that would be speculation, but at least it would be a more complete analysis than your own speculation/conclusion that this particular US incursion had no benefit. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion but I am pointing out that yours is: (a) based on selective and incomplete evidence; (b) likely purposefully due to a bias; and (c) that while you treated it as fact, it is a speculation.

Since you include all incursions since Korea, let's take both our major involvements in Afghanistan - the 1980s Charlie Wilson's War and the 00-00s overthrow of the Taliban - as further examples. Most Soviet historians place the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan as the beginning-of-the-end for the Soviet empire, not as the organic cause but as the facilitator or tipping point for an organically weak economic/social system - perhaps not fact but expert speculation and analysis. Similarly, most war experts believe it was the US introduction into the Afghan battlefield of Stinger and TOW-like missiles that made the Soviet occupation untenable, not only leading to their withdrawal but accelerating the collapse of the economic/social system of the Soviets - again perhaps not absolute fact but expert speculation and analysis. Now, are we better off without a Soviet Union? That would be speculation, but perhaps the best way to think of it would be Putin in charge but with the Warsaw Pact still in place. Perhaps the snapshot today would be better or worse, but what I would be most concerned about is what could have happened in the 80s and 90s with the level of nationalistic energy of former Soviet states; perhaps the most amazing thing about the 20th Century wasn't the carnage of WW2, but that a Superpower empire would dissolve in such a peaceful manner. I would not vote for another attempt sans the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as a result of our incursion - it would be like playing Russian Roulette with all but one chamber loaded.

As to our own direct invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, it is pretty clear that disrupted al Qaeda's organization and capacity to launch international terror - fact. The US has not suffered a similar attack by al Qaeda operatives - fact. Now one might point to San Bernardino or shoe/underwear bombers but one would have to speculate whether that was a result of another incursion (Iraq-San Bernardino) or just the death throes of al Qaeda (hapless shoe/underwear bombers). And your speculation is that all incursions are bad, not just a few (like Iraq) and hopefully your benchmark for us cowering behind fortress America isn't fear of underpants.

As I said earlier, I believe there is a lot to learn from our experiences of previous incursions, particularly those that were so obviously wrong (i.e., Iraq). But if the conclusion is all incursions are wrong based on "the evidence," I believe that is more about learning how predisposition to the desired answer can lead to incomplete and highly selective evidence.

Oh, WW1 was bad for the markets, but it didn't involve nations with nukes, which would likely be the case in the S. China Sea should we choose to cower behind our walls. Are you swinging your vote to Trump because he's promising to build your wall?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Actually as Rags said, we went to war with Germany not to prevent people from being exterminated, but because they declared war on us. As it turned out, European Jews and other social and ethnic groups were exterminated, we did not prevent it. Besides if we were concerned about Jews being exterminated why did we send a shipload of them back to Europe?

FDR sent that shipload of Jews back to Europe after both the Southern Democrats and the Midwestern Progressives threatened to bolt the party in the 1940 election if FDR let them in. FDR's "cowardice" saved the New Deal - just as similar Democratic "cowardice" now on gun rights and religious freedom will save ObamaCare - and much, maybe even all of the New Deal.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Agreed. You're the one who knows whether or not you're a child molester.

I have had a job and will likely soon have a job in which my trustworthiness with children and adolescents is essential to that job. But nothing that I have said is consistent with being a child molester. Sure, I have read Lolita, but I think that I get exactly the conclusion that Vladimir Nabokov has -- little girls do not want the prurient attention of middle-aged men, and that the desire for such can result only in tragedy for the man.

I am one of those people who started acting middle-aged when a teenager, and I have seen a huge chasm between children and me for a very long time. I cannot relate easily to youth culture, and I have long given up trying. Maybe I can relate to people twenty-five years younger than I am because many of them are undeniable adults. I can teach children only because I recognize the chasm of culture, one bigger in significance than ethnicity. To be sure I can appreciate some very good cinema and anime that has children in leading roles -- but to appreciate something like Spirited Away I must force myself to think as if I am a ten-year-old (which I haven't been for fifty years) Japanese (I am definitely not Japanese) girl (I am a man). But its masterful creator Hayao Miyazaki can get me in character as a part of the audience. At least it isn't Pokémon!

I'm the one who knows whether or not my response to a pesky young liberal poster using the guilt trip was intended to be taken serious and used accordingly or not. Who made you the judge over me? I know it wasn't God. I know it wasn't Craig. I know it wasn't me.

We all become legitimately-harsh judges of violent and larcenous behavior. You as well as I have the right and indeed duty to condemn murderers, thieves, rapists, dope traffickers, and corrupt public officials. Libel and slander are very bad behavior. They can hurt a business, a professional practice, or a career. OK, the physician who molests his clients should be drummed out of the profession. The contractor who cuts corners for profit contrary to the terms of the bid (by substituting an inferior grade of steel for one adequate for the job) should be permanently blacklisted with responsible persons going to prison. An accountant who commits insurance fraud should no longer be an accountant. Truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. Also, something basically harmless (like exposing that some Hollywood starlet who plays lily-white roles has a black ancestor if such should prove false), if true would not be detrimental to her career. But libel and slander both involve either known falsehood or statements made in reckless disregard for the truth. The poster who libeled me did so with reckless disregard for the truth. He got a chance to cease and desist and did not.

He can consider himself fortunate that I did not sue him. He was also involved in Holocaust denial, and I know of a law firm that might have taken him on. He might have lost his car, electronic gadgets, and bank account largely to the law firm. He would have learned a fitting lesson in the place that imposes the harshest costs to those who lose. Clearing my name would be satisfaction enough. If he is a college student he might have to take a job in a foundry. Bad behavior has bad consequences.

I assume that you were aware that the exchange occurred between a conservative and a liberal poster within the 4T Forum at the time. I assume that you were aware that were liberal insults, attacks and libel comments involved in all the exchanges that proceeded it. If not, you were as worthless and clueless as Craig was at being the judge of the situation at the time.

If a liberal had told a conservative poster to commit suicide I would have been similarly offended. This goes far beyond the 'stupid loser' insults traded across the opposing sides of some political divide. Saying something inexcusably horrible in jest or denying its significance by saying 'I didn't really mean it' is not good enough for me.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

He can consider himself fortunate that I did not sue him. He was also involved in Holocaust denial, and I know of a law firm that might have taken him on. He might have lost his car, electronic gadgets, and bank account largely to the law firm. He would have learned a fitting lesson in the place that imposes the harshest costs to those who lose. Clearing my name would be satisfaction enough. If he is a college student he might have to take a job in a foundry. Bad behavior has bad consequences.



If a liberal had told a conservative poster to commit suicide I would have been similarly offended. This goes far beyond the 'stupid loser' insults traded across the opposing sides of some political divide. Saying something inexcusably horrible in jest or denying its significance by saying 'I didn't really mean it' is not good enough for me.

You should consider yourself fortunate for not trying to sue him. Is your legal name Mr. pbrower2a? You would have lost in court big time. Shall we try it and see what happens in court. I can sue you for all kinds of nasty things that you have said to me, said about me, implied as being true about me, directly associated me with and so on. BTW, if the liberal had been me and used the same style for a response as me, you would have ignored it just like Craig. An issue that I took up with Craig previously for trivial infractions received remedial/sarcastic or realistic responses to endless character attack, group attempts of intimidation both physical and psychological that was seized upon and blown out of proportion by some knee jerk who had social clout with a Threadmaster. I point blanked him and sat him back on edge defensively which made it very to me that Craig was not used to being directly challenged by an experienced business manager/experienced mid level manager/project manager who has been managing people and making sound judgements for several decades.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You should consider yourself fortunate for not trying to sue him. Is your legal name Mr. pbrower2a? You would have lost in court big time. Shall we try it and see what happens in court. I can sue you for all kinds of nasty things that you have said to me, said about me, implied as being true about me, directly associated me with and so on.

I have never accused you of a crime. I have never accused you of anything that could cause you to lose your job or your customer base. I can back down. The person who smeared me as a child molester did not. I made very clear that his accusation that I am a militant homosexual did not faze me. Child sexual abuse is the worst thing that one could accuse a teacher of. If such is ever suspected of a teacher he is quickly stripped of his job.

I am fortunate that the Forum got a webmaster and evicted him with the deletion of most of the posts involving him. I was on the brink of calling a legal firm, and you can imagine what religion dominates there in view of the Holocaust denial that came from that poster. Posts removed, so is the libel. With that I am satisfied.

Quotes here are part of a definition.

So what is libel?

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie.

What that poster said of me was on the Web, and it is typically made for reading. Unlike slander it has some permanence and thus has more to do damage to my reputation.

Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages."

The fellow made no attempt to establish as reality that I do horrible things to children. I do everything possible to avoid the topic of sex in a classroom. I have been in the situation in which I had one female student in a classroom with me. I made sure that the classroom door was open, that she was much closer to it than I was, and that she knew that such was so. School principals know how cautious I am about sexual content. Students do not get away with discussing human sexuality in my presence. I am a substitute, and I do not know how to handle such except with the aid of the principal.

"Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit.

Fourth Turning protected itself by forcing its own "cease and desist" policy upon the person who libeled me. It also protected the person who libeled me. With that I am satisfied.

I am not going to name the law firm that I was contemplating calling. But it would have pulled the poster's name through the figurative mud of a courtroom by showing that someone capable of Holocaust denial does not do research into the reality of his contentions. I would have been satisfied that the person who libeled me lost his cherished possessions: his car, his bank account, any collectibles, and his electronic gadgets. Libel is bad behavior and it has bad consequences.


(No government agency is involved and I am not a celebrity, so this section can be ignored)

2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

the word as a verb.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel

BTW, if the liberal had been me and used the same style for a response as me, you would have ignored it just like Craig. An issue that I took up with Craig previously for trivial infractions received remedial/sarcastic or realistic responses to endless character attack, group attempts of intimidation both physical and psychological that was seized upon and blown out of proportion by some knee jerk who had social clout with a Threadmaster. I point blanked him and sat him back on edge defensively which made it very to me that Craig was not used to being directly challenged by an experienced business manager/experienced mid level manager/project manager who has been managing people and making sound judgements for several decades.

I saw a heated exchange on a long-defunct forum that culminated in a liberal telling a fascist (Nazi sympathizer, overt racist, Jew-hater) something like "Why don't you just kill yourself?"

I said that that went too far. The fellow liberal backed down on that. That goes beyond sarcasm, at times an appropriate way to deal with some unpleasant
realities.

Originally Posted by playwrite

For example, Vietnam. The concern at the time was for the "domino effect" - fact.

Correct

As evident by its Soviet as well as its Chinese support as well as its eventual victory over the US, Vietnam had at the time a much greater military capacity over all of its SE Asia neighbors - fact.

False. Vietnam did not have Russian and Chinese in the early 1950's. It received that help AFTER the US decided to prop up the colonial government. Its the same situation as in Afghanistan. The Jihadist-types did not have US help until AFTER Russia intervened on behalf of of the socialist Afghan government.

Besides the dominos DID fall fall. Both Laos and Cambodia went communist as a result of the Vietnamese conflict. The effect on America? Bupkis.

During the time that Vietnam was obviously capable of dominance over SE Asian countries, it was preoccupied with a civil war and the US for over a decade - fact.

Which it WON.

Outside of it hegemony over Laos and its incursion into Cambodia, Vietnam did not take over Indochina or the rest of SE Asia - fact. Looking at that alone, one might conclude that the US incursion prevented the domino effect

Why? They WON their war against the #1 superpower and as a result were the strongest power. In 1979 the Chinese tried to check Vietnamese power and they did not have an easy time of it. They never moved into countries not involved in the Vietnam war. Why do you think they wanted to?

at least it would be a more complete analysis than your own speculation/conclusion that this particular US incursion had no benefit.

The Vietnam intervention FAILED. If it true was critically necessary that we not fail, then that would have been a disaster for the US. It was not. Presumably had we won that alos would not be a bad result. So ti seems that win or lose were ended up OK. So why do it?

while you treated it as fact, it is a speculation.

It is not speculation. We LOST, how hard is this for you to understand. It is possible we could have won too. Would that have made any difference today? There is a direct comparison, the Philippines. The communist insurgence was defeated there, but not in Vietnam. I do not see the Philippines having never gone communist as so much better for American than Vietnam having become communist. Both nations seem pretty capitalistic today and greatly desire to trade with us, rather than fight us.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Correct

False. Vietnam did not have Russian and Chinese in the early 1950's. It received that help AFTER the US decided to prop up the colonial government. Its the same situation as in Afghanistan. The Jihadist-types did not have US help until AFTER Russia intervened on behalf of of the socialist Afghan government.

I think the Chinese (probably KMT but perhaps including Maoists--they were in a united front at the time) helped the Viet Minh resist the Japanese during WWII. Which was when the Vietnamese resistance really began.

Besides the dominos DID fall fall. Both Laos and Cambodia went communist as a result of the Vietnamese conflict. The effect on America? Bupkis.

Two dominos, both of which had been part of the same French Indochina. Thailand, which had not been under French colonialism and in which most Thai owned their own farms was a place where the Communists never caught on despite attempts at insurgency in Thailand's Northeast and Northwest. In Burma, the Burmese Communist Party carried on a low level insurgency in what is called the Golden Triangle alongside nationalist Shan and Karen and Kachin insurgents throughout the Ne Win Regime, only being defeated by the current regime in the 90s.

Which it WON.


Why? They WON their war against the #1 superpower and as a result were the strongest power. In 1979 the Chinese tried to check Vietnamese power and they did not have an easy time of it. They never moved into countries not involved in the Vietnam war. Why do you think they wanted to?

I certainly don't think the Vietnamese wanted to. However, in the 1950s, the Domino Theory was a very real fear. Indonesia came close to going communist, only being defeated by the US engineering a change of regime to the brutal Suharto GOLKAR dictatorship (see the movie "The Year of Living Dangerously" about 1964 in Indonesia--a Peter Weir classic).

The Vietnam intervention FAILED. If it true was critically necessary that we not fail, then that would have been a disaster for the US. It was not. Presumably had we won that alos would not be a bad result. So ti seems that win or lose were ended up OK. So why do it?


It is not speculation. We LOST, how hard is this for you to understand. It is possible we could have won too. Would that have made any difference today? There is a direct comparison, the Philippines. The communist insurgence was defeated there, but not in Vietnam. I do not see the Philippines having never gone communist as so much better for American than Vietnam having become communist. Both nations seem pretty capitalistic today and greatly desire to trade with us, rather than fight us.

The Vietnam War failed because it was run by the direct ancestors of today's Neo-Conservatives--and free market conservatives. The people who actually carried out the Vietnam War were violently opposed to things like land reform because they saw land reform (taking land from big landlords and giving the land to small farmers) as a violation of private enterprise. The US started it's war in Vietnam poisoning the crops of farmers who would not pay their land rent with Agent Orange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_Hand --from 1962. It shows just how far we have come in the direction of neo-liberalism (laissez-faire) that such actions do not even look controversial--not in an era of corporate farming at home and wars to protect the petrodollar abroad. Land reform now seems like something Bernie Sanders might even find controversial. But in the 1950s it was land reform that stopped Japan, South Korea and Taiwan from becoming communist and paved the way for their rapid growth from the 1970s on.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I saw a heated exchange on a long-defunct forum that culminated in a liberal telling a fascist (Nazi sympathizer, overt racist, Jew-hater) something like "Why don't you just kill yourself?"

I said that that went too far. The fellow liberal backed down on that. That goes beyond sarcasm, at times an appropriate way to deal with some unpleasant
realities.

What was written or said about you by another poster has no relevance to me or my interests here. I have never considered you to be a major threat to me or any of my interests here or interests else where. You read a short written response that began with the words "My advice" on this forum roughly six years ago. I'm familiar with suicide and the broad range of interpretations and motives that are associated with the act. If you tried to find ambiguity in it, you obviously failed to recognize an ambiguous response. BTW, the young poster was able to blew it off as expected. The response was not directed at you.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Correct


False. Vietnam did not have Russian and Chinese in the early 1950's. It received that help AFTER the US decided to prop up the colonial government. Its the same situation as in Afghanistan. The Jihadist-types did not have US help until AFTER Russia intervened on behalf of of the socialist Afghan government.

Ah, sorry, but no -

October 1945 — British troops land in southern Vietnam and establish a provisional administration. The British free French soldiers and officials imprisoned by the Japanese. The French begin taking control of cities within the British zone of occupation.
February 1946 — The French sign an agreement with China. France gives up its concessions in Shanghai and other Chinese ports. In exchange, China agrees to assist the French in returning to Vietnam north of the 17th parallel.
March 6, 1946 — After negotiations with the Chinese and the Viet Minh, the French sign an agreement recognizing Vietnam within the French Union. Shortly after, the French land at Haiphong and occupy the rest of northern Vietnam. The Viet Minh use the negotiating process with France and China to buy time to use their armed forces to destroy all competing nationalist groups in the north.
December 1946 — Negotiations between the Viet Minh and the French break down. The Viet Minh are driven out of Hanoi into the countryside.
1947–1949 — The Viet Minh fight a limited insurgency in remote rural areas of northern Vietnam.
1949 — Chinese communists reach the northern border of Indochina. The Viet Minh drive the French from the border region and begin to receive large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and China. The weapons transform the Viet Minh from an irregular large-scale insurgency into a conventional army.
May 1, 1950 — After the capture of Hainan Island from Chinese Nationalist forces by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, President Truman approves $10 million in military assistance for anti-communist efforts in Indochina. The Defense Attaché Office was established in Saigon in May 1950, a formal recognition of Viet Nam (vice French IndoChina). This was the beginning of formal U.S. military personnel assignments in Viet Nam. U.S. Naval, Army and Air Force personnel established their respective attaches at this time.
September 1950 — Truman sends the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina to Vietnam to assist the French. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of U.S. military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces.

- actually BEFORE the 1950s the concern was for Chinese Communist hegemony in IndoChina. Do you believe the concern for the "domino effect" started with Vietnam? I guess you also believe Truman nuke Japan only to hasten the war's end, and Korea was just a "one-off?"

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Besides the dominos DID fall fall. Both Laos and Cambodia went communist as a result of the Vietnamese conflict. The effect on America? Bupkis.

Which it WON.

Why? They WON their war against the #1 superpower and as a result were the strongest power. In 1979 the Chinese tried to check Vietnamese power and they did not have an easy time of it. They never moved into countries not involved in the Vietnam war. Why do you think they wanted to?

Which all indicates that Vietnam had the motivation, possible the military capacity, for more but after a decade-plus of fighting perhaps not the will. Not just the will drained by the fatigue of war, but the will in face of pretty assured turnaround by the US should Vietnam move outside of Indochina (I think Nixon/Kissinger would have nuked them if they had entered Thailand - just like Truman, sending a broader message - and most hippies would have cheered).

"More" could have been the entire of SE Asia, including Singapore, and controlling the Malacca Strait where 1/2 of the world's oil is transported and 2/5s of global trade. From there, as a puppet of China, perhaps they would join to make sure the China Sea was fully theirs by taking Taiwan and the Philippines and threatening Japan and S. Korea, if not Australia. From there, why not take on India by making a lot of mischief in Burma, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh particularly in coordination with their allied Pakistan? and then a gateway to the Middle East; would there be any reason to doubt that Iran would be a fully nuclear armed nation today with ICBMs? A very very different and much more precarious world that would have had impacts even on retirees in Somewhere, Michigan. Today, instead, said retiree can take a really nice vacation on Da Nang beaches - I recommend it!

All of this is of course speculation and unknowable. That doesn't preclude the FACTS that Vietnam had the potential except for its decade-plus long drain of its war with the US. It should at least be a consideration in one's analysis of the consequences of intervention if one is truly interested in the question.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The Vietnam intervention FAILED. If it true was critically necessary that we not fail, then that would have been a disaster for the US. It was not. Presumably had we won that alos would not be a bad result. So ti seems that win or lose were ended up OK. So why do it?


It is not speculation. We LOST, how hard is this for you to understand. It is possible we could have won too. Would that have made any difference today? There is a direct comparison, the Philippines. The communist insurgence was defeated there, but not in Vietnam. I do not see the Philippines having never gone communist as so much better for American than Vietnam having become communist. Both nations seem pretty capitalistic today and greatly desire to trade with us, rather than fight us.

And that, of course, is the argument from ignorance. That's not meant as a put down; it's a fact that one cannot know what would have happened without the US intervention. One can speculate based on the facts of a military superiority and will of the Vietnamese with their Chinese and Russian backers. But, I certainly realize you can point to both Putin and China's lack of ambitions today as suggesting otherwise.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The Vietnam War failed because it was run by the direct ancestors of today's Neo-Conservatives--and free market conservatives. The people who actually carried out the Vietnam War were violently opposed to things like land reform because they saw land reform (taking land from big landlords and giving the land to small farmers) as a violation of private enterprise. The US started it's war in Vietnam poisoning the crops of farmers who would not pay their land rent with Agent Orange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_Hand --from 1962. It shows just how far we have come in the direction of neo-liberalism (laissez-faire) that such actions do not even look controversial--not in an era of corporate farming at home and wars to protect the petrodollar abroad. Land reform now seems like something Bernie Sanders might even find controversial. But in the 1950s it was land reform that stopped Japan, South Korea and Taiwan from becoming communist and paved the way for their rapid growth from the 1970s on.

Absolute horsey poo from someone who likely gets their history from just a few pretty carefully selected books.

One might be able to suggest land ownership was an element of the fear of 1950s communism, but that would entail arguing for communal farming along the lines of 1950s Russia and China - I seriously doubt you have had any direct experience with such land 'ownership' but I can almost say with certitude you would not like it - unless, of course, you are one of the 'pigs' from Animal Farm who was more equal than others.

Also, as one who was actually exposed to Agent Orange more than once, I can tell you it was, at the time, considered a Godsend. I could say I'm smarter now, but under the exact same situation, I would still label it a Godsend. And neither I or anyone around me gave a frig about who owned the jungle we were in.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, sorry, but no -

- actually BEFORE the 1950s the concern was for Chinese Communist hegemony in IndoChina. Do you believe the concern for the "domino effect" started with Vietnam? I guess you also believe Truman nuke Japan only to hasten the war's end, and Korea was just a "one-off?"



Which all indicates that Vietnam had the motivation, possible the military capacity, for more but after a decade-plus of fighting perhaps not the will. Not just the will drained by the fatigue of war, but the will in face of pretty assured turnaround by the US should Vietnam move outside of Indochina (I think Nixon/Kissinger would have nuked them if they had entered Thailand - just like Truman, sending a broader message - and most hippies would have cheered).

"More" could have been the entire of SE Asia, including Singapore, and controlling the Malacca Strait where 1/2 of the world's oil is transported and 2/5s of global trade. From there, as a puppet of China, perhaps they would join to make sure the China Sea was fully theirs by taking Taiwan and the Philippines and threatening Japan and S. Korea, if not Australia. From there, why not take on India by making a lot of mischief in Burma, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh particularly in coordination with their allied Pakistan? and then a gateway to the Middle East; would there be any reason to doubt that Iran would be a fully nuclear armed nation today with ICBMs? A very very different and much more precarious world that would have had impacts even on retirees in Somewhere, Michigan. Today, instead, said retiree can take a really nice vacation on Da Nang beaches - I recommend it!

All of this is of course speculation and unknowable. That doesn't preclude the FACTS that Vietnam had the potential except for its decade-plus long drain of its war with the US. It should at least be a consideration in one's analysis of the consequences of intervention if one is truly interested in the question.



And that, of course, is the argument from ignorance. That's not meant as a put down; it's a fact that one cannot know what would have happened without the US intervention. One can speculate based on the facts of a military superiority and will of the Vietnamese with their Chinese and Russian backers. But, I certainly realize you can point to both Putin and China's lack of ambitions today as suggesting otherwise.

I just wanted to write that I am impressed by your geopolitical awareness.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

So, considering that most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis, we should assume that all Saudis are radicals then? Shall we kill them all too?

No, but we have few reasons to consider them as friends ... yet we do. The Wahhabi faction that runs the Saudi culture is clearly so pre-modern that it is a threat to the regime. Why we continue to back the Kingdom when it refuses to reign-in these religious fanatics is beyond me. Much of the Islamic fundamentalism originated right there. Both al Qaeda and ISIS are off-shoots.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I just wanted to write that I am impressed by your geopolitical awareness.

Thanks, it's sort of a hobby - much more humiliating than even golf.

I do very much appreciate Mike's application of cycles to it - probable the best of that type of analysis that I've ever come across.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, but we have few reasons to consider them as friends ... yet we do. The Wahhabi faction that runs the Saudi culture is clearly so pre-modern that it is a threat to the regime. Why we continue to back the Kingdom when it refuses to reign-in these religious fanatics is beyond me. Much of the Islamic fundamentalism originated right there. Both al Qaeda and ISIS are off-shoots.

I keep thinking that history is going to treat the Obama decisions with increasing respect.

I think one of the most critical is an aspect of the Iranian nuclear deal -

' hey, Saudis, Israelis, and well, the Middle East, we're just not that much into you any more'

Let's just hope we don't get a rabbit stewing in a pot on our stovetop one evening!


Is that a neoCon?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Pure sensationalism and fear mongering. Both Australia and Japan are big boys.
United Germany is also a big boy.

France was a big boy. The UK were a big boy and even though they won the Battle Of Britain, look at what was lost elsewhere prior to the US entering the war. The next Pearl Harbor will involve WMD some of which will sport megatons of power.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I keep thinking that history is going to treat the Obama decisions with increasing respect.

I think one of the most critical is an aspect of the Iranian nuclear deal -

' hey, Saudis, Israelis, and well, the Middle East, we're just not that much into you any more'

Let's just hope we don't get a rabbit stewing in a pot on our stovetop one evening!


Is that a neoCon?

The entire Middle East is a stew pot these days. Some of it is our fault, though that doesn't make the region our problem. We may be well advised to tell them all to deal with their own issues ... we're out! I have no idea how that would play, but can it be worse than the present mess?

There are several local powers: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. They need to settle their differences, themselves. Jordan, and a few others, deserve help from us, and we should provide it. Since we broke it, we should do the same for Iraq, but it may now be beyond our ability. We should help the Kurds and Yazidis, because they've earned it. Otherwise, we should stay out of the place entirely.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

A big part of our problem is that US policy has been to deliberately discourage nations like Japan, Australia, European nations from having the kind of militaries that can defend themselves with. We convinced majorities in those countries to let the US be big brother and handle their defence. A policy which reached it's flowering in the Clintonista neo-Whig Francis Fukayama "end of history" ideology of the 1990s. And now that conflicts are no longer essentially "police actions" and power is more diffuse in the world and we really need allies who can make more of a contribution than basing rights and token fig leaf support for US actions, we don't have those kind of allies. Because until recently we didn't want powerful allies and didn't believe that we needed powerful allies. And we still see that attitude in every political candidate but Trump and Sanders.

Of late we've been subtly and not so subtly sending signals to Japan, other NATO powers, etc, that it is OK to do arms build ups. On the nuclear question, while we have not said the NNPT is obsolete, even Lugar protege Obama has gone quiet on the topic.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And there is a huge amount of angst and moral opposition to having the bomb in all three nations. Aussies and Japanese in particular find having nuclear weapons abhorrent. It would be a sea change for them to embrace defence self-sufficiency. In the case of Germany and Japan, the US put a lot of energy into convincing people that war was inherently immoral and that they should feel eternally guilty for their participation in WWII.

Not all Japanese find it abhorrent. In a way, once you have been in a nuclear war, you may not fear it as much and for sure, you will understand exactly what it can and cannot do. With today's technology coupled with Japan's enrichment capabilities, I would expect Japanese nuclear and thermonuclear warheads to be the best ever.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The Kipling reference apparently went over your head. I was referred to your denial of agency to non-Western peoples. Japan is perfectly capable of producing a big nuclear deterrent and were America to withdraw from its hegemonic role, would probably build one if they believed as you do.

Between a nuclear Japan, a nuclear India and a nuclear Russia, China is ringed by potential foes. A distant, increasingly decadent America is the least of their concerns.

You place far too much stock in so called multipolarity and give too little credit to innate alignments.

It's fairly obvious what SCO does. SCO disrupts the old friendship between Russia and India, because India can now perceive that both Russian and Chinese clients are arrayed against it. Meanwhile, India grows closer to former enemy Japan. Over the broad swath of time, Japan and China are like oil and water as are Japan and Russia. Meanwhile, other than the ugliness of the 1930s the WW2, the US and Japan are long term pals. All of this means:
AXIS - SCO plus some other nasty folks
ALLIES - NATO + India + Japan plus some other good guys.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

What was written or said about you by another poster has no relevance to me or my interests here. I have never considered you to be a major threat to me or any of my interests here or interests else where. You read a short written response that began with the words "My advice" on this forum roughly six years ago. I'm familiar with suicide and the broad range of interpretations and motives that are associated with the act. If you tried to find ambiguity in it, you obviously failed to recognize an ambiguous response. BTW, the young poster was able to blew it off as expected. The response was not directed at you.

The young poster left the Forum. That is hardly proof that he 'blew it off'.

Telling someone to commit suicide and give explicit instructions on how to do so, even in jest, is ghastly behavior. I suggested that kia '67 (who seems much like you) delete the offending post and apologize. Another poster still active on these Forums endorsed my statement. kia '67 neither removed the post nor apologized; he could have explained why he said what he did. kia '67 was soon banned. I did not make the decision to ban him.

I have used the expression "Kill that character" toward someone who was using multiple identities, one of those being particularly obnoxious. But that is the sort of order that a Hollywood producer or director might give to a writer for finding that the character is a drag upon a story. In Casablanca the villainous, scheming Ugarte (Peter Lorre) clearly shows that anyone will tire of him, and that there is little room for dramatic development with him. Ugarte does something inexcusable, and Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) throws him to the wolves. Actually, WWII-era Germans make wolves, tigers, sharks, crocodiles, giant constrictor snakes, box jellies, and army ants -- even house cats -- look gentlemanly by contrast.

Don't you get it? Don't you see something wrong with a deed that causes someone to lose his life pointlessly? If I saw someone threatening to jump out of a high window I would think of someone who said "Jump!" a person rightly to be arrested for some form of disorderly conduct, and quite possibly culpable of manslaughter if the person jumped.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, but we have few reasons to consider them as friends ... yet we do. The Wahhabi faction that runs the Saudi culture is clearly so pre-modern that it is a threat to the regime. Why we continue to back the Kingdom when it refuses to reign-in these religious fanatics is beyond me. Much of the Islamic fundamentalism originated right there. Both al Qaeda and ISIS are off-shoots.

Al Qaeda and ISIS do not formally represent Saudi Arabia. It's not in either ones interest to create an opportunity for radical groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS to gain control over the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The US removing its backing of the Kingdom would create such an opportunity. The Kingdom reigning them in openly could also create such an opportunity.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The entire Middle East is a stew pot these days. Some of it is our fault, though that doesn't make the region our problem. We may be well advised to tell them all to deal with their own issues ... we're out! I have no idea how that would play, but can it be worse than the present mess?

There are several local powers: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. They need to settle their differences, themselves. Jordan, and a few others, deserve help from us, and we should provide it. Since we broke it, we should do the same for Iraq, but it may now be beyond our ability. We should help the Kurds and Yazidis, because they've earned it. Otherwise, we should stay out of the place entirely.

So where to draw the line, then?

Rags says just get out totally. At least that's consistent.

I would add the free Syrians as worthy of our support. Victims of wanton genocide such as them deserve the protection of the international community. How many Rwandas do we want? The plight of Syria is everyone's problem.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Not all Japanese find it abhorrent. In a way, once you have been in a nuclear war, you may not fear it as much and for sure, you will understand exactly what it can and cannot do. With today's technology coupled with Japan's enrichment capabilities, I would expect Japanese nuclear and thermonuclear warheads to be the best ever.

Maybe Japan wants to "grow a pair". ICBM = phallic symbols of nation states.


Like a real phallus, excitement makes 'em shoot!