HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Oct 31, 2004, 07:54 PM
Registered User
spencer6891's Avatar
NC
Joined Aug 2004
997 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by easytiger
Oh, now then are COMMUNISTS. Jeez, had to dust that one off. Find that one way out in the back of the barn?
"Heh, heh...let's dust off this old Communis' Scare Thang and put it up in the front yard...it was a scream back in the Fifties!"
Yes. Communism. You know, extreme socialism that results in tyranny and oppression.


Quote:
Thanks to CONTAINMENT, Communism imploded all on it's own.
Wrong. Let's review history.

The 1947 Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the policy of containment (aka, a “substitute for victory”) were Democrat track covering. Truman’s natural instinct toward Stalin was goo-goo-minded liberalism. After carving up Germany with Stalin in the Potsdam Conference in 46 Truman told Henry Wallace, “Stalin was a fine man who wanted to do the right thing.” At the Nuremberg Trials Truman connived with Stalin to cover up Soviet war crimes and flush the Hitler-Stalin Pact down the memory hole. Did you know that after Churchhill’s Iron Curtain speech, Truman apologized to Stalin and invited him to the US for a rebuttal speech? He graciously offered the murderer the services of the USS Missouri for the trip. When Truman created the Loyalty-Security Program in 47, he openly admitted to his friends he had done it only “to take the play away from” anti-Communist Republicans, whom he called “the animals”.

Democrats love to cite Truman’s doctrine of “containment” as if it were an aggressive hawkish stance. “Containment” sounded rougher than it was in practice. Why? Because by 1950, Truman’s sly strategy of “containment” had led to Communist takeovers of all of Eastern Europe and more than a billion people in China. Truman’s defenders hail his abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by proudly boasting that the decision avoided a bloody and futile war, and has made the recent improvement of Sino-American relations possible. So by not opposing a Communist takeover, Truman helped pave the way to warm relations with the resulting Communist dictatorship, and the only downside was that…China was then a Communist dictatorship. In a speech to the National Press Club writing off South Korea, Dean Acheson, Truman’s secretary of state, excluded South Korea from America’s defensive perimeter, saying “no person can guarantee these areas against military attack”. Stalin was impressed, and with his blessing, North Korea attacked South Korea just five months later. Acheson did not see Ho Chi Minh as a threat, but viewed him as a nationalist and armed the anti-Communist forces more as an afterthought.



Here’s your containment at work (see if you detect a pattern):

Woodrow Wilson--While this Democrat was in office, the October Revolution brought the Communists to power in Russia. The friend of Democrats and liberals, The Soviet Union, quickly seized Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, and starved about 5 million people to death.

Calvin Coolidge 1923 – 1929--The Soviets added Mongolia, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kirgizia to their empire.

Herbert Hoover 1929 – 1933--The Soviets captured no new countries, but did starve another five to fifteen million people within the Soviet Republic.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1933 – 1944--His first act as President was to officially recognize the Soviet Union. The man he cheerfully referred to as "Uncle Joe" is one of history's greatest mass murderers. Alger Hiss, Soviet spy, was at FDR's side as Roosevelt sold out Eastern Europe at Yalta and promised Stalin three votes in the UN General Assembly, plus the right to name the #2 UN Official. On Roosevelt’s watch, the Soviets took eastern Poland, Moldavia, Lithunaia, Latvia, Estonia, and Albania. "Unlce Joe" murdered an estimated twelve to twenty million people, and forced at least ten million into slave labor.

Harry Truman 1945 – 1953--Lost China, the most populous nation on earth, to communism. The Red Chinese occupied Tibet. Over the next four decades Chinese Communists would murder between 34 million and 64 million Chinese and an estimated 1 million Tibetans, As as part of Truman's tireless battle against Communism, he was in office for two years before he put into place a strategy of even partial resistance to the Soviets. On his watch, the Soviets consolidated their control over Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, eastern Germany to the Elbe River, Yogoslavia, and North Korea to the 38th parallel. He in effect started the Korean War when the Soviet backed North Koreans attacked South Korea, just five months after his Secretary of State, Acheson, told the world in a speech that Korea wasn't worth a conflict. Ho Chi Minh announced Communism in Vietnam. At this point, Stalin had 100 million people under his rule.

Dwight Eisenhower 1953 – 1961--The Korean War was concluded with a truce, winning no territory back, but holding the Communist North Koreans at the 38th parallel. Cuba fell to Communism under Fidel Castro, establishing the first Soviet Backed Communist Regime in the Western Hemisphere. The Communist Vietcong instigated a violent insurrection to conquer South Vietnam. John Foster Dulles's "rollbak policy", aimed - in theory, at rolling back Soviet power in Eastern Europe, was quickly abandoned as the hot air that it always was after the Red Army crushed a popular uprising in Hungary in 1956 and the US refused to intervene. The Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, exploded their first thermonuclear weapon, and successfully tested the first intercontinental ballistic missile (almost a year ahead of the US). In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev warned visiting ambassadors from the West "We will bury you".

John F Kennedy 1961 – 1963--In just two short years the US was humiliated in the Bay of Pigs incident (where Kennedy refused to provide air support after letting those poor bastards hit the beach), lost a standoff with the Soviet Union resulting in US missiles being pulled out of Turkey, and began the Vietnam War to ill effect. The Soviet Union detonated a 58 megaton thermonuclear device - the largest man made explosion in history. The USSR also beat the United States in space, sending the first man into orbit. East Germany erected the Berlin Wall.

Lyndon B Johnson 1963 – 1969--Communsit regimes were established in South Yemen and Congo-Brazzaville. China exploded its first hydrogen bomb.

Richard Nixon 1969 – 1974--A Marxist regime was established in Benin. Providing the first serious resistance any American President had put up to Communist advances, South Vietnam was saved from Communism for another few years - until Watergate allowed the Democrats to abandon Vietnam.

Gerald Ford 1974 – 1977--The Imperial Congress empowered by Watergate turned its back on our allies in Southeast Asia. South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos fell to Communism. Communist regimes were also established in Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Angola, and Mozambique. Over the next decade, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese "boat people" risked death at sea to flee Communism. In Cambodia, Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot murdered between one million and four million out of a population of seven million (the Democrat controlled House refused to provide any, ANY aid to stop this by a wide margin).

Jimmy Carter 1977 – 1981--There wasn't much territory left for the Soviets, but Carter did what he could to help. Soviet backed Marxists came to power in Nicaragua, the Seychelles, and Grenada. The Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan. Carter lifted the ban on travel to Cuba and North Korea. With his impeccable sense of timing, Carter gave a speech on May 22, 1977, exhorting Americans to abandon their "inordinate fear of Communism". Days later Cuba dispatched a military force to Ethiopia.


Other than that, yeah, Communism was contained and steadily weakening. Let's continue.

Ronald Reagan 1981 – 1989--For the first time since the Russian Revolution, Communist countries began to become free. Not ONE COUNTRY FELL TO COMMUNISM on Reagan's watch. Three Soviet regimes began to crumble, one was taken back outright (Grenada) and by the end of Reagan's presidency, the USSR was negotiating the terms of its surrender. In 1980, months before Reagan would be elected President, Harvard Sovietologist Adam Ulam ruefully remarked that the Soviets expanding empire could not be stopped unless faced with "a power strong and determined enough to make Soviet foreign adventurism too risky and expensive". Under Ronald Reagan, America was that power. He came to the presidency audaciously announcing that the Soviet Union was an evil empire "whose last pages even now are being written." By the end of Reagan's second term, the last page had been written.



Spencer
spencer6891 is offline Find More Posts by spencer6891
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2004, 08:35 PM
Registered User
vintage1's Avatar
East Anglia, UK
Joined Sep 2002
29,689 Posts
What your analysis fails to take accont of, was that by and large very single country that 'fells to communism' post 1945 (and Grenada was not one of them by the way) was baiscally an ex colonial country that was usually run by a puppet government and rotten to the core.

The soviet empire rotted from within, China - who for may years was engaged in a border war wih the soviet union) has gradually reversed many of its policies, and all the tiny countries that are left as so called marxist states are either new rotten little tin pot dicatorships, or are simply not really marxist anymore.

If you for example contrast say Zaire, with Angola, one 'marxist' the other - well who knows WHAT Zaire is, you will find remarkably little difference. They are both gone to hell.

If you examine the reasons why these countries are now post colonials, you will find it ws because the expense of maintaining an empire simply wasn't worth the benefit obtained from it.And the 'regime change' of sliding out and letting the local fat cats take over left a power vacuum into which the marxists neatly stepped, and frankly, no one cared. Except the poor locals who got just as raw a deal from the new masters as the had all along from the old.

Apart from economic slavery of the south americans, and a bit of ethnic cleansing of the locals, America hasn't done the empire bit yet, so a little ignorance is excusable, but one shold at least read up a bit of history other than the version you got off a neocon website - and do a bit of cost benefit analysis before starting another war somewhere. They are frightfully expesnsive, and do make you very unpopular with the natives, and they are awfully hard to back out of without looking stupid when the cost begins to mount (e.g. Vietnam, the ONLY case I can call to mind where actual military force was enaged apart from Korea, whch ended in a draw. We won't mention Grenada, which was a farce beyond all comprehension).

In short, imposing some ideal on the world is too expensive. In lives, in oil, and in hard cash.

You'll see.
vintage1 is offline Find More Posts by vintage1
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2004, 09:28 PM
Registered User
spencer6891's Avatar
NC
Joined Aug 2004
997 Posts
vintage1, you failed to understand my point. My point was that containment IN NO WAY weakened Communism or the Soviet Union.

Quote:
They are frightfully expesnsive, and do make you very unpopular with the natives, and they are awfully hard to back out of without looking stupid when the cost begins to mount (e.g. Vietnam, the ONLY case I can call to mind where actual military force was enaged apart from Korea, whch ended in a draw. We won't mention Grenada, which was a farce beyond all comprehension).
Oh, we wouldn't want to be "unpopular with the natives"! Heaven forbid the world would dislike the United States!

And yes, it does look stupid to back out of a war. That's why I don't support it. I didn't support backing out of Vietnam (we WERE winning the ground war), and I don't support backing out of Iraq or the War on Terror in general. Agree there.

Spencer
spencer6891 is offline Find More Posts by spencer6891
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2004, 09:47 PM
Restful User
Jacques Flambeau's Avatar
Backwoods Alabama
Joined May 2000
3,861 Posts
Quote:
In short the USA did precisely what Bin Laden dreamed of. Roared into the middle east, all guns blazing, killed (hundreds?) of thousands, and made themselves thoroughly unpopular...
That is the "cowboy diplomacy" that I've referred to.

One telling Bushism to recall: when GDubba said that we needed to get Saddam 'cause he tried to kill mah daddy (paraphrased).

The fellow is an embarrassment. Vote him out on Tuesday.

--Bill
Jacques Flambeau is offline Find More Posts by Jacques Flambeau
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2004, 10:26 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencer6891
vintage1, you failed to understand my point. My point was that containment IN NO WAY weakened Communism or the Soviet Union.



Oh, we wouldn't want to be "unpopular with the natives"! Heaven forbid the world would dislike the United States!

And yes, it does look stupid to back out of a war. That's why I don't support it. I didn't support backing out of Vietnam (we WERE winning the ground war), and I don't support backing out of Iraq or the War on Terror in general. Agree there.

Spencer
Thanks for the John Birch Society Revisionist History of Communism.
And NO, we were NOT winning the war in Vietnam.
Good lord, save us.
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2004, 10:29 PM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
Vintage1, once again, I tip my hat to you. You know your stuff. GREAT posts.
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 06:57 AM
Registered User
vintage1's Avatar
East Anglia, UK
Joined Sep 2002
29,689 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencer6891
vintage1, you failed to understand my point. My point was that containment IN NO WAY weakened Communism or the Soviet Union.



Oh, we wouldn't want to be "unpopular with the natives"! Heaven forbid the world would dislike the United States!

And yes, it does look stupid to back out of a war. That's why I don't support it. I didn't support backing out of Vietnam (we WERE winning the ground war), and I don't support backing out of Iraq or the War on Terror in general. Agree there.

Spencer
You know, we are closer than you think, although we end up in different conclusions.

I aso think that whilst it was a mistake to be in Vietnam, it was in a sense a bigger one to get out.

It was a winnable war, and it was an actal real lfe military war, not a phoney war.

But the whole Cold War era was a huge game of deception, implied threat and counter threat, with many players. The NeoCons like to call it by a single name - the Communist Threat, and mark the Soviet union down as the main protagomnist.

Just as now its the War on Terror and its all down to Bin Laden and Al Qeda.

In both cases this is gross over simplification. Ther were at least three semi-linked, but often bitterly opposed, camps of those who supported and encouraged 'radical revolutionary marxism' - the Soviets, who by and large decide to abandon expansionism in the 70's, the Chinese, who were looking for far east hegemony - now largely achieved, and Cuba, which or some reason decided to make play in Africa mainly. Countries were quite capable of playing off Chinese/Russian tensions. And did.

It is in effect useful to put a historical perspectie on all this. The first great disruption was the spread of colonialism in the 19th century. Here companies like the East India comany, looked to get monopoly access to resoures in undeveloped countries, and they got government backing for it: A situation not too dissimilar to teh oil situation today. The Britsh Raj for example installed puppet governments in India, and propped them up with limited military aid. No diferent from the USA in the middle east and south america, and the Chinese in the far east, and the Russians in eastern europe. Or indeed the Romans across Europe in AD dot.

This is almost a natural and inevitable process when a large and fairly developed culture hits an undeveloped one. Let's call it stage one, colonialism.

Then what happens is the natives get restless, and want a bigger slice of te cake, and someone - be they preaching democray, or marxsim, or nationalism, or whatever, comes along and delares 'Britain for the Brtanni' or indeed in our case the Iceni, and dear oul Bodicca, who did her bit of 'freedom fighting' more or less where I live today. Surrounded by Ixworth, Ickworth, Ickleton etc etc. All Iceni tribal names etc etc.

What then happens is that those who run the empire discover that the cost of maintaing the empire exceeeds the benefits derived from it. The natives are revolting as always, and in the case of the US, decide to become republics etc, or in some way become quasi independent, tho often affiliated. Canada and India and Australia and South Africa are ex-colonies that retain strong ties to the UK, whereas currently Zimbabwe's ruler hates us. etc. etc.

The same appened post Soviet collapse. The quasi autonomous state looked around, chose the best options going, and are all teaming up with Europe.

In short we get a sort of confederation, rather than colonialisation. Stage II. Most of the Arab states in the middle east are somewhere in this sort of state: they maintain ties with the west, but are autonomously ruled. Some are mildly democratic. like Egypt, and Turkey,some are fairly despotic, like Libya and Iraq were. Iran is an interesting case, having gone from western puppet through despotic religious, and is emerging very slowly as a sort of independent entity in its own right. Not demcratic, but sort of semi-demoratic in the sort of way Britain was 500 years ago, in that there is a parliament, but the king, or Mullahs in this case, have ultimate power of veto.

Now the European view on all this is that its a process that these countries are going through, and its a process that can be affected, but not dominated by the West. We tried democracy at the point of a gun,and it didn't work. Its a bit of a contradiction in terms for a start, and its impossibly expensive - and that's the real killer.

That's the real difference between the US current worldview, and the European.

We know to our cost how much it costs to maintain law and order in far flung countries. We know out greatest challenges come not from Marxism, or terrorism, but from running out of oil, and he need to keep our populations reasonably happy. Its cynical, and not religious, but faced with being shot at by the natives, for no return, or letting them shoot at each other, we tend to let the latter prevail.

This has very much been the US view for decades. And up to and includng WWII,where for a long tme it 'wasn't their problem' As long as revolutions didn't happen in S america, what happened in Africa was of no concern. Europe was stablised against communism, and no european county on the western side of the iron curtain went communist, and for whatever reason, no armed invasion of any w. european country happened either. In short containment did work in Europe, and mostly in S america, and in all the carribean apart from Cuba. As far as the far east went, we let the chinese have what they could hold - I mean who wanted Nepal, Thibet, Laos, Cambodia etc etc anyway? Pol Pot made a mess of his bit, but its largely sorted now. N Korea is still sitting there wondering whether its going to be re-invaded whlst it goes to the dogs, and Burma is still a nasty little sore, but largely its all pretty open these days, and moving on. The Chinese have their own problems, and are happy as long as they don't feel threatened, to sort them out and let the globe go its own way.

In short, it isn't an issue.

So what is different about the Middle East? Two things.Oil, and Israel. Otherwise we would sit back and let them do their own thing in a normal post colonial sort of way.

The huge backlog of Eurpean guilt over the Nazi escapades, plus the large amount of Zionist support from the UA made Israel a reality. It was probably a very bad idea, but heck, we didn't foresee that.

Or if there hadn't been oil in the middle east, the natives there would not have had the cash to buy weapons, and start beating up on each other, or Israel.

But they did, so we hve a selection of states that are, bluntly,
- too expensive to invade and HOLD
- too sophisticated to do what they are told
- too rich to ignore
- too proud to accept the impostition of Israel on their patch without a murmur.

Hence the various wars that have been going on there in the last few decades.

The various religious movements are a natural reaction to rapid societal change. Just as you see in the USA the potential advances in e.g. medical technology cause deep concern amongst the Christian community, raising issues of morality that have never been faced before, so too in Islamic countries the West's lackadaisical approach (as they see it) to sexual liberty, materialisms and consumerism is seen as a very real threat to a traditional way of life, and traditional moral standards.

So the mullahs get listeners, and then its only a short step from that to have those who always manipulate religious opinion and prejudice, to step in and start making that disquiet the basis for a moral and armed Crusade - or Jihad - against something that is perceived as foreign, and unwanted..

Its a complex mix of fear of Westernisation and moral decay ( compare e,.g. the US fundamentalist Christian fear of liberalisation and moral decay: Actually these guys are on the same trip) plus genuine (and in my view fairly justified) outrage at the Israel/Palestine situation, plus a deep seated resentment of the West, and particularly the USA, and Israel, which appears to operate double standards, allowing things to happen in the Middle east by Westerners that would never be tolerated actually IN the West.

That's the mindset of your average middle easterner. Pretty anti-Israel, and anti USA, but not a violent suicide bomber at all. Yet. Most of the e.g. Iranians I have spoken too want to see nothing more than a country that is governed sanely, without too many rules coming down from the Mullahs that make life difficult, and with reasonably open trade with the west, and yes, they don't want to be forced to allow pornograpy on the shelves or alcohol in the streets a part of some 'right' that is enforced on them at gunpoint.

But it's fear of that that makes some of them resort to extreme measures. Not the one's I know of course.

Bin Laden is precisely correct, that the security of the west against terrorism lies precisely in addressing the Israel situation. And keeping out of the Middle East until it settles down. Sanctions and containment have worked extremely well in curtailing Libya, were working well in Iraq really as we can now see. and leaning gently on Iran plus huge pressure from within is forcing it to moderate its extreme attitudes. Jordan has managed to tread a tightrope rather well, Lebanon has been destroyed, but is no threat. Only Saudi is in a precarious situation.

All that was necessary in Iraq was to sit there on its borders with a huge army, and send in the inspectors, and force regulation on its industries. Saddam would have died sooner or later. Or been deposed. And it would have not been nearly so expensive.

There has been some benefit from the invasion, in that now the whole world is aware that the USA does not make sane decisions. This will speed up the process of e.g. countries exposing their nuclear programs to demonstrate that they were only pretending they had bombs etc.

But all in all a Great Mistake.

Now we have to sort out the mess. And 10:1 gets you that the USA will wander off, and leave it to the UN.

BUT the next time the USA does it, it will do it alone, and proably without any support whatsoever fom the US militiary top brass, if what I am hearing is anything to go by. Or the business community.

I think you will find that whoever wins the electon, the NeoCons are more or less as usual a busted flush. Even Dubya isn't so thick that he can't see what's staring him in the face. It will happen quicker with Kerry, but what has to happen has to happen. US election funding comes from big business. Big business will suffer as well if messes are left, globally. So will the American people if oil prices stay high, and eventually the word gets out as to whose fault it all was.

Military action should always be the action of last resort, and should be carefully planned with specific military objectives, and then stopped.

Regime chnge by mlitary actin is a complete and utter disater. If a vcontry can;t achieve it on its own, or with a little help from foreign powers, its not going to be stable once its happened militarily.

I like the military. I applaud our armed forces. But I have no time at all for those who would sit there and send them out to play games of geopolitics based on false paranoid assumptions, purely for their own reasons of money and power. Fom time to tije, limted miltary actionas in e.g.Kosovo, makes sense. Msotly its a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But weak stupid men have always resorted to war as an excuse for not actually understanding things, and coming up with intelligent solutions.

History as we are told, will repeat itself until lessons are drawn.
vintage1 is offline Find More Posts by vintage1
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 07:41 AM
Out of Time
United States, TX
Joined Jul 2003
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage1
But the whole Cold War era was a huge game of deception, implied threat and counter threat, with many players. The NeoCons like to call it by a single name - the Communist Threat, and mark the Soviet union down as the main protagomnist.

Just as now its the War on Terror and its all down to Bin Laden and Al Qeda.

In both cases this is gross over simplification. Ther were at least three semi-linked, but often bitterly opposed, camps of those who supported and encouraged 'radical revolutionary marxism' - the Soviets, who by and large decide to abandon expansionism in the 70's, the Chinese, who were looking for far east hegemony - now largely achieved, and Cuba, which or some reason decided to make play in Africa mainly. Countries were quite capable of playing off Chinese/Russian tensions. And did.
You lost me early on this one because your suggestion of "gross over simplification" is self realized in your description when you leave out the entire equation of world power.

You only mention that the US used the "Communist Threat" as a reason for our arms build up and foreign policies, and in doing so, you seem to flippantly ignore that the Soviets WERE a "Communist Threat".
And like many who do not live in the US, you continue to believe that the Soviets weren't a threat, and that they benignly gave up on "expansion" during the early 70's when, in fact, their giving up on expansion was a direct result of Reagan's foreign policy.

And also the typical thought of non-US people, America is always put forth as an "Imperialistic Empire", when there is absolutely NO history of America attempting to expand her borders.
The major conflicts American has been in have not expanded our borders, even when we could. If so, I can assure you that every Japanese citizen today would be speaking English as their primary language. (As it is, a lot of them just like to MOVE here .
HOWEVER, the goal of Germany AND Japan during WWII was VERY MUCH to add soil to their Empires, and no one doubts today that America would be a German or Japanese colony if the war had gone differently.

But as usual, America will always be thought of as the "bad guy" no matter what, while the real bad guys are given a pass and even thought to be people "oppressed" by we nasty 'ol Americans.

As far as America pulling out and leaving the mess to the U.N., I'm afraid you seem to be a little confused on that one considering that just the opposite is the norm.

And yes, history is going to repeat itself again: America is going to pull the rest of the world out of a crack, and get "blamed" for doing so.

As a famous Leftist once said: "and so it goes".

Highflight
Highflight is offline Find More Posts by Highflight
Last edited by Highflight; Nov 01, 2004 at 07:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 08:20 AM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
" But as usual, America will always be thought of as the "bad guy" no matter what, while the real bad guys are given a pass and even thought to be people "oppressed" by we nasty 'ol Americans."

Horse fritters. Up until recently, america was ALWAYS seen as the good guys. Vietnam being a notable exception, and right NOW being a complete sea change in how we are seen. Up until then, Americans could hold their heads up high almost anywhere they went on the planet, secure in the knowledge that they were being seen as the "good guys", albeit sometimes misguided. But basically in the right.
You tell me....tell me...how did we change so badly?


Anyway...it all DOES boil down to Israel. Israel is not going to dissapear, but we cannot let them continue with them holding their war gains and opressing palestinians. Somethings got to give. They need to GIVE, they need to swallow their pride a bit, and give the appearance of losing, and that's just not in their charachter. The arabs are so himiliated at this point, they need a "victory" to call it quits. There has been absolutely no compirmise, the israelis want to keep their war gains, they want it all. And WE are suffering, too, because of it.
Personally, I am no big fan of the palesitnians, but they are human beings, and they have a right to a place to live. But the isrealis, shame on them. People who should know much better, pshycologists call it "ingesting the agressor", it's why you never put ex-cons in charge of prisoners.
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 09:32 AM
Registered User
vintage1's Avatar
East Anglia, UK
Joined Sep 2002
29,689 Posts
Totally agree Easy Tiger. Lost of sympathy for teh average Isreali, andlots for teh average palestinian. Just that extremists are battling it out over their heads so to speak.

Heard a very intersting comment on teh news today from a US politcal commentatoir roughly tht 'we don't discuss world politics in the USA at all really its not been part of anyones interest pre 9/11'

Hoghflifht: don't have time to respond in detail, now, but would be very interested to continue to explore where we agree and where we don't and why. If the current levels of mutual respect can be retained.

To cut it shorter, I think its really a question of teh Neocons saying 'because we can, and because we should' and me saying, 'well you can, but its flipping expensive, and won't achieve the desired result, and I am not so sure on the moral grounds either...'

There is an intersting example of a moral problem posed in a philosppht cousre teh a friend of mine did.

Locke (IIRC?) propounded 'the greatest good for the greatest number' as being a rough guideline. But consider.

4 men are dying, one needs a heart transplant, another a kidney transplant, a third a lung transplant, the fourth a liver transplant, and there is a fifth totally healthy man in the game.

Should we kill the fith man, because that way we can use his organs to save 4 lives, or should we let the 4 die and the fifth survive, because its his life and no one has the right to take it away from him?

You see what I mean about simplistic analyses....?

vintage1 is offline Find More Posts by vintage1
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 09:38 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,574 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage1
4 men are dying, one needs a heart transplant, another a kidney transplant, a third a lung transplant, the fourth a liver transplant, and there is a fifth totally healthy man in the game.

Should we kill the fith man, because that way we can use his organs to save 4 lives, or should we let the 4 die and the fifth survive, because its his life and no one has the right to take it away from him?

You see what I mean about simplistic analyses....?

Well you could kill any one of the four sick men to harvest their organs for the remaining three and you need never touch the fifth man at all.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 09:46 AM
Registered User
LTChip's Avatar
Helena, MT
Joined Feb 2003
2,913 Posts
Maybe the healthy man should pick out one of the others and kill him - thereby saving himself and the other three. Then no 6th party needs to be involved at all.
LTChip is offline Find More Posts by LTChip
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 09:49 AM
Time for me to Fly...
Mr. Wiz's Avatar
United States, MI, Fenton
Joined Jan 2000
8,455 Posts
Or you could just wait for one of the sick men to die hoping that he'll expire in time to save the others.

Wiz
Mr. Wiz is offline Find More Posts by Mr. Wiz
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 11:26 AM
Permanently Banned
Joined May 2001
3,816 Posts
Wait a minute...the fifth man is not KOSHER, but two of the four sick guys are...so now what? You can't go transplanting non-kosher organs into these guys.
easytiger is offline Find More Posts by easytiger
Reply With Quote
Old Nov 01, 2004, 12:30 PM
LcJ
Forever TMWT Pilot #11
LcJ's Avatar
United States, LA, Monroe
Joined Mar 2003
5,731 Posts
Or you could do the moral thing and let God decide who dies and then use that which remained.

But when you look at a lot of things such as this other questions come to mind. Should we as a society grow spare parts by simply aborting the brain and not the brain stem and let the "not yet a person" baby become a brainless and therefore non-existant salient being that then become a full grown commodity? Think such has not already been thought of.

Just another sick possibility in our ever evolving culture that runs from God as fast as it can. Many are still looking for the fountain of youth.

LcJ
LcJ is offline Find More Posts by LcJ
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: RC Logger's Eye One Xtreme Quad
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Top performance from a man who would be POTUS gtstubbs Life, The Universe, and Politics 7 Apr 24, 2007 08:42 AM
Who would be interested in indoor flying in Cleveland? Chris K Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models 2 Oct 17, 2002 02:10 PM