RoR: Forum

Post 40

Wednesday, February 13 - 12:41pm

Link

Edit

Those who chose to operate under a policy of pre-emption put the United States in grave danger. The pre-emptive attack launched against Atlantis was done so in the name of this doctrine. The aged Huckabee, speaking to his followers, said

“The libertines in Australia are now in the process of a vote about whether or not to attack us. Do we wait until the final vote is cast and the missiles are landing upon us before we act? No, of course not! We must act pre-emptively and attack their sacred Valhalla.”

And so they sent that missile, thinking that by tossing aside the non-initiation of force principle, they could get an advantage. But now they face the blowback from Atlantis. The Huckabeans, through their policy of pre-emption, have endangered not only their own lives, but the lives of all Americans.

Post 41

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:19pm

Link

Edit

Vietnam was backed by China, not the USSR

Well, yes, with a statement like that, your understanding of history is wrong. China sent 400,000 troops to North Vietnam to help secure it, but at the height of the Vietnam war approximately half of the entire Soviet Unions global military expenditures were going into Vietnam.

Those AK-47's, tanks, bombs, artillery cannons, and fighters were NOT being made in China.

How exactly did our involvement there hurt the Soviet Union?...And we delayed the collapse of that regime into Communism by what, a little over a decade? And aren't we now trading with this awful communist nation that, like China, is headed toward capitalism?

It cost the Soviet Union a hell of a lot of money, to the point where it was almost bankrupted. Consider that the entire region of the former Soviet Union today makes up about 6% of the worlds population but accounts for only 3% of the worlds GDP. Yet the US, which makes up about 6% of the worlds population, is over 20% of it's GDP. Soviet military expenditures amounted to about 50% of it's GDP (60% at their peak during the SDI era) so fully 25% of the Soviet Unions GDP was going to fighting in Vietnam, while the US's GDP military expenditures never rose past about 4%. It was a major step in breaking the back of a bankrupt totalitarian regime bent on global domination.

Furthermore, without US opposition to the spread of communism and support of South Vietnam, There would have been no 'war' and the entire nation would have quickly fallen under the slave camps of communism, this would have meant that by 1965 or so the entire peninsula would have been communist, including Thailand. Instead, the spread of communism throughout this region was delayed by approximately 10 years, during which Singapore, the Philippines, and Indonesia grew orders of magnitude in wealth, Singapore became one of the most industrialized and wealthiest nations on the planet. The combined economic standing of these nations made further communist expansion much more difficult, not that they didn't try, In 1965 the Communist Party of Indonesia, with backing from the Soviet Union, attempted a military coup. If the US had not been involved in supporting South Vietnam, the tremendous resources utilized by the Soviet Union and China during this time would have been diverted to new communist insurgencies, such as Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines. Without that tremendous growth, these nations surely would have fallen to communism as well.

Consider that within 2 years of the fall of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Burma were all communist as well, and incursions were made into Thailand.

wasn't the American-backed regime in South Vietnam a corrupt authoritarian government with little popular support?

Yes, so was the government of South Korea, yet today it is one of the richest and freest in the world. 'little popular support' is an extremely disingenuous comment as well, it's like saying that because the US is half democrat and half republican any particular president has 'little popular support' There were many different factions vying for power in South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem was not particularly popular, the latter for oppressive policies regarding Buddhists (of course, in North Vietnam Buddhists were just outright killed, and there was no press to document it, instead of being discriminated against as in the South)

Others, like Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky, received alot of popular support.

The vote in 1968 saw an 80% turnout, even among threats of assassination from the Viet Cong, and over 260,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in combat defending their nation. So yeah, particular leaders might have had less popular support, but the war and the sovereignty of the nation received tremendous popular support.

But anyway, I wasn't aware we needed popular support and approval to fight for just causes. Democracy is only applicable after rule of law, to suggest we need popular support to act to defend human rights against communist enslavement is to suggest that human rights themselves are merely matters of voter preference.

It's one thing to help arm a country where the citizens largely support their government and are willing to fight to defend their freedoms.

It's due repeating - Over 260,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in combat defending their nation.

But, it's another story to send your own conscripted troops in who thoroughly object to this forced quasi-slavery

I do not support the draft either, but that does not mean the war was unjust, approximately 1/4rd of those fighting in Vietnam war were drafted (1/2 in WWII, 1/3 in Korea) and the draft was ended due to the public opposition to it.

Post 42

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:32pm

Link

Edit

August 5^th,2083

The war ramp-up begins. A call for volunteers goes ringing throughout Australia. Thousands of young men and women volunteer. (Besides the nobility of the effort, they are also induced by substantial perks- such as a lifetime exemption from fees-for-service- they essentially do not have to pay taxes for services for the rest of their lives). An army is swiftly raised and deployed by ship.

September 2

The War Begins. Air-deployed Nanotechnological devices and EMP pulse bombs take out Americas technology (such as it is). By September 15^th, skies are clear for Atlantean aircraft to drop paramilitary personnel into Vermont, allowing the New Hampshire forces to concentrate on their southern border.

September 20^th

Invasion of California. Atlantean troops take the beaches of Los Angeles. Laser networks go up in Malibu, and American forces withdraw East of the San Andreas. In a symbolic move, Admiral Ashton of the Australian Navy raises headquarters in Laguna Beach on the Early-21^st century site of the Ayn Rand Institute. Ground battles begin throughout California.

September 22^nd

The American Grand Republican gives an ultimatum to Atlantean forces. He concedes that he cannot successfully fight them and he cannot nuke the Atlantean homeland, so if Australian forces do not withdraw he will be forced to nuke a third party. He chooses Admiral Ashton’s birthplace: London. This blackmail threat will forever be referred to as The Day America Died: the day it symbolically stopped being the nation of Jefferson and Adams.

September 23rd

Admiral Ashton calls his mother at dawn- she still lives in London. He says goodbye. He gives a speech on live broadcast that will ultimately lead to his election as Head of State in 2094. He defies the Grand Republican, unconsciously paraphrasing John Galt, telling the Grand Republican to look in the mirror and ask himself whose hands will be bloody and whose will be clean. London begins evacuating, but the nuclear attack doesn’t happen. The Grand Republican apparently deserts his capital, leaving America leaderless. Ultimately, as per the 43^rd amendment, the American President ascends to power.

In the window before order is restored, American forces vacillate and disperse. The New President takes power with America already occupied- he has no options- he surrenders.

October 1st

Mike Huckabee's followers poison the drinking water in Nashua, NH. Hundreds die. An invasion of Kentucky is planned, but Huckabee has vanished- sneaking through the mountains and into Mexico.

Post 43

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:32pm

Link

Edit

Bill:

Freedom isn't something you're obligated to pay for. You have a RIGHT to it. That doesn't mean that you have a right to its defense. The defense of your freedom is a service. But a service is something you should be free to accept or reject. It is not something you should be forced to accept and to pay for at whatever price the provider demands; otherwise, it's not a service, but a forced imposition.

That is why, as children, we all get a bye on the concept. But, as an adult, should we decide to reject the expensively obtained freedom afforded by this political context, we are free to walk out of the 7/11 and go build our own farm, bakery, and seek other services for the defense of our freedom (that only you claim you have a right to without payment.)

As an adult, you continue to accept the benefits of this expensively maintained and defended at great cost political context. You claim you don't agree with the price.   Well, as an adult, do the ethical thing: "No Sale". Walk out of the store, and don't eat the freedom bread. Go bake your own freedom bread, and pay the price you deem worthwhile.

Hey, heres an opportunity: http://www.nicabeachfront.com/Bocal1.htm

Tell you what: no extra charge for having previously plowed the fields for you, by expensively facing down Hitler's Germania and the USSR. As for the present and future and endless bands of crazies, well, you are on your own. But, feel free to show them those "No Force Allowed: Not Vigorously Enforced" signs on your new beachfront condo off the coast of Nicaraugua.   You never know, it could work.

But, as an adult, to continue to eat the freedom bread availed to you in this expensively maintained and defended political context, then claim you have a right to eat the freedom bread without paying anything or less than the by law not whim market price for same, well, that is stealing. As a child, it is not. After all, you had no choice. You didn't ask to be born into a free nation. But, as a capable adult, you do have a choice. So, choose wisely.

That is truly a remarkable worldview: "Freedom is free(isn't something you or anyone on your behalf is obligated to 'pay' for.)" You have a RIGHT to it.

Sure, tell that to the 400,000 Americans who died in WWII ripping the free world from a drasticly different alternative. If only they had known.

Your naked assertion, "Freedom is free", is nowhere in evidence in this world as it is. Freedom does not fall effortlessly from the sky, unabetted, in this world, as it is.

If not, then if you have a RIGHT to it, then who has the obligation to provide it for you in this world, as it is?

Folks who can't afford to buy and run their own farms, build and run their own bakeries, and who did not agree to be born in a free capitalist nation based on a commerce of value for value must still pay for the bread in the 7/11.   "I didn't agree to it and I have no other choice!" is not an excuse to steal the bread out of 7/11s.

Folks who can't afford to buy and run their own private offshore "GilliGalt's Island" and who did not agree to be born in a free nation must ethically still pay for the benefit they receive from living in that expensively maintained and defended political context.   I mean, once they are an able adult.    Only children get a bye, and only for as long as they are actually children, not for as long as they are actually acting like children.

regards,
Fred

.

Post 44

Wednesday, February 13 - 5:50pm

Link

Edit

Before considering how to move ahead in the pursuit of Huckabee, I will take this opportunity to reflect on some historic debates that took place in the beginning of the century.

One was the famous Dwyer-Bartlett debate on the ethics of taxation. They were able to talk past one another for decades. Ultimately Dwyer’s position proved to be correct. Taxation, being a form of coercion, is a violation of an individual’s rights. Atlantis is living proof that freedom can be free. The idea that freedom requires coercion is a contradiction of terms.

Another long-lasting debate from the turn of the century was the Henshaw-Dickey debate on the merits of pre-emptive wars. As we all know, Henshaw’s position has become a key element in our Atlantean foreign policy. In contrast, the Huckabeans have embraced the Dickey position, using pre-emption as an excuse for the indiscriminate initiation of force. Considering that we in Atlantis had never initiated force against the United States, the attack against Valhalla (read post #30) was unjustified. Huckabee’s rationale for that evil act of destruction (read post #40) was pre-emption. It is a non-objective idea that has been called upon throughout history to justify the initiation of force.

As to our on-going war against the Huckabeans, we are now asking help from the Mexican government in capturing Huckabee and his gang of patriots. If Mexico refuses to help us in this, and also refuses to allow us entry into their country, do we enter by force?

I, for one, say we should. Victory will not be achieved until the Huckabeans are captured and surrender unconditionally.

Post 45

Wednesday, February 13 - 5:56pm

Link

Edit

I think this is worth repeating:

Mike Dickey wrote: It's funny Mark that you say:

How could Iran, which possesses perhaps 1% of American military and economic capability, threaten the United States? Well, the reasoning goes, eventually Iran may acquire nuclear weapons, send them to the US through the agency of suitcase terrorists, and destroy us

and then not one paragraph later, say this

We are terribly vulnerable to attack, because our monetary and financial system is artificially centralized and fragile--the result of 100 years of coercive federal restrictions. Take out one or two major cities, and the fractitional reserve monetary system, that makes possible payment by checks and credit cards, would crash. Immediately following, the division of labor would implode and starvation would ensue

So which is it, do terrorist nukes pose a threat or not?

Mike very well done pointing out the incoherence of Mark's post. I think before the discussion goes further we should demand some coherence from Mark first. It sounds like he's more interested in using mindless propaganda to put forth the idea the U.S. should hunker down and take a pacifist approach to foreign policy instead of approaching this in an honest and objective manner. You can't continue this discussion meaningfully unless the other party agrees to discard his contradictions.

Post 46

Wednesday, February 13 - 5:59pm

Link

Edit

As an adult, you continue to accept the benefits of this expensively maintained and defended at great cost political context. You claim you don't agree with the price. Well, as an adult, do the ethical thing: "No Sale". Walk out of the store, and don't eat the freedom bread. Go bake your own freedom bread, and pay the price you deem worthwhile.

Post 47

Wednesday, February 13 - 6:39pm

Link

Edit

Eric: Re: post #44: LOL! Sanctioned it for the humor value.

Post 48

Wednesday, February 13 - 6:49pm

Link

Edit

Pre-emptive war isn't the correct term. If you are responding to aggression there is nothing pre-emptive about it. I'm not really finding Eric's posts all that funny but rather more like substituting reason for sarcasm and ridicule instead.

Post 49

Wednesday, February 13 - 6:53pm

Link

Edit

You're assuming that the government owns the country (store), and that if a citizen doesn't want to pay taxes, he's free to leave. But, as Rand would say, you should check your premises! The country is not the government's private property. Therefore, it has no right to demand that its citizens obey its arbitrary dictates as a condition of their right to live there.

And, even if we were, for the sake of exploring this argument, inclined to temporarily entertain the premise that government officials own all property within their geographical boundaries, but have graciously deigned to allow us serfs secondary and subsidiary private property rights contingent upon allowing our overlords to exact what depredations they may find amusing, if we underlings beg their condescension to grant us a passport that we may reject this kind offer of servitude and exit the country, and this surly request is peremptorily declined, are we then free to decline to pay taxes since we have rejected the conditions imposed upon us and begged leave to refuse the pleasure of our sovereigns' company?

(Sorry, just got finished watching the first half of PBS's "Pride and Prejudice".)

Post 50

Wednesday, February 13 - 7:38pm

Link

Edit

Michael, re: post 41: I was unaware that we had credible statistics about the GDP of the Soviet Union, or the amount they spent on defense. Do you have a link? I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that:

1) the Soviet Union's citizens and companies were not required to provide the U.S. federal government with tax returns during the Cold War so that we could accurately ascertain their country's GDP

2) that citizens subject to confiscatory taxation levels under a communist government would not be inclined to be scrupulously honest in reporting their income to their central government

3) that the Soviet military was not providing the U.S. government with accurate detailed expenditures on their military during said Cold War, and also probably not providing their own government with the same information because of the desire of all militaries to inflate their budgets

4) that the spies covertly monitoring the information gaps presented by the items above would not be able to obtain reliable intelligence of this

5) that the U.S. military would not be inclined to share all top secret information thus obtained with blabbermouthed Congresspersons lacking appropriate security clearance, and that the bureaucrats sharing this classified material with credulous and easily duped congresspersons would not be inclined to behave altruistically when sharing this classified information by not inflating the Soviet expenditures so as to obtain much larger budgets

6) that the subsequent egregious failures of intelligence gathering and analysis, and the persistent and institutionalized habit of officials like Alberto Gonzales of making shit up to save their sorry hides, are not a phenomenon confined exclusively to the past few years and did not reflect at all upon the entirely aboveboard and breathtaking honesty of government officials engaging in a war

7) that the persistent pattern of the U.S. government to engage in wartime propaganda and dysinformation in all other U.S. run wars was not inexplicably absent during the Vietnam War era

8) Oh, hell, if you still aren't convinced to be skeptical of those figures ...

Oh, and even if we grant, purely for the sake of advancing the discussion, the notion that the GDP and military spending figures of the Soviet Cold War military in Vietnam are accurate, and that this threat justified imposing involuntary taxation of 4% of U.S. GDP to contain this threat, and that as a result of this the good people of, say, Burma currently enjoy freedom and prosperity rather than suffering the poverty and servitude of the downtrodden citizens of, say, Hong Kong suffering under the yoke of Communist oppression, why on earth would we need to also kill 50,000 Americans in that conflict, rather than just arming the South Vietnamese and letting them defend themselves, seeing as my original point was about all the Americans needlessly killed in preemptive wars?

Regards, Jim

Post 51

Wednesday, February 13 - 7:50pm

Link

Edit

Jim, the figures for Soviet military expenditures and their GDP figures were revealed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Yes the communists did keep records. Shocking I know, but they did.

Oh, and even if we grant, purely for the sake of advancing the discussion, the notion that the GDP and military spending figures of the Soviet Cold War military in Vietnam are accurate, and that this threat justified imposing involuntary taxation of 4% of U.S. GDP to contain this threat,

Jim give me a break! Mike Dickey didn't say involuntary taxation was ok, and I believe I directly addressed this fallacy to you in another forum post didn't I? In fact I used the example of Ted Bundy, it wasn't wrong to lock up Ted Bundy for being a serial murderer even though it was wrong our taxes were taken without our consent.

Yeesh. You know Jim you criticized me for not wanting to engage in a discussion regarding anarcho-Capitalism with you, you implied you may have had some fresh new ideas to offer. So I capitulated to your criticism and decided to engage you in the discussion. The best you could offer was that anarcho-Capitalism is good because you had this idea of a hermit living in the Canadian mountains, and no further context was given. Come on Jim, let's get serious for a change!

Post 52

Wednesday, February 13 - 8:27pm

Link

Edit

John, agreed -- let's cordially agree to disagree on the Anarcho-capitalism thing. Let me keep on point iting out if I so desire, and you keep on ignoring it if you so desire, and we can discuss other things where we might actually have a chance of a meeting of minds.

The core of my post was this: even if I were to stipulate, if only for the sake of not getting drawn into discussions about side issues, that the Soviet GDP and military spending numbers were in fact not completely bogus, and at least partially reality based, and that the 4% spending of U.S. GDP was justified to contain Communism, why did 50,000 American soldiers have to die in Vietnam, and countless more get wounded?

Did these dead and maimed folks prevent much higher deaths and maiming of Americans if we had not sent U.S. troops into that or any other conflict in SE Asia, and simply kept pouring war materials to people resisting Communist incursions, buying time until the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its reckless military spending, and the Chinese adopted a more capitalistic system to prevent a similar implosion? Why send all those Americans over there in the line of fire, and in particular conscripts, instead of just relying on a relative handful of military advisors who had voluntarily enrolled in the military and were eager to help the non-Communists understand how to use the weaponry we were supplying them with, similar to our aiding the rebels fighting the Communists in Afghanistan (we'll ignore for now, for the sake of not getting dragged into yet another side discussion, the blowback of arming the Taliban, thus in part contributing to the unfortunate occurrances of 9/11)?

The same logic goes for the other pre-emptive wars (excluding WWII and Afghanistan -- and again, we'll not talk about the blowback from our participation in WWI and the Taliban thing contributing to these two subsequent wars where we did indeed have a dog in that fight, so as to stay on track for now) -- why not just send military equipment and a few advisors, and let the people whose freedom was directly threatened do the dying?

Post 53

Wednesday, February 13 - 8:39pm

Link

Edit

John,

I didn't intend any sarcasm or ridicule here. I know the whole futurist setting of the hypothetical can seem fantastical, but it isn't an attempt to be insincere. I'm attempting to employ reason as clearly and efficiently as I can. I'm trying my best here to think in essentials.

In fact, I believe we may be in agreement here about the term "Pre-emption" in that it doesn't apply to acts of retaliatory force. We agree that it implies the initiation of force where there has been no aggression.

In the case of the bombing of Atlantis (posts #30 and #40) the Americans initiated a pre-emptive strike. And, in that sense, I think we both agree that it is immoral. If in reading about the hypothetical attack on Atlantis, one feels the Huckabean Doctrine of Pre-Emption is legitimate, they need to check their premises.

I'm confused what you mean when you wrote, "Pre-emptive war isn't the correct term." Isn't the hypothetical in posts #30 and #40 an accurate example of what we're talking about?

Post 54

Wednesday, February 13 - 10:07pm

Link

Edit

Eric I took your post to mean Mike Dickey advocates pre-emptive war and that you interpret that to be an initiation of force, and if so then there is a contention on the definition of that word. While some here think pre-emption means attacking without provocation, i.e. an initiation of force, Mike Dickey is approaching the term to mean to retaliate against an act of aggression, more broadly to include aggression from a would-be assailant threatening either explicitly or implicitly use an initiation of force. I think 90% of the disagreements on this could be resolved if people didn't have such a narrow application for what constitutes a justified use of retaliatory force.

Jim

John, agreed -- let's cordially agree to disagree on the Anarcho-capitalism thing.

Well Jim it would've been nice if you chose to engage me in what I said about anarcho-capitalism rather than just choose to continue to disagree without further argument from you, especially since you chided me for initially not wanting to start up a new discussion about it. Since you took the approach that I was being unfair for not engaging you, and then I did, and then you decided not to engage me and asked to agree to disagree, I think you are holding me to a higher standard here than what you are willing to hold yourself to.

The core of my post was this: even if I were to stipulate, if only for the sake of not getting drawn into discussions about side issues, that the Soviet GDP and military spending numbers were in fact not completely bogus, and at least partially reality based, and that the 4% spending of U.S. GDP was justified to contain Communism, why did 50,000 American soldiers have to die in Vietnam, and countless more get wounded?

The casualty count was much higher due to McNamara's incompetence and Johnson's atrocious policy of not going after the NVA into North Vietnamese territory. But you're asking me why these American soldiers had to die, rather than asking why was the United States put into an almost impossible situation of choosing between capitulation to Soviet aggression or choosing to make a stand. I think it's terrible that many US soldiers died, but I don't pretend to think they died because the U.S. just chose without good reason to put our military into harm's way. The Soviet Union was seeking to spread communism throughout the world and had conquered or held proxies with almost 1/3 of the world's land mass. Not making a stand to slow them down or contain them would be like sticking your head in the sand while a murderer is running up and down your street killing your neighbors one by one while chanting "Well no reason to think he'll come after me". You look at this without any context of the cold war, you think the Soviets would've not tried to harm the United States or its interests if the US just minded its own business. Well sorry if there is an evil empire at your doorstep, toppling countries one by one and threatening your trading partners, it is childish naivete to think action is not warranted.

Why send all those Americans over there in the line of fire, and in particular conscripts, instead of just relying on a relative handful of military advisors who had voluntarily enrolled in the military and were eager to help the non-Communists understand how to use the weaponry we were supplying them with, similar to our aiding the rebels fighting the Communists in Afghanistan

On principle Jim I don't disagree with that. But I thought you didn't think that would be justified since our taxes are compulsory? Which is it? Is it ok to intervene and give aid and support to stop the aggression of an evil empire hell bent on taking over the world or isn't it? In 1973 the Vietnam war was over and won, with South Vietnam retaining its independence from communist North Vietnam with Nobel peace prizes handed out. With just material aid and support from the United States and without U.S. combat troops, the South Vietnamese fended off continued attacks from North Vietnam while holding on to its independence for a full two years. But in 1975 the Democrat controlled U.S. congress cut all funding to South Vietnam, effectively signing the death warrant of over 6 million Indochinese, and leaving the 50,000 American soldiers' death to have been in vain. That depraved act of abandoning an ally to wholesale slaughter was probably the most disturbing and disgusting thing the US congress did in the 20th century.

Why does there exist a harmony of interests between men to enter into a mutual alliance for self-defense in our country, but all of a sudden this harmony of interests evaporates when we speak of nations?

(we'll ignore for now, for the sake of not getting dragged into yet another side discussion, the blowback of arming the Taliban, thus in part contributing to the unfortunate occurrances of 9/11)?

I'll defer to Mr. Bidinotto's excellent analysis on "blowback" and more broadly the issue of non-interventionism. You can find a great thread about it here: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/1139.shtml

Post 55

Wednesday, February 13 - 10:42pm

Link

Edit

Michael, re: post 41: I was unaware that we had credible statistics about the GDP of the Soviet Union, or the amount they spent on defense. Do you have a link? I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that:

No, not handy I don't, but as John said, plenty of this information became available after the fall of the Soviet Union. Additionally, we can look at the current GDP vs population figures of the former soviet union and extrapolate that into the past, compare the cost estimates of the materials supplied to the North Vietnamese army (fighter jets, thousands of anti aircraft guns, millions of tons of ammunition, etc) and compare those to the figures available from the fall of the Soviet Union. This is difficult information to find on the web, which tends to be rather superficial, I've read dozens of books on the subject and do not recall which particular one addressed this, but given the above figures it is not an unreasonable estimation.

Oh, and even if we grant, purely for the sake of advancing the discussion, the notion that the GDP and military spending figures of the Soviet Cold War military in Vietnam are accurate, and that this threat justified imposing involuntary taxation of 4% of U.S. GDP to contain this threat,

That is not what you asked, Jim, in post 39 you specifically asked

How exactly did our involvement there hurt the Soviet Union?

I believe I have answered that question sufficiently. You did not ask if our involvement and attempts at containment justified taxation.

Why on earth would we need to also kill 50,000 Americans in that conflict, rather than just arming the South Vietnamese and letting them defend themselves, seeing as my original point was about all the Americans needlessly killed in preemptive wars?

This would have certainly been preferable, chalk it up to stupid military decisions and Kennedy, Nixon came in and immediately pushed for 'Vietnamization' of the War, training Vietnamese soldiers to fight on their own without tagging along with US combat troops and the program was extremely successful. Had we continued to support South Vietnam with the military supplies and aide (not combat troops) we promised in the paris peace accords, they would have been able to perpetually defend themselves against North Vietnamese Soviet backed communist aggression, as South Korea has been able to for 50 years. Instead the democratically controlled US congress actually made it *illegal* to provide ANY military or material aide to South Vietnam (and cambodia and laos) sealing their fate. Still, they continued to fight off North Vietnamese aggression for 2 years.

why did 50,000 American soldiers have to die in Vietnam, and countless more get wounded?

They did not *have* to, never mind that such a question implies omniscience, the Vietnam war could have been run differently and saw many fewer American casualties. Even so, America *had* to contain communism.

But when military equipment and a 'few advisors' don't work, combat troops sometimes are necessary.

Post 56

Thursday, February 14 - 7:08am

Link

Edit

Bill:

You're assuming that the government owns the country (store), and that if a citizen doesn't want to pay taxes, he's free to leave. But, as Rand would say, you should check your premises! The country is not the government's private property. Therefore, it has no right to demand that its citizens obey its arbitrary dictates as a condition of their right to live there.

No, I am not. This isn't about some politician pretending the run the country in DC.

I am assuming I have an ethical obligation, as an adult, to clear eyed understand the expensive circumstances which afford me the opportunity to own any store, anywhere in this expensively created and defended political context. You're assuming that 'Midas Mulligan' and sixteen of his closest friends, sitting there comfrotably in their little ski resort in Colorado, complete with 'Title' to the land that 'they own', had no ethical obligation at all to note the benefit that they receive from the real world fact of 16 million Americans in uniform expensively facing down Hitler's war machine.    You sound as if you factually believe that, had Hitler implemented his Germania, those troops would have stopped at the entrance to that ski resort and Hitler would would have said, "Oh, wait a minute, we can't do this, these guys have a receipt, they own the land. Sorry. my mistake."

No. In fantasies, Steve Jobs is building superman rayguns and putting them into the hands of brilliant 'pirates' employing all kinds of deus ex machine to be able to safely hide in the cut of the factual wake left from behind 400,000 dead Americans, claiming, "Too bad, I didn't agree to be born into a free nation, so I get to eat the freedom bread for free, even as a capable adult."

Back in reality, a fascist war machine was faced down only by expensively building and hurling another fascist war macnine at it, period, end of story, case closed, welcome to the Paradox of Violence, aka the Universe as it is.

As adults, we have an obligation to recognize the benefits we continue to willingly accept from collective action, as opposed to rationalizing them away.

It has nothing to do with the hypothetical of 'what any government demands'. It has to do with what is ethically the right thing to do in this political context, the one we continue to willingly enjoy benefits from..   What this government is, is one of the current best instruments of the Paradox of Freedom in factual existence. This political context 'mobs up' to defend our mutual right to be free from the unfettered power of all of us over any of us.

You can't seem to get out of the rut of regurgitiating Rand verbatim, as if I hadn't read her 16 times over. You got to understand, that comes across precisely like a biblethumper spouting JohnGalt3;16.   I'm beginning to understand what 'rebirthofreason' means here. It means, cling to our bumper sticker bromides here in forever fringeville until our nails bleed.

regards,
Fred

Post 57

Thursday, February 14 - 7:47am

Link

Edit

John:

On principle Jim I don't disagree with that. But I thought you didn't think that would be justified since our taxes are compulsory? Which is it? Is it ok to intervene and give aid and support to stop the aggression of an evil empire hell bent on taking over the world or isn't it? In 1973 the Vietnam war was over and won, with South Vietnam retaining its independence from communist North Vietnam with Nobel peace prizes handed out. With just material aid and support from the United States and without U.S. combat troops, the South Vietnamese fended off continued attacks from North Vietnam while holding on to its independence for a full two years. But in 1975 the Democrat controlled U.S. congress cut all funding to South Vietnam, effectively signing the death warrant of over 6 million Indochinese, and leaving the 50,000 American soldiers' death to have been in vain. That depraved act of abandoning an ally to wholesale slaughter was probably the most disturbing and disgusting thing the US congress did in the 20th century.

Well said. A close second is what Bob Kerrey referred to on March 23, 2003 at the JFK Foundation Library, "I could go to jail for saying this, but..." when he disclosed what we did in Iraq in 1996. The ILA of Oct 1998 became the first promise to pay for that utter national disgrace.

BOB KERREY: No, you have no idea what's in the speech. You can't be that boring. Well, yeah. I mean, since 1991, since UN Security Resolution 687 laid out very specifically what the Iraqi regime had to do, we've had a military strategy to contain. And by the way, it's unlike any other nation on earth, and unlike anyy resolution that's ever been passed. It passed unanimous. It details every single thing that the Iraqi regime must do. And since that point in time, the Iraqi regime, led by Saddam Hussein, has done almost none of it.

And at the risk of going to jail for saying this-- Because part of the problem, in my view, in national security is we keep too many secrets. And when you're making a decision, especially if you're a guy, and you've got a bunch of guys sitting around making decisions, there's a tendency to make bad decisions. And if you don't have anybody checking your work, like every now and then, your wife comes in and says, "Are you nuts?" Is this what your thinking? "Well, that's what I was thinking." "Well, you're crazy. This isn't right." Because we have so many secrets, oftentimes decisions get made that are really bad. For example, we kept from the American people the secret of what the Soviet Union looked like in 1988. I campaigned for the Senate for the first time in 1988. We presumed the Cold War would go on forever. All we needed was one of those top secret pictures to see that they were farming with ox carts, for god's sake.

Anyway, this is all leading to, we had covert operations in place in Iraq starting in 1991. I suppose I could go to jail for disclosing that, for all I know. I don't know. But I was the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, and I had to sign off on them. It isn't just that we had a bunch of guys over there, trained to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We were signing up people. There were Kurds in northern Iraq who believed us, who believed that we'd stick with them, that, "Oh, yeah, you can overthrow Saddam Hussein, and we're going to be right there with you, and we'll stick it out with you." And we didn't.

DICK GORDON: You're talking about after the war.

BOB KERREY: Nineteen ninety-six, both of the main Kurdish forces were rolled up and killed, and driven out of Iraq as a consequence of Saddam Hussein sending military forces up, even with our no-fly zones being maintained. There were a lot of Iraqis who died. A lot of them tried to come to the United States. We wouldn't let them come here. I just said at the time, 1998-- Now comes the administration again saying, "We want you to sign off on another covert operation. We're going to get him this time." And I said, "I'll sign off on it if you make your open policy the same as your closed policy. Don't sign people up to risk their lives if we're saying publicly we don't think it can happen, and we don't favor it publicly. That's when we wrote the act. On Halloween, 1998, that was the first time the United States' over policy and covert policy was identical. And that's the first time that we could honestly say, both in Washington DC and in Kirkuk or Mosul or wherever else you were trying to sign people up, that we were telling them the same thing.

Interestingly, the JFK FOundation has since removed this transcript from their website. But, thans to the wayback machine, not a problem:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040406054417/www.jfklibrary.org/forum_kerrey.html

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/14, 7:53am)

Post 58

Thursday, February 14 - 9:40am

Link

Edit

John, the point I was trying to convey was that it seems clear to me that we have fundamental philosophical disagreements about the viability of anarcho-capitalism, and are unlikely to come to a meeting of the minds on that, and the discussion so far between on us on this topic has not been as cordial as I would prefer discussions here to be. So, for the sake of having a pleasant and productive series of discussions, I suggested that perhaps the two of us ought to steer clear of discussing this particular topic together. That doesn't mean I'm about to relinquish my First Amendment right to continue mentioning the A-C thing in case others do want to discuss it with me; rather, I'm suggesting that you might also want to exercise your First Amendment right to ignore my mentions of A-C and focus on those topics where we could have an enjoyable discussion.

Re: Vietnam, I would suggest that the reason the U.S. lost that war was due to public opposition sparked by all the body bags and wounded soldiers coming home. That is, we were winning militarily, but lost the political fight back home. Thus, if we had avoided sending troops into a preemptive war with a country that posed no immediate threat to us, and had instead just funneled weaponry to the South Vietnamese with a few consultants to advise on its best use, we would have not lost the public's support and thus not lost the war, or at least not as soon as we did, thereby enhancing national security, if you define national security in this case as staving off the North Vietnamese as long as possible and wearing down the Soviet Union and China.

I don't accept the premise that we should have been funneling military equipment or for that matter, being involved at all in that conflict other than voluntary individual efforts, but I'm trying to show that if you do accept that premise of U.S. government involvement in Vietnam being necessary, this follows:

Preemptive wars fought with U.S. combat troops are a bad idea that decreases national security, and the experience in Vietnam bears that out.

Post 59

Thursday, February 14 - 11:06am

Link

Edit

October 5^th

New Hampshire reels from the dastardly water supply attack. Military units out of Manchester have joined up with Atlantean Forces in Vermont. They are met by the Northwestern Alliance- a rag-tag group of freedom fighters based in New York and New Jersey. The Alliance has been fighting the Huckabean Patriots for years, and with their helpful human intel the remaining terrorists are pushed Westward into the Adirondacks.

October 6^th

Atlantean reconnaissance drones confirm Mike Huckabees presence in Reynosa, Mexico. He is on the move, possibly headed south to Mexico City. If he reaches a large population center, he may disappear into the crowds and never be caught. Time is of the essence.

October 7^th

General Ashton is confronted with new questions- what is to be done in America now that the government has collapsed? There is widespread looting. Museums are ransacked. Reprisal killings begin to take place- Former members of the US Government are hunted and killed by rioters. A statue of FDR is toppled and dragged through a Maryland park.. Atlantean forces request that remaining American Police and National Guard control the populace. There are too few Atlantean boots on the ground and too many Americans. Ashton requests orders as to the next step. He warns Rockwell that a chaotic America would be the perfect recruitment tool for Huckabee and the Patriots. Do we try to shore up America or withdraw and let it collapse into chaos?

October 8^th

Back home in Valhalla, Atlantean intelligence has discovered that the missile that fell on the capital may not have actually been American after all. It has an American Flag decal, but the actual internal workings of the missile are not of typical American make. In fact, the uranium used is found only in regions of Mexico. They conclude that the missile was given to the Huckabeans not by America, as was thought, but by the Theocratic Government of Mexico. Was the attack on America a mistake?

October 9^th

Mexican President Jesus Marin denies any knowledge of the missile. He refuses General Ashton’s request that he aid in the capture of Mike Huckabee. In another bad twist, the Mexican Council of Bishops issue a screed condemning Atlantean “Godless Imperialism”. Other Latin American leaders follow suit. South of the Equator, the word on the street is that the Atlanteans lied about the motivation for the American War. Atlantis really wants America’s Natural Resources! How do we try to convince them otherwise?

October 10^th

An Atlantean investigation reveals that America actually never had any nukes. The formidable cold war arsenal had been neglected and had rusted away. Critical nuclear materiel was sold piecemeal abroad to defray interest on the national debt. Crooked politicians traded uranium to other countries for private gain. The actual reason the Grand Republican did not nuke London as threatened was that he couldn’t! America had been relying on its reputation as a nuclear superpower and never expected Atlantis to be able to call their bluff. If America was not an actual threat, was Rockwell wrong to declare war? Some suggest that the attack on Valhalla was an ‘inside job’ and call for an investigation. What can Rockwell do to convince them of his motives?

October 12^th

Huckabee is spotted in Mexico City. It is suggested that more nukes are being cobbled together at his secret hideout. A strike could eliminate that threat, but it might lead to war between Atlantis and Mexico. General Ashton warns Rockwell that Huckabee may intend to strike Atlantean forces in America- Australian bases are currently unprotected by the Barrett Shield! They are vulnerable to annihilation at any time if Huckabee gets his nukes on line!!

Now what?

How do you handle the American Situation? We were misled by surface appearances into attacking a nation that was no threat. Everyone believed America had nukes- now we discover otherwise. The real threat appears to be Mexico. Our forces are tied down in America and the people are rioting- can we spare forces for another ground war against another enemy? We could use allies but world opinion is making it hard for us to press our case. The man who actually attacked us remains at large and Mexico will not help us to find him. He and his people are still a danger. Do we try and establish a strategic hold in America, press on to Mexico, or withdraw - creating chaos and leaving New Hampshire more threatened than before?

The Foreign Policy of Atlantis