StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2002-07-31 02:24pm**

Was reading the Logic page with the thing about the
"Greatest Generation" fallacy, and some thoughts....

I agree that it was all France's fault:) And I think we should have let them handle it. Diem Ben Phu should have said something right there.

But, as I also understand, there was a significant amount of the population that did not want communism. Many people burned themselves to death (READ: live cremation) in protest over the VC before hostilities. Don't forget the vast numbers of refugees, or the killing feilds of Cambodia.

I'm not condoning the war, I'm not saying it was justified, but I am saying it was at least partially justified, whether enough to go in or not I personally don't know.

I'd like to hear Wong's thoughts, chances are he'll shed some light and reveal the truth to all of this I'll be able to finally reach a consensus.

Posted: **2002-07-31 02:30pm**

I liekd Buchannun's thoughts about WW2. Britain and france should have not tried to defend poland, and let stalin and hitler smash thier armies against each other. And take all the kews in from those areas. BTW stalin killed mroe jews than hitler if I recall correctly.

Posted: **2002-07-31 07:14pm**

I can completely see where you are coming from. The war I think we should have been fighting in SE Asia was not Vietnam, but in Cambodia. You guys know that 1.5 MILLION Cambodians died within twenty-four hours of the fall of the country to Pol Pot? Less than 10,000 American soldiers had died in action in Cambodia. If 1.5 million British people were going to die tomorrow I think the US would be willing to throw its forces into combat to save them. I also like how the press covered up their atrocities because so many reporters had taken a stand against the war in Cambodia. The press was running the country, at the time. The lack of an American response to Cambodia was really a distressing example of an American double-standard towards warfare overseas. I think that their inaction was inexcusable. Shameful that we fought for Vietnam and not for Cambodia.

Posted: **2002-07-31 07:22pm**

Master of Ossus wrote:I can completely see where you are coming from. The war I think we should have been fighting in SE Asia was not Vietnam, but in Cambodia. You guys know that 1.5 MILLION Cambodians died within twenty-four hours of the fall of the country to Pol Pot? Less than 10,000 American soldiers had died in action in Cambodia. If 1.5 million British people were going to die tomorrow I think the US would be willing to throw its forces into combat to save them. I also like how the press covered up their atrocities because so many reporters had taken a stand against the war in Cambodia. The press was running the country, at the time. The lack of an American response to Cambodia was really a distressing example of an American double-standard towards warfare overseas. I think that their inaction was inexcusable. Shameful that we fought for Vietnam and not for Cambodia.

Indeed! Western nations only care about Western nations, or in the case of 'Nam, when it suits them, at least back then. As for today, I'm willing to argue that things have changed.

BTW, just for a record I'm not a big fan of King Lyndon I. His smear campaign against Goldwater was the worst in history, because he did exactly what he accused Goldwater of wanting to do.

Posted: **2002-07-31 09:11pm**

And you don't like Johnson because of that? It's possible that escalation in Viet Nam was unavoidable; however, Johnson's presidency also saw the advent of new civil rights legislation and broad new social programs. What he did as regards Viet Nam is questionable, sure--he was fighting a war that he didn't start, ok. And he appropriated substantial powers, fine.

But his social work ought to be considered before condemning Johnson simply because of the war--it took seven years after he left office for the last Americans to leave, didn't it?

-Virgil

Posted: **2002-07-31 09:29pm**

Vietnam was Johnson's biggest mistake. He had a chance to pull troops out, or even really to stop it before the American military "advisors" became combatants in the country. I realize that Kennedy had gotten tough on Communism first, and that it had set the standard, but Truman had to finish the war with Japan, and he did it superbly. Johnson had an opportunity to finish the war, also, and he had a chance to be one of America's most popular presidents. He made some bad decisions early on, and the conflict escalated before anyone else really realized how bad it had gotten.

Posted: **2002-07-31 09:41pm**

Master of Ossus wrote:Vietnam was Johnson's biggest mistake. He had a chance to pull troops out, or even really to stop it before the American military "advisors" became combatants in the country. I realize that Kennedy had gotten tough on Communism first, and that it had set the standard, but Truman had to finish the war with Japan, and he did it superbly. Johnson had an opportunity to finish the war, also, and he had a chance to be one of America's most popular presidents. He made some bad decisions early on, and the conflict escalated before anyone else really realized how bad it had gotten.

It's not as simple as some historians like to make it. We pull out of Vietnam and that sends a very loud and clear signal that we will not be there with you when the times get tough against Communism. Remember that the west was looking to the US to lead them against the "godless reds" We had a big credcibility problem because the USSR kept pushing the view that we were soft and when the going got tough we would not stick around. We HAD to make a stand in Vietname because otherwise we were the paper tiger we were constantly painted by the USSR.

There were MANY strategic and diplomatic reasons that we needed to stay. Johnson ALWAYS blamed Kennedy for getting them into Nam. Nam did not become a strategic flashpoint until Kennedy made it so. Once in, we were there for the long haul.

I'm not saying it was right, but the reason to stay was not some irrational stupidity that seems to be the drumbeat of the armchair historians

Posted: **2002-07-31 10:10pm**

Virgil Caine wrote:And you don't like Johnson because of that? It's possible that escalation in Viet Nam was unavoidable; however, Johnson's presidency also saw the advent of new civil rights legislation and broad new social programs. What he did as regards Viet Nam is questionable, sure--he was fighting a war that he didn't start, ok. And he appropriated substantial powers, fine.

But his social work ought to be considered before condemning Johnson simply because of the war--it took seven years after he left office for the last Americans to leave, didn't it?

-Virgil

He gave us the Welfare program, a program of which less than a quarter of every dollar actually goes to welfare recipients; he gave us a host of taxes to fund his laughable attempts to "extinguish poverty," he trampled on the Consitution, and the social programs and civil rights legislation that actually was useful was originally drafted by JFK (one of the greatest presidents ever) anyway.

The only thing King Lyndon I was good for was getting us into war, being a good tin-pot dictator, and stealing from one of the greatest presidents of all time, and still fooling the public into liking him. He would put Palpatine to shame.

Posted: **2002-08-01 12:32am**

What?

Johnson "[stole] from one of the greatest presidents of all time," "trampled on the constitution" and used material "originally drafted by JFK"?

Right.

The "Kennedy as greatest president" myth... Kennedy:

1. Escalated the war effort in Viet Nam by actively deploying "advisors" and becoming involved in Laos.

2. Nearly caused a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in a stupid game of 'nuclear chicken'

3. Devised the "flexible response" system, which "potentially lowered the level at which diplomacy gave way to shooting" and "provided a mechanism for a progressive, and possibly endless, stepping-up of force." Kennedy's insane actions lead directly to the Viet Nam quagmire.

4. Backed the corrupt Diem government, and then backed a coup against him

5. Three words: "Bay of Pigs"

6. Promised civil rights reform during his election and then took two years to follow through with them.

7. Became president on the "vote early and often" doctrine. (well, questionably so, but...)

8. Had ties to organized crime.

Kennedy was a hypocrite, and is greatly over-rated because people attribute Johnson's successes to Kennedy. Perhaps because of the tragic circumstances of his presidency, they would like to pretend as though JFK was a miracle, God's work on Earth. He wasn't; he was a militant, not very innovative (though charismatic) and more conservative than people are willing to admit..

Now, as for the "LBJ stole from Kennedy" part.

That's doubtful. To quote Encarta, even shortly after Kennedy's death "it was soon evident that Lyndon Johnson was determined to be his own president." LBJ was fond of creating his own legislation and in effect saying, "Jack would've wanted this passed." It helped get his acts through Congress by playing on sorrow over JFK's death. But it doesn't mean that he had no original material.

Johnson's "Great Society" and Kennedy's "New Frontier" programs were different, especially as regards government spending and foreign policy.

LBJ's programs were patterned not after Kennedy but Roosevelt. His "great society" and welfare programs were of his own innovation, however. As was his "war on poverty." As were his social programs, like Head Start. As was HUD and the DOT. As was the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. As were Medicare and Medicaid.

Johnson reformed immigration laws, abolishing the "national oirigin quota" and doubled the number of immigrants admitted to the United States. Johnson's programs--and not Kennedy's, the latter no longer having any say in the matter--"sharply improved the educational performance of underprivileged youth," and "infrant mortality rates...fell in minority communities as general health conditions improved." Poverty dropped by fifteen percent during the Johnson era.

Additionally, Johnson got the Voting Right's Act (1965) passed--an act which would help end some of the larger problems facing American minorities. Given Kennedy's history of trepidation concerning civil rights, it's unlikely he would've attempted to pass the same.

As regards Viet Nam, his actions towards the end of his presidency showed a desire to negotiate a peace. By refusing to run for president, he helped to stabilize a divided nation. The deal reached in Paris would be echoed in Nixon's "peace with honor"--a peace which wouldn't be realized for seven more years and a few major bombing campaigns.

Johnson is unfairly criticized for essentially glamorizing Kennedy programs. This isn't the case, and it's certainly not logical to conjecture what might have happened if JFK had been president for longer than he was. It's possible--given Kennedy's willingness to use force--that the war would've grown out of control much faster.

-Virgil

Posted: **2002-08-01 01:09am**

Virgil Caine wrote:What?

Johnson "[stole] from one of the greatest presidents of all time," "trampled on the constitution" and used material "originally drafted by JFK"?

Right.

The "Kennedy as greatest president" myth... Kennedy:

1. Escalated the war effort in Viet Nam by actively deploying "advisors" and becoming involved in Laos.

Despite the fact that Truman got there first by trying to help the Frenchies in the first place

2. Nearly caused a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in a stupid game of 'nuclear chicken'

The Russians placed missiles on Cuba to reduce response time, thus giving them an advantage, which is against the spirit of MAD, which is what the Russians (Khruschev particularly) constantly whined about. Kennedy, despite what some...dare I say it..."revisionists" want to believe, merely restored the balance.

3. Devised the "flexible response" system, which "potentially lowered the level at which diplomacy gave way to shooting" and "provided a mechanism for a progressive, and possibly endless, stepping-up of force." Kennedy's insane actions lead directly to the Viet Nam quagmire.

evidence? And the Viet Nam quagmire was the fault of Truman and the French.

4. Backed the corrupt Diem government, and then backed a coup against him

Ok, I'll give you that one. But then again, both Carter an Regan backed Saddam, and those two plus every president since has backed Yassir. Not to mention his Isreali counterparts, which are arguably just as bad.

5. Three words: "Bay of Pigs"

Once again, Russia was trying to use Cuba's close proximity to upset the MAD balance. The Bay of Pigs, from a U.S. strategic standpoint, was designed to premamently deny the Soviets such an advantage.

6. Promised civil rights reform during his election and then took two years to follow through with them.

All legislation takes time, government isn't instant. Of all the people I personally know, YOU should know this!

7. Became president on the "vote early and often" doctrine. (well, questionably so, but...)

I'll give you that one too.

8. Had ties to organized crime.

Yeah, uh-huh, sure, and so did Frank Sinatra. Mayor Daly may have rigged the election using his crime connections, but I am not aware of any proof that he was tied with the Kennedy administration other than from political affiliation. And besides, GTA 3 showed us that organize crime is cool

Kennedy was a hypocrite, and is greatly over-rated because people attribute Johnson's successes to Kennedy. Perhaps because of the tragic circumstances of his presidency, they would like to pretend as though JFK was a miracle, God's work on Earth. He wasn't; he was a militant, not very innovative (though charismatic) and more conservative than people are willing to admit..

He was militant only when necessary. Just like we have a military just because it is necessary. Of course, I'm pretty sure you're hesitant to call King Lyndon I or King William I "militant" despite Viet Nam, Somailia, Kosovo, or Desert Fox. He was damn well innovative (space program, etc.). And what the hell is wrong with being conservative?

BTW, a few off-topic notes: publicly, I condone Kosovo, because I feel it was necessary, even if it was improperly fought. Also, Somalia did not have to escalate, and it wasn't Bush's fault. Under Bush, Marines merely escorted food into the country, and everyone was happy and fed. Then King William I decided to escalate it, and things went to hell.

And BTW, Wong that is God (and that is not sarcasm!)....You're anti-communist, anti-abortion, anti-monopoly, pro-captialist and pro-consumer choice. I call that pretty damn conservative, at least to "traditional" definitions.

Now, as for the "LBJ stole from Kennedy" part.

That's doubtful. To quote Encarta, even shortly after Kennedy's death "it was soon evident that Lyndon Johnson was determined to be his own president." LBJ was fond of creating his own legislation and in effect saying, "Jack would've wanted this passed." It helped get his acts through Congress by playing on sorrow over JFK's death. But it doesn't mean that he had no original material.

Encarta?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHA!

According to Garrity, a well-respected historian and high-school/college text book author, King Lyndon I DIRECTLY STOLE his first two years of legislation from JKF!

Johnson's "Great Society" and Kennedy's "New Frontier" programs were different, especially as regards government spending and foreign policy.

yeah, Great Society was despotic and anti-capitalist/democratic, and New Frontier wasn't.

LBJ's programs were patterned not after Kennedy but Roosevelt. His "great society" and welfare programs were of his own innovation, however. As was his "war on poverty." As were his social programs, like Head Start. As was HUD and the DOT. As was the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. As were Medicare and Medicaid.

Well, you're right on that. King Lyndon I took his inspiration from King Franklin I, the biggest tyrant ever to grace the White House. Great Society and welfare were infact key to Lyndon I's reign. Taxes were raised and personal freedom was taken away.

BTW, Medicare and Medicaid were JFK's ideas.

Johnson reformed immigration laws, abolishing the "national oirigin quota" and doubled the number of immigrants admitted to the United States. Johnson's programs--and not Kennedy's, the latter no longer having any say in the matter--"sharply improved the educational performance of underprivileged youth," and "infrant mortality rates...fell in minority communities as general health conditions improved." Poverty dropped by fifteen percent during the Johnson era.

...and personal freedoms were taken away. And poverty dropped 15%, whoop-de-doo. It's still here. So much for his despotic "Great Society"

Additionally, Johnson got the Voting Right's Act (1965) passed--an act which would help end some of the larger problems facing American minorities. Given Kennedy's history of trepidation concerning civil rights, it's unlikely he would've attempted to pass the same.

Once again, according to Garrity, Lyndon I lifed all his civil rights legislation from Kennedy's desk.

As regards Viet Nam, his actions towards the end of his presidency showed a desire to negotiate a peace. By refusing to run for president, he helped to stabilize a divided nation. The deal reached in Paris would be echoed in Nixon's "peace with honor"--a peace which wouldn't be realized for seven more years and a few major bombing campaigns.

HAHAHAHA! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS COMING FROM YOU, AL!

He didn't run for president because of a little thing called "term limits," though in the true fashion of his hero, Franklin I, I'm sure he would have done all he could to stay in power. And the only reason why Nixon was able to get peace was by bombing them to hell with Rolling Thunder and Linebacker. And that peace lasted almost as long as DarkStar's credibility.

Johnson is unfairly criticized for essentially glamorizing Kennedy programs. This isn't the case, and it's certainly not logical to conjecture what might have happened if JFK had been president for longer than he was. It's possible--given Kennedy's willingness to use force--that the war would've grown out of control much faster.

...or maybe he would have pulled out. Or maybe he would have actually would have fought a REAL WAR and at least bring about a quick resolution. It's all conjectural.

Posted: **2002-08-01 01:28am**

He didn't run for president because of a little thing called "term limits," though in the true fashion of his hero, Franklin I, I'm sure he would have done all he could to stay in power.

Actually not true. He had one more term coming to him and decided not to run. Remember he took over for Kennedy after the assasination and that term does NOT count against a VP that takes office, so theoretically, LBJ could have had three terms (2 1/2 more like) He decided not to run one last time because he felt the country was simply too deeply divided at the time among other reasons

Posted: **2002-08-01 01:51am**

[quote="RayCav of ASVS"
Despite the fact that Truman got there first by trying to help the Frenchies in the first place

[quote/]

Oh how I wish Truman had recognized Indochina's independence.

Whiny Frog: "But.... Indochina is our's!"
Us: "The people of Indochina hate you. They also fought the Japanese while you Frogs sat on your asses and did nothing. Get the fuck out, and if you cross us in Europe, the next time German panzers rumble into Alsace and Lorraine, we won't be there to save your Froggy asses."

The Russians placed missiles on Cuba to reduce response time, thus giving them an advantage, which is against the spirit of MAD, which is what the Russians (Khruschev particularly) constantly whined about. Kennedy, despite what some...dare I say it..."revisionists" want to believe, merely restored the balance.

Of course, Kruschev might not have been so emboldened to put those missiles there if Kennedy had done better at Vienna, where he put on a less-than-stellar performance.

evidence? And the Viet Nam quagmire was the fault of Truman and the French.

Well, no, we could have ignored South Vietnam, let Ho reunify it and turn it into an Asian Yugoslavia.

Kennedy's major fault was getting rid of Diem

Ok, I'll give you that one. But then again, both Carter an Regan backed Saddam, and those two plus every president since has backed Yassir. Not to mention his Isreali counterparts, which are arguably just as bad.

True to an extent. They backed Saddam as a foil to Iran, but I never recall them backing Arafat.

Once again, Russia was trying to use Cuba's close proximity to upset the MAD balance. The Bay of Pigs, from a U.S. strategic standpoint, was designed to premamently deny the Soviets such an advantage.

The Bay of Pigs was a poorly-planned and executed operation, it should have never been let off the ground.

All legislation takes time, government isn't instant. Of all the people I personally know, YOU should know this!

True, especially when you consider the opposition of the Dixiecrats...

Yeah, uh-huh, sure, and so did Frank Sinatra. Mayor Daly may have rigged the election using his crime connections, but I am not aware of any proof that he was tied with the Kennedy administration other than from political affiliation. And besides, GTA 3 showed us that organize crime is cool

Well, if his ties helped him win his election...

BTW, LOL on the GTA3 remark.

Of course, I'm pretty sure you're hesitant to call King Lyndon I or King William I "militant" despite Viet Nam, Somailia, Kosovo, or Desert Fox. He was damn well innovative (space program, etc.). And what the hell is wrong with being conservative?

Nothing, as long as you're not overly so. Flexibility must be maintained.

BTW, a few off-topic notes: publicly, I condone Kosovo, because I feel it was necessary, even if it was improperly fought. Also, Somalia did not have to escalate, and it wasn't Bush's fault. Under Bush, Marines merely escorted food into the country, and everyone was happy and fed. Then King William I decided to escalate it, and things went to hell.

Bah, I prefer calling Clinton "Bubba", in the grand David Letterman fashion.

And BTW, Wong that is God (and that is not sarcasm!)....You're anti-communist, anti-abortion, anti-monopoly, pro-captialist and pro-consumer choice. I call that pretty damn conservative, at least to "traditional" definitions.

However, he is also very libertarian.

Encarta?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHA!

According to Garrity, a well-respected historian and high-school/college text book author, King Lyndon I DIRECTLY STOLE his first two years of legislation from JKF!

You sound like you're straight out of the turn of the century... two centuries ago. What's next, archliberals are secretly monarchists? :p

yeah, Great Society was despotic and anti-capitalist/democratic, and New Frontier wasn't.

And just how do you arrive at that conclusion?

Well, you're right on that. King Lyndon I took his inspiration from King Franklin I, the biggest tyrant ever to grace the White House. Great Society and welfare were infact key to Lyndon I's reign. Taxes were raised and personal freedom was taken away.

Oh please!

If you don't stop acting so... classical, I might have to beat your head with a heavy object.

Roosevelt a tyrant? Oh man, I think that's funny.

Even if you don't agree with the eventual result of some of his reforms, someone like Roosevelt was needed. I'm not saying he was perfect, but FDR is one of the most important Presidents in American history, responsible for key reforms that helped bring the US out of the Depression, and for providing Americans with a charismatic and respectable leader who respected democracy and the ideals of liberty in a time when countries the world over were being won over by totatlitarians.

...and personal freedoms were taken away. And poverty dropped 15%, whoop-de-doo. It's still here. So much for his despotic "Great Society"

Which "personal freedoms"?

Once again, according to Garrity, Lyndon I lifed all his civil rights legislation from Kennedy's desk.

So he went with a good idea? Is every President supposed to scrap his predecessor's planned recommendations because "they didn't come up with it"?

HAHAHAHA! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS COMING FROM YOU, AL!

He didn't run for president because of a little thing called "term limits," though in the true fashion of his hero, Franklin I, I'm sure he would have done all he could to stay in power. And the only reason why Nixon was able to get peace was by bombing them to hell with Rolling Thunder and Linebacker. And that peace lasted almost as long as DarkStar's credibility.

Considering the situations of 1940 and 1944, I don't blame FDR for running again, and considering that he won both elections, I'd say the people didn't mind it either.

And, by the time LBJ was in office, the 22nd Amendment had been passed limiting Presidents to two terms, and no more than ten years if said President had taken office mid-term (meaning LBJ could have run for re-election in '68; get your facts straight).

...or maybe he would have pulled out. Or maybe he would have actually would have fought a REAL WAR and at least bring about a quick resolution. It's all conjectural.

Do that and you get a repeat of Korea: Mao's Red Horde floods across the border into Vietnam. At the very least Ho's government has been an enemy of China, now you're guaranteed that Vietnam will end up a bitch-state of China (possibly even absorbed into China).

The problem with any conflict at that stage of the Cold War is strategic paralysis; you're stuck at a certain level because escalation could lead to nuclear war with the other side.

And, again, refer to any American President as a King again and I'll beat you in the head with a blunt object. The lone exception is Her Majesty Queen Hillary. :p

Posted: **2002-08-01 02:04am**

Stravo wrote:
He didn't run for president because of a little thing called "term limits," though in the true fashion of his hero, Franklin I, I'm sure he would have done all he could to stay in power.
Actually not true. He had one more term coming to him and decided not to run. Remember he took over for Kennedy after the assasination and that term does NOT count against a VP that takes office, so theoretically, LBJ could have had three terms (2 1/2 more like) He decided not to run one last time because he felt the country was simply too deeply divided at the time among other reasons

Ok, thanks for that tidbit. I guess I'll have to concede that point, Al

Still, I think he saw that his chances were up, hence why he didn't bother. I'll reference Garrity on this in the morning, if he references it at all.

Posted: **2002-08-01 02:30am**

Well, I had a reply all typed up and it somehow vanished when I tried to respond. Delightful.

Despite the fact that Truman got there first by trying to help the Frenchies in the first place

Whatever. It was Eisenhower's conflict. Kennedy escalated it in 1961 with the first major non-Laotian military buildup.

The Russians placed missiles on Cuba to reduce response time, thus giving them an advantage

You mean like placing missiles in Turkey? And don't say that the Russians "constantly whined about" the lack of the MAD principal. It was Khrushchev's idea, and according to Edward Crankshaw, the Politburo didn't like it--one of the reasons why Khrushchev was dismissed.

evidence? And the Viet Nam quagmire was the fault of Truman and the French.

Despite the fact that it was Kennedy who first deployed troops--I mean, 'advisers'?

Once again, Russia was trying to use Cuba's close proximity to upset the MAD balance

Under what circumstances does that give us the right to depose a government? Coups and assassination attempts are generally held in poor regard in the world community.

All legislation takes time, government isn't instant

As in, a two year long "stroke of the pen"? Read about the "Ink for Jack" campaign, why don't you?

He was militant only when necessary

Necessary?

1. Threatening to end the world in a nuclear holocaust
2. Attempting a coup against a sovereign nation
3. Militarizing South-East Asia on a "domino theory" plank?

I suppose if you think that's necessary, fine.

Encarta?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHA!

According to Garrity, a well-respected historian and high-school/college text book author, King Lyndon I DIRECTLY STOLE his first two years of legislation from JKF!

Ah, of course I should trust a high school textbook more than an encyclopedia. Does that book also mention that the Kennedy-Johnson ticket was just that--a two person ticket? Or that some people think that the Johnson presence was necessary for even the narrow victory that they pulled off? Or that it was Johnson's driving energy behind a great deal of Kennedy legislation?

yeah, Great Society was despotic and anti-capitalist/democratic, and New Frontier wasn't.

Care to outline the differences between the two? Or, at least, tell me how the Voting Rights Act was "anti-democratic"? Or Head Start "anti-capitalist"?

King Lyndon I took his inspiration from King Franklin I, the biggest tyrant ever to grace the White House

I take it you won't be collecting on your social security benefits? Or using power generated by New Deal-era dams? And of course you aren't unionized, are you?

BTW, Medicare and Medicaid were JFK's ideas

No. Medicare was a Kennedy-era idea; there's no reason to believe it was solely Kennedy's work. And Medicaid was part of Johnson's 'despotic' Great Society.

and personal freedoms were taken away

Which freedoms?

And poverty dropped 15%, whoop-de-doo

Yes, it's still there. So's Castro; guess Kennedy wasn't worth much. And for whatever reason, poverty only began to rise again during the Reagan administration.

Once again, according to Garrity, Lyndon I lifed all his civil rights legislation from Kennedy's desk

Your single-source dependence is kind of amusing, actually. Does "all his civil rights leglislation" involve the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, acts which Kennedy may have pledged to do but in fact never followed through? Kennedy had problems with the civil rights movement, despite his claims. And as long as you'd like to keep calling Johnson an unoriginal thinker, why not read Caro's biographies of LBJ.

And the only reason why Nixon was able to get peace was by bombing them to hell with Rolling Thunder and Linebacker

Right...the only reason why Johnson was unable to "get peace" was because of back-room Nixon politicking. The accords that ended the war were little different than the ones proposed in 1968. And the bombings weren't necessary, according to some historians who propose that they only enforced Kissinger's earlier plans.

Perhaps the additional years and casualties were needed for it to be "peace with honor."

-Virgil

Posted: **2002-08-01 02:34am**

Steve wrote:[quote="RayCav of ASVS"
Despite the fact that Truman got there first by trying to help the Frenchies in the first place
[quote/]
Oh how I wish Truman had recognized Indochina's independence.

Whiny Frog: "But.... Indochina is our's!"
Us: "The people of Indochina hate you. They also fought the Japanese while you Frogs sat on your asses and did nothing. Get the fuck out, and if you cross us in Europe, the next time German panzers rumble into Alsace and Lorraine, we won't be there to save your Froggy asses."

Precisely

The Russians placed missiles on Cuba to reduce response time, thus giving them an advantage, which is against the spirit of MAD, which is what the Russians (Khruschev particularly) constantly whined about. Kennedy, despite what some...dare I say it..."revisionists" want to believe, merely restored the balance.
Of course, Kruschev might not have been so emboldened to put those missiles there if Kennedy had done better at Vienna, where he put on a less-than-stellar performance.

True. I know this is a cop-out, but nobody's perfect. Nonetheless, it could be regarded as a necessity on both sides. It was mistaken diplomacy that started it, and neither Khruschev nor Kennedy.

evidence? And the Viet Nam quagmire was the fault of Truman and the French.
Well, no, we could have ignored South Vietnam, let Ho reunify it and turn it into an Asian Yugoslavia.

Kennedy's major fault was getting rid of Diem

but back to the original topic of the thread...how many innocents/political prisioners would have died as a result?

Ok, I'll give you that one. But then again, both Carter an Regan backed Saddam, and those two plus every president since has backed Yassir. Not to mention his Isreali counterparts, which are arguably just as bad.
True to an extent. They backed Saddam as a foil to Iran, but I never recall them backing Arafat.

Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. have supported Arafat simply by being so leinient on him and actually treating him like a democratic leader rather than the two-pot dictator/terrorist wannabe that he is. Arafat should be taken down and replaced by a democracy, not allowed to negotiate.

BTW, don't think I'm a big Sharot fan either....

Once again, Russia was trying to use Cuba's close proximity to upset the MAD balance. The Bay of Pigs, from a U.S. strategic standpoint, was designed to premamently deny the Soviets such an advantage.
The Bay of Pigs was a poorly-planned and executed operation, it should have never been let off the ground.

True, I'll agree on that. I was simply stating its purpose, not arguing over its viability.

All legislation takes time, government isn't instant. Of all the people I personally know, YOU should know this!
True, especially when you consider the opposition of the Dixiecrats...

No real need to comment here, seeing as how you're just agreeing.

Yeah, uh-huh, sure, and so did Frank Sinatra. Mayor Daly may have rigged the election using his crime connections, but I am not aware of any proof that he was tied with the Kennedy administration other than from political affiliation. And besides, GTA 3 showed us that organize crime is cool
Well, if his ties helped him win his election...

BTW, LOL on the GTA3 remark.

I am not aware of JFK's ties to crime winning the election. I am aware of Mayor Daly's ties to crime fixing the election. It may be regarded as semantics, but I think there's a difference.

BTW, thanks

Of course, I'm pretty sure you're hesitant to call King Lyndon I or King William I "militant" despite Viet Nam, Somailia, Kosovo, or Desert Fox. He was damn well innovative (space program, etc.). And what the hell is wrong with being conservative?
Nothing, as long as you're not overly so. Flexibility must be maintained.

True, I perfectly agree with you here.

BTW, a few off-topic notes: publicly, I condone Kosovo, because I feel it was necessary, even if it was improperly fought. Also, Somalia did not have to escalate, and it wasn't Bush's fault. Under Bush, Marines merely escorted food into the country, and everyone was happy and fed. Then King William I decided to escalate it, and things went to hell.
Bah, I prefer calling Clinton "Bubba", in the grand David Letterman fashion.

To each his own

And BTW, Wong that is God (and that is not sarcasm!)....You're anti-communist, anti-abortion, anti-monopoly, pro-captialist and pro-consumer choice. I call that pretty damn conservative, at least to "traditional" definitions.
However, he is also very libertarian.

To go OT...true. When I think of the "traditional" definition of conservative, I think of it as synomous with the "traditional" definition of a libertarian. Then again, that sounds confusing

What I mean is, I believe in what I feel are "core libertarian values," the most basic of which I listed above. I feel a true libertarian holds these values. However, it has been my observations that true liberalism is most often confused with modern conservatives, when I feel most "conservatives" are as dangerous and anti-democratic as those on the extreme left.

To put it this way, I see myself as a libertarian. The party I admire the most is actually a British party, and one of the oldest - the Liberal Party; basically their equivilent of the Libertarian party, except more rational.

Of course, the Liberal Party hasn't been in power since Gladstone, IIRC

Encarta?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHA!

According to Garrity, a well-respected historian and high-school/college text book author, King Lyndon I DIRECTLY STOLE his first two years of legislation from JKF!
You sound like you're straight out of the turn of the century... two centuries ago. What's next, archliberals are secretly monarchists? :p

We'll see

The point is though, is that according to my sources (I'll dig up the pages in the morning, I PROMISE!), Lyndon I DID lift the first two years of his legislation from JFK.

yeah, Great Society was despotic and anti-capitalist/democratic, and New Frontier wasn't.
And just how do you arrive at that conclusion?

A little from Garrity, a little from personal belief granted. It's late at night, so I'll come back to this in the morning (I PROMISE!)

Well, you're right on that. King Lyndon I took his inspiration from King Franklin I, the biggest tyrant ever to grace the White House. Great Society and welfare were infact key to Lyndon I's reign. Taxes were raised and personal freedom was taken away.
Oh please! If you don't stop acting so... classical, I might have to beat your head with a heavy object.

Roosevelt a tyrant? Oh man, I think that's funny.

Even if you don't agree with the eventual result of some of his reforms, someone like Roosevelt was needed. I'm not saying he was perfect, but FDR is one of the most important Presidents in American history, responsible for key reforms that helped bring the US out of the Depression, and for providing Americans with a charismatic and respectable leader who respected democracy and the ideals of liberty in a time when countries the world over were being won over by totatlitarians.

He was useful for being charismatic, but that's it. Perhaps you want to look up the "Roosevelt Resession." His reforms not only were not constitutional; they merely impeded economic recovery. it wasn't until WWII that the economy got going. The only thing his "reforms" did was make the government obsenely huge.

BTW, if you want to look at how he was a tyrant, look up "nailing the Blue Eagle of justice to the wall." Or perhaps "court packing"! IIRC, Lyndon I was as much of a tyrant for many of the same reasons.

...and personal freedoms were taken away. And poverty dropped 15%, whoop-de-doo. It's still here. So much for his despotic "Great Society"
Which "personal freedoms"?

My mistake. In reality, there were perhaps little personal freedom lost, but government became obsenely huge. And an obsenely huge government only lends itself to the loss of personal freedom. I just should have clairified that.

Once again, according to Garrity, Lyndon I lifed all his civil rights legislation from Kennedy's desk.
So he went with a good idea? Is every President supposed to scrap his predecessor's planned recommendations because "they didn't come up with it"?

You missed the point. Al's (Virgil's) point was that LBJ did most of his legistlation himself; my point was that he lifted his first two years from JFK. As far as I see it, you're actually supporting my position.

HAHAHAHA! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS COMING FROM YOU, AL!

He didn't run for president because of a little thing called "term limits," though in the true fashion of his hero, Franklin I, I'm sure he would have done all he could to stay in power. And the only reason why Nixon was able to get peace was by bombing them to hell with Rolling Thunder and Linebacker. And that peace lasted almost as long as DarkStar's credibility.
Considering the situations of 1940 and 1944, I don't blame FDR for running again, and considering that he won both elections, I'd say the people didn't mind it either.

And, by the time LBJ was in office, the 22nd Amendment had been passed limiting Presidents to two terms, and no more than ten years if said President had taken office mid-term (meaning LBJ could have run for re-election in '68; get your facts straight).

I do have my facts straight, and I acknowledge your correction. I didn't realise JFK was already that far into his term, and thought that LBJ already used up most of his 10 years, that's all.

...or maybe he would have pulled out. Or maybe he would have actually would have fought a REAL WAR and at least bring about a quick resolution. It's all conjectural.
Do that and you get a repeat of Korea: Mao's Red Horde floods across the border into Vietnam. At the very least Ho's government has been an enemy of China, now you're guaranteed that Vietnam will end up a bitch-state of China (possibly even absorbed into China).

The problem with any conflict at that stage of the Cold War is strategic paralysis; you're stuck at a certain level because escalation could lead to nuclear war with the other side.

And, again, refer to any American President as a King again and I'll beat you in the head with a blunt object. The lone exception is Her Majesty Queen Hillary. :p

But the fact of the matter is that when we actually did a large scale military operation (Rolling Thunder; Linebackers I and II) the Red Horde did NOT go marching into Vietnam. I agree the preferable solution was not to get involved and allow Vietnam to be our communist ally, but we still could have put a quick resolution without escalation, with minimal loss to life on both sides.

And face it, there was no President FDR, and no President LBJ. There was only King Franklin I and King Lyndon I

Although I'll have to give more thought and consideration to Queen Hillary

Posted: **2002-08-01 03:03am**

Virgil Caine wrote:Well, I had a reply all typed up and it somehow vanished when I tried to respond. Delightful.

Despite the fact that Truman got there first by trying to help the Frenchies in the first place
Whatever. It was Eisenhower's conflict. Kennedy escalated it in 1961 with the first major non-Laotian military buildup.

Common misconception, Truman got the ball rolling by offering the Frenchies help in the first place. The Monroe Doctrine should have been two-way, IMHO.

The Russians placed missiles on Cuba to reduce response time, thus giving them an advantage
You mean like placing missiles in Turkey? And don't say that the Russians "constantly whined about" the lack of the MAD principal. It was Khrushchev's idea, and according to Edward Crankshaw, the Politburo didn't like it--one of the reasons why Khrushchev was dismissed.

you miss-understood me. When I said they whined about it, I meant that they kept complaining that the U.S. was always threatening it. Thus, my statement would still largely be true under these facts. And I already acknowledged Kennedy's diplomatic mistake under Steve's post.

evidence? And the Viet Nam quagmire was the fault of Truman and the French.
Despite the fact that it was Kennedy who first deployed troops--I mean, 'advisers'?

Actually, I thought it was Eisenhower. And as I have said, it was ultimately the fault of Truman for offering assistance in the first place. Other than this, I actually like Truman quite a bit.

Once again, Russia was trying to use Cuba's close proximity to upset the MAD balance
Under what circumstances does that give us the right to depose a government? Coups and assassination attempts are generally held in poor regard in the world community.

It gave the U.S. a right because the very existence of the U.S. was in danger. Usually I'm not a big fan of jingoism, but in such an extreme case, I'm willing to make an exception.

Besides, we attempted one failed invasion of Cuba under self-defense pretexts. I can't say the same of the Soviet Union in regards to East Germany, or Chzekloslovakia, or other nations...not the least of which were the Koreas and (

!) VIETNAM!

All legislation takes time, government isn't instant
As in, a two year long "stroke of the pen"? Read about the "Ink for Jack" campaign, why don't you?

Once again, refer to my reply to Steve's post.

In addition, it clearly states in Garrity that JFK had a bunch of unfinished legislation sitting on his desk, but most of it was finished. Lyndon I merely put the finishing touches (in most cases amounting to little than his own signature).

He was militant only when necessary
Necessary?

1. Threatening to end the world in a nuclear holocaust
2. Attempting a coup against a sovereign nation
3. Militarizing South-East Asia on a "domino theory" plank?

I suppose if you think that's necessary, fine.

1. Proof? Was this a defensive threat, in accordance to MAD? Or is this mere personal belief?
2. Already talked about.
3. We still weren't sure that the "domino theroy" was actually true, and I honestly feel we errored on the side of caution. And a funny thing, Vietnam actually VINDICATED the domino theory! Just look at Cambodia and Laos!

Encarta?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHA!

According to Garrity, a well-respected historian and high-school/college text book author, King Lyndon I DIRECTLY STOLE his first two years of legislation from JKF!
Ah, of course I should trust a high school textbook more than an encyclopedia. Does that book also mention that the Kennedy-Johnson ticket was just that--a two person ticket? Or that some people think that the Johnson presence was necessary for even the narrow victory that they pulled off? Or that it was Johnson's driving energy behind a great deal of Kennedy legislation?

Red Herring. I feel sorry for you, Al.

BTW, it's actually a college text. He just happens to edit both.

yeah, Great Society was despotic and anti-capitalist/democratic, and New Frontier wasn't.
Care to outline the differences between the two? Or, at least, tell me how the Voting Rights Act was "anti-democratic"? Or Head Start "anti-capitalist"?

Did I say the Voting Act and Head Start was anti-democratic and anti-capitalist? NO! I said "Great Society" was! And the Voting Rights Act just happened to be one of those "JFK leftovers."

The main difference was in scale; Great Society simply went too far, but New Frontier didn't. I guess this area is really just personal opinion.

King Lyndon I took his inspiration from King Franklin I, the biggest tyrant ever to grace the White House
I take it you won't be collecting on your social security benefits? Or using power generated by New Deal-era dams? And of course you aren't unionized, are you?

You won't be collecting social security either, Al. The funds are being sucked dry.

And as a matter of fact, I am NOT using power generated by New Deal dams. It wasn't the Great Depression nor WPA that was responsible for them; it was the simple power requirements of Las Vegas and LA that did. The dams would have been built regardless. As an aside, they also destroyed the Colorado, and its wildlife. Not to mention farmlands that were drowned (and in some cases, the people on those farms!)

And unions date back to the 1880s.

BTW, Medicare and Medicaid were JFK's ideas
No. Medicare was a Kennedy-era idea; there's no reason to believe it was solely Kennedy's work. And Medicaid was part of Johnson's 'despotic' Great Society.

"Medicare was a Kennedy-era idea' there's no reason to believe it was soley Kennedy's work." Care to clarify?

And yes Medicaid was a part of the despotic Great Society. I said Great Society as a whole was despotic, but its individual components were not. I wouldn't mind supporting Medicaid, but I think lumping all of them into one package simply gave the government too much power. Lumping such programs into one collective package also lends itself to questionable funding. Look at military spending as a whole; most of the money is being dumped into the most profitable parts, and the military is thus suffering from it. Same way with the Great Society.

and personal freedoms were taken away
Which freedoms?

See my response to Steve's reply.

And poverty dropped 15%, whoop-de-doo
Yes, it's still there. So's Castro; guess Kennedy wasn't worth much. And for whatever reason, poverty only began to rise again during the Reagan administration.

Red Herring. I will admit though, the "whoop-de-doo" part was also a Red Herring of my own. I'll simply consider it "fair"

Once again, according to Garrity, Lyndon I lifed all his civil rights legislation from Kennedy's desk
Your single-source dependence is kind of amusing, actually. Does "all his civil rights leglislation" involve the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, acts which Kennedy may have pledged to do but in fact never followed through? Kennedy had problems with the civil rights movement, despite his claims. And as long as you'd like to keep calling Johnson an unoriginal thinker, why not read Caro's biographies of LBJ.

Actually, "all his civil rights leglisation" DOES involve the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. Kennedy simply died before he could move those.

And the only reason why Nixon was able to get peace was by bombing them to hell with Rolling Thunder and Linebacker
Right...the only reason why Johnson was unable to "get peace" was because of back-room Nixon politicking. The accords that ended the war were little different than the ones proposed in 1968. And the bombings weren't necessary, according to some historians who propose that they only enforced Kissinger's earlier plans.

Perhaps the additional years and casualties were needed for it to be "peace with honor."

-Virgil

What would have guranteed that the VC and NVN would accept such accords without, frankly, "getting the shit knocked out of them"? I honestly believe it was Rolling Thunder and Linebacker that made it possible.

Posted: **2002-08-01 03:54am**

Truman got the ball rolling by offering the Frenchies help in the first place. The Monroe Doctrine should have been two-way, IMHO

Truman was a fan of internationalism and interventionism; that can't be denied--especially as regards his post-war affairs in Europe. But regardless of who started it, Kennedy issued the order to deploy eight thousand American 'advisers' to Viet Nam--not Truman or Eisenhower.

It gave the U.S. a right because the very existence of the U.S. was in danger

You're making that argument today? Granted, people may have been paranoid enough to believe that the Communists were getting ready to invade from Cuba during the Missile Crisis, but at least today we should realize that the nuclear taboo was pretty airtight. Could the missiles based in Cuba have prevented an American reactionary strike? That is to say, would the SAC just have folded up and gone home once they saw the first mushroom clouds? My understanding is that the missiles based in Cuba were medium-range ones. I don't even know if they were IRBMs.

Besides, we attempted one failed invasion of Cuba under self-defense pretexts

And a number of assassination attempts against Castro. But no matter; if you consider that pretext sufficient justification, fine by me.

1. Proof? Was this a defensive threat, in accordance to MAD? Or is this mere personal belief?
2. Already talked about.
3. We still weren't sure that the "domino theroy" was actually true, and I honestly feel we errored on the side of caution. And a funny thing...

1. You've admitted that calling Johnson 'despotic' is a matter of 'mere' personal belief. But no matter. The United States may have believed itself threatened, or may have simply been posturing. Regardless, Kennedy-era brinksmanship could have lead to a nuclear catastrophe.
2. So we have.
3. Unfortunately we had already tipped the Laotian domino, hadn't we?

Red Herring

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you deliberately creating straw men, or are you simply using this as an excuse to take three points--that the Kennedy ticket wasn't all Kennedy; that Johnson's charisma might have carried the day for them in the election; that Johnson was the driving force behind Kennedy Administration legislation--and dismiss them with "I feel sorry for you"?

The main difference was in scale; Great Society simply went too far, but New Frontier didn't

Why? Why did the Great Society go to far, and how can any "Great Society" that lists the VRA as one of its four major accomplishments be labelled "anti-democratic"?

The funds are being sucked dry

Perhaps, but I take it that if they weren't, you'd refrain from collecting anyway?

I am NOT using power generated by New Deal dams

Alright. I don't know if the New Deal impacts Corellia or not, and I don't know where you live, so you might be right.

And unions date back to the 1880s

So they do. But it was New Deal legislation that kept them from being marginalized and gave workers additional power. My understanding is that the NRA was a major component of the unionization process.

Care to clarify?

Sure. If you think that Kennedy was the sole creator of all these ideas, and that LBJ was a lurking bystander who did nothing until 1963, I think you should take another look. LBJ was a driving force behind Kennedy's legislation before and after the latter's assassination.

I said Great Society as a whole was despotic, but its individual components were not. I wouldn't mind supporting Medicaid, but I think lumping all of them into one package simply gave the government too much power. Lumping such programs into one collective package also lends itself to questionable funding. Look at military spending as a whole; most of the money is being dumped into the most profitable parts, and the military is thus suffering from it. Same way with the Great Society.

I'm not sure I follow you. How do Voting and Civil rights acts, Medi -care/-caid, HUD, Head Start, etc--even when taken as a whole--give too much power to the government? And what do you mean about the military? "Most of the money is being dumped into the most profitable parts"? People who saw their tax dollars go to work on the Avenger and Crusader projects--to say nothing of the C-17, B-2, JSF, and F-22--might disagree as to the profitability of the military-industrial black hole.

-Virgil

Posted: **2002-08-01 07:32pm**

Virgil Caine wrote:
Truman got the ball rolling by offering the Frenchies help in the first place. The Monroe Doctrine should have been two-way, IMHO
Truman was a fan of internationalism and interventionism; that can't be denied--especially as regards his post-war affairs in Europe. But regardless of who started it, Kennedy issued the order to deploy eight thousand American 'advisers' to Viet Nam--not Truman or Eisenhower.

It gave the U.S. a right because the very existence of the U.S. was in danger
You're making that argument today? Granted, people may have been paranoid enough to believe that the Communists were getting ready to invade from Cuba during the Missile Crisis, but at least today we should realize that the nuclear taboo was pretty airtight. Could the missiles based in Cuba have prevented an American reactionary strike? That is to say, would the SAC just have folded up and gone home once they saw the first mushroom clouds? My understanding is that the missiles based in Cuba were medium-range ones. I don't even know if they were IRBMs.

The original missiles placed there were true IRBMs and reportedly could strike half the country. During the crisis, these were replaced by R-7s (the first Soviet ICBM)

And we weren't sure back then of what would happen. And the less response time you give your enemy, the more you reduce the chance of retaliation. Of all people, Al, you should know this.

And the "You're making that argument TODAY?!?!" thing is a red herring, anyway

Besides, we attempted one failed invasion of Cuba under self-defense pretexts
And a number of assassination attempts against Castro. But no matter; if you consider that pretext sufficient justification, fine by me.

I would just clump that in with the invasion of Cuba thing. And you have yet to refute my point about the Soviet Union. Wow, your debate skills are really showing through

1. Proof? Was this a defensive threat, in accordance to MAD? Or is this mere personal belief?
2. Already talked about.
3. We still weren't sure that the "domino theroy" was actually true, and I honestly feel we errored on the side of caution. And a funny thing...
1. You've admitted that calling Johnson 'despotic' is a matter of 'mere' personal belief. But no matter. The United States may have believed itself threatened, or may have simply been posturing. Regardless, Kennedy-era brinksmanship could have lead to a nuclear catastrophe.
2. So we have.
3. Unfortunately we had already tipped the Laotian domino, hadn't we?

1. Red herring that has nothing in common with the point made. And once again, proof?
2. Indeed, we have
3. How so? There's Cuba, and Nicaragua, and those are the only two I'm aware of. And I think the Nicaraguans no longer have a communist government anyway.

Red Herring
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you deliberately creating straw men, or are you simply using this as an excuse to take three points--that the Kennedy ticket wasn't all Kennedy; that Johnson's charisma might have carried the day for them in the election; that Johnson was the driving force behind Kennedy Administration legislation--and dismiss them with "I feel sorry for you"?

I point out a red herring, and you cry foul and call it a straw man!

The main difference was in scale; Great Society simply went too far, but New Frontier didn't
Why? Why did the Great Society go to far, and how can any "Great Society" that lists the VRA as one of its four major accomplishments be labelled "anti-democratic"?

Once again, I feel the Great Society gave too much power to the government. And once again, I'll concede it as a personal belief.

The funds are being sucked dry
Perhaps, but I take it that if they weren't, you'd refrain from collecting anyway?

Even if they weren't being sucked dry, social security gives far too insufficinet money to retirees to be of any use anyway. I'd do just as good collecting change from passing strangers.

I am NOT using power generated by New Deal dams
Alright. I don't know if the New Deal impacts Corellia or not, and I don't know where you live, so you might be right.

Ha-ha.

And unions date back to the 1880s
So they do. But it was New Deal legislation that kept them from being marginalized and gave workers additional power. My understanding is that the NRA was a major component of the unionization process.

So, are you saying, that before the National Recovery Act, unions were impractical?

Care to clarify?
Sure. If you think that Kennedy was the sole creator of all these ideas, and that LBJ was a lurking bystander who did nothing until 1963, I think you should take another look. LBJ was a driving force behind Kennedy's legislation before and after the latter's assassination.

proof?

I said Great Society as a whole was despotic, but its individual components were not. I wouldn't mind supporting Medicaid, but I think lumping all of them into one package simply gave the government too much power. Lumping such programs into one collective package also lends itself to questionable funding. Look at military spending as a whole; most of the money is being dumped into the most profitable parts, and the military is thus suffering from it. Same way with the Great Society.
I'm not sure I follow you. How do Voting and Civil rights acts, Medi -care/-caid, HUD, Head Start, etc--even when taken as a whole--give too much power to the government? And what do you mean about the military? "Most of the money is being dumped into the most profitable parts"? People who saw their tax dollars go to work on the Avenger and Crusader projects--to say nothing of the C-17, B-2, JSF, and F-22--might disagree as to the profitability of the military-industrial black hole.

-Virgil

Since when did the Voting and Civil Rights act were considered a part of the Great Society? And my point is, when you clump such programs together, the money tends to be sucked into the most profitable parts, i.e., the parts that give the maximum return to the government's pockets. My example of the military industrial complex is merely helped by your reply. The B-2 is worthless, and so is the F-22 and JSF. These projects exist primarily because they result in tremendous profits. Meanwhile, they're sucking up funds that would be better spent on personel.

Posted: **2002-08-01 10:02pm**

And the "You're making that argument TODAY?!?!" thing is a red herring, anyway

I've never heard the term "red herring" used as you use it, so I'm going on conjecture as to what you mean.

The argument that the Cuban Missile Crisis and/or the Bay of Pigs were necessary to promote national security is one that would've worked forty years ago, when people seriously believed that the Soviet Union was about to attack.

My statement, "you're making that statement today?" is valid. To use an extreme example: if you, for example, were defending the CSA's position on the grounds that "blacks are inferior," I would object based on the grounds that such a view is no longer readily accepted.

And you have yet to refute my point about the Soviet Union

What point about the Soviet Union?

That they were getting ready to attack? The Soviet position is and has been that the missiles placed in Cuba were done so defensively--not unreasonable, given that the United States had just tried to effect a military coup of a communist government there.

1. Red herring that has nothing in common with the point made. And once again, proof?

Sure it does. You seem to believe that MAD is a good thing, I don't. I said that Kennedy threatened to end the world in a nuclear holocaust, and this is true. Many people think that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest that the two superpowers came to nuclear war. And on a side note, some people think that the Soviet loss in Cuba was responsible for their determination to close the percieved 'missile gap.' So perhaps his insistence on playing nuclear chicken made the world less secure.

3. How so? There's Cuba, and Nicaragua, and those are the only two I'm aware of. And I think the Nicaraguans no longer have a communist government anyway

No, my point is that Laos was already recieving large amounts of American aid, and that it was the focus of American efforts to 'stabilize' South-East Asia (lest it fall to the Evil Godless Communists) before Kennedy began militarizing Viet Nam.

I point out a red herring, and you cry foul and call it a straw man!

Because you won't say what you mean, and you still haven't answered those points.

Even if they weren't being sucked dry, social security gives far too insufficinet money to retirees to be of any use anyway. I'd do just as good collecting change from passing strangers.

Irrelevant. Answer the question: will you draw on your social security benefits--even if a year's worth won't buy you a Big Mac--or will you abstain for moral grounds? That is to say, because you wouldn't want anything to do with "King Franklin"?

So, are you saying, that before the National Recovery Act, unions were impractical?

Yes. Read The Jungle for a little bit about unionization. Or read about the IWW. Or read about the anti-union action of the 20s. The NRA and other New Deal legislation legitimized unions. They did things like abolishing yellow-dog contracts; things like that.

proof?

Apparently you've decided to move the Johnson debate elsewhere; I've addressed the topic there.

Since when did the Voting and Civil Rights act were considered a part of the Great Society

Well, Johnson himself called his collective domestic agenda the "Great Society" program--the already passed measures as well as new ones were used as part of the '64 democratic plank.

And my point is, when you clump such programs together, the money tends to be sucked into the most profitable parts, i.e., the parts that give the maximum return to the government's pockets

Why?

-Virgil

Posted: **2002-08-02 09:01am**

Just remember my Stepdad spent two years in the 101st over there. I still say that the three biggest things that tick me off still about that war are:

1. M16A1: the gun that wouldn't shoot because they wanted to save money and buy really cheap powder.

2. Agent Orange: My Half-Sister is suffering the Consequences of that, I really hate Dow chemical for that one.

3. Politicians who used parental help to stay out of that war, and then go finger pointing at Politicians who out right avoided it, or question the mental stability of folks who did serve. (Mr.s Quayle and Bush jr. can please go to the back of the line)

Posted: **2002-08-02 01:43pm**

THe Yosemite Bear wrote: 2. Agent Orange: My Half-Sister is suffering the Consequences of that, I really hate Dow chemical for that one.

Ouch...please don't mind me prodding, but how did this happen?

Posted: **2002-08-02 02:03pm**

I don't know how she was exposed, but Agent Orange was contaminated, which led to the various ill effects. There was dioxin in it, which is rather unpleasent.

Posted: **2002-08-02 02:10pm**

Some thoughts about the Cuban Missile Crises:

The missiles emplaced in Cuba were liquid-fueled, and as such took some time to prep for launch. They could not be kept fueled, as chemicals were quite nasty - the missiles would have to be defueled and checked over (IIRC). The USAF kept them under constant surveillance; any signs of fueling the missiles might have led to a preemptive counterforce strike by SAC.

However, the missiles there, I've read, were just within the engagement envelope of Nike Hercules - so a strike by the surviving missile launchers (if any) might not have worked. Remember, at that time ARADCOM was still strong (it would later be dismantled to provide the cadre for Vietnam).

Furthermore, if the CMC escalated, it would hardly be the end of the world. Europe and the Soviet Union would have been absolutely devestated, yes. America would be hurt, but not very much - there were not very many Soviet missiles capable of hitting the United States, and again, all of them took so long to prep for launch that SAC B-52s might have knocked them out anyways. Krushchev faced a extreme disadvantage; it was not exactly worth it for him to escalate events so far as to go to nuclear war.

Posted: **2002-08-02 09:01pm**

RayCav of ASVS wrote:
THe Yosemite Bear wrote: 2. Agent Orange: My Half-Sister is suffering the Consequences of that, I really hate Dow chemical for that one.
Ouch...please don't mind me prodding, but how did this happen?

Dioxin (The Primary Ingredent in Agent Orange) causes gentic damage to those exposed, to it..

Posted: **2002-08-02 11:25pm**

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:
RayCav of ASVS wrote:
THe Yosemite Bear wrote: 2. Agent Orange: My Half-Sister is suffering the Consequences of that, I really hate Dow chemical for that one.
Ouch...please don't mind me prodding, but how did this happen?
Dioxin (The Primary Ingredent in Agent Orange) causes gentic damage to those exposed, to it..

Dioxin was not the primary ingredient of Agent Orange. It was a contaminant. 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T were the primary components of it.