dagblog - Comments for "'First In The South' Democratic Forum"

The reality is that many of

ocean-kat — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:49:06 +0000

In reply to Agreed!

The reality is that many of the comments here show more knowledge and depth than the blogs and articles on other sites.

Agreed!

barefooted — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:52:41 +0000

In reply to One of the most striking

Agreed!

One of the most striking

stillidealistic — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:00:45 +0000

In reply to 'First In The South' Democratic Forum

One of the most striking things about the comments here is that they are intelligent and thoughtful. It is a refreshing change from the forums I often read.

The USN was running fake ops

Oxy Mora — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 01:27:53 +0000

In reply to Cute, but wrong. As this

The USN was running fake ops on how to land LST's in Vietnam as early as 1958.

(And did you know that with a thirty foot tide at Inchon it's possible to dry dock an LST on a cement pier if it happens not to be on the chart?)

Cute, but wrong. As this

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:17:46 +0000

In reply to Waging Endless War From

Cute, but wrong. As this article notes, the North Vietnamese had invaded Cambodia at the request of the Khmer Rouge, and Sihanouk through weakness had been allowing Communists to reside in the border region of his country for years -since 1966 - to attack Americans & South Vietnam - none too happy about it. The bombing of Cambodia was started by LBJ, but Nixon extended it with long-range. Obviously the presence of North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge troops in Cambodia was a violation of Cambodian neutrality, and the only reason for keeping it hushed up was political - to avoid protests. The North Vietnamese obviously did not advertise it. There is a strange situation among those unable to criticize Ho Chi Minh's killing some 120,000-200,000 North Vietnamese after taking power in 1954, along with his brutal terrorism of South Vietnamese village until 1975. North Vietnamese murderous actions are excused or ignored, American and South Vietnamese actions in this confused bloody setting are condemned. It would be useful to have a debate acknowledging mistakes and atrocities on both sides.

Re: East Timor, the Indonesians manipulated a naive Timorese situation, but the East Timor parties were fighting among themselves and Portuguese independence left a vacuum. Worse, the Communist victories in Vietname, Cambodia and Laos at the time created a background that the West couldn't ignore (yes, the Domino Theory diagnosed a real threat), even though the Communist proclamations were a small part of the indpendence movement (more "social democracy", e.g. Bernie Sanders material). By 1977 - post-invasion - Marxist rhetoric was rising as more exiles got involved, but Gusmåo eventually steered them towards somethign less controversial. Indonesia of course made it sound worse than it was. Any any case, the chance was good that Indonesia would occupy East Timor with the Portuguese occupied with their new coup. The real question is whether Ford & Kissinger had an inkling the kind of civilian massacres that occurred would happen. Good summaries here and here and here.

The Bangladesh atrocities are the most disturbing, including the support of the Pakistani armies, giving them free reign. It's made worse by the callous and insulting discussions Nixon & Kissinger held - how much did Kissinger guess that East Timor would turn into a blood-bath is a question that needs to be asked.

Waging Endless War From

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:55:50 +0000

In reply to Fair question for sure so I

Waging Endless War From Vietnam to Syria

In April 2014, ESPN published a photograph of an unlikely duo: Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and former national security adviser and secretary of state Henry Kissinger at the Yankees-Red Sox season opener. In fleece jackets on a crisp spring day, they were visibly enjoying each other’s company, looking for all the world like a twenty-first-century geopolitical version of Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. The subtext of their banter, however, wasn’t about sex, but death.

https://lobelog.com/waging-endless-war-from-vietnam-to-syria/

Fair question for sure so I

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:05:40 +0000

In reply to Camus as always is worth

Fair question for sure so I am obliged to answer that I don’t have a fucking clue as to how, realistically, the US could alter its course and proof of how tough a job that would be would only come if we were to actually agree that we are on an unsustainable course and had the opportunity to elect leaders who would honestly try to change that course. I think it is very likely too late to do so and that is even if the nature of humans doesn’t mean that it has always been, and will always be, too late. Significant change, which cannot be counted on to be for the better, will only come when forced upon us by events as the play out. That our long term course is unsustainable and that continuing on it will lead to disaster later if not sooner is a premise some might argue and though I am on a personal campaign to be more diplomatic, I would consider that I was talking to an uninformed idiot if they argued the opposite.

As usual, I am confining my comment to our bullying foreign policy though obviously there are other significant problems. A national change of attitude spurred by a change in perception of our place in the world might change that attitude and therefore actions of our elected leaders but I don’t see that attitude changing for the better. Our ongoing electoral debates should make that obvious when a significant part of the electorate are supporting completely unacceptable candidates as their preference. Every Republican vows to reverse every slight move that has been in the right direction on “day one”. Every one of the Republicans spout maniacle “defense” positions.

If it is accepted that our course is unsustainable then it should be obvious that Hillary is not the one to change it, yet her political opposition is so obviously crazy that she looks pretty good by comparison and after her supporters spend some effort defending her they get so wedded to her as the best candidate that they actually believe she is a good candidate. Obviously I disagree.

I would guess that the last best chance to change course for the better was at the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead, the perception of victory turned us loose to double down on ultimately counter-productive measures that could no longer be justified as either necessary or productive. Our dependence on military diplomacy is, in at least one of its aspects and in affect, the investment of trillions of borrowed dollars to make billions of dollars for a few while leading to the less and less gradual impoverishment of the many. Here is a critique of the recent military budget which everybody did know or should have known would not be subject to any restraint while social programs and infrastructure and maintenance get cuts. That budget which increased by 33 billion dollars probably is too small to support what the wackos would have us do but it is greater than we can continue to finance, I believe. We really need to think seriously about gun control where it really matters the most.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/budget-pentagon-congress-obama/

So, I believe that recognizing the problem must come before any chance at fixing it is available. I think people must have been systematically and deliberately deluded to not see the problem but maybe I am deluded to believe it is significant.

Camus as always is worth

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:17:34 +0000

In reply to “No true leader of a

Camus as always is worth pondering deeper on, and I agree that we don't have to withdraw from the world to walk softly, but you don't quite address what that means in practice. (and I've been quite critical of our Libya/Syria shit disturbing, along with all our other Mideast forays and turning the Arab Spring from a peaceful protest model to a rebels-backed-with-arms model - Tunisia continues quite swimmingly, the rest not).

You were quite critical of our fairly restrained efforts in Ukraine. What are the kind of effective policies and approaches do you support that don't back away from problems or slide onto the murderous side of the scale?

I can't believe that I wasn't

barefooted — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 04:57:58 +0000

In reply to I was not able to see it

I can't believe that I wasn't aware until today that Saturday's Democratic debate in Iowa will be on CBS! First (only?) for either party on network television. Technically it's the CBS News/Des Moines Register debate, with one "sideline" moderator from the paper. The Register has great cred, so here's hoping for a good night for all three candidates.

“No true leader of a

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:54:00 +0000

In reply to The inherent danger of

“No true leader of a Superpower should be described as a "dove" or a "hawk" because because the world doesn't fit either one exclusively”.

I believe exactly the opposite and see it as obvious. What is the point of having an informed electorate if the information is ignored and if we know that a person is a “hawk” that knowledge should definitely play into our voting decision? If the leadership of a small underdeveloped country is dominated by hawks the world is little affected but our country’s leadership matters to the entire world. That should be bloody obvious.

Hillary has a record which is the description of a “hawk” and we should be aware of it and judge accordingly but a "dove" is not the only alternative and “Walk softly and carry a big stick”, which I would happily vote for, should, ideally, be an available alternative. We do not have to withdraw from the world in order to walk softly. I repeat a part of Camus’ writing.

“All I ask is that, in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect on murder and to make a choice. After that, we can distinguish those who accept the consequences of being murderers themselves or the accomplices of murderers, and those who refuse to do so with all their force and being. Since this terrible dividing line does actually exist, it will be a gain if it be clearly marked.”

"The inherent danger of debating a Moralist is that you will appear the opposite.'

Not necessarily. Hillary has clearly identified which side of Camus’ “terrible dividing line” she stands on and for brevity and simplicity we call those on her side of the line”hawks” and while Camus is describing what to him is a moral choice, I believe that a completely self-interested sociopathic pragmatist could intelligently reach his same decision as to which side of the line to choose. I firmly believe that our country cannot stay on the same path it has chosen for so long and continue to avoid calamity at home such as it has caused in so many other places.