Announcement

**Al B. Sure!** · July 14, 2003, 01:51

It's pretty much a given that democracies don't tend to go to war with each other, and self-determination implies democratic government.

not exactly... i mean look at europe in the 20's and 30's... all the monarchies were obliterated and democratic systems were created which quickly turned into communism or fascism. the people's choice was to have these non-democratic systems... they self-determined to have non-democratic systems that were openly hostile to the US

thanks

**David Floyd** · July 14, 2003, 01:53

That was preventing the North Vietnamese Government from taking over... that was the honorable solution.

That's all well and good, but the methods used were pretty horrible. Conscription, shooting civilians on purpose, not to mention the fact that we weren't actually helping any honorable solution. By propping up the South Vietnamese government, we were simply helping TWO dictatorial governments to exist, rather than just one. Why not just say "**** it", let one dictatorial government exist instead of two, avoid the war, and then work for change using methods such as free trade and diplomacy?

**Giancarlo** · July 14, 2003, 01:54

David: Read his book and stop disagreeing with statements I never made. It is fine referring to other statements I didn't make every once in a while, but don't do it all the time. It shows how little you have in this debate.

**Giancarlo** · July 14, 2003, 01:56

Originally posted by johncmcleod

First off, how do you really know a person by messaging with them on the net? I know I'm a whole lot nastier on the net than I am in real life.

Second, what does the fact that you don't like him have to do with anything?

It is my opinion of him and how little respect I have for him.

**David Floyd** · July 14, 2003, 01:57

not exactly... i mean look at europe in the 20's and 30's... all the monarchies were obliterated and democratic systems were created which quickly turned into communism or fascism. the people's choice was to have these non-democratic systems... they self-determined to have non-democratic systems that were openly hostile to the US

First of all, Hitler, who you are obviously referring to, was not openly hostile towards the US, and didn't even want war with the US. Secondly, Hitler was not propelled to power by a majority vote. Thirdly, Hitler was propelled to power as a direct result of the First World War, which was ended less than honorably, and quite frankly should have ended with a German victory, had the US ****ed off.

As to the Soviet Union, I can't imagine the US intervention in the Russian Civil War endearing the US to the Soviets. Although the only Soviet leader who might actually have started a war with the US was Stalin, anyway, and WW2 sorta crippled his warmaking ability for a good while, plus the US had an overwhelming military advantage by the time Stalin was in a position to threaten the US, so I still don't see your point.

**David Floyd** · July 14, 2003, 01:58

David: Read his book and stop disagreeing with statements I never made. It is fine referring to other statements I didn't make every once in a while, but don't do it all the time. It shows how little you have in this debate.

So, then, enlighten me as to your actual position, if it is different than any position already stated on here. Obviously it is different from my position, and obviously it's fairly close to Kissinger's, so go figure.

**johncmcleod** · July 14, 2003, 01:59

not exactly... i mean look at europe in the 20's and 30's... all the monarchies were obliterated and democratic systems were created which quickly turned into communism or fascism. the people's choice was to have these non-democratic systems... they self-determined to have non-democratic systems that were openly hostile to the US

Well hopefully the world has learned from that and when they self-determine their government they won't choose fascism. You do have a good point though.

BTW Albert Speer you said that you didn't play much civ, which means you probably didn't post in the civ forums much, so how did you get to be Emperor if OT posts don't count?

shooting civilians on purpose

How many of the civilians the US shot were on purpose? I don't understand how I human being could shoot children without a purpose for it. I've heard that most of the civilian deaths was because of the civilians strapping bombs to themselves, etc. but I don't know who to believe, the media or the conservatives who defended the war for some reason, because I wasn't at the battlefields of Vietnam.

**Giancarlo** · July 14, 2003, 02:00

Originally posted by David Floyd

So, then, enlighten me as to your actual position, if it is different than any position already stated on here. Obviously it is different from my position, and obviously it's fairly close to Kissinger's, so go figure.

It is close to what Kissinger's position on the subject is, but to understand this, I ask you read his book...

**chequita guevara** · July 14, 2003, 02:00

Re: Pacifist conservatives and war-hawk leftists...

Originally posted by Albert Speer
why is pacificism seen as left-wing? where the **** did this idea come from that leftists want peace and rightists are all war-like?

It came from the the oversvation of reality. Reality's a nice place, Speer. You should come visit sometime.

**monkspider** · July 14, 2003, 02:00

I dunno, if you believe that leftism and progressivism represents absolute, universal good and rightism, the opposite, then you could maybe argue that leftists are inherently pacifist. I do not subscribe to that belief, however.

**David Floyd** · July 14, 2003, 02:01

In a war where the enemy is often disguised as civilians, it's only natural to assume all civilians are the enemy.

In any case, I have heard various stories firsthand of soldiers being ordered to fire on civilians who were not openly hostile. And no, I don't have a citation, these are simply stories I've heard first hand from people who were there, so take it for what you will.

If nothing else, My Lai.

**Giancarlo** · July 14, 2003, 02:01

Originally posted by monkspider
I dunno, if you believe that leftism and progressivism represents absolute, universal good and rightism, the opposite, then you could maybe argue that leftists are inherently pacifist. I do not subscribe to that belief, however.

From what I heard from you in the past, you love imposing your beliefs on others.

Not that I never did deny doing that.

**Al B. Sure!** · July 14, 2003, 02:02

David:

Hitler? i wasn't using him as an example (although plebiscietes in the Alsace-Lorraine and Sudenton did show that the majority of those not even in germany wanted him) but anyway, i was actualy talking about all those other dictatorships in europe both fascist and communist? Finland, Lithuania, Roumania, Bulgaria, Portugal, etc.? many of them were straight up elected or if not officially, it was clear that the vast majority wanted fascism or communism.

**David Floyd** · July 14, 2003, 02:02

Leftists and rightists alike are fans of imposing their beliefs on other people.

**Giancarlo** · July 14, 2003, 02:03

Originally posted by David Floyd
In a war where the enemy is often disguised as civilians, it's only natural to assume all civilians are the enemy.

In any case, I have heard various stories firsthand of soldiers being ordered to fire on civilians who were not openly hostile. And no, I don't have a citation, these are simply stories I've heard first hand from people who were there, so take it for what you will.

If nothing else, My Lai.

So I take it you won't read the book? To better understand Kissinger's views I am suggesting this. My uncle told me stories about incidents like that too as he served in the US Infantry during the Vietnam war.

Announcement

Pacifist conservatives and war-hawk leftists...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment