Myths of our time: globalisation

[Agathon]

1. Is true.

2. People are always trying to leave poor countries and come to rich ones. Mexico being the prime example.

3. Whatever way you look at it, they won. They kicked your ass. The regime in the South was a puppet that had no legitimacy.

[Whoha]

we were hated during the cold war.

[Fake Boris]

Agathon:

Yeah sure about what you said on Aristotle being outdated. Was it so hard to understand "metaphysic and syllogisms" as a generic periphrase? Anyway that's what they've taught me in the basic courses and you've got to know it when you move higher down the line (I love this expression).

And TCO: you sure don't want me to narrate my whole life, but yes , I do plan on doing some math too to avoid outright idiocy.

[TCO]

1. Prove it.

2. They didn't run like that before the commies took over.

3. (And you call yourself a logician.)
A. First sentence is pointless, I already agreed that the North won, with certain specifications.
B. Second sentence begs the question: does winning equal ass-kicking? If so, stating that adds nothing to the debate. If it means more (like running up a big score in a sports match as opposed to barely winning), then you need to give some evidence of ass-kicking as opposed to winning. try to follow this, you crappy moron, you...
C. Third sentence is a non-sequiter. Stay on point, professor.

[Fake Boris]

Actually, in the reading of history I had so far, it came to me that the objective of the US was to destroy Vietnam in order to terrorize other communist guerillas. That's why they spent more on air bombardment and toxic pesticide spilling than real ground efforts.

[Ned]

Master Zen, from your post it appears that you are advocating short-term protection of local businesses in order that they may become competitive in response to free-trade agreements. Perhaps, but I would prefer that the form of protection be subsidies rather than tariffs so that people can gain to benefit of the new lower-cost higher-quality products from abroad. This would be similar to the way we handled Chrysler when it needed help rather than the way we handled the steel industry when they needed help.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Actually, in the reading of history I had so far, it came to me that the objective of the US was to destroy Vietnam in order to terrorize other communist guerillas. That's why they spent more on air bombardment and toxic pesticide spilling than real ground efforts.

Gee thanks for weighing in with that in-depth analysis based on your massive knowledge and personal experience. I don't know what we would do without your shining the single photon of your luminous brilliance on this topic.

Now run off and BS some more third rate essays for your semantics take-home final.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Time to post it again:
"American protectionism is the problem!
A December report by the U.S. Agriculture Department estimated that agricultural support in the United States is worth about 21 percent of the country's production value, while it reaches 35 percent in Europe and almost 60 percent in Japan. U.S. tariffs average 12 percent, EU tariffs 30 percent and Japan's almost 50 percent, the report said. The Washington Times January 24, 2003 "

"Ag exports tumble
America's agricultural trade surplus has tumbled from $27 billion to about $12 billion since 1996 while imports have risen 20% and exports have fallen 12%. Modesto Bee 12/09/01"

I dont see how this is a reply.

EDIT: Well maybe i do. Lemme see if I get this right.

As a citizen of america, you cannot be help morally responsible for the mistakes of other countries governments. If they do it, and we don't then we have done our job. If we both do it, then we are both equally guilty.

[Ned]

Given that our goal in Vietnam was never victory, we could have never won that war. That is why Vietnam was a tragedy and a mistake.

[Agathon]

None of what I said is in the least bit controversial. Go look it up yourself.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by TCO


Gee thanks for weighing in with that in-depth analysis based on your massive knowledge and personal experience. I don't know what we would do without your shining the single photon of your luminous brilliance on this topic.

Now run off and BS some more third rate essays for your semantics take-home final.

Mind you, I don't always have the time to write "third rate essays for your semantics take-home final". I see no wrong bringing in resumed point of views. Which, by the way, is defended by many historians. I suggest you read a bit more about the history of your pitiful, beotian people before "weighting in" the brilliant prose of your ad hominem genius.

But I can forgive you anyway. How can I blame you of knowing history only from the winning side, since you're part of it anyway?

So, back to the point. Why did the war last so long, cost so much, and used so many bombs (the Vietnam war is the one in which the most explosives were used in all history, even surpassing WW2)? In my mind that is sufficient to ring a bell and try to find an explanation in history books that don't carry on the official, censored version. If it's not for you, well, too bad, but don't go around telling me how wrong I was to do it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suggest you read a bit more about the history of your pitiful, beotian people before "weighting in" the brilliant prose of your ad hominem genius.

Oh delicious irony, I love it so!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I suggest you read a bit more about the history of your pitiful, beotian people before "weighting in" the brilliant prose of your ad hominem genius.

Oh delicious irony, I love it so!

Do you really think TCO abides by the "homo, hominis" definition? Oh delicious irony, I love it even more.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you on drugs?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Mind you, I don't always have the time to write "third rate essays for your semantics take-home final". I see no wrong bringing in resumed point of views. Which, by the way, is defended by many historians. I suggest you read a bit more about the history of your pitiful, beotian people before "weighting in" the brilliant prose of your ad hominem genius.

But I can forgive you anyway. How can I blame you of knowing history only from the winning side, since you're part of it anyway?

So, back to the point. Why did the war last so long, cost so much, and used so many bombs (the Vietnam war is the one in which the most explosives were used in all history, even surpassing WW2)? In my mind that is sufficient to ring a bell and try to find an explanation in history books that don't carry on the official, censored version. If it's not for you, well, too bad, but don't go around telling me how wrong I was to do it.

You are too clueless. Get some weathering.