Myths of our time: globalisation

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Are you on drugs?

Worse yet, I'm a commie!

[JohnT]

Not a denial...


... he's a Commie on Drugs! Run away! Run awayyyy!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by 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.

Third world countries cannot afford competitive subsidies, that is why they use tariffs instead.

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.

Hmm, so the goal was defeat?

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, it was never quite clear what our goal was.

[Master Zen]

The goal IMO was quite clear: support the South Vientamese regime, not so different than support of the South during the Korean War. The difference was that 1) the means to do so were never quite clear 2) the amount of force necessary was also never quite clear and 3) the will wasn't really there at all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The goal IMO was quite clear: support the South Vientamese regime, not so different than support of the South during the Korean War. The difference was that 1) the means to do so were never quite clear 2) the amount of force necessary was also never quite clear and 3) the will wasn't really there at all.

That's not true either. We had pretty much escolated as far as we could go without starting WWIII. From the world's most massive arial bombardment, to forceable relocations of huge populations, to massacres, to massive deforestation, the only escalation we cuold have done was A) invade the North and/or B) use nuclear weapons. Eith of the latter two options would have brought the Chinese into the war, and possibly the Soviets.

The force was there, the will was there, and the means were pretty darned effrective for their time. The problem was we were fighting for a government that had the support of only 5% of its population and where a sizable part of the people supported the other side. It was simply not a winnable war on our part.

From a realpolitik point of view, however, the war was successful. Vietnam was crippled by the war. They still haven't fully recovered. We showed the world what the price of victory is, and most people don't want to pay that price. Also, successful revolutions usually sponsor revolutionary waves, but the revolution in Vietnam was so exhausted, that Vietnam turned out to be the end of the wave of revolutions that had begun in 1959 (course a new wave started four yers later).

[Imran Siddiqui]

From a realpolitik point of view, however, the war was successful. Vietnam was crippled by the war. They still haven't fully recovered. We showed the world what the price of victory is, and most people don't want to pay that price. Also, successful revolutions usually sponsor revolutionary waves, but the revolution in Vietnam was so exhausted, that Vietnam turned out to be the end of the wave of revolutions that had begun in 1959 (course a new wave started four yers later).

SEE... I keep telling people Vietnam was a success... just not in normal terms though .

[Kuciwalker]

From a realpolitik point of view, however, the war was successful.

If a Phyrric (sp?) victory can be considered successful, then yes.

[Fake Boris]

SEE... I keep telling people Vietnam was a success... just not in normal terms though .

Now Imran... I've been telling you the exact same thing in my other thread and you treated me as some kind of conspiracy theorist. Oh well.

(And don't start about JFK- what I said about him was just icing on the cake).

PS: how's the per capita GDP doing in the US?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now Imran... I've been telling you the exact same thing in my other thread

NO YOU HAVEN'T! You dirty liar! On the other thread you said the war was simply about making corporations rich. Which is exactly counter to what che said!

how's the per capita GDP doing in the US?

Well it's 2nd in the world (or 5th based on who is doing the measuring) ... so it's doing pretty good . Still doesn't matter because we were talking about GDP GROWTH per capita. Another attempt to lie your way home .

(into Google type 'GDP Growth per capita' and 'GDP per capita'. You'll see a great divergence... while there is page on page on 'GDP per capita' there is hardly anything on 'GDP Growth per capita'. For such an "important" measure shouldn't it be measured more?)

[Kuciwalker]

into Google type 'GDP Growth per capita' and 'GDP per capita'. You'll see a great divergence... while there is page on page on 'GDP per capita' there is hardly anything on 'GDP Growth per capita'. For such an "important" measure shouldn't it be measured more?)

How many of those "GDP growth per capita" results are from that other thread?

[Ned]

The fate of Vietnam was sealed when Truman fired MacArthur.

[Kuciwalker]

dp

[Kuciwalker]

Wasn't that Korea

[Ned]

Even though it was Korea, it still established the principle that we were unwilling to do what was necessary to win the Korean War. We were unwilling to go after the bases in China and/or to take on China directly, if necessary, to win. That was our major problem in Vietnam as well. We were unwilling to risk a second confrontation with China. But we had to in order to win that war. We had to invade and take over North Vietnam to win. That is why Truman's decision to fire McArthur was so critical for the outcome in Vietnam