LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

Spanky 11-28-2005 07:58 PM

Ann Coulter
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
What if we never were there? Should we have intervened in China in 1949?

Ultimately, I think that there is a difference between places where outside forces were seeking to impose a communist regime (and our intervention worked -- Korea in 1950, Greece/Turkey in 1946-48, Malaysia in the 1950s)(ok, the UK gets credit for Malaysia and partial credit for the Greeks) and places where the communists had true indigenous support (China in 1949 and Vietnam). No amount of intervention would have prevented Mao from winning over the KMT (short of nuking his army as he was getting ready to cross the Yangztee, I suppose), and I don't think that we could have kept the Theiu regime in power much longer, either.
This is a tough issue but the part that makes me think that the "corrupt unsupported regime" is a line of Bull, is becaue it was used every time there was a communist anti-communist fight. South Koreas government was corrupt and authoritarian. So was Malaysia's. Yet both of these regimes turned their countrys into economic miracles.

If Chiange was such a corrupt and incompetant leader why did he do so well with Taiwan. If the communists were so supported in South Vietnam why did it spark one of the largest exoduses in world history.

I think the problem was that many people felt that a communist regime was better than an authoritarian, corrupt, pro business regime. They just didn't want to admit it.

None of us were there, but the fact that in every conflict the corrupt and lame government excuse was used everytime and it proved to be wrong in many cases shows that it probably was not all that valid.

Sexual Harassment Panda 11-28-2005 08:04 PM

Ann Coulter
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What do you think caused Daniel Ortega to finally call for open and free elections? Did he just realize the error of his ways?
I would guess he was pretty confident he was going to win.

Tyrone Slothrop 11-28-2005 08:51 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush had no idea how this war would turn out.
When he talked to Bob Woodward for Plan Of Attack, he didn't exactly sound wracked by uncertainty.

Tyrone Slothrop 11-28-2005 09:18 PM

Ann Coulter
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
They beat us for one reason. They beat us because a whole lot of idiots - that would be me - bought the line that peace and passivity are always virtues. We was wrong. Passivity as you watch the big guy kill the little kid across the street is not a virtue. Several million rue my stupidity.

Or they would if they were still alive.
And Germany lost World War I only because of the liberals and social democrats stabbed Germany in the back.

Hank Chinaski 11-28-2005 09:31 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When he talked to Bob Woodward for Plan Of Attack, he didn't exactly sound wracked by uncertainty.
Translation:

That Ready to Die shit, it was aight, it was aight,
yunumsayin, that shit was aight, it was cool. But my shit is
more John Blaze than that! I got John Blaze shit. And they not
recognizing, they not sayin I recognize. And f**k is that, who
is you to be askin me questions, youknowhatI'msayin? Who is
you?



http://www.exodushosting.net/gallery...al_gangsta.jpg

50 Cent thinks the president is "incredible ... a gangsta." "I wanna meet George Bush, just shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him," 50 told GQ. If the rapper's felony conviction didn't prevent him from voting, 50 said he would have voted for Bush.


Penske-style post!TM

Spanky 11-28-2005 10:14 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When he talked to Bob Woodward for Plan Of Attack, he didn't exactly sound wracked by uncertainty.
Ty - let it go. This is just absurd. War is high risk. It always is and everyone in the Bush administration knew it. Of course they put on the face of them being determined and having no doubt but that is for the troops and morale. You can't go into war looking unsure about yourself.

To look back afterwards and to say Bush knew it was going to be OK is just patently ridiculous. The war in Iraq was a huge risk.

It is just conventional wisdom that doing things with uncertain outcomes before an election is stupid and risky politics. There is nothing more uncertain and high risk than war.

Bush took a massive risk and to question that is akin to questioning whether or not Elvis is dead.

Hank Chinaski 11-28-2005 10:31 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty - let it go. This is just absurd. War is high risk. It always is and everyone in the Bush administration knew it. Of course they put on the face of them being determined and having no doubt but that is for the troops and morale. You can't go into war looking unsure about yourself.

To look back afterwards and to say Bush knew it was going to be OK is just patently ridiculous. The war in Iraq was a huge risk.

It is just conventional wisdom that doing things with uncertain outcomes before an election is stupid and risky politics. There is nothing more uncertain and high risk than war.

Bush took a massive risk and to question that is akin to questioning whether or not Elvis is dead.
They had just taken over the Senate in a mid-term election. Maybe not unprecedented, but very unusual. If all Bush was is politics, to roll the dice of a war for politics right after such a huge win is dumb. As with most of their dogma it is just contradictory- the evil political genius Rove does something reallly dumb politically.

Maybe the problem is the people who are dem here are dumb and can't remember anything beyond their current rant. It does fit with all the evidence- and that makes it a strong theory in SCIENCE!

Spanky 11-28-2005 10:50 PM

Ann Coulter
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And Germany lost World War I only because of the liberals and social democrats stabbed Germany in the back.
Are you really comparing Germany in WWI to the United States in the Vietnam war? Ty has left the building and reality.

Let's see: Germany at the end of WWI was outgunned, outmanned and out of money. The US at the end of the Vietnam war outgunned, outmanned and infinitely out bankrolled North Vietnam.

In fact you have just shown us when the stab in the back argument is absurd and when it is relevent. In WWI it was absurd, but since the US involvement in Vietnam was almost the complete opposite of the German situation in WWI, that must mean that the stab in the back argument fits perfectly for the US situation in Vietnam.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Spanky 11-28-2005 10:55 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


Penske-style post!TM
Where the #%$&@! is Penske?

Hank Chinaski 11-28-2005 11:04 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Where the #%$&@! is Penske?
I AM PENSKE!

notfrommensa 11-28-2005 11:05 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I AM PENSKE!
No! I AM PENSKE!

PuriTY 11-28-2005 11:07 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by notfrommensa
No! I AM PENSKE!
I AM PENSKE!

Ty@50 11-28-2005 11:09 PM

For the record
 
Quote:

Originally posted by PuriTY
I AM PENSKE!
NO! NO! I AM PENSKE!

Diane_Keaton 11-28-2005 11:26 PM

For the Record
 
Me too.
http://www.hrrelocation.com/logo.jpg

Tyrone Slothrop 11-28-2005 11:42 PM

Ann Coulter
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you really comparing Germany in WWI to the United States in the Vietnam war?
No. My point was somewhat more subtle than that.

Thanks for asking.

eta: I'm not Penske, but I had a 2002 Crocodilo cab from Argentina tonight, courtesy of Paul Hobbs, who imported it.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com