Large Scale Central

Sure to Stir up Conversation

General Discussion
#41

Ken,
nothing to do with like or dislike. History will put the last hundred years into perspective and will place the United States up there with England, Spain and France as the great colonising nations. However, colonisation has its rewards and its pitfalls.

 In essence,  I admire the American people,  but deplore a system of government that requires its future presidential nominees to fete big business to get sufficient funds to stage a year long campaign to just achieve nomination status.  Then one has to fund another campaign to hopefully become selected as president.  All these political donors want a return for their investment in you and expect payment in kind when in the oval office.   Your current presidential team is a prime example of how the system fails,  not that any previous teams were any better.  Although,  I do have a soft spot for the peanut farmer,  much maligned,  but had the spirit of the people at heart and not his own pocket.
#42

The idea that you can’t win against terrorists or insurgents is, I think, wrong. You just have to be ruthless in putting down the insurgency.

REMF’s… what a great term. I had one patient who claimed to be a retired SEAL with 271 confirmed kills. NOT! Another, I found out after 4 years was retired SF. The only way I found out was by asking “How did you get this scar?” I finally got him to open up a little…

Ken, I think I saw in a movie once, a helicopter brought down by an arrow. Oh, my bad, that was a Sparrow. :lol:

HJ, Peace is an extension of war by other means. Clausewitz got it wrong. And, I am confident that your “Keen observer” did not know what he was talking about, either.

#43

Steve,
did you run out of decaf jokes and jokes about Fosters?

#44

Jimmy Carter did not have the spirit of the people at heart by any means. That incompetent nincompoop may not have had his pocketbook in mind, but he did more harm to my pocketbook than any of the rest of them combined.

You may admire the american people but you sure have a funny way of showing it. By saying you deplore a system of government that "We the People " created, you’re in essence saying you deplore us. I don’t think I’ve heard you say one nice thing about the US. Everything’s been negative. There are lots of things I don’t like about our gov’t, but it’s run by people, some nice, some not so nice, that we selected to run it. Human nature being what it is that’s sometimes reflected in out gov’t policies. I think most Americans would agree with me when I say it’s probably the best system that man, with all his foibles, could create. Unfortunatly, with the passage of time, what you see today is not what I think our founding fathers had in mind.

Another unfortunate reality is that to run for election requires you to create a business in order to run. That business is to round up the funds needed to get the word out about you and why you’re running. Our system of gov’t doesn’t require it, a person can use his own funds if he has them. That’s been done a few times in the past. It doesn’t require them to to do it for any length of time either. That’s their choice. The avenues used to get the word out is what requires it. Newsprint, on air media time, travel, all that requires huge sums of money and equal amounts of time. The gov’t doesn’t require you to do any of those things. You can start campaigning the day before the election with a hand printed bed sheet as a banner if you choose to do so. Your chances of winning are nil, but that’s your choice.

#45

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue – and thoroughly immoral – doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

#46
Tim Brien said:
Steve, did you run out of decaf jokes and jokes about Fosters?
Que'?
#47
Steve Featherkile said:
.......................

HJ, Peace is an extension of war by other means. Clausewitz got it wrong. And, I am confident that your “Keen observer” did not know what he was talking about, either.


Of course Steve, that has been proven again and again: those who give the matters some thought are always wrong and those who rush right in (figuratively speaking) are always right - even more so if they’re from the “Right”. :lol: :lol: :lol:

But I fully understand, anyone who ever chose the military as a career has not only the necessary experience along with the expanded horizon, but absolutely no attachment to preserving his job while saving his own ass(ets). :wink: :slight_smile: :wink: Which then means bombing “the guys” back to the stoneage is a fine option. :slight_smile: Yep, I’ve seen plenty of that in practice in my lifetime, from all the various directions by all the different “philosophies applied to everyday life” proponents!

To quote Einstein:

““Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.””

““Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.””

:wink:

#48

Which of my thoughts are you referring to, HJ?

#49
Steve Featherkile said:
Which of my thoughts are you referring to, HJ?
Was there a thought I could have referred to? :P :D
#50

Ohhhhhhh! I’ve been hulled between wind and water!

#51
Steve Featherkile said:
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that `violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms. Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Violence begets violence. Plain and simple. "violence never settles anything" historically untrue....... I'll give you that one. Immoral ?........How so ? I'd like an explanation for rationale used to come up with that. Ralph
#52

Starship Bloopers rates up there with one of the worst movies ever made and we have the movie being quoted to express a point about violence. A movie about war that tells us that violence is the only avenue in a conflict - bomb the crap out of them - a magnificent manifesto. Now let me think, Karl Marx had his manifesto and so did Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan had his sidekicks detail his exploits. All noteworthy men in history and men that budding meglomaniacs can look up to. Maybe a quote from General Patton would be more appropriate. History idolises the war mongers amonst us and either quickly passes over the peacemakers or makes comments about their coffee consumption or their alcoholic drinking preferences.

Just for information, Australian troops were required to fight in the jungles and were regularly ‘bombed’ by agent orange. My neighbour died three weeks ago from lymphatic cancer, medically attributed to exposure in Vietnam in the late 1960’s. He was conscripted and served his time in Vietnam, in the jungle, not in Saigon or pumping gas somewhere or in a B-52 flying overhead at 20,000ft. Someone had to be on the ground to help clean up the mess created. Oh yes, he returned after his tour to be welcomed by peace love, dove hippies who actually did spit on them and draft dodgers who rallied against the ‘unjust’ war. They were subjected to years of psychological torment within themselves and many took their own lives unable to come to terms within themselves. Many took to drinking and wife bashing, but fortunately many survived to hold their heads high marching on our annual day of commemoration for those who fell in battles around the world. Surprisingly, it was the Australians who were amongst the first to go back to Vietnam, after the defeat, to assist with humanitarian assistance. Our anti-war Labor government pulled out the troops in 1972, not waiting for the 1975 humiliation. Maybe this is why we embrace our ‘old enemy’ so readily, seeing them as comrades and not our enemy. The Australian antiwar crowd, in the mid-60’s, saw Ho Chi Minh as a hero not as a communist. Unfortunately, when one has arms suppliers twisting one’s arms behind their back it is difficult to make an informed choice. ‘All the way with LBJ’ was our governments official proclamation. All the way to hell!

#53
Tim Brien said:
Starship Bloopers rates up there with one of the worst movies ever made and we have the movie being quoted to express a point about violence. A movie about war that tells us that violence is the only avenue in a conflict - bomb the crap out of them - a magnificent manifesto. Now let me think, Karl Marx had his manifesto and so did Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan had his sidekicks detail his exploits. All noteworthy men in history and men that budding meglomaniacs can look up to. Maybe a quote from General Patton would be more appropriate. History idolises the war mongers amonst us and either quickly passes over the peacemakers or makes comments about their coffee consumption or their alcoholic drinking preferences.

Just for information, Australian troops were required to fight in the jungles and were regularly ‘bombed’ by agent orange. My neighbour died three weeks ago from lymphatic cancer, medically attributed to exposure in Vietnam in the late 1960’s. He was conscripted and served his time in Vietnam, in the jungle, not in Saigon or pumping gas somewhere or in a B-52 flying overhead at 20,000ft. Someone had to be on the ground to help clean up the mess created. Oh yes, he returned after his tour to be welcomed by peace love, dove hippies who actually did spit on them and draft dodgers who rallied against the ‘unjust’ war. They were subjected to years of psychological torment within themselves and many took their own lives unable to come to terms within themselves. Many took to drinking and wife bashing, but fortunately many survived to hold their heads high marching on our annual day of commemoration for those who fell in battles around the world. Surprisingly, it was the Australians who were amongst the first to go back to Vietnam, after the defeat, to assist with humanitarian assistance. Our anti-war Labor government pulled out the troops in 1972, not waiting for the 1975 humiliation. Maybe this is why we embrace our ‘old enemy’ so readily, seeing them as comrades and not our enemy. The Australian antiwar crowd, in the mid-60’s, saw Ho Chi Minh as a hero not as a communist. Unfortunately, when one has arms suppliers twisting one’s arms behind their back it is difficult to make an informed choice. ‘All the way with LBJ’ was our governments official proclamation. All the way to hell!


My goodness, Tim, I agree with you about something! Starship Troopers was a horrible movie. However, that was not the movie that was being quoted, but the book that was written by Robert Heinlein. Perhaps you have not read that, yet?

Of which peacemaker have historians commented about their coffee consumption or alcoholic beverage preference?

I honor your friends service to his country.

#54
Ken Brunt said:
Jimmy Carter did not have the spirit of the people at heart by any means. That incompetent nincompoop may not have had his pocketbook in mind, but he did more harm to my pocketbook than any of the rest of them combined.

You may admire the american people but you sure have a funny way of showing it. By saying you deplore a system of government that "We the People " created, you’re in essence saying you deplore us. I don’t think I’ve heard you say one nice thing about the US. Everything’s been negative. There are lots of things I don’t like about our gov’t, but it’s run by people, some nice, some not so nice, that we selected to run it. Human nature being what it is that’s sometimes reflected in out gov’t policies. I think most Americans would agree with me when I say it’s probably the best system that man, with all his foibles, could create. Unfortunatly, with the passage of time, what you see today is not what I think our founding fathers had in mind.

Another unfortunate reality is that to run for election requires you to create a business in order to run. That business is to round up the funds needed to get the word out about you and why you’re running. Our system of gov’t doesn’t require it, a person can use his own funds if he has them. That’s been done a few times in the past. It doesn’t require them to to do it for any length of time either. That’s their choice. The avenues used to get the word out is what requires it. Newsprint, on air media time, travel, all that requires huge sums of money and equal amounts of time. The gov’t doesn’t require you to do any of those things. You can start campaigning the day before the election with a hand printed bed sheet as a banner if you choose to do so. Your chances of winning are nil, but that’s your choice.


Ken,

Well said and I think very accurate.

Your second paragraph is what sets me off. I’m so sick and tired of the US being the world’s chamber pot. In many circles, particularly the far left, the US is at fault for everything and the “greatest impediment to world peace”. There are countries that murder their own citizens in the streets that receive nowhere near the amount of outright hatred.

#55
Richard Smith said:
Your second paragraph is what sets me off. I'm so sick and tired of the US being the world's chamber pot. In many circles, particularly the far left, the US is at fault for everything and the "greatest impediment to world peace". There are countries that murder their own citizens in the streets that receive nowhere near the amount of outright hatred.
I'm never quite sure how to respond to this kind of statement. I became a historian out of patriotism, and because I love my country, and I've spent a lot of hours studying its history in ridiculous detail. But my classes are often critical--generally, critical of moments when the US fails to live up to its ideals. For one thing, I'm not responsible for what other countries do. I'm not a citizen of Chad or China or Cuba. But I AM responsible for what the US does--as a citizen of a republic, it's my responsibility if the US, say, starts torturing people or holding people without due process. Other countries do this all the time, it's true, but I'm not a citizen of those countries, and those countries don't claim to stand for a higher notion of justice, fairness and the rule of law.

And also, there is nothing easier than telling people they’re great. It’s like grading–just as it’d be easy to give every student an A and a pat on the back, it’s easy to say “Americans are the greatest people in the world, etc etc.” I mean, who doesn’t want to hear that? It’s much harder and less pleasant to be told that you–or your country–failed to measure up.

I don’t feel any outright hatred for the US, or anything close to it. The US is an astonishing accompishment. But what’s the point of a history that simply says “we’re the greatest?” And surely the point of my US history class is not to denounce, say Myanmar?

#56

One must acknowledge mistakes so as to not chance repeating them.
Acknowledging mistakes does not make one less of a Patriot.
Ralph

#57

Mike,
as a baby boomer I was caught up in the post-war hype when rebuilding the world was a priority. The United States lead the world in this regard. As the late 1950’s/early1960’s progressed I realised that greatest is not always best and turning my interest away from what else was happening in the world was denying myself the right to create an informed opinion. I regarded communism as evil and any attempts to control it as positive. However, I soon learned that I was being force fed a diet that consisted of pro-America support was good for the future of the world, was not entirely correct. Self interest from politicians and corporate greed soon showed me that democracy was not always the issue, but greed. The cold war years implied that if one had anti-America feelings then that person was either a hippy or a communist. One was not able to have an educated opinion without conflicting with authority. Even in Australia, in the 1960’s, to criticise the military actions of the United States was unpatriotic and likely to bring one under the scrutiny of our secret service agency.

   To have an informed opinion does not insinuate that I must form an emotional attachment.  I am able to criticise without being either for or against.  Some seem to think that one who criticises must, by definition, also hate.  Definately a very insecure assumption.  I would gladly welcome any criticism of my own country,  including our Liberal government decisions to enter Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq.

   Tibet or Burma will never be a major world issue as,  firstly,  there is no oil and secondly,  the world needs to suck up to China and forgive and forget.  How quickly Tianemen Square vanished into obscurity.  Whales and animal cruelty receive more attention these days than is given to human rights.  In Australia,  more is spent each year on pet food than is spent on social services.
#58

Negativity does not intellectualism make. Further an informed opinion takes into account both sides of any issue. Will some results be negative? Sure but not all of them. Even when studying a despot like Hitler there will be some positives however small and however short lived.

To forever dwell on only the negatives without balancing with the good things distorts truth and gives a very wrong portrayal of historic events. This is dishonest as well.

Do I have an emotional attachment to the country my forefathers helped build and defend? Darn right I do. But love of country doesn’t make a person blind to the truth of imperfection nor does it make one a mental midget (although some may say I qualify). The truth of one seeing only what we want to see works both ways. It is just as fallacious to put on blinders and see only the wrong things as it is to see only the things that make us feel warm and fuzzy.

If you have no feeling one way or the other for your country; if everything is just a set of facts spun towards whatever direction you like best then any conclusions drawn are a farce. I feel sorry for anyone who has to live with such cynicism.

#59

It has been said that at least Hitler made the trains run on time… That is about the only positive thing I can think of…

#60
Steve Featherkile said:
It has been said that at least Hitler made the trains run on time... That is about the only positive thing I can think of...
Hehe Steve. Mussolini(sp?) made the trains run on time. Hitler put people to work until the armaments factories were all bombed out.