What we support and defend

[carl]

Well, for one, Vietnam was never about the US or China, it was about Vietnam getting to a self-determined, legitimate system of governance free from outside manipulation of any sort. They did not want France, nor did they want China, US or Russia. Quests for liberty often make for strange bedfellows, and the conflicts are always the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.

I tried to resist the temptation, but I am weak, so I just can't let this statement go by.

You do remember reading about all the Vietnamese, millions of 'em, who were anti-communist, who thought that a communist government was not a self-determined legitimate system. And you do remember that they fought pretty hard to prevent the communists from taking over. And you do remember that they lost and the communists took over by violent force, tanks, artillery and all that. You do remember that don't you? With all that in mind, your use of the phrase "Quests for liberty" in the paragraph quoted is rhetorical perversity.

[carl]

As you point out, China is not indicating a great desire to dominate others, so much as a great desire to no longer be dominated or hindered by others. China's actions are largely reasonable.

Red China claims sovereignty over the South China Sea, an open sea, an international body of water that anybody can sail around in. I don't see how you can square that with your statement that they do not indicate a great desire to dominate others. It seems plainly evident that they want to dominate anybody who wants to sail around in the South China Sea.

[carl]

A couple of keen insights worth remembering (and even more true today than when originally spoken):

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abraham Lincoln

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
James Madison

Statements of national pride made 150 and over 200 years ago don't have much application today. They sound good though and gain credence by invoking the names of revered figures. There is a term for that form of illegitimate rhetoric, reference to authority or something like that.

Madison, in my opinion, was speaking to establish a tradition that is well established in the US, that the military won't interfere in internal politics nor act to infringe upon the liberties of Americans. That isn't much of a danger, if any, now. It was when he said it though. We accomplished what he desired, a military coup isn't likely.

Your main point, that we will more likely deprive ourselves of our freedoms than some outsider doing it is a good one. I now have to buy something the gov tells me to buy or else. That didn't use to be.

[Bob's World]

Carl, (yawn)

Really? That's all the game you've got?

Perhaps you remember the 150 million. Americans who didn't want or vote for the past several American Presidents? Majority rules, even in countries where there is no vote or where elections are very shady, as in the ones that elevated Diem and Karzai into office. And what % of Americans do you suppose wanted war and independence from England? Revolutionary victory is often the most pure and legitimate of vote.

As to President Lincoln being "illegitimate rhetoric," I'll just let you live with that position. Besides, his statements are it even more true today than it was then.

As to the South China Sea, it seems everyone is over reaching their 12 mile limits on that issue. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, but is pretty mild compared to the claim we levied onto the northern half of Mexico, don't you think?

[carl]

Carl, (yawn)

Really? That's all the game you've got?

Perhaps you remember the 150 million. Americans who didn't want or vote for the past several American Presidents? Majority rules, even in countries where there is no vote or where elections are very shady, as in the ones that elevated Diem and Karzai into office. And what % of Americans do you suppose wanted war and independence from England? Revolutionary victory is often the most pure and legitimate of vote.

As to President Lincoln being "illegitimate rhetoric," I'll just let you live with that position. Besides, his statements are it even more true today than it was then.

As to the South China Sea, it seems everyone is over reaching their 12 mile limits on that issue. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, but is pretty mild compared to the claim we levied onto the northern half of Mexico, don't you think?

Okay let me write that down. Start out by affecting the pose of the bored sophisticate, the poseur approach, then follow that up with non sequitur, mis-apprehension and that old reliable, "Oh yeah, well what about us?". I think I got it. I'll try it and let you know how it works.

What a remarkable statement is "Revolutionary victory is often the most pure and legitimate of vote." Lofty words like that really impressed the girls back in college, I envied the hell out of guys who could pull it off. They were the ones who got the girls with the big...fine figures, like the ending scene in Fields of Fire. Of course words like that also were uttered by some of the most accomplished mass killers in world history to justify their actions after their "revolutionary victory". I am sure it consoled their victims just before the bullet hit the back of their heads. The more I think about that statement the more awestruck I am. Political power violently seized at the point of a gun transformed into the most pure and legitimate form of vote. Wow. You got some talent man. Even the ghosts of all the victims of 20th century "revolutionary victories" must be impressed.

Actually, the illegitimate rhetoric was yours. Sorry I didn't explain that more clearly. I will do so now. I said "Statements of national pride made 150 and over 200 years ago don't have much application today. They sound good though and gain credence by invoking the names of revered figures. There is a term for that form of illegitimate rhetoric, reference to authority or something like that."

That was stated very poorly by me. My first sentence was ok. No change needed. My second sentence should have said "People who use such statements, that have little application today because of such vastly changed circumstances, use them because their arguments (what was your argument anyway?) are helped by the name of the person cited, not because of what that person said." The third sentence was ok too. So, sorry I was unclear. The illegitimate argument was yours.

As for the South China Sea and Red China, your response to my pointing out that they plainly have a great desire to dominate others sailing about in that body of water was to use the "Oh yeah, well what about us?" reply. That is a response of sorts but doesn't address my observation.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

You have your opinion, you don't listen to positions that counter you opinion. That is your right.

You apparently hate/fear China. Great. But they are not our enemy and we need to learn to work with them at all levels, particularly in their own backyard where it is much easier for them to mass localized capabilities that could severely embarrass the US than it is for us to prevent them from doing something that arguably isn't our business to prevent in the first place. South China Sea is a great example of overlapping spheres of influence, and conflicting national opinions as to where their national limits end and others begin, and how to best share in the development and profits of those aspects outside of anyone's particular sovereign borders. It demands a solution, but China is not the only one making bold claims.

As to President Lincoln, I shared his assessment because I believe it is much more true today than it was when he made it. With all the fear mongers out there (of which you have demonstrated yourself repeadedly to being a card carrying member) it is good to remind people that in the big scheme of things the US is the envy of the world when it comes to national security.

It took the US a couple of years and an England-sized staging base 30 miles off the coast of France and a massive fleet of invasion vessels to stage for a serious invasion of that continent. When China takes Vancouver island give me a call, until then they appreciate very well what a strategic disaster it would be for them to attempt a land war on the North American continent.

Our A2AD extends across the entire Pacific and into China and we see that as "normal." China extends their A2AD a few hundred miles out from their border and we treat it like a declaration of war. I simply suggest a little perspective and empathy is in order, and to ignore the clear warnings from China that they will not tolerate much longer such Western intrusions into their sovereignty is to set ourselves up for the same sort of "surprise" MacArthur got in Korea.

And I stand on the position that governance change brought about by internal revolution is far more legitmate than that brought by foreign invaders or the governments they promote. I think our Declaration of Independence backs me on that position. As does the history of such events around the globe. We like to control outcomes, I get it, but such control is coming at an increasing cost, both to implement and in terms of residual acts of transnational terrorism against us.

[Bill Moore]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, posted by Bob

You have your opinion, you don't listen to positions that counter you opinion.

This discussion is interesting, Carl is actually pointing out relevant historic facts regarding the illegitimacy of most revolutions and the mass murder that ensued. Points you failed to address, because facts get in the way of left wing rhetoric. You didn't address any of Carl's comments, which were very much a direct challenge to your arguments, instead you fall back on quoting people completely out of context. If you were a left wing extremist then you should be given credit for applying the communist propaganda well. They actually taught to take quotes out of context, because it would fool the saps who wouldn't bother to study the facts (like most young college girls that Carl referred to). Ah yes the glorious revolution, and the glorious purge, and then sustained martial law to protect the revolution, it was all so great, how could we have forgot? Obviously everything the U.S. does and has done is wrong. There are no hostile states in the world, and the people in other countries have the right to suppress their people using violence.

The revolutions you refer to are nothing more than the strong man wins, not the man with the best ideas for the people. Many adapted the narrative of nationalism, anti-colonialism, etc., but for most their goal was to assume absolute power, not liberate their people. A lot of Vietnamese recognized this as Carl correctly pointed out.

[Steve Blair]

Or the greatest irony...the "Russian Revolution" that was really a Bolshevik coup. Or that in spite of his words, Lincoln was quite concerned about French activity in Mexico...he was just enough of a realist to understand that he couldn't do much about it while the Civil War was still going on.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

I did answer his question. You just don't like my answer, which is not "left wing" its just the facts as laid out in history. Revolutions are messy, but sometimes they are the only option a popualce has to get out of a bad situation of governance. Often those bad situations are "illegitimate" due to their close connection to some foreign power. Do revolutions always, or even often, produce better governance? No. But the same can be said of elections. You get different, but better is hard to find regardless of what manner of change is applied.

But yes, I will gladly go on record that the government we created in Vietnam, while reconized by Western authorities for legal legitimacy, lacked political or popular legitmacy with much of the populace of the region that ultimately became the consolidated country of Vietnam. Good, bad or ugly, the north brought a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem, and that is something the West had denied the people that region for generations. Sometimes legitmacy comes at the end of a barrel.

The United States of America is founded upon that very principle. I for one, will not abandon my nation's principles simply because they become inconvenient to many widely held current perspectives. Same is true for the Constitution. It says what it says, and Congress has duties in regards to the military that are specified tasks in the Constitution, and those duties differ for the Army from the Navy for good reason. Good reasons that are as valid today as they were when written.

Standing armies enable Kings and Presidents to start or expand wars without seeking the consent of the people. That was a bad thing in 1776 and it was a bad thing in 1965, and it was a bad thing in 2001 and 2003. This in turn has contributed to a general shift of power from the Congress to the Executive far beyond anything imagined at conception, and far beyond anything necessary based upon the demands of the world we live in today.

We have slid down the proverbial "slippery slope." All I do is point that out and question as to if we might want to get back to a standing more in line with our Constitution and our other founding documents as a nation. I think we should.

I think those who exaggerate threats to rationalize why we should not are a danger to our country's security. Such rationalization rarely leads to positive changes in my experience or studies.

[Bill Moore]

Bob,

Please, there was no Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem. Both the north and south to a large degree were proxies in a larger conflict.

But yes, I will gladly go on record that the government we created in Vietnam, while reconized by Western authorities for legal legitimacy, lacked political or popular legitmacy with much of the populace of the region that ultimately became the consolidated country of Vietnam. Good, bad or ugly, the north brought a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem, and that is something the West had denied the people that region for generations. Sometimes legitmacy comes at the end of a barrel.

If you consider the North rolling down south with Soviet tanks and aircraft a Vietnamese solution then I would argue your logic is is skewed. Let's not forget the Soviets established a large Naval base there after their glorious people's victory. What kind of legitimacy is that exactly? I guess the tens of thousands of boat people (Vietnamese refugees) who departed S. Vietnam in fear after the invasion didn't want to stick around and celebrate the new legitimate government that represented all their people. Ho Chi Min was no nationalist, I suggest you read up on him, he was an opportunist that consolidated power in North Vietnam by killing off members of apparently illegitimate Vietnamese political parties. The list goes on, but in the end it doesn't matter how you summarize all the pieces it does not equal legitimacy.

The United States of America is founded upon that very principle. I for one, will not abandon my nation's principles simply because they become inconvenient to many widely held current perspectives. Same is true for the Constitution. It says what it says, and Congress has duties in regards to the military that are specified tasks in the Constitution, and those duties differ for the Army from the Navy for good reason. Good reasons that are as valid today as they were when written.

I realize some people have a Wahabbist view of the Constitution, the written word is the written word, and even if it was written over 200 years ago it doesn't require interpretation based on current reality. If the world really worked that way the good news would be we could get rid of all the lawyers

There is no "some" threats have been greatly exaggerated by politicians and businessmen over the years to keep the pork coming, but at the same time that doesn't mean that real threats don't exist. You can take this to an extreme and leave our nation vulnerable to attack. Our geographical position never offered perfect protection and it offers much less protection now with the advent of advanced weapons and globalization.

Standing armies enable Kings and Presidents to start or expand wars without seeking the consent of the people. That was a bad thing in 1776 and it was a bad thing in 1965, and it was a bad thing in 2001 and 2003. This in turn has contributed to a general shift of power from the Congress to the Executive far beyond anything imagined at conception, and far beyond anything necessary based upon the demands of the world we live in today.

I already commented on the National Guard, and no apologies for my views. We do not have the means to rapidly stand up an Army anymore in response to a threat. We have a standing Army because we learned over the years the risk of not having a standing Army. I agree with you that Congress didn't do their job in 65, 2002, and 2003, but that has nothing to do with having a standing Army. It has everything to do with not having sufficient moral courage to go against the popular beliefs at that time.

We have slid down the proverbial "slippery slope." All I do is point that out and question as to if we might want to get back to a standing more in line with our Constitution and our other founding documents as a nation. I think we should.

Ron Paul would agree with you, and if we could turn back time I might agree with you, but we can't simply wish away the world we had a large part in shaping. We're now global, our economic and security interests are global, and I have no idea how we undo the mess we got ourselves into.

I think those who exaggerate threats to rationalize why we should not are a danger to our country's security. Such rationalization rarely leads to positive changes in my experience or studies.

Bring on the studies, and bring on the recommended changes that doesn't put our nation at risk. Some things are a given in my view, we'll have an enduring threat of terrorism, long range missiles with WMD, and cyber among others. We'll have episodic events where there are state on state wars. Irregular warfare will "continue" to persist as it always has, and sometimes for political reasons we'll be compelled to get involved. Agree or disagree with the logic to do so, we will. Given that how do we design the future force?

[Bob's World]

Better yet, name the single existential treat to our nation. Besides ourselves, that is.

The world is a dangerous place, and when one meddles too deeply in the business of others one draws fire. We have drawn some fire, but more warning shots than anything else.

We have a military that is still some 30% too large. I get it, the military is not going to volunteer for that cut. But it needs to happen none the less, and it will make us more secure in the process. Our national security is a function of many factors, and military strength is only but one. When we over invest and over engage with that single aspect it throws the entire system out of balance. We need to rebalance.

We are becoming a nation that is both excessively fearful and violent. That is a good definition for a bully, but not for a nation. Our self-image is incrasingly out of synch with reality and out of synch with how others perceive us. Going back to our roots to reassess how we best move forward is sound advice.

To simply imply that the Constitution and the Declartation are irrelevant to America in the modern age is the kind of rhetoric that should be saved for some Mein Kampf-type manefesto. I realize you don't mean that, just as I assume you must realize that I am not a strict constructionist. Most aspects, however, say what they say and mean what they mean. What the court interprets is if some law meets the constitution, not if the constitution meets some perspective or law.

The second amendment, for example, guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it did so in an era where every adult male was required by law to be a member of the "well regulated militia" and to provide his own firearm. Should we take that right away simply because such a duty no longer exists? Perhaps better that we re-instate the miliita duty if we are a nation at such grave risk as to require a war fighting army on the active books...

[Bob's World]

"If you consider the North rolling down south with Soviet tanks and aircraft a Vietnamese solution then I would argue your logic is is skewed. Let's not forget the Soviets established a large Naval base there after their glorious people's victory. What kind of legitimacy is that exactly?"

As you fully realize, the final conventional battles in Vietnam were the long planned "Phase III" finale of the Maoist model of insurgency adopted and applied in Vietnam. As to Russian and Chinese support? Who else would dare assist them in a fight against the French and then the US??

When one must fight the most powerful nation in the world to gain their independence, one takes help from whomever is willing to offer it. Typically that means from the largest peer competitor of that powerful nation one is fighting.

Did taking support from France make the United States an illegitimate stooge of the French? Who else would dare help us in a fight against England?

How is that different than Vietnam seeking and accepting the support of Russia and China? Sure Russian ships used the facilities we built for a while, but were gone by 2002 when the balked at the price demanded for a new lease. We will likely pay that rate and enjoy the expanded facilities that the Russians built. Will that contract convert Vietnam into our stooge to lease us that same space? No. Just sovereign nations doing business seen as mutually beneficial to their respective interests.

I am sure that Britain was none too pleased with France in the first case, just as we were none too pleased with Russia and China. Big difference is that Britain was pragmatic enough to get over it in time. Just as they also shortly after the war of 1812 entered into a major treaty with the US via the Monroe Doctrine to leverage the US to secure their interests in the Western Hemisphere as they protected our commercial fleets and our shores from the sea. That relationship has evolved, but continues to serve our two nations where we share interests (though we need to be cautious about assuming that Great Britain shares all of our interests, even strong friendships can be destroyed is pressed hard to the benefit of one and the detriment of the other)

The US gets far too emotional about these things in general. Look at how we still hold grudges against Cuba and Iran, for example. I hate to think how we would respond if China or Russia provided the same sort of support to the Taliban that we provided to the Muj. Thankfully those countries do not see such engagement to be in their interests, or surely they would have done so by now. Just one more metric that they do not want to provoke a hot war with the US. Deterrence still works between major powers, even if non state actors are little affected by the mechanisms of deterrence we had grown so comfortable with.

[Bill Moore]

Better yet, name the single existential treat to our nation. Besides ourselves, that is.

I used to make this argument, but can no longer support it. First off, existential threat can be interpreted in many ways, physical, economic, culture, political system, our rights, etc. Second, and perhaps more to the point we're obligated to defend our nation from all threats not just existential threats.

The world is a dangerous place, and when one meddles too deeply in the business of others one draws fire. We have drawn some fire, but more warning shots than anything else.

9/11 was a kick in the jollies, much more than a warning shot. Pearl Harbor, the strategic raid of 1812, etc. were all more than warning shots. I saw a quote recently (a link that David provided I think) during a video about a knight reporting to the King that he has been out fighting the Kingdom's enemies for the past few months. The King replied somewhat puzzled that we don't have any enemies. The Knight answered, "we do now." This is loosely paraphrased, but it captures the intent. Excessive meddling will bring us no good.

We have a military that is still some 30% too large. I get it, the military is not going to volunteer for that cut. But it needs to happen none the less, and it will make us more secure in the process. Our national security is a function of many factors, and military strength is only but one. When we over invest and over engage with that single aspect it throws the entire system out of balance. We need to rebalance.

I don't know how you came up with 30% as the magic number, but the answer is the force must be capable of protecting against potential threats to our interests. Additionally a cut in military spending has huge repercussions across the economy, not just on the military, so any projected savings that will be gained by reducing military spending by 30% are suspect.

We are becoming a nation that is both excessively fearful and violent. That is a good definition for a bully, but not for a nation. Our self-image is incrasingly out of synch with reality and out of synch with how others perceive us. Going back to our roots to reassess how we best move forward is sound advice.

Weak Presidents have always promoted fear for political gain. The most recent was the "weak on terrorism" argument. We won't get away from it, it is part of culture. The new boogie men are illegal immigrants.

The second amendment, for example, guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but it did so in an era where every adult male was required by law to be a member of the "well regulated militia" and to provide his own firearm. Should we take that right away simply because such a duty no longer exists? Perhaps better that we re-instate the miliita duty if we are a nation at such grave risk as to require a war fighting army on the active books...

Oh boy, I can see the new militia getting mobilized, MS-13 gang members, skinny boys with tattoos that can't shoot straight but are well armed, crypts, bloods, fat red necks from the KKK, etc. If historians thought the militia was poorly trained, disciplined, and ineffective in the early 1800s, they'll have a field day with the new one. I recommend we stick with a professional army.

[carl]

I realize some people have a Wahabbist view of the Constitution,...

Bill, that, is one well turned phrase. I am jealous.

[carl]

Bob Jones:

I'll tell you what. I'll answer to "card carrying fear monger" if you'll answer to "appeasing propagandist for murderous totalitarian police states". How 'bout it, deal? (I spotted you a couple of pejoratives just to make it fair.)

Now let's get started. We have a long way to go.

I don't fear or hate China. I just got finished reading a book about the China-Japan War. After reading that I stand in wondering admiration for the Chinese. I do rather dislike Communists though, those millions and millions and millions dead at their hands weigh heavy on the mind. As do those millions of Chinese who died at the hands of the inheritors of power gained through that most pure and legitimate of votes, revolutionary victory.

So no, I don't hate the Chinese. I do intensely dislike the Reds but what I do fear, really fear, is the refusal of some Americans to see the Reds for the aggressive killers that they have proved to be over and over again through their history. That I fear. I fear also the consequences of ignoring what seems to me the obvious intention of the Red Chinese to take a big part of the ocean for their own just as soon as they figure they are strong enough to do it. I fear that.

President Lincoln was grand fellow but his take on the world as it existed then doesn't have much to do with the world as it is now. JMA said something to me that had a great impact. I said pshaw when somebody said something about losing Alaska and Hawaii. He said he came from a part of the world where things that seemed could never be came to be. Those were wise words. Everybody can be taken.

I don't like powerpoint phrases like A2AD. Sounds too much like an old Navy dive bomber project that was canceled at the end of WWII. I'll use naval power instead. It is true that the US can exercise some naval power here and there across the breadth of the Pacific. But unlike Red China and the South China Sea, we don't claim sovereignty over the breadth of the Pacific. That is a crucial difference that you don't seem to see, or won't see. Saying you claim a big part of the open ocean while building up naval power tends to make people nervous, and understandably so. Having big power but not claiming a big part of the open ocean nor trying to keep everybody else out of it, doesn't make people nervous-unless a power potentially planning aggression is trying to justify it.

As far as this statement of yours "And I stand on the position that governance change brought about by internal revolution is far more legitmate than that brought by foreign invaders or the governments they promote."-I suppose that might depend on the number of people slaughtered and enslaved post change. And I present for your examination North Korea and South Korea. We promoted South Korea and helped make sure it didn't become part of a Pyongyang run unified Korea. Now if the North had won, would it have been a more legitimate gov than the one the South ended up with? If you care to answer, please answer the question as posed, don't skew it and slice to your pleasure.

Okay that takes care of the response to the post from 08:44 PM. (Hey Bill and Dave and David, how can you have 08:44 PM? Shouldn't it be 08:44 or 8:44 PM?)

[carl]

Bill,

I did answer his question.

No, you didn't answer my question, because I didn't actually pose a real question. I made a point about a statement you made. Your statement was wrong. In post #153 you stated the Vietnam War was about Vietnam getting a self determined gov. Then you stated "They" did not want this or that. The upshot of that paragraph construction was to say that the Vietnamese people as a whole were united behind something. That is not true. It is not at all true as evidenced by the hard fight the South and anti-communist Vietnamese put up. To state things as you did is a willful distortion of history.

The United States of America is founded upon that very principle.

You made this statement following a statement about the Communist seizure of power in Vietnam being legitimate. I think your view of the Vietnamese Communists and the Founders is distorted, to be severely understated about it. The USA is founded upon the rights of the individual. Communism subordinates the individual to the collective. I think your eagerness to score debating points goes too far at times.

[carl]

As you fully realize, the final conventional battles in Vietnam were the long planned "Phase III" finale of the Maoist model of insurgency adopted and applied in Vietnam. As to Russian and Chinese support? Who else would dare assist them in a fight against the French and then the US??

The USSR and Communist China were communist. They were supporting fellow communists. They made that clear. If the North Vietnam had been a heriditery (sic) kingdom or representative democracy it would have received no support at all from those two. That is a pretty big thing that should be noted.

Just as they also shortly after the war of 1812 entered into a major treaty with the US via the Monroe Doctrine to leverage the US to secure their interests in the Western Hemisphere as they protected our commercial fleets and our shores from the sea.

The "they" you refer to is Great Britain. I think you are wrong again. I don't believe there was any treaty. There was an understanding. And the US wasn't securing Britain's interests when the doctrine was promulgated. At that time the US was too weak to secure anybody's interests in the western hemisphere except our own immediate contiguous interests. The Royal Navy enforced the doctrine, they just got to do it by magnanimously deferring to the Doctrine, not that anybody from Europe was going to go adventuring anyway, except for France that one time.

[carl]

I just finished watching a program on CNBC about Red Chinese cyberespionage.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47962207/?__s...nsinc|&par=vty

The program concentrated on theft of commercial and trade data from individual US companies. It said there is a state sponsored effort to steal basically everything from every company that has anything worth stealing in the US and amounts to the biggest transfer of wealth...EVER.

This is germane to this discussion because Bob's World stated that Red China is not our enemy ("But they are not our enemy and we need to learn to work with them at all levels,..." from the 08:44 PM post). The Red Chinese state sponsored cyber spying and thieving is very strange behavior for a state that is not our enemy. If that is not the action of an enemy, it is very strange behavior for a friend. It seems to me they at least consider us an enemy, otherwise these actions make no sense.

The program also said that we had better wake up and start doing something about this. They didn't say exactly what. My personal preference is that we allow the companies being attacked, companies filled with very smart people, to do what comes natural and defend themselves, themselves. If servers in Red China start frying, so be it. You can't constantly parry sword thrusts with your shield. You have to make a few thrusts of your own.

[Bob's World]

Carl,
That is an impressive load of ideologically fused tripe.

Revolutions among populaces where agriculture is the key industry and where land is owned by an elite few tend to respond to a message of land reform wrapped in communism. Revolutions in desert regions where land is moot tend to respond better to religious themes. The challenged establishment always lays blame on the message and the messenger, but the reality is almost always in the codified inequities between the goverened and those who govern, coupled with an absence of trusted, legal and certain means to address those reasonable grievances.

You are so focused on the sizzle that you can't seem to appreciate the steak.

[Dayuhan]

No, you didn't answer my question, because I didn't actually pose a real question. I made a point about a statement you made. Your statement was wrong. In post #153 you stated the Vietnam War was about Vietnam getting a self determined gov. Then you stated "They" did not want this or that. The upshot of that paragraph construction was to say that the Vietnamese people as a whole were united behind something. That is not true. It is not at all true as evidenced by the hard fight the South and anti-communist Vietnamese put up. To state things as you did is a willful distortion of history.

Self-determination doesn't mean unanimity and it isn't necesarily arrived at through peaceful means.

Ask yourself, honestly... if the British hadn't assured the return of French rule in 1945, or if the Americans had not stepped in after the French defeat and forced the division of Vietnam in 1954... would that not have led to a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem?

Once we'd made the decision to support the French - a very bad decision in my hindsight-equipped opinion - it became more or less inevitable that those who opposed the French were going to seek outside help. I don't see that the legitimacy of their cause would be in any way affected by seeking and receiving that help. Was the American revolution any less legitimate for having received help from France?