Viet Nam.. What is your opinion?

[D_M]

Which is part and parcel of Marxism. Thus, we come full circle.

– Mark L. Chance.

Not true, there are many people who have been marxists who have believed in God… have you ever heard of liberation theology?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are you talking about the same Saddam Hussein that was an American ally while he committed most of his atrocities? Are you talking about the same Saddam Hussein that was helped into power and armed by the United States of America? Is that the Saddam Hussein your talking about, the former American Ally?

’

Stalin was once an ally too, and the U.S. supplied him a great deal more than it ever did Saddam Hussein. Sometimes one’s allies are unsavory but serve a purpose in the moment against a common enemy. What does that have to do with the question whether either Stalin or Saddam Hussein was an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator or mass murderer?

 

[Ed_Rand]

Not true, there are many people who have been marxists who have believed in God… have you ever heard of liberation theology?

Yup. Thousands of Christians with socialist leanings were murdered by right-wing dictatorships in central and south america (much of it supported by the US).

 

[Ed_Rand]

Stalin was once an ally too, and the U.S. supplied him a great deal more than it ever did Saddam Hussein. Sometimes one’s allies are unsavory but serve a purpose in the moment against a common enemy. What does that have to do with the question whether either Stalin or Saddam Hussein was an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator or mass murderer?

Certainly Saddam was the aggressor at times–like when he attacked Iran at the behest, and with backing from, the United States. But I was speaking of the current war… Who is the aggressor?

 

[onetimeposter]

Stalin was once an ally too, and the U.S. supplied him a great deal more than it ever did Saddam Hussein. Sometimes one’s allies are unsavory but serve a purpose in the moment against a common enemy. What does that have to do with the question whether either Stalin or Saddam Hussein was an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator or mass murderer?

**
Because the USA was an ally of Saddam while he was, as you say, an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator and mass murderer**

That is why it’s relevant!

 

[SoCalRC]

It would be interesting to know what effect the VN war had, if any, on the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union. The Soviets put a lot of rersources into it; arms of all sorts, oil, supplies of every kind, shipping to deliver it.

I am sure that’s not the onlly economic hemorrhage that led to its economic collapse, but it certainly cost them. Perhaps someone has already researched that, but if no one has, someone should.

Why am I not surprised that you are, once again, thumping your chest and ranting with a seemingly non existant foundation of knowledge and a breath taking inability to form coherent thoughts?

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union we know that the Soviet military presence peaked at about 3,000 in Vietnam. The total Soviet Casualty count was about 15. Considering the cost/returns, for example, the Soviets provided the technology to shoot down B52 bombers, which were, over Hanoi. And we sustained a foot print of about 500,000 and roughly 60,000 in casualties, it is hard to imagine anyone with the economic wetherall to operate a gum ball machine even asking your question.

But, of course, I’m not surprised. Remember Euthanasia? You ranted that I was misleading people about Church teaching. Condemning me in the most vile and forceful terms. When I pressed you on the rather incoherent and nonsensical logic in your posts, you finally quoted the Church. I then put my post, which you considered so vile, and the Church statement side by side and noted that they were virtually identical - almost ver batim.

So, clearly, you have no need to base your moral certainty on reality or even a functioning brain, nor do you seem to experience chagrin at uttering the demonstrably and profoundly stupid. But I would still be interested in your answering my question about your own moral compunction to serve in wars your support.

You see, it wasn’t the ignorance or vile comments in the euthanasia thread that caught my attention, but your response. It was the same as this one, IE, none. Having made a baseless and false attack on my character, you felt no Christian responsibility the aftermath. I have always been curious on the root cause of that reaction. One possibility is that you lack a properly developed moral conscience. That is, you have the capacity to convince yourself that you are absolved from Christian responsibility to others, presumably via the age old tactic of dehumanizing others. The other obvious possibility is simple cowardice. That is, you knew what the right thing to do was, but lacked to moral courage to do it.

This seems like a perfect opporunity to find out which. You are asserting mortal risk as a proper moral imperitive, so the only obvious reasons that you would not, yourself, assume such risk would be, of course, that you are a complete coward, or that you are intellectually dishonest - that is, you are not expressing true ideological belief, but nasty and empty hyperbole.

I’d be legitimately interested in knowing which.

 

[SoCalRC]

Stalin was once an ally too, and the U.S. supplied him a great deal more than it ever did Saddam Hussein. Sometimes one’s allies are unsavory but serve a purpose in the moment against a common enemy. What does that have to do with the question whether either Stalin or Saddam Hussein was an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator or mass murderer?

The obvious answer is that wars of ideology are not generally waged. Currently, in occupying Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan, we are required to have unsavvory alliances with Pakistan, and the House of Saud - both of who inarguably are more tightly connected to 9/11 than Iraq ever was.

If you are waging war of convience and self interest, then it is generally worthwhile to have an obtainable strategic goal. Otherwise you are spending blood and treasure for no rational purpose.

Anyone with a brain the size of a Tic Tac could have predicted that removing a Sunni secular tyrant over a Shia majority would create a strong natural ally for Iran. Anyone with a working synapse could have predicted that a long term occupation of a central Islamic state would be impossible. Granted, some people are really, really, stupid - the PNAC crowd comes to mind. Not surprisingly, they were the principle architects of the Iraq war. Small wonder, most of them had been calling for it for a decade or more.

But, as is usually the, the not-stupids got it right. Iraq is now refusing to sign an agreement with open ended occupation and Turkey has been drawn into a regional conflict. But, again, as usual, accepting reality is amazingly hard in some quarters - just as it was during Vietnam.

But really, the problem here is that you need to decide which incoherent argument to use. Would you like the sheer stupidity of the war discussed in secular, strategic terms, or ideology with a lot of hand waving? If it is the latter, then questions on, say, our current need to aid a nuclear proliferator like Pakistan, or directly aiding Sunni militia who persectute Iraqi Christians, seems relevant.

 

[Ridgerunner]

**
Because the USA was an ally of Saddam while he was, as you say, an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator and mass murderer**

That is why it’s relevant!

Please explain why it’s relevant. Are you saying the U.S. is aggressive, totalitarian and engages in mass murder, or are you denying that Saddam was those things?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Certainly Saddam was the aggressor at times–like when he attacked Iran at the behest, and with backing from, the United States. But I was speaking of the current war… Who is the aggressor?

Which current war? Iraq or Afghanistan?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why am I not surprised that you are, once again, thumping your chest and ranting with a seemingly non existant foundation of knowledge and a breath taking inability to form coherent thoughts?

it is hard to imagine anyone with the economic wetherall to operate a gum ball machine even asking your question.

When I pressed you on the rather incoherent and nonsensical logic in your posts,

So, clearly, you have no need to base your moral certainty on reality or even a functioning brain, nor do you seem to experience chagrin at uttering the demonstrably and profoundly stupid

One possibility is that you lack a properly developed moral conscience. That is, you have the capacity to convince yourself that you are absolved from Christian responsibility to others

The other obvious possibility is simple cowardice. That is, you knew what the right thing to do was, but lacked to moral courage to do it.

the only obvious reasons that you would not, yourself, assume such risk would be, of course, that you are a complete coward, or that you are intellectually dishonest - that is, you are not expressing true ideological belief, but nasty and empty hyperbole.

Anyone with a brain the size of a Tic Tac

Anyone with a working synapse could have predicted

But really, the problem here is that you need to decide which incoherent argument to use.

 

[Ed_Rand]

Which current war? Iraq or Afghanistan?

It’s obvious from this and the post before it that you are being intentionally difficult in order to sidetrack this thread. I’ve had much conversation with you and I know you’re really intelligent. Your question in post 207:

Are you saying the U.S. is aggressive, totalitarian and engages in mass murder, or are you denying that Saddam was those things?

is just too ignorant for me to believe you are being sincere. And you know what war I’m talking about.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s obvious from this and the post before it that you are being intentionally difficult in order to sidetrack this thread.

Your question in post 207 is just too ignorant for me to believe you are being sincere. And you know what war I’m talking about.

“To sidetrack this thread”? This thread is about Viet Nam. You introduced Saddam and, it seemed Afghanistan in your post #178. I admit I went down the rabbit hole of non-topicality with you. But it certainly was not me who sidetracked the thread. And, of course, your comment that the U.S. fomented the Iran-Iraq War was a digression from a digression.

First things first. I suspect I know what war you are talking about,
but if you think the U.S. started the Iran-Iraq War, I certainly couldn’t assume that. So, reluctant as I am to keep off-topic I’ll ask it this way, which at least allows of the possibility of returning to the topic. Can you state the wars in which the U.S. has participated, that you do NOT regard as wars of aggression waged by the U.S.?

 

[Ed_Rand]

“To sidetrack this thread”? This thread is about Viet Nam. You introduced Saddam and, it seemed Afghanistan in your post #178. I admit I went down the rabbit hole of non-topicality with you. But it certainly was not me who sidetracked the thread. And, of course, your comment that the U.S. fomented the Iran-Iraq War was a digression from a digression.

First things first. I suspect I know what war you are talking about,
but if you think the U.S. started the Iran-Iraq War, I certainly couldn’t assume that. So, reluctant as I am to keep off-topic I’ll ask it this way, which at least allows of the possibility of returning to the topic. Can you state the wars in which the U.S. has participated, that you do NOT regard as wars of aggression waged by the U.S.?

I’m not talking about digressions in this thread… The digressions are sometimes the best parts of the discussions. What I was taking issue with is that you were being intentionally difficult, especially in post #207.

I haven’t studied every war, but to answer your question, I believe WWII was not aggression. The Vietnam and Iraq wars were aggressive attacks against practically defenseless peoples–both very much “David vs. Goliath” scenarios.

 

[grandfather]

Not true, there are many people who have been marxists who have believed in God… have you ever heard of liberation theology?

It was condemned by Rome.

 

[SCALCO]

I would suggest that 9/11 is a result of an enemy lacking sophisticated weapons and extremists using religion as an opportunity to attack us for our historical involvement in the Middle East.

What’s your point?

 

[onetimeposter]

Please explain why it’s relevant. Are you saying the U.S. is aggressive, totalitarian and engages in mass murder, or are you denying that Saddam was those things?

Because the USA was an ally of Saddam while he was, as you say, an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator and mass murderer

The USA will befriend anyone that will further their causes, regardless if the person is, as you say an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator and mass murderer.

This is historical fact. It’s amazing that the average American forgets that Saddam was a good buddy of the USA while he was, as you say, an aggressor, a totalitarian dictator and mass murderer.**

If you don’t understand the relevance…that’s your problem.**

 

[SCALCO]

I’m by no means unfamiliar with the crimes that were committed in the past century in the name of Marxism-Leninism.

I don’t mean to defend it either… but I don’t think that Marx’s critique of privately-owned capital, or the sociology of dialectic materialism (ie. the ideology) is really what made this system evil.

The evils that come forth from Russia and spread throughout the world had to do with the militant atheism that sought to destroy every enemy of the party that stood in its path.

But when the United States and its allies went to war in places like Korea, Viet Nam, or the larger complexities of the cold war, the ideological mindset was not a fight against atheism and to spread the name of Christ, but was a fight against the destruction of free market economies, and was done in the name of democracy or in the name of the western liberal capitalism.

I by no means wish to acquit the horrible crimes you do truly mention that occur, but to suggest that the problem was communism and lack of democracy… and not atheism and lack of christianity… which is what the United States was fighting for in its ideological mindset and stated within its propaganda, is not really a fight of good vs. evil.

You suggest it was to spread free market economies and democracy. This is only part of it. It was to spread freedom. That’s essentially what democracy and free market is. The free press, free speech, freedom of religion…

Was it Marx or Lenin who considered religion as a way those in power oppressed the people?

 

[Ed_Rand]

It was condemned by Rome.

This does not change the fact that marxist and socialist ideologies do not automatically preclude God and Christianity. In fact, a Godly person is quite likely to be attracted to these systems because they are founded on righteous ideals. We are told that the first Christians “had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.” --Acts 2:44-45

 

[Al_Masetti]

Did Karl Marx really say that “religion is the opiate of the people”?

blurtit.com/q336864.html

Seems to be some disagreement.

But in any event here is something about de-Christianizing the West:

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7314

google.com/search?hl=en&q=mindszenty+foundation+marx+opiate+of+the+people&btnG=Google+Search

Interesting stuff

 

[SoCalRC]

Can you state the wars in which the U.S. has participated, that you do NOT regard as wars of aggression waged by the U.S.?

And I asked which conflicts, in your lifetime, you considered important enough to put your own skin on the line. It seems reasonable. If you do not hear a Christian call to action, or even a secular call to serve your nation, it is disingenous of you to argue that ideology or self interest rises to the level of lethal force.

For those who think it is unkind of me to question your courage, think of the alternative. Cowardise is the most charitable interpretation of supporting a war one will not, oneself, fight. The alternative, devaluing and sacrificing the lives of fellow children of God for self interest, is a far more heinous crime against one’s fellow men.

Consider the infamous fainting goats, who will actually faint (and sometimes become incontenent) at loud noises. Their world is pathetic, but understandable. ‘Of COURSE the clapping is a serious security threat!’ they would argue, ‘just look at me, I fainted and shat myself!’ Since they collapse and soil themselves, the concept of engaging in aggression against the loud sounds themselves would never occur to them.

On the other hand, consider the origins of the term “bananna republic” and the implications of playing provacatour with instability and violence for one’s own financial self interest.

The goat’s world view is hardly virtuous, but it is primarily pathetic. Death and mayhem for profit and personal gain is mortally and intrinsically evil.

Your motivations being that of a fainting goat also gives more hope for the future. To God, all things are possible, but humans almost never undergo and explosion of intelligence. If you are the sort of person who will rail against a position only to find, later, that it is a near verbatim quote of the Church, or ponder rather 3,000 troops or a trickle of arms bankrupted the Soviet Union, the odds are good that words like “bright” and “well informed” are not going to be heard at your eulogy.

On the other hand, courage is a gift that God seems to bestow frequently, even to the most unlikely of places. Just because a person is too cowardly to serve one’s nation or a cause they, themselves argue is just does not mean that ‘guttless wonder’ must be their legacy. Similarly, if you failed to accept responsibility for your false and vile rant about euthanasia does not automatically mean that you will be unable to muster the courage to follow your Christian obligations in the future.

But, as with most Christian virtues, the path most often starts with reconcilliation. If you convince yourself that you are courageous and fair, even as you, say, lack the courage to accept responsibility for your sinful and unfair acts, then it is very likely that something like true courage will elude you.

And the same is true here - how can you have any moral authority in discussion war if you will not come to honest terms with the seeming extreme moral contradiction of your both supporting a policy of war, but being unwilling to fight it yourself? Isn’t the treatment of your own hide the best reflection of your true beliefs? Everything else would seem to just be self serving noise.