"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

The domino
theory - do you know what that is and who dreamed it up?

I am aware of the basic theory as it applies to a series of events
which are perpetuated by the events which precipitated them.

How does that apply here?

Dave, it was the only reason ever given for the war. You really need to
get
with some history books. Not web sites. Books.

The war was to prevent the spread of communism into South Vietnam.

Above, you said you were aware of the basic theory. Then, you ask how it
applies here, and follow by saying what you did about preventing the spread
of communism. Are you taking some sort of medication that makes you drowsy?
That's exactly what the domino theory was: The belief that if we didn't stop
communism in Vietnam, it would spread to the rest of South Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.



I can think of a bunch of reasons. To finish the job we started. To
save face. To guarantee work for defense contractors.........

Holy ****! I hope you're being cynical with that remark about defense
contractors. If not, and you're serious, you cannot call yourself a
Christian.



Oh....wait....Nixon still believed it, but he was out of his mind.

Nixon was the one who ended our involvement in the war. He was more
concerned with the Soviets.

No. Kissinger ended the war.

Kissinger did what he was told to do. Kissinger was not the president.
The final decision was Nixon's

At that point in time, Nixon was spending most
of his time raving in the White House and making his staff miserable.

And what wonderful tome told you that?

Dave, I've given you the titles of a few books in the past. Your response
has always been that they just represented the author's opinion. Why waste
my time providing the info again? It doesn't matter to you that historians
are now able to access the diaries of some of the White House players - you
probably think they've been doctored.


While
Kissinger was reporting diplomatic progress, Nixon was privately urging
him
to escalate the war.

According to whom? Facts of course.

You need to read, Dave. Pick any 5 books about the era
and average the results of your reading. You'll see.

I did and I have. The difference is that I don't read books by people
with leftist agendas.

Revisionist history doesn't sit well with me.

Leftist agendas? Interesting. Provide me with the names of the books you've
read. I'll actually get them from the library and read them.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:06:03 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If people could be jailed for printing false or misleading
information, a whole slew of "journalists" would be sitting on a slab
right now.


And wouldn't that be convenient for your buddies in Washington?

Here you have it folks: "truth" defined by political convenience of
those in power, enforced by arbitrary & probably indefinite
imprisonment. The U.S. becomes a Stalinist dictatorship, although the
people are encouraged to wave the flag and sing about "freedom."

This is what Dave Hall and his type want to see.

This is a perfect example of Mr. King's "skill" of context
manipulation. No wonder you are so easily convinced by those who hate
America first.

I never advocated jailing anyone, only that the comments (Which set
the original context, which you snipped) were along the lines that "if
a particular piece of information were false, then there would be
legal action". The fallacious logical conclusion is then that since no
legal action is pending, that the information must be true. This is an
example of the fallacy of false alternatives. The other alternative
that wasn't considered is that we can't simply jail people for
printing misleading information. THAT is why there are no legal cases
pending.

I do think that "journalists" should be held to a high standard of
truth and accuracy in what they present as "facts". In those cases
where the article is a smattering of both facts, interspersed with
opinionated conclusions and speculation, it should be duly noted, to
alert people (like you it would seem) who may not be aware enough to
separate true premises from the speculative conclusions.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I do think that "journalists" should be held to a high standard of
truth and accuracy in what they present as "facts".

For a guy like you, there is no definition of "high standard" that would
stick. Any time you hear something that doesn't fit your house-of-cards
belief system, you say the author is biased.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:52:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


"A" didn't work for the Soviet Unino in Afghanistan.

They didn't have th motivation to win.

Are you nuts? They were brutal. Unfortunately for them, we armed the
Taliban, who began shooting down Russian helicopters at an alarming rate,
using surface to air weapons made in the USA.

Yes, and if you remember your history, it was shortly after that that
the iron curtain fell, because they couldn't afford to play keeping up
with the Joneses.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:52:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..


"A" didn't work for the Soviet Unino in Afghanistan.

They didn't have th motivation to win.

Are you nuts? They were brutal. Unfortunately for them, we armed the
Taliban, who began shooting down Russian helicopters at an alarming rate,
using surface to air weapons made in the USA.

Yes, and if you remember your history, it was shortly after that that
the iron curtain fell, because they couldn't afford to play keeping up
with the Joneses.

Dave


That has little to do with your comment about their motivation.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:04:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

The domino
theory - do you know what that is and who dreamed it up?

I am aware of the basic theory as it applies to a series of events
which are perpetuated by the events which precipitated them.

How does that apply here?

Dave, it was the only reason ever given for the war. You really need to
get
with some history books. Not web sites. Books.

The war was to prevent the spread of communism into South Vietnam.

Above, you said you were aware of the basic theory. Then, you ask how it
applies here, and follow by saying what you did about preventing the spread
of communism. Are you taking some sort of medication that makes you drowsy?
That's exactly what the domino theory was: The belief that if we didn't stop
communism in Vietnam, it would spread to the rest of South Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.

The domino theory as I know it is a scientific theory. I do not know
the specifics of how it applied in this case. But I do know that the
war was to prevent the spread of communism.

Communism was spreading and may have spread further had we not made an
issue out of opposing it, which made their job all that much harder.


I can think of a bunch of reasons. To finish the job we started. To
save face. To guarantee work for defense contractors.........

Holy ****! I hope you're being cynical with that remark about defense
contractors. If not, and you're serious, you cannot call yourself a
Christian.

Yes, I was being cynical. You can relax now.


Oh....wait....Nixon still believed it, but he was out of his mind.

Nixon was the one who ended our involvement in the war. He was more
concerned with the Soviets.

No. Kissinger ended the war.

Kissinger did what he was told to do. Kissinger was not the president.
The final decision was Nixon's

At that point in time, Nixon was spending most
of his time raving in the White House and making his staff miserable.

And what wonderful tome told you that?

Dave, I've given you the titles of a few books in the past. Your response
has always been that they just represented the author's opinion. Why waste
my time providing the info again? It doesn't matter to you that historians
are now able to access the diaries of some of the White House players - you
probably think they've been doctored.

It's likely that some were.


While
Kissinger was reporting diplomatic progress, Nixon was privately urging
him
to escalate the war.

According to whom? Facts of course.

You need to read, Dave. Pick any 5 books about the era
and average the results of your reading. You'll see.

I did and I have. The difference is that I don't read books by people
with leftist agendas.

Revisionist history doesn't sit well with me.

Leftist agendas? Interesting. Provide me with the names of the books you've
read. I'll actually get them from the library and read them.

It's been a long time, over 25 years ago now. I don't recall the exact
titles.

Dave

"JohnH" wrote in message
...



Clue: The word "strategy" does not necessarily mean the use of force.
There
are other ways to cause an enemy to implode.


Shoot, I was hoping to see an idea worthy of putting in a letter to
our President.

He already has people who know how to use such strategies. Two problems,
though:

1) He needs to sign off on them. In order for this to happen, he'd need to
be able to understand the ideas. No chance of that.

2) Even if he understood the ideas, they wouldn't satisfy one of his
requirements: Any move we make must look good on TV, and give him an
erection.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent solution in the middle
east.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:25:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .



Clue: The word "strategy" does not necessarily mean the use of force.
There
are other ways to cause an enemy to implode.


Shoot, I was hoping to see an idea worthy of putting in a letter to
our President.

He already has people who know how to use such strategies. Two problems,
though:

1) He needs to sign off on them. In order for this to happen, he'd need to
be able to understand the ideas. No chance of that.

2) Even if he understood the ideas, they wouldn't satisfy one of his
requirements: Any move we make must look good on TV, and give him an
erection.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent solution in the middle
east.


I'm waiting for your idea.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


It's been a long time, over 25 years ago now. I don't recall the exact
titles.

Dave

Bull****. The actual journals from many of the players weren't released that
soon. Therefore, what you read was fiction, opinion and conjecture.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:25:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..



Clue: The word "strategy" does not necessarily mean the use of force.
There
are other ways to cause an enemy to implode.


Shoot, I was hoping to see an idea worthy of putting in a letter to
our President.

He already has people who know how to use such strategies. Two problems,
though:

1) He needs to sign off on them. In order for this to happen, he'd need to
be able to understand the ideas. No chance of that.

2) Even if he understood the ideas, they wouldn't satisfy one of his
requirements: Any move we make must look good on TV, and give him an
erection.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent solution in the middle
east.


I'm waiting for your idea.

John H

I don't have an idea, John, but the absence of an idea doesn't mean you use
the idea that some idiot pulled out of his ass, like bombing the snot out of
a country just because it makes you feel good.