"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


And what insurances are there that these are truly accurate unbiased
accounts?

Pay attention, Dave. I said "books which actually quote the handwritten
notes taken by the various players". By players, I'm referring to people
like Nixon & Kissinger. Are you now saying that their own notes, quoted
verbatim, are not to be trusted?

So you're saying that Nixon admitted that he was a "nut case"?

Not so fast. I asked you a question and I want an answer. Here it is again:
"Are you now saying that their own notes, quoted verbatim, are not to be
trusted?" The word "their" refers to Nixon and Kissinger.




At the time you read anything about
Nixon, those documents had not been released. Therefore, what you (and
I)
read at the time was no different than the player whose word you do not
trust now: Richard Clark.

I'm not talking about Nixon specifically, I'm talking about the
Vietnam war. You know the one started by Kennedy, escalated by
Johnson, and then finally ended by Nixon.

Nixon, who escalated the bombing, and lied about bombing in Cambodia.

Where did he lie? Nixon tried to WIN the war, since it was obvious
that we had been doing little more than fighting a cat and mouse game
of stalemate during the last administrations.

Another simple, direct question: Are you saying you are not aware of the
FACT that Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia, while saying it was not
happening?

Are you aware of it - yes or no?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:21:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"-rick-" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
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.

from:
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html

--
In a non-scientific example, the Domino Theory was an explicit statement
of what many Americans thought would happen if a single country in a
given
region (e.g. southeast Asia) had a communist government. The implicit
paradigm was that the US ought to be, and had to be, involved in a
global
struggle with another superpower over what kind of political system
would
dominate the world's governments.
--

You might find the rest of the page helpful also.

-rick-

But Rick....although the link points to a very interesting resource, it
was
written by a human, so the whole thing is just one person's opinion.

(Couldn't resist being Dave Hall for a moment) :-)

You do a very poor imitation. Certain facts are indisputable.
Scientific principles and logic for example. Other things are
reasonable hypotheses, based on fact. While others are pure
speculation, based mostly on opinion.

My level of skepticism increases in inverse proportion to the
verifiable factual content of a particular statement.

Dave


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:02:26 -0800, -rick- wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
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.

from:
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html

--
In a non-scientific example, the Domino Theory was an explicit statement
of what many Americans thought would happen if a single country in a
given region (e.g. southeast Asia) had a communist government. The
implicit paradigm was that the US ought to be, and had to be, involved
in a global struggle with another superpower over what kind of political
system would dominate the world's governments.

I totally understand the paranoia which drove "the red scare" from
McCarthy on. I just never heard the term "domino effect" applied to
it.

In another message, you stated that you vividly and accurately remembered
all sorts of stuff from the 1970s. The domino theory (which, by the way, was
a political and military concept, not a scientific one), was not an idea you
only read about in obscure research papers. It was as much a part of the
language as the word "e-mail" is today.


Considering the imperialistic nature of many communist states, we were
justified in much of our concern. Many countries were pulled behind
the iron curtain against their wills, and we tried to prevent it as
much as possible.

Dave

We did exactly the same thing, as I'm sure you recall. Think Africa, and
Central & South America. Think Iran-Contra.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
in New Jersey, kids charged with minor offenses are often placed in
maximum security juvenile prisons while being "processed". Many end up so
traumatized that they're unable to function normally in society.

And I thought it was going to read "end up so traumatized that they never
commit a crime again."

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:36:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Not at all. When you are facing a threat and you have two choices, a
military strike or doing nothing (the absence of another idea), then
I'd say the military option is the better choice.

How do you know your leader was not presented with other ideas which he
rejected?

How do you know that he was?

I'm assuming he was because we know that some of his advisors are military
people, and we've heard polite, but smart comments from many of the brass
about how this was not exactly the best idea.

Rule #1 Never assume anything.

Many people have "ideas", which were either thrown out or cut into
ribbons in the board room. Yet nothing stops them from espousing those
same ideas in public where the same level of intelligent scrutiny may
not exist, which then allows these "ideas" to earn a certain degree of
credibility that they may not truly deserve.


Also, what would you think of a president who did not INVITE opposing
viewpoints so he could weigh all his options?

Are you suggesting that he didn't?

Granted, I'm painting your
leader in a favorable light which he doesn't deserve, but in theory, this is
how things should've been done.

What proof do you have that it didn't happen that way?


And another question, to be answered separately, in its own paragraph:

If you could somehow prove that your leader was not given other
suggestions,
do you understand why his entire staff of advisors should've been replaced
immediately? If you do not understand, explain why.

Why should they? If I understand your implication correctly, it would
be the same thing as firing all the rocket scientists at NASA because
they couldn't invent warp drive in the last 5 years. Maybe it's just
not that simple.

No, Dave. It's nothing like your analogy. If his staff included nothing but
homogenous thinkers, it should've been replaced because of their refusal to
hear other opinions.

You are basing your conclusion on an assumed premise, which may be
incorrect.

Maybe there ISN'T a viable alternative solution. You seem to think
that there is, and since no one has pushed it, they must be
incompetent and should be fired.

But you need to seriously take off the rose colored glasses, and
consider that what we are doing may be the only course of action, that
would stand the best hope of protecting our long term survival and
interests.

If we had been attacked by the country we invaded, you would be correct.

They are all part of the same picture.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:40:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:40:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:50:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
om...

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.

You have no idea what he understands. It's your bias showing.

I know exactly what he understands.

How? How can you be so arrogant as to assume to know what our leader
understands? You know nothing except what you're force fed from the
biased press.

Someday, you will be big, too, and you'll know what your leader
understood.


You mean I'll develop the ability to read minds? Wow! I can hardly
wait......

That's a teenage mind, and totally inappropriate
for someone in a position of power.

Who are you to make that judgement call?

Grown up, and extremely smart.

As well as arrogant, myopic and biased.

Dave


Someday, you will possess a little more perspective, simply from living
longer, and reading voluminously.

There is nothing wrong with my perspective. You have what, 7 years on
me? That's hardly earth shattering in the wisdom department.

I told you before, I do read. I just prefer to read things which deal
in factual information, not stuff that draws speculative conclusions
from incomplete facts.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:45:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Dead is dead. Doesn't matter whether your head's cut off, or a .223 round
slices open an artery in your leg and you watch yourself bleed to death.
Our
methods are no more civilized than theirs.

We don't televise our combat killing. In fact we don't kidnap innocent
non-combatents and execute them as terrorist propaganda.

No. We stick them in a Cuban prison for 3 years and refuse to let them
communicate with the outside world.

Much less brutal.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:49:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


And what insurances are there that these are truly accurate unbiased
accounts?

Pay attention, Dave. I said "books which actually quote the handwritten
notes taken by the various players". By players, I'm referring to people
like Nixon & Kissinger. Are you now saying that their own notes, quoted
verbatim, are not to be trusted?

So you're saying that Nixon admitted that he was a "nut case"?

Not so fast. I asked you a question and I want an answer. Here it is again:
"Are you now saying that their own notes, quoted verbatim, are not to be
trusted?" The word "their" refers to Nixon and Kissinger.

If they can be authenticated then I would say they can be trusted.

At the time you read anything about
Nixon, those documents had not been released. Therefore, what you (and
I)
read at the time was no different than the player whose word you do not
trust now: Richard Clark.

I'm not talking about Nixon specifically, I'm talking about the
Vietnam war. You know the one started by Kennedy, escalated by
Johnson, and then finally ended by Nixon.

Nixon, who escalated the bombing, and lied about bombing in Cambodia.

Where did he lie? Nixon tried to WIN the war, since it was obvious
that we had been doing little more than fighting a cat and mouse game
of stalemate during the last administrations.

Another simple, direct question: Are you saying you are not aware of the
FACT that Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia, while saying it was not
happening?

Are you aware of it - yes or no?

I was not aware that Nixon lied about it.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:52:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:02:26 -0800, -rick- wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
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.

from:
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html

--
In a non-scientific example, the Domino Theory was an explicit statement
of what many Americans thought would happen if a single country in a
given region (e.g. southeast Asia) had a communist government. The
implicit paradigm was that the US ought to be, and had to be, involved
in a global struggle with another superpower over what kind of political
system would dominate the world's governments.

I totally understand the paranoia which drove "the red scare" from
McCarthy on. I just never heard the term "domino effect" applied to
it.

In another message, you stated that you vividly and accurately remembered
all sorts of stuff from the 1970s. The domino theory (which, by the way, was
a political and military concept, not a scientific one), was not an idea you
only read about in obscure research papers. It was as much a part of the
language as the word "e-mail" is today.

Yes, but I learned it as a scientific principle as part of physics.
Nuclear fission could be explained as a domino effect in a very short
time frame.


Considering the imperialistic nature of many communist states, we were
justified in much of our concern. Many countries were pulled behind
the iron curtain against their wills, and we tried to prevent it as
much as possible.

Dave

We did exactly the same thing, as I'm sure you recall. Think Africa, and
Central & South America. Think Iran-Contra.

When have we EVER taken over another country (Other than Puerto Rico)
and subjugated the people to OUR rule? Where is that extra tax money?

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:36:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..

Not at all. When you are facing a threat and you have two choices, a
military strike or doing nothing (the absence of another idea), then
I'd say the military option is the better choice.

How do you know your leader was not presented with other ideas which he
rejected?

How do you know that he was?

I'm assuming he was because we know that some of his advisors are military
people, and we've heard polite, but smart comments from many of the brass
about how this was not exactly the best idea.

Rule #1 Never assume anything.

Many people have "ideas", which were either thrown out or cut into
ribbons in the board room. Yet nothing stops them from espousing those
same ideas in public where the same level of intelligent scrutiny may
not exist, which then allows these "ideas" to earn a certain degree of
credibility that they may not truly deserve.


Also, what would you think of a president who did not INVITE opposing
viewpoints so he could weigh all his options?

Are you suggesting that he didn't?

Granted, I'm painting your
leader in a favorable light which he doesn't deserve, but in theory, this
is
how things should've been done.

What proof do you have that it didn't happen that way?

I have no proof, but I'd wager $1000.00 that I'm right. All one needs to do
is pay attention. When the things your leader says are different from
Stalin's only in terms of the language being spoken, it's obvious
something's seriously wrong.