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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news:q2gfu0d6diiicfkr5jr4lg6sn1gruqmdiv@4ax. com...

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


Heh. :-) Like the domino theory. :-)

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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


It's kidnapping.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

By "can be", I'll assume you mean "by anyone", and the answer is YES. You
can request copies from the library of congress. Were you assuming that
historians claimed they'd quoted directly from White House diaries, and lied
about it in dozens of books?



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

Well, now you are. Fortunately, it was discovered and verified, which caused
quite a scene.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

"Domino effect" is a generic term for any sequential series of events. If
you lost your job, you could say there was a domino effect which resulted in
your credit rating being hosed for a period of time. "Domino theory" applied
specifically to a geo-political idea.


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

Other than Eastern Europe and later, Afghanistan, the USSR did not
explicitly march into countries and take over. They exerted extreme
influence in some places, as did we. Sometimes, we did it by using
legitimate private companies as surrogates, which almost completely financed
the local government, thereby controlling it. It's a trick perfected over
several hundred years by England, France, Portugal, Holland, Belgium (as in
"Congo"), Spain and Italy.

Incidentally, if you really believe what you say about the need to fight
Islamic fundamentalists, then you cannot comment negatively on Russia's
foray into Afghanistan, particularly in light of what they've been dealing
with lately.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:22:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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.

What would be the point? Without proof, you couldn't determine who
would win the bet.



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.

I don't see it that way. Same goes for those ridiculous people who try
to compare Bush to Hitler. They really need a healthy dose of clue
infusion......

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:26:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
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


Heh. :-) Like the domino theory. :-)


Right! I know all about the domino theory from a scientific
perspective. I've always been a science geek. That's why I'm in an
engineering career........

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:04:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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


Which is of course why you accept what is called the New Testament as
"the gospel truth."

When did I say that?


Factual information, easily verified.

People also need a degree of faith. But do not confuse faith with a
certain gullibility WRT the latest political conspiracy theory.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:34:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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


It's kidnapping.

Not if the person is an enemy of the state.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:36:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

By "can be", I'll assume you mean "by anyone", and the answer is YES.

"Anyone" would not be qualified to authenticate the "official"
journals. Only those who were in a position to know them.

You
can request copies from the library of congress. Were you assuming that
historians claimed they'd quoted directly from White House diaries, and lied
about it in dozens of books?

No, I question whether the texts that they were quoting from were
actually the real deal. That's why I brought the notion of
authentication into the picture.


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

Well, now you are. Fortunately, it was discovered and verified, which caused
quite a scene.

Not a big enough scene evidently, as it took Watergate to bring him
down.

It was much like Iran Contra. Lot's of smoke, but no fire.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:49:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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.

"Domino effect" is a generic term for any sequential series of events. If
you lost your job, you could say there was a domino effect which resulted in
your credit rating being hosed for a period of time. "Domino theory" applied
specifically to a geo-political idea.

Now you are arguing semantics.


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.


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

Other than Eastern Europe and later, Afghanistan, the USSR did not
explicitly march into countries and take over.

There were a LOT of small countries in Europe that were sucked under
the iron curtain, and NOT by choice.


They exerted extreme
influence in some places, as did we.

The type of influence was a lot different.


Sometimes, we did it by using
legitimate private companies as surrogates, which almost completely financed
the local government, thereby controlling it.

That's called capitalism. They had the choice to reject these "private
companies", but they would rather lose some local control, in exchange
for a much higher standard of living for the people.

It's a trick perfected over
several hundred years by England, France, Portugal, Holland, Belgium (as in
"Congo"), Spain and Italy.

Trick? That's the way business is done. If your enemy is capitalism,
then you start to look like a communist, and your sympathy for N.
Vietnam, China, and the USSR makes more sense.


Incidentally, if you really believe what you say about the need to fight
Islamic fundamentalists, then you cannot comment negatively on Russia's
foray into Afghanistan, particularly in light of what they've been dealing
with lately.

Ah! The ultimate dilemma. Do we side with the enemy we know, and have
been fighting with for years, or do we side with the enemy we don't
yet know we have? Maybe we made the wrong choice in hindsight. But we
didn't know what would happen back then. That's why hindsight is
always 20/20.

Dave