"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:37:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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.

It's better than your idea. So what does that make you?

Dave


You're just full of contradictions, Dave.

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?

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.

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..

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.



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.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:36:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


And in their case, would end with them. You can't compromise with
fanatics. I don't think you truly understand the nature of the threat
we're facing.

With no exceptions I'm aware of, every fanatical regime in the past 200
years has been enchanted with wealth, once it was achieved. Even Stalin, who
was a fanatic about "distribution of wealth", lived just like the tsarist
leaders before him. Islamic fanatics will arrive at the same point. You'll
see.

So your "suggestion" is to throw money at the Islamic militants, and
they'll turn into yuppie consumers and forget their "Jihad"?


Your "mentality" is such that you think we're 100% entitled to our little
holy war.

I don't believe in absolutes. But I'd say we're probably 85% entitled
to our "holy war", considering that WE were the ones attacked.

Funny....you're beginning to sound like George and his gang, who, for a year
after 9/11, used the attack as the reason for virtually every new policy,
whether foreign or domestic. They repeated it so much that political
cartoonists were making fun of it as late as this past summer. Get over it.
You can't think clearly if you're stuck in the past.

The past? The war is still going on, and will continue until the
threat of these Islamic fundies is quashed.


Here's a challenge: Can you name 3 things you think we could do
better, in terms of our middle east policies, considering the failures of
the past 40 years? Among your responses, you may NOT suggest using more
military force.

Gee, I don't know, since depending on your perspective, those answers
will change. I'm sure the viewpoint of our behavior when taken from
the perspective of an Israeli will differ considerably from that of an
Islamic Mullah or cleric.

Since the Israelis aren't the enemy, remove them from your thoughts and try
harder.

But they are the sworn enemy of those who now seek to attack us. They
perceive us as Israel's greatest enabler and advocate. THAT has a
great deal to do with our present situation. You cannot realistically
remove Israel from the equation.

Should we renounce our alliance with Israel so that the Islamists will
like us better.

See the problem here? We're up to our necks in ****, and now, there's just
one thing keeping us from making fundamental changes in our foreign policy:
Ego. It's infected not just our leadership, but voters like you, too.

I see it this way; we either more forward or we move backward. I say
we move forward. We should not be made to feel that we should have to
give in or appease the demands of "people" who cut off the heads of
other people on TV.


Dave

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:06:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:35:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


I never said that what I read was an "actual journal". And actually
it was closer to 30 years ago, when I was still in school, and the war
was part of the course study.

I never said you read the journals. Does everything need to be spelled out
for you? Here you go: Since everything we hear from the White House is
filtered, historians cannot write accurately about the inner workings of the
place until "presidential papers" are released, and that rarely happens
until years later. Then, you see books which actually quote the handwritten
notes taken by the various players.

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


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.


Nobody called Nixon a nutcase when he was still alive to defend it.

Of course they did.

Sure, pundits like Harry made opinionated accusations. But they were
no more valid then than the ones we hear about Bush now.


How old were you in 1975?

15.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

See the problem here? We're up to our necks in ****, and now, there's just
one thing keeping us from making fundamental changes in our foreign
policy:
Ego. It's infected not just our leadership, but voters like you, too.

I see it this way; we either more forward or we move backward. I say
we move forward. We should not be made to feel that we should have to
give in or appease the demands of "people" who cut off the heads of
other people on TV.


Dave

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.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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


I never said that what I read was an "actual journal". And actually
it was closer to 30 years ago, when I was still in school, and the war
was part of the course study.

I never said you read the journals. Does everything need to be spelled out
for you? Here you go: Since everything we hear from the White House is
filtered, historians cannot write accurately about the inner workings of
the
place until "presidential papers" are released, and that rarely happens
until years later. Then, you see books which actually quote the
handwritten
notes taken by the various players.

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? Think hard. I'm getting tired of your
nonsense.



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. He
ended it because he had no choice. Meanwhile, to his staff, he was
discussing the use of nuclear weapons.



How old were you in 1975?

15.

If you accurately recall what was going on back then, you were a seriously
abnormal 15 year old.

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-

Dave Hall wrote:

The truth is self-evident. Opinions are not.

The truth only becomes self evident with adequate and accurate knowledge.

"-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) :-)

Doug Kanter wrote:

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) :-)

I'm going to be optimistic that we can all continue to learn despite
evidence to the contrary. It's my favorite delusion.

-rick-

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:38:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:37:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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.

It's better than your idea. So what does that make you?

Dave


You're just full of contradictions, Dave.

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?


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.

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.

Dave

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
...

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

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:07:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

See the problem here? We're up to our necks in ****, and now, there's just
one thing keeping us from making fundamental changes in our foreign
policy:
Ego. It's infected not just our leadership, but voters like you, too.

I see it this way; we either more forward or we move backward. I say
we move forward. We should not be made to feel that we should have to
give in or appease the demands of "people" who cut off the heads of
other people on TV.


Dave

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.

You (should) know the difference. The method is irrelevant. It's all
in the intent.

If you feel that what our military does is no more noble or
justifiable in its actions than what the terrorists do, then I'd say
you should leave the country, as you obviously have a very low opinion
of our military history.

Dave

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:11:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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


I never said that what I read was an "actual journal". And actually
it was closer to 30 years ago, when I was still in school, and the war
was part of the course study.

I never said you read the journals. Does everything need to be spelled out
for you? Here you go: Since everything we hear from the White House is
filtered, historians cannot write accurately about the inner workings of
the
place until "presidential papers" are released, and that rarely happens
until years later. Then, you see books which actually quote the
handwritten
notes taken by the various players.

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"?


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. It was also interesting
that Johnson had ties to retired military generals, who were working
in the defense industry. An industry which was profiting from the
"quagmire".


He ended it because he had no choice.

There is always a choice.

Meanwhile, to his staff, he was
discussing the use of nuclear weapons.

I thought you said there was no other choice? Hell, I'd be discussing
the use of nukes too. Something had to be done to make a decisive
victory there, instead of continuing a stalemate. Nukes ended WWII,
they very well could have ended Vietnam too, in a far better way for
our goals.


How old were you in 1975?

15.

If you accurately recall what was going on back then, you were a seriously
abnormal 15 year old.

I can remember my locker combination from as far back as 7th grade, my
entire high school class schedule, my teacher's names, the "secret"
code to punch in to the video learning center to switch to the outside
antenna to receive broadcast TV. I remember my first two "steady"
girlfriends, and every thing that happened on every date. I even
remember what I was doing when word came down that Nixon resigned.

That's the problem. I can recall with a fair amount of clarity the
1970's like they were yesterday. I have clear memories back to about 5
years of age. But I have trouble remembering what I wore the day
before. I have a very good long term memory, and an increasingly
fading short term one. People tell me that's what happens when you get
old. I guess that's why my grandfather loved to talk about the 1920's,
and the stories of the old neighborhood......

Dave

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.

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

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

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:37:09 -0800, -rick- wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

The truth is self-evident. Opinions are not.

The truth only becomes self evident with adequate and accurate knowledge.

That is the definition of "truth".

Dave

"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.

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



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.



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.

"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
m...

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.

"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.

"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.

"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