SwiftVets.com

[ROWELG]

JN173, yes, The French Indochina War was 1946-1954. The last French Advisor left in 1957. The American Advisory Period was 1954-64. A couple months before JFK assassination, the leader of South Vietnam was also assassinated. LBJ was given a plate full. By the end of JFK period, before LBJ took office, there were 23,000 Americans in Vietnam. In 1964, there were 140 KIA's. By 1965, all hell broke loose.

But, my central discussion remains. It was French Territory. We jumped in to Vietnam to comply with INTERNATIONAL LAW (treaty), to assist the French. They bailed out. They were our adversary in the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization decades ago. There are an adversary in the UN. I never did say France was an ENEMY, as some liberals want to "read into" what I say. France on their own volition left Vietnam and left us holding the bag. International Law (treaty) did nothing for us in this.

I also amend my question. What has France done for America in the past century? I never did say France was an ENEMY, as some liberals want to "read into" what I say. They have been an ADVERSARY, not an ENEMY, not a FRIEND. France will never be there when we need them.

[JN173]

[ASPB]

[ASPB]

[oldkayaker]

Wow....this message thread has gone way out of wack again.'

From the above, the best I can determine is that a conservative can overspend government money as long as the spending goes for something the conservative thinks is essential.

Well, golly gee, that is the same thing that liberals are saying! Isn't it?


Sooo....based on fiscal spending...there is no difference between conservative and liberal.

Boy, glad I am non-partisan and live within my means because I expect the government to do the same; but, apparently from the above discussions (that are on point of thread) neither liberal or conservative knows what it means to be fiscally conservative.

OldKayaker,

Your sneering condescention to members of this forum will not not be tolerated. If you are unwilling to debate the issues in a civil manner your posts will be first edited, secondly deleted, and finally you will be banned from this forum.

Respectful dissenting opinion is welcome unlike sites you will find on the political left. However any commentary that attempts to diminish the value of our members views is not acceptable.

A Moderator

[MikeWinn]

[carpro]

[sillyrabbit]

ASPB - Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you, I thought that a mod did that intentionally.

Reagan may have known how to isolate and crucify European non-democratic nations but he employed zero of that same rhetoric against the nations that were commiting the most grave violations of human rights at the time: Iraq and China. Even George W. Bush, who champions himself as a champion of freedom has made absolutely no attempts to condemn Chinese tyranny or Pakistani torture. Why? Because foreign policy is about REALISM, nothing more nothing less, and the fact that you think ours is about MORALITY right now is because your vote has been solicited in populist language that the architects of U.S. foreign policy despise.

Mike
Again, I won't argue political philosophy. I'm not qualified. But if you think that 'liberal bias' in classrooms somehow leads professors to misteach when and where different philosophies developed, then you're biased yourself. It's like saying that a liberal astronomer won't tell you the right position of venus because he doesn't like the conservative position on venus.

Anyway, I think we're both right in a way. Athens was a democratic city-state but there were limits on who got to vote, i.e. those with more land and wealth had more than one vote and women/slaves/those without two Athenian parents didn't have a vote at all. That's closer to an oligarchy than a modern democracy. Heh. I mean it's not like a small amount of wealthy, un-elected elite set the political agenda in America or anything. Anyway, your point is taken, but French and English philosophers made crucial contributions to the Enlightenment, which led the way to secular democracy.

[ASPB]

Sillyrabbit wrote:

[sillyrabbit]

I wasn't implying that you're dumb, it was unintentional if it came off that way. What I MEANT to say is that morality is still just as much of a foreign policy smokescreen as it was during Clinton's years.

You wouldn't have to be unintelligent to be swayed by an argument that emphasizes morality in foreign policy, I myself am swayed by that 'populist language' often. My point was that politicians prey on our desire to be good people for their own dry purposes of stability and hegemony. No disrespect intended, honestly.

[oldkayaker]

I make a point about apparently no difference between liberal and conservative spending and ASPB...gets worked up!

Whats that all about. Aren't we discussing lib vs con?

[oldkayaker]

Thanks Rowelg, your comments enlarge the discussion and focus on the thread of your initial discussion:

[MikeWinn]

OldKayaker,

I hope that last post wasn't leading to this site being one where "healthy democracy depends on strong differing points of view, discussing in an open forum with a level playing field? That any resulting actions by this group of differing views will probably depend upon deal making and compromises?" I'm certain that many other sites do just that. Not the purpose of this one, though. And it is that 'healthy democracy' that allows us on websites like this one to make and enforce rules that are made just for this site. As an aside, our constitutional republic only looks slightly like a true democracy.
_________________
LOCK & LOAD!


GunnerMike
Spectre Gunner and 141 FE
Dedicated to Rico. KIA March 14, 1971.
Love ya man.

[ROWELG]

OLDKAYAKER SAYS: "the best I can determine is that a conservative can overspend government money as long as the spending goes for something the conservative thinks is essential."


That is half true. There are two ideas within this statement to pursue. There is the idea of overspending which is an ever changing function of the nations condition in some particular time interval, like war, or depression, or in a big recession, versus peace time and economic prosperity.

There is the other idea of essentials, of musts versus wants, of thrift versus squander, of investment versus expense. This can be subjective.

A simple example: fiscal conservative me views a daily $2 Starbuck as a luxory, a non essential. My fiscal liberal wife views a daily $4 Starbuck as a must, as an essential. Before tax, her essential costs this fixed income social security income household about $3,000 a year, pre tax. At least she doesn't pay via debt, putting it on her credit card. I just suck it in as she views my internet as a luxory, not an essential. I have a garage, a basement, and a shed filled with stored essentials she acquired over the years. You want to see where essentials end up, go to garage sales, and pay 5 cents on a dollar.

As I said, I know individuals who view going to the casino as essential. Worse, they put the cash on their credit card, and walk out the door empty pockets, and more in debt.

Both liberal and conservative congress will likely appraise the condition of the nation equally, and both run a deficit, which both have done, as Roosevelt did in WWII, and LBJ in Vietnam. However, when it comes to their beliefs in essentials, like my wife and I, there is a big difference. As I said in a previous post, it iis one thing to borrow money to pay solders to fight a war. It is quite different to borrow money to fix pot holes in the road, or build a 60 mile four lane highway in the middle of nowhere, to Tom Daschle's home town of about 20,000. To his home town, it is an investment. To me it is a non-essential expense.

[War Dog]

SillyRabbit wrote: