<!--quoteo(post=1591785:date=Dec 23 2006, 09:40 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Dec 23 2006, 09:40 PM) [snapback]1591785[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> First, simply by calling themselves Communist, North Vietnam gave Russia another ally. Not only militarily, but politically. Strategy has to include thinking about how everyone else will perceive an event as well as what that event actually means. Here we have a French army asking for our help to fight communism. We're currently engaged in an Idealogical shadow war with communism itself. To not help would be to appear weak, and as lolfighter has pointed out, in a game with so high of stakes, one wrong move means your enemy may lob a few warheads your way. This was the primary threat to our freedom North Vietnam posed. Sort of like when your girlfriend is being hit on by some dude. You gotta go and tell him to lay off or else eat a knuckle sandwich.
Secondly, are we forgetting about the wanted freedom of South Vietnam? Sure there were some revolutionists. But there were also those fighting for freedom from the North. Was their cause pointless? If you say yes, then every major power shift in history was also pointless.
It may not have gone our way, but that doesn't make it pointless. As I said before, progress is made through failure. Success signals the end of progress, as the goal is reached. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is though Rob, did the French ever ask for some crazy number of US troops to be sent over to help with the fighting? As far as I know the US only sent forces en masse after the whole "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" which itself seems very murky and heavily disputed.
So the question is what kind of help was needed? There's helping with troops and then there's supplying weapons and money. If I recall correctly the US sent alot of cash to the tune of $2 billion + in aid. So clearly we did help.
Then there are questions of why in the first place the US rejected the idea of nationwide elections to be held in 1956 according to the 1954 Geneva Convention Agreement of Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam.
It appears to me that fighting possibly could have been avoided if the US had pursued negotiations more aggressively. Military was not the only option.
Now, as for the freedom of South VietNam you have a point. But you know what, this is the first time I think someone has mentioned this so far in this discussion and still IMO has _nothing_ to do with the continued freedom of the United States. I don't see how anyone can possibly link the two together. As evidence the fact that the United States survived after having _lost_ should be exhibit A. What could show more weakness than that ?
We had nukes, _no-one_ was going to try invade us - it would have meant the end of them. I don't agree that it was "in the fighting and not so much the outcome" that some sort of invisible doomsday switch was disarmed.
We had a civil war in the United States also. Sometimes people have to sort things out for themselves. It's like you defending someone else's girlfriend, not your own. Short of genocide I'm not sure countries should be getting involved in internal disputes, at least not militarily speaking.
<!--quoteo(post=1591860:date=Dec 24 2006, 02:36 AM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FilthyLarry @ Dec 24 2006, 02:36 AM) [snapback]1591860[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The thing is though Rob, did the French ever ask for some crazy number of US troops to be sent over to help with the fighting? As far as I know the US only sent forces en masse after the whole "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" which itself seems very murky and heavily disputed.
So the question is what kind of help was needed? There's helping with troops and then there's supplying weapons and money. If I recall correctly the US sent alot of cash to the tune of $2 billion + in aid. So clearly we did help.
Then there are questions of why in the first place the US rejected the idea of nationwide elections to be held in 1956 according to the 1954 Geneva Convention Agreement of Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam.
It appears to me that fighting possibly could have been avoided if the US had pursued negotiations more aggressively. Military was not the only option.
Now, as for the freedom of South VietNam you have a point. But you know what, this is the first time I think someone has mentioned this so far in this discussion and still IMO has _nothing_ to do with the continued freedom of the United States. I don't see how anyone can possibly link the two together. As evidence the fact that the United States survived after having _lost_ should be exhibit A. What could show more weakness than that ?
We had nukes, _no-one_ was going to try invade us - it would have meant the end of them. I don't agree that it was "in the fighting and not so much the outcome" that some sort of invisible doomsday switch was disarmed.
We had a civil war in the United States also. Sometimes people have to sort things out for themselves. It's like you defending someone else's girlfriend, not your own. Short of genocide I'm not sure countries should be getting involved in internal disputes, at least not militarily speaking. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is that every war can be traced back to one of three motivations: land/resources (getting stuff a population needs to survive), idealogical clash (two or more different view points occupying the same area; they don't even have to be radically different), or power/wealth/glory (the pursuit of "commemorative immortality" as the Greeks would have said). In the grand scheme of things, none of these reasons is more righteous nor devious than any other. As the ages go by, cultures may attribute more value upon one than the others, but each serves their purpose.
We often assign undo depth and gravity to the idea of war. It's nothing romantic or glorious or terrible. It's combat. As sure as a bar room brawl or your first fist exchange on the playground, war is simply a fight. The stakes are quite often higher, but in the end, like all fights, it comes down to who is the most prepared, and who wants it more.
Now, bear with me... We as a people we elect our officials to make the decisions that we don't want to deal with or are too big and time sensitive for a large body is capably make a choice. The officials are our governors, senators, presidents. While it is the military which carries out orders, it is the political or executive office which assigns those orders. As these are both civilian, elected offices, it is ultimately the choice we make in voting which leads to the deployment of troops. Not so much with a president because there is an electoral college, but that's beside the point.
Now, I'm ready to make some assertions. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> These members of government speak for us, and had to have decided that something in Vietnam was worth the effort. Else we would not have deployed troops.
<u>Land/Resources?</u>
Well, I'm not sure of a reason why we'd want it for its resources.
<u>Idealogical Clash?</u>
This probably has something to do with it. The French <b>did</b> ask for our help. And just because no official word was ever given, doesn't mean that they didn't want us all along to bring in troops. And as I said, swift and decisive action was needed to ensure that we didn't appear weak. Even negotiations and money throwing would have hardened the Russian's point that we are "capitalist pigs."
<u>Power/Wealth/Glory?</u>
Putting aside any lusts for straight up glory in combat, as I don't see any pre-Madonna figures in our ranks, Vietnam did have one critical thing that would allow us to put a squeeze on both China and Russia: location. Being where it is, it resembles a thorn in our side we knew as Cuba.
Sure, there was South Korea, but the Russians had Cuba to answer with. If we could have another democratic nation to trade with and coerce into letting us put some missile batteries in, we'd have the edge. These days, we can run a sub underwater for years any where in the world, but mid last century, it was all about strategic maneuvering of short and mid-range ballistic missiles.
This provides a pretty good reason for the Soviets to send help to the North, thusly also draining their economic reserves. Could those 60,000 American lives have been decisive in bringing about the fall of communism? I think so, anyway.
As for the South's freedom, why does it have to be a threat to our national security to go and help someone try to become a democracy? Any democracy is a potential ally, and it's pretty hard to have a bad ally. Don't go and kid yourself, nations rarely trust each other fully, but as long as there is a common thread of interest, they can at least work together.
And don't forget that without French assistance, we could never have won our own freedom from the British. A debt I'm sure they'll keep reminding us of time and time again. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I fail to see how you can say that war is nothing terrible. The previous century, the last one of the second millenium, saw unprecedented loss of life through warfare. Unspeakable atrocities were committed. And you say this is nothing terrible? I must have misunderstood you.
I'm saying that war simply is. It's not to be exalted nor feared, nor more than a shovel is to be exalted nor feared. Bad things may happen because of war, but bad things may also happen due to any other action we take.
That coffee you had this morning, some child probably works long hours in harsh conditions to get the beans to you.
The application of warfare is one means by which a goal can be reached, just as the application of force in a confrontation is one means by which to end it. If you don't think human lives should be tallied along with dollars to decide whether or not a course of action is worth the losses (yes, that means assigning a dollar value to a human life as cold as we may think it to be) then maybe you should stop thinking about such dark aspects of the human condition.
When push comes to shove, what remains is what we want as a people, and how much we're willing to pay to get it. If we want our freedom, what shall we sacrifice to get it? Whether or not freedom was at stake in Vietnam, it doesn't change the fact that we were fighting for something, and the 60,000 dead paid for it for us. Now, shall we sit back, after they've paid the price of our desire, and decide that what we desired wasn't really worth it, and that all those soldiers paid for something we simply threw away?
THAT is the real waste here. By deciding on such a whim that there could not possibly have been anything worth fighting for in Vietnam, we have wasted those lives lost. All the while blaming faceless shadows of figures on capital hill who must have miscalculated, or were vying for their own petty interests when in fact it is we who are to blame.
If we only honor the sacrifice, and have faith that somewhere in those dark pits of agony, a life was saved here, a family there, we can give those 60,000 deaths meaning; we can give the families of those lost comfort in the quiet respects we pay to them for their son's sacrifice.
I would hardly call the fight against the continuation of the Vietnam war, or the fight against it starting at all, a "whim". You make it seem as though this war had the full support of the American community both when it started and during the course of it.
Nor would I exhalt warfare in the way you do by calling upon people to honour the war heroes who gave their life for us, when I and I am sure many of those parents who lost their sons that you are claiming to speak for, knew they did not give their lives for us (or you, seeing as I am not an American) but rather for a strange idea by or the profit of the few in the top of the social hierarchy. I would specially not exhalt warfare if I started my paragraph by stating that war should neither be exhalted nor feared.
Finally I want to show my dislike of you equalling the quest of the few noblemen for glory or profit with the struggle for independance or a reasonable standard of living of the many. Both have cost an enormous amount in human lives and suffering, but the former because of vanity and profit hunger and the later for something I would count as something more noble and righteous.
Simply put, equalling warfare to a shovel seems very strange - how could one equal a tool made to improve the quality of human life with something that has the implied purpose of taking countless human lives? It seems strange until one starts wondering if perhaps you believe human beings to be tools that can, and should, be wielded by those in charge if profit that you can share can be made by doing so.
It would seem we two put very different values and weight on human lives, both in the absolute sense of giving and taking it, and the quality of life for the many while it is present.
The purpose of war is not to kill people, it's to achieve a goal. If the direct or implied purpose of an action is to kill people, we call that genocide, not war.
I was not exalting war, I was exalting what I deem to be a sacrifice made for my own personal benefit. I'm not fit to stand alongside the soldiers who fought in Vietnam, nor any war, because I haven't been there, so I do my best to honor them.
I liken war to a shovel because war is a political tool. It's application is meant to have a desired outcome, just as the application of a shovel is meant to move dirt. But, if one does not know how to use the shovel, one can exert a lot of unnecessary effort to get the job done, wearing the shovel and its user more than a master worker would have. However, the fact that the worker expended more resources and effort to dig the hole does not make the hole worthless. So it is also with warfare.
I don't know why you think I was trying to say the people supported the war... that would be a pretty ignorant point of view for me to take. I realize that we didn't support it. But again, that doesn't make the war pointless, and that does not nullify the sacrifice.
Whether these soldiers and their families want my praise and respect or not, they still have it.
Finally, history continually distorts the motivations of war. Rarely is their no benefit and equal danger for the elite, that's the way the world is. But that doesn't mean that the common man cannot fight for something, nor find meaning in a world of hatred.
We are the masters of our own destiny, and it's not impossible to praise the sacrifices made by the common man for his own reasons while acknowledging that the elite have a purpose, too. This is simply looking at the bright side.
<!--quoteo(post=1591860:date=Dec 24 2006, 02:36 AM:name=FilthyLarry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FilthyLarry @ Dec 24 2006, 02:36 AM) [snapback]1591860[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]Now, as for the freedom of South VietNam you have a point. But you know what, this is the first time I think someone has mentioned this so far in this discussion and still IMO has _nothing_ to do with the continued freedom of the United States. I don't see how anyone can possibly link the two together. As evidence the fact that the United States survived after having _lost_ should be exhibit A. What could show more weakness than that ?[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Cold War was in high gear, and the United States was doing whatever was necessary to stop the spread of communism, both on foreign soils and on our own. The very real threat of losing our own freedom was enough in my opinion to fight it, regardless of the outcome of this war.
War as a political tool? "Nothing terrible?" Take a look at <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476" target="_blank">this gallery</a> and repeat that, will you?
<!--quoteo(post=1592059:date=Dec 25 2006, 09:45 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 25 2006, 09:45 AM) [snapback]1592059[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> War as a political tool? "Nothing terrible?" Take a look at <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476" target="_blank">this gallery</a> and repeat that, will you? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish you would stop deliberately trying to misunderstanding me; it rings so clearly of self-righteousness. The pain caused by war can just as easily be caused by other things, like crime, tyrannical dictatorship, and plagues. Or it could even be caused by something completely out of our control, like a natural disaster. The pain caused by these things isn't any different and should never be given less regard than the pain caused by war.
You pick out a single line of what I'm trying to say and attack it completely missing the big picture I'm trying to show you. You spit blind hatred at warfare simply because we're supposed to somehow be revolted by the very idea of fighting, but violence is just as big a part of the human condition as love - sometimes it's almost the same thing.
We could no more lay down the sword than use it to cut out our own hearts and continue living.
Should we strive for something better? Well that's a personal choice everyone's gotta make, but I venture a guess that a lot of the veterans of the Vietnam war were fighting for a world in which war wasn't a factor. Is that a noble cause? Do you think it's achievable? I think you'd agree with me that a world without war is highly unlikely. Shall I call fighting for the removal of war pointless? What's that make you feel?
If all the people who've ever stood bravely inside no man's land to help the wounded and those caught in the fight, the doctors and nurses, the medics and chaplains, all the ones who have sweat and bled and died to relieve the pain caused by the ravage of war, were all fighting for a pointless cause? Pointless because there's no way war can ever be destroyed. It hurts to think that, and by saying it, you've wasted the sacrifice. You've ripped the meaning out of what they were trying to do, and made their work hollow.
But, no, it's not pointless to stand between war and those affected by it. It's noble. And its nobility is not mutually exclusive of the nobility of those fighting the war itself.
That's a very cynical thing to write. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1592135:date=Dec 25 2006, 05:14 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Dec 25 2006, 05:14 PM) [snapback]1592135[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That's a very cynical thing to write. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I happen to agree with everything Rob has said to date on this subject, and do not feel he wrote anything cynical. I only wish I could express myself as well as he does.
Call me self-righteous all you want - in this cause, I am happy to be it. You speak of my hatred of war, and I could not agree more. You have understood my feelings perfectly. However, you call my hatred blind, when it is anything but. I hate war because MY eyes are OPEN, because I SEE the horrors of war. These are NOT horrors caused by "plagues or natural disasters." These are horrors perpetrated by MAN, WILLINGLY. Natural disasters and plagues are what we call "acts of God." The religious overtones are of no consequence, atheists too recognize that these catastrophes are not under our control. We cannot prevent these events, we can only alleviate the suffering caused by them. Comparing them to war is faulty, as war is not caused by circumstances beyond our control. War is caused by humans.
You speak of fighting to end war. The only "fight" against war can be ideological or spiritual, never armed. Trying to end WAR through WAR is like trying to put a fire out with gasoline.
You speak of "all the people who've ever stood bravely inside no man's land to help the wounded and those caught in the fight, the doctors and nurses, the medics and chaplains, all the ones who have sweat and bled and died to relieve the pain caused by the ravage of war" as if they partook in the war. Fighting a war means killing. They SAVED life, when everyone around them was only trying to destroy it. I honour those people.
YES, we can lay down the sword. It is difficult, I know that full well. But to lay down our weapons, rather than murder our brethren, is what makes us better people. To give up hope and accept war as inevitable is what MAKES war inevitable.
Where are you getting these ideas? You can fight without combat, you can sweat, and bled, and die without killing. Don't mistake my words why I say a pacifist <i>fights</i> for peace. What I'm trying to tell you is that fighting for the cause of others is noble, even if that means killing. This is what makes war worthwhile; the <i>cause</i>, not the killing, and not the outcome.
This is not the 'pie in the sky' cause that is lost in the horror of war. This is the cause each and every soldier finds in the heart that allows him or her to survive. Family, friends, country, humanity. Whatever the reason, these men and women have to reconcile and find some reason to continue to move forward. For this they sacrifice, and for this I respect and laud.
Frankly, I don't like being made the villain for saying that I respect someone who goes overseas fights for the things I enjoy, and that's why I snapped at you.
I think we can agree that fighting for a cause can be noble. But I maintain that the fight can only be as noble as the cause. And while I cannot fully argue against that old adage "the end justifies the means," I still say that the manner in which a fight is conducted has a very large influence on whether it is noble or not.
As for actual warfare, I view the killing of a fellow human as an inherently un-noble act. To counter that, the cause that necessitated this killing needs to be very noble. I will refrain from stating my opinion of individual wars, since this has previously caused tempers to flare.
<!--quoteo(post=1592198:date=Dec 25 2006, 08:38 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 25 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]1592198[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]As for actual warfare, I view the killing of a fellow human as an inherently un-noble act. To counter that, the cause that necessitated this killing needs to be very noble. I will refrain from stating my opinion of individual wars, since this has previously caused tempers to flare. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "The cause that necessitated this killing" may be deemed noble by Rob or myself, but not by you or others. This seems to be where we differ on our opinions, and are therefore unable to agree.
How can you see it as noble to preemtively strike someone, it would be like living in a society where suspicion alone constitutes a crime, getting killed for being labeled as a possible killer? sounds like fun. My neighbour was a nazi should i have killed him? he certainly could have been a threat to me and my family. If they actually had attacked you i would have approved of the war from your side, and isnt the war pointless if it could have been avoided at no cost at all. The only reasons for this war that i can kind of agree with is that they didnt know what would happen if they didnt intervene but i dont think thats enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1592046:date=Dec 25 2006, 07:17 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 25 2006, 07:17 AM) [snapback]1592046[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The <i>War on Terror</i> was in high gear, and the United States was doing whatever was necessary to stop the spread of <i>terrorism</i>, both on foreign soils and on our own. The very real threat of losing our own freedom was enough in my opinion to fight it, regardless of the outcome of this war. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> italics = new catchphrases
<!--quoteo(post=1592358:date=Dec 26 2006, 11:03 AM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Dec 26 2006, 11:03 AM) [snapback]1592358[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How can you see it as noble to preemtively strike someone, it would be like living in a society where suspicion alone constitutes a crime, getting killed for being labeled as a possible killer? sounds like fun. My neighbour was a nazi should i have killed him? he certainly could have been a threat to me and my family. If they actually had attacked you i would have approved of the war from your side, and isnt the war pointless if it could have been avoided at no cost at all. The only reasons for this war that i can kind of agree with is that they didnt know what would happen if they didnt intervene but i dont think thats enough. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A preemptive strike is a combat maneuver, not a cause, so it can't be assigned values like noble or dastardly. What matters is the motivations behind the actions. And don't fly off the handle thinking that we as individuals apply the same methods and reasons as the country as a whole.
I've said time and time again that a soldier will find his or her own reasons to fight. Those reasons may be noble completely independently of the supposed reasons for going to war. It's as if everyone believes that all the officers and soldiers conducting a war act with a single consciousness, committing the exact same good and the exact same evil. Well, this simply isn't the case. While they have to follow orders, they also have to come up with their own reasons to do so.
As far as Vietnam goes, I don't think we're getting anywhere. I've offered more than one plausible reason for the war, and speculation that it may have even been worth it. If anyone wants to refute those, then please.
<!--quoteo(post=1591412:date=Dec 22 2006, 06:14 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 22 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]1591412[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The Soviet Union, an example of a communist state, diminished such liberties as the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry but this made me laugh. According to this, war should be declared on pretty much all western countries in the world, starting with the USA, since freedom of speech and freedom of the press is being curtailed in "the war against terrorism"[sic].
Didn't the current president of the USA pretty much call the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of innocent people, traitors?
As for war, when the outcome is what you want, it surves a purpose. When the enemy wins and invades your country, war is horrible. The kharaa and the rines both know that they are right, whoever wins is proven right. War solves arguments like nothing else.
<!--quoteo(post=1593275:date=Dec 30 2006, 12:23 PM:name=bLb_Slayer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bLb_Slayer @ Dec 30 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]1593275[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm sorry but this made me laugh. According to this, war should be declared on pretty much all western countries in the world, starting with the USA, since freedom of speech and freedom of the press is being curtailed in "the war against terrorism"[sic].
Didn't the current president of the USA pretty much call the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of innocent people, traitors?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er...no...it was more like he called the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of <b>Al-Qaeda</b>, traitors. I don't think he used those words, but thats the idea anyway.
Like it or not, political debate very frequently revolves around semantics. He who defines the terms wins the audience. So was the government tapping the lines of innocent citizens or Al-Qaeda members? Well, both actually. Which one you mention depends on how you want the audience to perceive the act. Likewise, did the journalists proclaim to the world that the US was listening to US citizens, or that the US was listening to Al-Qaeda? Again, its both, but which one you mention is based on how you want the audience to think. You can point out that the journalists exposed government tapping of innocent citizens (a good thing) if you want to defend their acts as noble, or you can point out that they simultaneously gave away state secrets to Al-Qaeda (a bad thing) if you want to paint their actions as traitorous. In practice, its virtually impossible to do one without the other, and the real argument should revolve around which aspect was more important. But it never does. Instead the argument is about maneuvering to simply conceal one aspect entirely and make the issue black and white.
That said, if you want to contend that Freedom of Speech and of the Press is being curtailed here, I'm going to have to object. We may not have as much freedom of speech now as we did at certain points in the recent past, but we're coming off a very high peak in historical terms. The freedom we have now, even if its slightly less than it was say 20 years ago (which is debateable), is still orders of magnitude greater than anything offered under communist regimes. Its still immensely more freedom than people have enjoyed for most of recorded history. Its still better than the freedom offered in most other nations even today. From what I've heard, the US isn't in the very top slot for world freedom, but we're still in the top 10, among the hundreds of nations spanning the earth.
America is still a bastion of freedom, loath as some are to admit it.
<!--quoteo(post=1594365:date=Jan 3 2007, 02:05 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Jan 3 2007, 02:05 AM) [snapback]1594365[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Er...no...it was more like he called the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of <b>Al-Qaeda</b>, traitors. I don't think he used those words, but thats the idea anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> SWBell is my phone provider. SWBell's lines were mass-tapped by the NSA. My line was tapped by the NSA. I am not and have never been a member of Al-Qaeda. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post and I want my money back for the bandwidth I wasted downloading it.
Look, I answered the very question you asked in the very post you were quoting, and you refuse to even read it! If you wont even listen to people answer your questions, how are we supposed to talk to you?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1594365:date=Jan 3 2007, 03:05 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Jan 3 2007, 03:05 AM) [snapback]1594365[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Er...no...it was more like he called the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of <b>Al-Qaeda</b>, traitors. I don't think he used those words, but thats the idea anyway.
Like it or not, political debate very frequently revolves around semantics. He who defines the terms wins the audience. So was the government tapping the lines of innocent citizens or Al-Qaeda members? Well, both actually. Which one you mention depends on how you want the audience to perceive the act. Likewise, did the journalists proclaim to the world that the US was listening to US citizens, or that the US was listening to Al-Qaeda? Again, its both, but which one you mention is based on how you want the audience to think. You can point out that the journalists exposed government tapping of innocent citizens (a good thing) if you want to defend their acts as noble, or you can point out that they simultaneously gave away state secrets to Al-Qaeda (a bad thing) if you want to paint their actions as traitorous. In practice, its virtually impossible to do one without the other, and the real argument should revolve around which aspect was more important. But it never does. Instead the argument is about maneuvering to simply conceal one aspect entirely and make the issue black and white. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tapping the phones of Al Qaeda isn't newsworthy. It's expected, and there's a process for that involving warrants and such. They reported that he was doing it without warrants, which happens to be illegal.
But the administration did it for your protection! So they lost sight of the proper legal procedures, so what? They could have gotten those warrants anyway, so it doesn't matter they didn't have 'em. Kinda like how I drive my car without a license. I COULD get one, so it doesn't matter that I don't actually have one.
And as for tapping YOUR phones, you're not a terrist so you have nothing to hide! But if you WERE a terrist you could do all kinds of mean things with impunity. So better safe than sorry, eh? Hey, it's not like they're selling tapes of you to the highest bidder.
Basically, rights of privacy are a danger and a menace and it was high time they got stripped so we can get some proper protection.
Except he's German <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
When it comes down to it, I <i>want</i> my government to be tapping Al-Qaeda's phones, and at the same time I'd rather they not tap my own phones. So how do you pull that trick off, given that most Al-Qaeda operatives in the US aren't exactly going to admit to being Al-Qaeda so we can find them?
Thats not necessarily an easy question to answer. And the Bush Administration's first attempt at answering it seems to have been rejected as the wrong choice. But thats a far cry from claiming that the US is just as bad as communism at curtailing freedom of speech. The restrictions communist nations place on free speech are orders of magnitude worse than anything we have here.
<!--quoteo(post=1595001:date=Jan 5 2007, 01:09 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Jan 5 2007, 01:09 AM) [snapback]1595001[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The restrictions communist nations place on free speech are orders of magnitude worse than anything we have here. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> lenin didn't come out of nowhere and say "NO MORE TALKING LIKE ANYTHING BAD IS GOING TO HAPPEN, KAY?" they had to start somewhere, too.
You know the Russians had secret police monitoring your every action a generation before Lenin came into power, right?
You're assuming the Russians started with freedom, and the communists gradually took it away. In fact, the Russian commoners NEVER had much freedom to speak of, and all Lenin had to do was not give them anything more.
So when you say "he had to start somewhere", I wonder if you really know exactly where he DID start?
Comments
First, simply by calling themselves Communist, North Vietnam gave Russia another ally. Not only militarily, but politically. Strategy has to include thinking about how everyone else will perceive an event as well as what that event actually means. Here we have a French army asking for our help to fight communism. We're currently engaged in an Idealogical shadow war with communism itself. To not help would be to appear weak, and as lolfighter has pointed out, in a game with so high of stakes, one wrong move means your enemy may lob a few warheads your way. This was the primary threat to our freedom North Vietnam posed. Sort of like when your girlfriend is being hit on by some dude. You gotta go and tell him to lay off or else eat a knuckle sandwich.
Secondly, are we forgetting about the wanted freedom of South Vietnam? Sure there were some revolutionists. But there were also those fighting for freedom from the North. Was their cause pointless? If you say yes, then every major power shift in history was also pointless.
It may not have gone our way, but that doesn't make it pointless. As I said before, progress is made through failure. Success signals the end of progress, as the goal is reached.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is though Rob, did the French ever ask for some crazy number of US troops to be sent over to help with the fighting? As far as I know the US only sent forces en masse after the whole "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" which itself seems very murky and heavily disputed.
So the question is what kind of help was needed? There's helping with troops and then there's supplying weapons and money. If I recall correctly the US sent alot of cash to the tune of $2 billion + in aid. So clearly we did help.
Then there are questions of why in the first place the US rejected the idea of nationwide elections to be held in 1956 according to the 1954 Geneva Convention Agreement of Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam.
It appears to me that fighting possibly could have been avoided if the US had pursued negotiations more aggressively. Military was not the only option.
Now, as for the freedom of South VietNam you have a point. But you know what, this is the first time I think someone has mentioned this so far in this discussion and still IMO has _nothing_ to do with the continued freedom of the United States. I don't see how anyone can possibly link the two together. As evidence the fact that the United States survived after having _lost_ should be exhibit A. What could show more weakness than that ?
We had nukes, _no-one_ was going to try invade us - it would have meant the end of them. I don't agree that it was "in the fighting and not so much the outcome" that some sort of invisible doomsday switch was disarmed.
We had a civil war in the United States also. Sometimes people have to sort things out for themselves. It's like you defending someone else's girlfriend, not your own. Short of genocide I'm not sure countries should be getting involved in internal disputes, at least not militarily speaking.
The thing is though Rob, did the French ever ask for some crazy number of US troops to be sent over to help with the fighting? As far as I know the US only sent forces en masse after the whole "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" which itself seems very murky and heavily disputed.
So the question is what kind of help was needed? There's helping with troops and then there's supplying weapons and money. If I recall correctly the US sent alot of cash to the tune of $2 billion + in aid. So clearly we did help.
Then there are questions of why in the first place the US rejected the idea of nationwide elections to be held in 1956 according to the 1954 Geneva Convention Agreement of Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam.
It appears to me that fighting possibly could have been avoided if the US had pursued negotiations more aggressively. Military was not the only option.
Now, as for the freedom of South VietNam you have a point. But you know what, this is the first time I think someone has mentioned this so far in this discussion and still IMO has _nothing_ to do with the continued freedom of the United States. I don't see how anyone can possibly link the two together. As evidence the fact that the United States survived after having _lost_ should be exhibit A. What could show more weakness than that ?
We had nukes, _no-one_ was going to try invade us - it would have meant the end of them. I don't agree that it was "in the fighting and not so much the outcome" that some sort of invisible doomsday switch was disarmed.
We had a civil war in the United States also. Sometimes people have to sort things out for themselves. It's like you defending someone else's girlfriend, not your own. Short of genocide I'm not sure countries should be getting involved in internal disputes, at least not militarily speaking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is that every war can be traced back to one of three motivations: land/resources (getting stuff a population needs to survive), idealogical clash (two or more different view points occupying the same area; they don't even have to be radically different), or power/wealth/glory (the pursuit of "commemorative immortality" as the Greeks would have said). In the grand scheme of things, none of these reasons is more righteous nor devious than any other. As the ages go by, cultures may attribute more value upon one than the others, but each serves their purpose.
We often assign undo depth and gravity to the idea of war. It's nothing romantic or glorious or terrible. It's combat. As sure as a bar room brawl or your first fist exchange on the playground, war is simply a fight. The stakes are quite often higher, but in the end, like all fights, it comes down to who is the most prepared, and who wants it more.
Now, bear with me... We as a people we elect our officials to make the decisions that we don't want to deal with or are too big and time sensitive for a large body is capably make a choice. The officials are our governors, senators, presidents. While it is the military which carries out orders, it is the political or executive office which assigns those orders. As these are both civilian, elected offices, it is ultimately the choice we make in voting which leads to the deployment of troops. Not so much with a president because there is an electoral college, but that's beside the point.
Now, I'm ready to make some assertions. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
These members of government speak for us, and had to have decided that something in Vietnam was worth the effort. Else we would not have deployed troops.
<u>Land/Resources?</u>
Well, I'm not sure of a reason why we'd want it for its resources.
<u>Idealogical Clash?</u>
This probably has something to do with it. The French <b>did</b> ask for our help. And just because no official word was ever given, doesn't mean that they didn't want us all along to bring in troops. And as I said, swift and decisive action was needed to ensure that we didn't appear weak. Even negotiations and money throwing would have hardened the Russian's point that we are "capitalist pigs."
<u>Power/Wealth/Glory?</u>
Putting aside any lusts for straight up glory in combat, as I don't see any pre-Madonna figures in our ranks, Vietnam did have one critical thing that would allow us to put a squeeze on both China and Russia: location. Being where it is, it resembles a thorn in our side we knew as Cuba.
Sure, there was South Korea, but the Russians had Cuba to answer with. If we could have another democratic nation to trade with and coerce into letting us put some missile batteries in, we'd have the edge. These days, we can run a sub underwater for years any where in the world, but mid last century, it was all about strategic maneuvering of short and mid-range ballistic missiles.
This provides a pretty good reason for the Soviets to send help to the North, thusly also draining their economic reserves. Could those 60,000 American lives have been decisive in bringing about the fall of communism? I think so, anyway.
As for the South's freedom, why does it have to be a threat to our national security to go and help someone try to become a democracy? Any democracy is a potential ally, and it's pretty hard to have a bad ally. Don't go and kid yourself, nations rarely trust each other fully, but as long as there is a common thread of interest, they can at least work together.
And don't forget that without French assistance, we could never have won our own freedom from the British. A debt I'm sure they'll keep reminding us of time and time again. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
That coffee you had this morning, some child probably works long hours in harsh conditions to get the beans to you.
The application of warfare is one means by which a goal can be reached, just as the application of force in a confrontation is one means by which to end it. If you don't think human lives should be tallied along with dollars to decide whether or not a course of action is worth the losses (yes, that means assigning a dollar value to a human life as cold as we may think it to be) then maybe you should stop thinking about such dark aspects of the human condition.
When push comes to shove, what remains is what we want as a people, and how much we're willing to pay to get it. If we want our freedom, what shall we sacrifice to get it? Whether or not freedom was at stake in Vietnam, it doesn't change the fact that we were fighting for something, and the 60,000 dead paid for it for us. Now, shall we sit back, after they've paid the price of our desire, and decide that what we desired wasn't really worth it, and that all those soldiers paid for something we simply threw away?
THAT is the real waste here. By deciding on such a whim that there could not possibly have been anything worth fighting for in Vietnam, we have wasted those lives lost. All the while blaming faceless shadows of figures on capital hill who must have miscalculated, or were vying for their own petty interests when in fact it is we who are to blame.
If we only honor the sacrifice, and have faith that somewhere in those dark pits of agony, a life was saved here, a family there, we can give those 60,000 deaths meaning; we can give the families of those lost comfort in the quiet respects we pay to them for their son's sacrifice.
But instead we call it pointless.
Nor would I exhalt warfare in the way you do by calling upon people to honour the war heroes who gave their life for us, when I and I am sure many of those parents who lost their sons that you are claiming to speak for, knew they did not give their lives for us (or you, seeing as I am not an American) but rather for a strange idea by or the profit of the few in the top of the social hierarchy. I would specially not exhalt warfare if I started my paragraph by stating that war should neither be exhalted nor feared.
Finally I want to show my dislike of you equalling the quest of the few noblemen for glory or profit with the struggle for independance or a reasonable standard of living of the many. Both have cost an enormous amount in human lives and suffering, but the former because of vanity and profit hunger and the later for something I would count as something more noble and righteous.
Simply put, equalling warfare to a shovel seems very strange - how could one equal a tool made to improve the quality of human life with something that has the implied purpose of taking countless human lives? It seems strange until one starts wondering if perhaps you believe human beings to be tools that can, and should, be wielded by those in charge if profit that you can share can be made by doing so.
It would seem we two put very different values and weight on human lives, both in the absolute sense of giving and taking it, and the quality of life for the many while it is present.
I was not exalting war, I was exalting what I deem to be a sacrifice made for my own personal benefit. I'm not fit to stand alongside the soldiers who fought in Vietnam, nor any war, because I haven't been there, so I do my best to honor them.
I liken war to a shovel because war is a political tool. It's application is meant to have a desired outcome, just as the application of a shovel is meant to move dirt. But, if one does not know how to use the shovel, one can exert a lot of unnecessary effort to get the job done, wearing the shovel and its user more than a master worker would have. However, the fact that the worker expended more resources and effort to dig the hole does not make the hole worthless. So it is also with warfare.
I don't know why you think I was trying to say the people supported the war... that would be a pretty ignorant point of view for me to take. I realize that we didn't support it. But again, that doesn't make the war pointless, and that does not nullify the sacrifice.
Whether these soldiers and their families want my praise and respect or not, they still have it.
Finally, history continually distorts the motivations of war. Rarely is their no benefit and equal danger for the elite, that's the way the world is. But that doesn't mean that the common man cannot fight for something, nor find meaning in a world of hatred.
We are the masters of our own destiny, and it's not impossible to praise the sacrifices made by the common man for his own reasons while acknowledging that the elite have a purpose, too. This is simply looking at the bright side.
[...]Now, as for the freedom of South VietNam you have a point. But you know what, this is the first time I think someone has mentioned this so far in this discussion and still IMO has _nothing_ to do with the continued freedom of the United States. I don't see how anyone can possibly link the two together. As evidence the fact that the United States survived after having _lost_ should be exhibit A. What could show more weakness than that ?[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Cold War was in high gear, and the United States was doing whatever was necessary to stop the spread of communism, both on foreign soils and on our own. The very real threat of losing our own freedom was enough in my opinion to fight it, regardless of the outcome of this war.
War as a political tool? "Nothing terrible?" Take a look at <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476" target="_blank">this gallery</a> and repeat that, will you?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish you would stop deliberately trying to misunderstanding me; it rings so clearly of self-righteousness. The pain caused by war can just as easily be caused by other things, like crime, tyrannical dictatorship, and plagues. Or it could even be caused by something completely out of our control, like a natural disaster. The pain caused by these things isn't any different and should never be given less regard than the pain caused by war.
You pick out a single line of what I'm trying to say and attack it completely missing the big picture I'm trying to show you. You spit blind hatred at warfare simply because we're supposed to somehow be revolted by the very idea of fighting, but violence is just as big a part of the human condition as love - sometimes it's almost the same thing.
We could no more lay down the sword than use it to cut out our own hearts and continue living.
Should we strive for something better? Well that's a personal choice everyone's gotta make, but I venture a guess that a lot of the veterans of the Vietnam war were fighting for a world in which war wasn't a factor. Is that a noble cause? Do you think it's achievable? I think you'd agree with me that a world without war is highly unlikely. Shall I call fighting for the removal of war pointless? What's that make you feel?
If all the people who've ever stood bravely inside no man's land to help the wounded and those caught in the fight, the doctors and nurses, the medics and chaplains, all the ones who have sweat and bled and died to relieve the pain caused by the ravage of war, were all fighting for a pointless cause? Pointless because there's no way war can ever be destroyed. It hurts to think that, and by saying it, you've wasted the sacrifice. You've ripped the meaning out of what they were trying to do, and made their work hollow.
But, no, it's not pointless to stand between war and those affected by it. It's noble. And its nobility is not mutually exclusive of the nobility of those fighting the war itself.
That's a very cynical thing to write. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I happen to agree with everything Rob has said to date on this subject, and do not feel he wrote anything cynical. I only wish I could express myself as well as he does.
Natural disasters and plagues are what we call "acts of God." The religious overtones are of no consequence, atheists too recognize that these catastrophes are not under our control. We cannot prevent these events, we can only alleviate the suffering caused by them. Comparing them to war is faulty, as war is not caused by circumstances beyond our control. War is caused by humans.
You speak of fighting to end war. The only "fight" against war can be ideological or spiritual, never armed. Trying to end WAR through WAR is like trying to put a fire out with gasoline.
You speak of "all the people who've ever stood bravely inside no man's land to help the wounded and those caught in the fight, the doctors and nurses, the medics and chaplains, all the ones who have sweat and bled and died to relieve the pain caused by the ravage of war" as if they partook in the war. Fighting a war means killing. They SAVED life, when everyone around them was only trying to destroy it. I honour those people.
YES, we can lay down the sword. It is difficult, I know that full well. But to lay down our weapons, rather than murder our brethren, is what makes us better people. To give up hope and accept war as inevitable is what MAKES war inevitable.
This is not the 'pie in the sky' cause that is lost in the horror of war. This is the cause each and every soldier finds in the heart that allows him or her to survive. Family, friends, country, humanity. Whatever the reason, these men and women have to reconcile and find some reason to continue to move forward. For this they sacrifice, and for this I respect and laud.
Frankly, I don't like being made the villain for saying that I respect someone who goes overseas fights for the things I enjoy, and that's why I snapped at you.
As for actual warfare, I view the killing of a fellow human as an inherently un-noble act. To counter that, the cause that necessitated this killing needs to be very noble. I will refrain from stating my opinion of individual wars, since this has previously caused tempers to flare.
[...]As for actual warfare, I view the killing of a fellow human as an inherently un-noble act. To counter that, the cause that necessitated this killing needs to be very noble. I will refrain from stating my opinion of individual wars, since this has previously caused tempers to flare.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"The cause that necessitated this killing" may be deemed noble by Rob or myself, but not by you or others. This seems to be where we differ on our opinions, and are therefore unable to agree.
My neighbour was a nazi should i have killed him? he certainly could have been a threat to me and my family.
If they actually had attacked you i would have approved of the war from your side, and isnt the war pointless if it could have been avoided at no cost at all.
The only reasons for this war that i can kind of agree with is that they didnt know what would happen if they didnt intervene but i dont think thats enough.
The <i>War on Terror</i> was in high gear, and the United States was doing whatever was necessary to stop the spread of <i>terrorism</i>, both on foreign soils and on our own. The very real threat of losing our own freedom was enough in my opinion to fight it, regardless of the outcome of this war.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
italics = new catchphrases
How can you see it as noble to preemtively strike someone, it would be like living in a society where suspicion alone constitutes a crime, getting killed for being labeled as a possible killer? sounds like fun.
My neighbour was a nazi should i have killed him? he certainly could have been a threat to me and my family.
If they actually had attacked you i would have approved of the war from your side, and isnt the war pointless if it could have been avoided at no cost at all.
The only reasons for this war that i can kind of agree with is that they didnt know what would happen if they didnt intervene but i dont think thats enough.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A preemptive strike is a combat maneuver, not a cause, so it can't be assigned values like noble or dastardly. What matters is the motivations behind the actions. And don't fly off the handle thinking that we as individuals apply the same methods and reasons as the country as a whole.
I've said time and time again that a soldier will find his or her own reasons to fight. Those reasons may be noble completely independently of the supposed reasons for going to war. It's as if everyone believes that all the officers and soldiers conducting a war act with a single consciousness, committing the exact same good and the exact same evil. Well, this simply isn't the case. While they have to follow orders, they also have to come up with their own reasons to do so.
As far as Vietnam goes, I don't think we're getting anywhere. I've offered more than one plausible reason for the war, and speculation that it may have even been worth it. If anyone wants to refute those, then please.
The Soviet Union, an example of a communist state, diminished such liberties as the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry but this made me laugh. According to this, war should be declared on pretty much all western countries in the world, starting with the USA, since freedom of speech and freedom of the press is being curtailed in "the war against terrorism"[sic].
Didn't the current president of the USA pretty much call the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of innocent people, traitors?
As for war, when the outcome is what you want, it surves a purpose. When the enemy wins and invades your country, war is horrible. The kharaa and the rines both know that they are right, whoever wins is proven right. War solves arguments like nothing else.
"War - It's fantastic" Hot Shots
I'm sorry but this made me laugh. According to this, war should be declared on pretty much all western countries in the world, starting with the USA, since freedom of speech and freedom of the press is being curtailed in "the war against terrorism"[sic].
Didn't the current president of the USA pretty much call the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of innocent people, traitors?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er...no...it was more like he called the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of <b>Al-Qaeda</b>, traitors. I don't think he used those words, but thats the idea anyway.
Like it or not, political debate very frequently revolves around semantics. He who defines the terms wins the audience. So was the government tapping the lines of innocent citizens or Al-Qaeda members? Well, both actually. Which one you mention depends on how you want the audience to perceive the act. Likewise, did the journalists proclaim to the world that the US was listening to US citizens, or that the US was listening to Al-Qaeda? Again, its both, but which one you mention is based on how you want the audience to think. You can point out that the journalists exposed government tapping of innocent citizens (a good thing) if you want to defend their acts as noble, or you can point out that they simultaneously gave away state secrets to Al-Qaeda (a bad thing) if you want to paint their actions as traitorous. In practice, its virtually impossible to do one without the other, and the real argument should revolve around which aspect was more important. But it never does. Instead the argument is about maneuvering to simply conceal one aspect entirely and make the issue black and white.
That said, if you want to contend that Freedom of Speech and of the Press is being curtailed here, I'm going to have to object. We may not have as much freedom of speech now as we did at certain points in the recent past, but we're coming off a very high peak in historical terms. The freedom we have now, even if its slightly less than it was say 20 years ago (which is debateable), is still orders of magnitude greater than anything offered under communist regimes. Its still immensely more freedom than people have enjoyed for most of recorded history. Its still better than the freedom offered in most other nations even today. From what I've heard, the US isn't in the very top slot for world freedom, but we're still in the top 10, among the hundreds of nations spanning the earth.
America is still a bastion of freedom, loath as some are to admit it.
Er...no...it was more like he called the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of <b>Al-Qaeda</b>, traitors. I don't think he used those words, but thats the idea anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SWBell is my phone provider. SWBell's lines were mass-tapped by the NSA. My line was tapped by the NSA. I am not and have never been a member of Al-Qaeda. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post and I want my money back for the bandwidth I wasted downloading it.
Stating outright that you ignored most of my argument is a very poor way to counter it.
Er...no...it was more like he called the journalists, who revealed the government tapping of the phones of <b>Al-Qaeda</b>, traitors. I don't think he used those words, but thats the idea anyway.
Like it or not, political debate very frequently revolves around semantics. He who defines the terms wins the audience. So was the government tapping the lines of innocent citizens or Al-Qaeda members? Well, both actually. Which one you mention depends on how you want the audience to perceive the act. Likewise, did the journalists proclaim to the world that the US was listening to US citizens, or that the US was listening to Al-Qaeda? Again, its both, but which one you mention is based on how you want the audience to think. You can point out that the journalists exposed government tapping of innocent citizens (a good thing) if you want to defend their acts as noble, or you can point out that they simultaneously gave away state secrets to Al-Qaeda (a bad thing) if you want to paint their actions as traitorous. In practice, its virtually impossible to do one without the other, and the real argument should revolve around which aspect was more important. But it never does. Instead the argument is about maneuvering to simply conceal one aspect entirely and make the issue black and white.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tapping the phones of Al Qaeda isn't newsworthy. It's expected, and there's a process for that involving warrants and such. They reported that he was doing it without warrants, which happens to be illegal.
And as for tapping YOUR phones, you're not a terrist so you have nothing to hide! But if you WERE a terrist you could do all kinds of mean things with impunity. So better safe than sorry, eh? Hey, it's not like they're selling tapes of you to the highest bidder.
Basically, rights of privacy are a danger and a menace and it was high time they got stripped so we can get some proper protection.
When it comes down to it, I <i>want</i> my government to be tapping Al-Qaeda's phones, and at the same time I'd rather they not tap my own phones. So how do you pull that trick off, given that most Al-Qaeda operatives in the US aren't exactly going to admit to being Al-Qaeda so we can find them?
Thats not necessarily an easy question to answer. And the Bush Administration's first attempt at answering it seems to have been rejected as the wrong choice. But thats a far cry from claiming that the US is just as bad as communism at curtailing freedom of speech. The restrictions communist nations place on free speech are orders of magnitude worse than anything we have here.
The restrictions communist nations place on free speech are orders of magnitude worse than anything we have here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lenin didn't come out of nowhere and say "NO MORE TALKING LIKE ANYTHING BAD IS GOING TO HAPPEN, KAY?" they had to start somewhere, too.
You're assuming the Russians started with freedom, and the communists gradually took it away. In fact, the Russian commoners NEVER had much freedom to speak of, and all Lenin had to do was not give them anything more.
So when you say "he had to start somewhere", I wonder if you really know exactly where he DID start?