OT-History Lessons

A person I consider a something of a Lefty emailed me this...oddly enough. " Read it and weep - how not to fight a war! Lets remember
this during the next couple years. In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former Colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30,1975, confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun! to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." On strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war. It was the only way we could bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units, etc. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us. And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to fo! llow the growth of the antiwar govement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us ... those people represented the conscience of America ....part of it's war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor." Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily, the Official newspaper of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Disillusioned with the reality of Vietnamese communism Bui Tin now lives in Paris. LRS "
"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the "lions". Christopher Morton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The article of Bui Tin is very important as the subject it address is going to cost us seas of blood, and guarantee our loss in every military conflict.
We have got to learn that when american forces are engaged in combat descent ends. You open your mouth against the war effort you ass goes to jail..
You do a Jane Fonda or Ramse Clark you get a post and a firing squad. Before the combat begins or when the combat is over then you can demonstrate, speak, and write all you want.
The Independent
Gunner wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jimbo, what you want is a totalitarian state - move.
"the price of freedom is eternal vigilence" - Patrick Henry.
What makes us strong *is* dissent.
"Descent" is something else, friend. Actually decent starts when you eliminate free speech and the sanctity of the individual citizen under the Constitution. Suggest you read the Declaration of Independence a few more times. Eh?
_-_-bear
Jim Dauven wrote:

-- _-_- BEAR Labs - Custom Audio Equipment, Cables, Mods, Repairs - http://www.bearlabs.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BEAR wrote:

What you obviously didn't read was the article by Bui Tin. The NVA counted on and supported (along with leftists world wide) the descent movement in the United States to gain them final victory. The rag head in Iraq and Al Quieda know that too. They know that and are counting on that the descent will grow and force the United States out of the middle east. We will be force to give up Israel and finely or word will mean nothing as a few shots will force us to do what ever a petty tin pot dictator of some third world country wants us to do.
In fact I am coming to the point of agreement. I wish to god that some Rag Head terrorist with nuclear weapons would turn NEW YORK CITY, BOSTON, LAS ANGLES, SAN FRANCISCO PORTLAND and SEATTLE in to a glowing nuclear craters. That would allow the rest of us to purge the nation of the foolishness that these cities have inflicted on this nation.
Also I would like to remind you that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1942 in a case where individual liberty was being curtailed, ( don't remember the cite but remember the quote) "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"
The Independent

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

starts when

under
Of course we would have to suspend elections indefinitely until the war is over. We could not have candidates question the war, it might give comfort to the enemy. Since the war on terrorism is expected to last decades, Bush would not need to worry about the inconvenience of elections.

All wars have events that if they had been different could have changed the outcome of the war. Viet Nam is no different in that respect. If we had fought on we could be still there. Would you be happy at that prospect?
Viet Nam is one of those historical events where our "worst scenario" occurred and we could observe the outcome. We lost in a rout, our dignity was pushed in the mud as we all watched the evacuation from the American embassy in Sigon.
Look how it has worked out. There was no communist monolith taking over South East Asia. Australia is not communist as some predicted. Thailand did not fall. Viet Nam and China did not form a Communist alliance. They are enemies that fought a war a few years later.
American relations with Viet Nam are improving. We are beginning to have trade with Viet Nam. A US Navy warship paid a curtsy visit to Viet Nam! Truly astounding. The worst outcome for America has turned into the best outcome for America.

The days of colonialism are long gone. Americas colony in the Middle East, Israel, is a thing of the past. Israel, like the other colonies, can gain legitimacy by giving the Palestinians their rights or they will be defeated. We can choose to follow them into defeat of we can work to reform Israel. The whites of South Africa choose give up Apartheid and give the Africans their rights. That brought them peace. Israel and America have the same choice.

Your hatred of the Arabs is clear. You sound like Gunner. Unfortunately some of your attitudes infect the thinking of our government. If we are not capable of dealing with the Arabs and their very different culture then we should separate. We should totally withdraw. We should have a live and let live policy. Our current relationship, you hit me and I hit you, will lead to even greater disasters than we have seen so far.
If you are old enough, you might remember the same talk and lies about Viet Nam. That we are doing the same thing again shows how little we have learned. The Arabs will fight long, hard and well for their countries in the same way that we would fight if America were invaded. I would fight along side you and Gunner to throw off the invaders. Why do you thing that the Arabs are any different?
Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:51:11 -0500, "Peter Reilley"

Interesting blind spin (as usual on your part). I dont hate the Arabs, or even the Palistinians as a people. Just those that encourage and act as terrorists. You on the other hand hate Jews in general, and Israelis in particular. Shrug. Ive never said in glowing approval, that the Israelis bomb a school bus full of Pal children. You not only have done so, but have indicated it was necessary.
Sorry Peter..you are the loose cannon here.
Gunner
"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the "lions". Christopher Morton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm Jewish. I don't feel Peter hates me.
I think when Peter admitted Yasser Arafat was not the best leader that said a lot. I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu was a very good leader, either.
I don't agree with much of what Peter posts but I can understand why his perspective is very different from mine.
I also think Peter is much more mature than his main detractor who posts moronic nonsense over and over like: Petey Go Home. I fail to see how this serves any purpose whatsoever.
I think your approach to disagreeing with Peter makes a lot more sense.
jon
wrote:

Unfortunately
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jon banquer wrote:

That is because you are so stupid you can't understand the meaning.
Should I spell it out for you, AGAIN?
Brainwashed Petey endlessly claims hereditary property rights for "Islamic" people. He claims Jews are "invaders". Lying Brainwashed Petey claims it is "heroic" to murder people IF they are Jewish, because simply existing in the place where their souperstition began, is "criminal" (but only for Jews). Brainwashed Petey demands they all be murdered unless they "go home"... Lying Brainwashed Petey claims that only "Arabs" are allowed on the land. He claims hereditary property rights for people who follow a specific religious group. He lies about who was there FIRST.

It was sensible, the FIRST hundred times he spewed the same old lying rhetoric. After dozens of people proved the truth, disproving his lies month after month, then it became moronic to keep proving it...
Brainwashed Petey is living on land which his own claims of hereditary property rights, demand that HE be murdered...
C'mon now Petey, chant with NED:
Brainwashed Petey go "HOME"! Brainwashed Petey go "HOME"! Brainwashed Petey go "HOME"!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well I am not Jewish but I think the jewish thing is over done.
The facts are Moslems killed 30,000 christians on east Timor. Are there any Jews or Americans government agencies on east Timor I don't think so.
Moslems killed 20,000 to 30,000 Hindus in Kashmir Are there any jews or American government agencies in Kashmir I don't think so. Moslems hav killed 2000-3000 christians in Pakistan. Are there any jews or American Government agencies in Packistan Well I guess there must be that they are keeping a VLP (very low profile) Moslems have killed 2,000,000 christians in the Sudan Are there any Jews or American Government Agencies in The Sudan I don't think so.
Moslems have killed 100,000 to 200,000 christians and burned over 500 churches in Nigeria. Are there any jews or American Government Agencies in Nigeria There probably are but again they are keeping a VLP
Moslems have killed Christians and Jews in the Balkans.
Bottom line, Moslems don't need a reason to kill any body they just do it for the hell of it.
The Independent jon banquer wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim,
I'm sure that both sides are over done. The answer is having leaders who can work together on both sides. IMO, until Yasser Arafat dies of old age, or decides to completely remove himself from the process on his own accord and a Palestinian leader steps in who wants peace and has to power and the support to make it, there never will be peace in the mideast. Even then, it will be an uneasy peace.
What's needed are people like Sadat and Begin.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0exe0
In my personal opinion, if Yasser Arafat had a wife that looked like this, things might be better.
http://www.noor.gov.jo/index.htm
jon
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You stopped to soon;
Christians killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust.
Christians killed unknown numbers in their effort to convert the heathens of the world to Christianity. The numbers are unknown because no one bothered to count.
Those two trump anything that Moslems have done in their history. So you see, the Moslems and the Christians are not so different.
Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Reilley wrote:

Well DUH!
It's all the SAME ancient ignorant middle eastern souperstition. One of the primary functions is exportation of ignorance, hatred & murder all around the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary wrote:

That better be chicken soup!
Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Abrasha wrote:

Not any kind of soup... And it's not "souper"... Nor is it "super"...
Just ancient, ignorant, murdering, middle eastern souperstition...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

When did France become democratic?
--
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old
parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Reilley wrote:

I'll probably get flamed from every direction for this, but...
There is no reason to expect that democracy (or any other kind of security or freedom) will EVER happen in the Middle East. In fact, the odds are stacked seriously against that. If, for the purposes of this discussion, we define democracy (and freedom, liberty, etc.) as an official (and at least partially real) recognition that the state belongs to its citizens, instead of the other way around, then I can think of exactly ONE time in all of human history where that idea has taken root and grown successfully.
The Magna Carta was the seed from which EVERY existing human culture that might be called democratic, or based in any way on individual rights, has grown. Prior to 1215, every human culture of significant size or influence that had ever existed was based in some way on the unconditional rule of individulas from just three special classes: 1. Warlords, who gained and maintained possession and/or control of land and populations by force. 2. Monarchs, who inherited and maintained possession and/or control of land and populations by heredity (usually passed down from from someone who started his dynasty as a warlord). And 3. Religious rulers, who mainained possession and/or control of land and populations through a belief that they had some special divinity, or access to a diety, which empowered them in ways not possible for mere mortals. The modern world has also added a fourth category: "Popular Rulers", as in communist cultures, who gain and maintain possession and/or control of land and populations in the same way as religious rulers, but who claim that their special status and capactiy to rule comes from dieties they called "The Proletariate" or "The Masses" or "The Will of the People", rather than from conventional gods.
And, except for the cultures which have descended from 13th century England, or those few which have successfuly emulated English-style liberty, there are no free cultures in the world today, that I can think of.
It's true that other attempts have been made, and that other times and places have produced the beginnings of democracy; but none of those survived or succeeeded. I'm thinking of ancient Greece, with its relative freedom of thought and expression, which provided the environment occupied by Socrates, Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc. For the members of the "empowered classes", Greece was a pretty good place to live. But it was also the center of an empire, conquered and ruled by a warlord; and its freedoms were reserved exclusively for the empowered classes, and not to the majority of its population, who were slaves and subjugates.
Rome had a senate, and the beginnings of a parlaimentary government; but that too was only for the priviliged few, and served mostly as a means to rule an empire of force. By the time Rome had reached the end of its lifetime, there were more slaves in Rome than there were Romans.
And, of course, neither Greece nor Italy is exactly a world power today.
England and it's philosophical descendants, however, represent a unique and relatively long-lived departure from the norm. The US, Canada, Australia, and other parts of what used to be the British Empire, all enjoy relative freedom, and relatively high standards of living, and security, and overall prosperity, compared to the rest of the world. Nations like Fance, Germany, Japan, and even, to some extent, Mexico, are examples of nations that had no long or continuous history of developing freedom; but which abandoned their pasts and embraced the English model when major upheavals (usually wars) created a discontiuity in their histories, and provided the opportunity to change course. It's no accident that parlaimentary style governments exist in so many different places, and despite so many different histories. When a culture needs or wants to bury its tyrants and try something new, there is really only one successful model to borrow from the entire history of humankind.
This idea has two important implications in the Middle East, I think. First, places like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palistine, etc., have no history or tradition of even THINKING in ways that are consistent with freedom or democracy of any kind. They aren't accustomed to thinking in terms of individual rights that aren't routinely compromised by violence, religious law, or both. And, they can't BECOME accustomed to that kind of thinking in any short time period. It's taken dozens of generations for English-style freedom to become the norm in those parts of the world that use it. The Mid-East is not going to make a spontaneous transformation in any less time. In fact, given the general animosity of the Islamic world for the West, it's likely to take LONGER that it did in English-descended cultures.
And, there seems to be no hope for any serious discontinuity that will offer the Mid East an opportunity for sudden change. Even today, when Iraq has been invaded and conquered by Western powers, the conquering armies are taking special pains NOT to disrupt the existing culture. We're unwilling to demand or expct that Iraquis, or Afghanis, or whoever, abandon the traditions that guide their lives, their thinking, and their view of the world; but we still hope they'll find a way to integrate democracy into some of the most non-democratic ideologies imaginable. If you think that "seamless hybrids" are tough to do in a computer, just try doing them in a whole country, or in an entire region of the world where non-democratic culture has roots that go back THOUSANDS of years!
(It's worth noting that the Code of Hamurabi is probably the very first and most important example of working formal law, and of limits of any kind on rulers and their friends. But that code, and the principles it represented, were long ago abandoned and forgotten in the Mid East, and have been replaced by Islamic law, and by combinations of religious rulers and warlords.
If the Islamic world doesn't grow democratic ideas on its own (and it shows no indication that it can, or that it wants to), or if the traditions and momentum of thousands of years aren't brought to a sudden (and probably violent) end, and replaced at gunpoint by something else (as with the end of Imperial Japan, or of the Kaiser's Germany), then the probability that democracy ever CAN take root in the Mid East is essentially nill. Western leaders who imagine that deposing a single ruler, or removing a single government, or offering bribes and favors even to millions of civilians, will change the fundamental characters of some of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and will do so in less than a thousand years or so, are completely clueless.
We're supposed to be engaged in something called "nation building"; but anyone who's ever done ANY kind of successful building will tell you that you CAN'T build on the site of existing stuff unless you're willing to do some serious demolition first. I'm not advocating demolition. I don't claim that it's our job or our business to tell the folks in the Middle East how to run their countries. But if we're going to tell them, and if we're really going to build new nations, then we need to be honest with everyone, including ourselves, about the fact that buldozers and excavators always come first, before the carpenters and bricklayers can even pretend to start work.
KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
|Peter Reilley wrote: |> |> Good point. It does take some time to go from throwing off the old order |> to a new system that offers everyone true freedom and liberty. France had |> to go through some rough times before they became democratic. How |> long did it take America to go from our revolution to everyone having |> equal rights. There was a civil war in that transition if you remember. |> |> There is no reason to expect that democracy will immediately follow |> the expulsion of foreigners from that region. The will likely have the |> same growing pains that the rest of us experienced. | | I'll probably get flamed from every direction for this, but... | | There is no reason to expect that democracy (or any other kind of |security or freedom) will EVER happen in the Middle East. In fact, the |odds are stacked seriously against that. If, for the purposes of this |discussion, we define democracy (and freedom, liberty, etc.) as an |official (and at least partially real) recognition that the state |belongs to its citizens, instead of the other way around, then I can |think of exactly ONE time in all of human history where that idea has |taken root and grown successfully. | | The Magna Carta was the seed from which EVERY existing human culture |that might be called democratic, or based in any way on individual |rights, has grown. Prior to 1215, every human culture of significant |size or influence that had ever existed was based in some way on the |unconditional rule of individulas from just three special classes: 1. |Warlords, who gained and maintained possession and/or control of land |and populations by force. 2. Monarchs, who inherited and maintained |possession and/or control of land and populations by heredity (usually |passed down from from someone who started his dynasty as a warlord). |And 3. Religious rulers, who mainained possession and/or control of land |and populations through a belief that they had some special divinity, or |access to a diety, which empowered them in ways not possible for mere |mortals. The modern world has also added a fourth category: "Popular |Rulers", as in communist cultures, who gain and maintain possession |and/or control of land and populations in the same way as religious |rulers, but who claim that their special status and capactiy to rule |comes from dieties they called "The Proletariate" or "The Masses" or |"The Will of the People", rather than from conventional gods. | | And, except for the cultures which have descended from 13th century |England, or those few which have successfuly emulated English-style |liberty, there are no free cultures in the world today, that I can think of. | | It's true that other attempts have been made, and that other times |and places have produced the beginnings of democracy; but none of those |survived or succeeeded. I'm thinking of ancient Greece, with its |relative freedom of thought and expression, which provided the |environment occupied by Socrates, Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc. |For the members of the "empowered classes", Greece was a pretty good |place to live. But it was also the center of an empire, conquered and |ruled by a warlord; and its freedoms were reserved exclusively for the |empowered classes, and not to the majority of its population, who were |slaves and subjugates. | | Rome had a senate, and the beginnings of a parlaimentary government; |but that too was only for the priviliged few, and served mostly as a |means to rule an empire of force. By the time Rome had reached the end |of its lifetime, there were more slaves in Rome than there were Romans. | | And, of course, neither Greece nor Italy is exactly a world power today. | | England and it's philosophical descendants, however, represent a |unique and relatively long-lived departure from the norm. The US, |Canada, Australia, and other parts of what used to be the British |Empire, all enjoy relative freedom, and relatively high standards of |living, and security, and overall prosperity, compared to the rest of |the world. Nations like Fance, Germany, Japan, and even, to some |extent, Mexico, are examples of nations that had no long or continuous |history of developing freedom; but which abandoned their pasts and |embraced the English model when major upheavals (usually wars) created a |discontiuity in their histories, and provided the opportunity to change |course. It's no accident that parlaimentary style governments exist in |so many different places, and despite so many different histories. When |a culture needs or wants to bury its tyrants and try something new, |there is really only one successful model to borrow from the entire |history of humankind. | | This idea has two important implications in the Middle East, I |think. First, places like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palistine, etc., |have no history or tradition of even THINKING in ways that are |consistent with freedom or democracy of any kind. They aren't |accustomed to thinking in terms of individual rights that aren't |routinely compromised by violence, religious law, or both. And, they |can't BECOME accustomed to that kind of thinking in any short time |period. It's taken dozens of generations for English-style freedom to |become the norm in those parts of the world that use it. The Mid-East |is not going to make a spontaneous transformation in any less time. In |fact, given the general animosity of the Islamic world for the West, |it's likely to take LONGER that it did in English-descended cultures. | | And, there seems to be no hope for any serious discontinuity that |will offer the Mid East an opportunity for sudden change. Even today, |when Iraq has been invaded and conquered by Western powers, the |conquering armies are taking special pains NOT to disrupt the existing |culture. We're unwilling to demand or expct that Iraquis, or Afghanis, |or whoever, abandon the traditions that guide their lives, their |thinking, and their view of the world; but we still hope they'll find a |way to integrate democracy into some of the most non-democratic |ideologies imaginable. If you think that "seamless hybrids" are tough |to do in a computer, just try doing them in a whole country, or in an |entire region of the world where non-democratic culture has roots that |go back THOUSANDS of years! | | (It's worth noting that the Code of Hamurabi is probably the very |first and most important example of working formal law, and of limits of |any kind on rulers and their friends. But that code, and the principles |it represented, were long ago abandoned and forgotten in the Mid East, |and have been replaced by Islamic law, and by combinations of religious |rulers and warlords. | | If the Islamic world doesn't grow democratic ideas on its own (and |it shows no indication that it can, or that it wants to), or if the |traditions and momentum of thousands of years aren't brought to a sudden |(and probably violent) end, and replaced at gunpoint by something else |(as with the end of Imperial Japan, or of the Kaiser's Germany), then |the probability that democracy ever CAN take root in the Mid East is |essentially nill. Western leaders who imagine that deposing a single |ruler, or removing a single government, or offering bribes and favors |even to millions of civilians, will change the fundamental characters of |some of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and will do so in less than a |thousand years or so, are completely clueless. | | We're supposed to be engaged in something called "nation building"; |but anyone who's ever done ANY kind of successful building will tell you |that you CAN'T build on the site of existing stuff unless you're willing |to do some serious demolition first. I'm not advocating demolition. I |don't claim that it's our job or our business to tell the folks in the |Middle East how to run their countries. But if we're going to tell |them, and if we're really going to build new nations, then we need to be |honest with everyone, including ourselves, about the fact that buldozers |and excavators always come first, before the carpenters and bricklayers |can even pretend to start work. | |KG
Not quite as hopeless as you make it out to be KG. Look at pre-WWII Japan with their Monarchy. The idiot still rides his steed, but the proletariat is as modernized as any Western Civilization, and all this just in the last 50 years, not the thousands you portend.
Lg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lawrence Glickman wrote: > > Not quite as hopeless as you make it out to be KG. Look at pre-WWII > Japan with their Monarchy. The idiot still rides his steed, but the > proletariat is as modernized as any Western Civilization, and all > this just in the last 50 years, not the thousands you portend.
Are you saying that Japan was not a genuine monarchy BEFORE WW2? If so, then I disagree. My point was that Japan, at the end of WW2, was a good example of a nation and culture whose history, traditions, and momentum, had been brought to a screeching halt. That's what created the opportunity for sudden and dramatic change. (And, it didn't hurt that someone provided the rules for change, and insisted that they be taken seriously.) It's true that Japan has fully and truly joined the modern world, and the community of nations that I'd consider free and democratic, during the last 60 years; but they didn't do that without a major, and painful, and forceful jump-start from a culture that had almost 750 years of continuous practice at freedom and democracy, starting with 13th century England.
As long as that screeching halt stuff isn't allowed or included in our dealings with the Mid East, the opportunity for short term change just won't exist. And if Western armies keep meddling in the region WITHOUT disrupting the fundamentals of the pre-existing cultures, then it seems to me that the most likely kinds of long term change will all include an INCREASE in the extent to which the West is viewed as distant, hostile, evil, and unwelcome in every way.
And history has shown clearly, on countless occasions, that a common, constant, visible enemy - especially one that's viewed as a threat to the most basic principles and beliefs of an entire culture - is the perfect ticket to power for an endless stream of increasingly dangerous and hostile leaders.
Just look at what the US has done, and accepted, from its own leaders, as part of our "war on terror." If THIS nation can be conviced to fight two distant and costly wars, and to tolerate increased government intervention in our daily lives ("security concerns"), and can live with the suspension of some of our most basic ideas about "due process" for people accused or suspected of certain kinds of crimes, then what kinds of madness would be tolerated, and perhaps even welcomed, by cultures that are already less stable, more easily galvanized by holy fervor, and more accustomed to warfare and violence, than the West? I fear that Saddam Hussein, and Muhammed Omar, etc., will not be the last or the worst. And the more we do to make ouselves unwelcome, WITHOUT accomplishing major changes that go right to the roots of the cultures themselves, the more we encourage the kind of frenzied enmity that will bring our worst nightmares into positions of power and influence.
Please understand, I'm NOT advocating a more aggressive or confrontational approach to the Mid East. I just don't think our stated goals are possible without that. If we aren't willing to spend the money, and spill the blood, and take the risks involved in demolishing old cultures and nations so that new ones really CAN be built, then we shouldn't pretend that we can actually do any good. We can change our policy, or we can change our ideas about the tactics that existing policies demand from us; but we can't escape the terrible consequences of pretending that half-assed measures will work.
KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Get away from machine tools and you really are ignorant, aren't you, Kirk ? No, Japan was NOT a "genuine monarchy before WW II." Or okay, maybe it was - DECADES before. They had been a fascist state run by the militarists with a puppet monarch since before the turn of the century. That's been written about and documented anywhere and everywhere you look.
When you start off with false premises, all you can come up with is false conclusions. GIGO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Excitable Boy wrote:

And when you start out wanting to bitch at somebody, you can always find a way, whether it actually makes sense or not.
My first post in this thread named a whole class of ruling types, and was not limited to literal monarchs. And, for the purposes of this discussion, I defined the difference between freedom/democracy and everything else as "an official (and at least partially real) recognition that the state belongs to its citizens, instead of the other way around". Whether the emperor pulled all the stings personally, or they were pulled instead by a whole gang of thugs, Japan clearly didn't qualify as much of a democracy until its chain of command was violently broken at the end of WW2, and it was compelled to start almost from scratch, and to try something much different from where it had been, or where it had been heading.
And it was THAT contention that LG and I were discussing subsequent posts.
And when, in your mind, did I become non-ignorant in regard to machine tools? You seem to bark at anything you read, sometimes. That makes it sorta hard to know what you actually think about any topic. Makes it hard to care, too.
KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.