Defeatocratic Highlights

[Guest Radagast]

BORINGGGGGGG !!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok then 2smart ... go back and watch 'American Idol'. Paul is always long and so is Bryan, however, I find neither boringgggggg!

Anyway, Bryan, there is no doubt that the VC and N. Vietnamese Regulars suffered greatly in the Tet offensive. However, they took to the hills afterward where they were strong to start with and reorganized. The US had no chance of rooting them out without spending many lives. And for what?? Like them or not, they were popular with the average Vietnamese citizen. The United States was not. Gee, does that sound familiar?

I always used to see that twisted row of dominoes falling to show what would happen if we did not stay in Viet Nam. Horrors!! Look at Viet Nam today. It's not perfect but it's not part of the 'Axis of Evil' either.

And not one domino fell after we departed ... whadayaknow! Big Papa USA can leave and the whole world didn't go to hell. Perhaps we should take a history lesson.

[Bryan]

Anyway, Bryan, there is no doubt that the VC and N. Vietnamese Regulars suffered greatly in the Tet offensive. However, they took to the hills afterward where they were strong to start with and reorganized. The US had no chance of rooting them out without spending many lives.

You're correct that pressing the war would have cost many lives.

And for what?? Like them or not, they were popular with the average Vietnamese citizen. The United States was not. Gee, does that sound familiar?

Not really. If the communists were so popular then why did so many refugees flee South Vietnam after the communists violated the ceasefire agreement and attacked?

http://century.guardian.co.uk/1970-1979/St...,106868,00.html

The biggest obstacle in the way of absolute victory was not the insurgency or even North Vietnam. It was China. China expressed a willingness to engage in full-scale war against the United States if we attacked North Korea in earnest.

I always used to see that twisted row of dominoes falling to show what would happen if we did not stay in Viet Nam. Horrors!! Look at Viet Nam today. It's not perfect but it's not part of the 'Axis of Evil' either.

After killing people and causing them to flee the country for years, they finally got a sniff of what capitalism could do, along with a model of "communist" capitalism to the north in China.

You should probably ignore the fact that delaying the fall of South Vietnam to the communists allowed other SE Asian nations to build their economies to the point where communism was less of a threat.

The other dominoes received time for some glue to set them in place (not counting Laos and Cambodia--they fell to the communists).

And not one domino fell after we departed ... whadayaknow!

Good grief. How did you expunge Laos and Cambodia from your memory?

Big Papa USA can leave and the whole world didn't go to hell. Perhaps we should take a history lesson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah--and let's forget all about Laos, Cambodia, boat people, and forced reeducation camps while we're at it.

Some history lesson.

[Strife767]

BORINGGGGGGG !!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it was so boring you wouldn't reply every single time. I can tell you're lying~

[WilliamK]

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Respondents" does not equal "democrats". Also, "Somewhat likely to have known and taken no action" is quite a different view from "very likely to have participated", yet both would fall within the same 36%. Based only on the information in the linked article, there's no way to know where the respondents fall on that scale any more than to know their party affiliation. I made a brief attempt to find the actual poll questions, but was unsuccessful. Were you able to find them?

Not that the existence of such crackpottery is surprising, nor that such a belief would be found more among democrats than republicans (for the same reason that the "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" imbecility is found more among republicans than democrats). I'm just pointing out that the information in the quoted article fails to establish that this is the case. Surely such a master of logic as yourself will recognize that.

Given that it is nearly a year old and doesn't mention democrats, I doubt this is the poll 2Smart is referring to. Nor would it help his case any if it was.

[Guest Senior Kearny Resident]

Ok then 2smart ... go back and watch 'American Idol'. Paul is always long and so is Bryan, however, I find neither boringgggggg!

Anyway, Bryan, there is no doubt that the VC and N. Vietnamese Regulars suffered greatly in the Tet offensive. However, they took to the hills afterward where they were strong to start with and reorganized. The US had no chance of rooting them out without spending many lives. And for what?? Like them or not, they were popular with the average Vietnamese citizen. The United States was not. Gee, does that sound familiar?

I always used to see that twisted row of dominoes falling to show what would happen if we did not stay in Viet Nam. Horrors!! Look at Viet Nam today. It's not perfect but it's not part of the 'Axis of Evil' either.

And not one domino fell after we departed ... whadayaknow! Big Papa USA can leave and the whole world didn't go to hell. Perhaps we should take a history lesson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your knowledge of history is lacking. After the U.S. left Viet Nam, millions were slaughtered in South Viet Nam and Cambodia. Ever hear the name Pol Pot ??

Stick to what you know best, the Cartoon Network.

[Bryan]

"Respondents" does not equal "democrats".

Correct. It is reasonable to think that the percentage would be higher among Democrats, unless you think that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think that the Bush administration knew about or assisted in the 9/11 attacks.

Also, "Somewhat likely to have known and taken no action" is quite a different view from "very likely to have participated", yet both would fall within the same 36%.

Your placement of quotation marks is misleading.

I agree with you that the 36% should not be marked as thinking the Bush administration responsible for active participation in the attacks. On the other hand, the poll purports to represent the general population--not just Democrats. Among Democrats we should expect higher percentages.

Based only on the information in the linked article, there's no way to know where the respondents fall on that scale any more than to know their party affiliation. I made a brief attempt to find the actual poll questions, but was unsuccessful. Were you able to find them?

I showed you what I found, but the issue isn't sufficiently interesting to me to dig deeper at this time. Maybe I'll change my mind.

Kudos for your willingness to look at the poll numbers more deeply.

Don't let the habit slip when the poll happens to agree with your views.

Not that the existence of such crackpottery is surprising, nor that such a belief would be found more among democrats than republicans (for the same reason that the "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" imbecility is found more among republicans than democrats). I'm just pointing out that the information in the quoted article fails to establish that this is the case. Surely such a master of logic as yourself will recognize that.

You don't see me drawing any conclusions from the poll, do you?

Other than very reasonable ones, that is.

Given that it is nearly a year old and doesn't mention democrats, I doubt this is the poll 2Smart is referring to. Nor would it help his case any if it was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it does help his case, since it shows that the "crackpottery" (I like that term) is widespread and you have reasonably admitted that we should expect to see it more predominantly in the party to the left.

Did 2Smart even claim to be going by a poll? Maybe the problem is you trying to force him to prove something he never intended to prove. His general point seems to be on target even if his numbers are suspect.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Correct.  It is reasonable to think that the percentage would be higher among Democrats, unless you think that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think that the Bush administration knew about or assisted in the 9/11 attacks.

Your placement of quotation marks is misleading.

I agree with you that the 36% should not be marked as thinking the Bush administration responsible for active participation in the attacks.  On the other hand, the poll purports to represent the general population--not just Democrats.  Among Democrats we should expect higher percentages.

I showed you what I found, but the issue isn't sufficiently interesting to me to dig deeper at this time.  Maybe I'll change my mind.

Kudos for your willingness to look at the poll numbers more deeply.

Don't let the habit slip when the poll happens to agree with your views.

You don't see me drawing any conclusions from the poll, do you?

Other than very reasonable ones, that is. 

Actually, it does help his case, since it shows that the "crackpottery" (I like that term) is widespread and you have reasonably admitted that we should expect to see it more predominantly in the party to the left.

Did 2Smart even claim to be going by a poll?  Maybe the problem is you trying to force him to prove something he never intended to prove.  His general point seems to be on target even if his numbers are suspect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The poll that I saw on Fox indicated 30% 0f defeatocrats polled believed Bush had "pre-knowledge of 9/11, which means I suppose, that he approved the attacks, which is just bizarre.

[Stixx3969]

Correct.  It is reasonable to think that the percentage would be higher among Democrats, unless you think that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think that the Bush administration knew about or assisted in the 9/11 attacks.

Your placement of quotation marks is misleading.

I agree with you that the 36% should not be marked as thinking the Bush administration responsible for active participation in the attacks.  On the other hand, the poll purports to represent the general population--not just Democrats.  Among Democrats we should expect higher percentages.

I showed you what I found, but the issue isn't sufficiently interesting to me to dig deeper at this time.  Maybe I'll change my mind.

Kudos for your willingness to look at the poll numbers more deeply.

Don't let the habit slip when the poll happens to agree with your views.

You don't see me drawing any conclusions from the poll, do you?

Other than very reasonable ones, that is. 

Actually, it does help his case, since it shows that the "crackpottery" (I like that term) is widespread and you have reasonably admitted that we should expect to see it more predominantly in the party to the left.

Did 2Smart even claim to be going by a poll?  Maybe the problem is you trying to force him to prove something he never intended to prove.  His general point seems to be on target even if his numbers are suspect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you run for office? It already seems like you are campaigning. I've yet to see a single topic for which you don't have all the answers. Do something useful and get off this board a make a real difference instead of wasting your time here.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Why don't you run for office? It already seems like you are campaigning. I've yet to see a single topic for which you don't have all the answers. Do something useful and get off this board a make a real difference instead of wasting your time here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stixx, you don't understand the topics discussed here, come back when you're out of grade school.

[Stixx3969]

Stixx, you don't understand the topics discussed here, come back when you're out of grade school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the contrary, I understand completely. Oh and by the way, I'm so, so sorry about your leader Jerry Fallwell. Not.

[Guest Loki]

On the contrary, I understand completely. Oh and by the way, I'm so, so sorry about your leader Jerry Fallwell. Not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Be careful son, your "compassion" is slipping. If someone doesn't agree with a liberal "to hell with them," great motto.

I, on the other hand, disagree with a great many of you, I just bear you no ill will. Thanks for playing.

[Guest Radagast]

Be careful son, your "compassion" is slipping.  If someone doesn't agree with a liberal "to hell with them," great motto.

I, on the other hand, disagree with a great many of you, I just bear you no ill will.  Thanks for playing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Loki,

Good to see you again and on this subject, I agree very much, for a change.

There are borders that you don't cross. Speaking badly of the dead is one of them. Jerry Falwell was not one of my favorite people either, however, he played a part in the political history of this country over the last few decades. Love him or hate him, you can't change the mark he made.

Hey, if Larry Flynt can have nice things to say about him, so can anyone on this board. Chill ... it's only politics.