Fun fact about US military spending

[HaloMagic]

One of the board's most liberal member and one of the board's most conservative member both extolled the virtues of Ho Chi Minh.

You're probably so caught up in "anyone who likes things I disagree with is a dirty liberal" that I bet you don't know who was who.

Edited May 31, 2015 by HaloMagic

[juansavage1]

By your logic, then, leftists and conservatives both liked Minh. Would a survey of, say, the National review and the Nation from the sixties and seventies (research) show that both had the same opinion of Minh? Polls would show the same, you think?

I'm making it clear, using facts like voting patterns, as well as personal experience that what people think about the need for the military is related to how they see the US and it's enemies. I didn't say you were dirty or even wrong. People who like communists like Castro and Minh and see Fox News as the locus of evil in the world are probably for reduced defense spending.

You've shown neither the ability to reason nor any facts at all, with all due respect to your dads and room mates.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Vegas Halo Fan]

1968 was hardly a conventional election, or a referendum on anything. Robert Kennedy, whose election as president was pretty much a foregone conclusion, was assassinated after winning the California primary.

[Crampknees]

People who like communists like Castro and Minh and see Fox News as the locus of evil in the world are probably for reduced defense spending. 

==================================================

 

Yup, even named my chihuahuas Che and Chi. Yep, FOX News should be considered a hate group and my idea to reduce defense spending is quit going to war where you don't belong.  Am I a commie?

[juansavage1]

Nixon bombed North Vietnam, a popular move at the time, He also promised that he would leave a Vietnam free from Soviet and Chinese influence, which he did.

 

I'd say if you name your affectionately name your pets after communists, you might be one, in the same way I'd assume somebody who named their dogs Hitler and Eva were Nazis. There are many Che supporters who are just ignorant kids (My parents are Cuban) so you might be one of those as well.

[TobiasFunke]

Kurt's a pinko

[juansavage1]

Here's my assertion, step by step. I can waste time finding polls supporting each one, but I'd rather you just accept the obvious. I'm not even saying which position is correct and I won't argue it because arguing these things is a waste of time-different values. So, tell me where I'm wrong:

 

Leftists have minimized the communist/terrorist threat through the years. True or false?

 

Leftists have tended to want less military spending over the years. True or false?

 

Leftists have sometimes extolled the virtues of communists like Castro, Minh, and Mao while excusing terrorist behavior as caused by imperialism or economics. Yes or no?

 

I think these three are related, logically. Yes, there are now Libertarians and your grandfather this or that and your conservative neighbor loves Minh and your commie neighbor wants more B2 bombers, but we're generalizing. Are these things generally true?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I was thinking the same thing. I don't see Chinese military personnel getting paid a whole lot. I bet if they got paid like our soldiers the list would look different

 

From an article on Chinese military pay:

 

China's military salary structure is similar to other countries’. In terms of salary level, China’s level is comparatively low. "For example, a U.S. colonel who has served in the military for 30 years will have a monthly salary of $10,000. However, the salary of a Chinese who has served in the military for 30 years is just 8,000 or 9,000 yuan,” said Zhang.

 

At the current exchange rate, 9,000 yuan is roughly $1,500. And this is their senior officers.

 

The whole article, if you want to read it, from Window on Chinese Armed Forces.

 

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-01/19/content_6314553.htm

Edited May 31, 2015 by Vegas Halo Fan

[HaloMagic]

but we're generalizing.

Oh, so you are just pulling bullshit straight out of your ass. Cool.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Nixon bombed North Vietnam, a popular move at the time, He also promised that he would leave a Vietnam free from Soviet and Chinese influence, which he did.

 

Funny, I seem to remember Americans and Vietnamese dependents fleeing Saigon just as the North Vietnamese were about to overrun it. My bad.

[juansavage1]

Yes. Now you're getting it. In 1973, Nixon had bombed the North into submission and the North agreed to a partitioned Vietnam. The Americans agreed to protect the South from the North and it's communist supporters. When the North did attack, the Democrats in Congress refused to follow Ford and help the South. That's when you got the helicopters, to the delight of the left.

Funny, I seem to remember Americans and Vietnamese dependents fleeing Saigon just as the North Vietnamese were about to overrun it. My bad.

[HaloMagic]

The left loved this photo:

almost as much as the right loved this photo:

Amirite Juan?

[juansavage1]

First, is anything I said not true?

Second, please name the leftists who regret not helping the south fight back against the north or who criticized Minh for breaking the treaty. You can include family members.

[HaloMagic]

Second, please name the leftists who regret not helping the south fight back against the north or who criticized Minh for breaking the treaty. You can include family members.

Can I instead name the righties who were happy we left and stopped involving ourselves over there to kill and be killed?

[juansavage1]

I asked you first. It was one party that refused to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. They had a super majority because of Watergate. I've never heard any liberal regret that. I think almost all Republicans supported South Vietnam.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

First, is anything I said not true?

Second, please name the leftists who regret not helping the south fight back against the north or who criticized Minh for breaking the treaty. You can include family members.

 

Not helping the South fight back against the North? Then what were we doing over there all of those years?

 

This is far past ignorant.

[HaloMagic]

I think almost all Republicans supported South Vietnam.

There you go again.

[juansavage1]

There you go again.

There I go again, stating facts. Why is it hard for you to just accept reality? Maybe you agree with them. Fine, but just be honest.

[HaloMagic]

"Almost all republicans supported South Vietnam" is a fact?

Define supported. Because I can think of quite a few in both my private life and who served in our government who stated their happiness in leaving Vietnam.

[juansavage1]

First, politics were a little different in the 70s. There were many conservative Dems in the south and the GOP had liberals (GOP was still pro choice). It was when the "New Left" took over the Dems that conservative Dems moved to the GOP, so it was really right versus left. Still, here's some background including a final vote on whether to support the South militarily. If I had time, I'd look up each congressman and divide between liberal and conservative. I'd correlate that with whether they voted for a strong military or not.

The classic case of a Congress voting to override a presidential assurance to a foreign leader came in 1975. When President Nixon signed the Paris Peace Accords with North Vietnam in 1972, the spirit and letter of the agreement guaranteed South Vietnam’s independence; what’s more, President Nixon promised Nguyen Van Thieu, President of South Vietnam at the time, that the United States would come to the South’s rescue if the North broke the agreement and attacked. But the PPA was not a treaty, and the Senate did not ratify it. Nixon was later forced to resign because of his role in the Watergate scandal, and in early 1975 North Vietnam attacked the South. President Ford, seeking to honor both the spirit of President Nixon’s signature to the Paris Peace Accords and his promise to Thieu, asked Congress for money for military aid for South Vietnam.

With overwhelming Democratic support, Congress refused to provide aid and South Vietnam went down the tubes. As the embittered Thieu said in a final address as his country collapsed, “At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American’s word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men.”

One can agree or disagree with Congress’ decision in that case, but there is no doubt that Congress had every right and even a duty to consider the matter of aid to South Vietnam for itself. Just because Nixon wrote Thieu that, as quoted by Richard Holbrooke in The New Republic, “You have my absolute assurance that if Hanoi fails to abide by the terms of this agreement it is my intention to take swift and severe retaliatory action,” did not mean that Congress was bound by these empty words. Nor did the promise of independence in the PPA create a US treaty obligation.

In 1975, South Vietnam was going down in flames and the Ford Administration was fighting to get aid from Congress. In the process, it suggested strongly that Congress was bound to honor what were essentially a series of formal and informal executive undertakings in foreign policy. Senator Jackson took on the Administration’s claims that the United States was bound by Nixon’s promise to support South Vietnam:

Jackson said the Ford administration had intimated that Congress had reneged on “commitments” and “obligations” to the Saigon government. “The fact is,” he continued, “that Congress is being accused of violating commitments and obligations it never heard of…. I call upon the President now to make public and to provide to Congress all documents embodying or reflecting these secret agreements…. We in the Congress cannot play our constitutional role in constructing a coherent foreign policy so long as information to which we are entitled is kept from us.”The White House responded in a statement issued April 9 that former President Nixon had assured South Vietnamese President Thieu in private correspondence that the United States would “react vigorously to major violations” of the Paris peace accords. The “confidential exchanges” between Thieu and Nixon did not differ in substance from what was stated publicly when the accords were signed in January 1973, the statement said, when the U.S. intentions to provide adequate economic and military assistance and to enforce the Paris agreements “were stated clearly and publicly by President Nixon.”

In the final House vote on military aid, 90 Republicans and 46 Democrats voted to uphold Nixon’s agreements with Thieu; 46 Republicans and 200 Democrats voted to repudiate them.

[juansavage1]

1: Most of you were much, much better than the average internet discussion partner, so thanks.

 

2. My main thesis is that people's attitude towards the military has to do with what they think of those countries generally opposed to the US (Communists, Nazis, terrorists in the 20th century) and the role the US plays in the world. Chomsky would be famous examples of the kind of person I'm talking about. There are others, like strict pacifists and Libertarians, but these are rare now and practically non-existent historically. AS you know, Chomsky tried to minimize the Cambodian genocide until the Vietnamese invaded. He tried to maximize US misdeeds.

 

The best story in connection with thesis is Pete Seeger. Seeger, as you know was a folk musician and a Communist. When the Soviets signed a treaty with Hitler, Seeger released an anti-war album. As soon as the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, Seeger recalled the album.

 

I think if you correlate what I've discussed, you'll see that my thesis is supportable by facts.

 

Unless there are specific questions addressed to me, I'd like to quietly leave the thread.

[TobiasFunke]

You're wrong on Seeger regarding the time frame. First off it was The Almanac Singers (which he was in) that released the 78s. Second, Their first group of 78s was Songs For John Doe which was an anti-war album when Russia was not involved in the war. Once Germany invaded Russia, they flipped their opinion on the war and made the Dear Mr. President 78s. It had nothing to do with supporting Nazi Germany Juan (as if you know anything about this topic at all) but supporting Russia. Here is the explanationfrom the horses mouth:

Both albums have outstanding songs on it.

[TobiasFunke]

One anti-war song

 

 

Two pro-war song

[nate]

TF is like a ****in encyclopedia.  Love it.

[TobiasFunke]

And regarding Seeger being a part of the Young Communist League (or whatever that group was called), he said in another interview when he was young and very anti-aggression and against corporations duping the government into going to war, at the time the Communists were the only people speaking out against it all. So naturally he sided with them (along with their stance on labor). I'll try to look for that one as well.