juansavage1

My dad also thought that we weren't there to win the war, but we should have. That wasn't the majority of the opposition to the war, however. Neither was it strict non-interventionists. You have to admit that it was mostly the left who didn't want to fight communists. I think they didn't want to because they sympathized with them and not with the American position. By the way, liberals who did want to fight communists (and, who used social science to promote conservative ideas) formed a intellectual movement called Neo-conservatism. The facts about the surrender to Vietnam was that Dems had a super-majority because of Watergate and didn't want to defend the South when the North broke its treaty. Had Watergate not occurred, we would have a Communist Vietnam supported by the Soviets or Chinese and a free Vietnam. The Cambodian genocide wouldn't have occurred either since we would have prevented the Communists from taking over there as well. Vietnam was too busy re-educating and killing its own people to stop the Cambodian genocide, if they cared about genocide in the first place, and only invaded Cambodia when Pol Pot attacked Vietnam to retrieve some disputed territory.

You don't think Israel conforms to the normal rules of war or tries to limit civilian casualties?

As for Fox News, I think I have a simple explanation why people criticize it. Are the people here complaining about Fox News mostly liberal? If so, they might not like Fox News because it's not as liberal as they are. But, they want to pretend it's something else besides Fox News being on the other side because that would just be a personal preference, so they complain about something else. Does anybody else think that makes sense?

Thank you for validating my earlier point. I said that leftists sympathize with communists dictators and tend to be skeptical of American power and that that was the main reason they don't support the US military in general (Vietnam and other communist countries used aid from the Soviets and Chinese) and allowed the communists to take over Vietnam and who now don't want to fight ISIS. If Vietnam had been saved from genocidal communists in the same way South Korea was, it would have meant that anti-Communists were right and they were wrong. Now, if leftists felt the same way about ISIS and Communists that they do about Fox News- if Rupert Murdoch had taken over Vietnam instead of the brave Ho Chi Minh (I said they're real enemy is conservatives), they probably would have attacked Vietnam.

I'm responding to admiring Minh, who is responsible for millions of deaths and the advancement of an evil system. Tenacity, hard work, and loyalty can be good qualities, but should we really admire people who use those qualities for evil? It's like admiring a serial killer's ability to plan meticulously. The second question is really meant to gauge whether you think all Western influence should be resisted equally. I think there are objectively good and bad ideas that are universal, and some that are neutral. We all agree that systematic rape, like what the Soviet Union perpetrated on Eastern Germany and ISIS is doing now and genocide are things that all nations should oppose. People disagree on other things.

It's hard for countries that conform to Western norms of warfare to fight irregular forces who don't care about civilians.

Question #1: If your country could be under Western influence or Communist influence (China and/or Russia), which would you choose? Question #2: Aid to some countries in Africa are tied to certain ideas about environment and human sexuality. Should those countries resist the West?

The constitution is whoever's sitting on the court. It evolves.

I see that we've had a couple of honest, thoughtful and non-insulting posts in a row talking about their philosophy of defense and intervention so I can leave right after adding to my previously stated intervention and defense stance: I do feel that all people are brothers and should help each other, while maintaining a preference for the legitimate groups I belong to. Nationality is a legitimate interest group, for example, while race is not. Woops, one more thing. If you're against intervention in principle, that means no Korea or WWII after we eliminated the threat to ourselves, which occurred somewhere in 1943-44. No anti-Soviet effort that kept Western Europe free.

Doesn't it make sense that if you don't see somebody or a movement as a threat or you sympathize with that person or movement, you wouldn't want to fight them or feel the need to defend yourself against them? If you thought MInh or Castro or other anti-Americans had a point, you would want to hear what they say and not just consider them enemies. Some of you think Fox News is evil and that we should attack it at every opportunity or at least defend against its lies. If you just thought it was a news outlet with a different, but legitimate point of view, you wouldn't feel the need to surf Media Matters every day.

Equally smart people can disagree on interventions or whether to intervene at all. It has to do with goals and values. Earlier, we heard the opinion that the US messes up the world. That's one reason to oppose a strong military. Another reason, which needn't conflict with the first, is that some people sympathize more with those opposed to the US. Many, many Americans admire Fidel Castro and admired Ho Chi Min, for example. I'm glad we can all come to some understanding of each other, even if we still disagree on whether the US should have and/or use power to further its interests or a particular world view

I'll answer the question above since it's a real question and not an insult, as I'm used to (nobody here seriously refuted my main claim that the size of the military correlates with your view of the US and its enemies and that certain segments of the population didn't mind that much to see the US fail at some of its overseas efforts). Anyways, Vladdy, you asked why it's OK for the US to start wars. I see the battles against fascism and communism, the two examples I used, as defensive, mostly, when it was a shooting war. By defensive, I don't mean that they attacked the US, but that the Soviets and Chinese were using its power to encourage a certain outcome in a civil war. I also see those two ideologies as evil and worth fighting. Let me ask you: Do you think the US should have used its influence to encourage South Africa from continuing apartheid? If you do, then you're in favor of influencing other countries. The second question on Isis. It may be true that Saddam Hussein and his sons would have prevented ISIS. It's also true that had Obama signed an agreement with the Iraqi government, we could have prevented ISIS. The only reason I brought up ISIS and Vietnam is to explain why people disagree on how big the US military should be. Some people see the US as a negative influence in the world and some see it as a positive one.

The example I used was the American abandonment of South Vietnam. Efficiency is one thing. Thinking that we should spend about as much as another just to be fair is another.

Everybody wants their ideology to prevail. That's why people vote. When the ideology is backed by military aggression, you fight back with a military. The Nazis and the Soviets used military force so we had to have a strong military to oppose them. This is pretty basic stuff, people. I won't use anecdotal evidence like my conversations with people, many of whom delight in reminding people how Vietnam was a "failure." I will note that people on the left tend to not support America's anti-communist efforts and are willing to cut dictators like Castro slack while opposing other, more benign, dictatorships. Also, it is a fact that when North Vietnam violated the treaty they signed and invaded South Vietnam, it was the left that abandoned them, despite the protests of President Ford. Right now, I don't see a lot of angst about Isis taking over Iraq, except as it helps in bashing Bush, even though we could have prevented it and still have a chance to do so. People who think the US is a force for evil want a smaller military, generally, although other people just might want more efficiency.

It depends on the situation. When it's a clash of civilizations or ideologies, I want mine to prevail. That's why I think it was important to confront the two evil ideologies of the twentieth century- totalitarian communism and expansionist fascism. When it's between two groups, localized, I'd like the US to do what it can to bring peace, within reason and applying prudence and wisdom. Obviously, I'm speaking in generalities. I think most people who went to college at a certain time remember the pro-Soviet/anti-American vibe during that time and still now, especially people who read and follow Marxist perspectives like Zinn and Chomsky. You may also remember the bookstores filled with Castro's speeches and the Che t-shirts. If you're different, I believe you. I go by my experience, especially in having known a lot of friends on the left and having been left for a few years in college.

So, if BUSH would have just insisted on a fair constitution, ISIS wouldn't have appeared. But, since Bush didn't insist on a "fair constitution," screw them. The left never ever fails to follow my script. The failure of Iraq, like the failure of Vietnam and the success of the Cuban revolution delights the left to no end. That's why conversation on the topic is impossible- we have different goals.

My wife is Mexican and I always tell her that people pretty much get the government they deserve. As long as people are willing to overlook dishonorable behavior, they're going to get dishonorable politicians. I think we're almost at that point where we completely overlook corruption. These things change. It used be a politician couldn't cheat on their wives or text naked photos of themselves. Now, overt racism is disqualifying, especially for Republicans.

I don't think it's simple white and black hats, but there are degrees of corruption and Dems are more corrupt and dishonest in 2015 America. This is because Dems generally consider personal positions, not behavior, as important and Dems feel they can get away with more since most of the press and popular media is on their side.

Right. I'm a nutjob. Can you name a person on the left who regrets leaving Iraq so that ISIS can take over large parts of the country to behead people? You realize that we could have left a small force there to prevent this, but Obama refused.

How does this relate to the topic? Because if you think the US is a force for good as well as important to our interests, you want a strong military. If you're like a Chomsky guy and see the US as bad guys, then you want a weaker US.

Well, most are probably proud of their son's sacrifice. It really just depends on whether you think the cause is just or not. I think we provided a huge service to the world by preventing communist take overs in Europe and other places and I regret we couldn't do the same in other places either because it was inpractical or the people in power didn't feel the same. You don't, which is fine, as long as we're honest with other.

Bottom line is whether you think Clinton is shady or not and whether a yes answer would change your vote.

So, the corruption that really bothers you is Bush's. What a coincidence! Let's test my theory. Do you think Hillary Clinton might be more than a little dishonest/corrupt/shady? I think most people would agree with that. Are you still voting for her? YES!!!! How do you justify this? Because Bush looked for an excuse to invade Iraq. I rest my case. No investigation established that Bush lied or that 9/11 was an inside job, the latter conclusion being beyond the pale, in my opinion.

My point is that for the modern liberal, personal behavior or corruption is a non-issue. It's a waste of time trying to point out that their candidate is a liar or corrupt.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but both 9/11 and Iraq were investigated.