Deadeye Dick

[Amianthus]

It is not a label, it is a definition of conservative legislation from Nixon to W. Bush. The U.S. has become a military encampment with swat teams in every city, Zero-Tolerance policy and practice, propaganda campaigns, spy networks and a system of justice that has become compromise by political appointments.

You realize that most of this referenced legislation was initially promulgated by Democrats?

[Michael Tee]

<< All those Vietnamese who died so willingly weren't dying for communism. They could have given a damn less about Moscow, or economic theory. They were dying for Vietnam and their nationalism. >>

I'm not so sure how true that is, JS.  I think you'd find that Ho Chi Minh was probably a lot more flexible on doctrine than some of the other revolutionary Communist leaders, and that over the years, his policies towards the bourgeoisie, the small businessmen and small landowners, varied according to the overall fortunes of the Revolution.  At times, these elements were welcomed into the Party and later into the National Liberation Front and at times they were more or less discouraged, depending on how much pressure Ho was experiencing from his left to implement land reform programs which sometimes were left on the back burner for base-broadening purposes.  This waxing and waning of accommodation for the bourgeoisie is not (IMHO) so much an indication of nationalist leanings, as an indication of the pragmatism of Uncle Ho. 

Certainly the backbone of the Revolution and the War of National Liberation was the front-line cadres of Party men and women who set a standard of determination and self-sacrifice that remains unequalled to this day.  Those cadres were formed and trained by the Party, and I would expect that, whatever problems in recruiting standards had existed in pre-WWII days due to base-broadening principles, had by the mid-Sixties been resolved in favour of Party discipline and Party indoctrination.  I won't deny the contribution of purely nationalist and other non-Communist sentiment to Vietnam's defeat of America, but to claim that Communism had nothing to do with it is just not the case.

[Michael Tee]

plane:  <<The big looser in Viet Nam was the Vietnameese people.  They lost their freedom , they lost a lot of wealth and they lost an astonishing number of persons .>>

1.  They weren't free, they were a colony of France.
2.  They had no wealth, they were one of the poorest countries in the world.
3.  The persons they lost was the price of freeing themselves from Japanese, French and American occupying forces.  That was the price they paid to be masters in their own home.  I would think most of them consider the sacrifice to have been worth-while.  Why live under foreign domination?  Don't they have a right to be free?

I consider the Vietnamese people to be the big winners despite the loss of 2 million victims to U.S. aggression.  They won freedom from foreign occupation. 

The big loser was the U.S.A. - - hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain, 57,000 Americans killed and countless more maimed and crippled for life, not even counting the number of American victims lost to psycho Vietnam vets who returned as trained killers without scruples or morals of any kind.  And what did America get for all this?  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

[larry]

You realize that most of this referenced legislation was initially promulgated by Democrats?

You are missing the point of my argument. This country has been opperating under a conservative political doctrine since the Arab oil embargo. The Democrats are in control of congress right now, but what are they doing? They are sending war funding bills they know that will not be signed by the president, nor will it be over ridden by congress. Then they get in front of the news camera and tell the people of America, We tried. This is a smoke screen. The truth is the Dem's and the president are not at odds, but they must make look as if they are, because the people of this country are at odds with the conservative doctrine.

The idea that Nixon was a country club republican. Goldwater was a conservative. Rockefeller was a northeast liberal republican, is crap. The fact is they all get their money from the same people. If you want campaign financing you must sell your soul to those in control of the money. The CEO and the Board of Directors of corporations. Both Dem's and Reps cater to that syndicate of elite World crime bosses.

[The_Professor]

Actually, the Arab oil embargo was during Carter's Administration, wasn't it? If so, there has been eight years of Clinton hegemony, correct?

[Amianthus]

Actually, the Arab oil embargo was during Carter's Administration, wasn't it?

No; Nixon. By the time Carter got in, the embargo was over but inflation was rampant.

[larry]

No; Nixon. By the time Carter got in, the embargo was over but inflation was rampant.

Correct. Lets not go off the thread here. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Saudi Royal Family. The Reagan conservative strategy was to sabotage the World economy and that is what the Saudi Royal family did for the conservative cause. The white house was lost because of Watergate and Carter was set up for failure. That was the conspiracy. Six years later, enter, Ronald Reagan, the stage is set and the show does go on. Reagan chose George Bush as vice president because George was Reagan's man in the House Of Saud. The Saudi Royal family has never been apposed to fascism and Reagan, preferred fascism to communism. The Reagan Revolution became the conservative revolution and the idea of the New Contract With America, was an attempt to nullify much of the U.S. Constitution. They, the conservatives, did not achieve all they had hope to achieve, but they did establish a kindlier gentler for of fascism within the United States Of America. What is George W. Bush doing with that authority today?

[Amianthus]

Lets not go off the thread here.

Any time you talk about worldwide conspiracies, you're into la-la land.

[The_Professor]

And it is....(drum roll, please)...The King of ConspiracyTheories!

[Michael Tee]

<<The truth is the Dem's and the president are not at odds, but they must make look as if they are, because the people of this country are at odds with the conservative doctrine. >>

The truth in a nutshell.  Very well said and very true.

[larry]

Any time you talk about worldwide conspiracies, you're into la-la land.

It is not a World Wide conspiracy. It is a conspiracy between a small group of people to influence events in a desired direction. A better plan than the 911 attack could not have been conceived to achieve the objectives of George Bush and the Saudi Royal family. The two primary objectives were, one, control of Iraq oil and, two, killing Osama, and vilifying him in the eyes of his followers in Saudi Arabia. Yes the Saudi Royal family did have two motives for planning and executing the 911 attack. President Bush had one motive for not investigating the Saudi connection. Bush wanted to attack Iraq and blaming 911 on Iraq and Osama was his only opportunity. Motive, means and opportunity. They can all be established, however, Osama, was not wise enough to see he was being set up as the fall guy. Osama had visions of grandeur but he blew it by accepting responsibility for something he did not do. It was not a World Wide conspiracy. It was a conspiracy of a few rich and politically powerful people.

[Plane]

Any time you talk about worldwide conspiracies, you're into la-la land.

It is not a World Wide conspiracy. It is a conspiracy between a small group of people to influence events in a desired direction. A better plan than the 911 attack could not have been conceived to achieve the objectives of George Bush and the Saudi Royal family. The two primary objectives were, one, control of Iraq oil and, two, killing Osama, and vilifying him in the eyes of his followers in Saudi Arabia. Yes the Saudi Royal family did have two motives for planning and executing the 911 attack. President Bush had one motive for not investigating the Saudi connection. Bush wanted to attack Iraq and blaming 911 on Iraq and Osama was his only opportunity. Motive, means and opportunity. They can all be established, however, Osama, was not wise enough to see he was being set up as the fall guy. Osama had visions of grandeur but he blew it by accepting responsibility for something he did not do. It was not a World Wide conspiracy. It was a conspiracy of a few rich and politically powerful people.

Was Clinton in on it?

[Plane]

plane:  <<The big looser in Viet Nam was the Vietnameese people.  They lost their freedom , they lost a lot of wealth and they lost an astonishing number of persons .>>

1.  They weren't free, they were a colony of France.
2.  They had no wealth, they were one of the poorest countries in the world.
3.  The persons they lost was the price of freeing themselves from Japanese, French and American occupying forces.  That was the price they paid to be masters in their own home.  I would think most of them consider the sacrifice to have been worth-while.  Why live under foreign domination?  Don't they have a right to be free?

I consider the Vietnamese people to be the big winners despite the loss of 2 million victims to U.S. aggression.  They won freedom from foreign occupation. 

The big loser was the U.S.A. - - hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain, 57,000 Americans killed and countless more maimed and crippled for life, not even counting the number of American victims lost to psycho Vietnam vets who returned as trained killers without scruples or morals of any kind.  And what did America get for all this?  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

the U.S.A. - - hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain
Vietnam ,they were one of the poorest countries in the world and unlike their Capitolist brotheren countrys are still.

57,000 Americans killed
2 million Vietnamese people killed and countless more maimed and crippled for life not even counting that psycho Viet Cong vets wound up running the place




Communism should win such  victory in its every endevor!


Oh wait , it did..............