A conservative look at four Presidents - Your reaction please

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Xeney : One Thread

Note: This is making the rounds on conservative mailing lists. I'm curious as to how my liberal friends react to it. I hope the html I have here works.

Jim Howard

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

The Art Of War

Sun Tzu and Four American Presidents

By Tom Adkins

Over two-thousand years ago, an ancient Chinese warrior wrote a brief book on warfare. His name was Sun Tzu. His book, The Art Of War, is now a staple for virtually any military strategic training. Sun Tzu barely mentioned weaponry. Instead, he focused on strategies... strategies that convert to winning and losing. His insights into the nature of competition, battle and diplomacy apply to virtually every aspect of life, from the battlefield to the boardroom, from the football arena to the global arena. Within this context, let's briefly examine the greatest challenges of our four most recent American presidents.

Kumbaya Diplomacy ~ Jimmy Carter versus Leonid Brezhnev 1976-1980

I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle. Sun Tzu

From the end of World War II, United States foreign policy towards the Soviet Union was essentially a "keep up with the Jones-ski's." If the Soviets made a bomb, we made a bomb. If the Soviets built a tank, we built a tank. Essentially, we treaded water.

Jimmy Carter was the first president to buck that trend. Carter slashed our military and proposed we become buddies with the Soviets. The Soviet Union promptly took over ten countries. When the USSR marched into Afghanistan, Carter responded by withdrawing from the Olympics. Carter didn't understand that leaders bent upon world domination usually aren't concerned with track and field events.

During Carter's term, world leaders smelled his weakness. The OPEC nations pulled back production of oil, driving prices to four times their 1976 level. This created "Stagflation," when energy prices skyrocketing regardless of economic conditions. The cost of everything rose overnight, crushing the American economy.

But Carter wasn't done. He decided that it would be wonderful to put virtually the entire nation on the dole. All sorts of government entitlement programs were created and expanded. Few worked and most of them caused heavy damage. Taxes rose. The economy slumped. Interest rates quadrupled. Poverty rose. The economy staggered.

All because Carter wanted to play horseshoes with the Soviet Union, who essentially wanted to destroy the United States. Carter invited them to tea party. The Soviets showed up and played smash-mouth rugby.

Our military was toothless, our intelligence organizations were hollow, and our nation was floundering. Carter left office with America on its knees.

Nobody respected us, and we were powerless to show them otherwise.

It is a doctrine of war not to assume the enemy will not come, but rather to rely on one's readiness to meet him; not to presume that he will not attack, but rather to make one's self invincible. Sun Tzu

Demanding Victory ~ Ronald Reagan versus Mikhail Gorbachev 1980-1988

To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu

Ronald Reagan inherited a terrible economy, a nation with no international respect, and a bold, expanding Soviet Union. He tossed away the old concept of military parity along with the Carter concept of capitulation and took it upon himself to defeat the Soviet Union.

Reagan recognized that a socialist economy barely functions. By rebuilding American armed forces, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union to keep up. They obliged. Our military spending increased to 27% of our federal budget. But the Soviets needed 60% of their budget to keep up. That's math didn't work well for the USSR. But the Soviets were willing to bleed their people dry.

Nothing is more difficult than the art of maneuvering for advantageous positions. Sun Tzu

Reagan had a stroke of brilliance. The Soviets relied upon hard currency to maintain their straining military budget. And there was only one source of Soviet hard currency; Oil. Reagan tripled the foreign aid to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to about 3 billion each, but under the following conditions:
1. They stop fighting.
2. They buy American military hardware.
3. Saudi Arabia increase oil production to meet American demand.

The Saudi's opened up the oil spigots. Overnight, the price of oil dropped below $20 per barrel. In one fell swoop, Reagan brought peace to the middle east, boosted the American economy with lower energy prices, and eliminated the only source of money to fund the Soviet army. It actually became more expensive for the Russians to pump oil than it was worth. The USSR was on its knees, ripe for defeat. Shortly after, Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative.

The USSR tossed in its hand. Within 24 months, the USSR was no longer in existence.

To this day, our economy benefits from lower oil prices and less military spending. All because Reagan won the Cold War.

That victory wasn't the sum of efforts from previous presidents. Reagan alone won the Cold War. Without firing a shot. Few give him credit for this utter political brilliance. When Reagan left office, America held unprecedented prestige and strength.

The victories won by a master of war gain him neither reputation for wisdom nor merit for courage. How subtle and insubstantial, that the expert leaves no trace. How divinely mysterious, that he is inaudible. Thus, he is master of his enemy's fate. Sun Tzu

Herding Cats ~ George Bush versus Saddaam Hussein 1990-1992.

A speedy victory is the main object in war. Sun Tzu

Sometimes, diplomacy is as delicate as gossamer. Sometimes diplomacy is a sledgehammer. And sometimes, it's both. The first serious challenge to George Bush's "New World Order" was issued by Saddaam Hussein. Everyone knew Reagan didn't take any crap from anyone. Like all bullies, Hussein was anxious to test the mettle of this new president the press labeled as "Wimp."

Big mistake.

Every world leader should know better than to believe the American press. Not only did Bush have iron balls, he had brilliant diplomatic skills. He actually knitted the whole world into a blanket of agreement against Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. This political accomplishment was like herding a hundred cats. Except cats with nuclear claws, bad attitudes, and who often hated one another.

While we have heard of stupid haste in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged. Sun Tzu

The armed forces Reagan had built were ready, and this coalition was armed with American equipment and training. When Hussein's army was crushed in 100 hours, the world collectively took notice. Few challenges followed.

American liberals whined that this was a war over oil. No kidding. And who suffers most from high oil prices? We can guess Ross Perot isn't starving when his oil bill goes up 50 cents a gallon. But poor people do. Thus American liberals - as always - were willing to sacrifice their constituents as political pawns, proving once again that naiveti, stupidity, arrogance and power lust are the backbone of the Democratic party. Unfortunately, that represents about half the nation.

When the Gulf War was over, the United States enjoyed its peak influence in the world. Nobody doubted any facet of our nation whatsoever. In less than ten years, Reagan and Bush took America from laughing stock to absolute respect.

Say what you want about Bush. He was uncomfortable. Boring. And he didn't discuss his underwear on MTV. But diplomatically, he was brilliant, perhaps better than Reagan. He knew what had to be done. He knew it was a monumental task. He knew how to do it. And he did it. Bush left office with America unquestionably the only world superpower, allies all over the globe, and very few enemies.

The general who in advancing does not seek personal fame, and in withdrawing is not concerned with avoiding punishment, but whose only purpose is to protect the people and promote the best interests of his sovereign is like a precious jewel to the state. Sun Tzu

Diplomatic Graffiti ~ Bill Clinton versus China

Appraise war in terms of the fundamental factors. The first of these factors, is moral influence. Sun Tzu

Befuddled Americans think Bill Clinton's major war is in Yugoslavia. Actually, Clinton's war is with China. And he already lost. Under Clinton's watch, China has successfully stolen, bought, or was simply given the blueprints for every modern American nuclear weapon -- and the guidance systems to accurately deliver them. Like Reagan's brilliant victory over the Soviet Union, China never fired a shot. They simply waited until we had a corruptible president, and simply corrupted him.

One who is not acquainted with the designs of his neighbors should not enter into alliances with them. Sun Tzu

Bill Clinton's political prostitution has never been questioned... it's always been a matter of price. Wise world leaders have long recognized Clinton as an egotistical political charlatan, capable of being elected in a nation enamored with personality and ignorant of wisdom. Such leaders aren't spun by James Carville and Dan Rather. Instead, they laugh at Clinton's bumbling and self-aggrandizement. Then take advantage of him. No wonder the Chinese wanted Clinton to be president.

All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where espionage is not used. Offer the enemy bait to lure him. Sun Tzu

The political greed of Clinton and his Democrats drove them directly into the Chinese espionage trap. Like all nations, China has been snooping around for years, picking up a snippet here, a spoonful there.

But under Clinton's watch, China got the entire bag of goodies. It wasn't even expensive. For a few million dollars to the DNC, China gained complete access and even protection via Janet Reno's Justice Department. When Clinton's people discovered the damage, they did nothing. When the damage came to light, Clinton's administration tried to blame everyone else. What could they do? Admit their treason?

Those who excel in war first cultivate their own humanity and justice and maintain their laws and institutions. By these means they make their governments invincible. Sun Tzu

Led by his pathological ego, Clinton breaks rules and laws at his leisure,victimizing friends and foes alike. In the meantime, he stumbles from one manufactured crisis to another, all designed to cover his tracks. He distracts the nation by flinging bombs across the world, converting sleeping dogs into resentful enemies.

Meanwhile, China picked our pockets and built coalitions against us while Clinton parades around, a team of flakes shilling for him.

Clinton inherited a world that respected America, and like a drunken gambler, parlayed American prestige into the gutter. He managed to destroy the careful coalition of nations aligned against Iraq. He ruined world confidence in NATO. He managed to weaken Russia as a state, yet strengthen their diplomatic presence. He strengthened China's hand unimaginably, creating instability in the region. He simultaneously stoked the nuclear fires between India and Pakistan, two wary but previously contented enemies.

Now, rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran are stretching their claws, armed with Chinese missiles which can reach America. And Taiwan is just a bit edgier today.

When Clinton leaves office, America will have fewer friends than his first day as President. Thanks to Reagan and Bush, the United States isn't on her knees. But Clinton proved America is willing to turn a few tricks for the right price.

When the leader is morally weak and his discipline not strict, when his instructions and guidance are not enlightened, when there are no consistent rules. Neighboring rulers will take advantage of this. Sun Tzu

Every nation is perpetually at war. For a president, every move, every word, every action has consequences to the entire nation from that moment well into the future. The concepts behind successfully leading a nation are not new, but the naive, arrogant and power-hungry seem to create endless varieties of how to commit the same mistakes. The less we pay attention, the greater damage each mistake creates.

On this Memorial Day, remember those who fought for our nation, especially those who gave their lives so we may be free. Consider how easily their sacrifice can be squandered. And how often it has happened. And whether you will ever let that happen to another American son or daughter.

War is a matter of vital importance to the state; a matter of life or death,the road either to survival or to ruin. Sun Tzu.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Answers

IOW, "Democrats bad, Republicans good."

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Reagan and Bush turned quite a few tricks of their own--they were partial to using South American snuff pornography to enhance the experience. How quickly we are assumed to forget...

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

I don't see the point of discussing politics in this manner. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter what the political color of the people in power. Politicians are scum, simple as that.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000

I have to disagree with any theory that attributes intentionality to Ronald Reagan. I've seen him get credit for the current economic boom, because he reduced the regulations on computer systems, etc., and for the fall of the Soviet regime he hyped the arms race until the other side went broke. Now Tom Adkins suggests that Reagan may actually have had a plan to destroy the Soviet economy by increasing the world petroleum supply and driving prices down. I just don't buy it.

Reagan doesn't strike me as the sort of politician who could possibly have sustained a secret agenda, and I know I didn't hear anything during the Reagan Administrations about destabilizing the Soviets by outracing them in arms production, or cutting the profit margin on their oil exports.

My strongly held belief is that Reagan was a great president almost by chance. He pursued his policies because he believed they were right, and they just happened also to weaken the Soviets and lay the groundwork for Clinton's economic policies. I do not say that because I hate or hated Reagan -- actually, I voted for him in 1984. But everything I know about him says that he was an idealist, or even a moralist, who fought the Soviets because he really thought communism was evil, and pursued policy beyond the bounds of law when the law conflicted with his view of right and wrong. Somehow, almost miraculously, everything he touched turned to gold, but almost never for the reasons that he had beforehand. In that way he was a force of nature -- one of those Homeric war heroes who walks through epic struggles encased in a golden halo that indicatews the favorites of the gods -- as if the same Fortune that gave him good looks, moderate wealth and moderate fame through steady employment in minor movie roles followed him through the political arena, too.

As the beneficiary of all those good things, I am glad that Reagan was president, but his good luck doesn't require me to decide that he was some sort of genius with a secret agenda. At most he may have employed some such geniuses. But attributing mental brilliance to Reagan is like attributing it to Marilyn Monroe -- it only serves to take the focus off of the remarkable, even heroic, things he actually was. I'd give a lot for the chance to put another lucky, or favored, idealist into the Oval Office, instead of choosing between the smug, crooked legacy twins in November.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000


My bleeding-heart pacifist pinko liberal response to this? I'm sure it has some value. I could print it off, for example, and take it to the smallest room of my house and put it behind me...

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000


"...choosing between the smug, crooked legacy twins in November."

Man, that sums it up. It's like choosing between syphilis and yaws.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000


Oh. My. God.

How do you get to be your age, Jim, and end up so terribly naive? And afraid?

Get thee hither and read some de Toqueville.

Considering that Sun Tzu has unfortunately been twisted to support everything from nuevo-management strategies to raising children, this is no more than half-assed spam and I doubt its original author knows anything about Sun Tzu. I can take pithy quotes from Dr. Seuss books and do the same damn thing.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000


Wow, Gabby, would you do that? Because that would be rad.

I agree with just about everything that's been said here ... this sort of "analysis" is pretty trite and unhelpful; it could be easily modified to support the Democrats instead. I assure you that the exact same crap gets forwarded around if you happen to be on any Democrat-leaning mailing lists. (Notice that I don't say "liberal;" I don't consider the Dems to be particularly liberal.)

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000


I can! Fox in sox. Lox in box. Lox in box picks fox in sox.

Or. Louse in house. Mouse in house. Louse in house beats mouse in house. Welfare, rauss!

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000


I will not eat green eggs and ham. I will not eat them, Sam I Am!

When George Bush manfully declared that he was now a grownup and did not have to eat broccoli, he was proclaiming to the world that once and for all, America was not going to take a bunch of crap from other countries, that in fact the "man with iron balls" was going to lay down the "iron fist" and come down like a ton of bricks on aggressor nations across the globe.

Oh wait, no he wasn't. It was just a moronic sound bite given by a man who was desperate enough to do anything to be re-elected. (Including the aforementioned masterful invasion of Iraq -- diplomatic brilliance, my ass.)

I would also like to point out that Ronald Reagan did not "win" the Cold War. The Soviets lost the Cold War, by maintaining a corrupt government, failing to maintain their national infrastructure, and, hell, a crapload of other bad policies that I won't go into in this short amount of space. Ronald Reagan had dick- all to do with it.

And Bill Clinton did a lot of damage to this nation, none of which was mentioned in the Sun Tzu bullshit, because the Sun Tzu bullshit only mentioned foreign policy, not domestic policy. Clinton's real failure as a president was not in his relations with China, but rather in his relations with the American people. (Incidentally, it might be Dick Nixon's fault that Americans no longer regard the President as some all-knowing, all-encompassing powerful that you can trust to Do the Right Thing, but Bill Clinton sure as hell didn't help any.)

It's the economy, stupid? No, I think not. It's gay rights, women's rights, health care, and most of all, integrity, stupid. Oh, and to whomever up there that said all politicians are scum and that therefore you care nothing about politics? It's that kind of attitude that gets these jackasses elected in the first place. If you think politicians are scum, then go find some third-party candidate that isn't a career politician, whose ideas you can really believe in, and go vote for him or her. Get off your ass and do something about the world you live in instead of just sitting around complaining all the time.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000



What frustrates me so much about this sort of thing is that it is so blatantly partisan. You can write all good things or all bad things about any president...or any person for that matter. The only way to truly learn from your history...and truly prevent it from reoccurring is too look at both sides, good and bad. It's like teaching a child to beware of strangers and describing all strangers as bad, scary, dangerous individuals. So when their perfectly nice next door neighbor invites them into the house alone and proceeds to rape them, well, no one considered him a bad guy because he wasn't a stranger. The conservative who wrote this is selling the same twisted story...Republicans are all good, because I will only tell you the good things they did and vice versa for democrats. Frankly, I think the two party system is foolish and long overdue for a nice quiet death. If John McCain taught us anything it was that a lot of people are more than ready to cross party lines and vote for a president..it doesn't matter what his label is.

As for the substance of this little essay. Well, that is downright funny. You can't break a presidency down to three paragraphs and still be honest. I can't believe someone actually believes all this.

Colleen

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000


1) not one citation of source to back up the assertions about the Republicans

2) numerous factual distortions, beginning with the gross gross exaggeration of Carter's expansion of domestic programs and ending with a vague reference to Bush's diplomatic skills. I think his plunging us into our most massive committment of resources since Vietnam (and likely exposing hundreds of thousands of men and women to Hussein's chemical arsenal) is more evidence of failure on that front than any purported skill.

3) Most liberals think the Persian Gulf war was not only over oil but also over the need of Western countries like the U.S. to subjugate people who show signs of independence.

4) If you're going to live your life--as that author implies we should--according to an ancient book on war, then you're no one I want to know and you're no one worth trusting. Where does the war strategy stop applying? In your dealings with your family? Your neighbors? Your pets?

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000


5) Reagan's prime legacy is the demonization of the poor in America and the quarter of the federal budget that now has to go to simply paying interest on the massive amount he borrowed to throw into our boondoggle of a military.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000

Jim: I'm awfully glad you've provided attribution for this thing. I tend to like the people here and this way I can preserve civility and instead dismantle Tom Adkins propaganda.

Tom: Sun Tzu is good reading. Any time I see members of the Far Right reading anything, I'm generally encouraged. However, it would have been helpful if you had read some history books.

Fact 1. Jimmy Carter presided over the largest increases in Defense spending in U.S. history.

Fact 2. Afghanistan's neighbors have been invading them for thousands of years. Stupid neighbors. Invading Afghanistan is like putting your hand into a food processor. Ask the British, ask the Pakistanis, ask the Turks, ask the Russians. They all got their heads handed to them on a platter. Carter funneled assorted mobile weaponry to the mujahadin. Guess what? The Soviets got their Vietnam and we only had to shell out peanuts to give it to them. Did Vietnam must us a stronger or weaker country? It was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

Fact 3. When looking at the state of the economy, always, *always* look back at least 2 years before that moment to see what set it up. Carter inherited 8 years of Nixon-Ford policies. The famous gas lines took place in the early 70's on Nixon's watch. Inflation was rampant in 1976. At the end of Carter's presidency, major deregulation of the U.S. was all but a done deal. Trucking, airline, and telecommunications deregulation -- all Carter policies. Who gets the credit? Teflon Ron. Ain't history a bitch?

Fact 4. I don't hate Reagan. Hate tends to blind one's reason. Ron made some pretty good moves. However, the fact is that he promised a balanced budget and did more to imbalance the budget and drive us into debt than any other president. It's all in Stockman's book "Why the Reagan Revolution Failed". Ron could have spent the money wisely on weapon systems that would provide long term value and better benefits for the soldiers. He pissed a lot of it away on Star Wars and other pork barrel projects. The CIA kept feeding Congress bogus reports of Soviet strength when in fact they had been crumbling for years.

Fact 5. Ron traded arms for hostages and then against the explicit direction of Congress sent the money to terrorists in Nicaraugua! Nixon taped Democratic headquarters. Clinton had sex with an intern. Hmm, which one would I impeach? Clinton - bad husband behavior. Nixon - the tapes had almost no impact on the election - stupid move. Reagan - people were killed with the weapons that were smuggled into Central America. A lasting betrayal and dishonor to our country.

Fact 6. Bush's envoys in Iraq received news of the impending invasion of Kuwait a week before they happened. Guess what? No warnings to Saddam that he would get his ass kicked if he tried. Bush was weak with Saddam and it cost us a war to fix the damage. George did, however, do a very good job of cleaning up his own mess, but it was a mess he could have prevented.

Fact 7. Welcome to the New World Order. Major global conflicts are bad for business. Guess what? Major global conflict doesn't look very likely. The Chinese are more prosperous than they have been in nearly 500 years. The Chinese want to keep it that way. They want membership into the club and Bill's going to give it to them. Now they're playing our game. When you play war, you get tossed out of the money game. It's called geopolitique. Oh, and spies have been getting weapons secrets since the beginning of time. It's happened under every president. Remember Ames, the officer who leaked massive intelligence to the Soviets? That was under Reagan's watch.

Listen, Tom. I could go on for another hour here, but I'm starting to feel sorry for you. Go read some books. Maybe even check out some William F. Buckley. With WFB, you feel at least a little tempted to agree with him.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000


To Christopher Naze--

Terrific refutation, not only of that article but perhaps of Rush Limbaugh and Mike Reagan's entire careers. All I can say is wow.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000



This particular medium is far too slow for political debate. We need to be pontificating all at once, in one room, all getting our point across, but no one hearing any other one but their own. Also, the democrats and republicans have merged into one party anyway. That's why I'm Independent.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000

And another thing. Presidents are figure heads. Often the bad or good things that occur when they are in office have nothing to do with the figure head at the time. It's usually some other chain of events, with differing input by figure head at the time, with alot of help from "friends" of figure head at time.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000

Thanks to everyone who replied, I find the comments interesting and thought provoking.

I tend to pretty much agree with the sentiments expressed in the Adkins letter. It has elements of propganda I admit, but it also has a hard core of truth which makes it effect.

I'd particularly like to share my memories of the Carter administration. Carter was an exceptionally honest man, but he had a total lack of leadership skills. He was a micromanager, but had no strategy. The Soviets dominated him in every encounter.

I was in the military for the full duration of his term, and I can tell from my own first hand knowledge that the military deteriorated badly under his administration. He in fact did continue a policy of trying to match the Soviets "tank for tank" while cutting down on spending for operations and training. Like President Clinton, Carter's active disrespect for the U.S. military really hurt morale. His first three budgets were indeed small increases but when the runway inflation of the period is figured in the net result was the famous "hollow military". I saw it with my own eyes.

Just as President Clinton has done, he proposed a large increase in defense spending for his last budget, but it would take years to undo the damage he caused.

President Carter was indeed unlucky to have followed the LBJ-Nixon- Ford years. I campaigned for Nixon when I was in college, but now I recognize how bad a President he really was. He essentially continued the huge expansion of governmental power, spending, and taxes that started under LBJ. Few now remember, but Nixon instituted wage and price controls of the sort that the liberals are clamoring for in the health care discussion. He also caused his own downfall by continuing the LBJ policy of taping Oval Office conversations, but he lied to Congress about it and would have been impeached for this lie had he not had the dignity to resign, sparing the country the embarrassment of having an admitted perjurer as President.

So while we can't blame President Carter for causing inflation, we can note that he did nothing about it. That would take Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was the opposite of President Carter. Unlike President Carter, he had no time to schedule the White House tennis courts. He had a strong desire to stand down the Communists, decrease taxes, and slow the growth of Government. These things he did, and we enjoy the fruits of his work today.

The letter is exactly correct about the incredible skill that President Bush showed in putting together the coalition that reversed the invasion of Kuwait and the threat of invasion of Saudi Arabia. The Desert Storm coalition which among other things put Syria, Egypt, and Israel on the same team was a masterwork of diplomacy.

The decisions President Bush made in the months prior to the launch of Desert Storm were not popular, and were in fact opposed by the Democratic Party who threatened to pull the rug out from under him unless he gave them the tax increase they wanted. (To be fair, President Bush was not opposed by the Governor of Arkansas, who was unable to expressed an opinion on the correct course of action. During Desert Shield Governer Clinton cowered in fear of coming down on the losing side, just as he done during the war in Vietnam. )

Karen is very wrong to cast our Presidents as "figureheads". They are very powerful individuals, and the decisions that they make have ramifications that can continue for decades or longer.

President Bush left a growing economy in which government revenue was growing faster than spending. When he pointed out that we were headed for a budget surplus the Clintons and Stockmans of the world ridiculed him.

As time goes forward history will record President Bush as one of the bravest and most capable Presidents we have ever had.

It's pretty much accepted by all sides that for whatever reason President Clinton turned a blind eye to Chinese espionage during his first term, and granted security clearances to known agents of China. Only time will tell how harmful this neglect will be to the interests of the United States.

President Clinton has at least one valuable asset. He is very, very lucky. He's lucky that he didn't carry forward his ill-conceived health care "reform" plan. He's lucky he didn't get many of the spending increases he asked for. He's lucky he got a Republican Congress, giving him an excuse to back away from the worst of his tax- and-spend proposals. He's lucky that he signed eight of the ten Contract with America proposals. He's lucky to be leaving just before an economic slowdown. He's lucky to not have been impeached. He may even escape disbarment. He's a very lucky man.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2000


While you seem to have amassed a vast amount of knowledge about politics, and world events, I can't help but notice a bias, which is the problem with most political discussions, and why they are often avoided for fear of police intervention. I stand by my former statements.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2000

Jim,while you seem to have amassed a vast amount of knowledge about politics, and world events, I can't help but notice a bias, which is the problem with most political discussions, and why they are often avoided for fear of police intervention. I stand by my former statements.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2000

Oooops, sorry

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2000

Karen: Bias isn't a defect when you're arguing a side. ;-) And while Jim seems to be knowledgable, I'm not ready to credit him with vast amounts.

Jim: I have to respect your first hand experience of the military in the Carter years. However, again if you don't see the context of the events leading up to that state of deterioration, you are missing the whole picture. In terms of morale, these were perhaps the darkest years in the history of our nation. Our faith in our executive was shaken to the core due to Watergate, our faith in the righteousness of our use of arms was in tatters from Vietnam, and our economy was sick. Carter may not have been the best Commander-in-Chief, but I don't think we were getting the cream of the crop and those serving were probably struggling as the whole nation was. (How do you reconcile his alleged "disrespect" for the military with his record of service in the Navy?)

You also conveniently avoided addressing most of my rebuttal. I'll graciously accept that as a concession to its strength. :-)

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2000


Thanks to everyone who commented in this thread, I was very interested in seeing the different points of view people have. I confess to "bias" in favor of maximum political and economic freedom, to the U.S. acting in its own interest in foreign policy, and in our having a strong military devoted deterring aggression against this country. (FWIW I'd like less of this Globocop stuff, and I'd like us to pull more of our troops out of Europe.) I have strong views on political issues and enjoy a heated discussion. At some point we have to be able to decide to pick door #1, door #2, or door #3.

Chris wrote "You also conveniently avoided addressing most of my rebuttal".

Chris, I'm a little worried that you might throw your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back, so I'll give you my reaction to each of your points:

"Fact 1. Jimmy Carter presided over the largest increases in Defense spending in U.S. history. " Not really, if you adjust for the huge inflation that occurred in his administration. I looked up the numbers (I have the url at work, I'll post here later). I mentioned that his increases were less than inflation until his last budget, which was a record $151 billion. Adjusted for inflation, it was less than many prior defense budgets, but it was a significant increase. Operation Rice Bowl (the Iranian rescue mission) was a big wake up call for Carter, which to his credit he heard. Carter was a fine, honest man. But he was in no way a leader, and like many liberals he valued symbolism over substance. He spent most of his administration reacting to events and shivering in the White House.

"How do you reconcile his alleged "disrespect" for the military with his record of service in the Navy?" This made the hurt worse.

"Fact 2. Afghanistan's neighbors have been invading them for thousands of years. Stupid neighbors." Well, yes. Invading Afghanistan was stupid. That doesn't change the fact that it happened. One of the big problems with governments is the giant scale of their mistakes. The more power we cede to the government, the more potential there is for this kind of mistake. This is reason #6241 why socialism is a bad idea.

"Fact 3. When looking at the state of the economy, always, * look back at least 2 years before that moment to see what set it up. " I said "President Carter was indeed unlucky to have followed the LBJ- Nixon- Ford years." I agree that these were very dark years. It's just too bad President Carter wasn't able to show any leadership to help us get back on our feet after all those bad years.

"Fact 5. Ron traded arms for hostages and then against the explicit direction of Congress sent the money to terrorists in Nicaragua!" Yes, but to be fair the "terrorists" won the free election when it came (historical sidenote: Jimmy Carter helped supervise this election). "Nixon taped Democratic headquarters." Technically he *tried* to tape DNC headquarters, but his burglars got caught. Like Clinton, Nixon used the CIA and IRS against his opponents, and like Gore he lied to investigators. Unlike Clinton/Gore, people were shocked and upset by this behavior.

"Clinton had sex with an intern." True but irrelevant. Clinton was sued for sexual harassment ( a suit which he wound up losing). He himself had signed a law which made the harasser's prior workplace sexual behavior discoverable. Clinton choose to illegally attempt to derail this lawsuit by committing perjury. I personally agree with Hillary Rodham that a President telling a bareface lie to the people has committed an impeachable offense, but Clinton was impeached for perjury.

"Fact 6. Bush's envoys in Iraq received news of the impending invasion of Kuwait a week before they happened. Guess what? No warnings to Saddam that he would get his ass kicked if he tried. " Twenty/twenty hindsight is a wonderful thing. These kind of "warnings" come down all the time. Saddam has never been much interested in what anyone else says, it's unlikely he'd have responded to a warning. Thank goodness he didn't wait 4 years.

"Fact 7. Welcome to the New World Order. Major global conflicts are bad for business. Guess what? Major global conflict doesn't look very likely. The Chinese are more prosperous than they have been in nearly 500 years. The Chinese want to keep it that way. " I pray that you are right about this. It's not a "fact" though. It's bad for business to threaten to nuke Los Angeles, but the Chinese have done that several times in the last few years. I think I'm correct in saying "Only time will tell how harmful this [security] neglect will be to the interests of the United States. "

Again, my thanks to all who replied to my post.



-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000


Ack, I'm with Karen -- I think, though I'm probably more liberal on many issues than I've ever been.

Being Independent, means that your arguments and search for answers will take you to both liberal and conservative conclusions. Now I will argue that this is a superior approach to examining political questions than any other I've heard of.

So I think liberals and conservatives are often only partially right (and wrong). Would Sun Tzu agree with me? I wonder.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000


And another thing -- this winners and losers concept --as if one way is the only way.

Phil Jackson and Bobby Knight: compare and contrast

(links to their bios/info)

http://www.sportsstarsusa.com/basketball/knight_bobby.html http://www.nba.com/lakers/bios/coach.html

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000


When I read the art of war (admittedly a while ago) I took the central message as being...'spin' accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative... So to all those who say that you can make Sun Tzu apply every which way... well yes Like religion (IMHO) politics has more to do with faith than facts! eg. as someone earlier mentioned the gulf war may be considered by some to be the USA keeping the little guys in line... or to others it was a war to protect the American way of life ( as much as any other war this century ) which isn't a bad aim..? or a situation which the USA and UN were pretty much forced into, each side hoping the other would back down first... (from where I was standing in NZ we didn't REALLY expect it to go to a shooting match until it became clear that neither side was ABLE to budge.)

as for the global policeman thing...well most UN peace keeping forces are made up from Indian and Fijian and African troops... While the biggest UN deployment ever was led by Australia (and included all of 20 US observers) Not that I'm saying the USA has any more duty to keep the peace but just look up how much behind the US is in payments to the UN

ok soapbox almost over... one more thing, no system of government is yet perfect, The US system has some nice touches but also problems, As have most other systems. Just please don't trash 'socialism' as if it was just one system. Russia didn't work but then it had more to do with Fascism than socialism at many levels (and I mean the political definition of fascism NOT the common usage)

ok, so I've prob bored you but my rant is over, so... have a nice day!

s

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000


Scott wrote: "so... have a nice day!"

Scott, does the phrase "have a nice day" drive Australians and New Zealanders as crazy as it does the British?

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2000


I can deal with "have a nice day!" It's "how are you?" when the asker clearly has no interest in a sincere response.

O.k., back to the matter at hand. Jim, I admire your tenacity in defending Adkins' piece, but it's a bit of a lost cause. Incidentally, the shoulder is fine. As you can clearly see, you made no defense against my analysis until I nudged you.

Let's finish this up right here.

In today's Wall Street Journal (July 5), on page A24 you'll find a well researched article on security in the Department of Energy. "Yet dozens of people could remove the hard drives from a high-security vault without leaving any record, thanks to cost-saving measures begun under President Bush." This is the WSJ, mind you, not the New York Times. Hazel O'Leary, Clinton's first energy secretary, tried to boost security on the most sensitive information - like the disk drives - but was foiled by the Pentagon, which made all of the standard bureaucrat-speak reasons for not doing things better.

Adkins' entire attack on Clinton was based on the Chinese getting our secrets, but the facts show that it was on Bush's watch that security was weakened and that Clinton's administration pushed hard for better security but was foiled. Case dismissed.

The best propaganda moves us with its emotion *and* reason. It persuades those with open minds to consider the validity of its arguments. The worst kind appeals only to base instincts: fear, hatred, cynicism. This sort appeals to the tribe and to the ignorant, but is a disservice to the common good.

Adkins' piece is barely one shade better than the worst kind. It demonstrates true admiration and emotion for Reagan and Bush, but as I've proven, it shows a reckless disregard for the facts. Your defense of it is admirable, however your response to my analysis is riddled with "yes, but..." I suspect that there are other conservative positions that you could advance more successfully.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000


Christopher, since my refutation of your "facts" stands unchallenged I hereby declare myself victor.

BTW there is something you may not understand about the Wall Street Journal. It's Editorial section is entirely different than its news section, they are for all purposes different publications. The editoral writers are conservatives, but the news writers are nortious liberals, led by the ultra-liberal Al Hunt.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000


And then there's ultra Ultra liberal back door cabal which controls the placement of ads in the WSJ in such a way as to place post hypnotic suggestions in the unsuspecting WSJ reading populace to go out and vote Democrat! And I could tell you about the Liberal XJUltra project but I'd have to kill you.

What in the name of sweet Mexican Jesus is an Ultra Liberal? How ultra is one allowed to be before they graduate to Leftist Pinko? And how far till Commie Swine?

Jim, baby, go lock youself in the bomb shelter and wait it out. No doubt all us liberals are going to kill ourselves with our devilish ways. Then you can inherit the earth.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000


"What in the name of sweet Mexican Jesus is an Ultra Liberal? How ultra is one allowed to be before they graduate to Leftist Pinko? And how far till Commie Swine? "

I'll be glad to help, Gabby. Here are some examples of liberal sub- species:

typical liberal: Monica Lewinkski ultra liberal : Al Hunt, Al Gore leftist pinko : Elanor Rodham Cliff commie swine : Fidel Castro,  

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000


Damn it. I warned you guys.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000

the first western edition of Sun Tzu appeared in France in the mid- 18th century, and while I don't know the name of the translator, he probably never suspected the uses that would befall his work... I suspect that Sun Tzu's work-- designed largely to convince a petty ruler of the Warring States to give Master Sun a job with unlimited authority --has far less to say than all the people who discovered it after seeing "Wall Street" think...

nations are not perpetually at war, and defining economic rivalry as simply another kind of war leaves you blind to both economics and warfare. The US and the EU are economic rivals, but economic rivalry, unlike warfare, is not a zero-sum game.

The Gulf War? Necessary, yes-- and necessary because it was about the price of oil. But the end of the war showed something that most Americans didn't see: that coalitions are delicate things, that Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Egypt and Syria and France shared US aims only up to a point, that even as the last superpower the US was constrained by other actors.

The same applies in south Asia. The US could not have prevented India and Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons, and India at least has had a nuclear capability for almost thirty years. What the US can do is convince Delhi and Islamabad that despite the periodic fighting in Kashmir, nothing is worth a real war.

The world in 2000 is far less easily managed than in 1960, and the world is going to be about crisis after crisis. Most will be short- lived and easily forgotten, but there isn't going to be an easily managed world for a long, long time-- Sun Tzu or no. The American public will have to become de-sensitized to crises on CNN or else accept the risks and costs of trying to both defend its own interests and enforce peace, and isolation really isn't an option.

The Chinese spying at Los Alamos? Well, duh! Of course! But let's not let the right (you'll notice that they've started saying 'Communist China' again instead of just 'China'-- isn't nostalgia a delight?) convert China into the Yellow Peril. Are the Chinese our friends? China's nobody's friend. Are they going to nuke Taiwan? Or Los Angeles? No. Simple as that: no. Chinese generals will rattle their sabres, yes. But that's as much about a power struggle inside Beijing than about a real threat. A war with the US? To what end? And why risk losing their economy, much of their population, and all their western provinces (which would surely break away if the center ever weakens, to be part of a Turkic Central Asia)? Taiwan will go back to the mainland in time, and everyone in Taipei and Beijing both is aware of that.

I do suspect that security at Los Alamos has been a joke for a good ten or fifteen years. Scientists and techs always despised the security goons as McCarthyite holdovers, and with the Cold War gone, Los Alamos was without any kind of mission to make people believe in Loose lips Sink Ships. Much of the security flap will turn out to be boredom and indifference rather than espionage.

The US finally managed to intervene in the Balkans, which should have been done in 1992, when the Serbs shelled Dubrovnik during the first Croatian war, and long before the slaughters at Srbrenica and Sarajevo. But at least Serbia has been stripped of Bosnia, Kosovo,and the Krajina, and it'll lose Montenegro in the next year. A regime that traded on violent nationalism and ethnocide has been penned up. A major refugee crisis in Europe was prevented, NATO was kept together. Is the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo perfect. God, no. And it won't be. But this is how the world is going to be-- lots and lots of crises, lots and lots of imperfect solutions. But that's the way it's going to be.

There are no elegant solutions to be found in the works of Master Sun; there are no elegant solutions any more.

America's prestige? Sufficient to convince eastern Europeans that liberal capitalism was better than what they had, sufficient to lure tens of thousands of skilled and educated immigrants here every year. But other states and other cultures are finding out that they can have modern economies without becoming America, and America won't be the model to emulate everywhere. Is that a sign of weakness? No-- just of the successes of others.

The world in 2020 won't be like the world in 2000,and while the US may be rich and powerful, it won't be the only actor whose voice counts, and it won't ever be that again. That has very little to do with US politicians or policies.

The new world order is one where states go from crisis to crisis and just try to cope. There aren't any magic formulas or principles any more.



-- Anonymous, July 06, 2000


Lohr, reasonable points, and I find your excellent crystal ball to be reassuring. Why the 36th Lone Star division from Texas is in Kosovo today, when the E.C. has more people and a higher GDP than the United States remains a mystery to me.

For some crazy reason I've been trying hard lately to understand why liberals think like they do, which is the main reason I posted the above article. Just as a postscript to this thread, this article does a good job of articulating the confusion I feel when I talk to my liberal friends.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Good LORD.

Is it somehow more comforting to live in such a well delineated black and white world, with 'conservatives' on one side and 'liberals' on the other? Does it help you sleep better at night?

Eveyone believes what they must, I suppose. And if you feel safer with the mythology of 'liberalism' to fight against, then vaya con dios.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Gabby, I'm actually trying to reach out and understand liberals. Sometimes I get answers like those here from Chris and Lothr that give me plausible concepts to think about.

Unfortunately, most liberals are more like you, they just get all flustered and call me names.

Although its a bit overdone, I do think the Myers-Briggs personality model helps a bit. I think a lot of liberals are hard over on the "feeling" end of the various personality scales.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Picking up a theme that I perceive in Lohr's answer, we have to remember how large a role non-human factors play in politics and economics. The emergence of the Black Plague had immense political and economic effect in Europe, as did smallpox and flu several centuries later in the New World. The discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill brought an Anglo population to California and changed Mexico's prospects for hanging onto part of Texas. Of course we humans have some impact on our world, but we don't have total control. (Apparently I'm channeling Jack today).

But you get my point, right? For all the attempts to divide liberal from conservative and judge the world based on what happened under a given leader, so many of the inputs during any administration are completely beyond human control that in the end we're all just taking the blame for the rain and credit for the sunshine.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Jim-

You will never be able to understand "liberals." Why? Because they're not a homogeneous group! Just go look at the death penalty thread, where you'll see people supporting and opposing the death penalty for a number of different reasons: religious, moral, emotional, and scientific arguments have been advanced by both sides.

It might be reassuring to pigeonhole people into groups based on certain statements they make, which explains the popularity of those silly Meyers-Briggs test. But in doing so, you disregard the complexities of human nature.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Compartmentalizing people as liberal versus conservatives is a sign of a limited intellect and an inability to see nuance and distinctions.

Are the California Hispanics who overwhelmingly support Gore but also overwhelmingly voted against Prop 22 [gay marriage] liberal or conservative? How about the Silicon Valley types who told Jesse Jackson that the "digital divide" was bunk? Are they conservative? Are the ones who support reproductive rights conservative and liberal at the same time?

etc etc etc

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


This piece is so asinine that it's hard to know where to begin. But let's give it a whirl.

This Adkins fellow writes:

"From the end of World War II, United States foreign policy towards the Soviet Union was essentially a 'keep up with the Jones-ski's.' If the Soviets made a bomb, we made a bomb. If the Soviets built a tank, we built a tank. Essentially, we treaded water."

Response:

Typical right-wing concern for historical facts -- which is to say, none at all. The United States was the first to build the atom bomb, four full years before the Soviets. The United States was also the first to build the hydrogen bomb, although the Soviets caught up in about six months. As far as other military achievements, though, the United States was always far ahead.

The liberal Kennedy manufactured a non-existent "missile gap" to run against Nixon and the Eisenhower Administration's supposed lack of Cold War military savvy. These were the days when the Eisenhower Republicans saw the dangers of the "military-industrial complex," while hawkish liberals called for the harder line on Cuba for Cuba's crime of tossing the mafiosi and sugar plantation owners out of the country. In reality, of course, no such "missile gap" existed.

Adkins dribbled:

"Jimmy Carter was the first president to buck that trend. Carter slashed our military and proposed we become buddies with the Soviets."

Response:

Wrong. Carter began a dramatic increase in military spending -- including on new projects like the Tomahawk missile -- which only increased under Reagan.

Also, far from seeking to "become buddies with the Soviets," Carter devised a new way to get liberals -- who had been rather queasy about US imperial sallies due to their defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese -- to go along with his Cold War policies. This was the selective application of "human rights" criteria, in which Carter and Co. made a great fuss about imprisoned dissidents in the Eastern Bloc and the plight of Soviet Jews, while meanwhile drastically increasing military aid to US-friendly Indonesia during the height of the killings, torture, and other atrocities in East Timor; supporting the Khmer Rouge (a policy Reagan continued with great enthusiasm) against the Vietnamese because the Vietnamese were allied with the Soviets, etc.

Adkins asserts without a shred of evidence:

"The Soviet Union promptly took over ten countries."

Response:

Um, name 'em? Afghanistan alone was invaded by the Soviet Union in these years. There was also the client regime in Ethiopia, but as for the Eastern European countries, they had been within the Soviet sphere for years, and there was to be no Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe subsequent to Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Adkins no doubt pads his numbers because he thinks that "the Soviet Union took over" Nicaragua in 1979, for example, when in reality the masses of the people there deposed a US-supported dictatorship with very little in the way of assistance from any outside power, apart from rhetorical support and very token material assistance that hardly matched the vast amounts of cash the US poured into the coffers of Somoza and his kindred tyrants throughout Latin America.

Adkins writes:

"During Carter's term, world leaders smelled his weakness. The OPEC nations pulled back production of oil, driving prices to four times their 1976 level."

Response:

Having talked about the Soviets' intent for world domination, Adkins authors a sentence which takes some kind of US manifest destiny for world domination as a given. Apparently the United States has a right to the oil of OPEC states, and US leaders need to show "strength" rather than "weakness" in the face of other countries' annoying insistence that they should have some control over the resources located within their borders.

So who's bent on world domination here?

Adkins writes:

"This created 'Stagflation,' when energy prices skyrocketing regardless of economic conditions. The cost of everything rose overnight, crushing the American economy."

Response:

Economic drivel. The prolonged crisis in the world capitalist system began in the early 1970s with the end of the Long Boom and can hardly be simplistically attributed to single factors like oil prices. This is sandbox economics.

Adkins writes: "Our military was toothless, our intelligence organizations were hollow"

Response:

One wishes this were the case. Perhaps then Archbishop Romero would have survived, rather than being assassinated by a US-trained death squad shortly after he had sent a letter to Carter asking him to stop sending so many weapons to the murderous Salvadoran regime.

Adkins:

"Ronald Reagan inherited a terrible economy, a nation with no international respect, and a bold, expanding Soviet Union. He tossed away the old concept of military parity along with the Carter concept of capitulation and took it upon himself to defeat the Soviet Union. Reagan recognized that a socialist economy barely functions. By rebuilding American armed forces, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union to keep up. They obliged. Our military spending increased to 27% of our federal budget. But the Soviets needed 60% of their budget to keep up. That's math didn't work well for the USSR. But the Soviets were willing to bleed their people dry."

Response:

Amazing! Adkins (correctly) chides Soviet leaders for preferring guns to butter, while praising Reagan for same!

Adkins:

"In one fell swoop, Reagan brought peace to the middle east"

Reponse:

Note how the Israeli invasion of Lebanon disappears down the memory hole.

Adkins writes:

"The first serious challenge to George Bush's "New World Order" was issued by Saddaam Hussein. Everyone knew Reagan didn't take any crap from anyone. Like all bullies, Hussein was anxious to test the mettle of this new president the press labeled as 'Wimp.'"

Response:

Adkins neglects to note that his hero Reagan had backed Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran, and that much of the Iraqi arsenal came from the United States. He also neglects to mention repeated US betrayals of the Iraqi Kurds going back to Kissinger's bait-and-switch in 1974 . . . .

Oh shit. Well, I have to go. I have company and must entertain them rather than waste my time on the Internet. It should suffice to say that I could go on, but won't, because really, why would I need to? This article is chock-full of such abject stupidity that it's hardly worth the effort.

John Lacny

* ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * !

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Oh, before I go, one more thing.

Adkins writes:

"On this Memorial Day, remember those who fought for our nation, especially those who gave their lives so we may be free."

Response:

Does this include the American GIs who were killed at the Battle of the Bulge by the Waffen SS soldiers who Reagan defended as "victims too" during his notorious trip to Bitburg in 1984? Or are they exluded because their heroism didn't match Ronnie's World War II film-acting prowess?

John Lacny

* ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! *

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Joy opens the discussion in a typically liberal way: "Compartmentalizing people as liberal versus conservatives is a sign of a limited intellect...".

One thing I'm sure of, when someone says "nahanahana I'm smarter than You-ooo", then they are a liberal. Liberals are very proud of what they feel is their sophistication when compared to the great unwashed. Part of the liberal way of thinking is that the smart people [i.e. them] know what is best for us persons of limited intellect. Indeed liberals often self-identify as "progressives".

I never said that everyone in the world is either all liberal or all conservatives. BUT there are a LOT of people in the United States who by all conventional usage of the word are liberals. You and I both know this, but some of ya'll just can't admit it. Liberalism seems to be a philosophy that dare not say its name.

Perhaps some of the confusion is from the media. Objective word count studies always show that the major broadcast media and CNN frequently use the words "conservative", "right wing", and "Ultra- conservative" but rarely use the words "liberal, "left wing, or "ultra-liberal".

Let me help you find your inner liberal: By and large, liberals tend to favor larger and more powerful government, higher taxes, more regulation from higher levels of government. Liberals tend to favor making social policy in the courts. I really think that liberals tend to react emotionally a bit sooner than conservatives, although of course there are dispassionate liberals and emotional conservatives.

It is easier to draw a libertarian v. totalitarian distinction, but this distinction is less helpful in understanding people in the United States as they are today.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


John, although I don't agree with all your comments, you get the prize for noticing that the "ten countries invaded" comment in the original article may be a bit hyperbolic. During the Carter administration the Soviet Union did crack down on the Warsaw pac countries, but I can't name ten of them that were literally invaded. I thought that line to be the weakest part of the Adkins article.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Jim wrote:

One thing I'm sure of, when someone says "nahanahana I'm smarter than You-ooo", then they are a liberal. Liberals are very proud of what they feel is their sophistication when compared to the great unwashed. Part of the liberal way of thinking is that the smart people [i.e. them] know what is best for us persons of limited intellect

So are you distinguishing this from your own remarks about my posts in the "Solve the Health Care Crisis" forum, in which you stated that I was "the victim of the modern education system," who thinks that "thinks drugs just grow in the rain forest, and all you have to get them is put on a safari suit and go pick them?" You then went on to refer to my "liberal 'brain'" and stated that I was "clearly deranged."

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


John: Can you be more simplistic? I said *nothing* you accused me of. I just said people can be "conservative" and "liberal" simultaneously, and gave you a few examples.

I've never mentioned my party affiliation, because I don't have one.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Oh, Jim, I'm so much worse than you could possibly imagine - I'm not a liberal, I'm an intellectual leftist who generally believes that stupid people - liberal, conservative, screaming mad naked hippo party members - should be shipped off to an island, far far away from me. I am profoundly pissed off by bleeding-heart, do gooder liberalism which would favor band-aid solutions over real and society altering action. Vive la revolution!

As far as the Meyer's Briggs hoo-ha, at my first job straight out of college, I tested as an INTP, and the tester remarked that mine was the purest score in all those instances that he'd ever seen. So, emotion? Not here, baby.

What possible sort of case can I form that could shock you out of your rigid manner of analysis and opinion regarding the world? I don't see one. You're obviously more than comfortable in your box with right and wrong laid out in bright primary colors before you. You form your opinions based on articles and spam like the ones you've submitted thus far - you follow your gut, not your reason. Your are uncomfortable in the presence of any idea which runs counter to your version of the truth.

I don't have the kind of time it would require to work with a mind so inherently lazy.

It's not the 'liberal' responsibility to educate you, Jim, or help you understand the 'liberal mindset'. As you've made it repeatedly clear that you feel that nearly all of us are tainted by the liberal agenda, I fail to see why you persist in the charade of "But I just want to understand!" Disingenuity, thy name is Jim Howard, indeed.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Gabby, I don't feel the need to respond to all of your emotional tirade, but clearly if the statement "Your are uncomfortable in the presence of any idea which runs counter to your version of the truth" were true, I wouldn't hang out here, would I?

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000

Jennifer, you are right, I reacted like an emotional liberal for suggesting that you are deranged. I apologize for that statement.

I think the post you made that provoked my emotional tirade was seriously in error, but there is a difference between being mistaken and being deranged.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Okay ... I've started and jettisoned several response here.

In the end what it boils down to _for me_ is that I think the Adkins piece has some vague points in there that might have been good if they'd been developed fully as analysis, instead of as quick sound bites.

But on the whole, it's not a very deep or meaningful contribution to political theory and philosophy. All it does is push people's buttons in a "rah-rah, we're the best" way for conservatives and a "pooh-pooh says you" way for liberals.

On the whole liberal/conservative thing -- honestly I'd rather see people learning to compromise with each other then getting all uppity about who is right and who is wrong.

I firmly believe that there is no one right answer for every situation. Each person, be he or she a private citizen or a government official, can only do his or her best at the time, given the context of the problems presented.

The leaders of the United States have a lot of factors to deal with and their own personal political leanings are only a part of how each of them approaches the solution to a problem, though those leanings do have an effect how they choose to address things.

Furthermore, history is not linear, but cyclical. In the past, there have been times when either a liberal or a conservative approach has been the _ideal_ approach for solving a problem or crisis. Now and in times to come, individual problems or crises, will again be best solved with either a conservative or liberal approach, or a combination of both.

It is up to our leaders to be able to intelligently decide which approach is the best, given the circumstances and context of a problem. That's what we elect them for: to lead and decide how to resolve our national problems, while reflecting our desires and beliefs.

Too much liberalism can be as bad as too much conservativism. Just like too much of a good thing to eat can be bad for your health.

From the moderate corner, as my Dad always says: "Everything in moderation, dear, or you'll make yourself sick."

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Beth K. writes: "In the end what it boils down to _for me_ is that I think the Adkins piece has some vague points in there that might have been good if they'd been developed fully as analysis, instead of as quick sound bites. "But on the whole, it's not a very deep or meaningful contribution to political theory and philosophy. All it does is push people's buttons in a 'rah-rah, we're the best' way for conservatives and a 'pooh-pooh says you' way for liberals.

"On the whole liberal/conservative thing -- honestly I'd rather see people learning to compromise with each other then getting all uppity about who is right and who is wrong."

How shall I put this delicately? Beth, in the above, you use 111 words to say absolutely nothing. No wonder right-wingers come off looking so confident and sure of themselves, when they have fuzzy-headed liberals and even more vacuous "moderates" to contend with.

So Howard publishes this absolutely outrageous piece by this Adkins fellow, which takes as its premise that the United States has a god-given right to rule untrammeled over the earth: note his statement that Jimmy Carter's alleged failure to show "strength" encouraged OPEC to raise oil prices -- the assumption being, of course, that the United States ought to have unchecked rights to the natural resources of every country on earth, and that governments which have the temerity insist that the natural resources of a country belong to the people who reside therein, have to be pushed out of the way.

And all you have to say to this is that it's too "rah-rah," not deep enough, etc. Well, why don't you say something to refute it? I'll give you an answer. It's because liberals (and "moderates," whatever the hell that means) share the assumptions of conservatives that the US government ought to have the right to dominate the earth. It's just that liberals and moderates are slow-witted enough to think that US imperialism has something to do with protecting "human rights" or some other higher principle. At least conservatives have the integrity to admit that it's all about the Benjamins.

All of this is not to mention the incredible stupidity and inaccuracy in the article in question. Take the assertion that Reagan "brought peace to the Middle East." Is is possible to conceive of something more cartoonishly idiotic? I laughed out loud when reading this nonsense, because all it deserves is ridicule. Imagine a statement like this, which completely ignores the bloody Israeli invasion of Lebanon -- in which the US steadfastly maintained its alliance with Israel -- which led to an occupation only recently terminated; or the Iran-Iraq war, which raged for eight years with Saddam Hussein getting support from the United States (and with Iran getting a little support as well, although that had more to do with Reagan's illegal schemes to procure weapons for the cocaine-dealing Nicaraguan contra cutthroats).

And you run away from this stuff, complaining that it's merely "unbalanced"? You don't have any way to answer it, Beth, because at heart you accept its premises. That's why your call for compromise between liberals and conservatives rings so hollow, too. Liberals and conservatives have already been working together for years to promote the interests of coporate America at home and abroad.

"I firmly believe that there is no one right answer for every situation."

So when Reagan's heroes were blowing up little children in Nicaragua, that wasn't necessarily right or wrong, but just a tactical consideration? Such a statement would be hardly surprising coming from you, given liberal support for starvation blockades over outright armed terrorism, but once again, they're based on the same premises.

What do you think of continued US support for Israel, despite the fact that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the longest-running military occupation of the twentieth (and now the twenty-first) century? How about Reagan's support for Jonas Savimbi and his related alliance with apartheid South Africa, under the cover of so-called "constructive engagement"? US arms for the Khmer Rouge? For Saddam Hussein? For the Argentine and Chilean juntas? The mujaheddin, not only in Afghanistan but throughout the Middle East -- particularly throught the USA's Pakistani proxy? Are there no right or wrong answers here, but just "problems to be solved" by one

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Jim wrote:

Jennifer, you are right, I reacted like an emotional liberal for suggesting that you are deranged. You missed my point, which was that "emotionality" is not characteristic of any particular political orientation. We all react emotionally at times when arguing for something we firmly believe in, although some people are better at hiding it than others. I suspect that your perception that liberals are more emotional than conservatives is probably a result of the fact that in ideological discussions, you are more likely to be opposed to the positions held by liberals than those held by conservatives. Therefore, you probably get to see the emotional side of liberals more than that of conservatives.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2000


Maybe I'm reading between the lines incorrectly, but I guess John is proposing the United States not act in its own self-interest? (unlike every other nation/state in the world)

Of course he has plenty of examples of 'humanitarian' States operating in the interest of all people, with little regard for their own selfish designs.

I know Superpowers traditionally are the whipping boy when things go wrong, and when things don't go wrong, their assistance and aid can conveniently be forgotten -- because of course, we are obligated by some moral imperative which I'm not familiar with, but I'm sure it must exist -- because we do give aid sometimes -- therefore it(the imperative) must exist -- or some such.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2000


Cory writes:

"Maybe I'm reading between the lines incorrectly, but I guess John is proposing the United States not act in its own self-interest?"

Cory is reading between the lines incorrectly, because he fails to define what the "self-interest" of the United States is. Hitherto it has been defined by the narrow set of business interests and their political allies who set the agenda; and in that sense, yes, I'm proposing that the United States should not act in its "self-interest."

To achieve that, however, requires more than my making the proposal, rationally convincing others of same, and then getting them to carry it out. That's because the "self-interest" of the United States is not monolithic; the country contains internal contradictions, if you will. Therefore, if I were to propose that the United States act in some other interest than it has hitherto, then those whose in the United States whose interests are not currently served would have to assert their own "self-interest," as it were, against that of those who currently set the agenda. That would require more than just rational political discussion. It would require difficult struggle, like the kind that helped to end the Vietnam War, or the kind that restrained Reagan from a full-scale invasion of Central America.

"Of course he has plenty of examples of 'humanitarian' States operating in the interest of all people, with little regard for their own selfish designs."

I've just cited several examples where peoples -- specifically, the American people -- have restrained the violence of the rulers of their own state, which is more what I had in mind.

"I know Superpowers traditionally are the whipping boy when things go wrong, and when things don't go wrong, their assistance and aid can conveniently be forgotten -- because of course, we are obligated by some moral imperative which I'm not familiar with, but I'm sure it must exist -- because we do give aid sometimes -- therefore it(the imperative) must exist -- or some such."

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, considering especially that US foreign aid is a fraction of 1% of the budget. Countries that are hardly superpowers, and which can therefore barely afford humanitarian assistance of any kind (Cuba is one example) are responsible for levels of humanitarian assistance to other countries far out of proportion to their ability to provide it (Cuba's export of health professionals throughout the Third World, for example).

Additionally, most foreign aid is tied to the same narrow corporate interests who direct the rest of US foreign policy. The gobs of military aid are first on the list, of course, but even the humanitarian aid is directed thereto: so for example, the bulk of non-military aid goes to two states, Israel and Egypt, whose purpose is to keep a certain resource-rich region of the world politically locked-down for the purposes of American oil companies.

Additionally, I'm not one of these who also holds the United States responsible for the atrocities of its enemies; therefore, I'm not one to call for increased US intervention against people such as Milosevic, the Iranian regime, the Sudanese fundamentalists, etc. As a citizen of the United States, my responsibility is to hold the United States responsible for those atrocities in which it plays a role, and in which those atrocities could be significantly curbed if the United States role were reduced.

Colombia is the most recent example. The Senate has just approved a $1.7 billion military aid package to the government which -- with its allied death squads -- is the most egregious human rights abuser (aside, of course, from its dependable Neighbor to the North, which only provides encouragement) in the Western Hemisphere. It is designed for counterinsurgency even though it is under the cover of narcotics interdiction, and will have the effect of sabotaging ongoing peace initiatives by encouraging the government to renew the fighting rather than sit at the table and talk. Nice work, Uncle Sam!

John Lacny

* ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! * ! *

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2000


Identity politics sucks. Whether liberal/conservative, gay/straight, black/white, latino/black, male/female, PC/anti-PC and on and on. It's marketing, plain and simple. The "branding" of the masses. It's easier to sell things to people who identify with a brand. This is not to say that humans don't have a natural tendency toward this (obviously, we do), rather that the problem is getting worse because those who gain from divisiveness have found ever more subtle ways to encourage it.

As John Lacny points out, we (as citizens of a nation) no longer question the underlying assumptions we make about our lack of responsibility for US foreign policy, or the proper relationship between capital and human beings, to offer two examples. We believe the US has unlimited rights as a super-power and that the atrocities committed by our government are somehow less atrocious than those committed by weaker nations. We believe that there is inherent good in our economic progress. Then we use up our collective energy on debating such things as whether someone should be fired from their jobs for using the word 'niggardly.' (Which, of course, has no real relationship to the word with which it was confused). Or we spend valuable time and money debating whether we should impeach our president when he gets hoisted on his own petard. Another fine example of how quickly identity politics goes by the wayside when it interferes with the desire of those in power to do whatever the hell they want.

We are too tired from all of that hoo-ha to think straight.

I'm with Gabby--Vive la revolution!

Or, in the words of the Zapatistas (the brand of revolution I prefer)-- Ya Basta! Roughly speaking: Enough, already!

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2000


Heheheh. "that helped end the Vietnam War". Oh my. No, stop, it hurts to laugh.

Nothing helped end the Vietnam War, dude. The war ended because a) we were getting creamed in jungle guerrilla warfare the likes of which we were unprepared for and unwilling to admit we were bad at and b) our government and military refused to commit to the battle - thus the wonderful policy of pulling experienced field commanders out after only a year or so in country, and replacing them with new commanders who had no experience, thus prolonging the war.

Vietnam was our own Iran-Iraq war: a never ending battle of half-assed commitment and murky goals.

-- Anonymous, July 08, 2000


Gabby,

I'll agree the campus anti-war movement is often given far too much credibility for having helped end the war (usually by columnist who, conveniently enough, were in the campus movement) but the idea that we just didn't know what we were doing, or as Rambo said "we weren't allowed to win" is garbage. I mean, how many did we kill in Vietnam, Laos, etc? Close to two million? Hell, a few million more and we could have been "the next Hitler." Of course, the myth of the U.S. always standing up for freedom and democracy and human rights prevents most of us from comparing ourselves to the Nazis.

Anyway, it's hard to realistically argue that we weren't trying to win, but we were trying to win an unjust war against pretty much the entire population of Vietnam. The reason the war ended was because they were pretty much running out of soldiers. Officers were getting killed by their own men. Working class folks (not college students, who initially supported or were apathetic to the war) hid out to avoid the draft. A radicalized Black community saw Vietnam as nothing more than dark skinned people killing dark skinned people to please some White folks, the same White folks that wouldn't give them jobs or housing in the U.S.

Ok, so now we're really far off on a tangent.

I also definitely have to agree with John's comment about liberals accepting the basic underlying ideologies in this conservative argument. There is so much that is beyond the pale in U.S. political discourse because wealthy politicians from our two parties agree on them, so reporters, who mostly just quote politicans (and other official news sources) never report on anything beyond the "lifestyle wars:" abortion, gay rights, and censoring entertainment. Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird of prey.

It's also interesting that this entire article seems to judge presidents solely on how agressive than are with other nations, not how much food folks had to eat here in America.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000


David said: Of course, the myth of the U.S. always standing up for freedom and democracy and human rights prevents most of us from comparing ourselves to the Nazis.

Bullshit pure and simple. Whas has the US done that could compare to the unmitigated evil of Nazism?

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000


Attempted genocide of the natives comes about as close as it needs to - the evil was equal (rewards offered for dead Indians, deliberate biological warfare via infected blankets exacted by the Army, denial of basic human rights as well as those legally bestowed on others, stripping people of their property, their childrn, etc, in order to crush spirits and remove power...) The difference was a matter of organization, not higher principles. I think if we were a smaller country without the means to shove them out of the way (and destroy villages while advertising how evil and threatening the Indians were far enough away from eyewitnesses who could say otherwise or get squeamish) the details would have looked much more similar to the Nazi method of getting rid of the people who they believed threatened their goals. It's not less evil.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

Thanks for everyone who responded to this thread. Note that David Grenier has Hitler'd this discussion.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

That's it. I'm calling the police.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

Actually, David did not 'Hitler' the thread.

He brought up an important point. After WWII we had a new idea introduced: guilty, but not responsible. We held the german citizens guilty for the actions of the nazis, but not responsible. We were shocked by their level of complicity.

This idea crops up all over the place, except when we consider our own government and our own guilt. We are obsessed with making sure that the crimes of WWII are not forgotten, but seem to have failed to learn the lesson.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000


oops. David did 'Hitler' the thread. For some reason I thought he'd only used the word nazi. D'oh.

Anyway, it's still an important point.

For any questions about the tactics of our government, I direct you to the Web site for the School of Americas: Where we learn that the proper way to fight insurrection is to torture and kill civilians. This is referred to as attacking the rebels "inherent weakness."

Makes me wonder what my real worth is to my own government. I'm merely a civilian. Caring about my well-being is "weak," and suitable only for amateur insurgents.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000


Jim,

I hadn't intended to "Hitler" the discussion, although I realize now that it could look that way. My intention, actually, was to point out our hypocrisy in declaring anyone the State Department decides is an official enemy as "The Next Hitler" or "another Hitler" while we are responsible for killing more folks in the latter half of this century than died under the third reich (of course, here I am incuding as "we" all of our client states that we arm and fund in the name of combatting communism, combatting drugs, and now I guess combatting human rights abusers).

Installing Pinochet, Hussein, Suharto, etc. into power. Killing millions of asians because we didn't like the way their election was going to turn out. Supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa. Killing well over a million Iraqi civilians, most of them children, with both bombs and sanctions. Killing thousads of civilians (which CNN did not report) in our attempt to arrest Noriega. You get the picture. Not to mention our own history with slavery and the near genocide of the native americans, who once peopled this entire continent and now exist on a few reservations (and the Repubican Party is trying to take even that away from them... at least in Washington State).

Does the fact that we kill in the name of politics or economics really any better than killing in the name of racial superiority? Are the millions we have killed any less dead than the millions killed by Hitler or Stalin?

So the point is that "Hitlering" is entirely.. well ridiculous. My point is that approval for U.S. foreign policy is based on a completely illegitimate "Hitlering" as we have quite literally applied that label in both Iraq and Serbia (but not Croatia or Turkey).

I guess the irony of my "another hitler" statement just doesn't come through in this medium, or when I am posting while very tired.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000


David, I try real hard to drop out of threads that have been Hitler'd, although I don't always succeed.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

I see myself as very much on the left (or at least as a nihilist), and I really and truly loathe contemporary US conservatism, especially in its cultural/social varieties. But I'm afraid I'm going to sound very right-wing today.

Angie-- an insurrection is all about "civilians" (people out of a uniform) attacking a government. Killing them is how insurrections and rebellions are put down. Unpleasant but true. Merely being a "civilian" or a "villager" or poor and oppressed does not automatically make you a saint, nor should it protect you from punishment. If the counterinsurgency lessons at the School of the Americas make that point-- well and good.

David Grenier-- invoking Hitler is a tired and generally sloppy way to win an argument, but if the name is invoked to summon up the idea that even small countries and small tyrants can do appalling things and endanger the world at large, then it has some use. You might note that in a number of non-European countries, the image of Hitler these days is not that of the ultimate demon, but of a strong ruler who knew how to mobilize his people and punish his enemies.

As a member of the educated, English-speaking Euro-descended (you'll notice how I avoided saying 'white')US middle classes, I realize that my own welfare and security depend on things like cheap energy, and I do support the idea that the US should not hesitate to use force to keep the oil flowing.

Did the settlers in the US do dreadful things to the native tribal populations. Yes, certainly. Is it anything to be proud of? No. But the destruction of the tribal populations was absolutely inevitable. The same process went on in Russian Central Asia and Manchuria and Chinese Turkestan. Urban and settled-farming cultures displace and destroy nomadic cultures. Cruel, but inexorable. The issue is always land, and every boatload of immigrants that arrived at New York or Philadelphia (or Buenos Aires, too; look into General Rojas and the Argentine) meant x number of dead Indians down the line. And once the prospect of land was there, no government in the world could've stopped the flow. The Qing government couldn't stop Han Chinese from flooding into the protected grasslands of Manchuria, the Algerian and Moroccan governments can't stop the flood of farmers into Tuareg lands, and the US could never have stopped the flow of potential farmers westward. You could have farms, towns, railroads-- or Indians. You couldn't have both.

The US has supported some seriously ugly regimes around the world, though the lesser-evil argument has a hell of a lot of validity. The South Vietnamese regime was corrupt and sporadically brutal; the North Vietnamese regime was Stalinist and thoroughly murderous. I wouldn't have wanted to live under the Somozas, but I'd have wanted even less to live under the Sandinistas. (I tend to find corrupt regimes preferable-- easier to deal with --than regimes who believe in Great Ideas)

I for one supported bombing Serbia as early as 1991/92. I support protecting Montenegro when it leaves so-called "Yugoslavia". The Croats swept large numbers of ethnic Serbs out of the Krajina in 1995 (I was in Zagreb that spring; I drank a lot of beer at street parties celebrating the victory of the Croatian spring offensive), with US and German advisors ("private consultants") and weaponry. Good for them, actually. It wasn't Croatia but Serbia which was the danger--- Serbia which used violent nationalism to build itself an empire in Bosnia and Kosovo and the Vojvodina. When US bombs fell on Belgrade in 1999, I again thought well and good. The crowds who'd cheered for Milosevic and Greater Serbia had no right to complain. They'd been there for the banquet; they couldn't complain about having to pay the check.

The same holds true for Iraq.

Do I expect the US to be utterly mporal and selflessly humanitarian? No. I expect the US to act to protect its own interests. If it acts on humanitarian principles, fine. I applaud that. I give money to Medecins sans frontieres; I support the land mine treaty. But if it acts in Kosovo and not in Rwanda, I understand that Kosovo is easier to reach and that a destabilized Europe is far more dangerous to US interests than even the most dreadful bloodbath in Africa. (And, brutally but truthfully, it just costs less to save the Balkans than the bush...)

What I expect from any state to which I belong is action to create a social safety net at home and action to maintain access to needed resources abroad. Anything else is just extra.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000


Lohr- Once you declare yourself at war with your government you are no longer a civilian. However, there are those who are caught in the middle of revolution who do not take up arms. They are still civilians. Purposely torturing and killing those who are not at war is considered a war crime.

Revolution is war. That somebody, somewhere (whoever is mysteriously in charge of such semiotic song and dance) refuses to upgrade an "insurrection" to a "civil war" makes it no less a war.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000


Man. I've been suckered again.

Sorry, I didn't know that Mr. Lohr was intent on providing a screwy opinion on every topic ever.

Some day I'll learn.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000


Disclaimer: I'm going to mention the name of a certain German dictator, but this is by no means an attempt at Hitlering the discussion.

FWIW, the U.S. genocide against the Native Americans was a major influence on Hitler. He believed if we could do it, so could he. He saw Russia as analogous to our Great Plains region, a broad expanse of land that merely needed to be cleared of the "savages" and settled by good hard-working German pioneers. This connection is documented in his writings and speeches.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000


Angie-- Once upon a time, Mao defined the peasantry as an ocean in which the rebel swims like a fish. Drying up the ocean is a cruel and brutal way to catch the fish, but it can be effective. If the peasantry support the rebels, feed them, arm them, hide them-- why is the government not free to punish them?

While (oh, yes-- this is true) Hitler liked cowboy novels (the Germans have this *thing* about cowboys-- which is another story), he didn't need to look at the US West to be inspired to genocide. If he mentioned any other slaughter at all, it was the Turks and the Armenians during World War One-- "Who remembers the Armenians?" he once aid, when asked what history would think of the Final Solution. The idea of the Final Solution was all his own-- taking the anti- Semitism endemic in late-19th and early-20th century Europe to its logical conclusion. (He did always say that made him different was that he, unlike his rivals and opponents, would see an idea through to the end.)

The Nazis did see the plains of Ukraine and Poland and western Russia to be potential farmland for Germans, where the Slavs were to be driven out or reduced to serfdom. Open expanses of land-- the Great Plains, the steppe, the pampas --seem to do that to people.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000


How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ

Note paragraphs I-4 and II-6 in particular.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000


Moderation questions? read the FAQ