04-09-2004 19:36									#391
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: We were about as much of a legitimate ruler of Vietnam as Japan was the "legitimate ruler" of Korea

Japan was the legitimate ruler of Korea.

	04-09-2004 19:43									#392
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ned, do you find your similes and comparisons in the same box your breakfast cereal or what?

	04-09-2004 22:07									#393
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned Hey, Berz, we rule Peuto Rico. Are we a brutal colonial power as well? Also, ask the people of Samoa, another American colony, what they think. And, what about Hawaii? Not that long ago, it was a colony. Now it is a state.

You might want to read Mark Twain on what he had to say about America's colonialism and imperialism in the 1898 war with Spain. Once you start down the road to empire building it would seem to be habit forming.


And yes, Ned, in the Philippines Americans were brutal murdering thugs. Ostensibly liberating the Philippines from the Spanish, in reality getting an offshore Asian colony and access to the resources that Henry Cabot Lodge waxed so lyrically over.

	05-09-2004 01:08									#394
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: We were about as much of a legitimate ruler of Vietnam as Japan was the "legitimate ruler" of Korea Japan was the legitimate ruler of Korea.

If you consider forced conquest and annexation "legitimate" then sure.

	05-09-2004 01:09									#395
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned On Colmes show tonight, Colmes was defending Kerry against the Zell Miller charge that Kerry would only defend America with the consent of Paris. In doing so, he replayed the portion of Kerry's acceptance speech where he said he would not accept a foreign veto to defend America. But, I ask you, kind gentlemen, which is more consistent with Kerry's central criticism of Bush on Iraq, that he was right to proceed without Paris's UNSC vote or wrong to do so? EVERYONE knows the answer to this question.

You mean the answer that the invasion of Iraq didn't have the slightest mother****ing thing to do with "defending America."

	05-09-2004 01:15									#396
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned gun, our role in combat ended in January '73. There is no need to speculate about whether Kerry prolonged the war. We have the statement of the NV themselves in the negotiations where they cited Kerry and others in the "peace" movement as to why they didn't have to negotiate for America to leave, as the peace movement would force an unliteral withdrawal. Now you say, what was wrong with that? If you really have to ask THAT question, you are man without honor.

The men without honor are those who, with no possible risk to themselves, continued to have other Americans sent to die in a failed foreign policy endeavor in order to satisfy their egotistical delusions about national honor.

Yes, we should have all goose-stepped in unison behind Nixon, while another 10-15,000 American troops were KIA, in order to force the NV government to "negotiate" with us to withdraw from someplace we had no compelling interest in being.

Great logic, for all those who knew they would never be one of those KIA or WIA.

	05-09-2004 01:20									#397
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: The NG in the Vietnam and prior eras was a bit different from the NG in the present day. Quiet, you! You're ruining a perfectly serviceable troll... And Bush is no more of a chickenshit than Kerry was. Kerry tried his best to stay out of combat in Vietnam, first by serving offshore on the Gridley and then by requesting to command a Swift Boat, which at the time of his decision operated solely in a coastal patrol role and hardly ever saw combat. Unfortunately for Kerry, the Swift Boat mission got changed after he had signed up and he had to actually fight the enemy on the rivers of Vietnam until he wrangled up enough Purple Hearts to go home. Bush and Kerry tried the exact same ****. Only difference is that Bush was more successful.

Funny, now Kerry had a dual position as a personnel officer so he could cut his own orders to go where he wanted?

The only difference is that Kerry was there and served in combat, and Bush sat on his lily-white ass and sunned his yellow belly in Texas.

	05-09-2004 05:32									#398
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: If you consider forced conquest and annexation "legitimate" then sure.

I consider it "legitimate" if the international community accepts it. They did in the case of Korea. Doesn't make it right, but that's not what we're discussing.

	05-09-2004 05:53									#399
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Yeah, France in 1946 sure behaved the same way as the US today. Did you know we have " mankind's museum" in Paris, which was basically a human zoo displaying the "savages" of our colonies, prior to WW2. Did you know we forced the denizens of our colonies to pay taxes in Francs, and these Francs they could only get by working for the State (= forced labor). Fact is, we treated our colonies like utter dirt. We went there to exploit and pillage their territory, their riches. We contributed very little to their development (actually, the Japanese did more for Vietnam's infrastructure during WW2 than we did during our entire colonial occupation). We were about as much of a legitimate ruler of Vietnam as Japan was the "legitimate ruler" of Korea

I will accept that the French were different from the US in their colonialism. Perhaps, then, Berz will confine his anti-colonialism to the French variety.

So, Spiffor, since you have joined this thread, what would you have done differently if you were in charge of French Indochina in 1945?

	05-09-2004 05:55									#400
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Also, Spiffor, you made another point about the Japanese bringing a semblance of good government to IndoChina. I have heard the very same thing from "native" Taiwanese who remember Japanese rule in very favorable terms.

	05-09-2004 05:57									#401
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin Ned, do you find your similes and comparisons in the same box your breakfast cereal or what?

Spiffor has handled this one better. He admits the French were not there to "help" the locals at all.

	05-09-2004 05:59									#402
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom You might want to read Mark Twain on what he had to say about America's colonialism and imperialism in the 1898 war with Spain. Once you start down the road to empire building it would seem to be habit forming. And yes, Ned, in the Philippines Americans were brutal murdering thugs. Ostensibly liberating the Philippines from the Spanish, in reality getting an offshore Asian colony and access to the resources that Henry Cabot Lodge waxed so lyrically over.

Thanks for the compliments. Even today most Phillipinos remember US rule in fond terms.

	05-09-2004 06:00									#403
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat You mean the answer that the invasion of Iraq didn't have the slightest mother****ing thing to do with "defending America."

Is that your opinion, or Kerry's?

	05-09-2004 06:02									#404
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The men without honor are those who, with no possible risk to themselves, continued to have other Americans sent to die in a failed foreign policy endeavor in order to satisfy their egotistical delusions about national honor. Yes, we should have all goose-stepped in unison behind Nixon, while another 10-15,000 American troops were KIA, in order to force the NV government to "negotiate" with us to withdraw from someplace we had no compelling interest in being. Great logic, for all those who knew they would never be one of those KIA or WIA.

This "assumes" the failure. In 1972, when Kerry stabbed America in the back, South Vietnam was very much a going concern.

	05-09-2004 06:06									#405
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Funny, now Kerry had a dual position as a personnel officer so he could cut his own orders to go where he wanted? The only difference is that Kerry was there and served in combat, and Bush sat on his lily-white ass and sunned his yellow belly in Texas.

There is one thing that Bush, you and I agree on, that Kerry's service in Vietnam was more honorable than Bush's service in the National Guard.

But, that is not the issue we are primarily discussing here. It is the lying Kerry did in connection with his medals. And it is what he did when he returned from Vietnam.

Btw, why was Kerry's so-called honorable discharge delayed until '78? Was there an earlier, buried, dishonorable discharge?

	05-09-2004 06:50									#406
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ned This "assumes" the failure. In 1972, when Kerry stabbed America in the back, South Vietnam was very much a going concern.

Yeah, sure it was.


In the same way a terminally ill patient is a going concern until the moment they actually die.

Re: the Filipinos- I do suggest Ned, that you try and read some history from the point of view of those who were occupied and plundered, and those who see Aguinaldo as a hero and not a rebel.

Unfortunately all you've probably read is the sanitized American version which refers to the Filipino-American War as an insurrection (funny, how a war of liberation from the Spanish becomes a colonial war of occupation so quickly), an 'insurrection' which lasted longer and was more bloody than the supposed war of liberation.

Of course, given that the Americans had never actually conquered all the Philippines, I find it difficult to see how anyone could honestly describe it as an 'insurrection' but perhaps I'm being too pedantic.

I mean, good heavens, markets and profits were at stake!

Like I always say with American foreign policy and neo-colonialism, follow the money:

'The treaty had to be ratified by the U.S. Senate before it could take effect. It, however, met opposition, mainly against the annexation of the Philippines. An Anti-Imperialist League was formed to rally American public opinion against the annexation. Some prominent Americans, such as former President Grover Cleveland, Andrew Carnegie, and Mark Twain, also opposed the ratification.

One of the reasons why the United States should not acquire the Philippines was that the Filipinos themselves were fighting the Americans in the Philippines. Such an act, they said, showed that the Filipinos did not want to be under American rule. They also reasoned that it was inconsistent for the United States to disclaim—through the so-called Teller Amendment—any intention of annexing Cuba and then annex the other Spanish colonies, such as the Philippines.



Annexation Fever.

There were also many in the United States who saw the advantages of taking over the Philippines. Many missionaries, for instance, favored annexation. So did people who feared that Germany might get the Philippines if the United States did not. Some favored annexation to give America a “foothold” in the populous markets of Asia. '

http://www.filipino-americans.com/filamwar.html

Oohh, is that Henry Cabot Lodge I hear, decades before he made his speech about the importance of Viet Nam?

Sure sounds like it.

'The Filipinos were outraged when they learned that Spain, which no longer controlled the Philippines, had ceded the country to the United States.'


It would have been rather like Great Britain ceding the American colonies to France....

'The mission of the United States was described by McKinley as one of “benevolent assimilation.” In the same proclamation, General Elwell Otis was named the commander of American ground forces in the Philippines, which was to “extend by force American sovereignty over this country.” '

Now it's getting clearer. Extend by force. We all know what that means, don't we?

'Talk about war being “hell,” this war beats the hottest estimate ever made of that locality. Caloocan was supposed to contain seventeen thousand inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native.'

Um, I'm getting the picture. Would these dead natives be the ones with fond memories?

No, must be these Filipino 'bandits':

'There occurred the hardest sight I ever saw. They had four prisoners, and didn’t know what to do with them. They asked Captain Bishop what to do, and he said: “You know the orders, and four natives fell dead.” '


Describing their adventures in Malabon, Anthony Michea of the Third Artillery wrote:

"We bombarded a place called Malabon, and then we went in and killed every native we met, men, women, and children. It was a dreadful sight, the killing of the poor creatures. "


Let freedom ring, hallelujah!

That awkward fellow, Mark Twain, whom you don't appear to have read on the subject:

"What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and War was what we needed. We clinched our opportunity. It is Mr. Chamberlain’s case over again—at least in its motive and intention; and we played the game as adroitly as he played it himself. "

To the Person Sitting in Darkness, North American Review 172 (Feb 1901).


This has a familiar ring:

'The Pacification of Samar.

Due to the public demand in the U.S. for retaliation, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the pacification of Samar. And in six months, General “Jake” Smith transformed Balangiga into a “howling wilderness.” He ordered his men to kill anybody capable of carrying arms, including ten-year old boys.

Smith particularly ordered Major Littleton Waller to punish the people of Samar for the deaths of the American troops.

His exact orders were: “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me.” '

Joseph Schott: 'The Ordeal of Samar'

(The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc./Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc., Publishers, Indianapolis, Indiana, Copyright 1964).

I bet those ten year old boys look back with real delight on American rule, don't you?

'The civil government, composed of 6,000 men, was established. It was, however, led by American officers and former members of the Spanish civil guards. '

My goodness, it's post-war Viet Nam, Vichy France and Japanese troops all over again. How uncanny.....


'A war that was in part fueled by the American public desire to end the alleged abuse of Cuban natives, would in the end result in three territorial conquests for the US, tens of thousands of Spaniards and Cubans killed, and the extermination of a quarter of a million Philippinos. '

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Spanish-American_War


But then, as with all the figures I quote, you'll say (all evidence to the contrary) that it's exaggerated, and probably only 3 Filipinos died, from self-inflicted wounds, or influenza.....

I do enjoy your version of American history, Ned- it's like real history, except without the genuine motivations, nasty parts, and, oh yes, reality.

	05-09-2004 13:40									#407
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Molly, I haven't studied the Philippine situation, but it strikes me odd that we would pay $20 million for the Philippines and then immediately allow a local government to assert independence without even a polite negotiation.

However, it may have been true as well that had we simply withdrawn, the Philippines would have been occuppied by some other power, Germany or Japan, for example. I think, IIRC, that is the main reason we took control from the Spanish.

	05-09-2004 13:45									#408
	Got spare money?

And, by the way, it strikes me that Aquinaldo was similar to Uncle Ho. As soon as the Spanish left, he expected the whole country to be turned over to him without a prior election just because he commanded a large revolutionary force, but not the only one.

	05-09-2004 14:47									#409
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

they also had a congress that drafted and approved an Phillipino constitution, an act that was opposed by the united states that just had bought the country from Spain as a part of their peace threaty. But I guess that's not important at all.

	05-09-2004 17:39									#410
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned I think, IIRC, that is the main reason we took control from the Spanish.

'They also reasoned that it was inconsistent for the United States to disclaim—through the so-called Teller Amendment—any intention of annexing Cuba and then annex the other Spanish colonies, such as the Philippines. '


'Some favored annexation to give America a “foothold” in the populous markets of Asia. '


'Many missionaries, for instance, favored annexation. So did people who feared that Germany might get the Philippines if the United States did not. '



The main reasons, and the inconsistency, or rather, hypocrisy behind them.


"What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence..."

Mark Twain

	05-09-2004 17:58									#411
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

But molly bloom, you can't quote mark twain on this! He was afterall, against the US policy in the phillipines. That makes him wrong be default in ned's mind. Heck, Mark Twain might even have had something against a quarter of a million or more Phillipines dying in order to save the phillipinos from themselves! I mean, that's just absurd!

Last edited by Kropotkin on 05-09-2004 at 20:47

	05-09-2004 18:02									#412
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin But molly bloom, you can't quite mark twain on this! He was afterall, against the US policy in the phillipines. That makes him wrong be default in ned's mind. Heck, Mark Twain might even have had something against a quarter of a million or more Phillipines dying in order to save the phillipinos from themselves! I mean, that's just absurd!

Oh, I know.


Imagine, the Filipinos capable of governing themselves?

Willing to die for their freedom?


Why, that's almost American!

	05-09-2004 18:12									#413
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned So, Spiffor, since you have joined this thread, what would you have done differently if you were in charge of French Indochina in 1945?

I would have tried to immediately start negociating the independance, and tried to oversee the political project of an independant Vietnam. I would probably have favored a mixed government, under the symbolic leadership of the royal family, and with input from all factions of the Vietnamese society, including the Communists, and French interests.

I would have tried to keep Vietnam in a kind of French "commonwealth", with favored trading pacts, and military alliance.

And I would have requested money from Paris to build some infrastructure to show our goodwill to the local factions, and to show they had more to win by cooperating with us than by fighting.

Hindsight is always 20/20 however. This a strategy similar to that which we used in Africa in 1960 (save for Algeria). And this part of Africa remained under French influence, and the cold war barely affected it.

	05-09-2004 22:36									#414
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin they also had a congress that drafted and approved an Phillipino constitution, an act that was opposed by the united states that just had bought the country from Spain as a part of their peace threaty. But I guess that's not important at all.

K, and of course I think the United States would have respected this new "Government" had the Constitution and the president been elected by the entire people of the Philippines. I think the main problem we had with Aquinaldo probably lay in his insistence that his government would not be subject to a United States Governor, but would rather be independent. Since sovereignty had legally passed from Spain to United States, this was in fact a form of rebellion.

Regardless, within a few short years the United States agreed to a road map for independence for Philippines with the Philippine government, a government that apparently was in fact elected by the people of the Philippines and not imposed by force as in the case of the Aquinaldo government.

(Are there any examples in history were an armed band of guerrillas won a revolutionary war and then held elections to determine their supreme leader rather than have that supreme leader become, let us say, "president for life." I think United States is one example and maybe the only example. Historians remark that we were fortunate that we had a leader such as George Washington who voluntarily laid down his power in favor of a constitutional process.)

	05-09-2004 22:40									#415
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned K, and of course I think the United States would have respected this new "Government" had the Constitution and the president been elected by the entire people of the Philippines. I think the main problem we had with Aquinaldo probably lay in his insistence that his government would not be subject to a United States Governor, but would rather be independent. Since sovereignty had legally passed from Spain to United States, this was in fact a form of rebellion.

And there's something wrong with a rebellion for independence, because . . . . . ?

	05-09-2004 22:46									#416
	Tired of ads?

quote: K, and of course I think the United States would have respected this new "Government" had the Constitution and the president been elected by the entire people of the Philippines.

So you think that, do you? I think you're delusional.

	06-09-2004 01:24									#417
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned Is that your opinion, or Kerry's?

WEll, John won't be appointing me to any policy positions until after he's sworn in, so I don't speck for him at this time.

And it's really not "opinion" unless you want to revise both the concept of "defend" and the location of "America."

Saddam couldn't project a goat turd successfully beyond his own borders, and there's no evidence as of yet that he would have been capable of doing so directly or through future proxies in the near future. Certainly our ability to ramp up and respond to an actual future threat is and at all times was far faster than his ability to develop any such threat.

This had nothing to do with "defending America" it had everything to do with an excuse to go after former perceived American lackey Saddam Hussein for biting the hand that fed him, same way Noriega had to go in the shitter. Bush II had a hardon for Saddam way before he even assumed office, and he stacked his policy deck with Saddam-hawk advisors.

	06-09-2004 01:40									#418
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ned This "assumes" the failure. In 1972, when Kerry stabbed America in the back, South Vietnam was very much a going concern.

The failure was in place since 1954. No RVN government had ever had popular legitimacy, all were corrupt, inept, unable to control their own territory, prevent infiltration, or deal with a peasantry who on average was at least as sympathetic, and in many cases moreso, to the "enemy."

RVN itself was a fictional creation - the French last ditch attempt to retain some influence and prevent total humiliation by partitioning a former colony rather than ceding defeat over the whole of it.

Other than the ARVN Rangers, LDNN, and the ARVN Marines and Airborne forces, which were all highly trained, committed volunteer forces, the main ARVN forces were a sad joke, and riddled with infiltrators (as happened in some cases even with the ARVN Rangers and Marines). In 1972 at Quang Tri, the ARVN was caught with it's pants down despite obvious indicators of NVA units shifting into an offensive posture, and the exemplary leadership of ARVN officers such as Phan Van Dinh and Huang Xuan Lam is still legendary.

Kerry didn't stab America in the back, the stupid mother****ers who got us into that mess and killed over 60,000 American troops in support of an inept, corrupt, and fraudulent leadership of a half-country are the ones who stabbed America in the back.

	06-09-2004 03:36									#419
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Since sovereignty had legally passed from Spain to United States, this was in fact a form of rebellion.

How bizarre.


Slavery had been abolished in the United States decades before, but now you would have us believe that the Spanish sold a colony and people which they no longer had control of, let alone anything resembling 'sovereignty' over, to a country which hitherto had no attachments to said colony or relationship with the native people of that colony.

And more to the point- the United States at no point prior to Spain's illegitimate cession of the Filipinos and their country ever had control (military or otherwise) of all the Philippines.

How do you rebel against someone who has never been your lawful ruler?



I look forward to your support should Mexico decide to sell California to Iran, for instance, or perhaps Great Britain sell New Hampshire to North Korea.



I think I'm going to go and rebel against Nepal now, and perhaps try to persuade Spain to cede old Spanish Morocco to me.

	06-09-2004 09:43									#420
	Support Apolyton

quote: Kerry didn't stab America in the back, the stupid mother****ers who got us into that mess and killed over 60,000 American troops in support of an inept, corrupt, and fraudulent leadership of a half-country are the ones who stabbed America in the back.

Arguable stupidity of political decisions can't be called "stabbing in the back." Painting into a corner, digging into a hole, etc, yes.

Kerry did stab the US, and most importantly his fellow soldiers, in the back. Denial (or "spin" as the Dems would call it) won't change that. Try listening to the guys who were in Hanoi Hilton with their torturers playing the tapes of Kerry's Senate testimony as "proof" that the Americans were all war criminals.

quote: And more to the point- the United States at no point prior to Spain's illegitimate cession of the Filipinos and their country ever had control (military or otherwise) of all the Philippines. How do you rebel against someone who has never been your lawful ruler?

Since when does transfer of sovereignty only have validity if the recipient has conquered the territory first? Was France's sale of Louisiana Territory "illegitimate" because the US didn't declare war against France and conquer the land first? No.

If Spain could not "lawfully" transfer sovereign control to the US by treaty, then Spain could not "lawfully" transfer control to some two-bit, self-appointed militant rebel, either.