14-07-2003 10:23									#1
	Pacifist conservatives and war-hawk leftists... Support Apolyton

i just noticed something that Frozzy posted that has been echoed a hundred times on apolyton...

quote: I'm right-wing on economic issues, and on home affairs, but the fact I'm a pacifist brings me back to a centrist

why is pacificism seen as left-wing? where the **** did this idea come from that leftists want peace and rightists are all war-like?

	14-07-2003 10:24									#2
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

GBasN

Attachment: blabla.jpg
This has been downloaded 158 time(s).

	14-07-2003 10:27									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"Pacificism at all costs no matter the consquences" is, and always will be left wing. It is nonsense. I do not like war. I never have. There has to be a reasonable settlement, and as Henry Kissinger said, in his book "Ending the Vietnam war" (which is far more credible than any other leftist nonsense out there), a honorable solution. If this cannot be attained, military force must be used.

	14-07-2003 10:27									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: where the **** did this idea come from that leftists want peace and rightists are all war-like?

Conservatives are usually more in favor of high military spending, pre-emptive strikes, military action around the world, etc., whereas lefties usually favor less military spending and less involvement in war, although of course in the US there have been numerous exceptions, such as Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, etc. However, these people would probably mostly be considered centrists or right wing by the rest of the world, so the point still holds I suppose.

	14-07-2003 10:28									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: There has to be a reasonable settlement, and as Henry Kissinger said, in his book "Ending the Vietnam war" (which is far more credible than any other leftist nonsense out there), a honorable solution. If this cannot be attained, military force must be used.

Wouldn't the honorable solution have been for the US military to pull out, and allow the Vietnamese people the right to self determination?

Ahh, you meant the militarily honorable solution for the US Army and US politicians

	14-07-2003 10:31									#6
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Wouldn't the honorable solution have been for the US military to pull out, and allow the Vietnamese people the right to self determination?

Well Kissinger also stated in his book that the South Vietnamese government was not democratic, and that he was very disappointed that the filthy communist government in North Vietnam extended its grips over the people. The fact is the Vietnamese people never had a right to determine their destiny when the US left. They don't have this today.

quote: Ahh, you meant the militarily honorable solution for the US Army and US politicians

Read the book, and you will receive a different viewpoint rather than the same old bullshit you receive from the same old commentators.

	14-07-2003 10:33									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Well Kissinger also stated in his book that the South Vietnamese government was not democratic,

The government we were militarily propping up, and the government we helped put into office, you mean?

quote: and that he was very disappointed that the filthy communist government in North Vietnam extended its grips over the people. The fact is the Vietnamese people never had a right to determine their destiny when the US left. They don't have this today.

OK, but if the Vietnamese people had the choice, it's likely they would have opted for communism as opposed to the military dictatorship of the South. Not that either government was any good, you understand, but that's hardly the point.

quote: Read the book, and you will receive a different viewpoint rather than the same old bullshit you receive from the same old commentators.

Sorry, but I have little respect for Kissinger. The guy was a son of a *****.

	14-07-2003 10:36									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The government we were militarily propping up, and the government we helped put into office, you mean?

Yes, he admitted it. And was not glad about what was done. In fact, quite angry.

quote: OK, but if the Vietnamese people had the choice, it's likely they would have opted for communism as opposed to the military dictatorship of the South.

I don't think so. I would rather say they would of opted for free elections which they didn't have. And first off, the North Vietnamese government was a military dictatorship too.

quote: Sorry, but I have little respect for Kissinger. The guy was a son of a *****.

And I would say the same about you.

	14-07-2003 10:38									#9
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: I don't think so. I would rather say they would of opted for free elections which they didn't have.

The point, though, is that the US was doing nothing to further the cause of self determination by propping up a military dictatorship.

quote: And first off, the North Vietnamese government was a military dictatorship too.

North Vietnam was certainly a dictatorship, and I'll be the first to condemn them right alongside the South. I'm not quite as stupid as Jane Fonda.

	14-07-2003 10:41									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The point, though, is that the US was doing nothing to further the cause of self determination by propping up a military dictatorship.

And did I ever say otherwise? All I was saying is that elections should of occurred, not dictatorship.

quote: North Vietnam was certainly a dictatorship, and I'll be the first to condemn them right alongside the South. I'm not quite as stupid as Jane Fonda.

Glad to hear that.

I also condemn them both, in particular the Dictator of South Vietnam, Diem.

	14-07-2003 10:41									#11
	Full PM-box? Change here!

David:

quote: The point, though, is that the US was doing nothing to further the cause of self determination by propping up a military dictatorship.

who cares about self-determination when out interests are threatened... i mean vietnam aint a good example cause they wasnt going to do any serious damage to the US but i would think that american safety and the safety of the free world supersedes 'self-determination'

	14-07-2003 10:46									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: And did I ever say otherwise? All I was saying is that elections should of occurred, not dictatorship.

Excellent. However, you implied that you agreed with Kissinger re: arriving at an "honorable" solution. Obviously, Kissinger's definition of honorable would differ greatly with that of other people, so I was just wondering how you would define the word.

AS,

quote: who cares about self-determination when out interests are threatened... i mean vietnam aint a good example cause they wasnt going to do any serious damage to the US

Bingo

quote: but i would think that american safety and the safety of the free world supersedes 'self-determination'

How in the world could self-determination be threatening to the United States? It's pretty much a given that democracies don't tend to go to war with each other, and self-determination implies democratic government.

But either way, I'll turn it around on you. Who cares about American "interests" when individual liberty is at stake? If individual liberty isn't the greatest American interest, then what exactly is the US about?

	14-07-2003 10:49									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Excellent. However, you implied that you agreed with Kissinger re: arriving at an "honorable" solution. Obviously, Kissinger's definition of honorable would differ greatly with that of other people, so I was just wondering how you would define the word.

That was preventing the North Vietnamese Government from taking over... that was the honorable solution. I do agree with Kissinger. By the way did you ever read the book I mentioned?

	14-07-2003 10:49									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I call the people for the war in Iraq chicken-hawks, not warhawks.

quote: And I would say the same about you.

First off, how do you really know a person by messaging with them on the net? I know I'm a whole lot nastier on the net than I am in real life.

Second, what does the fact that you don't like him have to do with anything?

quote: who cares about self-determination when out interests are threatened... i mean vietnam aint a good example cause they wasnt going to do any serious damage to the US but i would think that american safety and the safety of the free world supersedes 'self-determination'

Self-determination matters because without it a country can go into a country, say they hurt the bullying country's interests, and then set up the type of government they like just because of that.

Now, if a council of the nations of the world (such as the UN) says it hurts the interests of the rest of the world, that's a different story.

	14-07-2003 10:51									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: who cares about self-determination when out interests are threatened... i mean vietnam aint a good example cause they wasnt going to do any serious damage to the US but i would think that american safety and the safety of the free world supersedes 'self-determination'

Then the Vietnamese had every right to invade us given the damage we did over there. But this notion that the "safety" of the "free world" supercedes "self-determination", i.e., FREEDOM is an interesting paradox, don't you think?

	14-07-2003 10:51									#16
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: It's pretty much a given that democracies don't tend to go to war with each other, and self-determination implies democratic government.

not exactly... i mean look at europe in the 20's and 30's... all the monarchies were obliterated and democratic systems were created which quickly turned into communism or fascism. the people's choice was to have these non-democratic systems... they self-determined to have non-democratic systems that were openly hostile to the US


thanks

	14-07-2003 10:53									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: That was preventing the North Vietnamese Government from taking over... that was the honorable solution.

That's all well and good, but the methods used were pretty horrible. Conscription, shooting civilians on purpose, not to mention the fact that we weren't actually helping any honorable solution. By propping up the South Vietnamese government, we were simply helping TWO dictatorial governments to exist, rather than just one. Why not just say "**** it", let one dictatorial government exist instead of two, avoid the war, and then work for change using methods such as free trade and diplomacy?

	14-07-2003 10:54									#18
	Put an end to popups!

David: Read his book and stop disagreeing with statements I never made. It is fine referring to other statements I didn't make every once in a while, but don't do it all the time. It shows how little you have in this debate.

	14-07-2003 10:56									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod First off, how do you really know a person by messaging with them on the net? I know I'm a whole lot nastier on the net than I am in real life. Second, what does the fact that you don't like him have to do with anything?

It is my opinion of him and how little respect I have for him.

	14-07-2003 10:57									#20
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: not exactly... i mean look at europe in the 20's and 30's... all the monarchies were obliterated and democratic systems were created which quickly turned into communism or fascism. the people's choice was to have these non-democratic systems... they self-determined to have non-democratic systems that were openly hostile to the US

First of all, Hitler, who you are obviously referring to, was not openly hostile towards the US, and didn't even want war with the US. Secondly, Hitler was not propelled to power by a majority vote. Thirdly, Hitler was propelled to power as a direct result of the First World War, which was ended less than honorably, and quite frankly should have ended with a German victory, had the US ****ed off.

As to the Soviet Union, I can't imagine the US intervention in the Russian Civil War endearing the US to the Soviets. Although the only Soviet leader who might actually have started a war with the US was Stalin, anyway, and WW2 sorta crippled his warmaking ability for a good while, plus the US had an overwhelming military advantage by the time Stalin was in a position to threaten the US, so I still don't see your point.

	14-07-2003 10:58									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: David: Read his book and stop disagreeing with statements I never made. It is fine referring to other statements I didn't make every once in a while, but don't do it all the time. It shows how little you have in this debate.

So, then, enlighten me as to your actual position, if it is different than any position already stated on here. Obviously it is different from my position, and obviously it's fairly close to Kissinger's, so go figure.

	14-07-2003 10:59									#22
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: not exactly... i mean look at europe in the 20's and 30's... all the monarchies were obliterated and democratic systems were created which quickly turned into communism or fascism. the people's choice was to have these non-democratic systems... they self-determined to have non-democratic systems that were openly hostile to the US

Well hopefully the world has learned from that and when they self-determine their government they won't choose fascism. You do have a good point though.

BTW Albert Speer you said that you didn't play much civ, which means you probably didn't post in the civ forums much, so how did you get to be Emperor if OT posts don't count?

quote: shooting civilians on purpose

How many of the civilians the US shot were on purpose? I don't understand how I human being could shoot children without a purpose for it. I've heard that most of the civilian deaths was because of the civilians strapping bombs to themselves, etc. but I don't know who to believe, the media or the conservatives who defended the war for some reason, because I wasn't at the battlefields of Vietnam.

	14-07-2003 11:00									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd So, then, enlighten me as to your actual position, if it is different than any position already stated on here. Obviously it is different from my position, and obviously it's fairly close to Kissinger's, so go figure.

It is close to what Kissinger's position on the subject is, but to understand this, I ask you read his book...

	14-07-2003 11:00									#24
	Re: Pacifist conservatives and war-hawk leftists... Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer why is pacificism seen as left-wing? where the **** did this idea come from that leftists want peace and rightists are all war-like?

It came from the the oversvation of reality. Reality's a nice place, Speer. You should come visit sometime.

	14-07-2003 11:00									#25
	Inflate your Upload Space

I dunno, if you believe that leftism and progressivism represents absolute, universal good and rightism, the opposite, then you could maybe argue that leftists are inherently pacifist. I do not subscribe to that belief, however.

	14-07-2003 11:01									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

In a war where the enemy is often disguised as civilians, it's only natural to assume all civilians are the enemy.

In any case, I have heard various stories firsthand of soldiers being ordered to fire on civilians who were not openly hostile. And no, I don't have a citation, these are simply stories I've heard first hand from people who were there, so take it for what you will.

If nothing else, My Lai.

	14-07-2003 11:01									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by monkspider I dunno, if you believe that leftism and progressivism represents absolute, universal good and rightism, the opposite, then you could maybe argue that leftists are inherently pacifist. I do not subscribe to that belief, however.

From what I heard from you in the past, you love imposing your beliefs on others. Not that I never did deny doing that.

	14-07-2003 11:02									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

David:

Hitler? i wasn't using him as an example (although plebiscietes in the Alsace-Lorraine and Sudenton did show that the majority of those not even in germany wanted him) but anyway, i was actualy talking about all those other dictatorships in europe both fascist and communist? Finland, Lithuania, Roumania, Bulgaria, Portugal, etc.? many of them were straight up elected or if not officially, it was clear that the vast majority wanted fascism or communism.

	14-07-2003 11:02									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Leftists and rightists alike are fans of imposing their beliefs on other people.

	14-07-2003 11:03									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd In a war where the enemy is often disguised as civilians, it's only natural to assume all civilians are the enemy. In any case, I have heard various stories firsthand of soldiers being ordered to fire on civilians who were not openly hostile. And no, I don't have a citation, these are simply stories I've heard first hand from people who were there, so take it for what you will. If nothing else, My Lai.

So I take it you won't read the book? To better understand Kissinger's views I am suggesting this. My uncle told me stories about incidents like that too as he served in the US Infantry during the Vietnam war.