# Fairy Tale Destinations in the World



## SeaBreeze

Some interesting places to visit...http://the10mostknown.com/10-fairy-tale-destinations-in-the-world/


----------



## Katybug

Great thread, SB.  I've heard from at least a half doz guys (who were there in war) that Viet Nam is one of the most beautiful places in the world.  Not surprising that tourism is over the top these days.  Given what I've heard, that would be my #1 spot of those listed, along with Japan (not only beautiful, but amazingly clean) and France, especially the area shown.  All of them would be fabulous, I'm sure, and tho I've always been fascinated with the architecture of Russia, have zero interest in that freezing cold Tunnel of Love!  

I saw Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany, but only from the outside.  It is breathtaking, as is every part of Germany I saw.


----------



## That Guy

Talking to a friend of mine about going back to visit Vietnam.  He said NEVER support those goddamned commie bastards.  I like his point.


----------



## SifuPhil

That Guy said:


> Talking to a friend of mine about going back to visit Vietnam.  He said NEVER support those goddamned commie bastards.  I like his point.



I kind of wondered about that myself - it's like asking one of The Greatest Generation to visit Japan or Germany. I have to admit that I have, on several occasions, visited states _south_ of the Mason-Dixon Line.  

Personally I'd choose the two castles, but that's just for a knight.

Great thread, Sea!


----------



## Diwundrin

A young relative went to Nam for a few months to check it out.  He liked it so much he brought a souvenir back with him, and married her.  She is the least commie indoctrinated Asian I ever met with the exception of a Japanese import married to an even more distant rel.  She's settled into the finer things of life just fine. 

  The people aren't the government.  Not there anyway.  Very pragmatic lot with a wicked sense of humour. Communism is what they live with, not for. They'll survive it, so has the landscape apparently, I've heard it's just plain gorgeous.

My fairytale destination isn't listed. I always wanted to see Antarctica, and the liquid platinum lakes of the 2nd planet orbiting Arcturus and have about as much chance of doing either.


----------



## Katybug

SifuPhil said:


> I kind of wondered about that myself - it's like asking one of The Greatest Generation to visit Japan or Germany. *I have to admit that I have, on several occasions, visited states south of the Mason-Dixon Line. *
> 
> Personally I'd choose the two castles, but that's just for a knight.
> 
> Great thread, Sea!



The Mayor of Key West asks that you never visit again, Phil, being that you dislike south of the Mason-Dixon and all......lol


----------



## Katybug

I love your post, Di, but I just have to ask...when was the last time any of us met a commie indoctrinated Vietnamese?  LOL You know I'm kidding with you, can't resist.  I'm sure your family member is more than happy with his choice to marry.  The Vietnamese ladies (nail techs) I'm lucky enough to know are the ones we were fighting for, wonderful women who went through hell to get here, and *life goes on* just as it has with Japan, Germany and all the other beautiful countries we were once at war with. 

I'm still holding out for Cuba... and talk about commies!  It wouldn't come close in beauty to Vietnam at this point, far from it, but having heard about it from older folks lucky enough to have gone before Castro, it was once a dream vacation.  In spite of him, I would still love to see the country, as I hear parts of it are still so beautiful...and it's such a short distance away being on the Southern East Coast.  But thinking you may not know, it's illegal to spend our money there.

And, Di, if I should happen to win a trip to Antarctica, PLEASE take it!!! LOL


----------



## SifuPhil

Katybug said:


> The Mayor of Key West asks that you never visit again, Phil, being that you dislike south of the Mason-Dixon and all......lol



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! :sorrow:




			
				Diwundrin said:
			
		

> The people aren't the government.  Not there anyway.




No. They just killed 59,000 Americans because they're so independent.


----------



## Ozarkgal

Katybug:





> I'm still holding out for Cuba.



Funny you should mention Cuba. I'm sitting here watching a movie about Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders taking San Juan Hill...fftopic:Sorry!

As far as travelling these days...I'm past the point of having the urge.  I used to be the first one to jump at a chance to go, but my get up and go seems to have got up and went these days.


----------



## Diwundrin

> No. They just killed 59,000 Americans because they're so independent.



Whatever Phil, I can only speak as I find. Only judge on those I've met.  
This a ramble so to save page space.....


Spoiler



I understand where you're coming from.  I guess if someone had invaded and bombed your country over some diplomatic decision taken by people you never voted for then they would be entitled to hate you too for fighting back right?   Is that how it goes??  Is that why you hate them? Because they fought back?  Isn't that what the US population is claiming to be arming itself to do if they are ever invaded?  

Am I missing something here?  
When is one considered a 'patriot'?  Does it only depend what side they're on? Is a civilian a patriot when he's resisting British rule to fight for independence,  but a vietcong guerilla not when he's resisting what he only understands to be the US and Allied forces invading his country to impose foreign rule on him?  
There's a lot of myopia going about I believe.

We take the high righteous ground and expound the glories of patriotism and bravery,  and then go on to judge a people by the very  different criteria of the political ideology of their Government of the day.  Judge the politics and Government as harshly as you like, but the people are still the same people trying to eke out a living that they always were.  I don't think conscientious objectors got a very fine reception in the States, how do you think Vietnamese anti-war protestors would have fared?  Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Viets were 'cong.'

A lot of Vietnam vets from here have gone back there and have met former foes and forgiven, if never forgotten, and keep in contact with them long term.  Some even go over to help out with projects etc.  Even some very old surviving PoWs went to Japan to meet their former jailers.  Maybe all the medals weren't handed out yet, those old blokes deserve one.

The Turks were the ones who hammered us at Gallipoli.  They carved us up something awful so do we hate the Turks because they resented us invading their Country?  Nup.  We allow a contingent to march with ours on ANZAC day out of sheer respect for their tenacity in defense and honour in battle.
They allow a shrine at Gallipoli dedicated to our troops out of the same respect.  (and that's been going on long before the tourists started making it buckworthy.)  'Johnny Turk' was the enemy, but there wasn't a WWI vet I ever met who didn't respect him.  There were no derogatory cartoons depicting him as an imbecile as many cartoons do of 'enemies,' that I ever saw. There were no Hogan's Hero type shows, we had more respect for the enemy, whoever it was, than that.  Where's the glory in beating imbeciles? Where's the humour in PoW camps?  I've kind of wondered about that thinking.  Hated that show.

Wars are devised by politics but fought by people.  The times and styles of Gallipoli and 'Nam were very different. The Turks we fought were soldiers. Turkey had a formidable army.  Vietnam didn't. They were fighting a guerilla war because they didn't have much other option.  Just because they weren't in uniform doesn't mean they weren't 'patriots' though does it?  Or does that only depend on their politics too?

Too confusin'.  My understanding of the Vietnam War was garnered almost totally from Newscasts of the times, as I suspect was yours, and 'our' Nam was probably a very different version to the one the people living there saw.  We must remember that ours isn't the only viewpoint. We aren't always on the highest ground with the only true view of all sides of anything at all.

e.g. A comment was made on radio this morning that a Chinese student refused to believe that Tianamen Square ever happened.  She laughed that the people here were so stupid as to believe something like that.  She had to be shown the footage and all the stories available on the internet to be convinced. She was shattered!  See?  she thought she had the world summed up by only what she had seen, not what she hadn't. 
 Who knows what we haven't 'seen' either??  _"... then there's the stuff we know we don't know but.... "_ Most Japanese youngsters never heard of Pearl Harbour either, they must have had a very different view of WWII than we did, just sayin'.  Then there's the propaganda machine that has been in full swing everywhere so we're all brainwashed into different views of reality in some way or other.

You and I weren't there. Nor were the vast majority of the present population of Vietnam. I guess it's up to those who were to pass judgements on the entire population of former enemy Nations.  I wonder how they view the populations of our Countries?  Do they see only as soldiers?

I'm taking nothing from the vets who fought there, this is a different subject, this is about now, not then.  Should we hold fast to centuries old hatreds of Nations we know little about and which have changed radically merely because of handed down opinions and hearsay stories, like the Irish did? Because it's traditional to hate whoever 'them' is that ain't 'us'?    
Or should we adapt our thinking to understanding the circumstances of history and adjusting accordingly to maintain contact with the new generations to ensure it doesn't get repeated?

A fearsome face behind a loaded gun may change someone's immediate behaviour but only long and detailed persuasion and example will change their opinions or politics. Just sayin'.

I'm a shocking fence sitter, I have no hard fast beliefs or allegiances, or politics because imo the whole World is such an utter fustercluck that nothing true today may be tomorrow.
 I prefer to remain adaptable and comment on things in the light of how I see them today.  
 To retain sanity I find it easier to cut the past and focus on what they're up to today in the hope that I'll be ready for what stunt 'they' pull on me tomorrow.   File history for vital reference,  but don't waste time and life on it until, or if, it's needed is my credo now.


----------



## Katybug

Ozarkgal said:


> Katybug:
> Funny you should mention Cuba. I'm sitting here watching a movie about Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders taking San Juan Hill...fftopic:Sorry!
> 
> As far as travelling these days...I'm past the point of having the urge.  I used to be the first one to jump at a chance to go, but my get up and go seems to have got up and went these days.



I saw that, OG, and enjoyed it.  

Are you kidding me?  I was always exactly like you..."always, let's go"...but then I came to an age where it was too much effort and I'd much rather stay home.   I have come up with one lousy excuse after another to avoid wk-end trips with my sweet boy and his dad who is ADHD, bi-polar and everything else that keeps him moving absolutely non-stop from the time he gets up 'til he crashes at night....and it is completely exhaustive for me.  I just want to stay home and relax, and trips with them are anything but relaxing.  God help me, I'm running out of excuses!
/**--*/
I'm so bad at repeating, but this one is worth reading twice if I haven't told you.  I learned early on that the last bite of breakfast meant you must be ready to walk out the door for another adventure.  I don't have good hair, it requires working with -- no time allowed, not with my boss!  So I bought a really good wig, not a lot of hair and looks natural -- makes life so much easier.  I'm ready to go in no time.  The guys were supposed to be golfing (only as it could be with a 6 yr old) but I thought I had an hr or so to myself and was relaxing in the hot tub and enjoying some serious R & R.  I hear a lil knock on my bathroom door.  It's 6 yr old Jordan with my wig on backward, my big Hollywood sunglasses on and carrying my pocketbook with long strap.  I have tears in my eyes in remembering,,,as it was all his idea and what a sight it was!  His dad must have taken 100 pix and we all still laugh about it. 

And I'd like to say....for all the bitchin' I do about the dad, I am in love with that boy.  Dad would drive the Pope nuts, but he's good to me.  I want to say again how much I'm loving this week doing nothing, but am looking forward to getting back into routine.....as long as I know I have a few more days rest!  That's all I need and today has been wonderful!  I will cherish each day going forward and will be more than ready for getting back into routine next Monday.  I sincerely appreciate all of you listening to the good times and bad, it means a lot!


----------



## Diwundrin

> I'm still holding out for Cuba...



Funny that, I've always had a yen to see Havana before they 'Maccarize' it.  Didn't mention it in case people think I'm a commie or something.  I've recently gotten into sh**fight on a overweighted lefty forum for being a 'fascist conservative' so I'm a tad confused at the moment.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> Whatever Phil, I can only speak as I find. Only judge on those I've met.
> This a ramble so to save page space.....
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *spoiler *



That's a long one, all right, and it deserves more consciousness than I can muster at 1am right now, so I'll get back to you. Couple of points that I hope don't evaporate by morning ...


----------



## Diwundrin

Write 'em down.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> Whatever Phil, I can only speak as I find. Only judge on those I've met.
> This a ramble so to save page space.....





> I understand where you're coming from.  I guess if someone had invaded and bombed your country over some diplomatic decision taken by people you never voted for then they would be entitled to hate you too for fighting back right?   Is that how it goes??  Is that why you hate them? Because they fought back?  Isn't that what the US population is claiming to be arming itself to do if they are ever invaded?
> 
> Am I missing something here?



You might be. 

Fighting for your country is one thing. Visiting savageries upon your captured enemy is another. 



> When is one considered a 'patriot'?  Does it only depend what side they're on? Is a civilian a patriot when he's resisting British rule to fight for independence,  but a vietcong guerilla not when he's resisting what he only understands to be the US and Allied forces invading his country to impose foreign rule on him?
> There's a lot of myopia going about I believe.



Yeah, okay, you're going to trot out the old "patriots come in many colors" routine? Really?!? Of _course_ there's no difference between a patriot and a terrorist or a patriot and a guerrilla - that's not the issue here. 



> We take the high righteous ground and expound the glories of patriotism and bravery,  and then go on to judge a people by the very  different criteria of the political ideology of their Government of the day.  Judge the politics and Government as harshly as you like, but the people are still the same people trying to eke out a living that they always were.  I don't think conscientious objectors got a very fine reception in the States, how do you think Vietnamese anti-war protestors would have fared?  Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Viets were 'cong.'



Yet there were enough instances of the civilians helping the Cong to make me believe that they weren't all angels, either. They all could have fought their government - don't give me that. Is it better to fight and die against some nameless enemy, or in the struggle for your freedom from your enslavers?

WE didn't shit things up for them - their _government_ did. And France. So why kill us? Why didn't they send their "troops" into France and kill _them_? I agree that the U.S. has a bad habit of sticking their noses where they don't belong, but once hostilities start up there is - or should be - a certain honor in combat, a certain humanity, where you don't machine-gun the survivors of a sunken warship that are floating in the sea like "Mush" Morton did, or as the Cong did with their American prisoners by torturing and starving them. 

That may be forgiven - may - but NEVER forgotten. Not for a lot of generations, anyway. Americans, at least a few of us, have long memories - hell, Katy tells me I've been banned from the American South, and _that_ war happened over 150 years ago! 



> A lot of Vietnam vets from here have gone back there and have met former foes and forgiven, if never forgotten, and keep in contact with them long term.  Some even go over to help out with projects etc.  Even some very old surviving PoWs went to Japan to meet their former jailers.  Maybe all the medals weren't handed out yet, those old blokes deserve one.



Perhaps their thinking was unbalanced by their exploits. Do you think the ones who were tortured to death would go back if they could and do public service for their torturers? 



> The Turks were the ones who hammered us at Gallipoli.  They carved us up something awful so do we hate the Turks because they resented us invading their Country?  Nup.  We allow a contingent to march with ours on ANZAC day out of sheer respect for their tenacity in defense and honour in battle.



As I mentioned earlier, honor on the battlefield is one thing; cowardly, inhumane treatment and wearing civilian clothing in order to hide behind the neutrality it gives you while killing is not honor. 



> They allow a shrine at Gallipoli dedicated to our troops out of the same respect.  (and that's been going on long before the tourists started making it buckworthy.)  'Johnny Turk' was the enemy, but there wasn't a WWI vet I ever met who didn't respect him.  There were no derogatory cartoons depicting him as an imbecile as many cartoons do of 'enemies,' that I ever saw. There were no Hogan's Hero type shows, we had more respect for the enemy, whoever it was, than that.  Where's the glory in beating imbeciles? Where's the humour in PoW camps?  I've kind of wondered about that thinking.  Hated that show.



I hate it as well - it's the only show on my nostalgia network that I actually turn off. It makes the Germans look like idiots and the Allies look like geniuses.

So why isn't there any shows featuring silly, know-nothing Viet Cong holding a multi-national group of genius prisoners? 



> Wars are devised by politics but fought by people.  The times and styles of Gallipoli and 'Nam were very different. The Turks we fought were soldiers. Turkey had a formidable army.  Vietnam didn't. They were fighting a guerilla war because they didn't have much other option.  Just because they weren't in uniform doesn't mean they weren't 'patriots' though does it?  Or does that only depend on their politics too?



Perception. Rules of war were violated. 

"Wars are devised by politics but fought by people" - how about this instead?

"Wars are ultimately created by greed and the desire for power. People think they're going to gain from fighting the war but rarely do. Only the politicians gain, through achieving more power."



> Too confusin'.  My understanding of the Vietnam War was garnered almost totally from Newscasts of the times, as I suspect was yours, and 'our' Nam was probably a very different version to the one the people living there saw.  We must remember that ours isn't the only viewpoint. We aren't always on the highest ground with the only true view of all sides of anything at all.



I actually "came of age" when the war - I'm sorry, "conflict" - was winding down. The draft was long gone by the time I hit draft age, the troops were coming home and it had been admitted by the mucky-mucks that "the war is unwinnable". The fall of Saigon happened when I was in my junior year of high school - that'll give you an idea of the timeline. 

I was aware at the time only that BOTH sides were wrong AND right, that both sides committed atrocities and that both sides were losing their children. 



> e.g. A comment was made on radio this morning that a Chinese student refused to believe that Tianamen Square ever happened.  She laughed that the people here were so stupid as to believe something like that.  She had to be shown the footage and all the stories available on the internet to be convinced. She was shattered!  See?  she thought she had the world summed up by only what she had seen, not what she hadn't.
> Who knows what we haven't 'seen' either??  _"... then there's the stuff we know we don't know but.... "_ Most Japanese youngsters never heard of Pearl Harbour either, they must have had a very different view of WWII than we did, just sayin'.  Then there's the propaganda machine that has been in full swing everywhere so we're all brainwashed into different views of reality in some way or other.



Oh, I totally agree. History is constantly being rewritten as new facts come to light, but convincing both the old-timers and the youngsters is an uphill battle.



> You and I weren't there. Nor were the vast majority of the present population of Vietnam. I guess it's up to those who were to pass judgements on the entire population of former enemy Nations.  I wonder how they view the populations of our Countries?  Do they see only as soldiers?



You don't have to be present during an event to have an opinion on it, certainly. And, I have a sneaking suspicion that many that WERE there STILL don't know what the hell was going on. 



> I'm taking nothing from the vets who fought there, this is a different subject, this is about now, not then.  Should we hold fast to centuries old hatreds of Nations we know little about and which have changed radically merely because of handed down opinions and hearsay stories, like the Irish did? Because it's traditional to hate whoever 'them' is that ain't 'us'?
> Or should we adapt our thinking to understanding the circumstances of history and adjusting accordingly to maintain contact with the new generations to ensure it doesn't get repeated?



The problem with that is the same as when two guys are aiming pistols at each other and agree to put down their arms.

Who puts them down first?

There's always going to be that element of distrust, that distant race-memory, that prevents you from being the flower child that puts sunflowers in your former enemy's rifle barrel. You've seen too many of your fellow flower children get shot doing that. 

Forgive, maybe. Forget, never. And always be on your guard. 




> I'm a shocking fence sitter, I have no hard fast beliefs or allegiances, or politics because imo the whole World is such an utter fustercluck that nothing true today may be tomorrow.
> I prefer to remain adaptable and comment on things in the light of how I see them today.
> To retain sanity I find it easier to cut the past and focus on what they're up to today in the hope that I'll be ready for what stunt 'they' pull on me tomorrow.   File history for vital reference,  but don't waste time and life on it until, or if, it's needed is my credo now. [/spoiler]



Certainly I attempt to live in the present, but it's pretty much undeniable that our present is shaped at least in part by our past. Personally I have a lot of brain-momentum; as a result, it takes a long time for me to change my views. I'm only just now accepting Germany and Japan as mostly decent blokes. Vietnam, Iraq, all those others? Nope, still on the negative side of the equation.


----------



## Diwundrin

I'm having trouble figuring why this is on a fantasy destination thread but * happens,  sorry SB. 

Phil:  


 


Spoiler






> Fighting for your country is one thing. Visiting savageries upon your captured enemy is another.



Abu Ghraibe



> Yeah, okay, you're going to trot out the old "patriots come in many colors" routine? Really?!? Of _course_ there's no difference between a patriot and a terrorist or a patriot and a guerrilla - that's not the issue here.



It's not? You judge on what criteria then?



> Yet there were enough instances of the civilians helping the Cong to  make me believe that they weren't all angels, either. They all could  have fought their government - don't give me that. Is it better to fight  and die against some nameless enemy, or in the struggle for your  freedom from your enslavers?



Wha??  Consider: Vietnam had been under France's control for generations, it was France they were booting out if my fading memory doesn't fail me.  They saw the French as the 'enslavers' and Ho as their 'George Washington'.  
Then they were confronted by other Western powers trying to take them over where the French left off.  Who exactly do you suppose the average peasant in the paddy fields in those times would have seen as the 'enslaver'?  How appreciative would those US patriots have felt towards some other Nation waltzing in to take over where the Brits left off to 'liberate' you from George Washington?
Depends on your viewpoint doesn't it?

Do you honestly believe that they had the education, and the access to information that you have today to make a life and death ideological decision about who was the righteous side to die for?  From their perspective of history I doubt they saw Ho Chi Min's political agenda as the one to worry about.  Don't go comparing apples with oranges, people can only make decisions about things they know and understand.  Remember, they didn't grow up with Greek philosophy classes and American history.  They lived in a totally different world which was already 'enslaved' by Caucasian Nations long before the commos came on the scene.




> Perhaps their thinking was unbalanced by their exploits. Do you think  the ones who were tortured to death would go back if they could and do  public service for their torturers?



No, they'd be dead.



> So why isn't there any shows featuring silly, know-nothing Viet Cong holding a multi-national group of genius prisoners?



Nam was too raw.  For a lot of reasons, among them maybe guilt at how the protestors treated returning troops? Same here, so not having a go at the US.  But could that partly be the reason that many get so antsy about lauding the Vietnam war as more 'righteous' than it probably was? As expiation?   Dunno.  Dunno why we venerate Gallipoli so much for that matter either, it's being marketed way too hard for my liking but that's how we get manipulated in our views of history.



> Perception. Rules of war were violated.
> 
> "Wars are devised by politics but fought by people" - how about this instead?
> 
> "Wars are ultimately created by greed and the desire for power. People  think they're going to gain from fighting the war but rarely do. Only  the politicians gain, through achieving more power."



Who wrote the 'rules'???  Did Ho sign off on that?  Formal warfare may have a code but that was hardly a formal war.

'Greed and the desire for power' are what drives politics, it is the vehicle that carries them into the positions of power that allows them start wars for other people to fight.  People think whatever the only information they get tells them to think.  
If the propaganda machine tells them they are going to be victorious as well as righteous then who's gonna tell 'em different?  Isn't that what 'patriotism' is?  Backing your Country unquestioningly? Believing that your Country is run better than the other guy's?  If you don't agree with their policies then in wartime you are deemed a traitor, not just a protestor with a differing viewpoint.   Political ideology has nothing to do with  patriotism.  Those opposing their Governments are rebels at best, traitors at worst, not patriots.  Isn't that how it goes?  (Everywhere else but the US I mean, you seem to have a different, more flexible definition.  

)  Winners write history and Governments spin it.



> You don't have to be present during an event to have an opinion on it,  certainly. And, I have a sneaking suspicion that many that WERE there  STILL don't know what the hell was going on.



Amen to that!



> The problem with that is the same as when two guys are aiming pistols at each other and agree to put down their arms.
> 
> Who puts them down first?
> 
> There's always going to be that element of distrust, that distant  race-memory, that prevents you from being the flower child that puts  sunflowers in your former enemy's rifle barrel. You've seen too many of  your fellow flower children get shot doing that.
> 
> Forgive, maybe. Forget, never. And always be on your guard.



You don't have to put the gun down, just smile and talk a lot and point it at their kneecaps rather than their eyeballs.
You don't have to trust them but you don't have to dismiss them as beneath tolerance entirely either.  

I know you're still not speaking to Cuba and suffering a lack of good cigars as a consequence. But why Cuba?  Why was it okay to trade with Japan and Germany after WWII but kick Cuba to the curb/kerb?  Why is the US govt so damned cranky with Cuba?  Because they called Kennedy's bluff perhaps?  Because the US 'lost' that one too?  Are we only able to forgive and get along with, and more importantly perhaps, trade with,  those we 'beat'??  I guess it's losers who are most likely to hold grudges when you think about it.
(That aspect just occurred to me as I was writing this so it's off the cuff and sitting there like a duck.  Feel free.)



> Certainly I attempt to live in the present, but it's pretty much  undeniable that our present is shaped at least in part by our past.  Personally I have a lot of brain-momentum; as a result, it takes a long  time for me to change my views. I'm only just now accepting Germany and  Japan as mostly decent blokes. Vietnam, Iraq, all those others? Nope,  still on the negative side of the equation.



Some people are just too hard to love aren't they?  But understanding where they are/were coming from at the time helps put exactly* why* you don't like them into better perspective.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> I'm having trouble figuring why this is on a fantasy destination thread but * happens,  sorry SB.



Yes - my apologies as well, Sea.

                              Di:


Spoiler






> Abu Ghraibe



They're welcome NOT to visit the U.S. with supplies then, or to help us feed our kids or teach us English.




> It's not? You judge on what criteria then?



The humanity of the reasoning behind the fighting. You don't fight to rack up numbers, you don't fight for your politicians. You don't fight because you're ordered to. You fight only because you must, and you don't indulge in senseless torture or thrill killings.





> Wha??  Consider: Vietnam had been under France's control for generations, it was France they were booting out if my fading memory doesn't fail me.  They saw the French as the 'enslavers' and Ho as their 'George Washington'.



So far that's pretty much what I said.



> Then they were confronted by other Western powers trying to take them over where the French left off.  Who exactly do you suppose the average peasant in the paddy fields in those times would have seen as the 'enslaver'?  How appreciative would those US patriots have felt towards some other Nation waltzing in to take over where the Brits left off to 'liberate' you from George Washington?



George Washington wasn't forcing us to work in rice paddies on threat of death. We didn't believe we were descended from dragons and angels. Vietnam had already had hundreds of years of both conquering and being conquered under their belt. 

Did you know that the man most responsible for enlisting U.S. aid - Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem - was murdered by his own staff? Do you know who sponsored General Duong Van Minh, the man _behind_ that plan? The U.S. 



> Depends on your viewpoint doesn't it?



My _viewpoint_ doesn't change history. My own_ opinion_ may be colored by my perceptions and beliefs (or non-beliefs) of written history, but it won't change what actually happened nor the causes behind it happening. 

There is Fact, and there is Interpretation of Fact. 



> Do you honestly believe that they had the education, and the access to information that you have today to make a life and death ideological decision about who was the righteous side to die for?  From their perspective of history I doubt they saw Ho Chi Min's political agenda as the one to worry about.  Don't go comparing apples with oranges, people can only make decisions about things they know and understand.  Remember, they didn't grow up with Greek philosophy classes and American history.  They lived in a totally different world which was already 'enslaved' by Caucasian Nations long before the commos came on the scene.



They grew up with a well-established Confucian education system which was squelched by the French. 

"People can only make decisions about things they know and understand" - disagree. If that were true we wouldn't be having political elections. And since your premise is that the Vietnamese are no different than ourselves, then they could and probably did make decisions on things they had NO knowledge of. 



> No, they'd be dead.



Remind me sometime to tell you you're cute. 




> Nam was too raw.  For a lot of reasons, among them maybe guilt at how the protestors treated returning troops? Same here, so not having a go at the US.  But could that partly be the reason that many get so antsy about lauding the Vietnam war as more 'righteous' than it probably was? As expiation?   Dunno.  Dunno why we venerate Gallipoli so much for that matter either, it's being marketed way too hard for my liking but that's how we get manipulated in our views of history.



Yeah, I agree completely.



> Who wrote the 'rules'???  Did Ho sign off on that?  Formal warfare may have a code but that was hardly a formal war.



Okay, let's say "Rules of Humanity" or "Rules of Decency" or even "Rules of Mercy". Still, within their recent memory were explicit rules of warfare no matter WHAT the conflict was called, rules that they wantonly ignored.



> Isn't that what 'patriotism' is?  Backing your Country unquestioningly? Believing that your Country is run better than the other guy's?



That isn't MY definition, but it may well be the popular one.



> Winners write history and Governments spin it.



Again, agreed.




> You don't have to put the gun down, just smile and talk a lot and point it at their kneecaps rather than their eyeballs.
> You don't have to trust them but you don't have to dismiss them as beneath tolerance entirely either.



First part, agreed. Second part ... tolerance? Or did you mean acceptance? 

That they're still alive means I tolerate them. Don't ask me to accept them as well. 



> I know you're still not speaking to Cuba and suffering a lack of good cigars as a consequence. But why Cuba?  Why was it okay to trade with Japan and Germany after WWII but kick Cuba to the curb/kerb?  Why is the US govt so damned cranky with Cuba?  Because they called Kennedy's bluff perhaps?  Because the US 'lost' that one too?  Are we only able to forgive and get along with, and more importantly perhaps, trade with,  those we 'beat'??  I guess it's losers who are most likely to hold grudges when you think about it.
> (That aspect just occurred to me as I was writing this so it's off the cuff and sitting there like a duck.  Feel free.)



Hey, Ricky Ricardo is from Cuba, so the place can't be all THAT bad - BABALOOOOOO!

Seriously - (and I hope Katy isn't reading this) - I think Kennedy caused more problems with that situation than he solved. The thing I personally have against Castro (not Cuba) is that he slyly filled the state I wish to reside in with boatloads of crooks and mental patients that have multiplied like amoebas. 




> Some people are just too hard to love aren't they?  But understanding where they are/were coming from at the time helps put exactly* why* you don't like them into better perspective.



I don't even understand myself or where I came from - I have no illusions about ever understanding anyone else. But I know what I like and what I don't like, and what I trust and do not trust.


----------



## Warrigal

> If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy.
> Then he becomes your partner.
> - Nelson Mandela



The fruits of peace are better than the fruits of hatred and resentment.


----------



## SifuPhil

Warrigal said:


> The fruits of peace are better than the fruits of hatred and resentment.



That may be very well for philosophers, but the cold hard fact is that peace does not gain you anything - only war gives you a chance at acquiring what you need / want, and it's a part of human nature that can't be bred out by mere words. 

Peace only maintains the status quo; war brings with it a chance of advancement.


----------



## Warrigal

> Peace only maintains the status quo; war brings with it a chance of advancement.


That is the philosophy of the pillager but in reality war costs everyone much more than it delivers.
Unless freedom is at stake, it is best avoided. When it is over, peace must become the goal.

By peace, I do not mean merely the absence of killing but something better that must be built by the survivors and their descendants.


----------



## Diwundrin

Round 3 of verbal jousting preliminary qualifier for entry to Word Wars competition. 


Disclaimer:  The opinions fired in this game are not necessarily the only ammunition manufactured by the shooter, but are merely the calibre most suited to the target of the moment. 




Spoiler






> They're welcome NOT to visit the U.S. with supplies then, or to help us feed our kids or teach us English.



We're shifting the point here, Abu Ghraib is merely the common factor relating to your point of treatment of PoWs.  I couldn't let you take the high ground on that one, sorry.  There are no squeaky clean good guys there, none. 
 There are sadists and psychos in everyone's army, and populations.  Always has been.  There would be no point in awarding medals to heroes if they all were would there?  That heroes are relatively rare proves that their ratio to badduns is shaky at best.

If you believe that revenge for bringing death and destruction to your neighbourhood justifies ill treatment of captured enemies then you can hardly blame the Viets for taking vengeance on those who had just napalmed their village and fried Grandma can you?  Can you?  Or don't you think of it from that angle?  
Let's get this straight.  It's okay for the US citizenry to deem long distance traveling 'bombers' beyond the pale of the 'rules' but it's not okay for those 'liberated' by US/Allied bombs to judge those particular bomb's long distance suppliers likewise?
Have I got it sorted yet?

Remember we're judging the entire population of Nations here. We're basing their worth on the actions of a few either psycho, or 'righteously' vengeful guerillas.  Is that an entirely fair way to make an assessment? 
 Would a  US vet's granddaughter being sneered at by Vietnamese because her Granddad just might, at a stretch, have been the jock who fried Grandma in napalm be perfectly understandable and acceptable by that reasoning?   Would it make you ashamed of her Grandpa?

Your illustrating minor differing details in circumstances between your 'freedom fighters' and theirs, such as _"George Washington wasn't forcing us to work in rice paddies on  threat of death. We didn't believe we were descended from dragons and  angels. Vietnam had already had hundreds of years of both conquering and  being conquered under their belt._" doesn't negate the basic analogy.  It just proves that you're not standing back far enough to see the whole picture. 

The 'founding fathers' had a few strange beliefs about angels and miracles and such,  and being descended from European stock had plenty of historical experience in conquering and being conquered too. So what was the difference again? Oh, the rice paddies. That the best you got? layful:

Bringing the M.E. psychos into the picture is just confusing the issue more.  ApplesnOranges.  The only common connection between the 60s Vietnamese peasants/vietcong and the M.E. 'terrorists' today is the volume of US and Allied ordinance delivered to their doors. 

 So what common cause was there to motivate the US (and by extension all we allies of the US, because we were "...all the way with LBJ" to quote our PM of the day, and more recently,  the "Coalition of the Willing" ) to 'liberate' both Nam and the M.E. ???

Their 'politics' are totally different. Can't get much further apart  than Communism and Shariah Law really.  So ideology doesn't apply. We weren't rescuing them from that alone then.  Their religion?  Nup, not too sure what the Viets in general believed but most of the Christian ones were R.C.s so doubt we were saving them from that either.  What exactly were we saving them from that necessitated bombing the bejeezus out of the countries they were trying to make a living from?  What imminent doom was worse than napalm and daisy cutters that awaited them if 'we' didn't rush in to rescue them?

Personally flowery phrases including democracy, liberty, freedom and human rights just don't cut it for me as good reasons to inflict punishment on the people who don't have them.  Logic doesn't live there.  Only propaganda does.




> Did you know that the man most responsible for enlisting U.S. aid -  Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem - was murdered by his own staff? Do you  know who sponsored General Duong Van Minh, the man _behind_ that plan? The U.S.



I haven't a clue about who was 'up' who behind the scenes.  Nor I suspect did the peasantry of the time.  They were just saluting who ever was passing with a machine gun at the time to stay alive long enough to harvest the rice from those paddies they were slaving away in to feed their kids.

Should we judge an entire people for the actions of their Government is question.  Especially when it's a Government they didn't elect.  We're not talking about despots being allowed to run things as they please, but why do we blame the 'peasants' for them?  
Why do 'we' expect that every single person in a country like 60s Vietnam would have the knowledge and fortitude to decide to die for some philosophically minded ideology of Democracy?  How many had a clue what the hell the powers that be were fighting over at all?  Their lives in the paddy fields hadn't changed for a thousand years despite whatever politics or beliefs the Kings, Despots,or Governments in charge had held.

How many US/Allied citizens, even with the access they have to deeper levels of information and education can sit down and detail exactly what they and their Governments stand for?  How many understand the sometimes very subtle differences between all the 'isms??  How many have any more clue than the paddy workers about what exactly the Vietnam War was really about?  How many of us have a clue what the hell anything is really about? 
How many though seem to think that the Vietnamese should have been  smarter than them and have been fighting for freedom from their own  Government instead of fighting who they could only see as a foreign  invader?  

 We get to the point where we just toe the line, salute whatever's waving, and get on with life at 'peasant' level and leave the power junkies to run things.  We can't all know everything about everything and there comes a point where you just have to rely on pretence and propaganda to salve the conscience, retain sanity and still have enough time to go to work to earn a living doing whatever we have to do.  The World's 'peasants' simply don't have the leisure time to spend in coffee shops discussing the finer points of Democracy versus all the other isms.


Are we entitled to blame Joe Public for being hoodwinked by his various Governments?  Mea culpa all round in that case I would think.


----------



## Diwundrin

SifuPhil said:


> That may be very well for philosophers, but the cold hard fact is that peace does not gain you anything - only war gives you a chance at acquiring what you need / want, and it's a part of human nature that can't be bred out by mere words.
> 
> Peace only maintains the status quo; war brings with it a chance of advancement.



Despite my seemingly tolerant role in the 'word game' the above is exactly my take on things too. 

 

Sorry Polly, hope you didn't think I was mellowing or something. 



The 'fruits of peace' are stable trade deals, nothing more.  All the philosophical bs is only worth how much it puts on the dinner table.


----------



## Warrigal

> Sorry Polly, hope you didn't think I was mellowing or something.


:rofl: World peace will be delivered by Miss Universe before that happens.


----------



## That Guy

Warrigal said:


> World peace will be delivered by Miss Universe


----------



## Pappy

Floating away on the Kon Tiki and ending up in some beautiful island where they drink those drinks with the little umbrellas in them.


----------



## That Guy




----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> Round 3 of verbal jousting preliminary qualifier for entry to Word Wars competition.
> 
> 
> Disclaimer:  The opinions fired in this game are not necessarily the only ammunition manufactured by the shooter, but are merely the calibre most suited to the target of the moment.





Spoiler






> We're shifting the point here, Abu Ghraib is merely the common factor relating to your point of treatment of PoWs.  I couldn't let you take the high ground on that one, sorry.  There are no squeaky clean good guys there, none.
> There are sadists and psychos in everyone's army, and populations.  Always has been.  There would be no point in awarding medals to heroes if they all were would there?  That heroes are relatively rare proves that their ratio to badduns is shaky at best.



I'm not taking the high road - I'm sorry if you perceive it as such. 

The personnel responsible for the atrocities at Abu Ghraib were court-martialed, dishonorably discharged and given jail sentences. The personnel in the 'Nam camps - far more, by the way - were probably given extra rations of congee and a weekend pass in Hanoi. Big difference. 



> If you believe that revenge for bringing death and destruction to your neighbourhood justifies ill treatment of captured enemies then you can hardly blame the Viets for taking vengeance on those who had just napalmed their village and fried Grandma can you?  Can you?  Or don't you think of it from that angle?
> Let's get this straight.  It's okay for the US citizenry to deem long distance traveling 'bombers' beyond the pale of the 'rules' but it's not okay for those 'liberated' by US/Allied bombs to judge those particular bomb's long distance suppliers likewise?
> Have I got it sorted yet?



No, you do not. 

If I'm going to make myself responsible for "saving" my village, any prisoners I take are going to be executed quickly and humanely. I'm not going to take pleasure in torturing them - that's beyond the pale and serves no tactical nor strategic purpose. It's a sign of weakness, a certain degree of meanness of character. It shows that you're below animals when you administer anything other than a clean kill. 



> Remember we're judging the entire population of Nations here. We're basing their worth on the actions of a few either psycho, or 'righteously' vengeful guerillas.  Is that an entirely fair way to make an assessment?



I'm judging the entire nation because they had ample opportunity to oppose those in power, to rise up against them, to act like something other than bewildered, frightened sheep. Many villagers were slain because they wouldn't cooperate with the VC - what would have been the outcome if ALL of them had such internal fortitude? The VC would not have had the same level of support for their ops and would not have been quite as successful. 

Die standing up, not on your knees.



> Would a  US vet's granddaughter being sneered at by Vietnamese because her Granddad just might, at a stretch, have been the jock who fried Grandma in napalm be perfectly understandable and acceptable by that reasoning?   Would it make you ashamed of her Grandpa?



Sorry, I don't quite understand this paragraph.



> Your illustrating minor differing details in circumstances between your 'freedom fighters' and theirs, such as _"George Washington wasn't forcing us to work in rice paddies on  threat of death. We didn't believe we were descended from dragons and  angels. Vietnam had already had hundreds of years of both conquering and  being conquered under their belt._" doesn't negate the basic analogy.  It just proves that you're not standing back far enough to see the whole picture.
> 
> The 'founding fathers' had a few strange beliefs about angels and miracles and such,  and being descended from European stock had plenty of historical experience in conquering and being conquered too. So what was the difference again? Oh, the rice paddies. That the best you got? layful:



Not by a long shot - you know me better than that. 

But you do have me at a disadvantage here. I've never been an especially astute student of history, whether it be local, U.S. or world. It was never one of my specialties. I'm going by what little knowledge I have about a war - sorry, "conflict" - that was ending just as I was getting my high school diploma. 

I'm just trying to fit my own personal opinions, beliefs and prejudices into the box known as "World Politics and the Habits of Man", and I'm finding it's an exceedingly difficult thing to do. That may be because of my lack of real-time experience in combat, at least the organized kind; ask me about street-fighting or urban self-defense and I could dance all over your finely-sculpted noggin, but I fear in matters of world affairs I'm going to be a less-than-stellar opponent.



> Bringing the M.E. psychos into the picture is just confusing the issue more.  ApplesnOranges.  The only common connection between the 60s Vietnamese peasants/vietcong and the M.E. 'terrorists' today is the volume of US and Allied ordinance delivered to their doors.



Yet there ARE similarities, mainly in the blind following of orders issued by God-like superiors ... 



> So what common cause was there to motivate the US (and by extension all we allies of the US, because we were "...all the way with LBJ" to quote our PM of the day, and more recently,  the "Coalition of the Willing" ) to 'liberate' both Nam and the M.E. ???



I make no excuses for the country I was born and live in. I'm only too well aware of its shortcomings. That we see ourselves (or, more accurately, that the PTB see themselves) as the Great Defenders of Freedom for the world isn't my look-out; that they kill in the name of Democracy and Righteousness isn't exactly my idea of honorable battle, either. 

If they would have come out and plainly said "Yo, we're going head-hunting for the guys who we think are behind this", then I would have had no problems with it. But to make a long, dragged-out war out of it shows a lack of contemporary thinking. Take out the bastards responsible and then leave - don't hang around and teach the locals about The Right Way To Live, because they've been doing it a lot longer than we have.

Do the job, then leave. Don't do the job then spend a few years letting your own people die in the pursuit of a chimera named Freedom or Democracy. You aren't going to change an entire population, so don't bother trying. Just take out the bad guys and go home.



> Their 'politics' are totally different. Can't get much further apart  than Communism and Shariah Law really.  So ideology doesn't apply. We weren't rescuing them from that alone then.  Their religion?  Nup, not too sure what the Viets in general believed but most of the Christian ones were R.C.s so doubt we were saving them from that either.  What exactly were we saving them from that necessitated bombing the bejeezus out of the countries they were trying to make a living from?  What imminent doom was worse than napalm and daisy cutters that awaited them if 'we' didn't rush in to rescue them?



Again, I cannot speak for my country's thinking, because it's as foreign to me as it is to you.



> Personally flowery phrases including democracy, liberty, freedom and human rights just don't cut it for me as good reasons to inflict punishment on the people who don't have them.  Logic doesn't live there.  Only propaganda does.



Agreed.




> Should we judge an entire people for the actions of their Government is question.  Especially when it's a Government they didn't elect.  We're not talking about despots being allowed to run things as they please, but why do we blame the 'peasants' for them?
> Why do 'we' expect that every single person in a country like 60s Vietnam would have the knowledge and fortitude to decide to die for some philosophically minded ideology of Democracy?  How many had a clue what the hell the powers that be were fighting over at all?  Their lives in the paddy fields hadn't changed for a thousand years despite whatever politics or beliefs the Kings, Despots,or Governments in charge had held.



It doesn't take a PhD to figure out when something is basically wrong. When your neighbor is beheaded because they didn't give enough rice to the visiting VC, you should be able to figure out how the land lays. That's when you have a choice between two courses of action: submit or die. 

That the prevailing decision was (and I dare say still is for the majority of the world) to submit, since one's own life and that of their family is so precious to them, it is no wonder that it did indeed happen that way. It only takes one person to stand up to evil - the guy in front of the tanks in Tienanmen, for example - to change the world, even if only a little bit. Get enough people doing that and soon a wave will appear. 

But the Vietnamese people showed their sheepitude by going along with the demands of their overlords and being cowed by those with guns, so I have no respect for them as a people. There may well be exceptions, and to them I would extend honor, but to the rest? Nothing but scorn. 

It's the same way I feel about the Jews and Germans in WWII - they both had ample opportunities to fight against what was happening in their respective worlds but they all held back, hoping that someone would save them from their fates. History proves that that help came far too late. 

The U.S.? The U.S. has reacted to the threat of terrorism in their typically myopic fashion - they do full-body cavity searches on civilian travelers and capture the occasional nail clipper or hair dryer, instead of targeting the profiles of known terrorists, because by God that would be un-American and against our concept of truth and justice for all. 



> How many US/Allied citizens, even with the access they have to deeper levels of information and education can sit down and detail exactly what they and their Governments stand for?  How many understand the sometimes very subtle differences between all the 'isms??  How many have any more clue than the paddy workers about what exactly the Vietnam War was really about?  How many of us have a clue what the hell anything is really about?
> How many though seem to think that the Vietnamese should have been  smarter than them and have been fighting for freedom from their own  Government instead of fighting who they could only see as a foreign  invader?



Again, it boils down to survival. If you can be swayed by a man with a gun, then you don't deserve to live free. Multiply that by an entire country and you have Vietnam. 



> We get to the point where we just toe the line, salute whatever's waving, and get on with life at 'peasant' level and leave the power junkies to run things.  We can't all know everything about everything and there comes a point where you just have to rely on pretence and propaganda to salve the conscience, retain sanity and still have enough time to go to work to earn a living doing whatever we have to do.  The World's 'peasants' simply don't have the leisure time to spend in coffee shops discussing the finer points of Democracy versus all the other isms.



To me, it's basic instinct. You protect you and yours, damn everyone else and try to survive. When someone aims a gun at you, whether it be your own country's troops or some "foreign invader" you take them down as savagely and effectively as you can. You don't torture them - you do the quick kill and move on to the next target, until there are no more targets left to engage. If you die in the attempt at least you died doing something noble, not just laying down and getting your throat slit like a passive sheep.




> Are we entitled to blame Joe Public for being hoodwinked by his various Governments?  Mea culpa all round in that case I would think.



Yes, I DO blame JP, because if he had his eyes on something other than his own insignificant life he would wake up and see what was being done to him.


----------



## Diwundrin

Spoiler






> If I'm going to make myself responsible for "saving" my village, any  prisoners I take are going to be executed quickly and humanely. I'm not  going to take pleasure in torturing them - that's beyond the pale and  serves no tactical nor strategic purpose. It's a sign of weakness, a  certain degree of meanness of character. It shows that you're below  animals when you administer anything other than a clean kill.



I agree entirely, I don't even believe in the lethal injection farce, a .38 to the temple is quicker and less traumatic.  But again, you're judging all by the level of the lowest.



> I'm judging the entire nation because they had ample opportunity to  oppose those in power, to rise up against them, to act like something  other than bewildered, frightened sheep. Many villagers were slain  because they wouldn't cooperate with the VC - what would have been the  outcome if ALL of them had such internal fortitude? The VC would not  have had the same level of support for their ops and would not have been  quite as successful.
> 
> Die standing up, not on your knees.



But they weren't all massed together to stand up to anyone. We're not talking all young, fit, educated Ninjas with cell phones here.  
They were ordinary peasants in small family villages which had no communication with other small villages to know if there was rebellion brewing or not.   You can't expect a few villagers at a time to buck the system, it simply doesn't work that way. It just gets the villages and families wiped out.   They didn't have cell phones and twitter to keep in touch.  
The 'Arab Spring' wouldn't have happened without social media linking people either. Not that the standing up and shrugging off the 'frightened and bewildered sheep' thing seems to have gone all that wonderfully for them  but .....another topic.

But for the sake of argument say they had all developed telepathy and marched enmasse on VC headquarters and despatched the lot of them with shovels.... what then?  Who among those freedom fightin' villagers would know how to run the Country?  What would they do next? 

Oh, and how would they go about stopping yet another foreign power swanning in to liberate them from their newfound confusion?  

Those villagers were living at literally grass roots level, they didn't have the nous we armchair experts have access to from books and Google.  
It's like blaming a 5 yo for not understanding the stock market.  It's just not fair.  Like the 5 yo they'll hug whoever isn't hitting them at the moment.  Or at least whoever seems to hit lightest.
  It would be really hard for them to tell that the commos with machines guns were a worse option than the choppers dropping napalm on the village from where they stood.  Just sayin'.

I know I wouldn't have liked to be standing in a straw village making that snap decision.  But I think the machine gunner would have gotten the hug for short term survival reasons. I guarantee I wouldn't have been pondering Confucius or Socrates to help with the decision either.



> Would  a  US vet's granddaughter being sneered at by Vietnamese because her  Granddad just might, at a stretch, have been the jock who fried Grandma  in napalm be perfectly understandable and acceptable by that reasoning?    Would it make you ashamed of her Grandpa?*                            Sorry, I don't quite understand this paragraph.*




Just trying to draw a parallel between the reasons for why you don't like Vietnamese and why they may not like us either, that's all.
 e.g.  Am I supposed to dislike my cousin's DiL because her grandfather may have taken a shot at a Huey? Should I expect her to be ashamed of her Grandpa?  .. sorry, too long a bow I guess.



> But you do have me at a disadvantage here. I've never been an especially  astute student of history, whether it be local, U.S. or world. It was  never one of my specialties. I'm going by what little knowledge I have  about a war - sorry, "conflict" - that was ending just as I was getting  my high school diploma.
> 
> I'm just trying to fit my own personal opinions, beliefs and prejudices  into the box known as "World Politics and the Habits of Man", and I'm  finding it's an exceedingly difficult thing to do. That may be because  of my lack of real-time experience in combat, at least the organized  kind; ask me about street-fighting or urban self-defense and I could  dance all over your finely-sculpted noggin, but I fear in matters of  world affairs I'm going to be a less-than-stellar opponent.



No history buffs live here either, I just Google anything that rings a faint bell.  


I was prime conscription age and exceedingly grateful for being female at the time so perhaps I remember more of the images and lies than you, that could be a good or bad thing for the sake of the argument though.

We're all trying to fit our _"own personal opinions, beliefs and prejudices  into the box known as "World Politics and the Habits of Man"_
 And we're all having trouble with making much of it fit at all.  That's what's great about hypotheticals and changing fence sides for debates, it motivates us to look at things a little differently and from other angles.  Mostly we just get more confused but sometimes a light bulb comes on and that's always a great moment.  Oh and btw, the last thing I need is a _"stellar opponent".  _I'm already strugglin' here. 







> Yet there ARE similarities, mainly in the blind following of orders issued by God-like superiors ...



Yeah, those damned POTUS' and Prime Ministers eh?.  Tch.



> Again, it boils down to survival. If you can be swayed by a man with a  gun, then you don't deserve to live free. Multiply that by an entire  country and you have Vietnam.



No, what you have is every Country that was ever invaded by a better armed force, don't single out poor li'l Nam.  




> I make no excuses for the country I was born and live in. I'm only too  well aware of its shortcomings. That we see ourselves (or, more  accurately, that the PTB see themselves) as the Great Defenders of  Freedom for the world isn't my look-out; that they kill in the name of  Democracy and Righteousness isn't exactly my idea of honorable battle,  either.
> 
> If they would have come out and plainly said "Yo, we're going  head-hunting for the guys who we think are behind this", then I would  have had no problems with it. But to make a long, dragged-out war out of  it shows a lack of contemporary thinking. Take out the bastards  responsible and then leave - don't hang around and teach the locals  about The Right Way To Live, because they've been doing it a lot longer  than we have.
> 
> Do the job, then leave. Don't do the job then spend a few years letting  your own people die in the pursuit of a chimera named Freedom or  Democracy. You aren't going to change an entire population, so don't  bother trying. Just take out the bad guys and go home.



Bingo!  Mossad don't muck about with that frilly crap.

Except 'we' aren't really there to protect chimeras, we're protecting oil supplies in Iraq, andor those lithium deposits in Afgho. (No not from the Taliban, from China getting their hands on them)   well that's the theory closest to my suspicions anyway... call me cynical.

Nam was a very convenient gateway to the Asian market and produce and they didn't want China getting control of that either.  Is it really that simple?  Are we getting caught up in the frills and propaganda and missing the bleeding obvious in all this? 



> Are  we entitled to blame Joe Public for being hoodwinked by his various  Governments?  Mea culpa all round in that case I would think.
> 
> *                           Yes, I DO blame JP, because if he had his eyes on something other  than his own insignificant life he would wake up and see what was being  done to him.*



So how many dead Syrian rebel's families have moved into your living room???  Bet they're happy that Dad put his political ideals ahead of their lives.

Oh wait, that'd be religious ideals... or if as is the case there, religion is politics then what do we call what it was he chose to nobly die for?  Hard to take care of a family from a coffin Phil however nobly you defended that 'chimera of freedom' you mentioned earlier.


___________________

That's it for now. Thanks for helping me lose weight, it's 2:30pm and I haven't had breakfast yet!


----------



## SifuPhil

Spoiler


----------



## Diwundrin

The Cross Country Pun award.   :lofl:


----------



## Katybug

OMG, *FORGET I MENTIONED CUBA AND VIETNAM*!......lol

I read all of it, Phil, and can't say I don't agree the Cuban crisis was botched.  I don't have the mental capacity to be a valid part of this interesting argument, nor do I want to, but easy way out.... I agree with both of you on some aspects.

Fact is, and all I need to know about Cuba, Russia was using it as a storage shed and it's just too damned close to us.  Our being dumped with the human dredges of Cuban earth was a HUGE mistake, along with many others that were made.  

Poor, Seabreeze, such a beautiful thread just morphed to hell..... 

That was was one of the prettiest pictures of China I've ever seen.  I know I'm probably way off base, but I've never imagined China as pretty, and I can't say what I want to say without sounding somewhat prejudiced....but I can say that the local restaurant ratings are posted each wk in my lil neighborhood newspaper.  I can't remember a time when a Chinese restaurant wasn't at the bottom of the list and closed for lack of proper hygiene.  NUFF SAID on that, you get my point! 

Back to the OP, if you/we had the energy and $$, which of those posted would be your choice to visit?


----------



## nan

Lovely photos SeaBreeze,I would like to see all of Australia first before going overseas we have so many beautiful places here to see.


----------

