Slashdot Mirror


US Asks Vietnam To Stop Russian Bomber Refueling Flights From Cam Ranh Air Base

HughPickens.com writes Reuters reports that the United States has asked Vietnam to stop letting Russia use its former US base at Cam Ranh Bay to refuel nuclear-capable bombers engaged in shows of strength over the Asia-Pacific region. General Vincent Brooks, commander of the U.S. Army in the Pacific, says the Russian bombers have conducted "provocative" flights, including around the U.S. Pacific Ocean territory of Guam, home to a major American air base. Brooks said the planes that circled Guam were refueled by Russian tankers flying from the strategic bay, which was transformed by the Americans during the Vietnam War into a massive air and naval base. Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed that the airport at Cam Ranh was first used for staging Il-78 tankers for aerial refueling of Tu-95MS bombers in January 2014. Asked about the Russian flights in the region, the State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washington respected Hanoi's right to enter agreements with other countries but added that "we have urged Vietnamese officials to ensure that Russia is not able to use its access to Cam Ranh Bay to conduct activities that could raise tensions in the region."

Cam Ranh is considered the finest deepwater shelter in Southeast Asia. North Vietnamese forces captured Cam Ranh Bay and all of its remaining facilities in 1975. Vietnam's dependence on Russia as the main source of military platforms, equipment, and armaments, has now put Hanoi in a difficult spot. Russia has pressed for special access to Cam Ranh Bay ever since it began delivering enhanced Kilo-class submarines to Vietnam. "Hanoi is invariably cautious and risk adverse in its relations with the major powers," says Carl Thayer. "The current issue of Russian tankers staging out of Cam Ranh pits Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other. There is no easy solution for Vietnam."

273 comments

  1. Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Why the hell is this submission on Slashdot?

    The only relevance it has is that airplanes are a form of technology. That's it. But this isn't even about the planes and their technology. This is about some isolated third-world political squabble. It's purely a political submission, and thus it really shouldn't have any place here.

    Yeah, I could "just ignore" this submission, but it's taking up a front page slot that could be being used by a relevant story. So for the next two hours we'll be deprived of a useful submission thanks to this irrelevant submission wasting front page space.

    1. Re:Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize Slashdot was a technology site. I thought it was "news for nerds"; that is, a news aggregator for nerds to use. Not news that would only be interesting to nerds.

    2. Re:Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want general news go to Google News or Yahoo.

    3. Re:Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      People voted for it. There's the firehose, I think, and there's a setting for anyone to see and vote on submitted but unapproved stories in their regular news feed.

    4. Re: Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Who cares what the US is asking I come here for technology news and not to hear about some nondescript and obscure us official making more ridiculous demands. If I want that I can go to http://www.infowars.com or read all about it on http://russia-insider.com http://www.rt.com (Russia Today) or http://rense.com . Slashdot is either technology news or nothing to me.

    5. Re:Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say it's non-news for a different reason. The USA is always creating monsters and then whining about it afterwards. It's this short sightedness that has made the USA one of the most hated countries in the world. If the US government didn't want the Russians using a base that the US built, then they shouldn't have built it in the first place. The same goes for the Taliban, if the US didn't want them to gain power and learn to fight, then they shouldn't have taught them to fight and helped them to gain power.

      Not that difficult to figure out.

    6. Re:Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're not a nerd, you don't even have a slashdot account. How would you know what news nerds want?

      Get off the lawn, you're trespassing.

    7. Re:Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Knowledge is too nerdy for these cowards, they'll just whine and cry, whine and cry, whine and cry. They won't, can't, ever know it is their own fault. If they allowed themselves to discover the cause of the problem, they might have to implement a technical fix. That would be almost nerdy, and so they'd run away.

    8. Re: Why the hell is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot feeds on controversy. Where there is none, Slashdot will create it.

  2. "There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree, I think they have only one option - agree to stop allowing military refueling operations entirely, for a multi-billion dollar concession. Easy money.

    1. Re:"There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would work.

      They present one side as "Russia and China", but really, China is in this for themslves. They're making good use of the western sanctions on Russia to enrich themselves, negotiating all of the detals with Russia that they've been wanting to negotiate for a long time at bargain-basement prices that previously Russia had been unwilling to do.

      Vietnam, too, is in this for themselves. They want their military purchases from Russia, and they also want investment from America. Buying them off is almost certainly a possibility. The question then becomes however, can the US really afford to buy off everyone? It's about proportionality... if Russia can spend a couple tens of millions of dollars to make the US spend a billion, Russia wins. On the other hand, if the US can spend a billion dollars to cost Russia a billion, the US winds, because the US economy is so vastly larger than the Russian economy.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    2. Re:"There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can the US afford to buy off everyone? Yes. Yes, they can. Because sending a carrier group is a lot more money.

    3. Re:"There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Multi-billion? Wow, you think countries like Vietnam are stupid enough to sell themselves cheap.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    4. Re:"There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Good theory. It would have been a good place to start your investigation, but it not really valid an analysis.

      I recommend actually looking at the details of the recent deal that China signed with Russia. Russia came to them for a deal, and the Chinese just took their existing energy deal, lowered the prices, and "agreed" to a contract locking in that discount for a number of years. That way the Russians get to put a big number on the size of the deal, and the Chinese didn't have to accept any cost to "help" Russia.

      China wouldn't do anything to actually help Russia right now. They're on the same general negotiating team for most issues, so they're not calling them out, but China is very much against the sort of thing that Russia did in annexing Crimea. China is actually very diplomatically against the of moving borders, and allowing locals to "rebel" and move a border or create a new political unit. That's why to get a trade deal during sanctions, the "deal" was all discounts for China.

      On the issue of Vietnam, lets remember that right after the US withdrew from Vietnam, they fought (and won) a border war with China. Including China in this current dispute is just a funny knee-jerk from media people who never watched The Fog of War. Vietnam also invaded Cambodia, kicked out the murderers, ended the atrocities... and then withdrew without stealing any land or resources. It is not at all obvious that Vietnam would want to move closer to Russia in this current dispute. That would isolate them diplomatically, where they're actually one of the more open and tolerant Communist regimes in the region. Like China, they maintain strong and ever-growing trade relations with the west.

      Also lets remember, one of the reasons that Vietnam wanted the subs is to keep an eye on Chinese ships that threaten them over longstanding maritime border disputes. That, and the war they fought with China 30 years ago, are the reasons why they bought subs from Russia instead of China, even thought they use about the same tech.

      My proposal, lets admit that Vietnam is just locals who like Communism and not part of some Red Tide, and then lets sell them some good older subs. In return, they'll deny Russia military access used to challenge anybody.

    5. Re:"There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "China is in this for themslves. They're making good use of the western sanctions on Russia to enrich themselves, negotiating all of the detals with Russia that they've been wanting to negotiate for a long time at bargain-basement prices that previously Russia had been unwilling to do."

      Spot on. There's little love lost between the two neighbours - they're on "cordial" terms, not "friendly" ones.

      "It's about proportionality... if Russia can spend a couple tens of millions of dollars to make the US spend a billion, Russia wins"

      If the US spends that in VIetnam then Vietnam wins - and quite frankly the USA is better off spending money on this kind of thing than wasting money dropping bombs on people (if you factor in all the costs and knock-on effects, it'd be cheaper and probably more effective in most cases to drop cash on places where the war on terrorism is happening than to blow people up. The collateral damage is steadily turning more and more people into venom-spitting enemies of the whole western world.). In the overall scheme of military things 1 billion is pocket change down the back of the sofa.

      It's worth noting that russian economy is extremely weak, so forcing them to spend a few tens of millions more in a bunch of areas may be all that's needed to dissuade them from the dickwaving competition.

      War innovates, peace expands markets. If all the russians have to offer is clapped out cold-war bombers then the best retort is to outbid 'em for the bases they use.

    6. Re:"There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Right after the US withdrew from Vietnam, they fought (and won) a border war with China."

      Viet/Chinese emnity goes back a lot further than you might think: The Vietnamese reputedly still haven't gotten around to forgiving China for stripping their forests in order to build Admiral Zheng He's fleet.

      The Vietnamese would happily welcome american money as much as russian money, as long as it doesn't come with governance strings attached - the Vietnam war was fundamentally a war of independence from French Colonial rule after all.

      As for "liking" or "not liking" communism - the average vietnamese citizen has no choice in the matter and in another 40-50 years there won't be enough of the old guard left to keep the pretence up.

    7. Re:"There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me sooooo horny. Five dollah.

  3. I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're trapped between three fires...

    They need to keep the Americans happy to get American diplomatic support to keep China from eating them.

    They need to keep the Russians happy to get access to cheap arms and possibly whatever diplomatic pressure the Russians have these days.

    And then they need to keep the chinese from salivating every time they look at them.

    Given that the US and Russia are at odds again, it is a very difficult position to be in these days.

    They can't give the Russians or the Americans everything they want because much of what they want is the Vietnamese to choose sides.

    And if they don't keep their allies happy they look more vulnerable to the chinese.

    Poor vietnam.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Vietnam is the Poland of Asia.

    2. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's you, Mark.

    3. Re:I feel for them... by QuantumReality · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is absurd, first learn history then write.

    4. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US is not going to invade Vietnam or really anyone else for sometime.

      The US is politically fatigued by war.

      The only thing that will get us out of this mode will be an attack on our soil that will force us to savage our opponent so that no other rival thinks that our territory can be struck without a lethal response.

      Or some atrocities against our core allies. The US has many allies and they're not all equally important to us. Strike a member of NATO or one of our core east asian allies... possibly Israel as well.

      Anything outside of that and the US will dither before committing troops.

      Vietnam can host Russian bombers without risking US invasions. The real risk would be political, diplomatic, and economic isolation.

      The US could simply give Vietnam the cold shoulder. And that could be just as dangerous for them because it might embolden the Chinese to invade Vietnam or nearly as bad the Chinese might just start appropriating Vietnamese shipping or build oil wells right off the coast of Vietnam.

      The ability of these countries to protect their sovereign territory from China is based almost entirely on appeals to the international community to see that territorial borders are respected.

      IF the US abandons Vietnam they may find there is no political or economic cost for china to simply take what it wants. Which means Vietnam loses natural resources at the very least and has no recourse. What is more, the US has clean hands in the whole thing because we will not have stolen anything from them. We'll just have selectively abstained from some meetings in the UN.

      That is the sort of thing the US can do to Vietnam without using its military at all. It also has the benefit of making the US look good because we're not the ones taking people's stuff. And there will probably be appeals for the US to do something which itself is an admission of the value of US power. So again, America has that option and it is a pretty strong hand.

      The Russians however are supplying arms to the Vietnamese. Not just guns... ships.... missile batteries. Something that could actually pose a problem for the chinese. The chinese could eat the damage and keep coming. There really isn't much the Vietnamese could do about it. But it would increase the cost or possibly even slow them down a bit.

      Regardless, the Russians don't have to sell weapons to the Vietnamese. And the Russian weapons are pretty good while being a lot cheaper then western suppliers. The chinese are also big suppliers of weapons but like the Russians and Americans they only sell weapons to people they want to have weapons. The chinese are unlikely to sell formidable weaponry to the Vietnamese so they have to rely on whomever might supply them.

      Another option might be the Indians. They're also pretty big arms suppliers. Their alliances are a little confused these days though. Traditionally they were allied with the Russians which is why the US has its complicated relationship with Pakistan. But they have more cultural, economic, and diplomatic ties with the west these days so the relationships are confused.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:I feel for them... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US could simply give Vietnam the cold shoulder.

      What about giving some humanitarian help by coughing up for medical help or compensation for the thousands of Vietnamese children who are still born with damages from Agent Orange? Vietnam is still today suffering from the effects of the brutal US war machine.

    6. Re:I feel for them... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing that will get us out of this mode will be an attack on our soil that will force us to savage our opponent so that no other rival thinks that our territory can be struck without a lethal response

      They can whip up a false flag any old time, or go all FBI and just encourage and equip some terrorists, and then they get their excuse.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:I feel for them... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why "Poor Vietnam"? I see no reason for Vietnam to go along with this, they have historical ties with Russia and geographical ties with China. They start to have to make choices if China and Russia disagree but that does not appear to be the case here.
      The last time China invaded Vietnam, China's troops were pretty much annhialated by village militias. Vietnam had invaded Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge and China took exception. The US weighed in on the side of China and the Khmer Rouge.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    8. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hmmm... that won't happen.

      I'm not even going to get into the why of that or bother justifying anything. I'm just going to point out that from a purely pragmatic position... if you were counting on that happening, you are in for a long wait.

      As to the "brutal US war machine"... Is there an "effective' war machine that isn't brutal? That's sort of the whole point.

      I think there are misconceptions about the point of war in the first place. You don't go to foreign lands with soldiers to give them candy-grams.

      Furthermore if you really want to start judging the US, I'm going to insist that you compare us against a peer nation and show that we are worse then them in some respect.

      So... that would be hegemonic powers.

      You can compare us against the British Empire, the Soviets, the Holy Roman Empire, the ancient Roman empire, the old Chinese Empire, the Moguls, the Ottoman Empire etc. Big powers only please.

      Too many of the moral comparisons are apples and oranges in that they'll try to compare the US against Switzerland or something. That's silly.

      Word to the wise, I've had this discussion many times and I don't lose it. It would be awesome of if you had new information or a new argument and could surprise me, but that rarely happens at this point. This is a well rehearsed dance for me. I know where you're going to move before you go there... and I've put rhetorical landmines all over the place.

      Fair warning. ;-)

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:I feel for them... by Mike+Frett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The US is politically fatigued by war."

      We'll see about that when a Republican is elected next time by holding his hands in the air and chanting nonsense about "Freedom" and how we need to "Protect" it. Since I was born in 1978, EVERY Republican has had some sort of War/Invasion while the Democrats try to stay away, save a few pin-prick Air Strikes to keep the Warmongers happy.

      War is obsolete in my opinion, we as a WORLD can't advance until we learn to live together on this tiny Blue Planet.

    10. Re:I feel for them... by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only thing that will get us out of this mode will be an attack on our soil that will force us to savage our opponent so that no other rival thinks that our territory can be struck without a lethal response

      They can whip up a false flag any old time, or go all FBI and just encourage and equip some terrorists, and then they get their excuse.

      Maybe, but why would the US want to conqueror Vietnam? The only reason we cared about it before was to try to slow Soviet expansion. That, and the US was still stuck in island-hopping mode a bit from WWII.

      After Vietnam the US learned its lesson and just did what the USSR did in Vietnam - give tons of guns to the locals and turn it into a huge war of attrition. That is why everybody who used to be in the USSR has fond memories of Afghanistan.

      I don't think the US really has any strategic interests there any longer.

      In any case, the US really does seem to be fairly war-fatigued these days. Sure, Bush II would probably have been reluctant to go into Ukraine, but you can bet that there would be a huge deployment against ISIS back in that era. Now the US is more eager to let the Iraqis take care of themselves, and everybody is probably somewhat better off for it.

    11. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Informative

      That sort of thing really doesn't happen.

      I know of three possible examples and they're all highly suspect.

      You have the attack on the Maine which is alleged to have been sabotaged by American forces wanting to justify the Spanish American war, you have Pearl harbor which is alleged to have been intentionally allowed to happen by FDR, and you have the gulf of tonkin which is sort of a tragedy of errors.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:I feel for them... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're trapped between three fires...

      They need to keep the Americans happy to get American diplomatic support to keep China from eating them.

      They need to keep the Russians happy to get access to cheap arms and possibly whatever diplomatic pressure the Russians have these days.

      And then they need to keep the chinese from salivating every time they look at them.

      Given that the US and Russia are at odds again, it is a very difficult position to be in these days.

      They can't give the Russians or the Americans everything they want because much of what they want is the Vietnamese to choose sides.

      And if they don't keep their allies happy they look more vulnerable to the chinese.

      Poor vietnam.

      So in other words they can choose between China paying them a visit to bring them corrupt free market communism, Russia dropping in to bestow upon them the blessings of cleptocracy or the USA taking another crack at bringing them plutocracy when all they really want to do is practice their own home gown brand of nepotism and corruption?

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    13. Re:I feel for them... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That sort of thing really doesn't happen.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Close your eyes, it can't happen here!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You weren't listening.

      China could just take Vietnamese resources at sea. That would require a naval presence to stop. They're already dicking around with south Korea and Japan. There's no reason for the Chinese to not covet something off the shore of Vietnam... if only fish. A few big chinese fishing fleets could depopulate the seas near Vietnam forcing Vietnamese fisherman to sail farther or just shut down entirely. Either way the price of fish and therefore all relevant food stuffs would go up in Vietnam. And rising food prices in economically depressed countries is a recipe for big fucking problems.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, because the Republicans just invented two of our sky scrappers having commercial airliners crashed into them.

      I love that people also forget that the demomcrats got the US into WW1, WW2, and Vietnam. To say nothing of the wars Bill and Obama went into. But no... its just the warmonger republicans.

      If you're a complete fucking shill.

      The reality is that both parties will go to war often for similar reasons.

      They don't go to war for different reasons.

      The republicans have an isolationist streak. The part of them that wants to not go to war does so for that reason.

      The democrats have an increasingly relevant kumbaya contingent that thinks war is not the answer, etc. Hence reset buttons to Russia with predictable results.

      Regardless, saying the republicans are the war party when neither party is for or against war in general is silly. They each have different views on geo politics and they each have relevant points to make.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    16. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What???

    17. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No.

      They can choose between:

      1. Not being able to buy cheap weapons from Russia.

      2. Suffering ongoing economic, diplomatic, and strategic undermining from the United States.

      3. The Chinese building oil wells 10 miles off their coast and draining their reserves dry.

      Realistically these are the first things that each power will do if it feels it needs to send a message.

      Russia really can't do much. Vietnam does need their weapons but maybe they can get them from India or possibly get some discounted hand me downs from the US. And keep in mind, that whatever they were buying from the Russians were Russian hand me downs.

      The US can make it harder for US and other western companies to operate in Vietnam which is a lot of money and jobs out the window. And on top of that there are a lot of subtle things the US can do that individually don't matter but collectively are quite debilitating. If you really piss the US off, we can strangle nations. It isn't fast. But it can be sustained for generations... decade after decade after decade. And it just adds up.

      And the Chinese are just right there. They have the most relevant military force in the area and have shown a willingness to just take what they want even with a US presence. Absent such a presence they'll just do a survey of anything they want and in the oceans at least off of Vietnam and strip it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    18. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      What wars are you saying the US engaged in using such tactics?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    19. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to keep USA happy to stop USA from invading them. I think that's priority number 1. USA has done it before, and they're still busy invading every country that doesn't do their bidding.

      ROFLMAO

      Vietnam kicked the Imperial United States out of the country during the previous invasion. What makes you think the same outcome won't play out in the event the World Police State of the United States decided to invade Vietnam?

    20. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore if you really want to start judging the US, I'm going to insist that you compare us against a peer nation and show that we are worse then them in some respect.

      Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right.

    21. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many of the moral comparisons are apples and oranges in that they'll try to compare the US against Switzerland or something. That's silly.

      Why is it silly, because you said so?
      Because switzerland is a prosperous non-warmongering nation?

    22. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all these guys are the same..

      They will come and say how the US did not lose, they did a "tactical retreat" or such. Funny thing is when someone else does the same thing it is considered a US victory.

    23. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gulf of Tonkin for the Vietnam war.

    24. Re:I feel for them... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.

      (attributed to somebody or other)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    25. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get over yourself, mall ninja.

    26. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time China invaded Vietnam, China's troops were pretty much annhialated by village militias.

      That's so wrong you really should be ashamed of yourself. In that 1979 war, Vietnam "won" by basically not fighting.

      The PLA invaded with 140,000 troops, and took some Vietnamese territory (about 20 miles in). Then they waited for the Vietnamese counter-attack -- which did not happen. Perhaps the Soviet spy satellites had seen the 500,000 Chinese soldiers just across the border, and warned Hanoi off. Perhaps the Vietnamese army held off for some other reason. Whatever the explanation, the fact is that Vietnam did not fight.

      China only wanted to punish Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, and that was already achieved. So the Chinese just shrugged and went home.

      So much for the vaunted Vietnamese "victory".

    27. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everybody except the headless victims in the mass graves.

    28. Re:I feel for them... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I guess they'll just have to nakedly pursue their self-interests like everyone else then.

    29. Re:I feel for them... by khallow · · Score: 0

      "Try to stay away" is not the same thing as success. Note that Obama is following the same dysfunctional playbook in Iraq as the Vietnam War with inadequate, incremental escalation of a US military presence.

    30. Re:I feel for them... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And rising food prices in economically depressed countries is a recipe for big fucking problems.

      Which, in turn, would cause big fucking problems - a flood of refugees and general instability in the area - for China. Putin's error with Ukraine was not giving Ukrainians any good options; I doubt Peking will make such amateur mistake.

      "Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across." - Sun Tzu

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    31. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As to the "brutal US war machine"... Is there an "effective' war machine that isn't brutal? That's sort of the whole point.

      : I'm evil. And?

      > You can compare us against the British Empire, the Soviets, the Holy Roman Empire, the ancient Roman empire, the old Chinese Empire, the Moguls, the Ottoman Empire etc. Big powers only please.

      : We're striving to be the baddest of the baddest.

      > Too many of the moral comparisons are apples and oranges...

      : I'm dumb. Don't make me think too much, it's tiresome.

      I just hope you're doing that voluntarily. Out of pity for the guys who would be paying you, that is. Unless you're Russian... then it would be a good post. There's room for improvement, though.

    32. Re:I feel for them... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I'm just going to point out that from a purely pragmatic position...

      This is quite a contrast compared to the 'morality' play you were tossing at me. Here it seems you accept that we live in a might-makes-right world of battling empires.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    33. Re:I feel for them... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I love that people also forget that the demomcrats got the US into WW1, WW2,

      You have an odd definition og "got into". In WWI, the deciding factor was Germany started using unrestricted submarine warfare on American ships. It was either fight back or keep losing sailors. In WWII, the Empire of Japan bombed the crap out of a US naval base.

      I mean sure, it might have been a democrat president that finally responded, but in both cases there was not a whole lot of choice remaining.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    34. Re:I feel for them... by ultranova · · Score: 2

      As to the "brutal US war machine"... Is there an "effective' war machine that isn't brutal? That's sort of the whole point.

      In the Age of Information, can a war machine be both brutal and efficient? You need to whip up nationalistic frenzy to get your population to accept mass civilian - or even military - casualties, but doing so risks a demagogue seizing power and looting the country - and that's assuming they're just a cleptocrat, rather than a homicidal maniac.

      US Army realizes this, even if you don't, which is why they're so interested in automated weapons systems. An unmanned vehicle can be sacrificed. You can take more risks with them in unclear situations - precisely the kind US forces keep on finding themselves nowadays - because if someone walking towards it turns out to be a suicide bomber rather than just stupid, it means pork for an arms factory rather than military funerals.

      Furthermore if you really want to start judging the US, I'm going to insist that you compare us against a peer nation and show that we are worse then them in some respect.

      So... that would be hegemonic powers.

      How do you justify such demand? Nothing forces the US to be a hegemonic power. It can make do just fine - indeed, would probably be much better off - with ignoring the world outside its borders. Why would you get to disown the consequences of your choices?

      And it's not Slashdot that will judge US, but history. Slashdot can provide a running commentary on how that judgement seems to be turning out, and tips on how to perhaps improve performance, but that's all. And history doesn't care about "rhetorical landmines"; only choices, consequences, and the pattern that emerges from these determine US's destiny. US is effectively judging itself, just like British Empire, Soviet Union, Roman Empire, etc. did.

      "Judgement" is simply a function of reality that determines what things continue being a part of it. Human capacity for morality reflects it, and give possibility to take corrective action before it's too late. A nation that ignores morals is like a ship that ignores sea charts; it will run into a rock and sink, it's just a matter of how much damage it'll cause first or as it sinks.

      You can compare us against the British Empire, the Soviets, the Holy Roman Empire, the ancient Roman empire, the old Chinese Empire, the Moguls, the Ottoman Empire etc. Big powers only please.

      I wonder if the citizens of these old powers also perceived discussions about their flaws as battles that had to be won, rather than as opportunities to identify weak spots, repair them and thus save their nations. And I also wonder if John "But I drink less than Ted!" Smith ever looked back and regretted all the times he said that as he laid dying in the gutter.

      Too many of the moral comparisons are apples and oranges in that they'll try to compare the US against Switzerland or something. That's silly.

      Why so? If anything, the Swiss would have more of an excuse to go war-mongering, due to having a smaller home market and less resources.

      Word to the wise, I've had this discussion many times and I don't lose it.

      Neither did John. He did, however, lose his career, wife, liver and life. Even if he really did drink less than Ted.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:I feel for them... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I was going to say that Riverrun is the Vietnam of westeros.

    36. Re:I feel for them... by khallow · · Score: 1

      You have an odd definition og "got into". In WWI, the deciding factor was Germany started using unrestricted submarine warfare on American ships. It was either fight back or keep losing sailors. In WWII, the Empire of Japan bombed the crap out of a US naval base.

      And what is that odd definition? The US could have halted trade with England and France. In the second case, the US had been building up military power and obstructing both Japan and Germany before that point.

      but in both cases there was not a whole lot of choice remaining.

      Which is a common MO of US presidents - dither the US's way into a war.

    37. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sounds likely a Chinese bot. What you said is what history books in China have taught. Basically, AMAZING LIES.

      Simple question, if Vietnam did not fight, how dozens of thousands Chinese soldiers died in the conflicts (?).
      Just search for image of propaganda of China for funeral of soldiers died for fighting 'Vietnamese invasion'.

      How did it happen!?

      Wow, just wow!

    38. Re:I feel for them... by khallow · · Score: 2

      China only wanted to punish Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, and that was already achieved. So the Chinese just shrugged and went home.

      Given that Vietnam continued to occupy Cambodia through to 1989, a full ten years after the invasion, I think victory is an appropriate term. I think it was a combination of various factors, such as USSR logistics support, including satellite intel (which enabled Vietnam to avoid following China's intended strategy), considerable guerilla warfare, the revelations about the atrocities coming out of Cambodia, and simply not being prepared for a long fight that caused China to retreat from Vietnam.

    39. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're trapped between three fires...

      Poor vietnam.

      It's not the first time "they are trapped between two/three.... fires"
      If you study a bit history of Vienam you know that they have been always in this position, at least in their past 100 years.

    40. Re: I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they can invite the US to use the airport too (for a fee) and outsource the management of the facilities to the Chinese. This way they will make money from each interested party and laugh at the superpower squabbles all the way to the bank.

    41. Re:I feel for them... by aralin · · Score: 0

      Democrats start just as many wars. Clinton has Kosovo, Obama has Lybia and Syria. They all start wars. I see no signs of US being fatigued by war. The Sweden intelligence agency has made a report, accusing the US military, state department or intelligence services to be involved in creating 27 out of 29 of the conflicts that happened during last 30 years.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    42. Re:I feel for them... by deadweight · · Score: 0

      We made do as an isolated militarily insignificant power from 1918 to 1941. In early December we learned how bad an idea that was. Policy from 1945 onwards has been to NEVER look so weak as to draw an attack. I know a whole bunch of people around the world wish the USA would be Canada - Southen Section, but that all changes when shit hits the fan and someone needs their ass saved (again).

    43. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US could simply give Vietnam the cold shoulder.

      What about giving some humanitarian help by coughing up for medical help or compensation for the thousands of Vietnamese children who are still born with damages from Agent Orange? Vietnam is still today suffering from the effects of the brutal US war machine.

      Who gives a fuck? War sucks. There have been many wars, and the aftereffects become worse with each war fought. Quit yer bitchin about what was done before and learn the lesson of history: stop fighting wars.

    44. Re:I feel for them... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Everybody except the headless victims in the mass graves.

      True, and it is wrong to buy into the whole moral equivalence thing. Granted, the US was out of control in Iraq with torture and all that, but I imagine the US pillaging is fairly tame compared to ISIS.

    45. Re:I feel for them... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      No. It's because it's small and relatively weak. The tactics that work for a small, relatively weak country don't work for a large, relatively strong country. This is why he selected the comparison example he did. He could have also suggested a classical Hindu empire, that of Ashoka, but didn't because that would weaken is argument. OTOH, please do notice that much of Ashoka's history is uncertain, and that he's the ONLY example of an essentially pacifistic emperor. Also that he only converted to Buddhism after conquering most of his empire.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    46. Re:I feel for them... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      Your error is thinking the Ukraine conflict is between Putin & Ukraine. One does not negotiate with the house servants.

      Beijing (not Peking) is full of amateur hour mistakes, particularly in its diplomacy. I laugh when Beijing whines "Why are my neighbors allying against me? It must be the machinations of the United States, not when I make diplomatic seizures of all the ocean territory up to their coasts".

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    47. Re:I feel for them... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I agree that the basic choice is whether or not to be a hegemonic power, and that the choice to be one is unreasonably bad. Somehow the people who end up in charge seem to be those who worship power, though, so expecting them to evaluate things the same way is unreasonable. So the first thing that needs to be fixed is that the way to get power is to desire power. This is one reason I think "elective office" should be replaced by "selective office", and that the selection should be essentially a lottery among those qualified:
      "Your friends and neighbors have selected you to serve a term as Senator for..."
      I will grant that the criteria for who is qualified would need to be tightened a bit. And perhaps lawyers should be forbidden on grounds of conflict of interest.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    48. Re:I feel for them... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      It was also a Vietnamese military victorious over a world superpower less than ten years ago. Vietnam was basically the equivalent of the US military in that region. Vietnam didn't have a lot of air power, but it had the best trained, veteran soldiers in the region. China, on the other hand, was still an antiquated mass of farmers that hadn't fought an external war since WW2. And they were trying to thrust a million men through a pass in a mountain range (which separates China from Vietnam).

      The irony is that even though Vietnam thoroughly kicked the Chinese invader's ass, they still had to negotiate a peace with China, because China's loss was like losing a zit on its hide.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    49. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you niggers, you are not welcome here.

      This is not true. They are very, very welcome indeed.

    50. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greetings Karmashock.

      Unfortunately, you seem to be suffering from an acute case of Broken English Syndrome. Let me fix your mistakes for you.

      It is "...cheaper than western...", not "...cheaper then western...".

      Also, the word 'If' in your 9th paragraph is YELLING.

      I sincerely hope that you see the grave errors that you have committed here, and learn from your mistakes. Proper English must be respected at all times. This is Slashdot.

      Sincerely,
        Your friendly local grammar pedant.

    51. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Here it seems you accept that we live in a might-makes-right world of battling empires.

      We do. This is the real world, not Star Trek, there hasn't been an awakening of all humanity that has showed us the error of our ways. The only thing keeping our aggressive tendencies somewhat in check is the fear of mutual destruction. Be happy for that bit at least; we simply flirt with total war these days, we don't actually engage in it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    52. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      You have the attack on the Maine which is alleged to have been sabotaged by American forces wanting to justify the Spanish American war, you have Pearl harbor which is alleged to have been intentionally allowed to happen by FDR, and you have the gulf of tonkin which is sort of a tragedy of errors.

      The "tragedy of errors" bit is applicable to Pearl Harbor, more so than the Gulf of Tonkin. Exactly what happened to the USS Maine is disputed, we'll never know for sure, but the simplest explanation (remember Occam's Razor) is an accidental explosion in her coal bunkers. This was the hypothesis of Admiral Rickover, who investigated the historical record, and whatever else one can say about him you can't dispute his thoroughness and talent for engineering.

      There are conspiracy theories surrounding both the USS Maine and Pearl Harbor but none of them pass the smell test. People can never accept the simple explanation for tragic events, it's easier for them to believe that shadowy figures were at play rather than accept the fact that incompetence occasionally combines with bad luck. Ronald Reagan was shot by some mental defective who was trying to impress Jodie Foster. Would people have accepted that explanation if he had died? Scary thought: What if someone shoots the current President? More likely than not it would be that simple, some mentally deranged individual, but almost nobody would be willing to accept that.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    53. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's troops were pretty much annhialated by village militias

      Vlad speak truth.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

      Though it's one of those oddball conflicts where the side that captured 6X more opposing prisoners actually ended up losing...rare indeed.

      Although the PLA navy reclaimed some lost pride for the motherland by thrashing the Viets in the South China Seas a few years later.

    54. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      In WWII, the Empire of Japan bombed the crap out of a US naval base.

      You fail basic history. The United States Navy was shooting at German warships months before Pearl Harbor. We were giving weapons to Germany's enemies. It was the intention of the FDR Administration to intervene openly in the conflict as soon as the political situation allowed. Nobody in Washington wanted a war with Japan and the plan if forced into one was to fight a defensive action against Japan until such time as Germany was defeated.

      The GP is correct, a Democrat (FDR) "got us into" WW2, by openly siding with Germany's enemies. FDR's actions in 1940 and 1941 were a wholesale violation of international law concerning neutral powers. The United States was destined to intervene in WW2 regardless of Japan's choice to attack us.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    55. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      China, on the other hand, was still an antiquated mass of farmers that hadn't fought an external war since WW2.

      Umm, seriously?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    56. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      The US has many allies and they're not all equally important to us. Strike a member of NATO or one of our core east asian allies... possibly Israel as well.

      I'm not sure the United States would really march for NATO. An attack on Germany, Italy, the UK, or France? To the ramparts! The Baltic States? Would we really go to war with a nuclear armed state over them? That's the ten million dollar question, isn't it? We're talking about three countries no one has heard of, that have no significant cultural, historical, or economic ties to the US, with combined population roughly that of Maryland. I'm not certain you could sell it to the current United States Congress, never mind the general public, most of whom can't even find Latvia on the map.

      The only countries/regions I can say we'd definitely march for are Western Europe, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. After that it gets kind of hazy. Israel is most probably on the list but to put it mildly that's a complicated geopolitical relationship.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    57. Re:I feel for them... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Good for you.

      1) You do realize that the end of WW2 and the end of the Korean War was less than 10 years?
      2) "PVA troops in Korea continued to suffer severe logistical problems throughout the war. In late April Peng Dehuai sent his deputy, Hong Xuezhi, to brief Zhou Enlai in Beijing. What Chinese soldiers feared, Hong said, was not the enemy, but that they had nothing to eat, no bullets to shoot, and no trucks to transport them to the rear when they were wounded."

      That is not the definition of a "professional" army.

      And even if they were better organized by 1979 (each soldier had a rifle, and the soldiers were all carried by truck), they really were's much more than an antiquated mass of farmers that hadn't fought an external war since Korea.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    58. Re:I feel for them... by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Democrats start just as many wars. Clinton has Kosovo, Obama has Lybia and Syria. They all start wars.

      I'm not trying to take particular side here - but I don't think comparing Kosovo, Libya and Syria to Iraq 1, Afganistan and Iraq 2 really works that well in terms of scale, cost and destruction. ie some minimal half hearted air strikes vs large invasions.

    59. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish they could send a fuck off to everybody just by smiling them. They apparently are one of the happier people on this planet.

    60. Re:I feel for them... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Much more simply they can be more diplomatically effective. Ignore and rebuke the stupid stuff like this and ridicule the individual responsible for the stupid demand ie Russia wants to refuel planes, it flies in international territories, SO FUCKING WHAT, morons, it is not a time of war so piss off. Perhaps not in those words but certainly you want to find out who was the individually responsible for the request and front them directly. Where real contention arises simply invite affected parties to discuss the issue directly between themselves at a venue to host and chair. Keep the status quo going, whilst the discussion continue. The will not be able to refuse a public request to attend the conference and whilst it goes on and on and on, you don't have to do a single thing about the requests being made.

      Being diplomatic is often more about saying neither yes nor nor but maintaining communications in order to delay undesirable outcomes whilst tensions difuse and the need for the undesirable outcomes evaporates. In this case blatant toddler behaviour, where the child is lashing out making demands as a result of global frustration from failures in other regions, really just needs to be ignored or a public meeting where Russian and US government representatives can discus the issues directly in a location within Vietnam and the Vietnam government will chair the meeting.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    61. Re:I feel for them... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I don't like violence.... I'm a businessman, blood is a big expense.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    62. Re:I feel for them... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Your error is thinking the Ukraine conflict is between Putin & Ukraine. One does not negotiate with the house servants.

      Then they'll leave for those who will, and the house goes unmaintained. Political power doesn't actually grow from the barrel of the rifle, it grows from the fear of being shot, which becomes brittle when the victim has nothing to lose but their chains. And Putin, having grown up in a country born of just such revolution, should had known that.

      It's a pity, really: Russia has natural resources, land, and tough people. All it'd need to soar is competent leaders. And what it gets instead is cleptocrats, drunkards and the occasional complete monster.

      Beijing (not Peking)

      "Beijing, sometimes romanized as Peking"...

      is full of amateur hour mistakes, particularly in its diplomacy. I laugh when Beijing whines "Why are my neighbors allying against me? It must be the machinations of the United States, not when I make diplomatic seizures of all the ocean territory up to their coasts".

      China's ruthless, not stupid. And blaming everyone but yourself unless forced to is how every nation behaves; what this tells about them I leave as an excersize for the reader.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    63. Re:I feel for them... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      The US is asking for the favour here, not China.
      I can see more potential problems here for Vietnam if they became the US's "running dog". If I am missing something, then it is some point of conflict between Vietnam and China other than the humiliation inflicted 35 years ago.

      btw, it is "annihilated", not "annhialated". Sorry - not a word I use too often.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    64. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really piss the US off, we can strangle nations. It isn't fast. But it can be sustained for generations... decade after decade after decade. And it just adds up.

      The USA can easily strangle an ally like Iraq or Venezuela, but it's more difficult with enemies. The USA had to actively police Iraq to make it work. It barely worked on Iran. It didn't work on Cuba, which went backwards mostly from being a communist dictatorship. It didn't work on Vietnam 30 years ago. Nor did it work on Russia before that: Russia fell because it couldn't maintain the union, for a number of reasons.

      As Iran has proven, even when the UN enforces US foreign policy; another country, another company will fill the void. Sooner or later, US mentalities like 'All multi-nationals must obey American laws' are ignored via back-door deals.

    65. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... The US could simply give Vietnam the cold shoulder.

      Why can't Vietnam trade oil (rights) for guns? That will provide sovereign protection too.

      In a free market Vietnam can sell their oil rights to any country, not only those countries willing to oppose China.

    66. Re:I feel for them... by aralin · · Score: 1

      You really want to compare? Afghanistan is comparable to Lybia in terms of destruction and terrorist breeding ground creation. Syria is well comparable to Iraq in terms of deaths, suffering, civilian casualties, refugees, etc. The amount of bombing in Belgrade was quite substantial as well. I would not discount it.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    67. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If China wanted to buy it then they'd just do that.

      Come now. Think about it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    68. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Not really. It happens at the global trade level.

      And Venezuela isn't an ally. I'm going to guess you're going to try and blame their financial melt down on the US?

      Not us... that's them just killing themselves with stupidity.

      Not every idiot nation that kills itself is our fault. The only nations I'm aware of at the moment that we're engaged in suppressing to any great extent are Russia (early stages), Iran (we appear to be turning that off but who can say), and North Korea.

      Beyond that, we're not conducting suppression against any other power.

      If I missed one, then correct me but I think that is the full list.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    69. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Well... I didn't say china was asking for anything either. I said they were inclined to "TAKE" not ask.

      let me explain again:

      Vietnam is near a large power that is inclined to eat bits of their territory or claim their sea resources by force.

      To put that off, Vietnam has to appeal to outside authorities to keep china from doing that.

      The only credible power capable of and willing to do that would be the US. The russians aren't especially capable of doing anything.

      So Vietnam has to keep the US nominally happy so that the US supports Vietnam's claims in the international community to its own resources.

      At the same time, it helps if Vietnam can defend itself to some extent. And the Russians make that cheaper. They provide cheap weapons and between the US support of international law and the Russian provision of cheap weapons... vietnam has a CHANCE of holding on to their resources.

      Pissing off the US means that the US "MIGHT" not help them if the Chinese make a move. And pissing off the Russians might mean not being able to get access to Russian weapons.

      As I said, Vietnam is between three fires.

      Which is why I said "poor vietnam". They're in a very bad position. I hope they come through it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    70. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Any member of NAT would get a major US response. Not only do we care but we are contractually and honor bound to do it.

      We have signed agreements to that effect. If the US didn't come then we would be in breach of our agreements.

      The US keeps it word.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    71. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I don't proofread my posts. Deal with it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    72. Re: I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      First, the US doesn't especially want to use the base. That isn't their interest.

      Second, the chump change the Chinese would make from running the facility wouldn't be enough.

      Third, the Russians likely wouldn't be comfortable with US and chinese military being that close to their nuclear bombers.

      Fourth, the Vietnamese want the money themselves chump change though it is and will not share it with anyone.

      So... none of the above.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    73. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to brutal war machines in the information age, that is not new to the information age. demagogues or cleoptocrats were every bit as much of a problem in past ages. The only thing that has changed is that people not part of the government are able to speak more clearly even in a minority and get their voices heard.

      That is in effect a large part of the problem with the US using military power these days. I am not suggesting that people should be suppressed. But because they are not they create an additional challenge.

      As to justifying that you judge the US by its peers because it is irrational to do otherwise. You are suggesting that powers that are incapable of fighting big wars be judged on the same playing field as those that can. And then when a nation that does go on the a big war that has many deaths you then say "look at the tiny countries that kill less people than you"... It is apples and oranges.

      You can either compare the US against its peers or your comparisons have no value. I will shift what little energy I have to discuss this with you to that point and hold you there.

      You cannot judge the damage of a great power against the damage of a minor power unless you scale the damage done by the major power to something a minor power could have done. Then and only then can you compare the two.

      For example, lets say you have a homicidal maniac. How many people could he kill in his life? Perhaps a couple hundred? So does that make him morally superior to say Hitler? Because after all hitler killed a great deal more people, didn't he? But hitler also had a great deal more power to kill people.

      To compare one against the other you have to compensate for their relatively capability to act.

      If you want to compare the US against Switzerland, then you need to appreciate what Switzerland and the US are relatively capable of doing. The US could for example annihilate all human life. Total species destruction. And what would Switzerland be capable of doing? Then you have to look at the issues you want to compare between those powers and adjust them using that relative scale of capability so you can understand the extent to which either one acted in a hostile manner.

      If you find this too be too complicated then you can avoid that by choosing powers or similar strength in relation to human history at that time. I gave you a short list of countries that could arguably be added to such a list. From that you can generally compare directly across. However, you're unlikely to be able to find any of those powers that conducted themselves better than the US.

      As I said, I am familiar with your false equivalency argument and will stop you from making it before you can get any traction.

      Why don't you surprise me by coming up with an idea on your own rather than these dried up fallacious talking points cococted mostly to confuse idiots?

      That would be refreshing.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    74. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Not really. The US decided to enter WW1. We didn't have to do it. We decided to do it.

      As to WW2, that was caused in large part by the US frustrating the Japanese efforts to conquer the pacific using economic means.

      Understand, I am not against the US doing either of these things. However, democrat presidents were in charge of the US in both cases and their actions directly lead to those wars.

      What is more, I could also point out that Bill Clinton was offered Osama bin Ladin by the Saudis and he turned them down.

      Do I blame bill for that? No, he couldn't have known. But it was a mistake and if he had taken Osama then... perhaps 9/11 would have been avoided.

      My general point was that you can't paint the republicans as war mongers because it makes no logical sense in context.

      I mean, Carter's actions in part lead to our problems with Iran. Are you going to hold him accountable for that?

      Tell you what... you come up with a standard moral/ethical system that we can use to judge this and then I'll apply that to US history and we'll see who comes out looking better.

      And please, we're talking about war and violence here. Don't come up with a system about which party is more socialist then the other... I'll just admit that the democrats are... I don't really care about that. Foreign policy and war please. That is the topic. You come up with a moral/ethical system and we'll see if you can show the reps are any worse. I really doubt you'll be able to pull that off.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    75. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No, captain strawman.

      As the strategic planner for a nation you have a responsibility to be pragmatic. Your people depend upon it. You are paid to a certain extent to be paranoid, think to the future, and make sure your people are safe.

      So basing any policy on something that won't happen is dumb.

      Moving past that to morality plays... if you don't want to talk about morality then don't talk about morality.

      I'm not going to let you make a certain type of argument and then forbid myself from crossing the river on your ground to make the counter argument.

      Be careful where you stand. Because where ever that is... is fair game. I can and will use any type of argument you use as is convenient to me.

      The only exception is dishonorable arguments that rely on deceit. If you use those, I'll climb on the highest horse I can find and urinate on you from that vantage.

      So... kindly keep your positions free of any excuses for me to do that and expect that whatever you use will be fair game.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    76. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Having an effective military does not make you evil.

      As to the US being inherently evil because it is powerful... so you're making the tired argument that beggars are all saints and the rich and powerful are all evil? Doesn't really make a lot of sense there, sport.

      As to my point that you can't compare nations that are dramatically dissimilar in their relative capabilities... that is a reasonable point.

      Work harder, Mr AC.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    77. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      From all reports that appears to be a tragedy of errors. Many different powers all did things at different times that were misinterpreted as being against them specifically or in coordination with other powers.

      The vietcong saw lots of things happening and they thought it was all the US. There were many other powers in the area though and their actions coincided with the US actions. What is more, the response against the US was also more general and not specific to the US. But the US likewise interpreted it as being specific.

      That created a flash point which LBJ used to justify sending increased support to the South Vietnamese. And from there everything snowballed.

      Saying it was a US conspiracy is not justifiable.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    78. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No, because its like comparing a man with no arms or legs against a man that has both.

      The relative capabilities of the two countries are not comparable.

      The US could wipe out the whole planetary population. If you think it is reasonable to compare such a power against a country that couldn't even successfully attack Belgium then you're something of an idiot.

      Let me explain further here... if you could make such an argument then you could compare an individual with a whole nation.

      Now how many people has the most successful lone psychopath killed? Perhaps a few hundred?

      Now name the most peaceful country you can think of... how many people do you think that country has killed? Tens of thousands at least unless the country is brand new.

      Now do you comprehend why you have to compensate for relative capability?

      The answer is either "yes I do" or "no, I'm stupid".

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    79. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it did. I just said you need to compare apples to apples.

      Once you comprehend what you're talking about, it becomes harder to throw around the moral bowling balls.

      You're going to have to admit that compared to its peers, the US is relatively quite benign.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    80. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The Russians are not flying commercial airplanes. They're flying nuclear capable bombers and using them to intimidate and harass US allies.

      So claiming that the Russians aren't bothering anyone is ignorant.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    81. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Not only do we care but we are contractually and honor bound to do it.

      If the US didn't come then we would be in breach of our agreements.

      Dude, really? I thought you were smarter than that. France was "contractually and honor bound" to start a full scale assault on Germany 15 days after Germany attacked Poland. Instead they made a halfhearted attempt, didn't even finish that, watched Poland get crushed, then did nothing for seven months while waiting for the Germans to attack. And Germany didn't have the ability to destroy every major French city inside of an hour.

      If you think the American body politic would rush headlong into war against a country with 8,000 nuclear weapons over the Baltic States I've got a bridge to sell you. We might honor our treaty obligations, but there would be much dithering involved, consultations with the other NATO countries, resolutions at the Security Council, and so on. It's an open question as to whether or not the nations of Western Europe would honor their commitments and without them what does the US do? Glass Moscow? Because that's about the only recourse we'd have; we can't stage the US Army into the theater without cooperation from local allies.

      NATO expansion has so diluted the organization that it's hard to take seriously. The lion's share of members can't take care of themselves, never mind contribute to collective defense. There are only FOUR members (out of 28!) that meet their obligation to spend >=2% of GDP on defense. Most every country in Europe continues to cut defense spending even as Russia dismembers one of their neighbors. Would you take NATO seriously if you sat in the Kremlin? I sure as hell wouldn't.

      NATO's mission was once summarized as "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Guess what? The Russians are in, the Americans are disinterested, and the Germans have taken over the continent without firing a shot.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    82. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      China doesn't deal with such problems the same way the western powers would. Don't forget Tibet.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    83. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      In regards to France not honoring an agreement, that has nothing to do with the US honoring an agreement. I did not say "no country has every violated an agreement" I said that the US honors its agreements.

      As to headlong into a war over a Baltic state, you forget that Britain did engage Germany over Poland.

      And Britain's position was more analogous to the US's current position.

      We are the head of a political and military alliance. If members of the alliance can be struck without a response from the US then that diminishes our credibility. Even on entirely selfish grounds, we would be obliged to respond.

      We can of course divest ourselves of these responsibilities. But not after an attack. We'd have to do it before an attack.

      As to the dilution of nato, the primary issue is that no nato member invests significantly in their military with the exception of the US. So that has less to do with an expansion then it does with the other members not pulling their weight.

      The fact has been admitted by the European governments. There was recently a bit of smack talking going on in the British parliament about how NATO had been "freeloading" off the US.

      As to NATO's post WW2 mission. That ceased to be relevant after the end of the cold war.

      Really, there is an increasing argument for dissolving nato.

      That is one of the reasons Putin's actions were so unbelievably stupid. The US is interested in pulling out of Europe entirely. We want to focus more on east Asia. If Putin had simply kept it in his pants a bit longer, we'd have left and he could work slowly to gain goals.

      Of course, claiming territory is only a small part of what he wants. He also needs to bolster his domestic political position. And for that he needed to get the Russians all stirred up with patriotic furvor. And so far apparently the Russians hate America more now than they did during the Cold War. So well done Putin.

      But his moves are strategically stupid. He's forcing the US to go back to a cold war posture towards Russia. And that isn't going to work out very well for the Russian Federation. The US didn't fall. The soviets did. The soviets were something of a joke towards the end of the cold war and the notion of the Russian Federation squaring off against us now is laughable.

      And no, we're not going to meet them in open combat. We're just going to sink back into the shadows and play the game the CIA played with the KGB for decades... and won.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    84. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I said that the US honors its agreements.

      And you're wrong. I'm sorry but the US is no different than any other democratic nation in this regard. Public opinion will always limit the options available to American policymakers. We abandoned South Vietnam to an adversary that didn't have the ability to vaporize American cities, simply because of the body politic was tired of the war.

      If you'd stop waving the flag for a few moments you could fully absorb what I'm telling you. I did not say that we would definitely not march for the Baltic States. I merely question that it would be as automatic as it would be if say Great Britain, Canada, or Germany were attacked by an outside force. You really think the American public would get behind a war for the Baltic States? You're talking the theory of power, I'm talking reality, the United States is a democracy, and you'd have to sell the people and legislature on the concept.

      We are the head of a political and military alliance.

      There is no "head" of NATO as such. It operates on consensus. No consensus, no response. As a practical matter, there's not very much the United States could actually do for the Baltic States without involvement by the Western European powers, so now we're talking about the body politic in other democratic countries, countries which are even more risk adverse than the United States. It's easy to man the ramparts as an American, we haven't fought a real war on our soil in over 150 years.

      If members of the alliance can be struck without a response from the US then that diminishes our credibility.

      You're proceeding from the assumption that the body politic gives a shit about American credibility.

      That is one of the reasons Putin's actions were so unbelievably stupid. The US is interested in pulling out of Europe entirely. We want to focus more on east Asia. If Putin had simply kept it in his pants a bit longer, we'd have left and he could work slowly to gain goals.

      Of course, claiming territory is only a small part of what he wants. He also needs to bolster his domestic political position. And for that he needed to get the Russians all stirred up with patriotic furvor. And so far apparently the Russians hate America more now than they did during the Cold War. So well done Putin.

      No offense, but you don't know as much about Russia or Vladimir Putin as you think you do. In fairness, neither do our policymakers, not in the Executive or in the Congress. Start with this article and branch out from there.

      And no, we're not going to meet them in open combat.

      I agree that it's unlikely but never say never. If nothing else there is plenty of room for miscalculation. People in the know, who watch both Moscow and Western Europe seem to think it's possible: "Carl Bildt, the former Swedish foreign minister, said a war between Russia and the west was now quite conceivable."

      In any case, this whole conversation started because I question your assumption that American policy treats all members of NATO equally. It might appear that way on paper but you've yet to convince me that the American body politic would march for the Baltic States (or the new members in the Balkens, for that matter) as readily as it would march for Western Europe. I'm a student of geopolitics, recognize the dangers in not upholding our treaty commitments, and even I'm not certain that I would be willing to march for them. I'm not sure how old you are but I'm old enough to remember when nuclear weapons were aimed at me; that's a sobering thought that tempers my blind enthusiasm with a healthy dose of reality.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    85. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You simpleton.
      You just proved his point.
      9-11
      If a democrat were in charge, there would have been some strikes and a few 'terrorist training camps' leveled.
      A Republican invaded any country that was convenient, in an attempt to show how big their dicks were.

      Who is the shill again?

    86. Re: I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cold war is over but the NATO still in the encircling mode to get closer and closer to Russian borders. Putin would not be able to get the support for actions in Ukraine if NATO wouldn't absorbed ex Warsaw Pact countries and now marching on to absorb the former Soviet republics. Russia was disappointed when Baltic countries became NATO members but it was stupid to expect Russian to rollover over the Ukraine, especially after South Ossetia.

      That is the huge missed opportunity in the Russia. NATO's expansion to the Easter Europe after the Cold War and desire of US to profit from the collapse of the Soviet Union are the biggest mistakes that turned Russia from being generally moving toward democracy into what it is now.

    87. Re:I feel for them... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Be careful where you stand. Because where ever that is... is fair game.

      :-) Precisely! Thank you!

      With that in mind, I can say you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    88. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing keeping our aggressive tendencies somewhat in check is the fear of mutual destruction.

      Not really. Public relations plays a much bigger role. What people are doing is trying to provoke the other side into starting a big war, so the first side can 'win' it, with *extreme prejudice*. The two WTC attacks didn't quite do it, but they get an 'E' for effort. The psychopaths that run the world would like nothing better than to kill off 5 or 6 billion people, but they have to still sell the war to avoid a complete rebellion. But the real purpose of war is war itself, as an ongoing business venture. If you win, it's over, then what? Well, what most people do is go after each other, eating their young and their mates. Abundance has its consequences, but more often when it is hoarded instead of shared. And despite the bickering amongst the empires, they do mutually, instinctively work together to keep the overall socioeconomic hierarchies in place. They play good cop/bad cop just like republicans and democrats within the US. It's a maintenance thing.

    89. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      not without substantiation you can't.

      And if you make a falsifiable argument, given that your premise is specious, I will destroy your position.

      That you are going out of your way to be vague is an admission of your weakness. You seek to avoid being countered by presenting arguments and statements that are too vague to be logically deconstructed.

      This is effectively a concession on your part.

      You will obviously disagree but in the absence of actually providing falsifiable arguments, your contradiction will not actually be a counter argument.

      Your move. :-)

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    90. Re: I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Not true. Prior to Putin's aggression Russia was actually invited to NATO meetings and the US was going out of its way to bring Russia into the fold.

      Why did Europe for example become so dependent on Russian oil? During the cold war we did not do that. It happened largely after the fall of the soviet union. NATO members were encouraged to trade with the Russians.

      Putin has made it clear that that was a mistake.

      Russia must be economically isolated and starved until it breaks.

      Again, this does not happen quickly. A generation will pass. But Putin really made a serious mistake with this behavior.

      It reminds me of the Byzantines response to the Venetians. Long story short, the Venetians came offering trade and mutual cooperation. The Byzantines treated them like shit, burned out the eyes of their diplomat, and basically said the Venetians weren't worthy of licking their taints. The Venetians responded by bringing the Crusade through Constantinople and sacking the city. Looted statues and such from Constantinople are still evident in Venice to this day. The fortress city of the Byzantines fell to the Turks not long after that.

      The Byzantines could have turned the tables on the Turks an driven them out of their lands if they had honorably allied with their western cousins. Instead they systematically betrayed them, showed them contempt, and made it clear that they were unworthy of any friendship or trust. And for that they had their city sacked twice, they were cut off from the support they could not survive without, and they forfeited their only hope of regaining their empire.

      They could have had everything. And they pissed it away for nothing.

      Russia is making the same mistake.

      They could have everything. The US wanted them as regional ally. Investment, technological transfer, trade... not just in oil but manufacturing, software design, aerospace, any kind of space industry... everything.

      They could have been full members of NATO with the regional power they wanted so long as they didn't exploit it to extort money or extort political concessions.

      The security and prosperity of the Russian people would have been guaranteed.

      And they have pissed it all away for what? A little bit of Georgia and a bit of Crimea? Idiocy.

      Europe and NATO need members that are willing and able to fight. The Western Europeans have atrophied into uselessness and senility. Adding the Russians even if unofficially to the defense of that region would have been extremely desirable.

      But for that, the Russians would have to be both willing and trustworthy. They've shown themselves to be neither.

      They're not even acting in enlightened self interest. Putin is a bigger idiot than the fucking soviets. Stalin was a fool but the men that followed him were a great deal more rational.

      And this puts the US in the position that it must go back to cold war policies. We don't have a choice. Putin is forcing our hands and damning his own people in the process. For nothing.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    91. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You don't know that. You can point to no comparable incident where such a thing happened.

      As to who is and is not a simpleton, given that your "proof" was completely baseless... that would be you, shit for brains. ;-)

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    92. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to the US violating its agreements, I note that you haven't provided any contemporary examples to back up your position. I will have to take that as your admission that you don't have any which is an argument in my favor.

      Either back up your position with a contemporary US example or concede.

      In regards to your atlantic article, it contained nothing I didn't already know. Would you like to draw my attention to something specific?

      As to war between the west and Russia, that is already happening. I did not say there would not be war. We are already at war. It will just not be open war. We were at war with the Soviets for a generation. Lots of Americans killed lots of Russians and lots of Russians killed lots of Americans. But we were not in open war. We were in cold war.

      That is what Putin has started again. He has started a cold war with the West.

      Your article if anything made it clear that he doesn't understand Western thought processes or motivations. This is a common point made about Russians in general. It was something we learned in the Cold War. We'd offer a hand of friendship and they always assumed something sinister in it. Which made it completely impossible to make peace with them because there was no way to do it. Everything was seen as a threat. Which is why we set up a system of realpolitik and "trust but verify". The Russians were completely untrustworthy during the Cold War unless you held a loaded gun to their heads with hammer cocked back. Nothing short of that ever got them to be reasonable.

      And if that is how Putin wants it... then the West has two options from its own perspective. Dust off that gun and get used to holding it against Russia's head... or submit.

      That is no choice at all. He is forcing us to do it by refusing to be reasonable.

      As to statements about treating all members of NATO equally, I didn't say that, you strawman making piece of shit :-D . What I said was that if he hit any NATO member the US would have to respond. You clearly can't refute my point and so you're just trying to tap dance around it while throwing out bullshit logical fallacies to cover for your stillborn argument.

      Either back your fucktarded horseshit up or you lose.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    93. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft! The internet is all yours, babe. No longer interested....

    94. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Called it.

      You made an argument you couldn't back up and so resorted to really obvious sophistry to try and save it. I noted that and then predicted given that your latest pathetic ploy failed you'd just puss out.

      So, there you go.

      Either I'm a fucking fortune teller or you're just that predictable.

      *does a few crotch humps on AC's face and walks off*

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    95. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just another internet retard. I left your gold star on the dresser.

    96. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I note that you have still made no attempt to back up your position.

      I called you on it.

      You responded by attempting strawmen and other various fallacies.

      I called you on that and then predicted you'd puss out when that was foiled.

      And here you are making insults without making any attempt to actually prove me wrong by going back and making a falsifiable argument.

      You won't because you've got nothing but some sad insults as you go slinking out of the room in defeat.

      *crotch humps him again*

      You can either prove me wrong by not pussing out.
      Leave with what little dignity remains to you.

      or stay here and get righteously mocked for being a fraud and a coward.

      Pick any of the above, chump. The only thing you could do that would surprise me is actually defend your initial position with some integrity. But, since you're a fraud and a coward... I really doubt that is going to happen.

      More likely you'll make some more stupid insults while still trying to make your pathetic retreat.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    97. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If China chose to eat Vietnam America would not stop China from doing just that.
      Everyone that counts is aware of that and I for one welcome their potential new Chinese overloads (since that would be a lot better than World War 3).

    98. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true.

    99. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fart in your general direction. I will not take you or anybody else seriously as long as you deny your complicity in whatever your elected government does. By definition you are a two faced moron, the proverbial useful idiot, amusing to watch, but worthless to engage. Your brain is petrified.

    100. Re:I feel for them... by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Even if some of those conflicts overall can be comparable in scale, the scale of US involvement and the role the US had in initiating them (which are the 'appetite for war' bits the president is responsible for) were quite different.

      Kosovo, Libya and Syria were conflicts already well underway before US involvement and there were no US ground invasions (yet at least).

    101. Re:I feel for them... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      WRT the Indians: they're non-aligned.

      Their alliances are to themselves. They buy from whoever gives the best deals and long-term support (or at times, from whoever's actually willing to sell to them)

      Buying russian hardware has been a necessity since they had sanctions dropped on them by the west after demonstrating they could build nukes - using material misappropriated from the supposedly proliferation-resistant CANDU reactors Canada sold them cheap as part of an aid package.

    102. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You've shifted your position. Now you're arguing something totally different.

      This rhetorical technique is known as 'clouding'.

      I will note that you are not defending your initial position and will take it as conceded.

      So that is one point for me there and none for you. On to the next issue!

      You are suggesting three things.

      1. That there is some evil act that my government did. You have not defined it.

      2. That I am denying complicity for this unspecified act.

      3. That citizens of a state are complicit in the actions of that state.

      As to point 1, I can neither confirm nor deny things you do not specify.

      As to point 2, since you've never specified what you're talking about I can't take any position on it.

      As to point 3, a citizen is only complicit in an action to the extent they were "complicit" in it. Let me define what that word means: ""helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way""

      It requires personal involvement indirect involvement requires the use of a different word. Words have meaning, chump.

      So what unspecified thing have I personally involved in or would you like to change your phrasing?

      Here's guessing you abandon this issue and try to cloud the issue further with more unrelated arguments.

      Lets see if you're dumb enough to do that even when I've directly told you what I think you're going to do... just like you did last time. I mean... that is just depressingly stupid.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    103. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Ehm... yes and no.

      You are correct that we'd not deploy troops or move our navy in to directly attack chinese forces. We have no defense pact or treaty with vietnam. However, that activity would justify a hightened alert in east asia, a boost to local defense spending, economic sanctions, and really a very long list of things that are starting to happen to Russia right now due to their own misadventures in eastern europe.

      The chinese are likely not as stupid as the Russians. A point that largely triggered the divide between Communist China and Communist Russia. The Chinese made a kind of peace with the US and entered into mutually profitable trade.

      The Soviets decided that their dick's were just too big and they couldn't do that. Which is why China is rapidly becoming a global super power, has a massive industrial base, a rapidly improving technological base, and the Russians are slowly sliding into poverty and irrelevance.

      China smart. Russia stupid.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    104. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Well... That still leaves Vietnam between three fires.

      They won't give up the reactors or otherwise show that they're not being used to make nuclear weapons because that could actually give china some pause. They sort of need nukes really.

      And that leaves them with the Americans and the Russians to please to balance the chinese.

      The nuke issue is really quite unfortunate. The Vietnamese will have to decide what is a greater threat to their long term survival. Being on the international shit list for those reactors or not having a not especially credible nuclear deterrent.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    105. Re:I feel for them... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't think it makes much sense to look back at WW2 in this context. The parties have radically rearranged themselves since then. In the past decade, mainstream Republicans have been unabashedly warmongering. This isn't to say that Democrats don't have their hawks, or that Republicans don't have their isolationists, but the grand total for both parties is that Republicans are a party of war right now. And Democrats... well, I wouldn't exactly call them a party of peace, either, but a party of "less war" would be apt.

    106. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golly gee! You win again! What ever will I do?

    107. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      In regards to unabashed warmongers... its all a question of timing.

      And if you cherry pick your context then you're going to get whatever result you want.

      Saying the Republicans are warmongers because they were in power during 9/11 and were responsible for the response to the terrorist attacks is unreasonable.

      The democrats in the same position would almost certainly have done something very similar. And really, they were entirely on board for it for a long time. They signed everything. Their names are on those bills.

      You can't wash that off now because you want to rewrite the history.

      In regards to the party of war... that is overly simplistic. The same stripe that makes republicans isolationists also makes them fierce advocates of ripping anything apart that hurts the country.

      The concept is simplicity itself.

      You isolate and then anything that messes with you while you're in isolation... you annihilate.

      That's literally how that works.

      From the perspective of republicans, Osama can company's attack on NYC, the Pentagon, and the attempted attack on the white house crossed a line that required a blood price be paid.

      That has largely been satisfied. Republicans now are going to be increasingly inclined to isolate again.

      The other issue is our entanglements. We've promised to protect certain countries.

      So you have NATO, eastern asian allies, earthern europe outside of nato that the US has made some promises to and of course israel.

      So. Saber rattling at powers threatening those allies is not warmongering... that's trying to avoid being force to go to war to defend people.

      Its a lot more complicated then the narrative.

      And keep in mind, I'm not the one that brought up the whole "this political party is all about war". That was someone else's mistake. I was merely pointing out that it was a stupid and shill worthy argument to make.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    108. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You'll devolve into petty trolling now that you've given up all pretense at having any place in this discussion.

      Sort of the universal fate of asshats that get stopped in discussions.

      *shrugs*

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    109. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      As to the US violating its agreements, I note that you haven't provided any contemporary examples to back up your position. I will have to take that as your admission that you don't have any which is an argument in my favor.

      Either back up your position with a contemporary US example or concede.

      I gave you one. South Vietnam. Do you really think that saying "back it up or concede" proves your POV? Want two more? We have abandoned the Iraqi Government and the Sunni tribes that allied themselves with us. We're in the process of abandoning those Afganis that allied themselves with us. The people who have fought with us in those places are screwed. A lucky few will get asylum and become American citizens, the rest will be marginalized if they're lucky and lined up against a wall if they're not.

      This is not pointed out at as a criticism of my country, for I am a proponent of realpolitik. At the end of the day so is the majority of the American body politic. You could recognize this fact if you stopped waving the flag long enough to read what I've written. This isn't a game, it's the real world, and America's word is only good as long as the American electorate is willing to back it up. Both our enemies and our allies are cognizant of that fact. The only one who seems to dispute it is you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    110. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes! To you truth is troll. I bow to you ipso retardo!

    111. Re:I feel for them... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident basically didn't happen sortof proves that the response to it, the lie about what happened, was indeed a sort of conspiracy intended to create a legal basis for war.

      I think most people involved have already admitted that they used it as a false pretext for war. It seems to have been well known, even at the time. The Frenchies let the commies take over, and we were going to fix that.

    112. Re:I feel for them... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You really want to compare? Afghanistan is comparable to Lybia in terms of destruction and terrorist breeding ground creation. Syria is well comparable to Iraq in terms of deaths, suffering, civilian casualties, refugees, etc. The amount of bombing in Belgrade was quite substantial as well. I would not discount it.

      That has got to be just about the lowest quality analysis I've seen in years. That is just, wow. Low information.

    113. Re:I feel for them... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The Baltic States? Would we really go to war with a nuclear armed state over them?

      Yes.

      We're talking about three countries no one has heard of, that have no significant cultural, historical, or economic ties to the US, with combined population roughly that of Maryland. I'm not certain you could sell it to the current United States Congress, never mind the general public, most of whom can't even find Latvia on the map.

      You should own those statements. you might not be able to find NATO on a map, but our military can.

      And Congress already did.

      And nobody is going to do a poll, our military commanders in Europe are already there, and will already be part of the fight from the beginning, and they won't need authorization. They're already the ones authorized to protect NATO.

    114. Re:I feel for them... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I believe we have already passed over into the New Cold War.

      We pressed "reset" and the next thing we knew we had to push for sanctions. Everybody is gearing up for intrigue over fueling ports. I'm not saying there will be a new Cold War, just there already is one.

      This year might find a significant increase in European defense spending.

      Putin was always a tactics guy, not a strategy guy. But Russia has enough national identity that they can suffer on under central controls for a long time. Eventually their economy will collapse, and they'll give Crimea back. It could take 20 or 30 years.

    115. Re:I feel for them... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Republicans are not a single block. Isolationists abound on the fringes of the party - most notably, Rand Paul, and his libertarian followers. But party mainstream is not isolationist at all.

      And I do not dispute that were Democrats in power during 9/11, there would probably still be war (I do think it would be confined to Afghanistan though - Iraq was very much a thing of Bush and his "New American Century" administration). And perhaps then they would be the party of war today. But it happened the way it did, and so Republicans are the party of war today.

    116. Re:I feel for them... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Because if the US invaded the North, instead of just trying to defend the South (a losing prospect for various geographic reasons) then there would have been rioting on the streets of the US. We didn't actually fight the war that the military wanted, we fought the parts of the war that the politicians could defend. We would have had to completely destroy the northern cities, with millions of dead. There was no excuse for that as a defense for the South, and the Communists actually had decent public support.

      There is no way the US would go back to attack Vietnam. There is no way. It is an insane prospect. It would not be entertained by anybody, in the military or in politics. And nobody at the State Department is going to use that sort of threat against Vietnam.

      Any new US action in East Asia would be from the air and sea, and only with a broad coalition.

    117. Re:I feel for them... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The funny thing about the Sun Tzu quote is that that is part of his military philosophy that rejects encirclement actions.

      History has proven that one. Encirclement is a larger military victory than letting the enemy making a tactical retreat.

      Putin is using military tactics instead of diplomatic strategy, that is why he is trying to encircle them instead of persuade them.

    118. Re:I feel for them... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Vietnam is now the world's biggest producer of coffee, and catfish. Who drinks more cheap coffee than Americans? We also buy their catfish.

      They will consider our request. Russia can't afford to refuse to sell submarines right now. Just look at the good deal they gave the Chinese on oil. What can they threaten, to lower their prices? Are Russians going to switch from vodka to coffee?

    119. Re:I feel for them... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Vietnam already has free market communism, with significant individual economic and artistic freedom.

    120. Re:I feel for them... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Seriously bugger off. You can stick a nuke in anything, any ship, any plane, any rubber dingy. OHHHHHH look it's propeller bomber, that has only been used for long range reconnaissance for years. ICBM, long range cruise missiles and submarines are all the deployment methods of choice. So why is the US carrying on like a great big ole bag of dicks, hmm, possibly because they are a great big ole bag of wrinkly white pseudo Christian dicks. How about the armoured convoy through Europe, what's the message there, once you are in NATO there is no leaving NATO and NATO is the US Army not your local token armies, so obey or else. Yep, the empire is collapsing so now the US military dick waving must occur across the globe because stupid, just because stupid will always expose it self more and more as failure becomes more apparent, just like the typical flasher.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    121. Re:I feel for them... by aralin · · Score: 1

      Both conflicts are more recent, so you have to play them out in your analysis. Estimate what is going to happen in the next 8 years to compare the real scale of those conflicts. I think you might lack information in this case. Mostly because US media are completely ignoring Syria and Lybia or near to. There was a great reason why Obama could have been impeached on Lybia, but the Republicans were just helping him cover up the real problems by endless Benghazi hearings about nothing.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    122. Re:I feel for them... by aralin · · Score: 1

      That is not true. Both Lybia and Syria were conflicts started by the US involvement in the region and their support for the rebels (who in both cases became ISIS) in attempt to try to oust the uncomfortable regimes of Gaddafi and Assad. Our overt involvement may have started much later, but our covert involvement that initiated the conflicts was done way prior to that.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    123. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA wouldn't invade Vietnam, not after they got their asses handed to them the first time they tried.

      Vietnam is a painful reminder for Americans. The war that the US lost.

    124. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So... if I wanted to fly potentially hostile nuclear bombers around your airspace on a regular basis, you'd just be cool with that?

      And you apparently don't seem to understand that the move is precisely done to get a response from the US.

      Why is Putin doing it? As you point out, it has no strategic value. The point is to dick with the US. And since we're talking about bags of dicks, who gets called a bag of dicks when they start intentionally harassing Japan and South Korea with Nuclear bomber simply because they're upset with something the US did?

      Think about that, fucktard. He's doing it to NATO members as well.

      Who is a bigger bag of dicks, the guy that starts harassing Sweden with Nuclear bombers or the country that tries to get him to stop doing that?

      Idiot.

      As to whether anyone is or is not Christian, how does that enter into anything? The conflicts with Russia are not religious in anyway. So I'm guess that is just you admitting you're a bigot on top of being a moron?

      As to the US being NATO, how does that show that the US is stupid? If anything you're saying that Italy and France are stupid.

      As to the "empire" collapsing... what evidence of that? You think the Russians are going to take it down? And if they do, then that would justify attempts by the US to stop the Russians.

      Your entire post is illogical and makes no sense.

      You say we're reacting to nothing when it clearly is something we have to react to... and then you're saying that our attempts to control the situation will fail and everything will fall apart. This undermines your position that we're jumping at nothing.

      Again, who is the bigger dick here... the guy sending nuclear bombers to harass Sweden and south korea or the guy trying to stop said bag of dicks from doing it?

      Again, you're a retard. And that isn't just an opinion. That is a logical deduction based on the manifest stupidity of your post.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    125. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      All you're saying is that with your cherry picked context you were able to get the view that you found most politically convenient.

      That's fine. However, the point has no meaning given that you set up the system in such a way to come to a preconceived result.

      You're basically practicing circular logic. And that's fine... it is fallacious and unworthy of respect but you're entitled to take indefensible and frankly embarrassingly silly positions if you want.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    126. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The point about not being a strategy guy is very apt.

      He even admits that the US has come to him for years offering alliance, trade deals, modernization packages, all sorts of diplomatic perks... and all the US wanted was for Russia to agree on mutually profitable strategic goals.

      The whole war on terror for example could be something the US would happily cooperate with Russia on. Our main fear in the region is problems with the middle east and by joining Russia's interests with NATO's, we could secure most of Asia.

      Consider the economic opportunities Russia is pissing away as well. Why does all that trade from China to Europe go by boat? A heavy freight network could carry those goods from China to Europe. The reason it doesn't happen is because no one trusts the Russians. They'd rather deal with Somali pirates then deal with the stupid Russians. And the Russians lose out every time that happens.

      Russia could be rich, it could become a super power again, it could become a leader in science/technology/art/culture...

      And the Russians have pissed it all away for NOTHING.

      Is I was saying before, they remind me of the Byzantines. They were offered the restoration of their empire, greater wealth than they had ever known, power, land, prestige. And they burned the eyes out of the Venetian diplomat that made that offer... same guy came back later with the Crusade at his back... they sacked Constantinople and the city fell to the Turks not long after which was the end of that civilization.

      The Byzantines could have had everything. Everything. All they had to do was share in the spoils of the conquests with their western cousins. They refused to so much as give fair pay for what the Christian kings wanted to anyway which was drive the Turks back. No one in the Christian world wanted the Turks to advance any further. But armies have to be paid and the western kings needed to be able to fund a Crusade in part at least through spoils. The Byzantines basically had the attitude that the western kings should donate their armies to the cause for free... all spoils should be turned over the Byzantines indifferent to whether the Byzantines actually even fought... and then all trade ships from said western kings would be taxes and tolled the whole way by the Byzantines.

      Idiots.

      And Putin is the same. He's a fat headed fool.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    127. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You're not telling truths. I challenged you to make a rational argument and you basically started making insults.

      And the insults could be truth only you didn't substantiate any of them which means even your stupid insults weren't rational arguments.

      You basically got caught pushing some bullshit. I called you on it.

      You then tried strawman and other fallacies to save your bullshit argument.

      I called you on that.

      And now you're just trolling.

      And when I call you on that, you say "truth isn't trolling"... what truth, you complete waste of oxygen?

      Seriously... you're just a troll now. Nothing more. Prove me wrong by going back and backing up your bullshit. You are NOT going to get away with both refusing to back your shit up and claiming to some paragon of reason and integrity. That is not going to happen for you.

      So here are you choices again because you're apparently a bit of an idiot on top of being a degenerate:

      1. You can back your shit up and we can go back to having a discussion.

      2. You can run away as you're already trying to do but without that shred of credibility you keep trying to take with you.

      3. You can troll by neither backing up anything or fucking off... and I'll respond by treating you the same way all trolls get treated. And spoiler alert, I'm better at slapping trolls around than you are trolling. So its going to work out well for you in any case.

      Surprise me by not being a piece of shit... chose option one.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    128. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Quote yourself citing south vietnam please. I just skimmed over the past posts to try and find what you were talking about and couldn't find it.

      You might have been talking to someone else or your reference was oblique.

      As to back up or concede proving my point of view, not it doesn't prove my point. I didn't say back up your position or I am right. I said back up YOUR position or YOU concede. Conceding doesn't mean I win so much as you lose.

      Basically you either back up your position of forfeit. A forfeit is not really my win so much as your inability, unwillingness, or otherwise failure to have a point.

      I am entirely in the right in pointing out that if you do not back up your position then you effectively concede whether you admit it or not.

      As to abandoning Afghanis, we didn't promise to protect them forever. Please cite an agreement we made to them that we are not upholding? They were repeatedly told that they had to take responsibility for their own defense eventually. We gave them military trainers, we gave them equipment, we gave them cash hand outs to jump start their government, we did what we could. If they're not going to just sit there like dead fish then why exactly do they even deserve to have a country at all? They apparently should be some other more competent power's vassals if that is all they're going to do.

      As to being a fan of realpolitik... where have I said anything that wasn't inline with that? You say I'd realize that if I stopped flag waving, but you were so busy pissing on the flag that you didn't realize I am such a proponent as well.

      You have no moral or intellectual high ground to look down your nose at me, chum. I'll accept you as an equal but don't for a moment think you have any grounds to presume superiority.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    129. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is I was saying before, they remind me of the Byzantines. They were offered the restoration of their empire, greater wealth than they had ever known, power, land, prestige.

      Actually, they (the Byzantines) were not offered anything. It's the other way around: one Byzantine prince offered the Crusaders a deal: Byzantine wealth in exchange for helping him win (retake as he saw it) the throne. The Crusaders might not have even swung by Constantinople without the prince asking. Mind you, the prince at the time had no power to actually had the capability to honor his end of the deal. It all rested on him getting power, and the Byzantine treasury being as full as he thought it was.

      Well, turns out Byzantine didn't have that much wealth, and the locals didn't like his rule or the Crusaders. Before the prince (briefly emperor) could pay the Crusaders he was disposed and killed, and the new rulers had no intention of honoring a deal they never made.

      All they had to do was share in the spoils of the conquests with their western cousins.... The Byzantines basically had the attitude that the western kings should donate their armies to the cause for free...

      Again, it was only that one prince in exile who made the promise of sharing the spoils. "The Byzantines", as in people actually living there, actually didn't even ask the western kings to come, let alone come for free. Even the prince's father thought it was a bad idea to ask the west to come as there was no way for Byzantine to pay them.

      The prince was a fool for promising more than he could actually give, but the Crusaders were no better. They bought into the story that there would be lots of wealth waiting for them. And when that turned out to be a dud, and the guy who basically scammed them died, they took it out on the locals.

      All in all, I don't see how Putin fits into this.

    130. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't 'call' anything on anybody. You have no 'argument'. You're just a typical blame passing buffoon. You're only talking horseshit, since the beginning. But I like your style, gives me a chuckle.

    131. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Says another random AC that is too cowardly to use even his fake name in this discussion?

      My argument was:

      This prior to the clouding:

      ""

      No, captain strawman.

      As the strategic planner for a nation you have a responsibility to be pragmatic. Your people depend upon it. You are paid to a certain extent to be paranoid, think to the future, and make sure your people are safe.

      So basing any policy on something that won't happen is dumb.

      Moving past that to morality plays... if you don't want to talk about morality then don't talk about morality.

      I'm not going to let you make a certain type of argument and then forbid myself from crossing the river on your ground to make the counter argument.

      Be careful where you stand. Because where ever that is... is fair game. I can and will use any type of argument you use as is convenient to me.

      The only exception is dishonorable arguments that rely on deceit. If you use those, I'll climb on the highest horse I can find and urinate on you from that vantage.

      So... kindly keep your positions free of any excuses for me to do that and expect that whatever you use will be fair game.
      ""

      Then my opposition decided to abandon their previous position and shift to a different argument so I responded with this:

      ""

      You've shifted your position. Now you're arguing something totally different.

      This rhetorical technique is known as 'clouding'.

      I will note that you are not defending your initial position and will take it as conceded.

      So that is one point for me there and none for you. On to the next issue!

      You are suggesting three things.

      1. That there is some evil act that my government did. You have not defined it.

      2. That I am denying complicity for this unspecified act.

      3. That citizens of a state are complicit in the actions of that state.

      As to point 1, I can neither confirm nor deny things you do not specify.

      As to point 2, since you've never specified what you're talking about I can't take any position on it.

      As to point 3, a citizen is only complicit in an action to the extent they were "complicit" in it. Let me define what that word means: ""helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way""

      It requires personal involvement indirect involvement requires the use of a different word. Words have meaning, chump.

      So what unspecified thing have I personally involved in or would you like to change your phrasing?

      Here's guessing you abandon this issue and try to cloud the issue further with more unrelated arguments.

      Lets see if you're dumb enough to do that even when I've directly told you what I think you're going to do... just like you did last time. I mean... that is just depressingly stupid.
      ""

      Where upon rather than getting any kind of rational response, I got lots of stupid baseless insults and other idiot ACs showing up to basically whine about how unfair it was for someone to use logic against them.

      If you're too stupid to have a rational discussion then fuck off and don't talk about anything that can be discussed rationally.

      You literally are unworthy of being in a pointless internet discussion. You're that worthless.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    132. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Quote yourself citing south vietnam please. I just skimmed over the past posts to try and find what you were talking about and couldn't find it.

      Maybe if you tried reading instead of skimming you might have understood what I'm trying to tell you a few days ago. It was at the beginning of my second to last post, not even in the middle or at the end.

      As for this....

      but you were so busy pissing on the flag that you didn't realize I am such a proponent as well.

      If you accused me of that in public I would fucking slug you. Don't confuse my annoyance with flag waving hawks and reluctance to go to war for pissing on the flag.

      I'll accept you as an equal

      I don't really care if you accept me as an equal, look your nose down upon me, or kiss my ring with reverence shown for religious figures. You're some idiot on the internet, nothing more, nothing less. I had thought based on your other posts (not directed at me) that we might have an interesting conversation about foreign policy. Then you started talking like it was a game to be won ("admit it or concede") and just admitted that you don't even read my posts. You're just an internet know it all skimming posts for individual lines you can pick apart. Perhaps you'll surprise me with your reply but I doubt it; if it's more of the same do not expect any further engagement from me.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    133. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      That's not the case.

      First, I can point to a city the Crusaders took and then prior to sacking the city which would be how the crusaders got paid... the Byzantines had the people in the city raise the Byzantine flag which basically meant the Crusaders did all the work and got NOTHING for it.

      Second, there was some extremely bad blood between the Venetians and the Byzantines which was totally avoidable and completely stupid on the part of the Byzantines. It is a fact, that one of the diplomats sent to Constantinople and subsequently mistreated... possibly given injuries that lead to a life time of blindness... he later became Doge, lent huge sums of money to western crusaders, and then led a crusade through Constantinople that ultimately led to the destruction of that empire.

      The point is this, Russia has no future unless it allies with the west. Their long term position is terrible. They have a lot of territory and their ability to keep their neighbors from nibbling at their borders as they grow weaker and weaker is nil.

      OVER TIME.

      Today, they're fine. Think in 200 years. Russia cannot afford to not ally with the west. They're damned if they don't.

      And if they do, we can make them very prosperous so long as they restrain their more corrupt attributes that drive off business. I'm not saying they can't take bribes. But if you've been paid a bribe... stay bribed. If you've been paid to do something... do it. And that is a big part of the problem with Russia.

      It is why no one trusts them. It is why trade bypasses their country rather than flowing through it.

      THINK ABOUT THAT.

      Why doesn't european and asian trade flow through Russia? They stand between the two markets and could act as an interlocutor between them. That would be extremely profitable.

      But no one trusts them. They are bypassed because they're unreliable, prone to extort payments after the fact, and generally not understand on what side their bread is buttered.

      Both Russia and Byzantium made the same mistake... past tense. They pissed away everything for nothing.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    134. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're that worthless.

      The effort you put in to tell me that has been duly noted. As they say, you are teh funny.

    135. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      In regards to American promises to South Vietnam, can you please cite a promise or agreement our country made to that country in any kind of formal way that we violated?

      Simply entering a war on their side does not obligate us to remain until the war is done unless we made agreements to that effect. I can find no references to such agreements. In fact, you should know that such agreements are made specifically to allow such loopholes. They are limited in their scope and in the commitment required. NATO is an exception. We are obligated to defend them. We were under no such obligation in South Vietnam.

      That is the thread you're trying to hang your comparison in on and it doesn't work. You say we'll abandon nato because we abandoned the south vietnamese. Totally different situation. You're wrong.

      Our primary objective in going on Vietnam was to damage the communists in the region and slow them down so that they could be more easily contained. Ideally, we wanted a bulwark against further communist expansion. But really how that was accomplished was flexible.

      We WANTED to help them become a free and democratic society. But we cannot guarantee such a thing.

      We abandoned them in large part because the people of vietnam were clearly not behind us and the South Vietnamese government lacked the will and talent to hold their position without us holding their hands. We tried.

      But ultimately, our strategic objective was obtained and what happened to South Vietnam is regrettable but not our responsibility.

      We invested huge resources and fought for many years to help them. We don't owe anything to that government. To the people of Vietnam at large? Hmm... war is a terrible thing. We don't owe them any more than the Chinese and Russians do really.

      The South Vietnamese were also responsible were they not? And as such they must take some responsibility for what happened. Do we point at South Korea and say "everything here is our doing?" It isn't. Its mostly their own doing. We helped them repel an invasion and have helped keep their country stable. But we also didn't have communist infiltrators boobytrapping our shit behind our lines all the time. We didn't have infiltrators scragging our people. The South Koreans were competent. The south vietnamese were not.

      I can cite dozens of reports of such from major military figures. Eisenhower for example didn't want to go into south Vietnam because he felt the South Vietnamese were incompetent. Ask me for the quote. Its a fucking google search away.

      When American forces were not being constantly betrayed by communist infiltrators in the region we generally annihilated the enemy.

      But what the Tet Offensive made clear was that the South was fatally compromised and incapable of acting as a beach head for American support.

      Similar things are happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. To the extent this is our fault, we probably should have put someone in power that had more of a military background given that they would be war time leaders for a generation. Shifting into some sort of quasi military run government is probably the best you could expect at least until all the insurrections were handled.

      That was a background shared by many American founding fathers. Many of them were military men. They knew how to fight and they were prepared to do terrible things to win.

      Had they been neither, the American revolution would have failed and I wouldn't have blamed the French for abandoning us. They were under no obligations to see that the American revolution was successful. Merely responsible for helping with some trade and high seas interdiction.

      Saying that the US is unfaithful because we didn't stay in Vietnam until those people had everything they wanted is unreasonable.

      South Vietnamese that immigrated to the US don't blame the US for the war and they don't blame the US for the way it went. Talk to one.

      It was a fucked up situation and there were serious problems in the southern government that the US

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    136. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, I can point to a city the Crusaders took and then prior to sacking the city which would be how the crusaders got paid... the Byzantines had the people in the city raise the Byzantine flag which basically meant the Crusaders did all the work and got NOTHING for it.

      You can point to that city, but that doesn't refute my point: that the west didn't "offer" to restore Byzantine and make it prosperous. Byzantine asked for help, and early on they actually did pay the Crusaders. It's only later, over time that they could no longer afford it and thus end up not paying the Crusaders

      The point is this, Russia has no future unless it allies with the west.

      And my point is, that is different from how Byzantine fell.

      Byzantine did ask for help, it fell because it couldn't fulfill its payment obligations.

      Russia/Putin isn't even asking for help. It may fall, but it won't be because it failed to pay the western help that it didn't ask for.

      OVER TIME.

      Over time, what killed Byzantine is simply that it went broke. Couldn't pay to fight the Turks themselves. Couldn't pay the Crusaders they asked to come.

      The people in Byzantine who made deals with the west did want to keep their end of the bargain (see the prince I talked about). They just too broke (and/or dead) to fulfill their end.

      Both Russia and Byzantium made the same mistake

      No, they made different mistakes. Byzantine's mistake was asking for help even when it couldn't afford it. Russia's mistake is refusing cooperation altogether.

    137. Re:I feel for them... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      All I'm saying is that you're engaging in sophistry to muddy up the simple fact that party positions on foreign policy today are what they are, and what they are is patently clear from reading the news for a couple days.

    138. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Everything is what it is...

      However, if you control the context of the reference you can label anything anything because at any given point different things are going to be different in their nature.

      You say the republicans are more pro war against ISIS and Putin right now that then the Democrats? Sure.

      That doesn't mean they're "warmongers" or the "war party". Simply being more for a given conflict than your political opponent is not something to make moral excuses about.

      If your only point is that the republicans are pushing for engagement against ISIS and Putin... I agree. that is factually accurate.

      But that's as far as that goes.

      The Democrats were pushing for war with Libya and Syria not long ago. Were they the war party? By this logic that any party pushes for war more than the other in any context... they would have to be... no?

      So that is why I want you to define your premise so we can logically evaluate the position. Absent that, its just more shit talking.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    139. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      In regards to Byzantines, they were not prepared to ceded conquered land to the Crusaders even as vassals of the Byzantines. One of the things offered was that the relevant Crusader army would take a city and would then personally own that city. BUT they would be subject to the Byzantines as vassals of them effectively and pay taxes etc.

      That was rejected along with a lot of other stuff.

      The only future of the Eastern Roman empire was in allying with their Western cousins to drive back a common enemy. There was going to be give and take. The Eastern Empire was expecting a lot of trained fighters to fight for their empire. Paying for all that was not going to be cheap. The Crusaders in most cases wanted food and provisions provided and anything they conquered they wanted to be able to get the value of down the gold fillings in their teeth. That was simply how armies were funded in those days. They didn't have defense budgets and military pensions. A soldier got paid in most cases what he could loot off the corpse of his enemy.

      In regards to Russia, they require trade, diplomatic support, help with modernization, etc.

      Absent that, they're going to continue to fall back towards their capital. The money is going to run out. The troops are going to run out... and when the lights go out and the cold wind blows... they'll have none to blame but themselves.

      As to the Byzantines going broke, that would have something to do with them pissing the Venetians off.

      I can't believe you can't see how this is all connected. In my analogy, I am analogizing the Venetians to the US.

      The Byzantines went out of their way to piss the Venetians off and the Venetians held that grudge until the Byzantines fell. They were offered deals. Deals that could have been afforded because they were paid for in large part out of the spoils of the enemy. The ENEMY would pay for it. That was how so much of military funding worked in those days. You'd try to avoid attacking poor people because you couldn't take the money needed to pay for your troops from the corpses of poor enemies. There were many rich cities in the area that the Crusaders would be very happy to attack. They just needed to be able to strip them of wealth or gain title to them afterwards.

      In any case, if you don't like the analogy then I don't want it to get in the way of the issue at hand. We can agree to disagree. We appear to agree on Russia at least.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    140. Re:I feel for them... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Woodrow Wilson seems to have been trying to keep the US out of WWI, but unrestricted submarine warfare was pushing the US into the war, and thoroughly inept German diplomacy (suggesting that Mexico might get large chunks of the southwestern US by allying with Germany) was the trigger. The US had recently been in a border war with Mexico, and many people were feeling sensitive about that border.

      FDR was trying to get the US into the war against Germany, not Japan. The US started violating the rules of neutrality reasonably early in 1941, and was in a state of undeclared war with Germany starting in September 1941.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    141. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      My responses are not done for you but myself. I am a completionist. I like to dot the i's and cross the t's.

      It is clerical work with the bonus of getting to shit talk against someone that has forfeited any claim to common courtesy.

      Its like those action movies where the bad guy does something nasty so you morally understand that when the hero comes in and kicks his ass later it is totally okay.

      Where would the hero be after all in a world devoid of assholes to stomp?

      So, thank you for being there for me.

      I'm going to start calling you Hans. :D

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    142. Re:I feel for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so you're a masturbating bureaucrat who talks to himself while having sex. That would explain everything.

    143. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      This undermines my position in any way? Sorry, I'm very goal oriented.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    144. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So first, no attempt to back up any of your shit or justify your insults... just more dumb insults? Okay.

      All the posts here by everyone are ultimately masturbatory. So you win idiot points from that comment alone.

      As to being a bureaucrat... I don't know where that came from... I assume you're reacting to my insistence on process. For the record, I do that when someone starts trying to flimflam me with a lot of sophistry. It is just a really easy way to remove sophistry from a discussion. Sophistry tends to rely on mislabeling things or pretending that a step in a thought process is one thing when it is really another. By forcing people practicing sophistry to actually spell their bullshit out... it tends to always collapse or at the very least you can really obviously see the logically fallacies that hold their particular line of bullshit together. So, that is less something that I always insist on rather then a basic counter to sophistry in general.

      Don't try to pass a lot of fallacious logic off on me and I won't start picking it apart with tweezers.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    145. Re:I feel for them... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      A nuclear powered bomber, hmm, I remember those, they never got off the drawing board. So US navy, a navy that refuses to declare whether they have nuclear weapons on board or not, so all US ships by your definition are nuclear, well, ain't that just nuclear. Word of the day for you NUCLEAR ;). Apparently if it is Russian it is Nuclear and if it is US then it is what? a flower petal carrier, come to sprinkle flower petals over you land to win you over and has a record of visiting many lands and sprinkling many flower petals over many people ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. This is news for ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    political nerds?

  5. Former Superpower US begs for help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rest Of The World tells US to go fuck themselves.

  6. What does this have to do with Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this have to do with Slashdot? Whos sick idea is to post this crap on technology site?

    1. Re:What does this have to do with Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology? This is a site for news for nerds. That means physics, dating tips, or GTHO.

  7. As if we were on some sort of moral high ground. by Simulant · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I'm afraid of Russian nukes too but I fail to see how any one could do anything but laugh at us over this request given our military posturing.

  8. or put another way. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're upset that in the 21st century our status as an unchallenged international superpower is no longer valid. As a nation that relies on secret torture camps, extraordinary rendition, ubiquitous spying on all its citizens, and even their targeted assassination without trial or jury, we've really found ourselves in a pickle after two failed wars in the middle east that accidentally created a terror state in the process. We're incapable of maintaining a functioning government of our own, having forcibly shut down the largest economy in the world twice and lost two ratings grades with standard and poor. As a nation predicated on democracy, freedom, and liberty we're utterly incapable of peaceful foreign policy toward Iran, with the president working toward a diplomatic agreement while the congress works toward an israeli endorsed military strategy.
     
    So if it seems like we're all for freedom and independence when it comes to our international interests, yet wholly opposed to them when it comes to Vietnams soverign military and international policy, it shouldnt come as too much of a surprise.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:or put another way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're upset that in the 21st century our status as an unchallenged international superpower is no longer valid.

      Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening (aka global revolt). i.e. they fear you stopping voting for politicians and causing social and political change because the democratic system is a sham.

      This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

      The real news:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/

      http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/

      http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

      Look at the following graphs:

      http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

      And then...

      WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

      http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM

      Free markets?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

      Free trade?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju06F3Os64

      http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

      "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

      In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

      Important history:

      http://williamblum.org/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4#t=2551

    2. Re:or put another way. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The US is still an unchallenged international superpower, and (as a US citizen) I'm not completely happy with it. My tax dollars support something roughly like half the military spending on the planet, and I consider it a drag on the economy.

      The secret torture camps etc. are responses (often bad ones) to asymmetrical warfare. Superpowers have always been vulnerable to that; what gets the superpower title is the ability to defeat all comers at high-intensity warfare, and the US has that.

      We're not in a pickle (part of being a superpower is the ability to make others pay for our mistakes), and we do have a functioning government, although I've seen it working better.

      If you've been paying attention, the US is in favor of democracy and freedom in its foreign relations, until that turns awkward. It's not as awkward as it was in the Cold War, as national populations don't have the same alternatives in deciding they don't want to be US allies. (Cue Tom Lehrer: "They've got to be protected/ All their rights respected/ Until someone we like can be elected".)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. If the Chinese actually were Involved... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Vietnamese will be likely to stop the flights.

    Their current big international dispute is over their maritime boundaries with China. The CHinese claim almost the entire South China Sea on the basis of something called the "nine-dashed-line," and have a tendency to periodically engage in extreme brinksmanship with all their neighbors in the region, including Vietnam. They actually fought a war with the Chinese in '79. Which means if the Russian flights support China in any way the Vietnamese have every reason to stop them.

    But they aren't involved, so we'll just have to put up with it like we do in Europe.

    1. Re:If the Chinese actually were Involved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they aren't involved, so we'll just have to put up with it like we do in Europe.

      The problem with people like Putin, unfortunately, is they do no stop until there is meaningful pushback. So, one of these days his bombers will egress to far over some airbase and will get shot down. Nobody really wants that.

    2. Re:If the Chinese actually were Involved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with people like Putin, unfortunately, is they do no stop until there is meaningful pushback.

      Sounds exactly the same as Obama. Mr. Hope and Change has revived the racial divisions in the United States of Amerika for his political advantage. I am surprised US Attorney General Eric (The Black Racist" Holder has not announced the police officers in Ferguson, MO, deserved to be shot by the 'angry Black man."

    3. Re:If the Chinese actually were Involved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Mr. Hope and Change has "revived" the racial divisions in the United States of Amerika for his political advantage.

      Revived? You clueless, racist dick.

    4. Re:If the Chinese actually were Involved... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really blame the Chinese though? Its called the South China Sea for a reason. Its not the South Vietnamese Sea or whatever.

      Its theirs in name. Might as well be theirs in reality.

  10. America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're better than Russia, but only marginally better than China, you're not the *only* superpower any more so you better get used to it.

  11. Equal treatment is the answer. by Going_Digital · · Score: 1

    Either Vietnam lets all countries use its facilities as a simple business relationship or deems it a domestic military facility for the exclusive use of their forces. If it does allow other countries to use the facilities then there should be a clause that withdraws the facility should any country be engaging in a war and wish to use the base to re-fuel its combat aircraft.

    1. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know the US lost in Vietnam, right? Who the fuck are you to dictate terms?

    2. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it realises that the US has been the most aggressive, murderous nation since WW2 and understands the value of maintaining a balance of power against them.

      I don't blame US citizens - income tax as a temporary war levy has become rather permanent.

    3. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      Maybe they think about equal treatment. They allowed 1.000 American bomber flights a month (20 kton), why not give the Russians an equal opportunity.

    4. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people with the money, derp.

    5. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha - funny - you were the people spending Chinese money and now that well is running dry , derp.

    6. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The US withdrew from Vietnam, after the South Vietnamese 'won' the war. A year later the North rolled in and took over. The US didn't 'win' or 'lose' in Vietnam. They just abandoned their allies there. It's kinda similar to Iraq in a way.

    7. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's in worse shape, derp.

    8. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, that's amusing in that it is half true. But remember the context, though: the USSR never pulled back from Eastern Europe and spent decades trying to expand by hook or crook. Was the US pretty bad, too? Yes. But the world was not then, and is not now, a Sunday School picnic.

      Would you rather have grown up in Bayonne, NJ or Budapest, Hungary after 1945? Think carefully...

    9. Re:Equal treatment is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're the ones Vietnam is asking, hat in hand, for protection from Chinese aggression.

      Europeans have taken a security guarantee from the United States and spat in their face for so long they wonder why everyone else doesn't.

  12. But do they use Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise I wonder why this story matters.

  13. This reminds me of teh old joke... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    ...about the unarmed bobby who is pursuing a suspect, and yells, "Stop, or I shall have to yell Stop again!"

    But yes, this is offtopic here, especially in comparison to some of the interesting ideas that never make the climb out of Firehose.

  14. Balance by TomD65 · · Score: 1

    Vietnam is using Russia to balance China, their traditional enemy. Use the barbarians (non Vietnameese) to balance each other out has been used in Asia for millennia.

  15. Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China would still be afraid of the economical repercussion if it takes what it wants. You may find the reaction ukrain weak, but it is still there and as war progress it is louder. There is no way Russia could appropriate fully ukraine. Same with China and vietnam really. What is far far more likely, is that vietnam and china start mutual interrest pact , exactely like USA is forcing some country at the moment.

    1. Re:Doubtful by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Putin needs to get total victory in Ukraine. He doesn't need to actually absorb them literally but he does need to bring them into the Russian sphere of influence and break the western strategic ties in the region. If he doesn't, then his domestic political position collapses.

      You have to keep in mind that prior to the invasion of Ukraine, his polling numbers in Russia were very low. Then he went to war and his numbers popped up.

      If it goes on for too long and he doesn't come out of it looking like a winner then he'll probably suffer for it politically.

      As to china, they have similar political problems brewing as well as mounting economic problems.

      They've just recently sold their US bonds as well as many other assets. Their ability to pump money into their economy is coming to a close. And with that a sea change in china's economic position. And with that, changing political, diplomatic, and strategic relationships.

      We are living in interesting times. ;)

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:Doubtful by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Have you been paying attention to the chinese economy at all? Or are you running on 100 percent pure bravado?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Doubtful by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Or maybe they just realized it was a good time to do so. The USD is at a 12-year high against the Euro right now (the two are nearing parity), and a 5-year high against the British pound. The American economy has been on a major upswing in the last few years, outpacing the international community, so suggesting America's economy is in a position of weakness at the moment is outright false, suggesting the dollar is worthless is provably inaccurate, but suggesting stuff may go down soon could prove to be true. It remains to be seen. None of us know.

    4. Re:Doubtful by aralin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You create a false narrative here. Putin's approval rating was steadily holding above 63% ever since he took office and shot up to 85% several times during his tenure for prolonged times, every time he was seen to defend Russian interests in the world. US or EU politicians usually don't have such good ratings. Here is an article with 2000-2013 chart.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...

      Putin does not need "victory" in Ukraine. He has already achieved victory by standing up for Russia. On the contrary, nobody wants to take the mess that is Ukraine that Russia has actually supported for years by several billion dollar a year in cheap gas and by allowing over 3 million of Ukrainian men to work in Russia and send remittances home. And by buying their manufactured products as only country in the world, preserving the Ukrainian industry. If we isolate Ukraine from Russia we should be prepared to replace Russia in all three of these roles or Ukraine will be at it worse than before we got involved.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    5. Re:Doubtful by HiThere · · Score: 2

      IIUC, the value of the dollar is tied to the fact that it can be used to buy oil. That the USD is at a 12 year high may be due to the fact that the OPEC are selling oil in dollars at lower prices. How long do you expect this to continue? (If this analysis is correct, then the value of the $ is not primarily based on internal US production, and is out of our direct control. And this also explains our intense military involvement in the Persian Gulf area so that we have rather strong indirect control.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Doubtful by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      USD is high against the EUR not because USD is strong, but because the European Central Bank is printing money like there is no tomorrow - for some very strange reason their current president is convinced that the Eurozone has a huge deflation problem.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Doubtful by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      That's a contributing factor, and is largely responsible for the sudden spike in the last few days, but I pointed out the British pound as well to illustrate that it's strong in general, rather than just strong against the Euro due to the stuff happening in Europe right now.

      But yes, you're quite correct that the USD came on strong against the Euro in the last few days because of that stuff. Even so, it was already gaining at a steady pace, and was set to reach parity sometime late this year. The changes in the last little bit just moved that time table forward a few months.

    8. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have sources for that last paragraph?

    9. Re:Doubtful by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... you have to be careful with Russian media:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/167...

      His poll numbers were in decline and most analysts believe his actions are a crass political ploy to boost his poll numbers in Russia:
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      I can cite articles and conclusions from think tanks all over the world if you like. I read something from a Japanese source the other day that said the same thing.

      This is how the governments of the world see this action.

      And that US counter response is going to focus on Putin's support base.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's getting strong against everyone because interest rates in the US may increase. As well as the Euro being weak due to printing.

    11. Re:Doubtful by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Putin does need victory because he got people all riled up through his propaganda machine. For over a year now, they've been feeding the public stories about "Ukrainian Nazi atrocities" etc. If he now abandons Donbass, then that same propaganda will turn against him - after all, it would mean that he abandoned the region to those same Nazis he was screaming bloody murder about, and how's that not sign of a weak and cowardly leader?

      The definition of "victory" though is fuzzy here. If the separatists can hold the territories they control today for a couple more years, that could be twisted into a "victory".

    12. Re:Doubtful by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      US interest rates only go up in order to intentionally slow down growth to prevent an over-heated economy and a boom/bust cycle.

    13. Re:Doubtful by aralin · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I forgot forbes.com is a Russian organization. Let me apologize here deeply.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    14. Re:Doubtful by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Forbes specifically has been caught using Russian state media for information like this repeatedly. So, congrats on finding a way to cite russian state media by proxy.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:Doubtful by aralin · · Score: 1

      I got used to the fact that people like you will say absolutely anything that suits them in an argument, regardless of the veracity or the ability to actually source their claims.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    16. Re:Doubtful by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem with your position is that there is contradictory information. And the forbes information that you're standing behind is 100 percent in line with the Russian state media.

      So do you want to actually talk about this like adults or is childish insults where you want to end this?

      Your choice.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  16. American Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yet another brainwashed American foaming at the mouth yapping what should happen at the other side of earth, using their government spoon fed world history.

    China had the world's largest fleet 600 years ago, their fleets were by far much larger than anyone else at the time, they traveled everywhere, they traded with Native Americans way before Europeans fucking "Discovered" it. They went to Africa, Australia before Europeans did, look up Zheng He and compare the size of China's fleet at the time with others nations at the time.

    The "nine dash line" was originally the "eleven dash line", and it was drawn after WW2, nobody else protested at the time, China changed the eleven dash line to nine dash line because they were good friends with Vietnam at the time, it was done as a token of friendship. The South China Sea has been China's by default for centuries (Why the fuck do you think Japan uses Chinese in their writings, why official Koreans clothing looks exactly like ancient Chinese clothing, why do you think there are so many Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia), later oil was discovered under the sea bed, and China had a civil war in the 1940s (See Taiwan), so Vietnam and Philippines and others took the chance to steal some of the islands and installed bases there. China was robbed, they protested but they were too busy dealing with civil war at the time.

    China owned South China Sea way before Philippines even fucking existed (Which was created after the raped by the Spanish and then by the Americans).

    You Americans need to shut the fuck up about what other nations should do, and learn some fucking actual world history before opening your mouths. Americans were the only ones left standing after WW2, you kidnapped all the German scientists who helped you developed your space/rockets/science programs, that's where you got your head start, you guys fucking had it all, but what did you do? Fucked up the world that's what.

    I haven't even got to the part where Americans stole their lands from native Americans through genocides, then use the land for slavery. Oh just shut the fuck up.

    You Americans had your chances, but the world is now sick and tired of your American bullshit. Fuck off.

    1. Re:American Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If China was so great, then why did they all go home? Also, you may know your history, but your geography is lacking. Japan is nowhere near the South China Sea. Neither is Korea.

      Typical nationalist mainlander.

    2. Re:American Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical American moron, there were no "South China Sea" or "Nine Dash Line" 600 years ago, not anything close to what we have now, fucking Japanese you see today were from ancient China, there weren't even "Japan", fucking idiot Americans thinks the world didn't exist 200 years ago.

      Back then China simply owned all the fucking oceans around it, countries around China were constantly sending diplomats to China with gifts to maintain their ties as the puppet nation, China was the world super power for thousands of years, at one point even Vietnam was part of China. That's why the South China Sea today still belongs to China, because nobody have thought a war in the South China sea to change that status yet, some nations stole island from China when it had a civil war, and now they're scared, because they know China will get their islands back.

      You Americans are short term thinkers, a fucking 200 years old nation acting like you fucking own the earth since its creation, a bunch of pimple faced cow boys pumped with hormones waving your guns around talking your mouth off just because you were taught you were the best growing up, thinking your cow boy bullshit will last forever.

      The Chinese has risen and fallen and risen again many many times, they've seen the likes of you Americans come and go throughout its history, they've survived countless invasions, disasters and extremely tough political and military situations, they've seen all your tactics, they fucking invented them, any tactics you use, they can find reference to it by reading their history books. The Chinese are fast learners and hard workers and they are experts at surviving tough situations, they believe in reality, not some fucking bullshit 100th edition scifi novel called the bible.

        The only reason China fell behind was because it missed the industrial revolution, that was the only chance the world had to destroy China, you guys had a good run but you failed, and now China will simply get back to its historically natural position, the top.

        Chinese turned arrogant after over a 1000 years of domination and paid dearly for it and have learned from it, for the past 60 years every Chinese kids have been taught when you stop taking things seriously, other nations will come and try destroy you. Meanwhile, you Americans, sustained an advantage for not even a century, were taught that some invisible being call "god" lives in America and watches over you so you can walk around fucking with everyone without having to pay for it in the end. The Chinese doesn't even have to fuck with you, you Americans are so ignorant and arrogant you'll fuck yourselves up without the Chinese doing anything to you.

      The Chinese have already owned you, you just don't know it yet, because you guys are bad chess players. America now has three choices, 1 start a war with China, 2 shut the fuck up and pass the torch gracefuly like the UK, 3 walk around talking shit like a bankrupt 50yo man boy gangster, making a lot of noises but nobody gives a shit.

      Look up the amount of your national debt, look up the amount of interests it has to pay per year, look up the amount of money it is forced to print per year, look up the BRICS and the new silk road, if you're not totally fucking brain dead you'd know America has already lost.

    3. Re:American Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the more reason to unite and dismantle mainland China.

    4. Re: American Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard

    5. Re:American Bullshit by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Even if your reading of history is accurate (hint: It's not) it's completely irrelevant. China ratified the Convention of the Law of the Sea. They gave up their "right" to claim the entirety of the South China Sea when they did that.

      They undoubtedly have national security interests there, just as the United States does in the Gulf of Mexico, the difference is that the US doesn't lay claim to the entire Gulf. There's no need, we simply buy the fucking resources from the other states with claims, which is a course that China could pursue with equal success (she certainly has enough cash) if she didn't have a massive inferiority complex to overcome.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:American Bullshit by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Dude, learn some fucking international law.

      In '47 there was a press release. China has never made a formal claim before any international legal body, or even bothered to explain precisely (as in which geographical coordinates) the line ends. The line is not connected, and even in the spots where there's actually as line the map is small enough (and the line wide enough) that it's like 5-10 miles wide.

      If the "we owned it before you existed" legal standard was actually a legal standard maybe a half-dozen African states would have a legal right to exist. The others were all created by (and therefore owned) by various European Empires, and were therefore owned by Europe before they existed. The Americas south of the Rio Grande would be split between Spain and Portugal, north would be English. Austria-Hungary would have an extremely compelling legal case, to much of Eastern Europe, and the Turks could annex the Balkan peninsula up to (and including) the bits of Serbia not given back to the Habsburgs.

      The only modern state which makes any claims based on something as tenuous as "600-year-old historical links" is Israel. I don't know if you'd noticed but in the Court of International law the only world leader who ever took their claim to Jerusalem even a little bit seriously was Dubya.

  17. Lost that war by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So we put the base in to fight the Vietnam war, lost, and now want to dictate its use?

    1. Re:Lost that war by Phil-14 · · Score: 1

      Worse than that. One of the principal public spokesmen for the movement to sell out South Vietnam (along with Cambodia and Laos) to Russia is now pretending to object to the base's use by Russia, as if he cares about such things, and it's not only being reported with a straight face by the media and places like Slashdot, but it's being accepted with a straight face by people like you. I find this to be a veritable tsunami of ignorance about the history of the era and John Kerry's role in it.

      --
      (currently testing something about signatures here)
    2. Re:Lost that war by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      False.

      There was peace with honor in 1972, and the USA withdrew its forces. In 1975, North Vietnam broke the treaty and invaded South Vietnam (that's when they took this airbase). Oops. Did we forget about that? This inconvenient truth went down the memory hole, didn't it?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  18. Another American who knows nothing about history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China, their traditional enemy

    Traditional enemy? US launched chemical war on Vietnam, see agent orange and the deformed orphans still in Vietnam today, US is the traditional enemy of Vietnam, not China.

    China helped Northern Vietnam to defeat Southern Vietnam and unite the entire Vietnam, they were great friends until the US got involved.

    Do you even know there were Northern Vietnam and Southern Vietnam in the 20th century?

    If you go back far enough Vietnam was part of China.

    It's as if Americans live in some sort of alternative reality bubble, they actually believe their own bullshit and has no idea how stupid they look in front of people from other nations.

  19. Re: We are the global village bully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wall of text of yours is a hazard to air traffic.

  20. No Easy Solution by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems the solution for Vietnam would be all to easy: Simply remind the US that you kicked their asses and took that base fair and square and that if they have a problem with it, they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again because they are allied with both Russia and China and the party raising most of the tensions in the "region" is the US who keeps demanding that the world do as it says or "else".

    1. Re:No Easy Solution by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      the party raising most of the tensions in the "region" is the US who keeps demanding that the world do as it says or "else".

      The problem with that is if the US were to back out, Japan would re-militarize.

      The world really doesn't need that again.

    2. Re:No Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's already happening, so what is your point?

    3. Re:No Easy Solution by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Seems the solution for Vietnam would be all to easy: Simply remind the US that you kicked their asses and took that base fair and square and that if they have a problem with it, they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again because they are allied with both Russia and China and the party raising most of the tensions in the "region" is the US who keeps demanding that the world do as it says or "else".

      Sure, and Vietnam could give up about 20 billion in export surplus with the US. We are #2 in trade behind china and Vietnam has a trade surplus with us, unlike with China. They, unfortunately, are the little guy stuck between three powers.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:No Easy Solution by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simply remind the US that you kicked their asses and took that base fair and square and that if they have a problem with it, they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again

      You're a bit confused about the facts. The US kicked North Vietnam's ass repeatedly which is why they signed the peace treaty. After the North Vietnamese agreed to peace the US withdrew from South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese then invaded since the people that kept kicking their ass had left.

      The North Vietnamese didn't take the base "fair and square." They lied, broke a peace treaty, engaged in a war of aggression by invading South VIetnam, and terribly abused the people of South Vietnam in addition to abusing the people of North Vietnam. Ever hear of their "reeducation camps"? Or the boat people?

      As to having ""operation freedom" shoved up their ass," that didn't work out so well for either Saddam or Bin Laden, did it? Or were you confused on that point?

      If you think it is the US "raising most of the tensions in the "region"", you don't know what you are talking about. Try the Chinese, who are threatening their neighbors and making claims on their territory.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:No Easy Solution by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I love the flip-flop from "war is wrong" to "to the winner go the spoils" without the least hint of cognitive dissonance. Fair and square, riiiight. We have always been friends with Eastasia. Under social justice, Vietnam should be nice and return the base, or at least honor the foreigners' requests.

      PS Vietnam isn't allied with China, they're competitors in the South China Sea. I suppose facts aren't going to make a difference at this point, though, it's pure emotion now. Two Minutes Hate is flowing strong.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:No Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again because they are allied with both Russia and China

      LOL that is a little... sad, as I don't think you get that China wants to take them over, and Russia is just selling them cheap arms/resources? All we have to do is walk away and they're F'd. Way to show your total ignorance of the situation while cloaking yourself in hubris. Your grandkids are going to be proud.

    7. Re:No Easy Solution by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "I love the flip-flop from "war is wrong" to "to the winner go the spoils" without the least hint of cognitive dissonance."
      Vietnam won its freedom from France, Japan and US backed coups. It can now do what it wants with its own sites and offer deals to any other nation it likes.
      Vietnam can now also trade with or accept help from any nation it likes.
      Vietnam no longer has a US back junta in power. The US seems just as up set with the UK over the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank issue.
      Support for China-led development bank grows despite US opposition (13 mar 2015)
      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:No Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnam is asking the US for help to hedge against an expansionist China (they are most certainly not allies). On top of that, their trade agreements with the US are quite favorable to them as they have a fairly large trade surplus. Now, with all the US is doing for them in this relationship, and with Vietnam wanting even more out of it, why shouldn't the US ask them to stop doing something which runs completely counter to their interests?

  21. Re:Another American who knows nothing about histor by Phil-14 · · Score: 1

    Did I miss the part where there was a war between Vietnam and China in the late 70's as a result of China's support for the Khmer Rouge's genocide?

    --
    (currently testing something about signatures here)
  22. Flash Message: Pot Calls Kettle Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the summary, `General Vincent Brooks, commander of the U.S. Army in the Pacific, says the Russian bombers have conducted "provocative" flights."`

    Yeah. The Pol Pot in the Whitehouse claims Khrushchev's kettle in the Kremlin is boiling. Oh the irony.

  23. Yes, it's called "Retreat!". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA did lose. They retreated and abandoned the war because they lost. North Vietnam didn't retreat.

    Of course, you're using the fact that the USA didn't hand over their country to the Vietnamese as evidence that the USA didn't lose the war, but a war of aggression would NEVER be lost by that meme. By that standard, Germany didn't lose WWI: the german state still existed, with some ex prussian empire states given back self control.

    But the rational people understand they, like the USA lost their respective wars here.

    1. Re:Yes, it's called "Retreat!". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The events are simple to understand. The North Vietnamese signed a peace treaty, the US withdrew from South Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese violated the treaty by invading South Vietnam with tank and infantry divisions.

    2. Re:Yes, it's called "Retreat!". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know; even the US Army Official history of Viet Nam admits we lost. And states that we never could have won. And that it wasn't the media's fault.

      If you actually read real history you might actually learn something. If you can stand it. It might not meet you prior convictions, but then, real scholarship is letting the facts guide your convictions, not Faux News and regurgitated GOP lies and hagiography.

      go ahead, it's all in here: http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-28.htm

    3. Re:Yes, it's called "Retreat!". by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And states that we never could have won.

      Couldn't have won? The United States could have destroyed the entire fucking country a few hours after the President picked up the phone. Don't want to play the nuclear card? Fine, we could have simply engaged in a conventional war of attrition until they ran out of military age males. Even at a 1 to 1 exchange rate (hint: it was many times that) we eventually win. Don't confuse political realities with technical ones. The United States is a democracy, where public opinion shapes public policy. The policy may lag behind opinion but it is still shaped by it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Yes, it's called "Retreat!". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you could not.

      Look how Afghanistan resisted and resists either of the two superpowers. Just because you spend more than the combined expenditure of the rest of the top 10 doesn't mean you're invincible or of godlike power.

  24. Random geopolitical story on Slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this developing into a miscellaneous non-tech news dump?

    1. Re:Random geopolitical story on Slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like Anti-American, non-tech news dump

    2. Re:Random geopolitical story on Slashdot why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any world news naturally becomes Anti-American, because Americans are fucking with everyone.

  25. Not unless you have two accounts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way you can have missed that is if you have two accounts, since TomD65 was the OP who could have "missed" that.

  26. They are lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they had oil/gas, the US would be there giving them a taste of US democracy.

    1. Re:They are lucky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither South Korea or South Vietnam were known for having large oil deposits, and yet the US sent large armies to help keep them free from Communist invasion and tyranny. If you were able to form indepent judgments that might give you cause for thought and to question some of your questionable views. But that's not going to happen, is it?

  27. Russia is our friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Obama said Russia is our friend and ally. Was Romney right?

  28. Ho Chi Minh said... by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have ten years of American hostility(?) than a thousand years of the Chinese.

  29. There is no easy solution for Vietnam. by koan · · Score: 1

    Sure there is... partner with the SINO/Russian alliance, that's what is growing in the near future not the US.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  30. Remember how the U.S used its military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in your country, and how it has been used in other countries since the end of WW 2, and align with your closer neighbors Russia and China. None of the super-powers are angels, but at least Russia and China aren't trying to conquer the world and make other economies submit.

  31. What a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is there because they are using Japan to contain China. The US is the reason why the Japan emperor wasn't charged with war crimes.

    Japan has no natural resources, a simple sanction will destroy them. All the US has to do is leave.

    But it won't because it is afraid of China.

    1. Re:What a fool by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Japan has no natural resources, a simple sanction will destroy them.

      You'd do well not to underestimate island nations or to assume that you can defeat them by cutting off their trade. See "United Kingdom" and "Battle of the Atlantic" for further study.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  32. Re:As if we were on some sort of moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. It's important to note that the US has bases all over the world; Russia does not.

    This is nothing more than a request by a spoiled child.

  33. It's not Russa and China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Russia vs. China.

    The Soviet Union used Vietnam to try and encircle China before and more Russian military presence there with their Vietnam enemies is a political situation that can be exploited. Last time the US put on their "Oh noes soshalism!" filters and missed the opportunity. Don't miss it this time.

  34. Re:Another American who knows nothing about histor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, sir, are an historical ignoramus. China and Viet Nam have been fighting on and off for at least a thousand years.

  35. Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US violates "international law" all the time, the UN forbids the US to build military bases on Guam, and what the fuck did the US do? It even went against the UN to start a war in Iraq/Afgan.

    When the US had the power they ignored "international law", now China has the power, so fuck off. Either start a war with China, stop trading with China, or shut the fuck up, THAT is the true international law, as demonstrated by westerners in the past centuries, you idiots ignored it when you could, and now you're waving it around like it actually mean anything.

    What a bunch of idiots.

  36. HAHAHAHAHAHA Americans and international law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UN says US violating international law, calls for closure of Guantanamo
    US Attack On Syria Violates International Law
    US drone strikes violate international law, harm civilians: Amnesty and HRW (VIDEO)
    NATO Violates International Law
    US: Prolonged Indefinite Detention Violates International Law
    UN says US drone war in Pakistan violates international law
    The Military Admitted Force-Feeding Gitmo Detainees Violates International Law and Medical Ethics
    US violates int’l laws; moves USS Enterprise into Pakistani water near Balochistan
    International community concerned America violating international law by striking Syria
    Americans Abandon International Law

    Whether they realize it or not, Americans are increasingly embracing policies that undermine the international rule of law, with self-identified liberals, in particular, seemingly reversing their positions on matters such as the Guantanamo prison camp, extrajudicial assassinations and arbitrary detention.

    A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, for example, found that 70 percent of the American public approves of the U.S. government’s decision to indefinitely keep the Guantanamo prison open, despite widespread international condemnation of this policy.

  37. Re:We are the global village bully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simmer down there comrade chekist!

  38. You are hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to start calling you Sam Lowry :D

    Please be sure to clean up after yourself...

    1. Re:You are hilarious! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      how is that an insult? Sam was an every man trapped in an insane world.

      You're saying I'm an everyman? This is an insult to you?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:You are hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learned helplessness. You actually choose the life you lead and the system you live under, and you dream about another. Remember, every choice you make is personal.

    3. Re:You are hilarious! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that the protagonist in the story is a small minded coward? Exactly how?

      You say he chose that life but he was living in an extremely repressive society. He didn't have freedom unless he wanted be a rogue heating repair technician or whatever the fuck Robert was doing.

      And in any case, none of that has anything contextually to do with our discussion. You're implying that my requirement that you be RATIONAL is a sign that I am an unwitting pawn of some repressive officious super state?

      Really? When did being rational be the same thing as a fascist? ... Just insert ... I don't know what to tell you, sport. Expecting someone to be rational in a discussion is not an imposition on you. You should just do that. How can you possibly have a rational thought if your whole mind is little more than a Gordian knot of fallacies?

      You can't. You're basically willfully insane if you don't make any effort to make any kind of logical sense.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:You are hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he is an actor. You are the simple minded coward who simply follows the herd. You complain and then do exactly as the rest. So, you have the government you desire. I never said you are unwitting. You could be evil. It is one or the other. You are useful to your empire.

    5. Re:You are hilarious! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      In what way am I a coward? Substantiate that position or it is void.

      In what way am I following the herd? Substantiate that position or it is void.

      You claim I "could be evil"... really? Couldn't anyone? Anyway, this comment is too vague to be meaningful.

      As to being "useful to my empire"... were you not the same idiot that said he'd punch me for suggesting he pissed on the flag? That would be you claiming to be a patriot and then you try to use being "useful" to my society as an insult?

      Forgive me, it is very hard to unpack the stupid from your comments. I could have you confused with some other half wit. You're like fucking mosquitoes in a swamp at this point.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:You are hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive me, it is very hard to unpack the stupid from your comments.

      Stupid is your interpretation of my comments. I never said anything about the flag, and I am a free speech absolutist, so that part of your post, well actually the whole thing makes no sense.

      And yes you are a coward who likes to pass blame on others for the choices you make. Regardless of what you say that will always be true. A coward you are, most definitely. I need not substantiate anything to you. Everything I said stands on its own and needs no support due to its intrinsic truth.

    7. Re:You are hilarious! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Actually it isn't. Unlike you, I justified my positions. I didn't just make blank statements but instead I have been making falsifiable arguments.

      And when I have done this you've run away from any attempt to either confront my positions or make your own using falsifiable logic.

      At best you're ignorant. At worst you're some sort of degenerate.

      I can't tell which... Anyway... nothing profitable to be gained from the likes of you. We're done. You can fuck off at any time.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:You are hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I justified my positions.

      Only to yourself, which is fine. But you will be mocked when you try to play your blame game in front of other people. You have no position to speak of, except the prostrate. And that to me, should be kept more personal, nod nod wink wink. Degenerate indeed! Wash your hands!

    9. Re:You are hilarious! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's the virtue of actually backing up your statements. Things stop being opinions.

      You think everything is always an opinion so you're going to try to just contradict me endlessly like this:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      I'm more sophisticated then you though, so I am capable of more than that.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:You are hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit is all you've ever posted here. You haven't "backed anything up".

    11. Re:You are hilarious! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So you say but you won't tell me what I lied about.

      I have challenged you repeatedly to just EXPLAIN what you meant.

      You have refused and instead want to get vague with insults. The reason being that if you tell me what you were talking about I can start to take it apart logically... and your argument won't survive that because you know YOU are the one that is lying.

      I have no fear of the truth or engaging in debate because I don't lie or mislead. That isn't how I win.

      I win by being right, by being smarter than you, and by knowing how to prove it.

      When you have all those things, as I have them... one does not need to lie.

      Your consistent reliance on such is merely an admission that you're an idiot and you know it.

      What I guess you're too stupid to grasp is that I KNOW IT AS WELL. It is quite obvious. Your pathetic attempts to deceive me are a waste of time. You're not very good at this and everything you've done is quite transparent.

      It is just too easy. So by all means, throw out another stupid insult... all you're doing is further confessing your weakness.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:You are hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already know what I'm talking about. I'm not interested in repeating myself. I'm only writing you off as just another weirdo to be mocked for your stupidity. If you feel like 'arguing' about it, suit yourself. I don't give a shit.

    13. Re:You are hilarious! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Your incompetence is obvious. I frankly pity your ignorance and lack of character.

      I wish you enlightenment and peace.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:You are hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save it for yourself. You obviously need it. I am at peace and we are all filled with eternal light. You're trying to snuff out yours, why?