Signalcalc
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,670
- Likes
- 1,031
wackypete2
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,211
- Likes
- 2,058
He wants to show to those congressman (both parties) who are up for reelection next year that he can still draw large crowds of voters.
Peter
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
My friends: In the four decades I have attended the Munich Security Conference, I cannot recall a year where its purpose was more necessary or more important.
The next panel asks us to consider whether the West will survive. In recent years, this question would invite accusations of hyperbole and alarmism. Not this year. If ever there were a time to treat this question with a deadly seriousness, it is now.
This question was real, half a century ago, for Ewald von Kleist and the founders of this conference. Indeed, it is why they first started coming to Munich. They did not assume the West would survive, because they had seen its near annihilation. They saw open markets give way to beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism, and the poverty that imposed. They saw a world order fracture into clashing ethnic and nationalist passions, and the misery that wrought. They saw the rise of hostile great powers, and the failure of deterrence, and the wars that followed.
From the ashes of the most awful calamity in human history was born what we call the West — a new, and different, and better kind of world order … one based not on blood-and-soil nationalism, or spheres of influence, or conquest of the weak by the strong, but rather on universal values, rule of law, open commerce, and respect for national sovereignty and independence. Indeed, the entire idea of the West is that it open to any person or any nation that honors and upholds these values.
Our predecessors did not believe in the end of history — or that it bends, inevitably, toward justice. That is up to us. That requires our persistent, painstaking effort. And that is why we come to Munich, year after year after year.
What would von Kleist’s generation say if they saw our world today? I fear that much about it would be all-too-familiar to them, and they would be alarmed by it.
They would be alarmed by an increasing turn away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism.
They would be alarmed by the hardening resentment we see toward immigrants, and refugees, and minority groups, especially Muslims.
They would be alarmed by the growing inability, and even unwillingness, to separate truth from lies.
But what would alarm them most, I think, is a sense that many of our peoples, including in my own country, are giving up on the West … that they see it as a bad deal that we may be better off without … and that while Western nations still have the power to maintain our world order, it is unclear whether we have the will.
All of us must accept our share of the blame for this turn of events. We grew complacent. We made mistakes. At times we tried to do too much, and at others we failed to do enough. We lost touch with many of our people. We have been too slow to recognize and respond to their hardships. We need to face up to these realities, but this does not mean losing hope and retreating. That we must not do.
I know there is profound concern across Europe and the world that America is laying down the mantle of global leadership. I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe that is the message you will hear from all of the American leaders who cared enough to travel here to Munich this weekend. That is not the message you heard today from Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. That is not the message you will hear from Vice President Mike Pence. That is not the message you will hear from Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. And that is certainly not the message you will hear tomorrow from our bipartisan congressional delegation.
We must be prudent, but we cannot wring our hands and wallow in self-doubt. We must appreciate the limits of our power, but we cannot allow ourselves to question the rightness and goodness of the West. We must understand and learn from our mistakes, but we cannot be paralyzed by fear. We cannot give up on ourselves and on each other. That is the definition of decadence. And that is how world orders really do decline and fall.
This is exactly what our adversaries want. This is their goal. They have no meaningful allies, so they seek to sow dissent among us and divide us from each other. They know that their power and influence are inferior to ours, so they seek to subvert us, and erode our resolve to resist, and terrorize us into passivity. They know they have little to offer the world beyond selfishness and fear, so they seek to undermine our confidence in ourselves and our belief in our own values.
We must take our own side in this fight. We must be vigilant. We must persevere. And through it all, we must never, never cease to believe in the moral superiority of our own values — that we stand for truth against falsehood, freedom against tyranny, right against injustice, hope against despair … and that even though we will inevitably take losses and suffer setbacks, through it all, so long as people of goodwill and courage refuse to lose faith in the West, it will endure.
That is why we come to Munich, year in and year out — to revitalize our common moral purpose, our belief that our values are worth the fighting for. Because in the final analysis, the survival of the West is not just a material struggle; it is now, and has always been, a moral struggle. Now more than ever, we must not forget this.
During one of the darkest years of the early Cold War, William Faulkner delivered a short speech in Stockholm upon receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature. ‘I decline to accept the end of man,’ Faulkner said. ‘I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.’
Even now, when the temptation to despair is greatest, I refuse to accept the end of the West. I refuse to accept the demise of our world order. I refuse to accept that our greatest triumphs cannot once again spring from our moments of greatest peril, as they have so many times before. I refuse to accept that our values are morally equivalent to those of our adversaries. I am a proud, unapologetic believer in the West, and I believe we must always, always stand up for it — for if we do not, who will?
--John McCain, US Senator
The next panel asks us to consider whether the West will survive. In recent years, this question would invite accusations of hyperbole and alarmism. Not this year. If ever there were a time to treat this question with a deadly seriousness, it is now.
This question was real, half a century ago, for Ewald von Kleist and the founders of this conference. Indeed, it is why they first started coming to Munich. They did not assume the West would survive, because they had seen its near annihilation. They saw open markets give way to beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism, and the poverty that imposed. They saw a world order fracture into clashing ethnic and nationalist passions, and the misery that wrought. They saw the rise of hostile great powers, and the failure of deterrence, and the wars that followed.
From the ashes of the most awful calamity in human history was born what we call the West — a new, and different, and better kind of world order … one based not on blood-and-soil nationalism, or spheres of influence, or conquest of the weak by the strong, but rather on universal values, rule of law, open commerce, and respect for national sovereignty and independence. Indeed, the entire idea of the West is that it open to any person or any nation that honors and upholds these values.
Our predecessors did not believe in the end of history — or that it bends, inevitably, toward justice. That is up to us. That requires our persistent, painstaking effort. And that is why we come to Munich, year after year after year.
What would von Kleist’s generation say if they saw our world today? I fear that much about it would be all-too-familiar to them, and they would be alarmed by it.
They would be alarmed by an increasing turn away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism.
They would be alarmed by the hardening resentment we see toward immigrants, and refugees, and minority groups, especially Muslims.
They would be alarmed by the growing inability, and even unwillingness, to separate truth from lies.
But what would alarm them most, I think, is a sense that many of our peoples, including in my own country, are giving up on the West … that they see it as a bad deal that we may be better off without … and that while Western nations still have the power to maintain our world order, it is unclear whether we have the will.
All of us must accept our share of the blame for this turn of events. We grew complacent. We made mistakes. At times we tried to do too much, and at others we failed to do enough. We lost touch with many of our people. We have been too slow to recognize and respond to their hardships. We need to face up to these realities, but this does not mean losing hope and retreating. That we must not do.
I know there is profound concern across Europe and the world that America is laying down the mantle of global leadership. I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe that is the message you will hear from all of the American leaders who cared enough to travel here to Munich this weekend. That is not the message you heard today from Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. That is not the message you will hear from Vice President Mike Pence. That is not the message you will hear from Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. And that is certainly not the message you will hear tomorrow from our bipartisan congressional delegation.
We must be prudent, but we cannot wring our hands and wallow in self-doubt. We must appreciate the limits of our power, but we cannot allow ourselves to question the rightness and goodness of the West. We must understand and learn from our mistakes, but we cannot be paralyzed by fear. We cannot give up on ourselves and on each other. That is the definition of decadence. And that is how world orders really do decline and fall.
This is exactly what our adversaries want. This is their goal. They have no meaningful allies, so they seek to sow dissent among us and divide us from each other. They know that their power and influence are inferior to ours, so they seek to subvert us, and erode our resolve to resist, and terrorize us into passivity. They know they have little to offer the world beyond selfishness and fear, so they seek to undermine our confidence in ourselves and our belief in our own values.
We must take our own side in this fight. We must be vigilant. We must persevere. And through it all, we must never, never cease to believe in the moral superiority of our own values — that we stand for truth against falsehood, freedom against tyranny, right against injustice, hope against despair … and that even though we will inevitably take losses and suffer setbacks, through it all, so long as people of goodwill and courage refuse to lose faith in the West, it will endure.
That is why we come to Munich, year in and year out — to revitalize our common moral purpose, our belief that our values are worth the fighting for. Because in the final analysis, the survival of the West is not just a material struggle; it is now, and has always been, a moral struggle. Now more than ever, we must not forget this.
During one of the darkest years of the early Cold War, William Faulkner delivered a short speech in Stockholm upon receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature. ‘I decline to accept the end of man,’ Faulkner said. ‘I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.’
Even now, when the temptation to despair is greatest, I refuse to accept the end of the West. I refuse to accept the demise of our world order. I refuse to accept that our greatest triumphs cannot once again spring from our moments of greatest peril, as they have so many times before. I refuse to accept that our values are morally equivalent to those of our adversaries. I am a proud, unapologetic believer in the West, and I believe we must always, always stand up for it — for if we do not, who will?
--John McCain, US Senator
TexasRangersFan
Active member
- Messages
- 185
- Likes
- 47
TexasRangersFan
Active member
- Messages
- 185
- Likes
- 47
Johnson (D) and Nixon (R)
All they had to do was surrender....🙂
Actually, we won the war. After Vietnam fell they began to execute anyone that was associated with South Vietnam 's military of government. Fifteen years ago they had a per capita income that was lower than Somalia and North Korea.
Fast forward 40 years and they have left Communism behind and Vietnam is a major tourist destination. They are one of the fastest growing economies in Asia and even the missionaries are welcome. They have cable vision and the internet.
Even the woman that cuts my hair every few weeks is Vietmanese. She immigrated here a few years ago (legally).
We won.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
So everyone was a winner except the people the US was trying to help ? That sorta puts off being allied to the US. Looks like Trump is going to sell out NATO too or be bled dry having to dig ever deeper to fund the US-Russia confrontation. Will they end up with a similar fate ? Can't trust the business community really, not to sell their old friends down the Swannee.
Oscar Reed
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,485
- Likes
- 739
Who won
After being to both places in the last 10 years.
I would choose Vietnam to spend the rest of my life.
Mind you very happy in Aussie land.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,869
- Likes
- 4,044
I think my memory is failing me but if I recal in faint light, the US was helping the French out in Vietnam were they not?
It's debatable who won? Nixon had to take the US off the gold standard because they were going broke.
It's expensive business killing innocent people.
Whilst we are on topic, I thought Trump show last night was pathetic. He may think his winning, the people may think wonderful things are happening, the media may be pushing fake news but right now Trump has achieved jack diddly dot.
I also think if he continues rubbishing everyone but himself, including intelligence agencies and the Pentagon on the supply of their military hardware by knocking money off spending and bringing taxes down which will further reduce money available for defence spending, they will take him down.
I've seen this behaviour in many people. They do what they are good at or comfortable in doing. They avoid being out of their comfort zone and doing what needs to be done which is often more difficult. Hence, as management one has to chase, request updates on where we are and put names on tasks; who's doing, what, when, how and where?
As we are talking about the President here, he seems to think he is unchecked and can do anything he wants; so what does he do? Hits the campaign trail with two years to go.
He looks pathetic imo. He has a vulnerable look about him. Phew! People still love me. I'm ok. I can still fill a hanger. 🙁
Last edited:
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,869
- Likes
- 4,044
Yep, his using her like a crutch.
She certainly looks very graceful and carries her self well. Super composure. I'm sure he draws strength from her being thin skinned fella that he is. 👍
"The richest 1% will collect 47% of all the tax cuts – an average saving of $214,000."
business as usual :whistling
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality
business as usual :whistling
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
Clearly you weren't around at the time.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,869
- Likes
- 4,044
🙁
One legacy of Vietnam war on America, ingoring Vietnameese deaths in 000s and 000s, destruction of their country, waste of tax payers money, gold reserves leaving the US - was on the US Marines.
They had a much higher statistic of ending homeless or arrested and thrown in jail due to traumatic stress disorder after experience in Vietnam war.
Last edited:
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,869
- Likes
- 4,044
Signalcalc
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,670
- Likes
- 1,031
I watched an adventure travel program the other evening where a British explorer was revisiting tribes he had lived with in Papua New Guinea. 30 years ago they were tribes people living a subsistence life in the jungle, a life that they had led for millennia.
Then along came the missionaries, built a church, a hospital, provided some administration, healthcare, effectively the tribes were westernised and converted to Christianity. The tribes people had abandoned their jungle life lost some of the knowledge and culture to follow the missionary ways.
Then relatively recently, the missionaries abandoned their new found community and left them to get on with it, but they have floundered, they have no outside support, the children suffer from malnutrition, they have completely lost their cultural way and the ancient knowledge that came with it. They are now in a much worse position than they were when they were living in the jungles. They had become dependent on missionaries who then abandoned them.
Now I don't know if there was a back story to why the missionaries were there in the first place, was it for pure religious purposes, oil interest, mineral interest used to lure them out of the jungle? It matters not, but I don't think that missionaries provide a great example of helping the world.
Will Trump be the 'missionary' that lures people into a way of belief and those people will be abandoned and then suffer as a result?
We used to run into Saigon and Haiphong on a Messageries Maritimes charter in the early fifties. The French Legionaires were there, then. In the late fifties we were taking oil into Haiphong. Six years later, I was living in Spain and the war was, still, going on. A ghastly affair and, as usual, the local inhabitants paid a terrible price. That Pol Pot outfit was a ghastly lot. The Americans were far more humane than them.
I think that the US stopped a domino effect of Communism taking over the whole of SE Asia, so don't lets knock US policy. Its easy to say that Vietnam is a prosperous country, now, but it could, also, have been as bad, if not worse, than N.Korea is, today.
The same could be said about IS, Local people are getting the **** knocked out of them and all they want is to get on with life. Trump is right in what he says. Terrorism is more of a problem in Europe than America and I believe that Trump and Putin have a common goal in the defeat of IS. Putin has, however, played a dreadful role in the war in Syria. I think that Trump is going to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, frankly.
He's making a lot of promises. Let's see how much he can achieve. Of course, I'm not an American and it is easy for me. They are the ones who have to live with him. Europe, though, should share more on Nato.
I think that the US stopped a domino effect of Communism taking over the whole of SE Asia, so don't lets knock US policy. Its easy to say that Vietnam is a prosperous country, now, but it could, also, have been as bad, if not worse, than N.Korea is, today.
The same could be said about IS, Local people are getting the **** knocked out of them and all they want is to get on with life. Trump is right in what he says. Terrorism is more of a problem in Europe than America and I believe that Trump and Putin have a common goal in the defeat of IS. Putin has, however, played a dreadful role in the war in Syria. I think that Trump is going to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, frankly.
He's making a lot of promises. Let's see how much he can achieve. Of course, I'm not an American and it is easy for me. They are the ones who have to live with him. Europe, though, should share more on Nato.
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
Whether or not the domino theory panned out is a matter of opinion, and there's plenty of information on it online. But one must remember that Cambodia and Laos were also involved, and SE Asia is hardly a bastion of democracy. As for whether or not Viet Nam would have evolved as it has without our intervention, one must also remember that totalitarianism is self-limiting.
As for "Trump is right in what he says", what he says is based on the kind of shallow thinking of the typical Trump supporter and can change -- and often does -- daily. Given his paranoia, his fondness for conspiracy theories, and his knee-jerk foreign policy, he is very much a loose cannon when it comes to that area of the world in particular, and given the continuing possibility of war, he is hardly an American problem alone.
As for "Trump is right in what he says", what he says is based on the kind of shallow thinking of the typical Trump supporter and can change -- and often does -- daily. Given his paranoia, his fondness for conspiracy theories, and his knee-jerk foreign policy, he is very much a loose cannon when it comes to that area of the world in particular, and given the continuing possibility of war, he is hardly an American problem alone.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
I don't think the Vietnam vets have anything to be ashamed of. It was the bungling politicians that sent them there.
Jack Kennedy looked good and sounded great but a complete incompetent when it came to foreign policy. He meant well no doubt but had no idea that the USA would be so soundly beaten. The Bay of Pigs fiasco could have given him a clue or two.
Harold Wilson was in my view right to keep Britain out of the Vietnam war. US foreign policy has been mistakenly based on Kennedy's wrong strategy ever since. The ME involvement is a continuing disaster.
Jack Kennedy looked good and sounded great but a complete incompetent when it came to foreign policy. He meant well no doubt but had no idea that the USA would be so soundly beaten. The Bay of Pigs fiasco could have given him a clue or two.
Harold Wilson was in my view right to keep Britain out of the Vietnam war. US foreign policy has been mistakenly based on Kennedy's wrong strategy ever since. The ME involvement is a continuing disaster.
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
It's worth remembering that Viet Nam and the Bay of Pigs were not Kennedy's ideas. Perhaps due to Eisenhower's having been a Republican, everyone conveniently forgets that he was the president who got us into Viet Nam, though without direct involvement of troops, and the Bay of Pigs operation was hatched by the CIA under his watch. Yes, McNamara advised sending in troops and Kennedy signed on. But whether or not all of this would have happened had we not been there in the first place is an open question. Perhaps if Madame Nhu had not been so photogenic, things would have worked out differently.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Surely Kennedy could have stopped these foreign forays if he had wanted to ?
Sitting in Washington and listening to the " we can do " men in the military he thought it would be walk over.
Madame Nhu ? The dragon lady.Not yet another randy President's femme fatal ? The US backed puppets murdered her husband and his brother the President of S. Vietnam. A tit for tat assasination perhaps ?
Last edited:
Similar threads
