What debate used to be like

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

At no point in this conversation do either of these men ever admit the other might have a point. At no point does either of them back off his position. At no point is there any thought whatsoever of a compromise, or any kind of understanding of the other side. And yet, they are able to discus, like adults, for 20 minutes, their disagreements.

I wish we had the fortitude to disagree in this manner today.

 

[TMFT]

Is this the one when he threatens to “punch him in your mouth you queer?” Lol

 

[Marvin the Martian]

At no point in this conversation do either of these men ever admit the other might have a point. At no point does either of them back off his position. At no point is there any thought whatsoever of a compromise, or any kind of understanding of the other side. And yet, they are able to discus, like adults, for 20 minutes, their disagreements.

I wish we had the fortitude to disagree in this manner today.

View embedded media

It is sad that sort of discussion cannot happen today. Both men were extremely smart and capable. I watched Buckley in my youth, even though I often disagreed with him I enjoyed watching him. I could see the logic he used. That is how I felt about Will and Lugar as well.

 

[Bill4411]

People want to make snap decisions today and have no reflection. What has made the US great was the ability to recognize most points of view in politics and religion and understand you can't get everything you want. Our two-party system is great because you need the yin and yang of thought to have balance and when we lose that then the whole system will just crash and burn.

 

[larsIU]

Favorite Buckley quote.

“I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said”

 

[Ohio Guy]

Favorite Buckley quote.

“I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said”

I like that. I can’t promise I’ll never quote that.

 

[Ohio Guy]

At no point in this conversation do either of these men ever admit the other might have a point. At no point does either of them back off his position. At no point is there any thought whatsoever of a compromise, or any kind of understanding of the other side. And yet, they are able to discus, like adults, for 20 minutes, their disagreements.

I wish we had the fortitude to disagree in this manner today.

View embedded media

My old boss used to be a staffer for Tip O’Neill and she always swore that a young Newt Gringrich shouting down the Speaker in a hearing was the beginning of the end of civil debate and decorum.

She said once some people thought that tactic worked or was effective, it was all down hill from there.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

People want to make snap decisions today and have no reflection. What has made the US great was the ability to recognize most points of view in politics and religion and understand you can't get everything you want. Our two-party system is great because you need the yin and yang of thought to have balance and when we lose that then the whole system will just crash and burn.

I disagree that our two-party system is great. It is not.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

At no point in this conversation do either of these men ever admit the other might have a point. At no point does either of them back off his position. At no point is there any thought whatsoever of a compromise, or any kind of understanding of the other side. And yet, they are able to discus, like adults, for 20 minutes, their disagreements.

I wish we had the fortitude to disagree in this manner today.

View embedded media

On the subject of their debate, I am currently listening to Max Hastings book on Vietnam. I am in the period between French and US involvement. Chomsky was right, we were far from disinterested. Ike had offered to send US troops several times IF Churchill would agree. There was even a plan to use US nukes (again, Churchill refused).

Hastings speaks of CIA airpower at Dien Bien Phu. The French pilots refused to land at the base and refused to carry out low-level attacks. He says several times that the CIA planes would do both, showing far more courage than the French and taking far more losses.

France had a law preventing draftees from going, so pretty much their entire army was colonial troops and mercenaries. The French Foreign Legion was tripled in size, mostly with former Waffen SS troops. All mercenary money came from the US as well as their equipment.

The US and France were not interested in the same thing though. For the French, they were trying to show resolve again after their stunning defeat in 1940. First, Vietnam was an economic benefit to France. Second, when it became clear Dien Bien Phu was hopeless it was decided a glorious stand resulting in mass death was better than France being seen as weak and leaving the battlefield. The leaders on the ground did not share that belief.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

On the subject of their debate, I am currently listening to Max Hastings book on Vietnam. I am in the period between French and US involvement. Chomsky was right, we were far from disinterested. Ike had offered to send US troops several times IF Churchill would agree. There was even a plan to use US nukes (again, Churchill refused).

Hastings speaks of CIA airpower at Dien Bien Phu. The French pilots refused to land at the base and refused to carry out low-level attacks. He says several times that the CIA planes would do both, showing far more courage than the French and taking far more losses.

France had a law preventing draftees from going, so pretty much their entire army was colonial troops and mercenaries. The French Foreign Legion was tripled in size, mostly with former Waffen SS troops. All mercenary money came from the US as well as their equipment.

The US and France were not interested in the same thing though. For the French, they were trying to show resolve again after their stunning defeat in 1940. First, Vietnam was an economic benefit to France. Second, when it became clear Dien Bien Phu was hopeless it was decided a glorious stand resulting in mass death was better than France being seen as weak and leaving the battlefield. The leaders on the ground did not share that belief.

I'm not really familiar with what was driving US involvement in Vietnam other than the Domino Theory. I think Buckley is trying to point out there is a difference between military involvement engaged in, in large part, to "save" a country from what was described as a communist invasion and one that is done in naked economic self-interest. What is the economic self-interest going on in Vietnam for the US?

Chomsky's counterpoint that this is usually just window dressing is a good one as is the notion that if a nation's people are fighting over their own form of govt., we should let them decide. But then Buckley is right to retort that in Greece and Vietnam, outside communist powers were already interfering so what do we do then?

I'm not sure of Chomsky's response to this last point other than to say that wasn't happening (which is wrong, I believe). The Ukrainian situation pre-Russian invasion would be another situation that they could have held this debate about.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm not really familiar with what was driving US involvement in Vietnam other than the Domino Theory. I think Buckley is trying to point out there is a difference between military involvement engaged in, in large part, to "save" a country from what was described as a communist invasion and one that is done in naked economic self-interest. What is the economic self-interest going on in Vietnam for the US?

Chomsky's counterpoint that this is usually just window dressing is a good one as is the notion that if a nation's people are fighting over their own form of govt., we should let them decide. But then Buckley is right to retort that in Greece and Vietnam, outside communist powers were already interfering so what do we do then?

I'm not sure of Chomsky's response to this last point other than to say that wasn't happening (which is wrong, I believe). The Ukrainian situation pre-Russian invasion would be another situation that they could have held this debate about.

The issue with that comes from supporting the French. Hastings pulls no punches, the French were cruel and robbed what little they could get. It is not as if a French victory left the Vietnamese anything close to free.

There were people in Vietnam we could have worked with. But we mistakenly believed everyone who fought the French were communist. That was not true, many hated the French rule for good reason but we're not communist. Ho was communist, but we refused to work with the others. And some of the people we worked with were very poor on the humanitarian scale.

I would argue we were not concerned with what was best for the average Vietnamese but for the anti-communist crusade. It was a different type of imperialism. We wanted them for the proxy war, not economic benefits.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The issue with that comes from supporting the French. Hastings pulls no punches, the French were cruel and robbed what little they could get. It is not as if a French victory left the Vietnamese anything close to free.

There were people in Vietnam we could have worked with. But we mistakenly believed everyone who fought the French were communist. That was not true, many hated the French rule for good reason but we're not communist. Ho was communist, but we refused to work with the others. And some of the people we worked with were very poor on the humanitarian scale.

I would argue we were not concerned with what was best for the average Vietnamese but for the anti-communist crusade. It was a different type of imperialism. We wanted them for the proxy war, not economic benefits.

Ho appeared to be a Communist out of pragmatism. After WW2 he went looking for someone who would back their claim of independence or autonomy from a colonial power (French, Japanese, or otherwise). We rebuffed him and the Soviets welcomed him.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Ho appeared to be a Communist out of pragmatism. After WW2 he went looking for someone who would back their claim of independence or autonomy from a colonial power (French, Japanese, or otherwise). We rebuffed him and the Soviets welcomed him.

Hastings tackles that question, he believes Ho was always communist but kept it hidden.

But if the other narrative is accurate, we look that much worse.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The issue with that comes from supporting the French. Hastings pulls no punches, the French were cruel and robbed what little they could get. It is not as if a French victory left the Vietnamese anything close to free.

There were people in Vietnam we could have worked with. But we mistakenly believed everyone who fought the French were communist. That was not true, many hated the French rule for good reason but we're not communist. Ho was communist, but we refused to work with the others. And some of the people we worked with were very poor on the humanitarian scale.

I would argue we were not concerned with what was best for the average Vietnamese but for the anti-communist crusade. It was a different type of imperialism. We wanted them for the proxy war, not economic benefits.

So I get the proxy war aspect, but to the extent people in the US govt believed that communism was an evil form of govt and that for any people to live under it was hell, would you call them disinterested? I think this is the point Buckley is driving at.

Chomsky's response was that that is all theoretical and not real world stuff is well taken, but I'm not sure why he can't concede the point, and then say that the problem is we, as the US, have this general, simplistic notion and don't do enough on-the-ground intel to figure out if we are right or not, as you and Crazy seem to be pointing out. I think that same idea applies to Afghanstan and Iraq, as well.

Discovering what is in a nation's best interest is amazingly complex and context driven, and is best left to those who live there and will suffer the consequences. Unless we are going to devote a lot of time, effort, and research into a nation, it's people, the various sides, etc., going in with some general theory of the good to advance probably is going to end in disaster in cases where there is a legitimate internal struggle over the form of government.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Hastings tackles that question, he believes Ho was always communist but kept it hidden.

But if the other narrative is accurate, we look that much worse.

Even if he was a communist at heart, he came to the US first IIRC. I think if we had given support that he probably would have been more than happy to be a US backed autocrat.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Even if he was a communist at heart, he came to the US first IIRC. I think if we had given support that he probably would have been more than happy to be a US backed autocrat.

It is amazing how bad we were at finding allies throughout the cold war. The people we decided to work with were most likely corrupt and in it for personal gain. Had we worked with Ho so much would have changed.

But we seed to view all anti-imperialists as anti-American.

 

[hoot1]

It is sad that sort of discussion cannot happen today. Both men were extremely smart and capable. I watched Buckley in my youth, even though I often disagreed with him I enjoyed watching him. I could see the logic he used. That is how I felt about Will and Lugar as well.

Speaking of Dick Lugar and how debate was conducted in what appears to be a bygone era, Lugar could give both sides of an issue. When giving the other side, he was as good or even more convincing than the other side. His skill set included being a good listener, a great memory, and a sense of fairness.

All this made Lugar a highly respected Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair by members of both sides of the aisle.

 

[Standard Issue]

I like that. I can’t promise I’ll never quote that.

I want it on a coffee mug

 

[jsig]

I disagree that our two-party system is great. It is not.

Totally agree with this. To me the duoploly is just a bunch of criminals. They have already blackballed anyone outside of their 2 parties being on the ballot in NY governor race. Their debates are all insults vs the other party. If they let any outside party participate they would be exposed as the fools they are. They deserve no respect.

 

[TMFT]

Totally agree with this. To me the duoploly is just a bunch of criminals. They have already blackballed anyone outside of their 2 parties being on the ballot in NY governor race. Their debates are all insults vs the other party. If they let any outside party participate they would be exposed as the fools they are. They deserve no respect.

I personally hate the two party system. And from a polling perspective, I'd wager at least a large plurality, if not a majority, of Americans agree. But there is zero appetite writ large to do what is necessary to create an electoral system that would create an environment conducive to supporting a multi-party system.

It's either going to have to be ranked choice voting or some kind of proportional representation scheme. With a first past the post system, two parties are all we have room for.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

So I get the proxy war aspect, but to the extent people in the US govt believed that communism was an evil form of govt and that for any people to live under it was hell, would you call them disinterested? I think this is the point Buckley is driving at.

Chomsky's response was that that is all theoretical and not real world stuff is well taken, but I'm not sure why he can't concede the point, and then say that the problem is we, as the US, have this general, simplistic notion and don't do enough on-the-ground intel to figure out if we are right or not, as you and Crazy seem to be pointing out. I think that same idea applies to Afghanstan and Iraq, as well.

Discovering what is in a nation's best interest is amazingly complex and context driven, and is best left to those who live there and will suffer the consequences. Unless we are going to devote a lot of time, effort, and research into a nation, it's people, the various sides, etc., going in with some general theory of the good to advance probably is going to end in disaster in cases where there is a legitimate internal struggle over the form of government.

It is an evil form of government. The USSR proved it. North Korea is still proving it. Vietnam proved it. We rescued 57 Vietnamese boat people in 1988 desperate to escape Communism 13 years after the fall of Saigon. That boat left Vietnam with about 140 people and only those 57 survived. Many of our crew, the USS BADGER, keep in touch with many of the survivors that we rescued.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/08/12/us-rescues-of-boat-people-rise-sharply/bedc41a6-71ea-4aac-929d-0a0658f53f21/

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

It is an evil form of government. The USSR proved it. North Korea is still proving it. Vietnam proved it. We rescued 57 Vietnamese boat people in 1988 desperate to escape Communism 13 years after the fall of Saigon. That boat left Vietnam with about 140 people and only those 57 survived. Many of our crew, the USS BADGER, keep in touch with many of the survivors that we rescued.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/08/12/us-rescues-of-boat-people-rise-sharply/bedc41a6-71ea-4aac-929d-0a0658f53f21/

I guess Chomsky would ask:

1. Does that mean the U.S. is justified to engage in military action anywhere/anytime against any communist regime?

2. What separates out the cases where we don't go in? (Chomsky's answer here would be naked corporate or ruling-class self interests.)

A third one that I find tough and related: even if you answer "yes" to (1) above, does that mean we are justified in propping up dictatorial strongmen in nations where they combat communists (or jihadists now)?

These are tough questions and probably don't have many satisfactory/feel-good answers.

Regarding the people fleeing on boats, etc., it's one of those realities that I think a lot of academic communists, cultural relativists, and U.S. haters (I'm using this term to describe only the worst of these people, not all those in a party or even those on the far left that used to be smeared this way) seem to gloss over: for at least the last 100 years, the idea of people fleeing the U.S. or any form of western democracy in boats or that the govt. would force people to stay is not even imaginable. Can we even imagine a situation where it would be acceptable for a nation/govt. system to force people to remain in the country (assuming they are not doing time in prison)?

 

[dr.jb]

Favorite Buckley quote.

“I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said”

"I could agree with you, but then I'd be wrong"

my wife loves that one