Replies

Each bullet point corresponds to the same-numbered bullet point in the original list.

#11 concerns itself with supposed inequities of “words vs. actions” in re: troop morale, which I felt was pretty rich coming from a political party whose constitutents frequent anti-war rallies where the troops are called all kinds of things, post on Internet message boards messages which essentially state that troops are killing machines incapable of determining situational ethics, and who are in essence anti-war to the core, never seeing the need to fight or any just cause for war. Which is pretty scary when you think about it because they’re advocating a utopian society which not only has no basis in reality but also, if it actually existed, would be an absolute nightmare to live through (c.f. Robert D. Kaplan’s very important essay, “The Dangers Of Peace”).

#14? I thought it’d be pretty neat to bring in the “blame the victim” phraseology often utilized when rape victims are told that they must have “asked for it” because of provocative dress, so-called “flirtatious” behavior, etc. Obv no rape victim deserves or asks for such a crime to be visited upon her, much like no essentially good country such as the U.S. deserves or asks for terrorism to be directed toward themselves. Yet there are those people who obv point the finger at us and say, “Well, we must have done something to provoke this,” forgetting that terrorism is rooted in a deep civilizational divide that is not country-specific but rather only asks that there be a Western ideals vs. Oriental despotism divide. The British were once target #1 under the “Western ideals” column; now we’re the primary targets.

You’re right about #18. It completely slipped my mind that Kissinger helped orchestrate those peace accords, too. You know, Nixon scored many, many points in political strategy with Kissinger’s guidance and assistance, which is why I have a deep admiration for Kissinger and find that Nixon was an underrated president.

#24? We have to acknowledge that GWBush was at one time an addict. That’s pretty much unarguable. But the fact is — so what? This means he’s a terrible person? Bush’s most reprehensible acts apparently involved self-destructive behavior, i.e. SIMPLY DESTROYING THE SELF, and that Bush received treatment for his problem. Al Gore Sr. (and later on Al Gore Jr.) practically went to bed with — okay, looking at my reference points, they went to bed with Armand Hammer’s mining company Occidental Petroleum, the same company that was responsible for ANOTHER yet more famous environmental disaster, Love Canal. And now that I’m looking again at my source information, it turns out that Al Gore Jr. was actually actively engaged in drug use up to 1976. Anyway, I’m not a fan of Gore at all for more reasons than just that and I’m sure one could make a lot out of how he ruined a great channel (CBC’s Newsworld International, which became the terrible Current TV), or the fact that Bush’s Crawford ranch is more ecologically sound than Gore’s energy-guzzling mansion.

#25 — you have to read on-the-ground accounts of economic activity going on in China and Vietnam and how this is helping to bring forth real freedoms for the citizens of those two countries. For the former I have especially relied on accounts by Kaplan, who was the one who pointed out that countries such as Uzbekistan and Kyrzgystan, while being “democratic” in name, actually provide their citizenry with fewer personal and economic freedoms than many so-called “Communist” countries such as China, which preserve the Communist system only as a unifying force. As far as Vietnam goes, well, there have been a lot of business news reports about Vietnam’s growing private economy and about the surprising freedoms being given the Vietnamese. Oh, and I meant to say “that Vietnam’s rapidly capitalistic society is also to be viewed as NOMINALLY Communist ALONE” but didn’t catch that in the quick edit I did before posting.

Thanks for the response.