Libya: should anything be done?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If the Hanoi government had collapsed and the South took over the north and unified the country under Saigon, would you still be championing "the fact that the country was liberated from foreign rule'?

I seriously doubt it. Your idea of "liberation" seems to be "the communists won". Not that it could've happened at all were it not for foreign intervention (i.e. supplies from the USSR). And leave it to you to put a smilie emoticon after I point out the sheer numbers of people who risk everything to flee your preferred system of government. And guess what else? Emigration from Vietnam peaked in the late 1980s - long after the war and any excuse that it was damaged infrastructure that forced many people to leave.

But I agree that this thread is about Libya.

Oh, don't let a little thing like history interfere with your outlook. Simply because Communism has been a failure everywhere it has ever been practiced, to one degree or another, and has everywhere been forced to adopt the expedients of capitalism while "maintaining the Revolution" -- and has everywhere been forced to incarcerate political prisoners -- is no reason to think that it is inherently flawed.

Also, in before the inevitable "No True Scotsman" fallacy re: communism: "There's never been a real Marxist state."

[sandinista]

If the Hanoi government had collapsed and the South took over the north and unified the country under Saigon, would you still be championing "the fact that the country was liberated from foreign rule'?

I seriously doubt it. Your idea of "liberation" seems to be "the communists won". Not that it could've happened at all were it not for foreign intervention (i.e. supplies from the USSR). And leave it to you to put a smilie emoticon after I point out the sheer numbers of people who risk everything to flee your preferred system of government. And guess what else? Emigration from Vietnam peaked in the late 1980s - long after the war and any excuse that it was damaged infrastructure that forced many people to leave.

But I agree that this thread is about Libya.

Oh, don't let a little thing like history interfere with your outlook. Simply because Communism has been a failure everywhere it has ever been practiced, to one degree or another, and has everywhere been forced to adopt the expedients of capitalism while "maintaining the Revolution" -- and has everywhere been forced to incarcerate political prisoners -- is no reason to think that it is inherently flawed.

Also, in before the inevitable "No True Scotsman" fallacy re: communism: "There's never been a real Marxist state."

Depends how you define "Communism". What do you mean by "flawed"?

[Coito ergo sum]

Must be why the vast majority fled to the US....because they thought they had been destroyed by the US...makes perfect sense.

So...the US didn't destroy Vietnam? Interesting theory you've got there. Must have been bombs made of chocolate. All the unexploded bombs which exist to this day, must be harmless firecrackers as well.

Destroy? No - there was a war there, of course, and things did get blown up. But, destroy the whole country? No, of course not.

Your interesting theory that the Vietnamese resoundingly viewed the US as the "destroyer" and then thought it would be the best place to move...cuz they thought we sucked.

Destroy? Yes. A war? No...an invasion by the US which was countered by a popular struggle for independence and unification against the foreign invaders. Nice try at revisionist history...again

That assumes that it the US vs. Vietnam, and not the US supporting part of the country and the USSR supporting the other part of the country. Again, the Party line is that USSR backed and propped up Hanoi was legitimate, while USA backed and propped up Saigon was not.

[Coito ergo sum]

Also, in before the inevitable "No True Scotsman" fallacy re: communism: "There's never been a real Marxist state."

And...some will tell you that there never CAN be a real Marxist STATE, because Marxism suggests a "stateless" society. Many Marxists seem to be of the opinion that Marxism would bring about a new kind of society, stateless, where people just do everything out of a common and single sense of what is good for the society. Hard to see the flaw in that....

[Coito ergo sum]

If the Hanoi government had collapsed and the South took over the north and unified the country under Saigon, would you still be championing "the fact that the country was liberated from foreign rule'?

I seriously doubt it. Your idea of "liberation" seems to be "the communists won". Not that it could've happened at all were it not for foreign intervention (i.e. supplies from the USSR). And leave it to you to put a smilie emoticon after I point out the sheer numbers of people who risk everything to flee your preferred system of government. And guess what else? Emigration from Vietnam peaked in the late 1980s - long after the war and any excuse that it was damaged infrastructure that forced many people to leave.

But I agree that this thread is about Libya.

Oh, don't let a little thing like history interfere with your outlook. Simply because Communism has been a failure everywhere it has ever been practiced, to one degree or another, and has everywhere been forced to adopt the expedients of capitalism while "maintaining the Revolution" -- and has everywhere been forced to incarcerate political prisoners -- is no reason to think that it is inherently flawed.

Also, in before the inevitable "No True Scotsman" fallacy re: communism: "There's never been a real Marxist state."

Depends how you define "Communism". What do you mean by "flawed"?

Can you just define what you think those terms mean? You've used them yourself. Your tactic is sometimes "tell me what you mean by X" and then when someone gives you a definition you hand-wave it away and claim that the people are using the wrong definition. Let's just cut through the red tape, shall we, and just go with your definition.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can you name one North or South American tribe at the time of Columbus who were the original occupants of their land?

There were many peoples on this land long before the spanish, british, americans, french etc.

Fail.

[Coito ergo sum]

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... links.html

[sandinista]

Must be why the vast majority fled to the US....because they thought they had been destroyed by the US...makes perfect sense.

So...the US didn't destroy Vietnam? Interesting theory you've got there. Must have been bombs made of chocolate. All the unexploded bombs which exist to this day, must be harmless firecrackers as well.

Destroy? No - there was a war there, of course, and things did get blown up. But, destroy the whole country? No, of course not.

Your interesting theory that the Vietnamese resoundingly viewed the US as the "destroyer" and then thought it would be the best place to move...cuz they thought we sucked.

Destroy? Yes. A war? No...an invasion by the US which was countered by a popular struggle for independence and unification against the foreign invaders. Nice try at revisionist history...again

That assumes that it the US vs. Vietnam, and not the US supporting part of the country and the USSR supporting the other part of the country. Again, the Party line is that USSR backed and propped up Hanoi was legitimate, while USA backed and propped up Saigon was not.

Yah...the Soviet Union bombed the shit out of Vietnam. Fail. It was the US vs Vietnam. No matter how many times you want to revise history.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Soviets tooled NV like we tooled SV. Both sides were puppets.

[sandinista]

The Soviets tooled NV like we tooled SV. Both sides were puppets.

Really? The soviet union bombed SV, murdered millions of Vietnamese and sent in thousands of ground troops? Invisible Soviet technology I take it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Soviets tooled NV like we tooled SV. Both sides were puppets.

Really? The soviet union bombed SV, murdered millions of Vietnamese and sent in thousands of ground troops? Invisible Soviet technology I take it?

You really are innocent, aren't you? Totally naive and jumping up and down without a clue about whatever you can find to rant about. You're too weak to plan this game.

[sandinista]

The Soviets tooled NV like we tooled SV. Both sides were puppets.

Really? The soviet union bombed SV, murdered millions of Vietnamese and sent in thousands of ground troops? Invisible Soviet technology I take it?

You really are innocent, aren't you? Totally naive and jumping up and down without a clue about whatever you can find to rant about. You're too weak to plan this game.

Nice way to avoid the question, blah blah blah, personal attack, blah blah blah. Same old, pathetic, delusional, naive old man response.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Depends how you define "Communism". What do you mean by "flawed"?

Please let me know if English is not your native tongue. I'll work with you on it, I'm cool with it.

As far as the definition of Communism goes, I think the formula "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is workable, if inexact. Of course, there's much more to it than that. This formulation, however, is facile.

When I say that it is flawed, what I mean is that as an operating philosophy this outlook ignores a major human quality, that of ownership and possessiveness. No one likes giving up their hard-earned comforts, privileges, and perqs to another person who may well just be sandbagging his way through life. When someone's possessions are removed by force, or by the threat of force, that is theft.

[sandinista]

When I say that it is flawed, what I mean is that as an operating philosophy this outlook ignores a major human quality, that of ownership and possessiveness. No one likes giving up their hard-earned comforts, privileges, and perqs to another person who may well just be sandbagging his way through life. When someone's possessions are removed by force, or by the threat of force, that is theft.

So, you actually want to discuss something? OK. As much as you may say, "this outlook ignores a major human quality, that of ownership and possessiveness", I could say that cooperating and group solidarity are just as powerful human qualities. It's about which qualities are rewarded more than the qualities themselves. "Human nature" is not static, it evolves just like everything else. As for what "no one likes", there are a lot of things that people do that they don't particularly like or approve of. Life isn't a free for all, at least life in a community. The term "theft" is dependent on what a particular law is, "theft" can be redefined as well. Anyone could claim that any, say tax, is theft. Property itself could be considered theft.

[klr]

Meanwhile, back in Libya: As chance would have it, I came across this quote from Montgomery about Allied air support in the Western Desert:

The moral effect of air action [on the enemy] is very great and out of all proportion to the material damage inflicted. In the reverse direction, the sight and sound of our own air forces operating against the enemy have an equally satisfactory effect on our own troops. A combination of the two has a profound influence on the most important single factor in war—morale