Not Understanding The Liberal Perspective.

Discussion in 'History' started by PoliticalChic, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,767
    Thanks Received:
    15,646
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,945
    1. From ’70-’73, North Vietnamese forces and Khmer Rouge fought and won against US-supported Cambodians. “Lon Nol's troops quickly fell apart from lack of supplies, lack of support, and lack of leadership.” Before the Holocaust: The End of Cambodia

    2. The weakness of Nixon due to the Watergate scandal allowed the Left-Wing Democrats to destroy any hope of either the United States living up to its commitments in South Vietnam, or of even allowing the aid that would have allowed the South to defend itself. Starting with the 1974 budget, they refused to allocate another penny, and forbade US military action “in or over” Indochina.

    3. The record of Communist states massacring large numbers of their own people is well documented. Starting with the Soviet Union, which pioneered the terror-famine, mass deportations, concentration camps and mass executions, Stalin murdered up to 20 million. Under Mao Tse-Tung, an estimated 65 million Chinese were killed by execution, torture, and starvation. Vietnam, over a million. North Korea, about two million. Courtois, et.al., "The Black Book of Communism," p.4.

    4. Yet, on this very day, in 1975, Anthony Lewis wrote this in the NYTimes: : “Some will find the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening in Cambodia now?”
    (emphasis mine)

    Yes, the casualties were in the thousands, and, yes, the communists were winning, and we had agreed to the peace treaty.
    But for the left to claim that they had no idea what was going to happen....

    I don't understand the liberal perspective.


    5. Starting in April ’75, the Communist Khmer Rouge defeated Lon Nol in Cambodia. Democrats, starting with the 1974 budget, refused to allocate another penny, and forbade US military action “in or over” Indochina. Just as the right had warned, the communists began a systematic war on the entire populations of their nation, so savage, it is hard to comprehend. It is estimated that the number of dead numbered between 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million. The Killing Fields - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    "What future possibility could be more terrible..."March 17, 1975.[/B]

    BTW, the Washington Post, pretty much the same:"The threatened 'bloodbath' is less ominous than a continuation of the current bloodletting."
    VISION & VALUES: Useful Idiots: Then and Now « The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College

    And the LATimes urged the cutoff of funds to the Lon Nol government "for the good of the suffering Cambodian people..."Peter Rodman, “More Precious Than Peace: Fighting and Winning the Cold War in the Third World,” p.186.

    Didn't they know?

    Shouldn't they have known?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    For a brief time the Nixon administration supported the Khmer Rouge and it was the Vietnamese that finally wrested Cambodia from their control.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Mr.Fitnah
    Offline

    Mr.Fitnah Dreamcrusher

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Thanks Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paradise.
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    More habitual unsupported dialogue .:doubt:
     
  4. geauxtohell
    Offline

    geauxtohell Choose your weapon.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    15,125
    Thanks Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Out here in the middle.
    Ratings:
    +2,155
    "Liberal Perspective" on what?

    I love how the Conservatives chalk every failure of the six plus years of the Nixon Administration to Nixon being "crippled by Watergate".

    Besides being hilarious, if Nixon didn't want to be crippled by Watergate, he shouldn't have been a party to illegal activity.

    I swear, Ann Coulter's next book will be a history-rewrite to exonerate Nixon. Just as she did with "Tailgunner Joe"

    She's quite the comedian.
     
  5. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Google is your friend too.

    You might want to also find the conversation between Nixon and Kissinger where Nixon says he wants to blow the dikes in Vietnam to kill a quarter million people. And strangely enough it was Kissinger that advises against it..stating that it would turn the whole world against us. Nixon is quoted saying, "You gotta think big, Henry!"

    You may also wanna check out that the Viet Mihn were the allies of the United States during WWII. And how one of Ho Chi Mihn's hero's was Thomas Jefferson.

    Or..that Eisenhower recognized that..if a fair election were held in Vietnam..Mihn would have won fair and square.

    Americans are quick to blame everyone else for the deaths of millions..but unable to accept blame when it was this country that caused the deaths of millions.
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,767
    Thanks Received:
    15,646
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,945
    Let me try to bring the debate back to it's proper venue.

    The OP is not about Nixon.

    Rather, it is about how the Left has besmirched the name and reputation of the United States by actions which directly resulted in the slaughter of almost two million Cambodians in multiple horrifying ways.

    I'm not arguing that we should have continued the war, nor that the communists would not have won at that place and time, but rather that the liberal opinion makers should have known what was going to happen, and therefore lied to the American public and showed a willful disregard for the lives of people, many of whom were allies of the United States.

    The OP gives the NYTimes, the LATimes and the Washington Post as examples.

    Surely you agree that they were and they are the house organs of the liberal establishment.

    Nor, I am sure, would anyone cognizant of the history of the last century be unaware of the
    horrific results of communist victories, communist governments.

    Don't you think the Democrat politicians should have made allowances to at least slow the mayhem?
    Did you know that when the Pentagon’s accountants tried to use a couple of hundred million dollars of unused appropriations left over from 1972 and 1973 to aid the South, Ted Kennedy organized Senators, 43-38, to forbid the expenditure. David Frum, “How We Got Here,” p. 305.
    Not troops, not even air strikes....just the funds that had already been allocated.
    And by not slowing down the North Vietnamese, it allowed them to join with the Khmer Rouge to crush Lon Nol?

    The Left wanted the communists to win, and they got their way.

    Perhaps things might have been different if political talk radio, and Fox News had been around at that time.
     
  7. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Asking about the liberal perspective implies that they have one, and that it connects with the world the rest of us live in, they don't. What they have is a belief that the world is a place where intentions count more than results, and where the only reason their ideas did not work in the past is that the people doing them lacked intelligence, resolve, and the power they needed to implement them. That is why they prefer to impose their agenda through fiat rahter than attempt to explain the pros and cons of their position, everyone else is too stupid to understand them. Yet they think that people who accept the existence of God are deluded.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    You apparently fail to understand the Nixon perspective, the law did not apply to him.
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,767
    Thanks Received:
    15,646
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,945
    1. "...the world is a place where intentions count more than results,..."
    I don't think we can say that, Q, as it denies the the Left the accomplishments of the communist victory in Vietnam, the conquest of large segments of public opinion and the success of taking the White House in '08.

    2. "...the only reason their ideas did not work in the past is that the people doing them lacked intelligence, resolve, and the power they needed to implement them."
    Yes, I see your point.
    Totalitarianism is brilliant... the subjugated...er, governed, must be the reason that the Soviet Union didn't last....

    But, in the case of the Khmer Rouge savages, it was the North Vietmanese savages that defeated them....serendipity, I guess.

    It will be interesting to see how the Left, most historians are of the Left, will write about the downfall of the Obammunists.

    Don't be surprised if they plagurize your line "...the people doing them lacked intelligence, resolve, and the power they needed to implement them."


    3. "...they prefer to impose their agenda through fiat rahter than attempt to explain the pros and cons of their position,..."
    Now, I have to quibble with you on this one, Q.
    There is an element of totalism that resonates with human nature for many folks, either because they are too busy with the permutations of their daily existence, or perhaps they are coacetic with having someone else take care of them...

    But I must admit that, once they reach a certain plateau of power...yes, fiat and force.

    Tocqueville wrote about that aspect back in the 19th century. He said that statism offered to take care of all wants and needs, if you merely allow the masters to make all the decisions.

    Writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, he described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

    4. But, to relate this to the OP, when they controlled all media, they simpley lied.
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    I must admit that I did give the impression that I believe only liberals are totalitarian. On the other hand, everyone expects conservatives to be totalitarian, even me. What upsets me about liberals doing it is that they betray their roots when they do so. Don't they realize that liberal is supposed to be the party of individual freedoms, not state control? It offends me that advocates of statism call themselves liberals.
     

Share This Page