Stating the Facts (No Brag, Just Facts!). Go America

[K Frame]

"They wouldn't have stagnated for half a century without our occupation--or, if they did, it would at least be their fault and not ours."

What an INCREDIBLE crock of crap that is.

Do you know ANYTHING about Korea?

In the partition after World War II, the contrast between the North and South was incredible.

The Communist North got virtually ALL of the Korea's industrial infrastructure, almost all of its surviving rail infrastructure, and it's largest and best ports. The south was almost totally agrarian.

What was created in the South was largely created BY South Koreans. Yes, with the financial backing and investment of the United States, but the heavy industry that developed there developed as the result of South Koreans making it happen. You don't create an economic model or infrastructure of the kind that the South Koreans have in 20 years. South Korea's economic rise, both agriculturally and industrially, was measured and progressive and started in the wake of the Korea war.

Today the contrast between the North and South is even greater than it was in 1950, when the North invaded.

Prior to the Communist invasion the United States had fewer than 500 troops in Korea, all of them non-combat advisors and trainers.

The United States NEVER occupied Korea. American troops remain there at the invitation of the South Korean government.

[Perd Hapley]

What do you want them to do, exactly?  I thought our founders were pretty adamant about the military being subject to civilian control, rather than enforcing freedom on us. 

Our founders were pretty adamant about avoiding foreign entanglements too, but that hasn't seemed to stop these asinine wars. And I wasn't talking about "enforcing" freedoms on us, those who want freedom will take it in a heartbeat (Hint Hint Iraq). Freedoms don't need to be enforced on anyone except the government. By the way, it was somewhat of a joke; I was suggesting that it would take military force to correct the injustices that our own government has perpetrated against us. "PATRIOT" Act, Military Commissions Act, etc; you know, all that ballyhoo and tomfoolery. 

Ok, yeah, I took it a little too seriously.   

[Len Budney]

"They wouldn't have stagnated for half a century without our occupation--or, if they did, it would at least be their fault and not ours."

What an INCREDIBLE crock of crap that is. Do you know ANYTHING about Korea?

I know that we made South Korea "safe for democracy," and then denied them democracy--first setting up Syngman Rhee as a puppet dictator, and then, when the Koreans overthrew him and tried to set up a democracy, helping General Park Chung Hee take Rhee's place. Following Park's assassination, we supported Major General Chun Doo Hwan's seizure of power, and in 1980 released to his command Korean troops assigned to U.N. "peacekeeping" along the North Korean border, so he could use them to crush dissent in Kwangju. It was not until 1987 that South Korea finally began achieving a measure of democracy despite the American support for one dictator after another. In 1989, the US government refused to assist in the investigation of the Kwangju massacre, for obvious reasons.

What was created in the South was largely created BY South Koreans.

Exactly! And that despite decades of the US propping up a series of dictators.

The United States NEVER occupied Korea. American troops remain there at the invitation of the South Korean government.

LOL. At the "invitation" of the puppet dictators we propped up? Do tell.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Lesser of two evils, Len. Commies are significantly worse than the puppet dictators. If you do not believe that, compare North to South Korea. Loss of three inches of average height due to malnutrition. Enough said.

It is never a perfect world and there always are people in need of expedited transit to Hades. It is part of the cost of living.

[Len Budney]

Lesser of two evils, Len. Commies are significantly worse than the puppet dictators...

I'd be considerably more impressed if the costs of that decision fell on yourself. It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when, either way, someone else is the one getting massacred.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

I'd be considerably more impressed if the costs of that decision fell on yourself. It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when, either way, someone else is the one getting massacred.

Try to be more intellectually honest. Just as I admit we should be driven by national self-interest in foreign policy, you should admit that commie regimes are by far bloodier and more murderous to their subjects than any of the petty dictators set up by US. Therefore, the installation of such in fact is in the particular country's interests as well, since the inescapable alternative would be so much worse.

Your difficulty is that if you accept the above truisms, your internationalist Libertarian position is indefensible.

[Len Budney]

I'd be considerably more impressed if the costs of that decision fell on yourself. It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when, either way, someone else is the one getting massacred.

Try to be more intellectually honest...

What's dishonest about noticing that neither a "commie" nor a US-supported dictator were going to massacre you--just a bunch of South Koreans? It's quite true.

Just as I admit we should be driven by national self-interest in foreign policy...

You appear to be claiming that preventing South Korea from having democracy for about four decades was in our national self-interest. Fascinating. Why hasn't the US government been intellectually honest about that? Perhaps because "making the world safe for US-backed puppet dictators" doesn't have quite the same ring?

...you should admit that commie regimes are by far bloodier and more murderous to their subjects than any of the petty dictators set up by US.

Than any? Including Saddam Hussein, Ferdinand Marcos, Shah Pahlevi, Augusto Pinochet, Bertrand Aristide, Idi Amin, Ngo Dinh Diem, Francois Duvalier, Manuel Noriega... (I give up, my fingers are tired)?

Nobody beats Stalin and Mao for sheer numbers, but the majority of communist dictators also don't rival Stalin or Mao. If we exclude those two from consideration, your question becomes very tough to answer. For example, Castro killed perhaps 35,000 Cubans in his purges, but Suharto killed between 300,000 and one million Indonesians. Pol Pot killed perhaps 150,000 (the figure of two-million or so often advanced includes deaths in fighting against Vietnam and other causes), but Saddam Hussein is accused of killing about 100,000 people--plus another half million in his US-backed war against Iran.

But all of that's of secondary importance: we were not fighting a defensive war in Korea, nor Vietnam, nor anywhere else. To say that the Koreans are better off because we had a hand in X thousands of deaths, whereas a "commie" would have subjected them to Y>X thousand deaths, aside from being speculative, is morally blind: it's like saying that one criminal is better than another, because he stole less, or killed fewer of his victims.

Therefore, the installation of such in fact is in the particular country's interests as well, since the inescapable alternative would be so much worse.

Sure, I'm responsible for the deaths of your family, and I was not acting in self defense--which makes me a murderer--but at least on only killed them. So-and-so would have killed even more people!

Your difficulty is that if you accept the above truisms, your internationalist Libertarian position is indefensible.

"Truisms"? What a howl.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

What's dishonest about noticing that neither a "commie" nor a US-supported dictator were going to massacre you--just a bunch of South Koreans? It's quite true.

Please. Your accusative connotation is obvious. Stop being coy about it. As I have said in other threads, I invite you to clean up and flesh out your arguments. Arguing by connotations and innuendos is best left for dishonest cowardly leftists.

You appear to be claiming that preventing South Korea from having democracy for about four decades was in our national self-interest. Fascinating. Why hasn't the US government been intellectually honest about that?

We live in a constitutional democracy. Gov cannot necessarily trumpet all its intentions and motivations, and still be effective in re-election. The direct cause is a combination of leftists and idealists who have the temerity to protest policies while enjoying their benefits.

Perhaps because "making the world safe for US-backed puppet dictators" doesn't have quite the same ring?

Substantiate. Since when is the US gov a byiatch to petty dictators? You are contradicting yourself - I thought it was the other way around.

Nobody beats Stalin and Mao for sheer numbers, but the majority of communist dictators also don't rival Stalin or Mao.

Right. Let's exclude what happened to a quarter of the landmass and population of the world, to help Len's argument. Instead, how about we compare apples with applies, e.g. N & S Korea? I am sure S Koreans would be thrilled to hear that they would have been so much better off under the Beloved Leader. Three inches of average height is a small price to pay for getting those Yankee puppets out.

To say that the Koreans are better ... is morally blind: it's like saying that one criminal is better than another, because he stole less, or killed fewer of his victims.

Since you like to deal with absolutes, I invite you to join a monastery. The rest of us have to live in the real world, where a murderer is worse than a thief, a mass-murderer is worse than a murderer, and where casualty numbers are a quantitative concept.

If you want your criticisms to be something more than whiny preaching, you have to provide workable superior alternatives.

[Len Budney]

What's dishonest about noticing that neither a "commie" nor a US-supported dictator were going to massacre you--just a bunch of South Koreans? It's quite true.

Please. Your accusative connotation is obvious...

I didn't accuse you of killing South Koreans, if that's what you're trying to say. If it's not what you're trying to say, then I have no idea what "obvious connotation" you're talking about. I meant no more nor less than what I said. You can try to justify America's support of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, despite the people he killed and raped, but you'd sound a lot more convincing if you volunteered yourself, or your wife or children, to fall victim on behalf of "America's interests."

You appear to be claiming that preventing South Korea from having democracy for about four decades was in our national self-interest. Fascinating. Why hasn't the US government been intellectually honest about that?

We live in a constitutional democracy. Gov cannot necessarily trumpet all its intentions and motivations...

You mean, government needs to lie to us for our own good? On the one hand, they need to be accessories to murderous dictators, and on the other, they need to keep it from us so we won't feel bad about it? I'm speechless, kamarad. Completely speechless.

Perhaps because "making the world safe for US-backed puppet dictators" doesn't have quite the same ring?

Substantiate. Since when is the US gov a byiatch to petty dictators? You are contradicting yourself - I thought it was the other way around.

Your sentence makes no sense.  I have never used "Snoop Dogg" slang in my life, and certainly not in this context, so I have no idea what you're saying. We've propped up dictators the world over. That's what I've said multiple times in this thread, and haven't contradicted myself. I think you've shizzled your nizzle, or something.

EDIT: I think I understand your confusion. "Making the world safe for democracy" does not mean what you seem to think--namely, in some way promoting US security by containing communism. Rather, it means giving democracy to the rest of the world. Specifically, it means that our involvement in Korea was ostensibly for the purpose of making it possible for the Koreans to have democracy--which is precisely what we didn't do. We denied them democracy, and gave them dictatorship instead. To apply Wilson's logic, therefore, we must have been fighting to "make the world safe for dictatorship." My best guess is that you're construing a false choice between "US interests" and "Rhee's interests," and then concluding that I'm suggesting that the US was acting at the behest of Rhee.

Nothing of the sort. I'm saying that we claimed to be fighting for the altruistic purpose of securing democracy for the Korean people, and instead we imposed dictatorship on the Korean people. Truman was certainly not acting under Rhee's orders. I can't say what Truman's motives were; perhaps he sincerely believed that ordering MacArthur to intervene would secure our borders--i.e, perhaps he was so retarded that he thought the North Koreans posed a threat to our borders 3,000 miles away. I do know that we weren't fighting to give democracy and freedom to the South Koreans, because Eisenhower refused to do so when he could have--and neither has any subsequent President through 1987.

To say that the Koreans are better ... is morally blind: it's like saying that one criminal is better than another, because he stole less, or killed fewer of his victims.

Since you like to deal with absolutes, I invite you to join a monastery. The rest of us have to...

"Absolutely" condemning rape, say, makes one a kook. Sometimes in the real world we rape people. Deal with it. Don't like raping people? Go live in a cave or something, freak!

BTW, I'd ask you to prove that we "needed" to prop up Rhee, instead of allowing the South Koreans to set up a democracy, but it'd be a waste of my time. You'll reply with the usual platitudes about the "real world," wrap yourself twice in the flag, and ultimately evade the question. We didn't need to; it was completely irrelevant to the security of our borders; it served no legitimate defensive purpose; it was in no way beneficial to the Koreans themselves (assuming arguendam that it would be a justification if it were); and was utterly immoral. And if you even tried to engage the facts, you'd have to admit it. Thus responses like your "monastery" crack.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

I didn't accuse you of killing South Koreans, if that's what you're trying to say. If it's not what you're trying to say, then I have no idea what "obvious connotation" you're talking about. I meant no more nor less than what I said. You can try to justify America's support of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, despite the people he killed and raped, but you'd sound a lot more convincing if you volunteered yourself, or your wife or children, to fall victim on behalf of "America's interests."

You are insinuating that US policies buy US security at the expense of the locals. As explained, that is not so, because without US involvement, the respective countries would have suffered much worse.

You mean, government needs to lie to us for our own good? On the one hand, they need to be accessories to murderous dictators, and on the other, they need to keep it from us so we won't feel bad about it? I'm speechless, kamarad. Completely speechless.

That is how it ends up working at least in some cases. Feel free to be speechless about it.

Your sentence makes no sense. 

You claim that US sets up puppets to do its bidding. Then you say US acts to make the world safe for puppet dictators, suggesting that the puppets are in charge. Which is it?
 

I'm saying that we claimed to be fighting for the altruistic purpose of securing democracy for the Korean people, and instead we imposed dictatorship on the Korean people.

The two motivations are not mutually exclusive. That the more altruistic one is emphasized is simply salesmanship. In the long run, democracy and Korea were better served by the military rule than the commie alternative. I do not believe S Korea would have survived without tough measures against indigenous commies, measures that would not have been possible under democracy. You are free to dislike it, but that's the reality.

"Absolutely" condemning rape, say, makes one a kook. Sometimes in the real world we rape people. Deal with it. Don't like raping people? Go live in a cave or something, freak!

There we go again with the rape analogies.  Whether you like it or not, life is a competition, a struggle in many ways. It seems you think any motivations other than purely altruistic ones is rape. 

it was completely irrelevant to the security of our borders; it served no legitimate defensive purpose;

The global spread of communism was irrelevant to US national security??? 

[Bogie]

I think we kinda "paid for" the IG Farben complex on June 6, 1944...

[Bogie]

Oh, and it isn't about communist/capitalist...
 
It's about who is likely to cause the greatest harm to US.

Yeah, I'm greedy.

I'd rather have a sonovabitch in power in some other country, as long as he's not going to cause harm to my nephew and the kids who are gonna be my stepmonsters (sigh...), than have a Really Nice Guy in there who is going to hurt them... Because, when it all boils down, a lot of the "communist" governments have succeeded in killing a LOT more folks than the outfits sponsored by the US...
 
Now refute that.
 

[Finch]

Now refute that.

Ok...

IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY, NOR DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY, TO SCREW AROUND IN OTHER PEOPLES NATIONS!!!!

Hmph!

[Len Budney]

I didn't accuse you of killing South Koreans, if that's what you're trying to say. If it's not what you're trying to say, then I have no idea what "obvious connotation" you're talking about. I meant no more nor less than what I said. You can try to justify America's support of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, despite the people he killed and raped, but you'd sound a lot more convincing if you volunteered yourself, or your wife or children, to fall victim on behalf of "America's interests."

You are insinuating that US policies buy US security at the expense of the locals.

Definitely not: no security whatsoever was "bought."

As explained, that is not so, because without US involvement, the respective countries would have suffered much worse.

An unprovable statement, which doesn't justify aggressive war or murder.

You mean, government needs to lie to us for our own good? On the one hand, they need to be accessories to murderous dictators, and on the other, they need to keep it from us so we won't feel bad about it? I'm speechless, kamarad. Completely speechless.

That is how it ends up working at least in some cases. Feel free to be speechless about it.

Sigh. That's what I was afraid of. Jefferson would have spit in your eye.

"Absolutely" condemning rape, say, makes one a kook. Sometimes in the real world we rape people. Deal with it. Don't like raping people? Go live in a cave or something, freak!

There we go again with the rape analogies...

You condemned my "absolutism." I just proved that there are absolutes, and you're annoyed about it.

it was completely irrelevant to the security of our borders; it served no legitimate defensive purpose;

The global spread of communism was irrelevant to US national security??? 

Yup, exactly what I predicted you'd do. Instead of proving that the US was threatened by a bunch of Koreans singing the Internationale, you assume it and feign incredulity.

The US was not in any danger whatsoever from North Korea, and was not acting in self-defense when she intervened.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

I'd rather have a sonovabitch in power in some other country, as long as he's not going to cause harm to my nephew and the kids who are gonna be my stepmonsters (sigh...), than have a Really Nice Guy in there who is going to hurt them... Now refute that.

It's impossible to refute an unprovable statement. But since you're the one advocating intervention, the burden of proof is on you to show that North Korea was "going to hurt your nephew." You're suggesting that North Korea was going to invade the US; go ahead and prove it. But I must say you've got your work cut out for you. All in all, it's a pretty crazy thing to be afraid of.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

no security whatsoever was "bought."

Military budgets across the globe say otherwise, but apparently not to Len. Also, are we to infer that you stole your guns or that you don't pay taxes?

An unprovable statement, which doesn't justify aggressive war or murder.

If comparative analysis is not a viable tool for you, exactly how do you proceed in daily life? Do you stick your hand in a boiling pot of water? After all, without comparative analysis, there is no way to know your hand will get burned UNTIL AFTER you burn it.

Sigh. That's what I was afraid of. Jefferson would have spit in your eye.

By your own professed values, Jefferson would then be an aggressor, and your values would entitle me to shoot him in the face. Repeatedly.

You condemned my "absolutism." I just proved that there are absolutes, and you're annoyed about it.

If you recognized your impractical idealism as unworkable in the real world, I would not have a problem with it. But, you have the gall to criticize, insult, and insinuate when being unable to provide viable alternatives yourself.  I do find such behavior annoying.

Yup, exactly what I predicted you'd do. Instead of proving that the US was threatened by a bunch of Koreans singing the Internationale, you assume it and feign incredulity. The US was not in any danger whatsoever from North Korea, and was not acting in self-defense when she intervened.

"My vas pohoronim!" Nikita Khruschev

[Len Budney]

no security whatsoever was "bought."

Military budgets across the globe say otherwise, but apparently not to Len. Also, are we to infer that you stole your guns or that you don't pay taxes?

You aren't making a shred of sense. You might be making some sort of ass-backward argumentum ad vercundiam, but I can't tell since you don't actually express a complete thought.

Sigh. That's what I was afraid of. Jefferson would have spit in your eye.

By your own professed values, Jefferson would then be an aggressor, and your values would entitle me to shoot him in the face. Repeatedly.

Crummy satire: I never prescribed lethal force as retaliation for a misdemeanor. You're right; he can't spit in your eye for taking the contemptible stance you did--but I must admit I'd understand.

You condemned my "absolutism." I just proved that there are absolutes, and you're annoyed about it.

If you recognized your impractical idealism as unworkable in the real world...

Yawn. Once again you make vague, meaningless statements. Is it "impractical idealism," for example, to state that rape is absolutely a crime? You're mad when I cite it as an example, which suggests that you realize that it's perfectly legitimate to be an "anti-rape absolutist." But the rest of the time you toss around the word "idealism" as if it proved something.

But, you have the gall to criticize, insult, and insinuate when being unable to provide viable alternatives yourself...

I don't have to give you an alternative to rape. You can't do it, period. If you can't think of any "alternatives," that's really your problem. I could suggest that you ask any twelve-year-old boy ever born what he does to vent his hormones, I suppose--but I'm under no obligation in that regard.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

You aren't making a shred of sense. You might be making some sort of ass-backward argumentum ad vercundiam, but I can't tell since you don't actually express a complete thought.

We have to spell it out for you. Very well. If indeed security were never bought, but your guns are security, then you never bought your guns, so have you stolen them? Countries have military budgets to buy security in force of arms. You seem to think that is not the case. If you pay your taxes, some of them go to maintain law enforcement, which provides some security. If you never bought security, you must not have paid your taxes.

Crummy satire: I never prescribed lethal force as retaliation for a misdemeanor. You're right; he can't spit in your eye for taking the contemptible stance you did--but I must admit I'd understand.

The "crummyness" is in the impracticalities and inconsistencies in your worldview.

Yawn. Once again you make vague, meaningless statements. Is it "impractical idealism," for example, to state that rape is absolutely a crime? You're mad when I cite it as an example, which suggests that you realize that it's perfectly legitimate to be an "anti-rape absolutist." But the rest of the time you toss around the word "idealism" as if it proved something.

We were not talking about rape, but politics. Whenever pressed, you always change the subject and lob a moralistic stinkbomb to force everybody to run for cover. That is your modus operandi. But, nobody is fooled. The world of politics has a lot of relativity to it, and the analogies you try to draw do not hold.

I don't have to give you an alternative to rape. You can't do it, period. If you can't think of any "alternatives," that's really your problem. I could suggest that you ask any twelve-year-old boy ever born what he does to vent his hormones, I suppose--but I'm under no obligation in that regard.

Again, we were not talking about rape, but that does seem to be your favorite subject. We are left to wonder why.

[Bogie]

I don't think we should be the world's police force, but at the same time, I think that we need to keep any conflicts OFF our shores... Which means we need to be other places.

[Len Budney]

We have to spell it out for you. Very well. If indeed security were never bought, but your guns are security, then you never bought your guns...

Wow are you drifting around aimlessly! You spoke specifically of the Korean War, and said that I suggested that in the Korean War, we bought security at the expense of victimizing some Koreans. I replied that in Korea the US did indeed victimize Koreans, but in no way did any of this secure the United States. We killed a bunch of little yellow people for no reason whatsoever, and we in no way benefited from doing so.

Does that resolve your confusion?

The "crummyness" is in the impracticalities and inconsistencies in your worldview.

I challenge you to point out an inconsistency. Don't hold your breath while you look.

We were not talking about rape, but politics...

Properly speaking, we're talking about deceased Koreans. "Politics" is an abstraction, and you switch to it from literal dead Koreans because it allows you to sanction murder without appearing to sanction murder. We murdered Koreans. You claim that this made the US borders safer. You don't even try to prove it--you just lob around a few sound-bytes.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

I don't think we should be the world's police force, but at the same time, I think that we need to keep any conflicts OFF our shores... Which means we need to be other places.

There are practical problems with that statement, as pertains to things like invading Iraq or garrisoning North Korea. But in general, keeping conflicts off our shores isn't hard: when the North Koreans do decide to invade us, they've got a good chunk of the Pacific to cross. When their navy makes a beeline for our shores, you have my blessing to sink the lot of 'em. Likewise, when the Iraqis come invading, they've either got to march across Asia or Europe, or launch their navy out the Persian gulf. If they pick the former, the Russians, Chinese and/or Europeans will fight them, saving us a lot of trouble, and we can mop up the ones who make it anywhere near the US. If the latter, once again you have my blessing to sink the bloody lot.

If Brazil decide to come take over, you can either engage them down near Panama, or destroy their navy en route. If Cuba, then obviously they're coming by sea, and I once again bless you as you sink their navy.

The only two countries you could even TRY to justify preemptively invading are Canada and Mexico.

But that's assuming that any of those nations intends to invade the United States--i.e., assuming that their leaders are crazy enough to launch a suicidal invasion, that their soldiers are stupid or suicidal enough to obey those orders, and the citizens are stupid enough to take it lying down, knowing that fierce retaliation is in store. I repeat, that's a pretty crazy thing to lose sleep over at night.

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

Wow are you drifting around aimlessly! You spoke specifically of the Korean War, and said that I suggested that in the Korean War, we bought security at the expense of victimizing some Koreans. I replied that in Korea the US did indeed victimize Koreans, but in no way did any of this secure the United States. We killed a bunch of little yellow people for no reason whatsoever, and we in no way benefited from doing so.

As stated, your statement was ridiculous.

I challenge you to point out an inconsistency. Don't hold your breath while you look.

I can produce one in a NY second. You bitch and moan about US foreign policies, yet those are the policies that helped curb the spread of communism and ultimately won the Cold War. If things had gone the way you recommend in your sermons, you likely would not be around now to make them.

To be taken seriously, you have to produce viable alternatives that outperform the default. If you cannot, what you say is useless in terms of policy-making. That is a point that you continuously and stubbornly ignore, so there is really no point for me to keep repeating it.

Properly speaking, we're talking about deceased Koreans. "Politics" is an abstraction, and you switch to it from literal dead Koreans because it allows you to sanction murder without appearing to sanction murder. We murdered Koreans. You claim that this made the US borders safer. You don't even try to prove it--you just lob around a few sound-bytes.

Incorrect. We are talking about policies and policy-making. You are unhappy with a few dead foreigners and the policies which you blame them on, but ignore that many more foreigners and likely Americans would have been dead otherwise, under alternative policies you espouse.

I have provided plenty of logic and proof. You do not believe in predictions based on comparative analysis in this case, but you still refuse to stick your hand in boiling water or jump from a tower. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

Anyway, it is clear to me we are not getting anywhere with this. Feel free to whine all you wish; you have the luxury to do so.

[Len Budney]

I can produce one in a NY second. You bitch and moan about US foreign policies, yet those are the policies that helped curb the spread of communism and ultimately won the Cold War. If things had gone the way you recommend in your sermons, you likely would not be around now to make them.

Um, that's not a contradiction in my position. Nor is it remotely proven--yet again, you make random assertions and casually mistake them for facts.

I have provided plenty of logic and proof.

Only if "plenty" is Swedish for "none." Among the "logic and proof" I just deleted was the casual assertion that if we hadn't intervened in Korea, I (and presumably, everyone else in America) would "not be here." Talk about delusional.

--Len.