1. The war in Vietnam was a hybrid of both non conventional and conventional. Added to the usual Counter Insurgency problems was the need to operate against full regiments and divisions of North Vietnamese regulars, trained and equipped to current Soviet standards.

2. The presence of a number of Soviet “advisers” in North Vietnam that always equaled or exceeded the number of US personnel in South Vietnam.

Our left understands how terrible we can be, they just do not see the righteousness of it. Blind men also do not play pool, but timidly speak of logic or other non-contact sports which they may compete on some sort of level field, given their crippled nature, though, if then. Certainly, they never speak against an enemy who would have no compulsion against pulling their teeth out or cutting out their tongue… or worse. Best save their greatest insults for the only ones who might save them, in hopes that as a bee sting might, their tongues might enrage their real heroes enough to smite their real foes, despite the twistedness of their blighted tongues.

Jane Fonda, such a fine memory. I honestly hope I never meet her anywhere, though not truly. A pseudo hero of mine suggests what to do with the rude. I am not so elegant, being a creature with a simple if amazing nature. Jane, her entourage, state or private, would not be ready. I would be surprised if the last of them even saw me for what I am, death. Oh well.

Sure, the lefties dismiss it as a cartoonish, ham handed effort to demonize the ‘enemy’, because they just can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that people do such heinous things (unless of course they are U.S. military personnel). Funny that a John Wayne movie should be closer to the truth than the nightly news reports…

Fiendish bastards!

Ahhh, via what channel?

….The Press?

Certainly their handling of the media appears to have been rather lame and boneheaded, but if there was an effort to get the Truth out, then I’d suspect that it would not have had much effect in getting past the media’s filtration of such data — any more than news of The Surge has made it past the media in this era.

That’s like this moron I went off on a while back (not here, elsewhere):
=====
> When will the religious right in this country sit up and take notice of the fact that they resemble in almost mirror-like fashion the jihadist religious extremists in the Mideast?

Oh, come ON. Do you realize what an abysmally ignorant ASS you sound like?
=====
It went on from there, as I listed off a litany of blatant differences, involving responses to hot-button issues, etc.

Easy to run, hard to fight.

Jane Moonbat Fonda, John F***Face Kerry and Noam Chomsky, to name but a few cockroaches I dream of meeting on a dark jungle trail, jumped right on the media whore bandwagon. Thanks again.

Not much outcry about the millions killed in the ensuing genocide brought to us by those charming “freedom fighters” either. Police states are all the rage…right? Blood on your rotten leftist souls (again).

I think I have PTSD because I keep flashing back and worrying that I maybe could have killed more communists. Well…sadly, no do overs allowed.

gm

I used to be rather critical of the conservative realist view that one should be very reluctant to get involved in foreign wars, even if they seem noble … but after Iraq I have a renewed sense of respect for conservative realism (as opposed to neoconservative interventionism, which overturns most of what used to be conservative foreign policy thinking). I am reminded of this statement by John Quincy Adams:

http://www.fff.org/comment/AdamsPolicy.asp

[quote]

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

[end quote]

Johnson had to first convince himself that civilian casualties couldn’t be avoided due to enemy tactics, before he could go and try to tell the Americans that. As it turned out, Johnson thought he could command the Vietnamese and his own military to “lower casualties”, which is what he did. He lowered the casualties for enemy forces to the point where getting devastated at Tet did not do anything negative to the strategic position of the North Vietnamese.

In the South, meanwhile, enemy terrorism and the rocketing and shelling of cities ensured a high civilian death toll.

This is what happens when you think you can win wars on the defensive. The leaders get a pass and survive, while the people at the bottom get crapped and bombed. That’s how it goes. The S Vietnamese weren’t Johnson’s constituents, so tough luck for them. Democrats don’t care for you unless you can vote them into power.

The process reminds me of the way in which the Iraqi people, even Sunnis, have turned on al Qaeda in the last year after experiencing al Qaeda’s bloodthirsty viciousness for themselves.

And it also is a reminder of what some folks said in relation to how it is inevitable that the civilians in Iraq would turn against AQ’s brutality. There is nothing inevitable to it, if only because no matter what the S Vietnamese civilians wanted, the tanks could still crush them undertracks.

You can’t turn against terrorists when you have been cut off at the knees, you know.

But I think the main argument against Vietnam-Mitsu

Are you focused on winning a debate or talking about an actual war that was fought and lost by real people?

What was at issue was the domino theory

What was at issue was the fact that people didn’t care if women and children died so long as they could win political points for anti-war organizations and Leftist activists.

You could talk about the domino theory all you want, Mitsu, but it won’t suddenly make killers residing in the US into saints. Nor will it get rid of people who break laws and sacrifice American patriots for political, economic, and social gains.

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty.

The difference is that you think liberty ends and begins wherever you are, Mitsu: that it doesn’t really matter whether people in Arabia, Africa, China, or Europe have liberty if them having liberty requires America to control foreign territories and invade foreign governments.

That’s the glory you see. Stay here and play it safe; don’t even talk about or make a big deal about foreign and domestic enemies.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

You don’t have the excuses of the America’s ancestors. You are part of a nation with a overabundance of power and influence, not a small nation that must husband its resources because every bit is going towards self-survival and self-sufficiency.

You think you can still act like a miser, Mitsu, with trillions in socialized welfare programs behind you and billions spent on defense in front of you. That’s completely invalid in today’s circumstances.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

Does it really matter what happens to foreigners like Arabs or the Vietnamese, when liberty and justice is only for people like you, Mitsu?

That’s kind of obvious given that the Democrats were in control for most of the Cold War, with various foreign entanglements like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Bay of Pigs. Now when it is the Republicans trying use America’s forces for self-defense, suddenly you’re now supporting isolationism.

Ymarsakar, I hesistate to reply to you since I find your arguments in general quite scattered, and I really am only interested in commenting for Neo, not really you. However, I have to say this is one of the most illogical things you’ve posted in a while. First, you deride me for saying that we probably shouldn’t have been involved in Vietnam, for realist reasons, and then you say that Democrats got us involved in a “foreign entanglement” in Vietnam. Which is it? Was Vietnam a bad idea or a good idea? You seem to be only interested in attacking anything I say, regardless of what it is.

I *am* critical of Vietnam, even though it was instigated by Democrats — just as I was supportive of the first Gulf War and the Afghan war, though they were instigated by Republicans. I was also supportive of the Kosovo operation, instigated by Democrats.

I am not saying that I agree with realists entirely — I am saying I now appreciate their wisdom more than I did in the past. What I AM saying is that conservative realists tended to argue in favor of propping up foreign dictators (like Saddam Hussein) if it was in our national interest, regardless of how ruthless they were. I felt it made more sense to try to resist them, if possible, through covert action. I never believed that we should go around trying to invade every country controlled by dictators in the world — which seems to be implied by your derisive comments above. The idea that we ought to overthrow every dictator through invasion is something that is utterly ridiculous.

Just think about this, galensmark: do YOU think we ought to invade and overthrow every dictator in the world? Every repressive regime? I can give you a big long list and we’ll fax it to the DOD and I’m sure they’ll start drawing up plans.

Sorry, can’t even begin to supply links for contemporary news coverage - but if a 13-year old SoCal school-kid could know of it immediatly afterwards, then it must have been reported… but I remember realizing that the outrage over SE Asian war atrocities was extremely selective. A hundred or so South Vietnamese murdered by American troops was worth thousands of pages more of news coverage and commentary than 3,000 South Vietnamese murdered by the Viet Cong/North Vietnamese.

And so I’m also assuming that the story was covered sparsely, and not headlined and underlined and reiterated. That’s why I’m curious to see contemporaneous coverage—what page was it on? How far down in the story? How often were such things mentioned?

No, the press does not get a free ride. However, it should not receive all the blame, all alone. Like two teens caught on the couch in a midnight kiss and don’t tell, there are two tangling hereabouts. And though I grumble, I only make sure they know that I know, I do not quite think it is time to go down there and sort things out. It might have gone too far, it might go too far, but for now, a grumble will suffice.

OK. Mitsu. Like what kind of ‘covert action’?

Ninjas like Bill Clinton wanted to use on Al Qaeda?

When did you attend the JFK Special Warfare School at FT Bragg? I heard it’s a tough course: is this where you learned all about ‘covert action’?

I think a more contemporary question might be “Where are the stories of our troops heroism in Iraq and Afghanistan in today’s media?”

Very nicely put.

Either MItsu or Chris views Vietnam as a civil war, essentially an internal dispute, that they want to armchair and second guess in relation to whether the US should have been there in the first place.

They don’t mention it because it really matters little to none to them. The myth of America the invulnerable is so large that it prevents people, on purpose, from acquiring a correct analysis of enemy resources, logistics, and capabilities. They are too confident, like French aristocrats, that tactical problems can be solved with simple and repetitious solutions like “charge”. And if it doesn’t work, “charge” again.

This would also apply to whatever covert action Mitsu would have been willing to approve from the armchair seat. He could do more but the lives of professionals are much easier to expend than more numerous lives that would appear on the news. The ability for the press to tailor national security policies so that the people authorizing policies feel more inclined to the press’ sentiments instead of to the security of American civilians at risk at home and American military professionals at risk overseas, is one of the problems people on the Left simply ignore.

Mitsu,

First, you deride me for saying that we probably shouldn’t have been involved in Vietnam

I deride you for believing in things that are not only false, but that are inconsistent with your other beliefs. For example, to divert attention from the media’s crimes against humanity, you start mouthing off about how the media is an equal opportunity killer for “both sides”. To divert attention from the real people that went dead during Vietnam, you start talking about “probably shouldn’t have been involved in Vietnam” in the first place.

This tells you little, perhaps, but it tells us much.

then you say that Democrats got us involved in a “foreign entanglement” in Vietnam. Which is it?

You really need to start reading the quotes, of yours, that I am responding to. Does your own words tire you that much?

To sum things up so you don’t get confused by the tracks skipping in your head, Mitsu, you were against realism when the Democrats were in power and had foreign entanglements. Now you are “for realism” when Republicans have gone into Iraq. What this means is that you are not an equal opportunity fence sitter, you go whereever fake liberals go. You are for progressives, and whatever “agreements” you have with the right is relegated only to the paleo-conservative and isolationist groups that found common cause with the Klu Klux Klan back when the South had a Democrat majority. Some of that shifted over to the right when the South abandoned the failed policies of the Democrats. This might be tentatively called Ron Paulism, although the connections are only ideological in terms of the need to be isolationist and populist.

You seem to be only interested in attacking anything I say, regardless of what it is.

You have to read what you have been saying before you know what I’m going up against.

just as I was supportive of the first Gulf War and the Afghan war, though they were instigated by Republicans.

The reiteration analysis is that you only supported those wars because you were for those wars. You don’t support wars because of Republicans or Democrats, you support Republicans or Democrats based upon whether they are doing what you want them to do. There’s nothing high minded about it. “Realism” is just an excuse you use to explain why some wars you support and others you don’t.

Your support for the first Gulf War is invalid because you’re running Limited War scenarios that could only be handled by UN Resolutions, sanctions that nobody obeyed, and other things of an international looting and corruption bend that you are for and I am not. The problem with your support for the Afghan war is that you are trying to collapse the Iraqi front, which will divert Iran’s attention back to Afghanistan and redivert all the terrorists going from Pakistan to Iraq, to Afghanistan. I don’t know how you think you “support a war” by trying to get more people in the war zone killed, but perhaps it has a weird sort of logic to your way of conducting warfare. The overall arching goal of breaking terrorist networks can be done in Afghanistan or Iraq. You want it to be in Afghanistan not because of a valid strategic reason but because that’s just your personal beef with things as they are. There’s no particular strategic argument to be had here.

I never believed that we should go around trying to invade every country controlled by dictators in the world — which seems to be implied by your derisive comments above.

My derisive comments above imply that you will go with whatever belief seems convenient to you. What you actually stated is that we should not go around trying to invade every country controlled by dictators even if we could and could succede. You don’t think we will succede or even that we could even make the attempt for long, which is a different thing entirely.

Your outlook on reality is totally different, Mitsu. From that, all else follows concerning your beliefs, which are derided and looked down upon by me. Since you refuse to argue your basic philosophical assumptions, Mitsu, I have no choice but to undermine your “beliefs”, as if your beliefs actually mattered.

The idea that we ought to overthrow every dictator through invasion is something that is utterly ridiculous.

Which is why you chose to argue it. Your beliefs are ridiculous but if you make an argument about it, I guess to you it gains credibility. You don’t want to argue about the basic preconceptions, prejudices, and assumptions you have made about Iraq and Afghanistan, so you lump the topic into something about conservatives and neo-conservatives wanting to “overthrow every dictator”.

Get back to the real world, Mitsu, with real people dying in real wars called Vietnam, OIF, and OEF. Those things happened. Your hypotheticals and what if scenarios played from the armchair didn’t and won’t happen.

You’re not even monday quarterbacking a decision already made. You’re making stuff up as you go along concerning decisions nobody has made. Decisions like ‘invading all countries with dictators”. In case you hadn’t notice, that is a decision nobody has made and nobody has even thought about making. A little thing of being concerned with the real day events with real people and their problems.

I can give you a big long list and we’ll fax it to the DOD and I’m sure they’ll start drawing up plans.

The DOD already has plans to military attack or defend against a majority of countries on the planet, the ones with military presences at least. Did you just forget that for some reason, Mitsu, due to the fact that you wanted to make a point?

The mistaken notion that human nature can be overcome by force of will and the perfect society can be acheived.

So there is nothing about religion per se that makes it any more or less prone toward these things than any -ism. It’s an ideology that disregards human nature and not religion that is the problem. Some religions have these ideologies.. and some of those ideologies do not have religion.

The single unbroken and universal similarity is that humans are involved when things go bad. That means humans are bad. Humans must be eliminated, then the world will be nice.

Kinda like what the newest branches of neo-communism teach in the more perverse renditions of moronic ecoism.

Indeed how callous! And to think, the audacity of our very own government in locating gigantic naval stations right in the midst of major cities, or giant AFBs located in urban areas where they are ripe for bombardment, either nuclear or otherwise.

The process reminds me of the way in which the Iraqi people, even Sunnis, have turned on al Qaeda in the last year after experiencing al Qaeda’s bloodthirsty viciousness for themselves.

Oh, now lets not go analogizing too much here. Whereas the people of S. Vietnam may have been a wee bit surprised by the ferocity of the North Vietnamese, they were not making a calculated move to shift their allegiances for political gain. Who would they turn to? Their own government? Us? No, rather they found themselves between a rock and a hard place; a North Vietnam intent to win, and a corrupt South Vietnamese puppet government.

Could Seymour Hersh’s editors, in their coverage of My Lai, have possibly spared a little ink for some photos of those North Vietnamese atrocities? And, if so, why not?

Or perhaps because it’s a story if our soldiers massacre civilians, whereas it’s no story if theirs do because they’re barbaric enemies and our soldiers are just good ol’ boys trying to be good soldiers. You fail to note, it’s usually the propagandist who play up the massacres by the other side.

X shows that so long as Americans and foreigners die, and not people he values, the US Constitution will always be a document that sacrifices other lives for Xan here.

nyomythus overstates the point about religion because it is not as if one could get rid of religion, which is simply belief. People have to believe in something, and other people can manipulate that belief whether you call it religion or anything else. The particular point that “religion” is more perfectly suited to controlling the masses and introducing totalitarianism, is invalid. Anything that is organized, like Alinsky mentioned, can control the masses easier than an unorganized effort. Religion isn’t the source of the problem.

When you become blinded by anti-religion sentiments, you are not looking at the big picture. Which is that revolutionaries will use any belief system and any organization of the masses to gain power. Focus just on religion and they will beat you, guaranteed.

That’s exactly what religion does, disregards human nature, particularly the nature of our dignity, religion says we are born sick and commanded to be better. Religion says human beings didn’t know it wasn’t OK to murder and steal, until some burning bush revealed to a roaming goat herder that those things weren’t kosher after all. Religion says we are born in the image of the divine, but not until a little genital cutting is done to infant males and females. Religion says that you can have paradise if you slam a jet liner into a skyscraper. Religion survives because it appeals to the very worst in us, our self-importance and fear of death. People acting simply on innate abilities to reason would never dream of these things – and Religion is not the source of our enlightenment, it has been the obstruction of our enlightenment. Religion prepares us for exactly the opposite; it makes good people do bad things. It commands communities to despise, shun, or stone the unbeliever. Religion is the infection we bear from the early days of our species, when we knew nothing of germ theory, or why the stars shown at night, or anything about the mysteries of nature and the universe. It is a base human nature to invent a scheme or conspiracy in the absence of knowledge and reason, we have 9/11 Truther lower-primates to highlight this example. Science and reason replaces religion. As long as religion exists, radical theism will exist. Religion is the benign gene that when mixed with opportunistic egotism and gullible ignorance mutates and forms the malignant cancer of radical theism. Science has shown us that the human species has been on the planet for at least, surely much longer, but for at least 100,000 years, over this period untold multitudes died in child birth, often killing the mothers with them, those that survived perhaps lived to 20-30 years, dieing of dentinal disease, or tribal slaughters, yet over many centuries, we managed to advance, probably by our innate sense of morality or common sense that it can be a good thing to care for the young, to care for women in labor, that mutual cooperation with others is good for survival, and still slowly advancing over the centuries until 6,000 years ago, in a remote wasteland of the world, the news is given to humanity that despite your groveling existence the universe was designed with you in mind and there is a plan for salvation for humanity, a message that has still not reached all the corners of the world today, for 94,000 years God stool by with folded arms and said, “Ok now I’m going to do something.” Religion is man-made. The alternative is, a God that could stand by and watch this for thousands of years is an immoral and lazy God and one not worth our adoration, or worse he is an Evil God and should be extirpated from us. Of course I’m shamelessly parroting Hitchens, but I see the reasoning of his point on the connection between religion and totalitarianism. Religion is the father of Totalitarianism; believe in God, audaciously absolve yourself of your wrong deeds with a mumble and clasp of hands, and if you don’t you can burn in Hell forever, this is not a moral teaching, Jesus was not a moral teacher, to say nothing of the teachings and utter barbarism of Muhammad. Even little children see right though Religious nonsense, little children that we indoctrinate into this pre-historic cult, where mysticism was born.

We can do much better than this, and we must do much better than this.

To the important question:
“Was Vietnam a bad idea or a good idea?”
It was, post WW II, a TERRIBLE idea to support France and DeGaulle in a re-colonization effort of Indo-China. France lost the colonies, and forced colonization was a mistake.
Truman should have supported Ho Chi Mingh, the anti-Jap, anti-French, pro-Vietnamese, dictator / possible authoritarian. Instead, partly to get France into NATO against the greater evil of the USSR, the US opposed Viet-self rule.
The commies supported Ho. (AFTER? the US declined.
‘Ho asked for commie help against the French.
Are you a commie?
Will I get guns if I say I’m a commie?
Yes.
Yes, I’m a commie.
Here are your guns.
Great, I have capitalist French Imperialists in my sights now… thru 1954 & Dien Bein Phu’)

In 1956, it’s not clear whether America should allow commie Ho to be elected as Viet leader. But not allowing ‘commie victory democracy’ means the US isn’t really supporting democracy as much as opposing communism.

Advisors, a CIA assasination (?), a growing proxy war between corrupt S. Viet anti-commie client gov’t and the horrible Soviet supported N. Viet murderers. By 1964 it’s too late to have a total hands off, because leaving means accepting commie victory.

Yet the Dem Johnson Gulf of Tonkin lie was certainly a bad idea. Also the sending of 500 000 occupation troops (the McCain style advocated ‘do Iraq right’ — perhaps I’ll vote for McCain in Nov, despite thinking he’s simplistic against the Rumsfeld ‘light footprint’).

My Grandmother (nuke Hanoi, mine Haiphong), with an older son as Green Beret trainer, was upset that the US was fighting without trying to “win”.

After racist Dem Wallace ran as the most successful third party candidate (in last 50 years?), drawing off the racist Dem South, allowing Nixon to win in 1968, the war changed to put a bigger S. Viet face against the commies — but by then the Media was against the US fighting.

Unfortunately, when two sides fight, if you want one side to stop you are an active ally of the other side. The anti-war folk were active allies of the commies, whether that was their intention or not.

After commie military failure at Tet, and then the final 1972 failed push by the NVA, Nixon “won” the war and Henry the K plus Le Duc Tho (who declined, perhaps knowingly?) got Nobels. Nixon pulled out all troops, but was still missing POWs and MIAs.

Then in 1974 & 75 the Dem Congress voted to not allow any military action in Vietnam by the President, followed by cutting off money to the corrupt, incompetent, cowardly S. Viet gov’t — although it was slowly becoming less cowardly and less incompetent.

Thus, when the Soviet supported N. Viet killers attacked again in 1975, there were no US casualties fighting them, nor US support to S. Vietnam, nor any France or International outcry against the Peace Accord violation.

Dems voted for losing — acting as de facto allies of the N. Viet commies, and the re-education camps. And the Chinese supported Cambodian commies, and the Killing Fields.

I rage over the support by the Democratic Party of the USA for commie victory — any my own 1976 Dem vote for Naval Academy graduate Jimmy Carter.

The worst genocide in my life, and I voted for it. Iraq has only made my shame of 32 years ago more acute.

You’re forgiven.

Devils advocate: Are we neocons making a religion out of human liberty?

Anti-aircraft batteries need not be placed in high density population areas in order to be effective. In fact, you would preferably want to sight those weapons systems with a better view of the horizon. And that would especially apply to the type of weapon Fonda posed with. (though dont dare question here patriotism).

Christ!

I was at the funeral just Saturday of a young soldier killed in Diyala province along with five others in a house rigged to explode.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/09/iraq.soldier.deaths/

Instead of just calling in airstrikes and destroying the suspected terrorist lair, the Army sent soldiers in on foot to avoid any collateral damage to nearby buildings or killing any civilians.

Al Qaeda has no such compunctions and boobytrapped the entire house which exploded when the 6 entered.

Those soldiers died searching on foot to avoid civilian casualties from airstrikes and artillery. It is the right way to fight a counterinsurgent war, but it is expensive in time, treasure and blood.

I don’t want to hear another damned word about ‘indiscriminate airstrikes’, ‘our trigger-happy boys’ or ‘civilian massacres’.

Our soldiers are dying to avoid even inconveniencing Iraqi civilians!

Sounds good — I never saw this in the Bible — which version?

Clearly an admonition to abide by civil law, while simultaneously abiding by God’s law.

Fiendish bastards!”

Here is a photo taken at Cam Rahn Bay, showing sunset over the water, no land in sight on the far side. Also, Many areas in the far south around the Mekong Delta could present similar circumstances, and there is even some west coast of Vietnam facing the Gulf of Thailand.

Again, I’ll posit that there was more truth in the John Wayne film than in news coverage of the time.

Devils advocate: Are we neocons making a religion out of human liberty?

In reference to your other reply, I could get into theology but I don’t think it would do anything productive.

Suffice it to say that I don’t believe in Revealed Religion that God is perfect and the whole thing about the bible and what not. However, religion is not “designed” to put down or shackle man, all religions or even belief systems are simply attempts by human beings to discern the truth about their environment. Because humans are born flawed, and which Original Sin seeks to explain the reason for, our efforts to derive truth from our senses will run into problems. What you see as a problem with religion, Ny, is really a problem that started with human nature. When human beings were born imperfect and unable to make the “right” choice between good and evil. Or to look at it another way, we are imperfect because we have free will. We can choose which ideologies we will believe in, whether liberty or tyranny, Democrats or Republicans, Mitsu or anti-Mitsu.

Because of the existence of choice, you will get beliefs that go wrong and you will get beliefs constructed by human beings with the intent to get things wrong. Like Communism and Leftism. Are those two fundamentally different than religions? No. Because religions are neither fundamentall good nor fundamentally evil. Just like humanity. Neither fundamentally good nor fundamentally evil.

Religion survives because it appeals to the very worst in us, our self-importance and fear of death.

Advertisements and politics appeal to people’s self-importance and fear of death. So why do you continue to think religion deserves a special position in the human spectrum of beliefs?

Religion prepares us for exactly the opposite; it makes good people do bad things.

People do bad things because people want to do bad things. Religion is just an excuse or justification. The only thing that prepares a suicide bomber is other human beings. Religion won’t jump out a book and recruit people into the Suicide Bomber club, after all.

Religion is the infection we bear from the early days of our species, when we knew nothing of germ theory, or why the stars shown at night, or anything about the mysteries of nature and the universe.

Ancestor worship is the oldest religion. The Romans had it way before Christianity, although technically not before Judaism. America also engages in ancestor worship, when they respect and revere the American Founding Fathers. Is America’s belief in the Founding Fathers an infection we bear from the early days when we knew nothing of germ theory or why the stars shone at night?

The alternative is, a God that could stand by and watch this for thousands of years is an immoral and lazy God and one not worth our adoration, or worse he is an Evil God and should be extirpated from us.

You’re still buying into the Revealed Religious belief that God is like a person. Why should God be a person if you don’t believe in Revealed Religion, meaning the HOly Books? The universe is so big, why does God have to be someone like our neighbor?

We can do much better than this, and we must do much better than this.

Until you improve upon the human condition, which has stayed unchanged for tens of thousands of years, you can’t do better. Even if you got rid of religion, humanity will still believe in con artists.

Thanks for the personal and profound post, you have a lot of company, I identify strongly with you, we all have our personal stories… I like to think that it means something positive that we are at least able to be honest about the past now, and try to be an active and vocal force of solidarity for the “good fight” now, supporting the troops, and their mission, in Iraq. It’s an issue and nuance which should not be begrudged. The stakes are higher than ever. While issues of religion have always been a severe intellectual problem for me, the profundity of that famous line is now very clear and deep: “… forgive them for they know not what they do…”

It’s hard not to gloat, considering all the crap I and others who were never on that side have taken and continue to take.

But the question remains: How did people, who have proven to have consciences, come to have been on the wrong side initially?

Was it the relentlessness of the propaganda? Was it a lack of alternatives in one’s immediate surroundings?

When I was in college in the mid-Sixties, the idea that we (on the left) constitute a morally superior but embattled minority was a potent tool to use on students who, being college students, had instantly thought of themselves as superior beings. Who wouldn’t want to be in that group and to escape from the great redneck unwashed, such as our parents?
There was a reason older people going to school are less easily stampeded by their professors. They already know who they are.

Anyway, why were those who are honest and self-critical enough to abandon the inhuman left on the left initially?