I am not sure what you are getting at by saying you have me figured out. "Opening" China has helped that country fund a massive upgrade of its military's offensive threat. IMO, China has become the biggest military threat to this country on the planet. I don't buy the argument that cheap consumer goods makes the risk acceptable. Any number of Asian country's could have stocked our stores with cheap products, including the world's largest democracy, India.

 

Had our media covered the bloody aftermath of the Vietnam War with half the enthusiasm that it reported the daily body counts, anti-war protests, and the Paris peace negotiations, Kissinger would be reviled by many more people in this country.

 

So you don't think China could have accumulated the wealth it has to build up its military by selling its products to companies in Europe, whom would as a result been able to produce their products cheaper than U.S. companies and put thousands of American employees out of work?

 

And you are wrong, very wrong that there are a number of Asian companies other than China that could have stocked our stores with cheap products. Using simple logic, if that was the case, it would be the case. Its not. Have you ever represented or known of a company that has tried to deal with Indian manufacturers? I have and there's a good reason why more American companies would rather and do deal more with Chinese manufacturers than Indian ones. The free market, that the Republican in you supposedly likes, indicates that American manufacturers prefer to deal with the Chinese manufacturers than the Indian ones, or Vietnamese ones for that matter. You just threw a pitch into my wheelhouse since I represent companies that import a lot of products from China as well as represent Korean and other Asian companies in the U.S.

 

And I'm of the belief (its the free trade Republican way of thinking in me) that building up the wealth of the Chinese people and continuing to integrate China in the global economy reduces the chances of China using its military strength against us. While China has a long way to go politically, their govt (if you can call it that) has been more and more receptive towards working with the U.S. govt in foreign affairs matters.

 

And again, I do have you figured out. Don't know how to explain that any more clearly.

Play nice, everyone.

Your kidding me right about the bolded part? Like him or hate him, Kissinger knows a lot, make that a whole lot, about foreign affairs which given our current position in world affairs is kind of important right now (great understatement I know). As for Kissinger's party allegiance, Kissinger has rarely (this may be the first) made an endorsement in a Republican primary, and begrudingly did so this time because of the extreme importance that our next President be able to hit the ground running of foreign affairs matters. He's not the kind of person that has given his endorsement willy nilly in the past and the man does know what he's talking about. Norris' credentials for his endorsement (other than being "fun"): he's a decent actor (decent, but not really good, think Stallone).

 

The main reason that I wish Joe Biden had become a viable candidate on the other side of the aisle.

The main reason that I wish Joe Biden had become a viable candidate on the other side of the aisle.

 

Secretary of State if Dems win??

Secretary of State if Dems win??

 

I was thinking EXACTLY THE SAME THING as I was typing.

Personally, the biggest endorsement I saw was the Nature Boy's for Mike Huckabee.

 

I can see it now, Rick Flair lets out a big WWHHOOOOO after negotiating a deal with China and just when they are signing it and thinking they are getting a sweet deal, he thumbs them in the eye, does a double leg takedown and wraps them up in the Figure 4 till they agree to Fair Trade and a Human Rights agenda.:thumb::laugh:

:ylsuper::laugh:

The ageing process does not show on Chuck Norris. 67 is how old Chuck is, in dog years.

 

He looks like he's plastic to me, sings like it to.

Maybe I'm having a stupid day, but what exactly are you referring to?

I am referring to the manner in which the US exited the Vietnam War, a process that Kissinger was instrumental in negotiating. Nixon pandered to the anti-war movement with his "peace with honor" promise, and Kissinger was the instrument that negotiated the sham agreement that ended our involvment. The US never provided the support that was promised to our Vietnamese allies, and many of them were slaughtered as a consequence. Many more drowned trying to escape their homeland. We pledged to provide aid to those we left behind and we reneged.

 

There was no honor in our abandonment of our allies and Kissinger deserves no credit for our exit from Vietnam. The media, which was so instrumental in covering the anti-war movement gave very little coverage to the slaughter that followed our withdrawal.

So you don't think China could have accumulated the wealth it has to build up its military by selling its products to companies in Europe, whom would as a result been able to produce their products cheaper than U.S. companies and put thousands of American employees out of work?

 

And you are wrong, very wrong that there are a number of Asian companies other than China that could have stocked our stores with cheap products. Using simple logic, if that was the case, it would be the case. Its not. Have you ever represented or known of a company that has tried to deal with Indian manufacturers? I have and there's a good reason why more American companies would rather and do deal more with Chinese manufacturers than Indian ones. The free market, that the Republican in you supposedly likes, indicates that American manufacturers prefer to deal with the Chinese manufacturers than the Indian ones, or Vietnamese ones for that matter. You just threw a pitch into my wheelhouse since I represent companies that import a lot of products from China as well as represent Korean and other Asian companies in the U.S.

 

And I'm of the belief (its the free trade Republican way of thinking in me) that building up the wealth of the Chinese people and continuing to integrate China in the global economy reduces the chances of China using its military strength against us. While China has a long way to go politically, their govt (if you can call it that) has been more and more receptive towards working with the U.S. govt in foreign affairs matters.

 

And again, I do have you figured out. Don't know how to explain that any more clearly.

Eventually, China probably would have decided to participate in the global market without Nixon's nudging. IMO, their economy would have grown at a much slower pace without the role that Nixon played. I think that history will view our decision to open the floodgates to China's products as a blunder, but I take Chinese military threats seriously. Most of China remains extremely impoverished and they are quickly expanding their military influence into this hemisphere. Apparently, the US has decided that the Monroe Doctrine no longer applies to our foreign policy.

 

Nothing will change my opinion about Kissinger. The media tried to make Kissinger into a foreign policy giant in the 70's, but in hindsight I have trouble seeing any of his accomplishments as being in our long term national interests. (The possible exception is his alleged role in overthrowing Chile's leftist government.)

I am referring to the manner in which the US exited the Vietnam War, a process that Kissinger was instrumental in negotiating. Nixon pandered to the anti-war movement with his "peace with honor" promise, and Kissinger was the instrument that negotiated the sham agreement that ended our involvment. The US never provided the support that was promised to our Vietnamese allies, and many of them were slaughtered as a consequence. Many more drowned trying to escape their homeland. We pledged to provide aid to those we left behind and we reneged.

 

There was no honor in our abandonment of our allies and Kissinger deserves no credit for our exit from Vietnam. The media, which was so instrumental in covering the anti-war movement gave very little coverage to the slaughter that followed our withdrawal.

I guess your "deaths of millions" post confused me. There wern't millions of deaths in postwar Vietnam, but there were in neighboring Cambodia. The killing fields were stopped by Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to get rid of the evil Khmer Rouge.

I am referring to the manner in which the US exited the Vietnam War, a process that Kissinger was instrumental in negotiating. Nixon pandered to the anti-war movement with his "peace with honor" promise, and Kissinger was the instrument that negotiated the sham agreement that ended our involvment. The US never provided the support that was promised to our Vietnamese allies, and many of them were slaughtered as a consequence. Many more drowned trying to escape their homeland. We pledged to provide aid to those we left behind and we reneged.

 

There was no honor in our abandonment of our allies and Kissinger deserves no credit for our exit from Vietnam. The media, which was so instrumental in covering the anti-war movement gave very little coverage to the slaughter that followed our withdrawal.

 

Lest some people think you and can't agree on things, I do agree that we should not have cut bait and ran from Vietnam and that our desire to walk away from the fight caused many innocent people to be slaughtered.

 

But I don't blame Kissinger for that however. That blame lies at the feet of Nixon, Congress and the media in my opinion. It was Congress that banned any future military intervention in Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accord and after N. Vietnam violated the Accord's terms; not Kissinger. The Paris Accord that Kissinger negotiated actually called for N. Vietnam to stop military intervention into S. Vietnam and called for the S. Vietnamese people to be able to vote on whether they wanted to remain independent from N. Vietnam. When N. Vietnam violated the treaty and attacked the Phouc Long Province, Congress taking advantage of Nixon's weakened position due to Watergate, prevented any use of military means to stop the military intervention by N. Vietnam and the eventual slaughter of S. Vietnamese. They refused to authorize airstrikes against the N. Vietnamese and could do so under the recently enacted War Powers act. Kissinger was NOT responsible for the slaughter. The U.S. Congress failed S. Vietnam in spite of then Secretary of Defense Schlesinger trying to convince them that we needed to use airpower to help out the S. Vietnamese. His protests fell on deaf ears unfortunately. Thus it was not the agreement that Kissinger negotiated that caused the slaughter; rather it was the failure of Congress to stop the N.Vietnamese from violating the Paris Accords by failing to deliver to the S. Vietnamese the military aid we had promised them if the N. Vietnamese violated the Peace accords.

So you don't think China could have accumulated the wealth it has to build up its military by selling its products to companies in Europe, whom would as a result been able to produce their products cheaper than U.S. companies and put thousands of American employees out of work?

 

And you are wrong, very wrong that there are a number of Asian companies other than China that could have stocked our stores with cheap products. Using simple logic, if that was the case, it would be the case. Its not. Have you ever represented or known of a company that has tried to deal with Indian manufacturers? I have and there's a good reason why more American companies would rather and do deal more with Chinese manufacturers than Indian ones. The free market, that the Republican in you supposedly likes, indicates that American manufacturers prefer to deal with the Chinese manufacturers than the Indian ones, or Vietnamese ones for that matter. You just threw a pitch into my wheelhouse since I represent companies that import a lot of products from China as well as represent Korean and other Asian companies in the U.S.

 

And I'm of the belief (its the free trade Republican way of thinking in me) that building up the wealth of the Chinese people and continuing to integrate China in the global economy reduces the chances of China using its military strength against us. While China has a long way to go politically, their govt (if you can call it that) has been more and more receptive towards working with the U.S. govt in foreign affairs matters.

 

And again, I do have you figured out. Don't know how to explain that any more clearly.

 

I think you're spot on here leatherneck. I think it's also worth noting that the more money placed in the hands of workers in China is a step away from an oppressive government. The gears of democracy are beginning to creak in my opinion.

I think you're spot on here leatherneck. I think it's also worth noting that the more money placed in the hands of workers in China is a step away from an oppressive government. The gears of democracy are beginning to creak in my opinion.

I agree. The more capitalism seeps into China, the less of a military threat it will be. However, we might be looking at the next economic superpower.

I guess your "deaths of millions" post confused me. There wern't millions of deaths in postwar Vietnam, but there were in neighboring Cambodia. The killing fields were stopped by Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to get rid of the evil Khmer Rouge.

My post stated that millions of deaths resulted in SE Asia, not South Vietnam. I realize that it is debatable whether our continued support of the South Vietnamese government would have made any difference in the events in Cambodia. While Pol Pot's killing rampage was eventually stopped by Vietnam, he may not have ever seized power without the support of the North Vietnamese government.

 

Disregarding the deaths in Cambodia, the post-war deaths in South Vietnam numbered in the hundreds of thousands (including deaths of many of the boat people), including more than 60,000 summary executions of those who supported the US.

Lest some people think you and can't agree on things, I do agree that we should not have cut bait and ran from Vietnam and that our desire to walk away from the fight caused many innocent people to be slaughtered.

 

But I don't blame Kissinger for that however. That blame lies at the feet of Nixon, Congress and the media in my opinion. It was Congress that banned any future military intervention in Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accord and after N. Vietnam violated the Accord's terms; not Kissinger. The Paris Accord that Kissinger negotiated actually called for N. Vietnam to stop military intervention into S. Vietnam and called for the S. Vietnamese people to be able to vote on whether they wanted to remain independent from N. Vietnam. When N. Vietnam violated the treaty and attacked the Phouc Long Province, Congress taking advantage of Nixon's weakened position due to Watergate, prevented any use of military means to stop the military intervention by N. Vietnam and the eventual slaughter of S. Vietnamese. They refused to authorize airstrikes against the N. Vietnamese and could do so under the recently enacted War Powers act. Kissinger was NOT responsible for the slaughter. The U.S. Congress failed S. Vietnam in spite of then Secretary of Defense Schlesinger trying to convince them that we needed to use airpower to help out the S. Vietnamese. His protests fell on deaf ears unfortunately. Thus it was not the agreement that Kissinger negotiated that caused the slaughter; rather it was the failure of Congress to stop the N.Vietnamese from violating the Paris Accords by failing to deliver to the S. Vietnamese the military aid we had promised them if the N. Vietnamese violated the Peace accords.

I agree that Nixon deserves more blame than Kissinger for the way that we exited Vietnam. Kissinger was not the worst nor the best Secretary of State in history, IMO, but I would put less stock in his endorsement than I would in the other living former Secretaries of State.