Man, you have a real way of convoluting a train of thought.

The near extermination of Native Americans was indeed a sad and ugly chapter in world history. It was also sorta inevitable, I'm afraid. It wasn't just a clash of cultures, it was a clash of eras. I used to think it was a shame the Europeans couldn't have been more tolerant of native populations but I now see it wasn't going to happen. The natives required vast tracts of land for their nomadic life and land hungry Europeans and their superior weaponry were too, well, land hungry. Natives were not going to willingly cede the land they felt was there's.

Some think that many natives died from small pox, etc. without any tainted blankets being given them. Explorers reported finding empty villages, lived in not long previous. Some small contact with Euros years or months before had been enough to plant various deadly diseases which most Europeans had immunity to, unlike Natives.

France would have been unable to replicate the North American Euro example in Vietnam even if they'd wanted to. Vietnam's population was far, larger, French people were not emigrating in droves to Vietnam, and Vietnam had a much more cohesive culture than Native Americans, none of whom had even a decent written language. North America was a collection of warring tribes that would have made current Afg. look civilized.

Point being, the Americas under Britain were much different that Vietnam under the French. We find it perfectly fitting, proper, and laudable that our founders threw off the Brits, with whom they shared much culture, but many apparently don't get that the Vietnamese would be equally, if not way more eager to throw off the French who were utterly foreign.

Vietnamese atrocities as outlined by Jasper and others were awful, no getting around it. But some culpability is due the French, who provided an enormous irritant among nationalists, and divided the country into sympathizers and rebels.

As for Jasper being only one man, and not the entire JBS, oh golly, I'm a beaten man all right. He didn't get to be the senior editor of the JBS house organ for decades by being a loner. His words clearly had the backing of many Birchers, else he'd have been out long ago.

uno más tiempo, THE QUOTE MARKS WERE YOURS. I never claimed to be quoting anyone word for word. Such hair splitting is desperate. He denigrated Patti and his assertions. Is that better? Jeez . . .

As for Jasper's opinion on the French being the rightful rulers:

With OSS hands like General Philip Gallagher, Colonel Edward Lansdale, George Sheldon, Major Archimedes Patti, and Major William Stevens helping him from one side, and Stalin helping from the other, Ho was in a very strong position to take on the French, who were weakened from the war and were undermined at every turn by the same pro-Communist forces in our State Department and the OSS who were at that very time preparing China for turnover to Mao Zedong.

He's crying that the French were having difficulty hanging onto their most prized colonial possession. What, Vietnamese nationalists were villains for wishing to garner enough strength to oust the French? The French were brutal overlords in most all their colonies from what I can gather.

Jasper is a whack job lunatic supremacist - perfectly suited to be a high mucky muck and chief SPOKESDUDE for the Birchers.

That "liberals deny they are the extension of the progressives" sounds like some sort of Glenn Beck meme. I have no idea where you would get that idea, and I know of no educated liberal who would deny it, of course we are their idealogical heirs. In fact, it was the mass exodus of Republican liberals after the defeat of T.R.'s "Bull Moose" party to the Democratic Party that turned the Democrats left and made Franklin Roosevelt and Wilson possible. The truly great tragedy of today's Republicans is their loss of their historical place in this country, in fact, they were the "liberals" up until that time. Goldwater swung the GOP hard right, and Nixon and Reagan played the racial politics necessary to bring in the conservative Southern Democrats.

If anyone is in denial about their heritage, it is today's Republicans, who are doing everything they can to drive out the last vestiges of liberal Republicanism and complete their transformation to a Southern White People's Party who are not the idealogical descendent's of Lincoln's liberals, they are in fact the descendent of the Confederate Southern Democrats. They have turned themselves inside out. Given your stated views, you yourself may find yourself being pushed out.

Exactly right. Rrs seem to be on a mission to gain permanent minority status.

Again I agree with you. But it was here, on this very forum that I was taken to task by linking progressives with today's liberals. I was shocked by it. That is why my post starts with a mention that liberals HERE deny....

It seems that the R leadership has accepted a minority party status.
Leadership needs to have a vision and sell that vision to the rest of the party. The Repub leadership seems to have no clue as to how to do that, or even that it would be a good thing.

Perhaps the only thing that can save the repub party on a national level is even greater stupidity from the opposition party. Don't say that it can't happen.

How about some new R leadership that actually has a clue?

“Man, you have a real way of convoluting a train of thought.”

I’m just following where you are leading if the convolutions bother you stop making them!

So when you stated “He makes it clear that he believes that France was the rightful ruler of Vietnam around the end of WW2.”

You divined that from Jasper’s analysis that Ho’s position was enhanced by pro-communists and Stalin vis a vis’ that the French had been weakened from war?

I mean you’ve opined “He (Jasper) makes it clear that he believes that France was the rightful ruler of Vietnam around the end of WW2” and you’ve provided this excerpt, and now added “He's crying that the French were having difficulty hanging onto their most prized colonial possession.”:

“With OSS hands like General Philip Gallagher, Colonel Edward Lansdale, George Sheldon, Major Archimedes Patti, and Major William Stevens helping him from one side, and Stalin helping from the other, Ho was in a very strong position to take on the French, who were weakened from the war and were undermined at every turn by the same pro-Communist forces in our State Department and the OSS who were at that very time preparing China for turnover to Mao Zedong”

Reading the words in the excerpt you’ve provided is there any word or words that suggest the “clear” position you attribute to Jasper? Is there a single word that could be construed to mean that in Jasper’s mind there existed any thought of France’s position ruling Vietnam rightfully or not? What words can be construed to mean that Jasper was “crying” when he states that” Ho was in a very strong position to take on the French, who were weakened from the war and undermined at every turn”? Any honest reading of not only the literal wording but the overall tone shows that Jasper makes not a single comment on the value or lack thereof with regard to French colonial fetishes!

And when you further opined “France was to Vietnam much as Britain was to the American colonies in the late 18th century with one big exception. The Brits founded and peopled much of the American colonies whereas France just waltzed in and exploited Vietnam.”

Had nothing to do with the prior sentence in that paragraph and your contention of Jasper’s “clear” position on French rule. You where actually, simply and unrelated, attempting to juxtapose the perceived dichotomy of America colonial revolutionaries to Vietnamese colonial revolutionaries in the twisted minds of unenlightened Americans!

“Point being, the Americas under Britain were much different that Vietnam under the French. We find it perfectly fitting, proper, and laudable that our founders threw off the Brits, with whom they shared much culture, but many apparently don't get that the Vietnamese would be equally, if not way more eager to throw off the French who were utterly foreign.”

When you made the earlier statement “The John Birchers called Patti a stooge and a dim-witted pawn of Ho. I don't buy it. Patti wasn't the greatest writer (his book badly needed professional editing IMO, his daughter did it instead IIRC) but his account of Ho makes sense to me and rings true in the light of history.

You actually meant an article was written in a JBS publication where the author “denigrated” Patti and his assertions rather than “The John Birchers called Patti a stooge and a dim-witted pawn of Ho.”?


THE QUOTE MARKS WERE YOURS

No one ever assumed you where actually quoting anyone word for word, I placed quote marks around your words, mischaracterizations they have been shown to be.

From someone who has so often proclaimed such disinterest of politics and its players how would that make any difference to you?

Just my opinion. Politics is my favorite spectator sport and it's no fun when one side fails to show up, peggysue.

I believe the republican base is composed primarily of conservatives. They will not back any republican party "leader" who strays from the historic stance.
I think ( and hope) the recent trend to neo-con has run its course. They were a total disaster. The Republican party has had its best success when it took a conservative stand. It lost its way when it went neo. ( Compare republicans as led by Reagan and then Bush (both)).

I agree, they need to dump the neocons and get back to their real base. I just don't see anyone ready to fill that role.

Would you define the Tea baggers as "neo" or just plain "con"?

I know you love to laugh off the tea parties. Time will tell if they are for real, or just a flash in the pan. What I have heard from actual participants is VASTLY different from what you believe about the tea parties.

The republicans either need to contain those folks or fix their public image. As it stands now, the democrats should be funding them; then helping late night comics write the jokes.

Not sure how you got to be such a prevaricating lost soul. When I spoke of the American revolutionaries overthrowing a govt/a nation that had spawned them as opposed to the Vietnamese overthrowing a more foreign French body of overlords, you jumped to some notion that I thought or was implying that the slaughter of Native Americans was somehow good and laudable. The point I was trying to make was obvious, or at least would have been to someone interested in understanding communication. As opposed to fomenting endless partisan bickering.

You're a case dude. Go for it. I give you my blessing.

I am not sure that allowing the joke content of the late night TV hosts is, or even SHOULD be a determining factor.

The more I think about the characterisation of them as "tea baggers", the more I think that smirking comment is part of the problem. I understand that some tea party people referred to themselves as "tea baggers". However, just because they were not up on the latest sexual practices is no reason to bring that to the political arean. Its about the same as calling someone a racist or a Nazi. Its not intended to further the debate. Its intended to end debate.
Furthermore, I find it highly offensive. Would you, or anyone else be permitted to offend any other ethical/racial group in this country?
I think not.

Like I posted above, there is a hugh disconnect regarding the tea party people. The left ignores or laughs at them. However, from the conversations I have had with people who have attended some of these events, there is more resolve to them.
Time will tell. If they succeed in substantially changing the make up of Congress this next election, then who will be laughing?