Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Jolthig]

Yeah. We hardly knew the terrain over there. Plus, the guerillas used that to their advantage.

The trick party with Vietnam was that we were fighting a guerrilla war AND a real war against a state actor. The problem is we sat on the defensive, gave the North Vietnamese the imitative.

We should have invade North Vietnam up to the Mu Gia Pass (the key to the whole Ho Chi Minh trail). We should have focused on fighting the North Vietnamese and left the ARVN to fight the Viet Cong, with us providing special operations, air and artillery support, but not our infantry.

True, but then you got the USSR and pre-1968 China that would've flowed arms and maybe even sent some troops to help defend North Vietnam. Maybe the ideological divide between the USSR and China plus their border war in 1969 as well as the 1972 reproachment would've helped, but invading north Vietnam would have been very risky. Just like how we tried to invade Cuba in 1961.

[Jolthig]

HAHA. they are not a trusted ally lol

They literally are responsible for the rise of terrorists. Not to mention, as brother Cesnica said, they bomb school children.

You're thinking of Iran.

Iran aren't trustworthy either, I agree. Yet, Saudi Arabia is equally untrustworthy.

[Greater Cesnica]

HAHA. they are not a trusted ally lol

They literally are responsible for the rise of terrorists. Not to mention, as brother Cesnica said, they bomb school children.

You're thinking of Iran.

Buddy we're thinking of Saudi Arabia please stop cringeposting thanks

[Irish Socialist Union]

However, we have evolved from that. Remaining stagnant on ideals from hundreds of years ago, when society, technology, and progress was way different, is not good. In order to achieve progress, we must leave behind ideals from the past, and look for new ideologies that fit our society as it stands in the modern day.

No, social progress is what destroys nations from the inside as we lose everything our society was founded upon, we must return to the values of the past and reinforce god's law on the land.

So we should have the same mentality as when electricity was not discovered? Even though that we are now extremely reliant on electricity now a days?

Society is just different from when America was founded. Too different.

[Kowani]

However, we have evolved from that. Remaining stagnant on ideals from hundreds of years ago, when society, technology, and progress was way different, is not good. In order to achieve progress, we must leave behind ideals from the past, and look for new ideologies that fit our society as it stands in the modern day.

No, social progress is what destroys nations from the inside as we lose everything our society was founded upon, we must return to the values of the past and reinforce god's law on the land.

“They’re teaching evolution and racial egalitarianism! The horror!”

[Greater Cesnica]

You're thinking of Iran.

Iran aren't trustworthy either, I agree. Yet, Saudi Arabia is equally untrustworthy.

Brother, IMO Saudi Arabia's a tad bit worse. Iran doesn't exactly drop JDAMs on schoolchildren just yet.

[Novus America]

I have mixed opinions on them, they're a trusted ally who helps protect us from Iranian backed terrorism and the way they uphold religious values is an inspiration.

I do wish they would modernise and welcome in American companies to invest more.

HAHA. they are not a trusted ally lol

They literally are responsible for the rise of terrorists. Not to mention, as brother Cesnica said, they bomb school children.

At best they are the lesser evil.
To quote Jefferson “But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”

[Surkiea]

The west was founded on the bible where it says degenerates should be put to death, so yes it does.

1. The west had a pre-christian past, so our existence is not dependent on Christianity.
2. The U.S. was founded on a secular government, not on Christianity. Our Constitution pretty much says this.

1. The pre-Christian west was pure shit.
2. Our laws were based on the bible even if we were secular (sadly).

[Jolthig]

Iran aren't trustworthy either, I agree. Yet, Saudi Arabia is equally untrustworthy.

Brother, IMO Saudi Arabia's a tad bit worse. Iran doesn't exactly drop JDAMs on schoolchildren just yet.

Oh, yes. I agree. My point was they both use deception in their foreign policies.

[Jolthig]

1. The west had a pre-christian past, so our existence is not dependent on Christianity.
2. The U.S. was founded on a secular government, not on Christianity. Our Constitution pretty much says this.

1. The pre-Christian west was pure shit.
2. Our laws were based on the bible even if we were secular (sadly).

>says we need a christian theocracy and to return to Christian values
>Proceeds to swear which is against Christian teachings

The logic behind this post man.

[North German Realm]

I have mixed opinions on them, they're a trusted ally who helps protect us from Iranian backed terrorism and the way they uphold religious values is an inspiration.

I do wish they would modernise and welcome in American companies to invest more.

Ah so dropping JDAMs on Yemeni schoolchildren is perfectly acceptable. Also acceptable is the fact that women have little to no control over their lives from birth because of their male guardianship system. Gotcha.

And Iranian-backed terrorism will never strike the United States. Actually all I've seen is American terrorism against Iran. Did you know America shot down an Iranian passenger jet and killed 290 people? Yeah.

You mean after Khomeinist thugs attacked and occupied actual territory of the United States in the US Embassy, triggered the most destructive war in Middle Eastern History, and made a mess of freedom of trade in a major oil shipping route, right?

[Old Tyrannia]

I'm not sure that our new friend "Surkiea" is necessarily being honest about his or her true opinions. Regardless, the United States obviously rejected the Bible from the moment it came into being, as the Bible clearly commands us to fear God and honour our king (1 Peter 2:17).

[Novus America]

The trick party with Vietnam was that we were fighting a guerrilla war AND a real war against a state actor. The problem is we sat on the defensive, gave the North Vietnamese the imitative.

We should have invade North Vietnam up to the Mu Gia Pass (the key to the whole Ho Chi Minh trail). We should have focused on fighting the North Vietnamese and left the ARVN to fight the Viet Cong, with us providing special operations, air and artillery support, but not our infantry.

True, but then you got the USSR and pre-1968 China that would've flowed arms and maybe even sent some troops to help defend North Vietnam. Maybe the ideological divide between the USSR and China plus their border war in 1969 as well as the 1972 reproachment would've helped, but invading north Vietnam would have been very risky. Just like how we tried to invade Cuba in 1961.

The problem with the thing in Cuba is it was a half assed CIA scheme using a few poorly trained Cuban exiles with no air or naval support.

The same issue with Vietnam was we wanted to fight will pretending to not really fight.

That is why I said invade North Vietnam only to the Mu Gia pass, not all the way to Hanoi.
With mountains on the left, the sea on the right and Vietnam only is only some 50km wide at that point. It would be easy to establish a defensive line, and not provoke the PRC.

Also the North Vietnamese would never let the PRC in, remember they fought a war with the ORC shortly after.
Sure there would be some risk, but you never win if you take no risks.

Bold moves win wars.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

1. The west had a pre-christian past, so our existence is not dependent on Christianity.
2. The U.S. was founded on a secular government, not on Christianity. Our Constitution pretty much says this.

1. The pre-Christian west was pure shit.
2. Our laws were based on the bible even if we were secular (sadly).

If our laws were based on the bible, capital punishment would be used for minor offenses, there wouldn't be freedom of religion, and there wouldn't be freedom of speech. We were founded on enlightenment values, and while some of our founders were Christian, they obviously believed that it should be a personal matter. Jefferson for example was very supportive of religious freedom, and separation of church and state.

[Novus America]

I have mixed opinions on them, they're a trusted ally who helps protect us from Iranian backed terrorism and the way they uphold religious values is an inspiration.

I do wish they would modernise and welcome in American companies to invest more.

Ah so dropping JDAMs on Yemeni schoolchildren is perfectly acceptable. Also acceptable is the fact that women have little to no control over their lives from birth because of their male guardianship system. Gotcha.

And Iranian-backed terrorism will never strike the United States. Actually all I've seen is American terrorism against Iran. Did you know America shot down an Iranian passenger jet and killed 290 people? Yeah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Higgins
Also the airline shoot down was an accident. Not deliberate terrorism.

Make no mistake the current Iranian regime is a foe.

We should not invade but a containment policy is the best course.

[The New California Republic]

1. The west had a pre-christian past, so our existence is not dependent on Christianity.
2. The U.S. was founded on a secular government, not on Christianity. Our Constitution pretty much says this.

1. The pre-Christian west was pure shit.

Nope.

2. Our laws were based on the bible even if we were secular (sadly).

Also nope.

[Novus America]

No, social progress is what destroys nations from the inside as we lose everything our society was founded upon, we must return to the values of the past and reinforce god's law on the land.

“They’re teaching evolution and racial egalitarianism! The horror!”

Outside the Deep South both of which were widely taught in the 50s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_R ... ct_of_1957
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa ... cation_Act

[Bear Stearns]

No, social progress is what destroys nations from the inside as we lose everything our society was founded upon, we must return to the values of the past and reinforce god's law on the land.

“They’re teaching evolution and racial egalitarianism! The horror!”

Those two things contradict each other.

[Old Tyrannia]

“They’re teaching evolution and racial egalitarianism! The horror!”

Those two things contradict each other.

Not according to any reputable scientist.

[Surkiea]

1. The pre-Christian west was pure shit.
2. Our laws were based on the bible even if we were secular (sadly).

If our laws were based on the bible, capital punishment would be used for minor offenses, there wouldn't be freedom of religion, and there wouldn't be freedom of speech. We were founded on enlightenment values, and while some of our founders were Christian, they obviously believed that it should be a personal matter. Jefferson for example was very supportive of religious freedom, and separation of church and state.

Our were absolutely based on the bible, why do you think murder and theft is illegal? Because the bible said so in the ten commandments.

Also

capital punishment would be used for minor offenses, there wouldn't be freedom of religion, and there wouldn't be freedom of speech.

implying that would be a bad thing lol.

Ah so dropping JDAMs on Yemeni schoolchildren is perfectly acceptable. Also acceptable is the fact that women have little to no control over their lives from birth because of their male guardianship system. Gotcha.

And Iranian-backed terrorism will never strike the United States. Actually all I've seen is American terrorism against Iran. Did you know America shot down an Iranian passenger jet and killed 290 people? Yeah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Higgins
Also the airline shoot down was an accident. Not deliberate terrorism.

Make no mistake the current Iranian regime is a foe.

We should not invade but a containment policy is the best course.

Yes we should, Iran is our enemy and needs to be destroyed. If Trump had any balls we already would have done the same in Syria and Venezuela.

[Jolthig]

If our laws were based on the bible, capital punishment would be used for minor offenses, there wouldn't be freedom of religion, and there wouldn't be freedom of speech. We were founded on enlightenment values, and while some of our founders were Christian, they obviously believed that it should be a personal matter. Jefferson for example was very supportive of religious freedom, and separation of church and state.

Our were absolutely based on the bible, why do you think murder and theft is illegal? Because the bible said so in the ten commandments.

Also

capital punishment would be used for minor offenses, there wouldn't be freedom of religion, and there wouldn't be freedom of speech.

implying that would be a bad thing lol.

So you admit you have no historical documentary evidence to prove your points? Bad circular argument much?

[Grenartia]

However, we have evolved from that. Remaining stagnant on ideals from hundreds of years ago, when society, technology, and progress was way different, is not good. In order to achieve progress, we must leave behind ideals from the past, and look for new ideologies that fit our society as it stands in the modern day.

No, social progress is what destroys nations from the inside as we lose everything our society was founded upon, we must return to the values of the past and reinforce god's law on the land.

Who determines how far back to go? 1950s? 1850s? 1750s? 500s? 50000BCE? Where's the line drawn between "not far enough" and "too far back"?

[Kowani]

“They’re teaching evolution and racial egalitarianism! The horror!”

Outside the Deep South both of which were widely taught in the 50s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_R ... ct_of_1957
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa ... cation_Act

I believe the phrase “I may not hold with equality in all things but I do hold with equality before the law.” Is in order.

[Jolthig]

True, but then you got the USSR and pre-1968 China that would've flowed arms and maybe even sent some troops to help defend North Vietnam. Maybe the ideological divide between the USSR and China plus their border war in 1969 as well as the 1972 reproachment would've helped, but invading north Vietnam would have been very risky. Just like how we tried to invade Cuba in 1961.

The problem with the thing in Cuba is it was a half assed CIA scheme using a few poorly trained Cuban exiles with no air or naval support.

The same issue with Vietnam was we wanted to fight will pretending to not really fight.

That is why I said invade North Vietnam only to the Mu Gia pass, not all the way to Hanoi.
With mountains on the left, the sea on the right and Vietnam only is only some 50km wide at that point. It would be easy to establish a defensive line, and not provoke the PRC.

Also the North Vietnamese would never let the PRC in, remember they fought a war with the ORC shortly after.
Sure there would be some risk, but you never win if you take no risks.

Bold moves win wars.

Right. That seems more realistic. Also the PRC cut aid from Vietnam in 1968 after they refused to renounce the USSR.

Also PRC invaded because Vietnam invaded Cambodia to take out the aggressive Pol Pot regime.

^the later baffles me that the UN would choose to side with Pol Pot given his numerous crimes violate both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions. Vietnam should've been praised.

[Novus America]

Outside the Deep South both of which were widely taught in the 50s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_R ... ct_of_1957
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa ... cation_Act

I believe the phrase “I may not hold with equality in all things but I do hold with equality before the law.” Is in order.

And that is an excellent phrase.