tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post1038137457623950384..comments2024-03-05T21:05:36.848-05:00Comments on CommentaramaFilms: Politics of Trek: “A Private Little War”AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-41124055568596756732012-02-10T13:20:25.691-05:002012-02-10T13:20:25.691-05:00Thanks Joel, and I think you're absolutely rig...Thanks Joel, and I think you're absolutely right. Liberals go in for revisionist history a LOT.<br /><br />Take the issue of MAD. MAD was an idea created by conservatives to fight the liberal idea that we should disarm our nuclear weapons to assure the Soviets. MAD worked and kept the piece. Liberals HATED it and films of that era are full of attacks on it. Now that it's worked, they claim it was their idea.<br /><br />They were praising national socialism before WWII. They praised colonialism to "civilize the savages" before the colonials fought back, they praised Eugenics before the Nazis (and now do again), etc.<br /><br />Liberals are very good at forgetting the things they advocated when those things are ultimately exposed. And even worse, they are good at pinning the blame for those onto conservatives.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-65877508086568026482012-02-10T09:09:58.089-05:002012-02-10T09:09:58.089-05:00Good Analysis Andrew.
On Nixon and Vietnam, Nixon...Good Analysis Andrew.<br /><br />On Nixon and Vietnam, Nixon stepped up strategic bombing. It was highly successful. Liberals wouldn't acknowledge that and started to refer to Nixon as that war-monger. Nixon in order to get re-elected for a second term, promised to end our involvement in Vietnam. Unfortunately for Vietnam, Nixon didn't renege on this campaign promise.<br /><br />After we left, and the bone of contention was removed (I. E. The liberals couldn't complain about Vietnam anymore.)The liberals promptly forgot about their involvement in that war, especially since after the war, the Communists killed non-communists. It no longer mattered to them. <br /><br />The revisionist history is so that future liberals don't have to contend with this failure legacy. That is, do what the liberals want and people die.Joel Farnhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15856960977033430002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-3932365554233596412012-02-08T01:36:47.907-05:002012-02-08T01:36:47.907-05:00Mycroft, That is certainly true. And let me point...Mycroft, That is certainly true. And let me point out again that I am not claiming these writers were conservatives. I'm just saying that by accident or design, they ended up creating conservative works. I suspect that is mainly the result of liberalism dovetailing with conservatism for that brief moment in history, but some of it is also that storytelling by its very nature really requires the use of conservatism because liberalism is a hard sell to audiences.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-1625331229807032482012-02-08T01:34:28.094-05:002012-02-08T01:34:28.094-05:00Ben, I think that part of the world is toxic and t...Ben, I think that part of the world is toxic and the best thing we could do is work toward energy independence and get out and let them fester. The more we tinker, the worse it will be because we have been blamed for all their problems and that's not going to stop, and the longer we are over there, the longer we will keep getting the blame for everything they need a scapegoat for.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-58008872522853784082012-02-08T01:31:54.994-05:002012-02-08T01:31:54.994-05:00Indi, I agree. I think the idea of detente was fo...Indi, I agree. I think the idea of detente was foolish. It was premised on the idea that if we stayed even with the Soviets, then world peace would be maintained. The better strategy was, as Reagan showed, to challenge them at their weak spot -- economics. We basically went to industrial war with them and they couldn't keep up.<br /><br />I agree that taking out the Klingons, if possible, would be the best solution to the problems in the galaxy and it's the only way to prevent continual escalation. But it still doesn't solve the problem with the Hill People. What Kirk did was basically what he would eventually need to do in any event and the episode just sidestepped the bigger Klingon issue.<br /><br />That's not a criticism of Kirk either. Keep in mind, these are morality plays so they deal with single issues/scenarios. They don't allow for broader solutions like defeating the Klingons. And given the parameters of what his options are, he makes the right call here because anything else would just cause more problems.<br /><br />And as you'll see in later episodes, the issue of balance of power comes up more directly in other episodes and the solution is more aggressive in those instances.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-55437841802544575442012-02-08T01:24:32.183-05:002012-02-08T01:24:32.183-05:00Indi, I think your response to Ben is right. I re...Indi, I think your response to Ben is right. I read a book called "Looming Tower" and it lays out a very similar issue, particularly with Bin Laden being upset that the Saudis turned to us to save them from Saddam. He had (he claimed) 70,000 Mujahedin fresh from beating the Russians in Afghanistan who could fight Iraq and he offered that to the Saudis. But the Saudis feared him, so they called us. That got Bin Laden focused on us.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-76840922192218910202012-02-08T01:20:34.125-05:002012-02-08T01:20:34.125-05:00Kelly, That's the neat "layered" thi...Kelly, That's the neat "layered" thing about science fiction. Sometimes it's obvious what they are talking about and sometimes you need more context.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-58276604603420164732012-02-08T01:18:10.970-05:002012-02-08T01:18:10.970-05:00Thanks Ben!
On al Qaeda, I think the reason we ar...Thanks Ben!<br /><br />On al Qaeda, I think the reason we are so hated in the Middle East is simple: for the past 60 years, every regime has used us as the bad guy whenever they had problems and needed an excuse, every terrorist has used us as a pretext for their campaigns against their regimes, and every religious leader has used us as an example of bad living. That's a lot of hate aimed at us for generations.<br /><br /><br />On Vietnam, I have always been amazed that liberals blame Nixon for a war started by a liberal icon and waged by another liberal icon. It's stunning that somehow they end up calling Nixon the warmonger? Liberalism really does live in a strange world.<br /><br />I think you're right that the strategy was ultimately to blame over there. I think the problem, quite frankly, was that once American troops took up the defense, the South Vietnamese became dependents and stopped caring for themselves. Basically, we did to the whole country what we've now down to inner cities in America -- we made them dependent and they responded accordingly.<br /><br />We should have never sent troops, just weapons.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-10158642049449701752012-02-08T01:10:53.935-05:002012-02-08T01:10:53.935-05:00Lawhawk, Well said about an eye for an eye being a...Lawhawk, Well said about an eye for an eye being a statement about proportionality rather than about revenge. I think that's absolutely true. And that's something conservatives do normally recognize. When someone throws a rock at your house, you don't blow up their country. And if Kirk decided to arm the Hill People so they could wipe out or enslave the villagers, then he wouldn't really be acting conservatively. The conservative solution here is to accept human nature for what it is and to re-establish the balance. Otherwise, you just switch one aggressor for another or you end up playing border guard.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-66183927896443169382012-02-08T01:07:13.218-05:002012-02-08T01:07:13.218-05:00Patriot, Red-shirts are always expendable! ;)
You...Patriot, Red-shirts are always expendable! ;)<br /><br />You raise a very interesting point. It's amazing how often some liberal hack does a really good job of outlining conservatism while they are actually trying to smear it... and how bad so many conservatives are at explaining it themselves.<br /><br />In this instance, let me make sure to state that I don't think at all that these writers were conservatives. They weren't. They are liberals. It's just that at that particular moment in time, liberalism was very much aligned with conservatism because it had moved away from things like totalitarianism and eugenics because of WWII. Sadly, they would head right back into those areas. But for about two decades, liberalism actually largely overlapped with conservatism.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-71988459706787657922012-02-08T01:03:17.645-05:002012-02-08T01:03:17.645-05:00Doc, It's an interesting issue, that's for...Doc, It's an interesting issue, that's for sure. Because the conservative instinct is "fight to win." But then you have to realize that you're not talking about your down defense here, and that complicates things. If you simply take the fight to win approach, then you eventually end up fighting everyone's wars everywhere, and that is not at all conservative.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-16933514118753167272012-02-08T01:01:46.921-05:002012-02-08T01:01:46.921-05:00tryanmax and Doc, I've run into those folks to...tryanmax and Doc, I've run into those folks too. I guess the best thing to do is ignore those folks? That's from the easier said than done department.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-4747953422612457822012-02-07T23:48:22.262-05:002012-02-07T23:48:22.262-05:00As USS Ben pointed out, JFK started US involvement...As USS Ben pointed out, JFK started US involvement in Vietnam while LBJ was responsible for the major escalation. And both presidents were Democrats.<br /><br />Remember, most of the war protesters were young people motivated by fear/anger over the draft. They opposed the Democrats. Hence, the 1968 Democratic Convention riots. <br /><br />By supporting US strategy in Vietnam, the writers were just following the Party Line.Mycrofthttp://mycrofth4.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-29457284742944238902012-02-07T23:06:02.850-05:002012-02-07T23:06:02.850-05:00Hi Indi, thanks for clarifying.
I concur that it ...Hi Indi, thanks for clarifying.<br /><br />I concur that it made things worse not deposing of Sadaam immediately, although the fact we are allies with Israel was/is certainly enough for Bin laden and company to recruit more terrorists. <br /><br />You are right, Bin Laden hated Sadaam, however, ironically, once we did move to depose Sadaam and set up a democracy in Iraq (a very fragile one that doesn't respect the rights of anyone not a Muslim since it allows sharia law) Al Qaida was against that.<br /><br />Most likely because we wanted to set up a democracy but also, I think, because Sadaam had been helping the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, encouraging more of it against Israel.<br />He had also harbored Al Qaida terrorists before the second war started.<br /><br />Be that as it may, I do believe we are seeing worse things (and will see more of it) than Libya's and Egypt's last dictators.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-70074178025406801062012-02-07T22:52:43.085-05:002012-02-07T22:52:43.085-05:00Andrew
I agree with you that it woujld not solve ...Andrew<br /><br />I agree with you that it woujld not solve the problem of the Hill people. However, the solution Kirk employed could be implemented as he desired had the federation first kicked the Klingons out. As long as Klingons send ships to arm the villagers the escalatioon wont end.<br /><br />I do agree that Iraq is very different from the scenario detailed here. I was speakng to the idea of the "balance of power" and trying to explain how I beleive the tendency to follow that paradigm in the middle east was actually a mistake.<br /><br />We never took out Sadaam on the premise that we would have serious problems trying to run Iraq. This I believe was a very accurate assumption. The problem was that we did not foresee the results of this "balance of power". The enemy countries would continually test each other and the aggressor we are trying to control would eventually resume their attack should they think they have an upper hand.<br /><br />Trying to control the enemy in this fashion is costly and in the case of the Middle East created a diplomatic problem because it put us on the radar of Islamists.<br /><br />To my mind the balance of power with the Soviets lasted as long as it did because we had leaders that would appease the Soviets. Ronald Reagan had a different philosophy. He went in to the Presidency looking to take the Soviets on. He called them the evil empire and developed Star Wars and Stealth technology in defiance of the MADD philosophy. He did not want to be equal to the Soviets in order to be able to maintain a balance of power. Reagan wanted to exceed them so that America could wipe the floor with them any time we wanted. The Sovietts fell because they could not keep up financially.<br /><br />As Sun Tsu says the best generals win without ever having to fire an arrow. Reagan proved his book right through action.Individualisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-25915912125042213362012-02-07T22:38:22.619-05:002012-02-07T22:38:22.619-05:00Hi USS Ben
I appreciate your insight. Osama Bin ...Hi USS Ben<br /><br />I appreciate your insight. Osama Bin Laden hated the fact that we were on Saudi soil. He compalined bittlery about it and thought the Saudis should go it alone against Iraq. He certainly did not want us there. The Suadis fed up with him banished him to the Sudan. I guess in comparison this would be like Gearge Bush Sr. banishing Ross Perot to Mexico as Osama was an extremely successful CEO.<br /><br /><br />So no I am not saying that Al Qaeda would like us or not be angry with us had we got rid of Sadaam. It was my understading that Osama hated Sadaam as an apostate anyways.<br /><br />What I mean is that I beleive the no fly zone which we established worked to fuel the hatred that allowed Osama and his number 2 the dentist I believe Al Zawarhi (sp) to recruit and gain the abiltiy to focus on the US.<br /><br />Sadaam would place radar installations in schools and hospitals and light them up forcing us to react. For the years from Bush to Clinton where we maintain this No Fly Zone wer were constatly bombing. <br /><br />The deaths of these innocent people worked I think to galvanize Al Qaeda to switch the focus of the terrorists from overturning the apostates in power (in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc.) and consolidating an Islamic caliphate to a focus on the "great" satan which was America. <br /><br />As the middle easterners saw the full extent of our military power in the region it became apparent that our funding and protecting of the regimes there in the nam e of world peace would derail any effort they had of freeing themselves. As a sidenote this anger may have been understandable. If I had to live under Mubarick, Sadaam, Nasser, the Saudi Princes because the US funded them I might not be ahppy about it either. It would not matter to me that the Russians, Chinese and others were equally responsible because it is the American Air Craft carriers in the gulf.<br /><br />My belief (and I really can't support this with other than my conjecture so I could be wrong but I beleive it anyways) is that had we made quick work of Sadaam and accepted the adoration of the people in Iraq and Kuwait who at that time were naming their children after George Bush (or so I heard on the TV) and set up a democracy and got out as quick as possible Al Qaeda would not have had the gravitas to enforce their argument.<br /><br />I really do feel that not following through and getting rid of Sadaam made us look very bad and helped to infuriate the Arab street against us. The facts I am discussing here are based on a book I read "Sacred Terror". This book explained the argument about the "little Satan" and Great Satan.<br /><br />Just my opinion.Individualisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-4697499303830764512012-02-07T22:31:29.737-05:002012-02-07T22:31:29.737-05:00I have seen this and I hate to admit this but I ne...I have seen this and I hate to admit this but I never noticed the Vietnam parallel. Of course, I saw it in the 1980s for the first time so I never really put the history together with it.<br /><br />I agree with those above who say this seems like an unhappy solution, but I agree it's the best solution Kirk has short of fighting their war for them.Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-41707686719531929662012-02-07T22:05:59.289-05:002012-02-07T22:05:59.289-05:00"Had we realized at the end of Gulf One that ..."Had we realized at the end of Gulf One that the problem was the Klingon (Sadaam and his Republican guard) and eliminated them we in my humble opinion would have avoided Gulf II and possibly 9/11."<br /><br />Indi:<br />Actually, Al Qaida was angry that we ever stopped Sadaam to begin with, or so they have said.<br /><br />Regardless, the very nature of Al Qaida and every other terrorist organization or state makes the US their sworn enemies because their religion/ideology (same thing in their minds) is at odds with their ultimate goal: to force human in the world to submit to Islam.<br /><br />They simply use Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc., as an excuse. <br />Even if we stopped being allies with Israel they would still come after us eventually.<br />Nothing we do other than converting to Islam would ever stop that.<br /><br />In a sense the entire middle east is made up og Klingons and Romulans.<br />Or perhaps more accurate would be the Borg or Reavers.<br />We must assimilate (surrender) or die.<br /><br />I think Andrew McCarthy at National Review said it well (Steyn, Spencer, and many other conservatives have also said this in different ways):<br /><br />"[M]ost Americans still do not know that hurriya, Arabic for 'freedom,' connotes 'perfect slavery' or absolute submission to Allah, very nearly the opposite of the Western concept."<br /><br />To be sure there are differences between the major sects of Islam and they have no problem blowing each other up, but in this they all agree.<br /><br />Of course, there are exceptions (Sufi's) and individual Muslims that do embrace liberty, but they are never in power in predominantly Muslim countries.<br /><br />If any of the radical Muslims had even a shred of rationality outside their fundamentalism I would tend to agree with your assessment but they don't, and they will never allow their people to experience true freedom.<br />To them it's heresy.<br /><br />Great post Andrew! I concur. <br />It's ironic that JFK started the Vietnam War (for us) and that LBJ continued it.<br /><br />Leftists like to lay the blame on Nixon.<br />Not that it wasn't a good idea to stop communism. It was and is.<br />Unfortunately, the war was managed badly which caused it to drag on for so long so it didn't end up like the Korean War, sadly.<br /><br />The initial goal was clear but the politicians clouded that goal so much and drug it on so long most folks lost the stomach for it.<br /><br />This always happens when idiots are in charge.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-76741528799173375152012-02-07T21:37:47.497-05:002012-02-07T21:37:47.497-05:00I really know from up-front experience that libera...I really know from up-front experience that liberals in the 60s were still anticommunist and anti-world domination. Since those were my radical days, I thought of the liberals as wishy-washy and conservatives as warmongers. As I matured, I saw the radical left taking over the formerly moderate-liberal Democratic party. But even into the mid-80s I considered myself to be a Kennedy Democrat (and I don't mean Teddy). But during my entire trip on the road to Damascus, I never saw weakness and surrender as virtues, nor did I think that we should cave in to the "inevitability" of communist conquest. I feel the same way today about Islamic conquest. <br /><br />As for the final decision to arm the hill people with flintlocks, that was indeed a conservative concept. It's the civil version of an eye for an eye. Too many people see that as a gruesome depiction of primitive and barbaric practices. In fact, it's about proportionately. Kirk could simply have armed his hill people with laser pistols or even nukes if the goal was to decide a winner. But he chose the fair solution of defending the hill people by giving them equal weapons rather than giving them weapons which would wipe out the villagers.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-14487625979853525472012-02-07T21:15:05.039-05:002012-02-07T21:15:05.039-05:00I liken these liberal screenwriters to the inadver...I liken these liberal screenwriters to the inadvertent conservative perspectives we sometimes get from the most mushy headed liberals like Meathead Rob Reiner in A Few Good Men, when Col. Jessup is on the stand explaining the US Marines view of the world compared to the liberal view. <br /><br />"Words like duty, honor, courage....these are words WE live and die by. They are words YOU toss around at cocktail parties." <br /><br />Without meaning to, idiots like Reiner encapsulate the conservative view better than most actual conservatives can themselves. <br /><br />This Trek episode looks like the same result where liberals were trying to show the futility of the arms race, yet mistakenly proved the conservative point and approach to proxy wars.<br /><br />...and did I miss the 3 security men dressed in red who always get killed when going down to a dangerous planet?Patriotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-20105245504093961022012-02-07T20:05:18.053-05:002012-02-07T20:05:18.053-05:00Scott and tryanmax, I've had similar encounter...Scott and tryanmax, I've had similar encounters over there. It's unfortunate because it's a good site.Doc Whoahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16283308866886912377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-4738017589954721512012-02-07T20:04:14.291-05:002012-02-07T20:04:14.291-05:00Excellent breakdown. I had a similar reaction as ...Excellent breakdown. I had a similar reaction as the others did at first, the conservative position when faced with aggression is to fight back and overwhelm the other side. But I think you are right ultimately. If one were to go to war every time another country is attacked by a neighbor, then you basically become the world's policeman or a end up eventually trying to conquer the world and none of that is true conservatism.Doc Whoahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16283308866886912377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-78521665252661662832012-02-07T19:29:19.537-05:002012-02-07T19:29:19.537-05:00Scott, let's just say I've had some "...Scott, let's just say I've had some "encounters" over at BH. Now I comment much more sparingly.tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-68316110092405434832012-02-07T18:16:47.447-05:002012-02-07T18:16:47.447-05:00T-Rav, You don't have to be a Trekkie to discu...T-Rav, You don't have to be a Trekkie to discuss the political aspects of what is conservatism!<br /><br /><i>// pounds table</i><br /><br /><br />Go do your work. :)<br /><br /><br />And for the record, I prefer Trekkie. I don't know where Trekker came from, but it always sounded kind of dumb to me... though I know that is the kind of statement which starts Trek-Nerd-Wars. Mwoo ha ha ha!AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-17845749739362789262012-02-07T18:11:17.158-05:002012-02-07T18:11:17.158-05:00Andrew, I. Am. Busy. (arrgghhh)
Of course there a...Andrew, I. Am. Busy. (arrgghhh)<br /><br />Of course there are things I could say, but everyone seems to have covered every angle of it so well I can't think of anything worth contributing just now. Besides, you know I'm not a Trekker! (Trekkie?)T-Ravhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10861218035729479354noreply@blogger.com