On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 12:28:47 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

But then, to us they /all/ were "gooks".

This was what lost the war for us, and it was what was wrong with our >response to 9-11 as well.

Winning a war seems easy. All you have to do is identify the enemy and
kill them. In far too many cases we have failed to do the first.

You can see this happening just as much in our current war in the

mideast,

sadly.

This is because, except in Aghanistan where the Taliban painted a
target on their back by shielding Bin Laden, and in liberating Kuwait
from the jaws of Saddam, there was no enemy.

In fact, so far, Trump hasn't actually found /any/ enemy of the USA to
attack. Enemies of himself, certainly, but those are all domestic.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.18
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Because, with our usual proclivity for Strong Men and dictators, we
set up a South Vietnamese government of French-speaking Roman Catholic Northerners and never really understood why they were unable to govern
a country composed of Southern peasants who were Vietnamese-speaking Buddhists. And credited the Viet Minh with getting the French out.

But then, to us they /all/ were "gooks".

Your suggested scenario seems fit for a low budget B-movie about the
"Nam" war. You share the typical self-serving anti-Catholicism of crony capitalists who profit from colonialism:

French officials built several pagodas for Vietnamese
Buddhists to worship. What colonial officials saw as a
simple and obvious act of accommodation to Vietnam?s
majority religion, missionaries saw as an active effort
to turn Vietnamese Catholics away from the Church.

<https://web.archive.org/web/20220819050955/https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/religious_missionaries_and_the_colonial_state_indochina>

The French state's anti-Catholicism ultimately failed. The thriving
Vietnamese community at my parish is served by two itinerant Vietnamese priests, one of whom shuttles between my church and Vietnam. A monthly
mass is celebrated in Vietnamese. The slim, silken haired, impeccably
dressed women who attend are a Catholic's Catholic.

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. veritas _|_ telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. liberabit |
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' vos |


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.18
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 00:25:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jul 2026 15:29:47 GMT, John Savard wrote:

But the German Federal Republic had universal health care long
before the Berlin Wall fell.

Of course. Much of Europe is able to do a similarly good job. And some >elsewhere, too.

But remember, in the eyes of many in the US, these are ?Socialist?
nations.

The most obvious response, of course, is to disclaim responsibility
for the inability of some Americans to use a dictionary. Socialism is
when the State owns the means of production. Neither a mixed economy
nor a welfare state is an example of that.

However, it is somewhat unreasonable to expect ordinary people to use technically precise terminology at all times in ordinary conversation.

And, not only that, but as the United States Constitution specifically
limits the Federal spending power to national defense and the general
welfare, it is not altogether illegitimate to claim that, barring a Constitutional amendment, programs such as the Affordable Care Act are
beyond the legitimate powers of the Federal government in the United
States.

Remember, when the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and its predecessors were introduced, the legislation authorizing them noted
their role in ensuring the general welfare, by providing supports to
American farmers, in addition to the insufficient to make the program Constitutionally legitimate role of aiding the particular welfare of
program recipients.

So if one defines 'socialism' as any government expenditure on social
welfare programs by a national government which exceeds what the U. S. Constitution, by a strict interpretation, authorizes for the U. S.
Federal Government, then, yes, universal health care as other
countries do it is 'socialist'. And, of course, some Americans may use
the universal moral law, as revealed in the writings of Ayn Rand, as
their authority rather than the U. S. Constitution.

Of course, many Americans use another set of texts as an authority on
universal moral law which is even more authoritative than the
Constitution. Although that set of texts has stuff about "widows and
orphans" in it that would seem to make it irrelevant to our present
discussion - although elsewhere it does say "He who would not work,
neither shall he eat" or something like that.

John Savard

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.18
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

John Savard <quadibloc@invalid.com> wrote:

nations.

The most obvious response, of course, is to disclaim responsibility
for the inability of some Americans to use a dictionary. Socialism is
when the State owns the means of production. Neither a mixed economy
nor a welfare state is an example of that.

What about when the government buys a 10% stake in Intel to become the company's largest shareholder?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.18
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)