Star Trek Vietnam episode...

[billc]

Here is a look at the episode of Star Trek where Kirk violates the prime directive to support the south vietnamese...er an alien race representing that side of the war...read on for more...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/02/Politics-of-Star-Trek

Why It’s Conservative
“A Private Little War” involves primitive people who find themselves in a nasty arms race as each is backed by a galactic superpower, i.e. the Klingons and the Federation. This is a metaphor for Vietnam, which was raging at the time. In fact, the original script referenced Vietnam and described the villagers as wearing “Ho Chi Mihn type” clothes. Even the revised script refers to “twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent.”
To call this story “pro-Vietnam War” is perhaps a bit of a stretch, because the story definitely laments the loss of innocence of the Hill People and the villagers, which can be seen as an anti-war statement. However, that interpretation doesn’t mesh with the deeper philosophical points made. To the contrary, the moral of this story is that you cannot back down in the face of aggression. And if the other side is arming their allies, then you need to arm yours. That is a very conservative point.
We see this moral in the argument between Kirk and McCoy over what to do about the Klingon Empire’s interference. McCoy, who is the show’s emotional factor and who often took on the role of advocating the liberal bleeding-heart position, was aghast that Kirk would even think about arming the Hill People. Presumably, he would have Kirk abandon the Hill People to the mercy of the villagers so they could live “in peace” as slaves under the villagers and by proxy the Klingon Empire. In this, McCoy is echoing the peace movement which rioted at the 1968 Democratic convention a few months after this episode was first shown (ironically, it was repeated 3 days before the convention began).
Kirk rejects this, noting that the only solution to aggression is to stand up to the aggressor. And if they fight through a proxy by arming that proxy, then you must provide your allies with identical weapons to maintain the balance of power. Here’s the script:

MCCOY: Do I have to say it? It's not bad enough there's one serpent in Eden teaching one side about gun powder. You want to make sure they all know about it!
KIRK: Exactly. Each side receives the same knowledge and the same type of firearm.
MCCOY: Have you gone out of your mind? Yes, maybe you have. Tyree's wife, she said there was something in that root. She said now you can refuse her nothing.
KIRK: Superstition.
MCCOY: Is it a coincidence this is exactly what she wants?
KIRK: Is it? She wants superior weapons. That's the one thing neither side can have. Bones. Bones, the normal development of this planet was the status quo between the hill people and the villagers. The Klingons changed that with the flintlocks. If this planet is to develop the way it should, we must equalize both sides again.
MCCOY: Jim, that means you're condemning this whole planet to a war that may never end. It could go on for year after year, massacre after massacre.
KIRK: All right, Doctor! All right. Say I'm wrong. Say I'm drugged. Say the woman drugged me. What is your sober, sensible solution to all this?
MCCOY: I don't have a solution. But furnishing them firearms is certainly not the answer.
KIRK: Bones, do you remember the twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent? Two giant powers involved, much like the Klingons and ourselves. Neither side felt they could pull out.
MCCOY: Yes, I remember. It went on bloody year after bloody year.
KIRK: What would you have suggested, that one side arm its friends with an overpowering weapon? Mankind would never have lived to travel space if they had. No. The only solution is what happened back then. Balance of power.
MCCOY: And if the Klingons give their side even more?
KIRK: Then we arm our side with exactly that much more. A balance of power. The trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides.
This is solid conservatism.

 

[billc]

For Sukerkin,

From the article above...on American conservatism...

This is solid conservatism. Liberalism believes aggression is the result of fear, by the aggressor, that others intend to do them harm. Thus, the aggressor turns to aggression as a means of self-defense. This was why liberalism advocated disarmament in the face of Soviet aggression, to show the Russians we meant them no harm. Conservatism knows better. Conservatives understand that aggression is the result of desire: a desire to take something which does not rightly belong to the aggressor, combined with the power to take it. Conservatives also understand that we cannot eliminate desire as a human trait. Thus, the only way to prevent aggression is by making it impossible for the would-be aggressor to achieve their goals through aggression, i.e. to stand up to them.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, I'd read through the article earlier, Bill :nods:.

It was nicely done altho' I do have to say that it was clearly written from the outset to bend things to the 'appropriate' conclusion. Still, it was a piece of political writing rather than an academic analysis or literative {new word? } critique, so I can't really complain about that .

 

[elder999]

That was a fun read, billi-it was one of my favorite Star Trek episodes as a kid.

I have to take exception with this though:

This is solid conservatism. Liberalism believes aggression is the result of fear, by the aggressor, that others intend to do them harm. Thus, the aggressor turns to aggression as a means of self-defense. This was why liberalism advocated disarmament in the face of Soviet aggression, to show the Russians we meant them no harm. Conservatism knows better.

Our biggest advocate and agent for disarmament in the last 60 years was conservative icon Ronald Reagan, who engaged the Soviet Union in important arms reduction treaties, policies that were followed through by his successor, George H.W. Bush, right up until the end of the Soviet Union and the so-called Cold War.

Lastly, anyone with more than passing knowledge about the things-who isn't in a blindered state of denial due to their focus on the technical, aesthetic aspects (I know many like this)-recognizes that the world would be better off without nuclear weapons altogether, and supports efforts to reduce and ultimately ban them, regardless of their politics.

 

[The Last Legionary]

Not the one with green women? Never mind.

 

[billc]

Reagan never accepted just disarming the United States though did he, and he never acted from a position of weakness, he always acted from a position of strength and knew when to say no and when to negotiate because he understood the nature of soviet aggression. He also offered to give the russians the anti-missle technology if I recall correctly. I don't think anyone would disagree with getting rid of nuclear weapons, but the idea that by only getting rid of ours, the bad guys would get rid of theirs is where the whole thing falls apart. I think the point made in the article about the different way liberals see aggression versus the way conservatives see aggression is one of the best encapsulations of the two view points I have seen.

I remember the hearing interviews with the speech writer who wrote the famous "tear down this wall," speech. Reagan kept getting drafts of the speech back from the state department with that particular line taken out, and he kept putting it back in. The story goes, I believe, Reagan was meeting with his chief of staff or some other top aide and he said, "Now I am the president aren't I," and the aide said yes he was. " So if I want this to stay in the speech it stays in the speech, right," and the aide said yes, that was the case. Then Reagan said " Then that line stays in the speech."

The speech writer went over to Germany with Reagan and dined with some West German friends that he knew. He said as they were eating he brought up the fact that a lot of people here in the government didn't want to bring up anything about the Wall, because they believed that the Germans had accepted it as a fact of life and that bringing it up would be in bad taste. One of the men at the table stood up and said something to the effect that he had a relative on the other side of that wall that he hadn't seen since it went up and he said it with quiet outrage. The speech writer said it was then that he knew that he was right to have put that line in the speech. Or something along those lines. It was a pretty powerful story.

 

[elder999]

Reagan never accepted just disarming the United States though did he, .

I can honestly say that no one who was in a position to affect policy in the years of question ever brought that up-neither, for that matter, did most of the nuclear disarmament movement.

 

[billc]

Isn't it past your bed time elder...

 

[billc]

And then there is obama's policy...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obamas_illogical_ideology.html

Maybe Barack just has an aversion to self-preservation, because theratified treaty not only limits America's nuclear arsenal, but it also gives Russia the right to inspect our reserves after the fact and restricts the U.S.'s ability to respond to nuclear attack. Moreover, the STARToverlooks the disparity between Russia and U.S. tactical nuclear weapon stockpiles and hands Russia's modernized long-range missile program the advantage.

also...

http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-...l/europe/new-start-is-unilateral-disarmament/

The centerpiece of "New Start," the arms-control treaty that President Barack Obama signed with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April, is its reduction in nuclear warheads. Less well-understood--but profoundly misguided--is the treaty's return to outmoded Cold War limits on weapons launchers, which will require the United States, but not Russia, to dismantle existing delivery systems. This could cripple America's long-range conventional warhead delivery capabilities, while also severely constraining our nuclear flexibility. We will pay for this mistake in future conflicts entirely unrelated to Russia.
In pursuing New Start, the Obama administration has essentially jettisoned the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which only dealt with the limitation of nuclear warheads that were operationally deployed. That freed large numbers of U.S. launchers (land-based and submarine-based ballistic missiles, along with heavy bombers such as the B-2) to carry conventional payloads world-wide--a concept known as "conventional prompt global strike."
Russia's global position is nowhere near that of the U.S., and its current launcher capabilities are far inferior. Nominally equal limitations can have dramatically unequal consequences in the real world.
Such delivery flexibility is far more important to America than to Russia, given our global interests and alliances. Its wisdom was evident after 9/11, as we fought in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. New Start encumbers us with unnecessary constraints that will distort strategic priorities and weapons-development for decades.

But New Start, with its myopic focus on Russian arms levels, will severely limit our small-war capabilities. Since launchers can be used for either conventional or nuclear purposes, limiting their number to 700 forces war-planners to consider that any launcher used for conventional purposes is in effect one less launcher in the nuclear arsenal. Both conventional and nuclear capabilities are needed, and yet New Start forces a damaging trade-off.
Moreover, on the other end of the threat spectrum, China is systematically expanding its nuclear-warhead and delivery capabilities, totally unconstrained by treaty limits.

 

[elder999]

Isn't it past your bed time elder...

I don't care if I can't sleep
I'd just as soon stay up all week
I might get some things done,
while others dream.

 

[Jenna]

Anyone know Gene Rodenberrys political leanings at the time of TOS???

 

[elder999]

Anyone know Gene Rodenberrys political leanings at the time of TOS???

Gener Rodenberry was a committed lifelong liberal humanist advocate for one world government.

And, at the time, everyone in the U.S. was in fear of nuclear weapons.

 

[Jenna]

Gener Rodenberry was a committed lifelong liberal humanist advocate for one world government.

And, at the time, everyone in the U.S. was in fear of nuclear weapons.

thank you for explaining the context my friend.. i think context is key in conversations regarding beliefs Jx

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

I can honestly say that no one who was in a position to affect policy in the years of question ever brought that up-neither, for that matter, did most of the nuclear disarmament movement.

As I recall, Jimmy Carter advocated unilateral disarming for the U.S. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
For me, the entire four years of the Carter administration is pretty much an unpleasant blur. I suspect that the four years of the Obama regime will be much the same.

 

[billc]

But like Carter, and his policy toward Iran, Obama's administration will be the gift that keeps on giving, just ask the pakistani Dr. sitting in prison for the next 33 years.

 

[billc]

A story from the war...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/forty-years-later-kim-phuc-and-her-north-vietnamese-enemies/

If you are of a certain age, you almost certainly remember Kim Phuc vividly, even though you may not know her name. She was the nine-year-old South Vietnamese girl who was burned by napalm on June 8, 1972, and whose image in a prize-winning photo taken by South Vietnamese AP photographer Nick Ut became an iconic and influential force that helped end the war.

In fact, it was the South Vietnamese who were doing the bombing, but the idea that Kim was burned at the hands of Americans persists. That is only one of several common misconceptionsabout the attack, because the incident has been widely misrepresented and misunderstood through errors of omission and commission.
In many accounts — up to and including this recent AP story in honor of the photo’s 40th anniversary — the crucial role of the North Vietnamese is downplayed.

The phrase almost makes it sound as though the claims of the two sides were about equal. But in reality those North Vietnamese forces were invading the South Vietnamese village of Trang Bang that Kim and her family called home, and the South Vietnamese forces were defending it from them (by 1972, the vast majority of Communist forces fighting in the Southwere Northerners).

Once the setting and protagonists are understood, the situation becomes apparent: a tragic case of friendly fire and civilian casualties in a war in which the Northern enemy counted on the fact that civilians and children would be hurt and killed, Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs would be taken, and the American public would shrink even further from a conflict in which the lines between combatants and civilians could rarely be cleanly drawn and these horrific errors were inevitable.

And that was the way it played out, with the cooperation of a large segment of the Western press. By the time of the incident and the photograph, American active forces had largely been withdrawn from South Vietnam (only twoAmerican advisers were involved that day, neither with any command authority). That is another fact that has been widely forgotten, and although it meant that the picture’s notoriety could not have been especially instrumental in the withdrawal of American forces, the photo did have the effect of contributing to the public’s support for Congress’s latercutoff of financial aid to the ARVN, which brought on the war’s final tragic chapters.
There is a bitter irony in all this, because the photo ended up ultimately facilitating the takeover of Kim’s village — as well as all of South Vietnam — by those Northerners the South had fought so long and hard to repel, and who had started the battle by attacking Trang Bang. In addition, the withdrawal of funds occurred at a time when some experts maintainthat the tide had turned in favor of the South.

Kim is glad to be alive now, but she describes her attitude growing up in Communist-dominated Vietnam this way:

I got burned by napalm, and I became a victim of war … but growing up then, I became another kind of victim. … I wished I died in that attack with my cousin, with my south Vietnamese soldiers.
​

From her telling phrase “my south Vietnamese soldiers,” it is clear that Kim does not see them as the villains of the piece.