UVA Class of 2013 Forum

[jdavid901]

I like the way these forums remind me of /2 trade channel. Shout out if you know what I'm talking about.

Oh yeah, I was accepted last week via Early Decision.

[bdrr]

I like the way these forums remind me of /2 trade channel. Shout out if you know what I'm talking about.

Oh yeah, I was accepted last week via Early Decision.

I've been clean for four months. WoW can die in a fire.

BTW, Congratulations!

[Kohinoor]

I like the way these forums remind me of /2 trade channel. Shout out if you know what I'm talking about.

Oh yeah, I was accepted last week via Early Decision.

Enjoy it dood. The day you start you'll never play again. Meanwhile I'll be coasting as a 2L and playing D3

[bdrr]

Contrary to popular belief, the United States actually had very little to do with toppling Allende's socialist government in the early 70's. American intervention would have destroyed the very fragile arms-control talks and overall warming relations with the Soviet Union. The coup was more of a populist/military uprising against a government that had spent the country into bankruptcy and depleted the ever-powerful military and judicial systems, than one sponsored by American agents. The most the United States had to do with it was financial pressure/capital freezing and "encouraging" the assassination of one prominent pro-socialist general.

As far as meddling goes, it was pretty hands off and within the rule-book. And, of course, in comparison to any of Reagan's actions, well, there's no comparison.

This is a very strange assertion and one not supported by any of the facts I've read on the subject. Essentially your argument is "We didn't directly intervene in South America because if we had it would've been more effective than what actually happened."

The United States spent millions of dollars in promoting dissenting candidates and groups that encouraged social unrest in order to foster an atmosphere that would justify a military coup. Then they provided further millions of dollars in aid (cash, "economic development" resources, and weapons) to the military juntas that seized power in order to help them maintain power.

The U.S. certainly could have intervened more strongly than they did, I will agree with that, but that does not absolve them the fact that what they did was sufficient. They provided enough aid (and more importantly, the knowledge that the U.S. would support them post-overthrow, something far more valuable than any dollar contribution) to induce military coups. The U.S. fed the new military governments resources and support that prevented that same sort of populist sentiment from overthrowing them.

Well, I think you're misunderstanding my assertion.
We're talking about a different era - that being the Cold War era. By today's standards, what the Nixon administration did in Chile would count as the highest level of interference. However, we're not judging by today's standards.

Cold War standards were forced intervention, or understood threat of forced intervention. See Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc. Rather, what the Nixon administration did in Chile was basically along these lines:
1) Fund anti-government propaganda/media/opposition groups
- This is standard intelligence practice. We're doing this all around the world presently as well. Is it something? Yeah. But to use it as an example of American interference is actually pretty weak. Cuba was able to withstand this sort of thing for thirty years before we finally gave up. It doesn't take the strongest government to withstand foreign-funded opposition.
2) A wink-wink nudge-nudge agreement with military high command
- Basically a conversation that at some point went like this
"Hey, you guys could totally overthrow Allende"
"Oh, but there are some who stand with him"
"You can take care of that."
"We'll need help after."
"Sure."

Firstly, I think you're underestimating the amount of anti-Allende sentiment that existed within the upper ranks of Chilean society without America's help. If you want a comparison, look at Venezuela today. The educated urban elite (and middle class, too, really) are vehemently opposed to Chavez. The military was against him at first, if you remember, but he was smart enough to buy them some Russian toys to keep them occupied. Allende quickly ostracized the military and judicial systems with unilateral socialist reforms and budget reallocations. Combined with American financial pressure, the country went bankrupt, and couldn't get loans. Most of the money that entered Chile after the junta took over was simply the removal of that pressure - Chile was able to get loans again, and the junta was able to get the country stabilized. And sure, the United States added in some extra assistance on top.

So, to summarize - Nixon meddled at most, and with this minimal (again, relative) interference was able to promote an internal regime change without jeopardizing the diplomatic agreements that were being negotiated with the Soviet Union. Chile remains an example of the mastery of Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy. I seem to think your assertion is based off an absolutist analysis, rather than a relative and/or big-picture analysis within the historical context.

[Vincent Vega]

Anyone know if it is possible to live between Richmond and Charlottesville? Like halfway maybe?

My fiancee will be commuting to Richmond so it'll be nice if we can. Although Google maps makes it seem that there's nothing in between. :-/

--LinkRemoved--

There's that and some similar places. That particular joint looks pretty damn bad, but the area is right at the halfway between Richmond and Charlottesville.

[jdavid901]

I like the way these forums remind me of /2 trade channel. Shout out if you know what I'm talking about.

Oh yeah, I was accepted last week via Early Decision.

Enjoy it dood. The day you start you'll never play again. Meanwhile I'll be coasting as a 2L and playing D3

I know. I know. I haven't played in a while but it's nice to see at least two of you who know what I'm talking about. And what exactly is D3? A particular game or the genre of simple games? (I HATE acronyms)

[vanwinkle]

Well, I think you're misunderstanding my assertion.
We're talking about a different era - that being the Cold War era. By today's standards, what the Nixon administration did in Chile would count as the highest level of interference. However, we're not judging by today's standards.

Cold War standards were forced intervention, or understood threat of forced intervention. See Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc. Rather, what the Nixon administration did in Chile was basically along these lines:
1) Fund anti-government propaganda/media/opposition groups
- This is standard intelligence practice. We're doing this all around the world presently as well. Is it something? Yeah. But to use it as an example of American interference is actually pretty weak. Cuba was able to withstand this sort of thing for thirty years before we finally gave up. It doesn't take the strongest government to withstand foreign-funded opposition.
2) A wink-wink nudge-nudge agreement with military high command
- Basically a conversation that at some point went like this
"Hey, you guys could totally overthrow Allende"
"Oh, but there are some who stand with him"
"You can take care of that."
"We'll need help after."
"Sure."

Firstly, I think you're underestimating the amount of anti-Allende sentiment that existed within the upper ranks of Chilean society without America's help. If you want a comparison, look at Venezuela today. The educated urban elite (and middle class, too, really) are vehemently opposed to Chavez. The military was against him at first, if you remember, but he was smart enough to buy them some Russian toys to keep them occupied. Allende quickly ostracized the military and judicial systems with unilateral socialist reforms and budget reallocations. Combined with American financial pressure, the country went bankrupt, and couldn't get loans. Most of the money that entered Chile after the junta took over was simply the removal of that pressure - Chile was able to get loans again, and the junta was able to get the country stabilized. And sure, the United States added in some extra assistance on top.

So, to summarize - Nixon meddled at most, and with this minimal (again, relative) interference was able to promote an internal regime change without jeopardizing the diplomatic agreements that were being negotiated with the Soviet Union. Chile remains an example of the mastery of Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy. I seem to think your assertion is based off an absolutist analysis, rather than a relative and/or big-picture analysis within the historical context.

Once again your argument seems to boil down to "America didn't do as much as it could have, or was done elsewhere, so therefore it wasn't responsible." I love that you even admit that "American financial pressure" was one of the reasons for the country going bankrupt and the civil unrest that followed.

My assertion is based on a basic understanding of causation and a look at the facts. "In the historical context" it's a lot less than was happening elsewhere in the world, yes, but that doesn't mean we weren't responsible. Far from that, I'd say we just managed to do what was going on elsewhere far more cheaply and efficiently. Their "relatively minimal" interference toppled a government and enabled military regimes that rounded up and slaughtered thousands of dissenters, making sure the people who might have rebelled against the previous leaders were too terrified to rebel against them.

And I'm not just talking about Chile.

[jdavid901]

This question is aimed more at current UVA Law students, but everyone else can feel free to respond. In fact, all responses are welcome, including serious and wacky ones.

Since I know I'll be attending next year, I've been thinking about what I can do this year to prepare for the first year of school. What did you guys do or wish you had done the year prior to your first year (or what are you planning to do if you're in the same situation I am)? Keep in mind that I have a full-time teaching job.

[vanwinkle]

This question is aimed more at current UVA Law students, but everyone else can feel free to respond. In fact, all responses are welcome, including serious and wacky ones.

Since I know I'll be attending next year, I've been thinking about what I can do this year to prepare for the first year of school. What did you guys do or wish you had done the year prior to your first year (or what are you planning to do if you're in the same situation I am)? Keep in mind that I have a full-time teaching job.

From one UT grad to another, congratulations on being accepted and welcome to UVA!

I really didn't do much to prepare. I tried reading "Getting to Maybe" but it didn't make much sense to me. I also got "Thinking Like A Lawyer" by Frederick Schauer (a UVA prof), which is kind of a first look at what it takes to think like a lawyer, it's got some pretty good stuff in it.

However, I don't recommend trying to like, buy books on subjects and teaching yourself or anything. A lot of comprehension comes from the classroom participation, either from hearing things from a professor or hearing the responses from the students. The classroom setting and the structure/pacing of classes forces you to think about everything in a way that just reading a bok at your own leisure won't.

Look up reading lists of books to give you an idea what the law is like, if you're not that familiar with it already. A book like "A Civil Action" will give you an idea of what life is like being a lawyer, and the legal process you'll have to work in; a book like "One L" will give you an idea of what life is like as a law student (though it is a bit different in UVA than Harvard!).

For the most part, though, I really recommend not doing too much to try to "prepare" yourself in the sense of trying to get into legal materials early. You're gonna be knee-deep in this stuff when you're here, and there'll be plenty of time to learn it all. If you start that early you'll burn out way too soon on a subject.

What do I wish I'd done? Enjoyed having free time and a steady income more while I still had them.

[YCrevolution]

..

[vanwinkle]

Try to move in at least a week (if not more) before law school starts; moving in the weekend before law school starts can be pretty stressful, and it will then possibly take you months to unpack (it took me months to unpack, and I moved to C'ville during the middle of the summer).

This. Moving in at least a week early helps a lot, it gives you a little time to settle in and relax ever-so-briefly before the fun starts.

Also, try to befriend someone on TLS who'll help you move in. It totally makes it so much easier.

[bdrr]

Well, I think you're misunderstanding my assertion.
We're talking about a different era - that being the Cold War era. By today's standards, what the Nixon administration did in Chile would count as the highest level of interference. However, we're not judging by today's standards.

Cold War standards were forced intervention, or understood threat of forced intervention. See Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc. Rather, what the Nixon administration did in Chile was basically along these lines:
1) Fund anti-government propaganda/media/opposition groups
- This is standard intelligence practice. We're doing this all around the world presently as well. Is it something? Yeah. But to use it as an example of American interference is actually pretty weak. Cuba was able to withstand this sort of thing for thirty years before we finally gave up. It doesn't take the strongest government to withstand foreign-funded opposition.
2) A wink-wink nudge-nudge agreement with military high command
- Basically a conversation that at some point went like this
"Hey, you guys could totally overthrow Allende"
"Oh, but there are some who stand with him"
"You can take care of that."
"We'll need help after."
"Sure."

Firstly, I think you're underestimating the amount of anti-Allende sentiment that existed within the upper ranks of Chilean society without America's help. If you want a comparison, look at Venezuela today. The educated urban elite (and middle class, too, really) are vehemently opposed to Chavez. The military was against him at first, if you remember, but he was smart enough to buy them some Russian toys to keep them occupied. Allende quickly ostracized the military and judicial systems with unilateral socialist reforms and budget reallocations. Combined with American financial pressure, the country went bankrupt, and couldn't get loans. Most of the money that entered Chile after the junta took over was simply the removal of that pressure - Chile was able to get loans again, and the junta was able to get the country stabilized. And sure, the United States added in some extra assistance on top.

So, to summarize - Nixon meddled at most, and with this minimal (again, relative) interference was able to promote an internal regime change without jeopardizing the diplomatic agreements that were being negotiated with the Soviet Union. Chile remains an example of the mastery of Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy. I seem to think your assertion is based off an absolutist analysis, rather than a relative and/or big-picture analysis within the historical context.

Once again your argument seems to boil down to "America didn't do as much as it could have, or was done elsewhere, so therefore it wasn't responsible." I love that you even admit that "American financial pressure" was one of the reasons for the country going bankrupt and the civil unrest that followed.

My assertion is based on a basic understanding of causation and a look at the facts. "In the historical context" it's a lot less than was happening elsewhere in the world, yes, but that doesn't mean we weren't responsible. Far from that, I'd say we just managed to do what was going on elsewhere far more cheaply and efficiently. Their "relatively minimal" interference toppled a government and enabled military regimes that rounded up and slaughtered thousands of dissenters, making sure the people who might have rebelled against the previous leaders were too terrified to rebel against them.

And I'm not just talking about Chile.

I don't see where I'm trying to absolve the United States of responsibility. Rather, the main thing I'm trying to get across that you're clearly refusing to accept despite its rather prominent position in the story is that the military and judiciary (aka 2/3 of any South American government) were rather firmly opposed to Allende save a few choice individuals who were eventually assassinated. Without this internal opposition, which was an opposition that had nothing to do with the United States, there would have been no coup. The United States was simply able to take an unbalanced domino and tip it over. While the US may have been the ultimate "causation," as you put it, it does not change the fact the United States was NOT the enabler in this particular situation. Without the opposition groups in powerful places to begin with, the Nixon strategy would not have worked. You are accrediting the entire opposition to American intelligence, which is flat out not historically accurate. Furthermore, given the lack of support Allende had within the government itself, you can't actually say that there wouldn't eventually have been a coup even lacking American sponsorship.

You know what, I'll give you that repression by military regimes sucks. But in the middle of the Cold War we didn't quite care if the regimes allied with us were repressive, we cared if they were allied with us. You are completely ignoring the Cold War two-camp mentality. In 1970 you were either with the United States or the Soviet Union. The non-aligned third world either played the two off of one another or was fairly understood to lean in one direction (like India). This particular scenario ended with a Soviet sympathizing socialist being replaced by an American leaning junta with, I will say it again, minimal intervention, and by 70's Cold War standards, that's all that mattered.

Also, again, you're only reading half of the claim - American financial pressure CONTRIBUTED to Chile's financial woes. The other main contributor was Allende himself, spending money on socialist programs that Chile did not have. His reckless spending simply made the American pressure ever so much more effective.

And by the way, this humanitarian lament is revisionist and you know it. This wouldn't have made a list of top 5 American concerns of a post-Allende government the day after the coup.

[vanwinkle]

I don't see where I'm trying to absolve the United States of responsibility. Rather, the main thing I'm trying to get across that you're clearly refusing to accept despite its rather prominent position in the story is that the military and judiciary (aka 2/3 of any South American government) were rather firmly opposed to Allende save a few choice individuals who were eventually assassinated. Without this internal opposition, which was an opposition that had nothing to do with the United States, there would have been no coup. The United States was simply able to take an unbalanced domino and tip it over. While the US may have been the ultimate "causation," as you put it, it does not change the fact the United States was NOT the enabler in this particular situation. Without the opposition groups in powerful places to begin with, the Nixon strategy would not have worked. You are accrediting the entire opposition to American intelligence, which is flat out not historically accurate. Furthermore, given the lack of support Allende had within the government itself, you can't actually say that there wouldn't eventually have been a coup even lacking American sponsorship.

You know what, I'll give you that repression by military regimes sucks. But in the middle of the Cold War we didn't quite care if the regimes allied with us were repressive, we cared if they were allied with us. You are completely ignoring the Cold War two-camp mentality. In 1970 you were either with the United States or the Soviet Union. The non-aligned third world either played the two off of one another or was fairly understood to lean in one direction (like India). This particular scenario ended with a Soviet sympathizing socialist being replaced by an American leaning junta with, I will say it again, minimal intervention, and by 70's Cold War standards, that's all that mattered.

Also, again, you're only reading half of the claim - American financial pressure CONTRIBUTED to Chile's financial woes. The other main contributor was Allende himself, spending money on socialist programs that Chile did not have. His reckless spending simply made the American pressure ever so much more effective.

And by the way, this humanitarian lament is revisionist and you know it. This wouldn't have made a list of top 5 American concerns of a post-Allende government the day after the coup.

I love how you say you're not "trying to absolve the United States of responsibility" and then spend several paragraphs trying very hard to justify their involvement in the massacres that occurred.

I'm not attributing the entire opposition to leaders like Allende to American intelligence. That's stupid, and I didn't think it was even a point worth debating. Of course the military leaders didn't like him. However, there's a huge difference between not liking your president and being ready to overthrow him, and the United States pushed the military from point A to point B. No, they couldn't have done that without there being dissent, and I wasn't disputing that. However, I was disputing the implication that things would've gone that way anyway without American involvement and therefore America was somehow "off the hook" for what happened despite the fact that they actually instigated and prolonged it.

So, pointing out that the United States is causally responsible for military regimes that "disappeared", tortured, and executed tens of thousands of people across South America is "revisionist humanitarian lament"? Your argument is essentially "The ends justify the means, and our safety is worth the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians." And I don't think there's anything "revisionist" about that at all, I think almost any person that considers basic human rights and moral values should care about that. The fact that we weren't concerned about it shows how wrong we were at the time.

Especially since we spent the Cold War claiming that we were defending the "free world" against the "tyranny of socialism". Is that the kind of free world we were trying to create?

[bdrr]

So, pointing out that the United States is causally responsible for military regimes that "disappeared", tortured, and executed tens of thousands of people across South America is "revisionist humanitarian lament"? Your argument is essentially "The ends justify the means, and our safety is worth the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians." And I don't think there's anything "revisionist" about that at all, I think almost any person that considers basic human rights and moral values should care about that. The fact that we weren't concerned about it shows how wrong we were at the time.

Especially since we spent the Cold War claiming that we were defending the "free world" against the "tyranny of socialism". Is that the kind of free world we were trying to create?

This is the very definition of revisionism. You're judging the decisions and outcomes of Era A by the ethical and political standards of Era B without caring about the geopolitical or historical setting of Era A. I don't know how you can call it anything else.

Further, given that Era B isn't quite over yet - I actually dispute your humanitarian sympathies right out. I'm guessing you're the type who cries foul every time a civilian gets killed in Sri Lanka or Gaza, or when Egypt arrests/kills a couple hundred fundamentalists. Your argument is less based on a comprehensive analysis as it is a modern idealistic humanitarian (dare I say Eurocratic?) objection that is entirely out of context in the Chilean scenario.

[vanwinkle]

So, pointing out that the United States is causally responsible for military regimes that "disappeared", tortured, and executed tens of thousands of people across South America is "revisionist humanitarian lament"? Your argument is essentially "The ends justify the means, and our safety is worth the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians." And I don't think there's anything "revisionist" about that at all, I think almost any person that considers basic human rights and moral values should care about that. The fact that we weren't concerned about it shows how wrong we were at the time.

Especially since we spent the Cold War claiming that we were defending the "free world" against the "tyranny of socialism". Is that the kind of free world we were trying to create?

This is the very definition of revisionism. You're judging the decisions and outcomes of Era A by the ethical and political standards of Era B without caring about the geopolitical or historical setting of Era A. I don't know how you can call it anything else.

Further, given that Era B isn't quite over yet - I actually dispute your humanitarian sympathies right out. I'm guessing you're the type who cries foul every time a civilian gets killed in Sri Lanka or Gaza, or when Egypt arrests/kills a couple hundred fundamentalists. Your argument is less based on a comprehensive analysis as it is a modern idealistic humanitarian (dare I say Eurocratic?) objection that is entirely out of context in the Chilean scenario.

Except that under the moral standards of the time (looking back at Nuremberg and the rhetoric of the United States post-WWII) the claimed ethical and moral standards of Era A are all I'm trying to hold them to. All I'm pointing out is that the U.S. claimed moral high ground of democracy and liberty while aiding the formation and existence of brutal military dictatorships.

How is trying to hold the United States to the virtues it proclaimed at the time "revisionism"?

[bdrr]

So, pointing out that the United States is causally responsible for military regimes that "disappeared", tortured, and executed tens of thousands of people across South America is "revisionist humanitarian lament"? Your argument is essentially "The ends justify the means, and our safety is worth the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians." And I don't think there's anything "revisionist" about that at all, I think almost any person that considers basic human rights and moral values should care about that. The fact that we weren't concerned about it shows how wrong we were at the time.

Especially since we spent the Cold War claiming that we were defending the "free world" against the "tyranny of socialism". Is that the kind of free world we were trying to create?

This is the very definition of revisionism. You're judging the decisions and outcomes of Era A by the ethical and political standards of Era B without caring about the geopolitical or historical setting of Era A. I don't know how you can call it anything else.

Further, given that Era B isn't quite over yet - I actually dispute your humanitarian sympathies right out. I'm guessing you're the type who cries foul every time a civilian gets killed in Sri Lanka or Gaza, or when Egypt arrests/kills a couple hundred fundamentalists. Your argument is less based on a comprehensive analysis as it is a modern idealistic humanitarian (dare I say Eurocratic?) objection that is entirely out of context in the Chilean scenario.

Except that under the moral standards of the time (looking back at Nuremberg and the rhetoric of the United States post-WWII) the claimed ethical and moral standards of Era A are all I'm trying to hold them to. All I'm pointing out is that the U.S. claimed moral high ground of democracy and liberty while aiding the formation and existence of brutal military dictatorships.

How is trying to hold the United States to the virtues it proclaimed at the time "revisionism"?

I'm actually happy you brought this up because it led me to a rather ironic realization which is a little further down.

I'll start at Nuremberg, though. What Nuremberg showed was that the United States was willing to take a humanitarian stand when it was convenient. Many Nazis escaped Nuremberg or other war crimes trials because they were deemed valuable to the United States' interests (generally, they were either thought to be useful intelligence assets or were scientists of some sort). So, again, the important part here is convenience. Before the first gavel at Nuremberg fell, the United States had already compromised itself on its proclaimed intent of the trials.

The Cold War understanding was that the moral standards of democracy and freedom were implicitly only to exist in a free world - the ultimate goal. While the Soviet Union existed, the world could not be free - and thus to achieve the ends of democracy and freedom, the Soviet Union needed first be defeated. Thus, the standards championed during the Cold War were in fact meant for the future - in a world without the USSR. And the United States pursued that goal in the sequence of events that culminated on December 26th, 1991. So, really, they were standards meant for today.

And, of course, there's the irony.
The future standards theorized by the guys I'm defending from your modern analysis are in fact being upheld as they would have it by you.
And, conversely, I'm not in agreement with the standards of today that the guys I'm defending envisioned.

And I think following the fall of the Soviet Union the United States honestly tried for a decade to uphold those standards they had promised the world. But, things changed - the rise of Islamic extremism really being the defining change. My objection to those standards is that the world never really changes - there is always going to be some sort of antagonizing force that seeks to destroy you. How you and I differ is how to deal with that antagonizing force. I'm guessing you believe the best way is to stay true to your values, take the high road, and eventually they will lose support from whatever constituency they have. I personally feel that sort of minimally-confrontational approach is dangerous. Now, I will give you I very much don't agree with the way things have been handled overall worldwide [whether the nation be the United States, Israel, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc.] since 2001, but I feel as if at least they got the approach correct.

[vanwinkle]

The Cold War understanding was that the moral standards of democracy and freedom were implicitly only to exist in a free world - the ultimate goal. While the Soviet Union existed, the world could not be free - and thus to achieve the ends of democracy and freedom, the Soviet Union needed first be defeated. Thus, the standards championed during the Cold War were in fact meant for the future - in a world without the USSR. And the United States pursued that goal in the sequence of events that culminated on December 26th, 1991. So, really, they were standards meant for today.

And, of course, there's the irony.
The future standards theorized by the guys I'm defending from your modern analysis are in fact being upheld as they would have it by you.
And, conversely, I'm not in agreement with the standards of today that the guys I'm defending envisioned.

So, in essence, they should be absolved of not following the very moral standards they promoted because the world wasn't ready for it yet?

Also, "not being in agreement with the standards of today" sounds awfully like you're saying you're okay with the U.S. promoting and supporting totalitarian regimes that slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Though reading the rest of what you wrote, that doesn't surprise me much.

[bdrr]

The Cold War understanding was that the moral standards of democracy and freedom were implicitly only to exist in a free world - the ultimate goal. While the Soviet Union existed, the world could not be free - and thus to achieve the ends of democracy and freedom, the Soviet Union needed first be defeated. Thus, the standards championed during the Cold War were in fact meant for the future - in a world without the USSR. And the United States pursued that goal in the sequence of events that culminated on December 26th, 1991. So, really, they were standards meant for today.

And, of course, there's the irony.
The future standards theorized by the guys I'm defending from your modern analysis are in fact being upheld as they would have it by you.
And, conversely, I'm not in agreement with the standards of today that the guys I'm defending envisioned.

So, in essence, they should be absolved of not following the very moral standards they promoted because the world wasn't ready for it yet?

Also, "not being in agreement with the standards of today" sounds awfully like you're saying you're okay with the U.S. promoting and supporting totalitarian regimes that slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Though reading the rest of what you wrote, that doesn't surprise me much.

Firstly, I don't believe these standards they were promoting were intended for the Cold War world. They don't need be absolved because they were not promoting them for the then present day. And, as I wrote, I believe the United States honestly attempted to carry out those promised standards between 1992 and 2001.

Have you ever stopped to think that just maybe there's a reason that stability trumps humanitarian concerns? When a country is unstable, it turns into Somalia or Sudan or pre-Uribe Colombia. Heck, it turns into Mexico for that matter. More people die in unstable states filled with civil strife and collapsed infrastructure (think food/medicine distribution) than are killed for opposing totalitarian regimes. The fact of the matter is many parts of the world aren't ready for governments based on liberal principles because they haven't gone through the necessary requisites for society to be able to accept them. The sad fact of the matter is they are plan better off under repressive dictatorships than being stuck in an endless war between fundamentalists, anarchists, criminals, tribalists, and whoever else might not be happy with a society based on pluralism. What we really have our hands is "The Bomb" question. Less people died as a result of the two atomic bombs being dropped than if the United States had to invade Japan - maybe as many as 8x less by some estimates. It's the same deal here.

I don't understand your focus on "absolution" here. You're acting as if our Cold War leaders committed some sort of sin by doing what was necessary to solidify our position against the Soviet Union. This isn't and never was a conversation about moral standards on my part, which it is now clear was your problem all along. If you want to sit with your liberal apologist friends and atone for your imagined sins of this country's past, I suppose that's your choice. But I'll be off working with the guys who create more "sins" for you to "atone" for - and make this country a safer place in a more stable world.

[vanwinkle]

You're acting as if our Cold War leaders committed some sort of sin by doing what was necessary to solidify our position against the Soviet Union.

Yes, if only because they did. Having an enemy does not somehow justify committing obvious moral wrongs like supporting mass murder and the oppression of entire nations of people. This is especially true considering that we have used those very things as justification for us invading or interfering with other nations starting with the end of WWII and continuing today.

If you want to sit with your liberal apologist friends and atone for your imagined sins of this country's past, I suppose that's your choice. But I'll be off working with the guys who create more "sins" for you to "atone" for - and make this country a safer place in a more stable world.

Confirms everything I suggested about you. The fact that you can sleep safely at night today doesn't make what our country does right, it just means that it worked. The fact that you cannot tell the two apart (and that you don't realize that the latter without the former has led to many of today's international problems) says all I need to know about you.

[jdavid901]

I feel like I'm watching an episode of Hannity and Colmes. Be right back, getting popcorn.

[bdrr]

I feel like I'm watching an episode of Hannity and Colmes. Be right back, getting popcorn.

That would imply I'm a self-absorbed pundit who lacks any shred of integrity and he's a spineless balding coward.
I believe both I and vanwinkle have a right to be offended at that comment!

[02082010]

Might be joining this thread officially in the coming months. Received my acceptance package today and I must say I'm impressed.

[YCrevolution]

..

[jdavid901]

I feel like I'm watching an episode of Hannity and Colmes. Be right back, getting popcorn.

That would imply I'm a self-absorbed pundit who lacks any shred of integrity and he's a spineless balding coward.
I believe both I and vanwinkle have a right to be offended at that comment!

No disrespect intended, but I guess it depends on your opinion of those two.

[jdavid901]

Might be joining this thread officially in the coming months. Received my acceptance package today and I must say I'm impressed.

Please describe this package. I only got a letter last year.

I got a package too . Mine consists of an official UVA Law folder, filled with a 2009-2010 Law School bulletin, Charlotesville Welcome Booklet, a copy of the spring 2009 edition of UVA Lawyer, and several inserts describing different features of the law school such as "careers," "class of 2012 profile," "human rights law," etc...