Is The Drug War A Symptom Of A Sick Society

[Jccarlton]

Where do your points discuss the numbers of medical starters that transition to addicts verses numbers of recreational starters verses total addicts? I agree that the impetus to initiate the escapism that using provides can be varied, peer pressure, pre-exisiting stressors, psychological trauma, etc. But where is the Addict Population breakout that we are actually discussing?

Well you could actually look up the information. Or you could have been reading the links I have provided here on the subject over the years. Or you could go to the sidebar of my blog http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ and follow the "Addiction Articles" link and catch up. I guess you were not that interested in getting informed. Typical. Argument from ignorance seems to be the preferred style on the subject for those who support the government program. Now I know your attitude about most government programs and it is hardly positive. And yet when it comes to Drug Prohibition you seem relatively unsceptical. Funny that.

But I will give you the info here anyway.

About 20% of the population is genetically primed for addiction/PTSD. We see that in the Afghan War. About 20% come back with permanent PTSD (lasting from several years to a lifetime - depending on the severity of the trauma and the exact genetics). In the US about half of that 20% gets sufficiently traumatized by life experience (mostly child abuse) to get PTSD. Which says that about half the children in America are getting abused. But those in the 80% not genetically primed for addiction get over it. So in America we see an addiction rate of about 10% to most drugs (including alcohol). Except for tobacco where the rate runs in the neighborhood of 30% to 50%.

So one would expect that about 10% of those given opiates for other medical conditions will get addicted. Which is exactly (more or less) what we see. In the early trials of heroin (1880s I believe) ten people were given heroin and none of them got addicted so it was touted as a non-addictive pain reliever. Not a surprising result statistically. You would need to try it on 100 or 1,000 to get a valid sample. But that was back in the day when they still believed that drugs cause addiction. According to that theory a sample of ten should have been sufficient.

So my point stands. If drugs do not cause addiction then fighting drugs is a total waste of money and lives. It can never work. Ever. And yet you want to keep feeding money and lives into the maw. No wonder you prefer ignorance. Otherwise you would have to cop to supporting crimes against humanity.

As I said. When the ignorance is finally dispelled those supporting this vile government project will slink away hoping that no one remembers where the they stood on the issue. But you know - the Internet is forever.

So yes. The Drug War Is A Symptom of A Sick Society. But not in the way the person who initiated the topic imagined. The love of punishment of people who are different is normal. It is not civilized. The sickness is a reversion to pre-civilization behavior.

I've been talking a lot with my office mate, Art, who is from Poland and who grew up during the Soviet Empire days. One thing he made clear was that the stress on people was much higher than here in the US and the addiction rates were much higher. The rigors of living in Communism literally made people sick. And people would go to any lengths to relieve that sickness.

[ladajo]

Simon,
I will take the time to follow up on your links. I see the basis of your points, and up front agree I should not dismiss it out of hand. One micro-scale I already see that raises a question is the fact that out of 8 kids in my family, only two went "south", one dramtically so. Given your posts above, it would seem that all eight of us should be pre-disposed due to some hereditary or environmental theme. I just do not see it. Maybe the genetic dice played more nicely with the rest of us. Dunno. But for sure, my younger sister (other than a possible genetic theme) had no reason to "seek out the dark side". She was on a short fast track to success. And in my view got sucked in by drugs. She started on pot, and went quickly down the coke route. I do not know if she still does coke, I hope not, but I would guess she is still on pot. Hard for me to tell, I don't talk to her much these years. She burned many bridges in the family. I have never told her to take a hike, buy when she is around, I do not let her lie or cheat. I put it on the table. I learned before, that seems to be the only way to limit her behavior.
I also think back to the many users I knew in high school, and barring the genetics, as one can't really tell, most of those kids came from successful white collar families, and I recall no drama in their lives that would indicate mental stress nor a pre-disposition for it. Some of them ended up pissing their lives away much like my sister. Much to the consternance of their doctor/lawyer/accountant/executive parents.
Dunno. But doesn't seem to fit.

PS: Took the wife and kids to see TRON on IMAX 3D this evening. Walked out with a grin I haven't had since the first TRON back in the day. I am a product of my generation, what can I say. I think I might dig the Sinclair out of my old stuff pile in the garage and show it to my son...

[choff]

I recall that during the Soviet era the Russians tried to reduce Vodka consuption, but they had to give up on the idea. It seemed that when the people started getting sober they started clamouring for political changes, so the communists ended up with a preference for mass alcoholism.

Its absolutely true that the war on drugs is a disaster, that's the general case with war. Somehow, I can't see legalization in North America not being an equal disaster, evidence to the contrary from a small place like the netherlands. The real enemy is the human condition, and there ain't no cure for it.

If there is something to complain about, it would be the 2 million people imprisoned for drug crimes on the lower end of the economic scale, while the elite deviants on the upper end get a free pass. I think there's grounds for a class action suit over selective prosecution.

[Giorgio]

War on drugs is just another way of the people in charge to try to impose their control and belief on the rest of the population.

Sooner or later we will get rid of this way of thinking, and drugs will be considered no more no less than the other "drugs" that are freely available in commerce today.

PS: Took the wife and kids to see TRON on IMAX 3D this evening. Walked out with a grin I haven't had since the first TRON back in the day. I am a product of my generation, what can I say. I think I might dig the Sinclair out of my old stuff pile in the garage and show it to my son...

Saw it a couple of days ago, it was nice, but didn't really excite me so much.
The 3D was pretty limited IMHO.

I had the ZX80, the ZX81 and the ZX Spectrum. They was some pretty amazing machine at the time

[MSimon]

ladajo,

Look up telomeres. It explains how people with the same genetics can have different genetic inheritances.

In fact genetics is starting to look a lot like climate science in that there are so many varying factors that it is hard to sort out what is going on.

A look at epigenetics would also be good. This is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evol ... ation.html

BTW a gene (if it is in fact directly genetic) that shows up in only 20% of the population is recessive. If only 2 out of 8 in your family carry the gene that would be about right for a recessive gene if both parents are carriers.

===============

One thing I want to add - just about everybody gets PTSD short term in high stress situations. And the desire for relief will continue while the stress remains. We saw that in 'Nam with returnees. I'm not sure of the exact number but something like 50% or more in the war zone had acquired an opiate habit. That led to Nixon pushing Methadone out of fear. Once out of the war zone most of the users had quit by one year back in the World.

So the above bit about Communism is very good and to the point.

Let me also add that in our local paper some one made an off hand comment about 40% of the kids in this country being victims of child abuse. I have been unable to track down the source for that statement but it fits in well with my analysis of the general prevalence of PTSD in the population.

And as I said above - pot use peaks at about age 20 (the high anxiety years - 50% of 20 yr olds are pot users) and declines rapidly for about 5 or 10 years and then more slowly after that.

We also see it with heroin. About 5% a year of the user population gives it up without any intervention. If there is intervention (drug rehab) you get exactly the same number. i.e. rehab is useless. What it may do (at enormous expense) is speed up the process by a few months.

The trouble is: because of our government's fixation on drugs (it's the money) we are not looking seriously into these questions. Another disgrace.

[MSimon]

Its absolutely true that the war on drugs is a disaster, that's the general case with war. Somehow, I can't see legalization in North America not being an equal disaster,

Under the current regime we have rampant drug use and crime. There is no impediment to getting illegal drugs in this country.

All legalization will do is take the crime factor out of the equation. Exactly what ending alcohol prohibition did.

Then the $25 bn a year the Feds spend on the project can go into research. Yeah - there will be great waste in such a project. It beats the total waste of the current regime though. And we will actually learn something.

What makes people stupid about the Prohibition project is that people are fooled by words. Many think "prohibited" means "unavailable". When what it actually means is "distributed by criminals".

So the question really is: would we be better off if drugs were distributed by pharmacies and liquor stores or if they were distributed by criminals. Hint: it is currently easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer. A fact that has been true for 30 years at least.

[Diogenes]

The problem with the "Drug War" is we fight it the way we fought the Vietnam War. A constrained and continuous series of holding actions, and nothing to really defeat the enemy conclusively.

So what you are saying is that you have no real idea how the Vietnam War was fought?

Have you ever heard of CORDS, APC, CAPs, MATs, MTTs, HES? Why Nixon was able to conduct the Linebacker Raids? The culmulative effects of all of the above? Do you know who Robert Komer was? How about the Jason studies done during Vietnam?
The greatest tradgedy of the time was the failure to culminate to victory. The parts were in place, progress was being made. It was winnable, even with our combat troops withdrawing, we still intended to support the South. Unfortunately, this thing called Watergate happened. No more support, no more threat of more Linebacker. Granted, given all that, you would more or less have a North/South divide like Korea, but given that was our entry, and somewhat exit goal, that is a win.

I know this. When you want to win a war, you don't pussyfoot around with the enemy. Had we fought Vietnam the way we fought World War II, We would have seized and occupied Hanoi in the first year.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Mcnamara bear the most blame in turning Vietnam into A quagmire because they were too busy trying to "send messages" to the Russians and Chinese by Micro-Managing the troops.

Yeah, we won eventually in spite of those liberal morons, and then Other Liberal morons in Congress threw that victory away, because they were more interested in Humiliating Richard Nixon than they were in the well being of the Nation.

[Diogenes]

We could use the Chinese cost saving approach and just shoot them. Not sure if that is cheaper than bulldozing mass pits, and just burying them. I think the Nazi's had some success in cost control as well...

The answer I think is more on the lines of a culture that does not seek fantasy escape from the reality of life. Of course, that is a mucher longer term solution, and greatly contested in method of execution.

Ah. Drugs as fantasy escape.

So if you have a broken leg and want pain relief you should be denied your fantasy escape? A bit harsh.

MSimon, I really wish you would stop using the RYAN WHITE argument tactic. (Ryan White is the boy who caught AIDS from a blood transfusion, and thereafter became the Poster Child for AIDS funding, notwithstanding that the VAST Majority of people infected with AIDS became infected through Abnormal sexual practices and/or I.V. drug usage.)

The guy with the Broken leg represents Ryan White. The Recreational drug user (comprising the VAST majority of drug users) Represent the Homosexuals and IV drug users.

Nobody wants to deny pain relief to people suffering from Injuries or disease. We just don't want them self diagnosing and self administering for a condition known as "life."


I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your points. Suffice it to say I think in the areas where you might have a valid point, you are either missapplying it or over applying it.

[KitemanSA]

Nobody wants to deny pain relief to people suffering from Injuries or disease. We just don't want them self diagnosing and self administering for a condition known as "life."

Jeez, you must really hate and distrust people in general. Why can't they "self diagnose"? If you feel sh*tty, don't you know it? Do you take Advil or Tylanol? Why should you be able to self diagnose and not them? Is it that you just hate it when someone else has fun?

[ladajo]

The problem with the "Drug War" is we fight it the way we fought the Vietnam War. A constrained and continuous series of holding actions, and nothing to really defeat the enemy conclusively.

So what you are saying is that you have no real idea how the Vietnam War was fought?

Have you ever heard of CORDS, APC, CAPs, MATs, MTTs, HES? Why Nixon was able to conduct the Linebacker Raids? The culmulative effects of all of the above? Do you know who Robert Komer was? How about the Jason studies done during Vietnam?
The greatest tradgedy of the time was the failure to culminate to victory. The parts were in place, progress was being made. It was winnable, even with our combat troops withdrawing, we still intended to support the South. Unfortunately, this thing called Watergate happened. No more support, no more threat of more Linebacker. Granted, given all that, you would more or less have a North/South divide like Korea, but given that was our entry, and somewhat exit goal, that is a win.

I know this. When you want to win a war, you don't pussyfoot around with the enemy. Had we fought Vietnam the way we fought World War II, We would have seized and occupied Hanoi in the first year.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Mcnamara bear the most blame in turning Vietnam into A quagmire because they were too busy trying to "send messages" to the Russians and Chinese by Micro-Managing the troops.

Yeah, we won eventually in spite of those liberal morons, and then Other Liberal morons in Congress threw that victory away, because they were more interested in Humiliating Richard Nixon than they were in the well being of the Nation.

Johnson's biggest fear was Korean Style intervention from China. He made all his decisions based on that. To paraphrase a quote from him, <sic>, "That is what McCarther thought, but what do I do if they do?" in reply to CJCS regarding lack of Chinese intent to intervene.
Nixon took a different tack, and sought to use diplomacy to isolate North Korea from its allies materially and also make concessions to allow for real bombing, vice the Rolling Thunder approach. He sicked Kissinger on them, and after several secret meetings and trips later generated compromises that have not all yet seen the light of day (The Taiwan conjecture and others), this culminated with a supposed personal promise from Nixon when he visited Bejing, that we were a.) serious about the promises made (look, I am here to confirm), and b.) to reiterate, we will only bomb the North, not invade. Linebacker I commenced in June, not long after Nixon's visit.
This was apparently a move with foresight, as we now know that the Chinese had a secret treaty with North Korea that promised Chinese Troops and intervention if the US put ground forces into the North. Very much the same as Korea, and as we found out later, they also meant it.
The pressures that CORDS and all that was in its theme was telling on the dau tranh strategy being executed by the North. Although they had regressed to Maoist phase I (some aruge) or more realisitcally an earlier phase II, the losses in the chinh tri (catastrophic) and the vu trang (virtually eliminated). The incursions into Cambodia were also devasting, and are the principle argument that they were retrograded to phase I, vice phase II. The efforts to prosecute Phase III was a true miscalculation on their part. They went to great efforts to keep dau tranh alive, to include unprecedented use of NVA to backfill and reconstitute, which was never fully realized, and also defeated some of the core principles and utility of dau tranh.
The pressure of pacification efforts, as well as Vietnamazation were the primary themes for negiotiation on the North's side.
We saw all this in many debriefings of defectors, as well as documents and memoirs that we gained access too much later on, both Vietnamese, and some of the chinese stuff.
In short, the combined pressure and dismantling of The Struggle, combined with Linebacker bringing the war home to the North in a real way, pressured the North into large regression in their talks positions, and a focused willingness to sign and get the US out. The biggest fear they had though even in this was that Vietnamization was working, especially given continued availability of US air power after the ground forces had left. Watergate fallout was a completely unforeseen bonus for them. It also allowed the Russians to step up and go back on agreements made and start supplying the North again with a vengeance in 74, setting up the 75 invasion.
I think difference had nothing to do with pussy footing around, in was rooted in real concerns about a Korea II. It also was based in a fundamental difference in approach by the Johnson verses Nixon administration regarding the Communist arena.
Johnson did not want to make deals or the such. Nixon wanted to make deals, especially ones that would encourage fragmentation or further it where it had already started. I think that the Taiwan cookie was part of the sweet offer made to the Chinese, and they could not resist. After all, what were they really giving up? Not much, a divided Vietnam was just another buffer like Korea.
Your argument and statements show a lack of depth in your background on this, as well as a lack of ability to see the bigger picture, overlayed on the individual details. The 25 Oct UN vote on 2758 is enough of a clue in itself to unravel your "pussyfooting" argument. During Korea, China was not nuclear, and we had tabled serious plans to go nuclear on them. In Vietnam they were nuclear, and although we had plans to go nuclear to resolve it, the leadership determined it was not worth the risk, nor neccessary. Isolating the North, and beating dau tranh became the method. And it was working. Without Watergate, it would have been a different ballgame in '74 & '75.

[Diogenes]

So what you are saying is that you have no real idea how the Vietnam War was fought?

Have you ever heard of CORDS, APC, CAPs, MATs, MTTs, HES? Why Nixon was able to conduct the Linebacker Raids? The culmulative effects of all of the above? Do you know who Robert Komer was? How about the Jason studies done during Vietnam?
The greatest tradgedy of the time was the failure to culminate to victory. The parts were in place, progress was being made. It was winnable, even with our combat troops withdrawing, we still intended to support the South. Unfortunately, this thing called Watergate happened. No more support, no more threat of more Linebacker. Granted, given all that, you would more or less have a North/South divide like Korea, but given that was our entry, and somewhat exit goal, that is a win.

I know this. When you want to win a war, you don't pussyfoot around with the enemy. Had we fought Vietnam the way we fought World War II, We would have seized and occupied Hanoi in the first year.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Mcnamara bear the most blame in turning Vietnam into A quagmire because they were too busy trying to "send messages" to the Russians and Chinese by Micro-Managing the troops.

Yeah, we won eventually in spite of those liberal morons, and then Other Liberal morons in Congress threw that victory away, because they were more interested in Humiliating Richard Nixon than they were in the well being of the Nation.

Johnson's biggest fear was Korean Style intervention from China. He made all his decisions based on that. To paraphrase a quote from him, <sic>, "That is what McCarther thought, but what do I do if they do?" in reply to CJCS regarding lack of Chinese intent to intervene.
Nixon took a different tack, and sought to use diplomacy to isolate North Korea from its allies materially and also make concessions to allow for real bombing, vice the Rolling Thunder approach. He sicked Kissinger on them, and after several secret meetings and trips later generated compromises that have not all yet seen the light of day (The Taiwan conjecture and others), this culminated with a supposed personal promise from Nixon when he visited Bejing, that we were a.) serious about the promises made (look, I am here to confirm), and b.) to reiterate, we will only bomb the North, not invade. Linebacker I commenced in June, not long after Nixon's visit.
This was apparently a move with foresight, as we now know that the Chinese had a secret treaty with North Korea that promised Chinese Troops and intervention if the US put ground forces into the North. Very much the same as Korea, and as we found out later, they also meant it.
The pressures that CORDS and all that was in its theme was telling on the dau tranh strategy being executed by the North. Although they had regressed to Maoist phase I (some aruge) or more realisitcally an earlier phase II, the losses in the chinh tri (catastrophic) and the vu trang (virtually eliminated). The incursions into Cambodia were also devasting, and are the principle argument that they were retrograded to phase I, vice phase II. The efforts to prosecute Phase III was a true miscalculation on their part. They went to great efforts to keep dau tranh alive, to include unprecedented use of NVA to backfill and reconstitute, which was never fully realized, and also defeated some of the core principles and utility of dau tranh.
The pressure of pacification efforts, as well as Vietnamazation were the primary themes for negiotiation on the North's side.
We saw all this in many debriefings of defectors, as well as documents and memoirs that we gained access too much later on, both Vietnamese, and some of the chinese stuff.
In short, the combined pressure and dismantling of The Struggle, combined with Linebacker bringing the war home to the North in a real way, pressured the North into large regression in their talks positions, and a focused willingness to sign and get the US out. The biggest fear they had though even in this was that Vietnamization was working, especially given continued availability of US air power after the ground forces had left. Watergate fallout was a completely unforeseen bonus for them. It also allowed the Russians to step up and go back on agreements made and start supplying the North again with a vengeance in 74, setting up the 75 invasion.
I think difference had nothing to do with pussy footing around, in was rooted in real concerns about a Korea II. It also was based in a fundamental difference in approach by the Johnson verses Nixon administration regarding the Communist arena.
Johnson did not want to make deals or the such. Nixon wanted to make deals, especially ones that would encourage fragmentation or further it where it had already started. I think that the Taiwan cookie was part of the sweet offer made to the Chinese, and they could not resist. After all, what were they really giving up? Not much, a divided Vietnam was just another buffer like Korea.
Your argument and statements show a lack of depth in your background on this, as well as a lack of ability to see the bigger picture, overlayed on the individual details. The 25 Oct UN vote on 2758 is enough of a clue in itself to unravel your "pussyfooting" argument. During Korea, China was not nuclear, and we had tabled serious plans to go nuclear on them. In Vietnam they were nuclear, and although we had plans to go nuclear to resolve it, the leadership determined it was not worth the risk, nor neccessary. Isolating the North, and beating dau tranh became the method. And it was working. Without Watergate, it would have been a different ballgame in '74 & '75.

I agree that Watergate upset the applecart of all the back door plans for Vietnam. The fallout shows that it did.

I will concede that you appear to have far more in depth knowledge about the events in Vietnam than I do, but that does not necessarily mean my take on it is wrong. You are arguing from the perspective of "Since we were in this situation, we did this." My argument is more along the lines of " We should not have gotten into THAT situation."

As I have previously mentioned, I happen to think that Curtis LeMay's methodology was the correct way to go with Russia, and therefore I think it would have been the correct way to go with China as well. Had we never allowed them to become a threat in the first place, we would not have to be so concerned with what they were willing to do subsequently.

I suppose the essence of it comes down to whether or not we wanted to fight hard now to avoid a worse fight later, or whether we could acquiesce and hope for the best. (Which is what ended up happening.)

If things end up turning out for the best, it will have been a lucky accident. The way I see things shaping up now, the future looks pretty ominous for us yet.


My point that we didn't fight Vietnam (or Korea) the way we fought World War II is still valid. Had we done so, the outcome of both likely would have been very different. Meanwhile I hear ominous rumblings from the Korean fight we didn't finish.

[ladajo]

I agree that Watergate upset the applecart of all the back door plans for Vietnam. The fallout shows that it did.

Check.

I will concede that you appear to have far more in depth knowledge about the events in Vietnam than I do, but that does not necessarily mean my take on it is wrong. You are arguing from the perspective of "Since we were in this situation, we did this." My argument is more along the lines of " We should not have gotten into THAT situation."

Check. Part of my job these days.
I see the difference in your argument. But please recall that we were "in" Vietnam while we were in Korea. We were giving advice and financing the French effort. We also pressured them into going "big" and it got their butt kicked. Dien Bien Phu was an attempted repeat of an earlier fight picking that was succesful. The name of the airfield where they did it escapes me right at this moment. But as I recall it was a bit West of Dien Bien Phu. In any event, the fatal flaw of the French was underestimating the will and conventional capability of the Vietnamese. Tie this to a REALLY bad choice of spots and you have catastrophy. The US was involved in Vietnam for a total of almost 23 years. In fact, not many recall or know that we had more advisors in country than the Marines the landed in '65 as the "first" commitment of "Combat Troops". Another oft missed fact is that we had at peak over half a million guys in country, and wait for it, less than 100K were combat troops. Some figure that only about 80K were "on the line" during peak.

As I have previously mentioned, I happen to think that Curtis LeMay's methodology was the correct way to go with Russia, and therefore I think it would have been the correct way to go with China as well. Had we never allowed them to become a threat in the first place, we would not have to be so concerned with what they were willing to do subsequently.

Can't say I disagree. I have given thought and pen to this point a couple of times. We missed the bus. Where I think we really screwed the pooch, was less in Europe, although we may have done better, was when you really take a close look at the War Termination Phase of Japan and China. Holy smokes, did we drop the ball. We managed to screw everyone, including ourselves. From the Kuriles all the way to Vietnam. Especially Nationalist China. Ooops.

I suppose the essence of it comes down to whether or not we wanted to fight hard now to avoid a worse fight later, or whether we could acquiesce and hope for the best. (Which is what ended up happening.)

Yup, as noted. But to be fair there were significant pressures both domestically and from our European allies. The stage was set strongly during WWII with the "Big Three" meetings, and the War Termination divisions that were set and agreed too. Go figure, the only ones to over reach was Stalin & Co. knowing the domestic pressures on our parts would limit willingness to contest.

If things end up turning out for the best, it will have been a lucky accident. The way I see things shaping up now, the future looks pretty ominous for us yet.

I don't know. Globalization has a pretty strong grip on China. Taiwan remains an irritant, but I think that is more up to the Taiwanese than the Chinese. The Chinese know if they start it, it will not end well for them. They may initially get the island, but they will not be able to keep it, and that will be a final deal vice the virtual deal the have currently.
Russia is just a bunch of money hungry noise makers at this point. Even the whole arms limitation silliness of late. Russia has no intent nor need to "feel threatened" by Europe or the US. It is all about money for them now. Even the weapons treaties. "Posers"

My point that we didn't fight Vietnam (or Korea) the way we fought World War II is still valid. Had we done so, the outcome of both likely would have been very different. Meanwhile I hear ominous rumblings from the Korean fight we didn't finish.

Here we differ.
Korea part I was most definitely fought like WWII. The North Koreans were a conventional force behaving conventionally. They got ka-shmacked. When we hit the Yalu, and triggered the Chinese for Korea part II, the nature of the war changed. As MacCarther said, "It is a whole new war now". The Chinese entered, and did so as a large very low tech army, sandals and six guns. They could not be confronted the way we had learned to do on the plains of Europe. They had no trucks, no logistics to speak of, no air in country, no tanks, not much of nuthin but a bunch of dudes with guns and grenades, but without winter jackets or boots and moe or less living off the land.
We tried to stay conventional on them, but couldn't really do it as our air lost its effectiveness with a lack of anything to shoot at. No massed formations, no supply lines. No vehicles. Almost literally a bunch of guys hiding dispersed in the trees, coming together for massed attacks here and there. Ironically, the Marines cracked the nut, and gave a good what for to the Chinese. It was the army that dropped the ball. Also consider, at the time we would not go deep in China for fear of triggering Stalin (nuclear and conventional). The Europeans were having a shyte fit as it was and Truman was listening. The most notable peak was an unscheduled bitch trip to the US by the Brit PM to protest us landing at Inchon and turning left. They were some upset and scared.
Vietnam was a parallel for us in some sense of Korea. We went in trying to fight conventionally, but, then went unconventional. In Korea, we desperately sought to stay conventional, cause that was what we knew. And then along came Ike. Ike's ultimatum was conventional (& Nuclear). We will go to the Yalu again, and we will hit into China to eliminate santuries, logistics, and any resources looking like something that could counter-attack. Game on, are you gonna play? The answer was no.
What did Korea achieve for us? It cemented the nacent fracture between the Chinese and Soviets when the Soviets cashed out. We later drove a DEEP wedge into the fracture courtesy of Vietnam. "The enemy of my enemy is a tool to piss off my enemy." We set the precedence that we WILL intervene and fight when the envelope is pushed. We learned to think about the balance of air v ground. We learned that the WWII draw-down was a little agressive, and that we needed to sustain a credible cold war force. We also learned nuclear brinkmanship
W hat did China get? Mad at the Soviets (not that they really liked them in the first place), poorer, more isolated, and most importantly, Kim Il & family as a facebook buddy. Bonus that

[MSimon]

The guy with the Broken leg represents Ryan White. The Recreational drug user (comprising the VAST majority of drug users) Represent the Homosexuals and IV drug users.

How do you know? My impression is you know nothing more about drugs than what you read in the newspapers and what the government tells you.

Trusted sources to be sure.

[MSimon]

I suppose the essence of it comes down to whether or not we wanted to fight hard now to avoid a worse fight later, or whether we could acquiesce and hope for the best. (Which is what ended up happening.)

Well George Keenan might beg to differ with you. He set out a policy in 1948. Carried out for 40 years and the Soviets fell. Luck and hoping for the best was not why the Soviets fell. They fell because of American policy and Soviet internal contradictions.

I now assume you know as much about the Cold War as you do about drugs. i.e. less than nothing - which is to say you are misinformed.

As to the Cold War - the Communists suffered the vast majority of casualties. Self inflicted. We didn't need LeMay when the Communists were willing to do the job on themselves.

[MSimon]

d,

I do admire your philosophy: any problem can be solved with sufficient application of force.

Do you always use a kilo of C4 for your DNA recombination experiments?

So let me ask you - which is a better way to solve the Iranian nuclear problem? A war with Iran or the Stuxnet computer virus?

Sun Tzu thought it was better to outsmart enemies than go to war with them. Evidently you are ignorant of Sun Tzu as well.

Is there any subject you are not ignorant of? I'm looking forward to finding one among your current interests.

If we can hold Islam at bay for as long as we held the Communists they will die of their own internal contradictions. Four or five years ago I was definitely in the War is the Answer mode. I'm now convinced that war is the last resort. We now have better solutions from what I can see.

Patience grasshopper.