Czuch: So you believe the Vietnam war was a just cause, and that we should have stuck it out to victory? And you interviewed some people in Vietnam who hold this view?

It is estimated that 2-4 million died in Vietnam during the war. It is known that we dropped more bombs in Vietnam that we did in WWII. Are you suggesting we just didn't kill enough of them to break the will of the Vietcong & North Vietnamese? Or what?

Also a question for you, just a general one. If you support our intervening in other countries for the betterworld of the world, why do you call yourself a conservative? That's a progressive policy.

So let's say you are a progressive on foreign policy, not a conservative. Are you a conservative at home? Well, you support welfare to the rich, so I guess not. Hmmmm...these terms keep getting twisted out of their proper & historical meanings.

But back to foreign policy. A true progressive believes we can better the world by intervention. So the motives are good. But I ask you, if a dictatorial power, or an imperial power (same thing) wants to spread its influence & force abroad, what will it claim? Why, it will claim to be a progressive power, trying to better the world & help people, etc.

So the question then is this...how do you distinguish between a truly progressive motive and a motive that is imperial but pretends it is progressive? Do you think that, by definition, if the U.S. is doing it, it is always progressive, and if someone else is doing it (like Russia or China) it is always oppressive? Or do you look to the evidence at hand, on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps at historical patterns?