A “Test” of their Yellow Badge of Courage

ziggy wrote:Did Noam Chomsky and Daniel Elsburg and the hundreds of other informed and outspoken individuals come to understand the Vietnam War like Aaron does- and Ziggy is the only lone, ignorant soul who doesn't understand Vietnam like Aaron does?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So why did Truman send 'advisors' in the first place?

I don't know. Why have we sent troops all over the world for 200 years whenever it suited someone or other's fancy?

Why didn't Truman just call 'em "military troops"? It would have been more honest- and more consistent with the American view that we can be the world's policeman wherever we want to be.

We haven't sent troops for 200 years. We combated pirates in the first and second Barbary wars off the coast of North Africa in the early 1800's and the Phillippines in 1899. Otherwise all combat in the 19th century was limited to the northern hemisphere.

It wasn't until the 20th century that we started sending troops all over the world, first to central America and the carribian and the to Europe and other places.

He sent advisors becasue the Peoples Republic of China was founded in 1949 and recognized by the Soviet Union. When China and then the Soviet Union recognized the the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, which was fighting the French for independence. Truman vowed to stop communism and thus he recognized the French Government in Vietnam and sent in advisors. He called them advisor because initially, that's all they did, advise.

Understand?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Did Noam Chomsky and Daniel Elsburg and the hundreds of other informed and outspoken individuals come to understand the Vietnam War like Aaron does- and Ziggy is the only lone, ignorant soul who doesn't understand Vietnam like Aaron does?

Oh I don't know how those individuals understand it or not as I’ve never read anything they’ve said and I generally don’t try to speak for others without reading any comments by them.

(Aaron)- I don't claim to understand more then everyone else. Just you.

ziggy wrote:I'm willing to learn- if you have something to teach us.

But when you tell us that Gulf of Tonkin was just another day in what we call the decades long Vietnam War, then I doubt that you have much to teach us about it.

Gulf of Tonkion was a watershed event in that war. That you don't recognize that tells us only one thing- that you don't understand at all what the 1960s were about..

TerryRC wrote:Those marines were not on military ships. They were on chartered ships and Germans routinely targeted private vessles because of FDR's land-lease act which moved supplies to England.

That doesn't change any of the facts I listed.

Umm... the deliberate targeting of American civilians (merchant marines) and/or vessels is an act of war in most people's books, Aaron.

TerryRC wrote:
Most peoples books don't matter. The Geneva convention does and if those ships weren't under an American charter, it doesn't matter what the cargo or who the passengers are, it's not an act of war against the US.

Nice try though Lib.

Ah, I see you are trying to insult me. Running out of argument?

Nice non-answer, Fascist Pig.

TerryRC wrote:Iraq security forces fire 1,300 deserters

So how do we get victory out of a Iraqi civil war?

Do you think that this won't go on the moment we leave? Hell, it is going on now.

The only way to have victory in Iraq is to occupy it for the foreseeable future.

TerryRC wrote:It's ironic though that both you and Steph cite this as an act of war but when German U-boats were sinking private ships bearing the US flag, you both said in the previous forum that the US we interfering in the internal business of another country by aiding England and thus Germany had a right to sink those ships.

I didn't say they had a RIGHT to sink them, I said it was inevitable that they would. Germany needed to keep Britan unsupplied. It was also inevitable that it would bring us into the war, much to Hitler's dismay.

BTW, many of the ships did fly American flags and were part of our merchant (and subsequently military) fleet. Educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship

We did the same thing to Japanese and Dutch ships in the Pacific before Pearl, sending oil and rubber to the bottom of the sea.

So which way is it? Either it is an act of war or it isn't.

Is it not an act of war if WE do it? Is it an act of war when anyone intentionally targets civilians?

TerryRC wrote:Iraq security forces fire 1,300 deserters

So how do we get victory out of a Iraqi civil war?

Do you think that this won't go on the moment we leave? Hell, it is going on now.

The only way to have victory in Iraq is to occupy it for the foreseeable future.

Aaron wrote:Maybe it's time you came out of the 60's Ziggy and into today.

TerryRC wrote:The only way to have victory in Iraq is to occupy it for the foreseeable future.

That means "forever", Aaron. Unless you want to have a bigger civil war than the one going on now the moment we leave (if we can even keep the Iraqi police and security forces manned - so far it has been a shambles).

Brazil just found a buttload of oil. Perhaps we had better begin our invasion plans...

TerryRC wrote:I didn't say anything about the US targeting ships or Germany targeting ships or the US Merchant fleet. You came up with all of that out of the blue Lib.

Your memory ain't so good. You compared a justified war with Germany to an unjustified war in Iraq.

Don't make the analogy if you can't defend it, Aaron. Don't make statements that you are ignorant on (such as the liberty ships didn't fly American flags), either.

By the way, you calling me a "lib", not because I really am, but because I don't agree with the actions in Iraq shows that you are emotionally about 10 years old.

Of course we knew that from your bullying and insulting form of debate.

Carry on. This is amusing.

TerryRC wrote:I didn't compare anything. Stephanie's logic did.

No, you did, and I quote:

Should we have left Germany in 1945? I've ask you that twice but you've never answered. Why is that?

The fact is, you do the same thing here that BO is attempting to do to John McCain. You take what is said and distort it, change it around and call it 'endless occupation'. That was your statement last night ONE thread AFTER I said we should have never gone to Iraq. I'll trust that smart people knew exactly what I was saying on the old forum, which is the same thing I'm saying now, whether they agree with it or not.

I want our military out as soon as possible but not one minute TOO soon. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that but the way I see it, that's your problem, not mine.

I pointed out that you were wrong about something, again. Time to call me a "lib" again?