A “Test” of their Yellow Badge of Courage

Aaron wrote:Sam is right. It took FDR 5+ years to get us into WW2 and long before we got there, he was doing everything he could short of committing troops to aid England and Europe. By your reasoning Stephanie, we should have never interfered thus we weren't justified in fighting Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Pratt#Steamship_tanker_S.S._Charles_Pratt

Charles Pratt was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat in the Indian Ocean 220 miles off the coast of Africa while en route from Aruba to Freetown, Sierra Leone. Of the American crew of 42, only 2 lives were lost.

Ah, here is something for you:

http://www.usmm.org/casualty.html

U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
At least 243 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor

.

I'm not sure I get you're point. By this reasoning, IF Iranian's attacked and killed Americans in either Iraq or interanational waters, we are justified in declaring war on them and attacking, correct!!!

There's a nice handy-dandy little chart of those ships including details such as date, type of attack, how many dead etc. dating back to October of '39.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
What on Earth are you talking about? For crying out loud, Sam, in addition to everything else, the Germans declared war on us after we declared war on Japan!

Give me a break!

But Germany did not attak the United States. We attacked them first, on November 8, 1942 (almost a year after Pearl) in North Africa. Had we not sent troops to Europe and 'intervened' in another countries internal business, they very well may have never attacked the United States.

And for the record, we declared war on Germany the same day they declared war on us, December 11, 1941, 4 days after Pearl.

You said we were justified in attacking Germany. Why?

Try peddling that load of crapola to the families of the 243 mariners killed by the Germans prior to their declaration of war upon us. There may even be a few survivors from those attacks still kicking you could try passing that by.

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.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

As for your 'analogies', maybe if you actually understood Vietnam, you might have a point. As you don't, you don't.

Gulf of Tonkin re: Vietnam was a lie. WMDs re: Iraq were a pack of lies. What more do you want us to understand?

You've proven my point. Thank you.

So it was OK to commit a half million or more troops in Vietnam based on gross deceptions, at the highest levels- if only we'd "understand" as much as you do about the behind the scenes details of Vietnam, eh?

You don't understand anything about the Vietnam war that those of us who lived that era don't understand better. Hell, it was above the fold headline news every day for more than ten years. But only Aaron the Great historian "understands" it all. Why are we not surprised?

Hey Ziggy......what do you expect? He thinks it was acceptable for the Germans to target US civilian vessels for over 2 years. Our government wasn't supposed to do anything to stop them. We weren't justified to attack Germany.

Stephanie wrote:Hey Ziggy......what do you expect? He thinks it was acceptable for the Germans to target US civilian vessels for over 2 years. Our government wasn't supposed to do anything to stop them. We weren't justified to attack Germany.

I never said that. I'm just trying to figure you're whacked out version of what does and doesn't justify going to war. By your standards right now, we should be at war with Iran.

Also by your standards, we are justified in being at war with Iraq.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

As for your 'analogies', maybe if you actually understood Vietnam, you might have a point. As you don't, you don't.

Gulf of Tonkin re: Vietnam was a lie. WMDs re: Iraq were a pack of lies. What more do you want us to understand?

You've proven my point. Thank you.

So it was OK to commit a half million or more troops in Vietnam based on gross deceptions, at the highest levels- if only we'd "understand" as much as you do about the behind the scenes details of Vietnam, eh?

You don't understand anything about the Vietnam war that those of us who lived that era don't understand better. Hell, it was above the fold headline news every day for more than ten years. But only Aaron the Great historian "understands" it all. Why are we not surprised?

No Ziggy, there are many, many people who understand. The United States War College understands. History understands. There are even those who did not agree with the Vietnam war who understand. Actually, my understanding is in the vast majority of those who understand. You seem to be in that very small minority that just doesn't get it. Why are we not suprised!!!

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Hey Ziggy......what do you expect? He thinks it was acceptable for the Germans to target US civilian vessels for over 2 years. Our government wasn't supposed to do anything to stop them. We weren't justified to attack Germany.

I never said that. I'm just trying to figure you're whacked out version of what does and doesn't justify going to war. By your standards right now, we should be at war with Iran.

Also by your standards, we are justified in being at war with Iraq.

Aaron you can't comprehend plain English. I'm not using words that are too big for you, am I?

When has the Iraqi government bombed or attacked US property or killed US citizens since the Gulf War ended? When has the Iranian government done these things in the past several years? Has the Iranian Navy been sinking US vessels and the conspirators in the MSM just won't report it?

You know the local libraries have free literacy programs for adults with reading difficulties. They'd surely be able to help you with your reading comprehension and probably tackle that pesky homophone problem you have.

Stephanie wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
We were justfied in battling the Germans. We are unjustified in invading and occupying Iraq.

NO, we were not ...... according to your reasoning on Iraq. We should have stayed out of England and Germany's quarrel ...... and let them duke it out.

.

What on Earth are you talking about? For crying out loud, Sam, in addition to everything else, the Germans declared war on us after we declared war on Japan!

Give me a break!

Stephanie, just what the hell does an Official Declaration of War have to do with my above comment? ....... HUH, ......., HUH, ........ HUH?

Now silly girl, we all know when Germany OFFICIALLY declared War on the US, ...... to wit:

On December 7, 1941, while German armies were freezing before Moscow, Japan suddenly pushed the United States into the struggle by attacking the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Four days later Hitler declared war on the United States.
http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/United-States.html

Steph, that would make it December 11, 1941, ..... RIGHT?

But now Stephanie baby, do ya know when the US stuck their f'ing nose into the middle of England's and Germany's fracus? ........ huh, ...... HUH?

Well Steph, here is one reference, to wit:

From July to October 1940, while German landing barges and invasion forces waited on the Channel coasts, the Royal Air Force, greatly outnumbered, drove the Luftwaffe from the daytime skies in the legendary Battle of Britain. At sea the British Navy, with increasing American cooperation, fought a desperate battle against German submarine packs to keep the North Atlantic open.

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/war.html

GEEEZE Steph, that was bout 17 months before Germany declared war, ...... right?

17 months of aiding and abetting an enemy combatment of Germany's.

For 17 months we were involved in England and Germany's quarrel ........ and for those 17 months Germany conducted an UNDECLARED WAR against the US.

cheers
.

I think what you need to do Stephanie is try getting some consistency. You were for the war before you were against it. You don't want to occupy one Muslim nation but you're all for occupying another Muslim nation. Attacks on a chartered ship (was it flying the American flag or that of another country) are reasons for war but attacks on US Ships isn't. One country declaring war is call for conflict while another's call for Jihad isn't.

I'm telling you girl, you better be careful. Sooner or later you're going to slip and bust your cooter on that fence you keep jumping. It's only a matter of time.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:Sam is right. It took FDR 5+ years to get us into WW2 and long before we got there, he was doing everything he could short of committing troops to aid England and Europe. By your reasoning Stephanie, we should have never interfered thus we weren't justified in fighting Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Pratt#Steamship_tanker_S.S._Charles_Pratt

Charles Pratt was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat in the Indian Ocean 220 miles off the coast of Africa while en route from Aruba to Freetown, Sierra Leone. Of the American crew of 42, only 2 lives were lost.

Stephanie, and what type cargo was the Charles Pratt hauling?

Wasn't it hauling a product produced by Standard Oil of NJ?

That would make its cargo ...... war materials, .... right?

Stephanie wrote:[Ah, here is something for you:

http://www.usmm.org/casualty.html

U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor
At least 243 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor

.

There's a nice handy-dandy little chart of those ships including details such as date, type of attack, how many dead etc. dating back to October of '39.

Yes Stephanie, but you forgot to mention what type cargo they were hauling and where they were hauling it too. To wit:

Date Ship Type Cause Result Location Deaths
10/09/39 SS City of Flint Hog Island freighter Capture by pocket battleship Deutchland Released NAtlantic None
06/12/40 Exochorda Freighter Shelled Slight damage Med-Black Sea None
11/09/40 City of Rayville Freighter German mine Sunk Australian coast Crew 1
12/21/40 Charles Pratt Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk SAtlantic Crew 2
05/21/41 Robin Moor Hog Islander Torpedo & Shelled Sunk Caribbean None
08/11/41 Iberville Freighter Aerial mine from German aircraft Damaged Red Sea None
08/17/41 Longtaker [former Danish Sessa] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo & Shelled Sunk NAtlantic Crew 24 (3 survivors)
09/05/41 Steel Seafarer Freighter Bombed by German aircraft Sunk Gulf of Suez None
09/11/41 Arkansan Freighter Shelled Damaged Indian-Red Sea None
09/11/41 Montana [former Danish Paula] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 26
09/19/41 Pink Star [former Danish Landby] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 13
09/27/41 I. C. White Tanker (Panama) Torpedo Sunk South Atlantic Crew 3
10/16/41 Bold Venture [former Danish Alssund] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew 17, (17 survivors)
10/19/41 Lehigh Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed None
11/05/41 Montrose Freighter Collision Unknown North Atlantic Unknown
11/11/41 Meridian [former Italian Dino] Freighter (Panama) Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx. 38
11/14/41 Crusader [former Danish Brosund] Freighter Torpedo Sunk North Atlantic Crew approx 33; German POW 1
11/16/41 Turecamo Boys Tug Unknown Sunk North Atlantic Crew 9
11/19/41 Del Pidio Unknown (Philippines) Mine Unknown Philippines Crew 6
11/19/41 Edridio Mindoro (67 ton) Mine Sunk Philippines Unknown
12/02/41 Astral Tanker Torpedo Sunk NAtlantic Crew 37
12/03/41 Sagadahoc Freighter Torpedo Sunk ApproachMed Crew 1
12/07/41 Cynthia Olson Steam Schooner Torpedo Sunk Pacific Crew 33; US Army 2

War materials cargo, Steph, ...... war materials cargo to aid Britian.

All freighters and tankers hauling war materials.

.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:So it was OK to commit a half million or more troops in Vietnam based on gross deceptions, at the highest levels- if only we'd "understand" as much as you do about the behind the scenes details of Vietnam, eh?

You don't understand anything about the Vietnam war that those of us who lived that era don't understand better. Hell, it was above the fold headline news every day for more than ten years. But only Aaron the Great historian "understands" it all. Why are we not surprised?

No Ziggy, there are many, many people who understand. The United States War College understands. History understands. There are even those who did not agree with the Vietnam war who understand. Actually, my understanding is in the vast majority of those who understand. You seem to be in that very small minority that just doesn't get it. Why are we not suprised!!!

What do you and The U.S. War College and "history" understand about the "Gulf of Tonkin incident"? Like WMDs in Iraq in 2003, that was the excuse given by the Commander-in-Chief in 1964 for ramping up the war in Vietnam from a few thousand "advisors" to more than a half millkion troops.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:So it was OK to commit a half million or more troops in Vietnam based on gross deceptions, at the highest levels- if only we'd "understand" as much as you do about the behind the scenes details of Vietnam, eh?

You don't understand anything about the Vietnam war that those of us who lived that era don't understand better. Hell, it was above the fold headline news every day for more than ten years. But only Aaron the Great historian "understands" it all. Why are we not surprised?

No Ziggy, there are many, many people who understand. The United States War College understands. History understands. There are even those who did not agree with the Vietnam war who understand. Actually, my understanding is in the vast majority of those who understand. You seem to be in that very small minority that just doesn't get it. Why are we not suprised!!!

What do you and The U.S. War College and "history" understand about the "Gulf of Tonkin incident"? Like WMDs in Iraq in 2003, that was the excuse given by the Commander-in-Chief in 1964 for ramping up the war in Vietnam from a few thousand "advisors" to more than a half millkion troops.

Why did we have troops in Vietnam to begin with Ziggy?

Aaron wrote:Why did we have troops in Vietnam to begin with Ziggy?

Why does that matter? The "Gulf of Tonkin incident" either was or was not a bonifide occurance that jusdified a thirty or forty fold escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. So again, what does the U.S. War College and "history" say about the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Why did we have troops in Vietnam to begin with Ziggy?

Why does that matter? The "Gulf of Tonkin incident" either was or was not a bonifide occurance that jusdified a thirty or forty fold escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. So again, what does the U.S. War College and "history" say about the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?

The US War College and 'history' doesn't try to narrow a 25 year US committment down to one day, one decision. If you want to discuss Vietnam then you're going to have to go back to the beginning.

Why did Truman support the French government, pay for up to 80% of France's war bill and send in the first advisor's in 1950, 4 years before the French left in 1954.

If you want to know why LBJ made that one particular decision regarding that one particular incident then you're going to have to ask him.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Why did we have troops in Vietnam to begin with Ziggy?

Why does that matter? The "Gulf of Tonkin incident" either was or was not a bonifide occurance that jusdified a thirty or forty fold escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. So again, what does the U.S. War College and "history" say about the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?

The US War College and 'history' doesn't try to narrow a 25 year US committment down to one day, one decision. If you want to discuss Vietnam then you're going to have to go back to the beginning.

Why did Truman support the French government, pay for up to 80% of France's war bill and send in the first advisor's in 1950, 4 years before the French left in 1954.

If you want to know why LBJ made that one particular decision regarding that one particular incident then you're going to have to ask him.

No, I am asking you because you pretend to be an expert about the Vietnam War- telling us that we don't understand it because we don't understand it the way you do.

The Lyndon Johnson administration used the "Gulf of Tonkin resolution as its authority to escalate the war in Vietnam over the next several years- years in which tens of thousands of young Americans were killed in comvbat in Vietnam. So you cannot simply brush that off as just one day and insist that only a dead man be called to answer for it. If you understand Vietbanm, you have to understnd the Gulf of Tonkin Resolutiuon and how it came about.
-------------------------------
Joint Resolution of Congress
H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

http://www.hbci.com/~tgort/tonkin.htm
------------------

That's it. There is nothing in this about why, nor even acknowledging that Truman had earlier committed troops to Vietnam. There is nothing here about fighting communism, nor about the cold war. It says that Congress supports the President to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

So the predicate is that armed attack against the forces of the U.S. had taken place- as Johnson had alleged to Congress and the American people in the days preceeding the "Resolution".

So neither you nor the U.S. War College can correctly brush off the reported "Gulf of Tonkin incident" and the resulting Resolution as just "one day, one decision", and for which only a dead President should be asked about. If you are a self-declared expert who understands the Vietnam war, you just can't dismiss it so summarily.

Again, the Johnson administration cited the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" as its authority to conduct a far, far wider war than Truman or Eisenhower or Kennedy or any previous Congress ever authorized in Vietnam. But that Resolution was either based on sound underpennings of facts, or it wasn't. And since it wasn't, then the conduct of the Vietnam War based on that "authority" was fradulent and without the legal sanction that the Johnson administration and its subsequent Vietnam War defenders such as you have asserted.

The Vietnam War DID NOT START with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. If you want to discuss the Vietnam war, you've got to go back to the beginning, which like it or not, was Truman.

I await your answers to my previous questions.

Aaron wrote:The Vietnam War DID NOT START with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. If you want to discuss the Vietnam war, you've got to go back to the beginning, which like it or not, was Truman.

Then what was the authority under which the Vietnam War was conducted from August 7, 1964 forward? The Constitution provides that only Congress can declare war. But from that point onward President Johnson and his administration called it a war- citing the 1964 "Resolution" as the authority for conducting it.

Was it not actually a war? Was it a war fought without a legal congressional declaration? You are the self-annointed expert who claims to "understand" it better than the rest of us do. You cannot just dismiss what Johnson did based on what Truman or Eisenhower did, because Turman and Eisenhower didn't have a congressional declaration of war either.

Audio Help /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. –noun

1.	the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2.	a method of inflicting such pain.

3.	Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4.	extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5.	a cause of severe pain or anguish.

–verb (used with object)

6.	to subject to torture.

7.	to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.

8.	to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!

9.	to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.

10.	to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

---

[Origin: 1530–40; < LL tortūra a twisting, torment, torture. See tort, -ure]

—Related forms tor·tur·a·ble, adjective
tor·tured·ly, adverb
tor·tur·er, noun
tor·ture·some, adjective
tor·tur·ing·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 6. See torment.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

I don't claim to understand more then everyone else. Just you.

'Advisors' started as early as 1950. Our Air Force was flying combat missions in the 1950's in planes carrying the Veitnemese flag. Combat actions actually started in 1960 and the authority was given to Truman, Ike, JFK and LBJ by the Congress. Congress could have stopped it at any time had they chose. They didn't. I don't see you blaming them any at all though but that's another story.

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

ziggy wrote:Audio Help /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. –noun

1.	the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2.	a method of inflicting such pain.

3.	Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4.	extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5.	a cause of severe pain or anguish.

–verb (used with object)

6.	to subject to torture.

7.	to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.

8.	to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!

9.	to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.

10.	to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

---

[Origin: 1530–40; < LL tortūra a twisting, torment, torture. See tort, -ure]

—Related forms tor·tur·a·ble, adjective
tor·tured·ly, adverb
tor·tur·er, noun
tor·ture·some, adjective
tor·tur·ing·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 6. See torment.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Wrong thread dude!!!

Aaron wrote:Wrong thread dude!!!

Right, I did post this one to the wrong thread.

You finally got one right. Thanks.

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.

Aaron wrote:I don't claim to understand more then everyone else. Just you.

So did all THESE people, except Ziggy, come to understand it all just like Aaron does?


[quote]1968

February: Gallup poll showed 35% approved of Johnson's handling of the war; 50% disapproved; the rest, no opinion. [NYT, 2/14/68] In another poll that month, 23% of Americans defined themselves as "doves" and 61% "hawks".[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War[/quote]

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?

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?