Re: He whose full name must not be spoken

by ziggy Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:11 pm

Aaron wrote:You don't understand that Vietnam was a result of the cold war.

Then why didn't Lyndon Johnson just say so, rather than contrive all that Gulf of Tonkin b.s.?

by ziggy Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Aaron wrote:Would we have been better off is we had sent in troops to Hungry in November, 1956 to assist local militia in their revolt against the Soviet Union Ziggy?

If we had, should it have been based on factual underpennings, or on bogus Gulf of Tonkin kinds of contrived excuses?

Or how about if we directly attacked the Soviet Union instead of airlifting into and out of Berlin during the Soviet blockade in 1948.

If we had, should it have been based on factual underpennings, or on bogus Gulf of Tonkin kinds of contrived excuses?

Or maybe we should have escalated the Korean War. Had we tangled with the Soviets then, we wouldn't have had to deal with them in Vietnam.

If we had, should it have been based on factual underpennings, or on bogus Gulf of Tonkin kinds of contrived excuses?

It could have been worse had the Soviets not backed down in Cuba in 1962, right! What I've tried to tell you but you don't get because you don't want to get is that if it wasn't Vietnam, it would have been something, somewhere. American forces were going to fight Communist forces in one manner or another.

If we had, should it have been based on factual underpennings, or on bogus Gulf of Tonkin kinds of contrived excuses?

Fate or whatever determined that it was Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin in August, 1964 instead of Kennedy and Cuba in 1962 or Ike and Hungry in 1956 or Truman and Berlin in 1948.

Whomever or whenever, should it have been based on factual underpennings, or on bogus Gulf of Tonkin kinds of contrived excuses?

You want to focus on LBJ. Fine. But unless you have the rest of the story, it's hard to put his actions into perspective but you refuse to do that.

Perspective? So should truthfulness in conducting the affairs of the office of the Presidency be about "perspective" rather than what actually takes place?

So it's "perspective" that causes you and SamCogar to blame "copperheads and cowardly peaceniks" for just what, then? For Johnson's lies in August 1964? For his lies in 1965, 1966, 1967, and in 1968 when he insisted that, "The enemy in Vietnam is defeated; he just doesn't know it yet"?

You want us to remove our focus from Johnson and see your "perspective". But to those of us who came of age during the Johnson era, he was the boogeyman, he was the fellow lying to all of America about Vietnam- but while insisting that America was as pure as the driven snow, and the North Vietnamese were the boogeymen and that S. Vietnam was worth the lives of 60,000 American soldiers. And yet you complain about the "copperheads and cowardly peaceniks"- when all they did was refuse to participate in the ruse and were able to honestly say, "We told you so". Can Johnson's defenders, either of then or now- honestly say, "We told you so'?

by Aaron Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:14 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:You don't understand that Vietnam was a result of the cold war.

Then why didn't Lyndon Johnson just say so, rather than contrive all that Gulf of Tonkin b.s.?

You'll have to ask him that.

by Aaron Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:16 pm

ziggy wrote:Perspective? So should truthfulness in conducting the affairs of the office of the Presidency be about "perspective" rather than what actually takes place?

So it's "perspective" that causes you and SamCogar to blame "copperheads and cowardly peaceniks" for just what, then? For Johnson's lies in August 1964? For his lies in 1965, 1966, 1967, and in 1968 when he insisted that, "The enemy in Vietnam is defeated; he just doesn't know it yet"?

You want us to remove our focus from Johnson and see your "perspective". But to those of us who came of age during the Johnson era, he was the boogeyman, he was the fellow lying to all of America about Vietnam- but while insisting that America was as pure as the driven snow, and the North Vietnamese were the boogeymen and that S. Vietnam was worth the lives of 60,000 American soldiers. And yet you complain about the "copperheads and cowardly peaceniks"- when all they did was refuse to participate in the ruse and were able to honestly say, "We told you so". Can Johnson's defenders, either of then or now- honestly say, "We told you so'?

I don't 'complain' about anything. I simply tell it how it is as I've done here. I see the big picture and I, as many historians do, believe that Vietnam was a meaningful battle in the Cold war and was necessary no matter the outcome of that battle. IMO, we as a nation are better off in fighting in a civil war over Veitnam then we would have been in fighting in a civil war in Germany, Hungry or other WARSAW pact countries and we are certainly much better off then had we allowed Castro to build bases in Cuba.

by ziggy Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:51 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:Then why didn't Lyndon Johnson just say so, rather than contrive all that Gulf of Tonkin b.s.?

You'll have to ask him that.

Then maybe you should ask him this:

Aaron wrote:So it's fine and dandy to be disrespectful to our President and his office so long as you aren't racist!!! HMMM

by Aaron Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:16 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:Then why didn't Lyndon Johnson just say so, rather than contrive all that Gulf of Tonkin b.s.?

You'll have to ask him that.

Then maybe you should ask him this:

Aaron wrote:So it's fine and dandy to be disrespectful to our President and his office so long as you aren't racist!!! HMMM

That's your response...

Really???

Why would I ask a President a question that was directed towards you for something you said? That just seems silly.

Hmmm. Rolling Eyes

by ziggy Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:43 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:Then why didn't Lyndon Johnson just say so, rather than contrive all that Gulf of Tonkin b.s.?

You'll have to ask him that.

Then maybe you should ask him this:

Aaron wrote:So it's fine and dandy to be disrespectful to our President and his office so long as you aren't racist!!! HMMM

That's your response...

Really???

Why would I ask a President a question that was directed towards you for something you said? That just seems silly.

Hmmm.

But it was Lyndon Johnson, and not Ziggy, who corrupted the office of the President with all that phony Golf of Tonkin crap- although, according to you, all he'd needed to have said was that it had to happen somewhere- Vietnam, Hungary, Germany, that it had to happen somewhere. If he had just said that instead of inventing phantom GOT attacks he could have prevented the disrespect of the office of the President you so loathe, instead of creating it with the GOT fabrications.

by SamCogar Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:34 am

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

When you say, "we prevailed" in reference to Vietnam, I simply fail to understand why anyone would say that. We fled Vietnam. We won nothing. The only things we achieved were death, destruction, and heartaches that both the people of Vietnam and the people of our own nation struggle with to this very day.

Our enemy won. They prevailed, they were victorious. They were successful, they defeated us. It matters little how you phrase the statement, we lost, we suffered defeat.

Say folks, ...... does that mean we also lost 1/2 of WWII, ...... the Battle for the Pacific?

I mean like, iffen anyone mentions the "Philippines", ...... then we lost WWII, ...... right? Razz

MacArthur's headquarters during the Philippines campaign of 1941-2 was on the island fortress of Corregidor. In March 1942, as Japanese forces tightened their grip on the Philippines, MacArthur was ordered by President Roosevelt to relocate to Melbourne, Australia, after Quezon had already left. With his wife, four-year-old son, and a select group of advisers and subordinate military commanders, MacArthur left the Philippines in PT 41 (commanded by Lieutenant John D. Bulkeley) and successfully evaded an intense Japanese search for him[citation needed].

After he left, command of the defense of Bataan was handed over to Major General Jonathan M. Wainwright. He ordered his men not to retreat, but General Edward P. King disobeyed orders by surrendering when he saw that the situation was hopeless. This surrender led to the Bataan Death March, in which over 5,000 Filipinos and 1,000 Americans died.

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

MacArthur turned tail and fled the Philippines , ...... our Military personnel surrendered, ........ our enemy won World War II ......... and thousands suffered an awful death and that's why they called it the Bataan Death March.

And don't anyone be arguing with me because I know I am right because everything I stated there is absolute fact. cheers

.

by SamCogar Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:10 am

Aaron wrote:I don't 'complain' about anything. I simply tell it how it is as I've done here. I see the big picture and I, as many historians do, believe that Vietnam was a meaningful battle in the Cold war and was necessary no matter the outcome of that battle. IMO, we as a nation are better off in fighting in a civil war over Veitnam then we would have been in fighting in a civil war in Germany, Hungry or other WARSAW pact countries and we are certainly much better off then had we allowed Castro to build bases in Cuba.

Aaron, betcha that kinda makes ya feel like you are a Coach of a Little League Team ........ defending your actions from the wrath and insults of the mother of one of the kids. Razz

But anyway Aaron, some people can't see the "big picture" ......... because they have "tunnel vision" which is all that is required for people with "small minds".

I mean like what good would it do for them to look over the top of their "bi-focals" if all they are capable of seeing is a "big blurr"? ..... HUH, .... HUH?

Anyway, ................

The US got involved in the Korean Conflict because Communist China was backing and supporting North Koreas' take over of South Korea.

The US got involved in the Viet Nam Conflict because Communist China was backing and supporting North Viet Nams' take over of South Viet Nam.

The US got involved in the Conflicts in Central and South America because the Communist were either in control or attempting to take control of the Governments in those countries.

And this says it better than I can, to wit:

Reagan and Thatcher helped to bring prosperity and freedom to Central and South America.

The liberation of Grenada, 1983 and the liberation of the Falklands, 1982 were the two great turning points in the spectacular (and unexpected) late-20th century rise of democracy on earth. After the dark age of the 1970s, the free world (under Reagan and Thatcher) finally fought back. This was the beginning of the end for both communist tyranny and Latin American tyranny.

Freedom

Once a dark region of tyranny, juntas and dictators, Central and South America is now a region of freedom and democracy, with only a sole surviving dictator (Cuba, though Venezuela may also be heading that way). See Freedom House's map of world freedom to see how healthy Central and South America now is.

Thatcher helped bring down the Argentine military dictatorship, and this was a major cause of the South American democratic revolution. Oddly enough, Thatcher is one of the greatest friends Argentina ever had. She liberated Argentina.

Dinesh D'Souza in [D'Souza, 1999] sums up the 1980s revolution. In Chapter One: Why Reagan Gets No Respect he summarises how Reagan reversed the downward trend of the 1970s for human freedom:

"During the Reagan administration, all this changed. No more nations fell into the clutches of the Soviet bear. Capitalism and democracy began to advance around the world. On Reagan's watch, dictatorships collapsed in Chile, Haiti, and Panama, and nine more countries moved toward democracy: Bolivia (1982), Honduras (1982), Argentina (1983), Grenada (1983), El Salvador (1984), Uruguay (1984), Brazil (1985), Guatemala (1985), and the Philippines (1986).

Fewer than one-third of the countries in Latin America were democratic in 1981; more than 90 percent of the region was democratic by 1989. In Nicaragua, shortly after Reagan's second term ended, free elections were held, and the Sandinista government was ousted from power. Apartheid ended in South Africa, and a black-majority government was elected. All these changes occurred relatively peacefully."

http://markhumphrys.com/communism.americas.html

The "tunnel visioners" can not, .... and never will ........ be able to see the "big picture" of the US's role in preventing the "spread of Communism" throughout the world.

The "tunnel visioners" are only capable of "seeing" one (1) event at a time, ..... are incapable of connecting or associating different events ......... and therefore consider each event as a separate act of "nation building" ...... and thus can't figure out why in hell the US got involved and condems them for doing so.

And here in the 21st Century we Democracy loving people are again facing a threat, not from Communism, ......... but from Islam. Their "takeover tactics" are different ....... but their results would not be.

Thus, if more of the American public doesn't overcome and correct their "tunnel vision" .......... the future of the United States is in great peril.

cheers

by Aaron Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:27 am

ziggy wrote:
But it was Lyndon Johnson, and not Ziggy, who corrupted the office of the President with all that phony Golf of Tonkin crap- although, according to you, all he'd needed to have said was that it had to happen somewhere- Vietnam, Hungary, Germany, that it had to happen somewhere. If he had just said that instead of inventing phantom GOT attacks he could have prevented the disrespect of the office of the President you so loathe, instead of creating it with the GOT fabrications.

Seems I've given you WAY, WAY, WAY to much credit. I said it had to happen somewhere. That is my belief, which I'm not alone in. I know that concept was taught at the Army War College for years.

As for LBJ, I have no idea what he thought. As I said, you would have to ask him as I don't sepak for other people.

And I don't loathe anyone. I understand that you can't grasp the difference between respecting the office and the man, imo, that's telling about you and show's a serious flaw in your personality. That's all.

by Aaron Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:32 am

The "tunnel visioners" like Zig point to 55,000 Americans in Vietnam or the 37,000 in Korea who lost their life but what they don't take into account is how many Americans would have lost their life had the United States and the Soviet Union faught directly in someplace like Germany or Hungry.

As I said, they just don't get it.

by ziggy Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:41 am

Aaron wrote:And I don't loathe anyone. I understand that you can't grasp the difference between respecting the office and the man, imo, that's telling about you and show's a serious flaw in your personality. That's all.

How have I failed to "respect the office"- other than to criticize a couple of the men who have held that office"- men who are NOT the holders of godly thrones you would have us pretend, just men- men with "flaws in their personalities", just like you and Ziggy and everyone else.

"Respect" of the office is for the thrones of the gods, not for mere Presidents.

by SamCogar Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:41 am

Ziggy never mentions much anything about the Korean War because it didn't scare the BEJESUS out of him. Razz

.

by ziggy Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:52 am

Aaron wrote:The "tunnel visioners" like Zig point to 55,000 Americans in Vietnam or the 37,000 in Korea who lost their life but what they don't take into account is how many Americans would have lost their life had the United States and the Soviet Union faught directly in someplace like Germany or Hungry.

As I said, they just don't get it.

Then until George W. came along, Lyndon Johnson was the ultimate "tunnel visioner". He hanged his Vietnam War hat, not on avoiding war in Germany or Hungary, but on some contrived Gulf of Tonkin non-incident.

And in 2003 George W. was the "tunnel visioner"- hanging his hell-bent-on-going-to-war-at-any-cost in Iraq hat on phantom WMDs.

Tweedle dee Johnson, tweedle dum Bush. But it's all because Ziggy has a "personality flaw" called "tunnel vision". And we know because Aaron says so.
lol!

by ziggy Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:07 am

SamCogar wrote:[The US got involved in the Korean Conflict because Communist China was backing and supporting North Koreas' take over of South Korea.

That's what Harry Truman said, and as far as I know there is no reason to doubt him.

The US got involved in the Viet Nam Conflict because Communist China was backing and supporting North Viet Nams' take over of South Viet Nam.

That's NOT what Lyndon Johnson said. He said it was because N. Vietnam had attacked American ships at the Gulf of Tonkin on August 2nd and August 4th 1964. And he expected us to believe it. But the only attack on August 2nd was U.S. attacks on N. Vietnamese boats. And the only N. Vietnamesse activity going on in the Gulf of Tonkin on Agugust 4th was salvage operations of their boats the U.S. had attacked two days earlier.

Why couldnt Johnson, and now Bush, have been as honest about it as Truman?

by Aaron Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:13 am

ziggy wrote:
How have I failed to "respect the office"- other than to criticize a couple of the men who have held that office"- men who are NOT the holders of godly thrones you would have us pretend, just men- men with "flaws in their personalities", just like you and Ziggy and everyone else.

"Respect" of the office is for the thrones of the gods, not for mere Presidents.

By your own words in statemenst you've made over the past year and a half in the contempt and hatred you've spewed at those that have held the office. There is a huge difference in saying something to the effect..."I think President Bush or GWB is not a bad President or a war monger" or anything of that nature and in calling the President of the United States of America a moron monkey boy.

I honestly don't think you even grasp what I'm saying though.

by Aaron Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:15 am

ziggy wrote:
Why couldnt Johnson, and now Bush, have been as honest about it as Truman?

And had they been you would have supported both full fledged, right!!! Rolling Eyes

by ziggy Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:27 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Why couldnt Johnson, and now Bush, have been as honest about it as Truman?

And had they been you would have supported both full fledged, right!!!

I'm OK with Truman's explanation of it. It reflected the political and military reality of what was happening.

Are you OK with Johnson's and Bush's explanation of it?

by ziggy Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:29 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Why couldnt Johnson, and now Bush, have been as honest about it as Truman?

And had they been you would have supported both full fledged, right!!!

I'm OK with Truman's explanation of it. It reflected the political and military reality of what was happening- as I understand it today.

Are you OK with Johnson's and Bush's explanation of their wars?

by Aaron Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:39 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Why couldnt Johnson, and now Bush, have been as honest about it as Truman?

And had they been you would have supported both full fledged, right!!!

I'm OK with Truman's explanation of it. It reflected the political and military reality of what was happening.

Are you OK with Johnson's and Bush's explanation of it?

I think the vast majority of Congress specifically and Americans in general knew the political realities of the times and what Vietnam was all about and that is the reason they supported Johnson and gave him the authority and support they did. I also believe that the initial decision was correct to an extent and I believe history justifies it. How the war was ran after 1967/68, when authority and decision making was taken away from qualified military officers and given to politicians is where I think Vietnam went horribly wrong. Sounds familiar, huh!!!

As for Bush, he stated he was going in to combat terrorism. The consensus of the intelligence community supported his statements. America for the most part supported that in the wake of 9/11. I didn't but it's not because I didn't think Sadaam had no WMD's or links to terrorism. I beleive both were true. I didn't support it because I don't buy GWB's pre-emptative measures line.

To me though, Congress has to accept the vast majority of the criticism for their failures in Iraq. They failed miserably from the get go when over 70% of them willingly gave their voices away and have continued to do so every step of the way. That is why their approval rating is half of what GWB's is.

by **SheikBen** Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:55 am

That really is the great unreported story, isn't it, the very low approval rating of Congress?

by Aaron Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:15 pm

Somewhere around 17% I beleive. Yet if you listen to Pelosi or Dingy Harry, they'd have you believing they have a mandate from the American voter.

Were I the RNC, I would concentrate my efforts on regaining the House and the Senate and I would definately target all HOR members that won in 06.

by ziggy Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:51 pm

Aaron wrote:I think the vast majority of Congress specifically and Americans in general knew the political realities of the times and what Vietnam was all about and that is the reason they supported Johnson and gave him the authority and support they did.

Then why was that "support" offered in August 1964 and not a month or a year earlier or a month or a year later? If the vast majority of Congress specifically and Americans in general knew the reality, why did it take a trumped up Gulf of Tonkin non-incident for Congress to show that support?

As for Bush, he stated he was going in to combat terrorism. The consensus of the intelligence community supported his statements. America for the most part supported that in the wake of 9/11. I didn't but it's not because I didn't think Sadaam had no WMD's or links to terrorism. I beleive both were true.

The why wasn't the greatest military in the world able to find the evidence of it?

To me though, Congress has to accept the vast majority of the criticism for their failures in Iraq. They failed miserably from the get go when over 70% of them willingly gave their voices away and have continued to do so every step of the way. That is why their approval rating is half of what GWB's is.

If Congress swallowed hook line and sinker the "consensus of the intelligence community"- just as Bush did- then why was / is Congress any more culpable than Bush?

by ziggy Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:00 pm

SheikBen wrote:That really is the great unreported story, isn't it, the very low approval rating of Congress?

Unreported? It's the talk of network and cable TV- and has been for years. It is the one constant political story of the forty however-many-years of my adult life- that Congress is held in almost universal low esteem. Contempt for Congress is so ingrained in the American psyche that it's no longer even "news".

by Aaron Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:20 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I think the vast majority of Congress specifically and Americans in general knew the political realities of the times and what Vietnam was all about and that is the reason they supported Johnson and gave him the authority and support they did.

Then why was that "support" offered in August 1964 and not a month or a year earlier or a month or a year later? If the vast majority of Congress specifically and Americans in general knew the reality, why did it take a trumped up Gulf of Tonkin non-incident for Congress to show that support?

As for Bush, he stated he was going in to combat terrorism. The consensus of the intelligence community supported his statements. America for the most part supported that in the wake of 9/11. I didn't but it's not because I didn't think Sadaam had no WMD's or links to terrorism. I beleive both were true.

The why wasn't the greatest military in the world able to find the evidence of it?

To me though, Congress has to accept the vast majority of the criticism for their failures in Iraq. They failed miserably from the get go when over 70% of them willingly gave their voices away and have continued to do so every step of the way. That is why their approval rating is half of what GWB's is.

If Congress swallowed hook line and sinker the "consensus of the intelligence community"- just as Bush did- then why was / is Congress any more culpable than Bush?

As I've said more then a couple of times (I know, too much credit) I wasn't alive in 1964. I have no idea what the mood of the country was, what Congress specifically did or didn't do, say or didn't say and support or not support.

There was numerous convoys documented leaving Iraq, most bound for Syria before, during and even days after the invasion.

Twofold. Bush believes in what he's doing and is not chasing a poll and Congress has oversight and has the constitutional to oversee military involvement BEFORE we jump. They've done nothing but chase polls and they gave their voice away. Only an apologist would think they are less culpable then GWB.

by Sponsored content