Re: Why I don’t mourn Walter Cronkite
wis...@yahoo.com
>Saturday, July 18, 2009
>
>Why I don�t mourn Walter Cronkite
>http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-i-dont-mourn-walter-cronkite.html
>
>Walter Cronkite is dead and I extend my sympathy to this relatives and
>friends who grieve. As for me, I cannot find it in myself to mourn his
>passing. I watched his version of the news constantly, recalling his
>famous closing line �and that�s the way it is.� The problem is, as I
>learned later, that�s not the way it was.
>
>Walter Cronkite was labeled � I don�t know by whom, probably the
>marketing department at CBS News - as �the most trusted man in America.�
>He, and many others, used that trust to create an aura around the news
>business that it has taken literally decades to reveal as a false front.
>At a time when information was one-way and media outlets were severely
>limited in number, the version of reality that was reflected by Walter
>Cronkite shaped public opinion so massively that opposing opinions stood
>no chance. That is why it was Walter Cronkite who ended America�s quest
>for victory in Viet Nam.
>
>When Lyndon Johnson said that "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle
>America." He recognized a political truth. Consider this.
>
> In mid-February, in the immediate aftermath of the Tet Offensive,
>both Gallup and Harris noted a surge in American support for the war.
>Both pollsters said 61% of Americans favored a stronger military
>response against the North Vietnamese Army. 70% of Americans favored
>increased bombing of North Vietnamese targets, which was up from 63% in
>the previous December.
>
> Then came Cronkite's February 27 commentary.
>
> "To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the
>face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To
>suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable
>pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only
>realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion."
>
>
> In early March, just a few days later, 49% of Americans said it was
>a mistake to have entered the Vietnam conflict. Only 35% believed the
>war would end within two years. 69% now approved of a phased withdrawal
>of American troops from Vietnam.*
>
>The political power Cronkite wielded was acknowledged not just by Lyndon
>Johnson - who effectively ceded control of America's war policy to a
>news commentator - but is acknowledged by his cohorts in the news
>business:
>
> It is impossible to imagine CBS News, journalism or indeed America
>without Walter Cronkite," CBS News president Sean McManus said in a
>statement. "More than just the best and most trusted anchor in history,
>he guided America through our crises, tragedies and also our victories
>and greatest moments."
>
>Repeat that in your mind: "He guided America." And employee of CBS news
>"guided America." This is not a brief for Lyndon Johnson or the literal
>crooks and clowns who inhabit the house and senate, but the power that
>Cronkite wielded over America is troubling to me.
>
>From the same article we are reminded that Cronkite had a team. And who
>was on that team? Eric Severeid, Daniel Schorr, Dan Rather, Roger Mudd,
>Mike Wallace. See anyone there who you would recognize as a Conservative
>voice? Neither do I. Today Daniel Schorr delivers diatribes against the
>Right from his sinecure at NPR and Dan Rather maintains that it was
>those damn Right Wingers who smeared him by exposing his phony Bush
>papers story.
>
>Cronkite, it was said, �did not editorialize often.� Well, let�s put it
>this way, he did not come out and say �this is my opinion.� But his way
>of editorializing is the same craft that the media used in his time and
>ever since: selective use of facts, the omission of this story, the
>emphasis on that story, all used to weave a version of reality that
>people believed about the world around them beyond the reach of their
>five senses.
>
>Walter Cronkite gained immense power and, in my opinion used that power
>badly to advance his personal wealth and his personal ideology. There�s
>a lot of money to be made if you are the �most trusted man in America.�
>And you can convince a lot of people that �that�s the way it is� if they
>believe you.
>
>The healthiest thing for American democracy has been the internet,
>having broken the death-grip that the mainstream media have had on
>American perspectives of reality. Had Walter Cronkite lived with the
>internet, his title and his sign off line would have been laughed at.
>
>Rest in peace.
Many, many things yet to be fully examined and understood.
ted
krp
<wis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55t4655ptl59i5696...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:46:37 -0700, Sordo� <so...@aol.net> wrote:
>
>>Saturday, July 18, 2009
>>
>>Why I don't mourn Walter Cronkite
>>http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-i-dont-mourn-walter-cronkite.html
>>
>>Walter Cronkite is dead and I extend my sympathy to this relatives and
>>friends who grieve. As for me, I cannot find it in myself to mourn his
>>passing. I watched his version of the news constantly, recalling his
>>famous closing line "and that's the way it is." The problem is, as I
>>learned later, that's not the way it was.
>>
>>marketing department at CBS News - as "the most trusted man in America."
>>He, and many others, used that trust to create an aura around the news
>>business that it has taken literally decades to reveal as a false front.
>>At a time when information was one-way and media outlets were severely
>>limited in number, the version of reality that was reflected by Walter
>>Cronkite shaped public opinion so massively that opposing opinions stood
>>no chance. That is why it was Walter Cronkite who ended America's quest
>>for victory in Viet Nam.
>>
>>When Lyndon Johnson said that "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle
>>America." He recognized a political truth. Consider this.
>>
>> In mid-February, in the immediate aftermath of the Tet Offensive,
>>both Gallup and Harris noted a surge in American support for the war.
>>Both pollsters said 61% of Americans favored a stronger military
>>response against the North Vietnamese Army. 70% of Americans favored
>>increased bombing of North Vietnamese targets, which was up from 63% in
>>the previous December.
>>
>> Then came Cronkite's February 27 commentary.
>>
>> "To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the
>>face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To
>>suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable
>>pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only
>>realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion."
Viet Nam is a study for how wrong the U.S. went after WW-2. The belief
in "limited way" to send political messages. War is NOT a "game" except in
political circles. The U.S. wanted to "send messages" to the USSR, the USSR
wanted so send messages to the U.S.in all these little wars. (Korea , Viet
Nam etc). You can't win these little brush fire insurgency wars. Viet Nam
was winnable, but we never wanted to WIN that war. We could have gone in and
invaded the north and taken Hanoi. But - we wanted to be the "good guys."
We weren't social workers in WW-2. We were there to kill people and blow the
enemy's shit up until he quit. It took 2 atom bombs to convince Japan to
quit. The Germans didn't quit until they didn't have a working toilet in
their country.
Cronkite was right that as we were conducting the war it was
unwinnable.All we could do is continue to bleed because we didn't have the
stones to go into North Viet Nam and end their capacity to make war on the
South. Make them pay the price. From Eisenhower through Nixon there was
never ANY intent on winning. Hence it made the war an obscenity.
However - THAT being said... The news reporting on Viet Nam by CBS under
Cronkite was largely bullshit. All anyone need to review is the reporting of
CBS reporter at the time "Peter Arnette" and the majority of the material in
Arnette's report were out and out falsehoods as was later proven. things
Arnette just made up, some of which remain urban myths to this day. "We have
to destroy the village in order to save the village."
Cronkite had high credibility in his era. But Walter Cronkite, like his
colleague Edward R. Murrow were both political ideologues. Murrow probably
more so than Cronkite. Lots of their reporting doesn't square well with
facts as we know them today.
While Cronkite bemoaned today's trend to the evening news being theater,
the only difference is that his theater was far more subtle, and far less
recognized by a much less sophisticated audience in his day.
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You're old enough to stop living in nonsense. Vietnam was never winable.
Trying to win would have started WWIII. No one wins a nuclear war.
Connect the dots...
In <kbC8m.255$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/19/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:qlC8m.258$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> You're old enough to stop living in nonsense. Vietnam was never winable.
> Trying to win would have started WWIII. No one wins a nuclear war.
> Connect the dots...
>
Sure it was. With sufficient manpower it could have been won. The point is
that "WINNING' it was NEVER anywhere near being part of the plan. No it
would NOT have triggered a nuclear war, the USSR did not have the capacity
to fight one.
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Son, all out nuclear war is not winnable. Furthermore the facts of
history tell us that the CIA, and the Presidents knew or believed it
would lead to nuclear war and that it could not be won.
The USSR did in fact have nuclear weapons in the 1960s -- during the
Vietnam war -- and they could well deliver them to just about any place
they wanted to. The fact that you claim they could not, defies the facts
of everything we did during the Cold War.
Your protests cannot rewrite the history written by those who were in the
middle of it.
In <Add8m.11$64...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, on 07/19/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:9zF8m.272$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Son, all out nuclear war is not winnable. Furthermore the facts of
> history tell us that the CIA, and the Presidents knew or believed it
> would lead to nuclear war and that it could not be won.
In the late 1960's the USSR was really NOT capable of waging a nuclear
war, desipte what most Americans THOUGHT at the time, the Russians KNEW it.
Which is why they backed down so easily over Cuba. As long as they knew we'd
SHIT our pants they would push. But the second they felt we'd REALLY take
them on and call their bluff, THEY backed off. They were in NO mind to go
nuclear over Viet Nam. THEy knew we could make the rubble bounce for
months, THEY had only a small first strike capability.
> The USSR did in fact have nuclear weapons in the 1960s -- during the
> Vietnam war -- and they could well deliver them to just about any place
> they wanted to. The fact that you claim they could not, defies the facts
> of everything we did during the Cold War.
Sure they had nukes. Their delivery systems sucked. Their missiles were
innacurate as hell. T|hey were MORE likely to go off INSIDE the USSR than to
hit the US. Their bombers were SLOW as hell and would have been a turkey
shoot and THEY knew it. The facts are that they would have faced TOTAL
destruction, they knew it, and the U.S. would not have suffered all that
badly. Of course
had WE used ALL our missiles, life on the planet would have ended. The
Russians also KNEW that! The Soviets were many things, but INSANE wasn't one
of them
> Your protests cannot rewrite the history written by those who were in the
> middle of it.
And *I* wasn't?
Horvath
wrote this crap:
>
>Son, all out nuclear war is not winnable. Furthermore the facts of
>history tell us that the CIA, and the Presidents knew or believed it
>would lead to nuclear war and that it could not be won.
With the scientific theory, you make a conjecture, test it, and check
it again.
The only time nuclear weapons were ever used, we won.
That's the facts, jack.
And remember to vote for Palin-Ahhhnold in 2012.
Geor...@Horvath.net
This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Stop blowing smoke your ass krp. The fact is there is a declassified
report on the internet by the CIA explaining how winning in Vietnam would
lead to nuclear war.
They know more then you ever did or will. I was also in NORAD units, and I
can tell you that you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
In <riG8m.276$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/19/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Run along wannabee. The CIA report proves you are an idiot. You're
trumped! Now zip it goober.
In <l2f665pe28pqgjub8...@4ax.com>, on 07/19/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:x3J8m.320$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Run along wannabee. The CIA report proves you are an idiot. You're
> trumped! Now zip it goober.
>
You mean WE LOST??
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:z3J8m.321$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Stop blowing smoke your ass krp. The fact is there is a declassified
> report on the internet by the CIA explaining how winning in Vietnam would
> lead to nuclear war.
The CIA comes up with MANY theories. And on RARE occasion they are
right.
> They know more then you ever did or will. I was also in NORAD units, and I
> can tell you that you don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
I spent 2 years on a master direction center and SAW the Cuban missile
crisis firsthand.
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
The Cuban MC had nothing to do with the capabilities of the USSR to launch
nuclear weapons, years later during the vietnam war.
In <QSJ8m.331$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/19/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Stop whining. You lost this game son.
I did not make the second statement you are quoting. Furthermore,
defeating a nation that was already defeated, and which had no nuclear
weapons -- is not proof that there was some way to win a nuclear war,
years later against a nuclear armed nation.
In <OQJ8m.330$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/19/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:h0K8m.50$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> The Cuban MC had nothing to do with the capabilities of the USSR to launch
> nuclear weapons, years later during the vietnam war.
Sure it did. The issue was how many warheads the Soviets HAD and how
many delivery vehicles it had. We had something like a 2,000 to 1 edge over
them.THEY knedw it, even IF the boneheads at the CIA did NOT!
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:i0K8m.51$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Stop whining. You lost this game son.
> I did not make the second statement you are quoting. Furthermore,
> defeating a nation that was already defeated, and which had no nuclear
> weapons -- is not proof that there was some way to win a nuclear war,
> years later against a nuclear armed nation.
It won the war, jackass. And Japan was FAR from being "defeated."
Somehow I think the Japanese were in a VASTLY better position to know IF
they were defeated than you do.
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
news:UJM8m.80$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
I think the point was that they were defeated with or without nuclear
weapons.
The USAAF had clearly demonstrated the ability to utterly destroy urban
areas with conventional weapons and the Soviets were rapidly overrunning
Manchuria. Japan had no effective offensive capabilities left.
The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki wern't destroyed prior to the nukes
was that they were deliberately saved to see how effective the nukes were.
Billzz
"Zombywoof" <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8t3a65lo09pcu3m0f...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>Son, all out nuclear war is not winnable. Furthermore the facts of
>>history tell us that the CIA, and the Presidents knew or believed it
>>would lead to nuclear war and that it could not be won.
>>
> Nukes and I doubt neither the Soviets or Chinese would have committed
> ground troops. The North could have been bombed into the stoneage
> with conventional weapons. We could have fought & forward offensive
> campaign as opposed to basically a defensive status-quo one. Or
> lastly we could have never gotten involved at all.
I never respond to anybody who starts out a sentence calling me son.
>>The USSR did in fact have nuclear weapons in the 1960s -- during the
>>Vietnam war -- and they could well deliver them to just about any place
>>they wanted to. The fact that you claim they could not, defies the facts
>>of everything we did during the Cold War.
>>
> So, what makes you think "they" would have risked using them. We
> could have fought a "Conventional" ground war with no off-limit
> targets.
>>
>>Your protests cannot rewrite the history written by those who were in the
>>middle of it.
>>
> Just because they were in the "middle of it" doesn't mean they
> actually knew what was going on.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You're making yourself look dumb here. There is no relationship between
two bombs 1945, and all out nuclear war in 1969.
In <UJM8m.80$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, on 07/19/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
We never had a 2000:1 ratio in STREGETIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
In <7IM8m.79$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, on 07/19/2009
krp
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" <cafn*mail.dk> wrote in message
news:4a64df7b$0$15885$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>> Stop whining. You lost this game son.
>>
>>> I did not make the second statement you are quoting. Furthermore,
>>> defeating a nation that was already defeated, and which had no nuclear
>>> weapons -- is not proof that there was some way to win a nuclear war,
>>> years later against a nuclear armed nation.
>>
>> It won the war, jackass. And Japan was FAR from being "defeated."
>> Somehow I think the Japanese were in a VASTLY better position to know IF
>> they were defeated than you do.
> I think the point was that they were defeated with or without nuclear
> weapons.
The point is stupid. But for the bombs, Japan had every intention of
continuing the war. Japan's plans for defending the nation for the planned
invasion AT A MINIMUM would have cost 500,000 AMERICAN lives. What we know
now is that Japan KNEW where we'd land. They were prepared to make every
inch prohibitively costly. And quite freankly the U.S. was NOT in a frame of
mind for the kind of losses we would have been confronted with. Most likely
WE would have had to sue forf peace. The American people were just NOT going
to pay that price.
> The USAAF had clearly demonstrated the ability to utterly destroy urban
> areas with conventional weapons and the Soviets were rapidly overrunning
> Manchuria. Japan had no effective offensive capabilities left.
That's shit! But even if I accept it as THE WORD OF GOD, they had plenty
of DEFENSIVE capability. Japan was unphased by conventional bombing. You
just don't seem to GET at all that bombing, even FIRE BOMBING (see Dresden)
doeas NOT cow people into submission. It didn't work in Berlin, or
Frankfurt, and it didn't even work on London. Hell, we had flattend MANY
Japanese cities in 1944. They kept on.
> The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki wern't destroyed prior to the nukes
> was that they were deliberately saved to see how effective the nukes were.
That's crap. The reason was that the BRASS thought that bombing Tokyo
and more industrial areas would work and it DID NOT! When Japan saw that we
could flatten an entire city with ONE BOMB, and that we had threatened to
ERASE JAPAN from the map, one city at a time, they understood it was
surrender or die. They feared the day when planes would come and drop 10
nukes on a city, and on EVERY city in Japan. It wasn't until they face TOTAL
annihilation that they quit.
krp
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:52:29 GMT, Igetrightw...@nospan.com
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Run along wannabee. The CIA report proves you are an idiot. You're
>>trumped! Now zip it goober.
>>
> Soviets fill a brand new Embassy with bugs? Who created the fuckin
> Taliban for christsakes?
>
> So they wrote a report, BFD.
The CIA also supported Fidel Castro as America's BEST FRIEND and armed
and supplied him against Batista.
krp
>>> Stop blowing smoke your ass krp. The fact is there is a declassified
>>> report on the internet by the CIA explaining how winning in Vietnam
>>> would
>>> lead to nuclear war.
>> The CIA comes up with MANY theories. And on RARE occasion they are
>>right.
> However, those occasions are pure happenstance!
Well I have been around LONG enough to never take the CIA's stuff too
seriously.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:vPg9m.546$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> You're making yourself look dumb here. There is no relationship between
> two bombs 1945, and all out nuclear war in 1969.
That's not what I said. What I said, in reference to Viet Nam was that
the Soviets were NOT in a logistcal position to engage IN a nuclear war and
THEY knew it even if WE did not. You can say many things about Soviet
leadership, but they were NOT insane. They KNEW that AT THAT TIME they could
not have gone toe to toe with us in a nuclear war. They could have hurt us
badly, but they KNEW that the US could and would have TOTALLY destroyed the
USSR. They also knew that in doing so it would have made life on this planet
very uncomfortable. They knew that we'd likely survive to some degree, but
they knew that THEY would not. By the 1980's that story changed. By then
"Mutually Assured Destruction" was a reality. ALL life would end.
There was NO way that Viet Nam would have gone nuclear.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:wPg9m.547$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>
> We never had a 2000:1 ratio in STREGETIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Okay nutball they had it over US! We really had to SWEAT all those Russian
B-52's.
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Run along son. You are wrong and you know it -- but you're too pigheaded
to shut up when you should. --> We would have been utterly destroyed in an
all out nuclear war. The object was to avoid one.
Find another hobby.
In <Y%g9m.551$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/21/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You weren't called son billzzy.
And here, I thought all lifers knew how to read.
In <91aee$4a655c59$9440b19b$27...@STARBAND.NET>, on 07/20/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Run along son. Your wrong again and too pigheaded to just shut up.
In <s_g9m.550$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/21/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:Xch9m.558$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Run along son. You are wrong and you know it -- but you're too pigheaded
> to shut up when you should. --> We would have been utterly destroyed in an
> all out nuclear war. The object was to avoid one.
No doubt we'd have been hurt. HOWEVER, the FACTS are these. The USSR
didn't have all that many warheads. THEY admit, less than 100. The USSR had
serious problems. Their missiles were inaccurate as hell. THEIR OWN best
guess is that 30% of them would detonate inside the USSR. The Russian
strategic bombers were slow as hell, SITTING DUCKS. 90% would never have
seen airspace past Alaska. WE on the other hand had near 6,000 warheads at
the time, our missiles were accurate, and the B-52 was capable of deep
penetration into the USSR.
Like I said, the Russians were Communists, NOT insane.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:Ych9m.559$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Run along son. Your wrong again and too pigheaded to just shut up.
>> The CIA also supported Fidel Castro as America's BEST FRIEND and
>>armed and supplied him against Batista.
Oh I have firsthand on that, dipshit.
krp
>>>> Stop whining. You lost this game son.
>>>
>>>> I did not make the second statement you are quoting. Furthermore,
>>>> defeating a nation that was already defeated, and which had no nuclear
>>>> weapons -- is not proof that there was some way to win a nuclear war,
>>>> years later against a nuclear armed nation.
>>>
>>> It won the war, jackass. And Japan was FAR from being "defeated."
>>> Somehow I think the Japanese were in a VASTLY better position to know IF
>>> they were defeated than you do.
>>
>>I think the point was that they were defeated with or without nuclear
>>weapons.
> You apparently do not know how ferocious the fighting was on every
> Island we engaged the Japanese on. The losses on both sides during a
> land invasion would have been something never before seen in the
> history of man. The Atomic Bombings probably saved more Japanese
> lives then American.
I've listend to this historical revisionism for the past 10 years or so.
It is utter bullshit. Japan's ability to WIN the war was gone, Japan's
ability to invade the U.S. mainland was gone, HOWEVER to claim they were
"DEFEATED" is UTTER BULLSHIT!
>>The USAAF had clearly demonstrated the ability to utterly destroy urban
>>areas with conventional weapons and the Soviets were rapidly overrunning
>>Manchuria. Japan had no effective offensive capabilities left.
> So they were in the shitter offensively, BFD. The previous level of
> engagements we had against the Japanese on the previous islands had
> them on the defensive, and quite defensive they were.
The FACT is they weren't in the shitter at all. They still had fight in
them as they proved in Okinawa.
>>The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki wern't destroyed prior to the nukes
>>was that they were deliberately saved to see how effective the nukes were.
> Absolutely not. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been seen as "major"
> targets they would have been conventionally bombed previously. Nobody
> really even knew if the bombs were going to work. That is one of the
> reasons why blowing one up off their coast to show them what we had
> was discarded. If it had not worked they would have viewed us as
> bluffing. Even as it was it took to strikes to make them believe it
> was repeatable.
EVEN THEN most of the military was BITTERLY OPPOSED to surrender and
some units TRIED to overthrow the Emperor. This story of the BEATEN and
COWED Japanese is just total bullshit.
Sid9
"krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nyl9m.609$MA...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
What might have happened if we had not pushed Castro into
the hands of the Soviet Union?
Batista was a no good crook......The Cuban people wanted him
out.
Billzz
> bombings probably saved more Japanese lives then American? They would
> have fought us tooth & nail in every nook, cranny & crevice. Civilians
> would have died by the 100's of thousands if not at our hand by their
> own as they did at Okinawa.
>>
>>>>The USAAF had clearly demonstrated the ability to utterly destroy urban
>>>>areas with conventional weapons and the Soviets were rapidly overrunning
>>>>Manchuria. Japan had no effective offensive capabilities left.
>>
>>> So they were in the shitter offensively, BFD. The previous level of
>>> engagements we had against the Japanese on the previous islands had
>>> them on the defensive, and quite defensive they were.
>>
>> The FACT is they weren't in the shitter at all. They still had fight
>> in
>>them as they proved in Okinawa.
>>
> "offensively" -- as in couldn't deliver an attack, or they weren't.
> Just because one can continue to resist doesn't mean one isn't
> offensively in the toilet.
>>
>>>>The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki wern't destroyed prior to the
>>>>nukes
>>>>was that they were deliberately saved to see how effective the nukes
>>>>were.
>>
>>> Absolutely not. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been seen as "major"
>>> targets they would have been conventionally bombed previously. Nobody
>>> really even knew if the bombs were going to work. That is one of the
>>> reasons why blowing one up off their coast to show them what we had
>>> was discarded. If it had not worked they would have viewed us as
>>> bluffing. Even as it was it took to strikes to make them believe it
>>> was repeatable.
>>
>> EVEN THEN most of the military was BITTERLY OPPOSED to surrender and
>>some units TRIED to overthrow the Emperor. This story of the BEATEN and
>>COWED Japanese is just total bullshit.
>>
> offensive capability was completely gone. They had sent their last
> major naval asset and pride of their fleet the Battleship Yamato to
> the Ryukyu Islands to assist in the defensive of Okinawa knowing full
> well that it was a one way suicide mission because they could only
> scrounge up enough fuel for a one way trip.
>
> The battle for the Ryukyu Islands has one of the highest number of
> casualties of any World War Two engagement: the Japanese lost over
> 100,000 troops, and the Allies (mostly United States) suffered more
> than 50,000 casualties, with over 12,000 killed in action. Hundreds of
> thousands of civilians were killed, wounded or attempted suicide.
> Approximately one-fourth of the civilian population died due to the
> invasion.
>
> If that is the defense they put up in the Ryukyu Islands it would have
> been 100 times more aggressive of a defense on the home islands.
> Therefore even though atomic bombs killed as many as 140,000 people
> in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki for a combined death toll of
> around 220,000 it was less then the lives lost in the Conventional
> Attacks on the Ryukyu Islands.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
I seem to have krp in my killfile, for some reason, but I remember a
seminar, given at the US National War College, circa 1980, about how to end
a war, and we listened to peoples who were there, making the plans, etc.
Almost all of them started out with a phrase like, "It seems hard to believe
now, but..." and then they would try to impress upon us how the actual
situation, at that time, was seemingly very bad, but none of it could be
told to the American public. The Japanese defense was like something out of
a horror story, with mass murders, suicides, etc. It was hard to believe.
Into this came the atomic bomb, which was looked upon, by almost everyone
(some scientists being the exception) as the saviour of the many millions of
GIs the planners thought would be needed for a ground invasion of the many
Japanese home islands. A process, incidentally, they thought would take as
much time, four years, as they had come to this point. One historian
remarked that we look back into history with many more options than the
people who were there had. Maybe today it would be different, but given the
mindset of the time it was almost an inevitible decision. One can hardly
think of anyone, at that time, who would *not* have voted for the use of the
atomic bomb.
krp
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:h45flv$1kt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:nyl9m.609$MA...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> <Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ych9m.559$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>>
>>> Run along son. Your wrong again and too pigheaded to just shut up.
>>
>>>> The CIA also supported Fidel Castro as America's BEST FRIEND and
>>>>armed and supplied him against Batista.
>>
>>
>> Oh I have firsthand on that, dipshit.
>>
>
> What might have happened if we had not pushed Castro into the hands of the
> Soviet Union?
That's another issue.
> Batista was a no good crook......The Cuban people wanted him out.
True but they were fooled by Castro.
>
krp
> the US is the only country to have ever used Nuclear weapons there is
> no reason to believe we would have ever used them in Vietnam (Korea
> maybe, but not Vietnam). Therefore there is really no reason to
> believe that the Soviets would have used Nuclear weapons if we had
> actually been fighting to win the Vietnam War as opposed to simply
> fighting to maintain a Status-quo.
>
> All-in-all Vietnam really should have been a fairly easy win IF our
> Military had been allowed to conduct the War as a War.
PRECISELY!
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Provide proof they only had 100 war heads in 1969.
In <xxl9m.608$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/21/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You're backing away from what you said. You have no knowledge of what the
Russians could deliver. The fact is they could have delivered enough
nukes to take us out. Period.
You also refuse to acknowledge the main point --> No one wins an all out
nuclear war and only the stupid pretend that one could not have happened
in an all out invasion of NV.
And we had MAD in the 1962. We had MAD almost from the day the first
minuteman squadron at Malmstrom went hot. They were the Ace-In-The-Hole
that made a deal during the Cuban Missile Crisis possible.
In <85h9m.552$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/21/2009
Stanley Moore
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:nYu9m.462$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Provide proof they only had 100 war heads in 1969.
>
>
"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
General 'Buck' Turgidson
This comes near the end of Dr. Strangelove, one of the funniest movies about
the era in question.
I recall talk in the papers of a missile gap round about that time.
Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Billzz
"Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:W7WdnYJ3bs16EPvX...@giganews.com...
>
> <Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
> news:nYu9m.462$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>
>>
>> Provide proof they only had 100 war heads in 1969.
>>
>>
>
> "Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
>
> General 'Buck' Turgidson
> This comes near the end of Dr. Strangelove, one of the funniest movies
> about the era in question.
>
> I recall talk in the papers of a missile gap round about that time.
You recall a very well orchestrated Democratic party allegation that the
Eisenhower administration allowed the Soviet Union to build up a larger
number of offensive missiles. This was all false. There was no "missile
gap," but the government said nothing, and so people actually believed the
lie. In fact the US had many more thousands of nuclear warheads, than the
USSR, but did not want to say anything about it.
It's amazing how many people are politicized and know nothing about history.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:nYu9m.462$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Provide proof they only had 100 war heads in 1969.
Look it up yourself, I'm not your Stepnfetchit!
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:pYu9m.465$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> You're backing away from what you said. You have no knowledge of what the
> Russians could deliver. The fact is they could have delivered enough
> nukes to take us out. Period.
No, I'm not backing away. I have said they could have hurt us, they
could NOT have "taken the U.S. out."
> You also refuse to acknowledge the main point --> No one wins an all out
> nuclear war and only the stupid pretend that one could not have happened
> in an all out invasion of NV.
This is true. Let's time warp back to 1970. Let's speculate that the
U.S. put 750,000 troops into Viet Nam, along with tanks and the like and
unrestricted use of air power. We could have taken Hanoi with little
problem. Occupying the North would have essentially starved the Viet Cong to
death and Viet Nam would have been pacified. (I personally believe we were
on the wrong side of that war.) While I find it extremely doubtful the USSR
would have acted, and even less likely that tey would have used NUKES, let's
say for the sake of YOUR argument that they did. They launched everything
they had. Like I said, by the estimates of the Russians themselves, their
missile guidance was so poor that they anticipated about 30% of their
missiles would have exploded over the USSR. Much of the remailing two thirds
would not have hit the intended targets. As I said, the Soviet strategic
bombers would have been a turkey-shoot. The REALITY IS, that the U.S. would
have launched a retaliatory strike of perhaps 1500 missiles that WOULD have
hit their targets, and the B-52's would have penetrated the USSR and hit
targets. The result would be the sam AS IF the Soviets actually HAD parity
with us, which tghey didn't. The human race would be just as dead. Some of
us COULD have survived.
> And we had MAD in the 1962. We had MAD almost from the day the first
> minuteman squadron at Malmstrom went hot. They were the Ace-In-The-Hole
> that made a deal during the Cuban Missile Crisis possible.
You have NO idea what made Kruschev back down. Very few people do. He
didn't have much of any choice. He knew they were beaten.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:pYu9m.464$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> You lack knowledge of nuclear war.
So do you, since there has never been one - - - - - YET!
krp
> news:nYu9m.462$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>
>>
>> Provide proof they only had 100 war heads in 1969.
>>
>>
>
> "Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
>
> General 'Buck' Turgidson
> This comes near the end of Dr. Strangelove, one of the funniest movies
> about the era in question.
>
> I recall talk in the papers of a missile gap round about that time.
And it proved to be BULLSHIT, didn't it?
krp
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:e27c4$4a66a2ef$9440b19b$31...@STARBAND.NET...
>
> "Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:W7WdnYJ3bs16EPvX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> <Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
>> news:nYu9m.462$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Provide proof they only had 100 war heads in 1969.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
>>
>> General 'Buck' Turgidson
>> This comes near the end of Dr. Strangelove, one of the funniest movies
>> about the era in question.
>>
>> I recall talk in the papers of a missile gap round about that time.
>
> You recall a very well orchestrated Democratic party allegation that the
> Eisenhower administration allowed the Soviet Union to build up a larger
> number of offensive missiles. This was all false. There was no "missile
> gap," but the government said nothing, and so people actually believed the
> lie. In fact the US had many more thousands of nuclear warheads, than the
> USSR, but did not want to say anything about it.
Well the CIA had been tilling presidents that there WAS a missile gap.
It turned out that the CIA was full of shit, as usual.
Stanley Moore
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:e27c4$4a66a2ef$9440b19b$31...@STARBAND.NET...
>
> news:W7WdnYJ3bs16EPvX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> <Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
>> news:nYu9m.462$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Provide proof they only had 100 war heads in 1969.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
>>
>> General 'Buck' Turgidson
>> This comes near the end of Dr. Strangelove, one of the funniest movies
>> about the era in question.
>>
>> I recall talk in the papers of a missile gap round about that time.
>
> You recall a very well orchestrated Democratic party allegation that the
> Eisenhower administration allowed the Soviet Union to build up a larger
> number of offensive missiles. This was all false. There was no "missile
> gap," but the government said nothing, and so people actually believed the
> lie. In fact the US had many more thousands of nuclear warheads, than the
> USSR, but did not want to say anything about it.
>
> It's amazing how many people are politicized and know nothing about
> history.
>
OK, fair enough. But What should the government have done? Tell the truth
about our capabilities and lull the public into a (false) sense of security?
Also if folks knew we were invincible in this area of defense would they
balk at paying even more and more for defense? Big defense company business
was at risk if the US government didn't have a big bad enemy to defend
against. I recall those days when people were fearful of sneak attack. We
did the "duck and cover" in our elementary school in the 50s and early 60s,
filed out into the halls to huddle against the walls in the euphemistically
named "disaster drills". Eisenhower could be counted on to be strong on
defense and Kennedy felt he had to follow suit. Take care
Stanley Moore
Hence the comedic line in the movie acknowledging that fact in 1964 which
IIRC was when the movie was released. I highly recommend this film which
lampoons the hopes and fears of that time, what with the Soviet menace,
fluoridation conspiracies, John Burch Society etc. Take care
krp
>>>> Provide proof they only had 100 war heads in 1969.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
>>>
>>> General 'Buck' Turgidson
>>> This comes near the end of Dr. Strangelove, one of the funniest movies
>>> about the era in question.
>>>
>>> I recall talk in the papers of a missile gap round about that time.
>>
>>
>> And it proved to be BULLSHIT, didn't it?
>>
>
> Hence the comedic line in the movie acknowledging that fact in 1964 which
> IIRC was when the movie was released. I highly recommend this film which
> lampoons the hopes and fears of that time, what with the Soviet menace,
> fluoridation conspiracies, John Burch Society etc. Take care
I loved Doctor Strangelove AND Fail Safe. The whole FEAR of the USSR was
irrational. Like Eisenhower warned, "beware the military - industrial
complex." Which led us on a merry chase with loads of BAD military gear,
that screwed us in Viet Nam with some terribly inappropriate aircraft like
the F-4 and the F-105 the flying brick. It also led us to pick the WRONG
SIDE in Viet Nam. How many people know that Ho Chi Minh came BEGGING us to
help them get the French out and be their ally? But JOHN FOSTER DULLARD took
up to support a TOTALLY corrupt South Viet Namese mafia instead. Dullard was
afraid that the "land reform" Uncle Ho was talking about sounded "Communist"
instead of merely taking the land BACK from foreign interlopers who had
STOLEN it and giving it back to the people of Viet Nam. We DROVE Ho to
Communism.
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Funny how you right wingers keep throwing out your wishing "facts" with
nothing to back them up.
In <OEs9m.446$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, on 07/22/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You know nothing of nuclear war son. Find another hobby. You suck at
this one.
PS: I have forgotten more truths about the Cuban Missile Crisis, then you
ever knew.
In <60y9m.737$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/22/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You won't provide proof because your full of bullshit and lying.
In <SRx9m.736$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/22/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Wrong. You don't need an all out nuclear war to know its not something
that normal, intelligent people favor -- or allow -- or take a chance on
having.
In <O0y9m.738$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/22/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
There you go with your right wing nonsense again lifer. The fact is it was
Dwight D. Eisenhower who made a committee into a Presidential committee
and they produced the famous report that pointed to a missile gap in 1957.
The Dems didn't do it -- as you claim. They only reported it in the 1960
election. Talk about politicizing things. You lead the pack right
winger.
In <e27c4$4a66a2ef$9440b19b$31...@STARBAND.NET>, on 07/21/2009
Billzz
The strategic policy did change, from secretive, to be more open, the idea
of deterrence. In other words, if the enemy does not know what you have
then they will always want to build more, and they might want to take a
chance. But if they do know what you have then they have to think,
resulting in the "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) position that basically
said; we had so many, and they had so many, and if they were to be expended
it would mean the end of the world. This same change in thinking made
possible the success of the Strategic Defense Initiative. The US said they
were going to build the Mobile MX, the Airborne Pulsed Laser, the
Anti-Satellite Kinetic Energy (something) and the biggest, fastest, command
and control system and on and on. I worked on command and control for three
of the systems. So the Russians knew what we were about, and they decided
to not compete, which is fortunate since I do not think we had the money to
actually do it. Maybe President Reagan was good at bluffing in poker.
Anyway, when the USSR decided what it did, all the programs were cancelled,
and I was in Ontario, California, working on the Mobile MX command and
control, when the whole division of some 600 engineers was laid off. That
day over 130,000 defense workers lost their jobs.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:6tN9m.567$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> You know nothing of nuclear war son. Find another hobby. You suck at
> this one.
And YOU DO?
> PS: I have forgotten more truths about the Cuban Missile Crisis, then you
> ever knew.
Bullshit. I was ON ACTIVE DUTY during it.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:6tN9m.566$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Wrong. You don't need an all out nuclear war to know its not something
> that normal, intelligent people favor -- or allow -- or take a chance on
> having.
Who said I favored it? I just said that the USSR would NOT have started one
if we had kicked the NVA's ass. I also said that the CIA screwed the pooch
by overestimating the Soviet Union's capacity to fight one.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> <wis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
CBS needs to be destroyed. No matter what Cronkite said. The parent
company is an evil capitalist enemy of freedom in the US.
Exterminate the Christian Broadcasting Station
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> "Zombywoof" <Zomby-W...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:nt3a65hb6s6q57m0f...@4ax.com...
>
> >>> Stop blowing smoke your ass krp. The fact is there is a declassified
> >>> report on the internet by the CIA explaining how winning in Vietnam
> >>> would
> >>> lead to nuclear war.
> >> The CIA comes up with MANY theories. And on RARE occasion they are
> >>right.
> > However, those occasions are pure happenstance!
>
> Well I have been around LONG enough to never take the CIA's stuff too
> seriously.
The Christian Intelligence Agency is not there for the citizen. It
exists to create the demand for arms for the corporate world
domination of imperialism and to prevent civil war in the US from
forcing the church from the state.
Exterminate the Christian Military
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Of course you favor all out nuclear war. You wanted to win the Vietnam
war even if it ended in all out nuclear war.
You still haven't produced proof that the russians didn't have the
capacity to wipe us out, as you claim. -->That's because you're full of
bullshit.
In <NmV9m.646$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, on 07/23/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Wow. You were in the AF so you know your tiny little personal part of a
few days in Oct. --->Which does not mean you know anything about whether
or not annihilating every man, woman and child in NV would have lead to
nuclear war.
In <7lV9m.645$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, on 07/23/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:A3X9m.883$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Of course you favor all out nuclear war.
Of course, you are INSANE, I favor NO such thing.
> You wanted to win the Vietnam war even if it ended in all out nuclear
> war.
This too is raving lunatic bullshit. What I said is that we COULD have
won the war. YOU are the hysteric who claims that 100% it would have meant
nuclear war. I disagreed. I said my opinion based on evidence is that the
USSR would NOT have started a nuclear war.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:B3X9m.884$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> Wow. You were in the AF so you know your tiny little personal part of a
> few days in Oct. --->Which does not mean you know anything about whether
> or not annihilating every man, woman and child in NV would have lead to
> nuclear war.
Hmmmm I was on a MDC (AC&W) in Alaska during the events. I knew OUR part
which was "interesting" to say the least. Most likely unless you were on the
NORAD big board or in Alaska, you don't know squat of what went on up there
in October.
krp
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:37:21 GMT, Igetrightw...@nospan.com
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Wow. You were in the AF so you know your tiny little personal part of a
>>few days in Oct. --->Which does not mean you know anything about whether
>>or not annihilating every man, woman and child in NV would have lead to
>>nuclear war.
>>
> with annihilating every man, woman and child in NV?
It must be that time of moth for our friend. They get HYSTERICAL, you know?
Sid9
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:55:09 GMT, "krp"
>> <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
We never had a chance.
We looked at it as an anti-Communist war
The Vietnamese looked at it as an anti-colonial war.
They expected Europeans to get out of their country after
WWII.
The fight soon became a "communist" issue in the West and an
anti-colonial war in Vietnam.
As such, we never had a chance.
Sid9
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:44:40 -0400, "Sid9"
> <si...@bellsouth.net>
> militaristic.
> However, we completely blew most of them.
>>
>>We looked at it as an anti-Communist war
>>The Vietnamese looked at it as an anti-colonial war.
>>
> French out
> it really wasn't all that much of a "Colonial" war, but as
> a
> Unification War.
>>
>>They expected Europeans to get out of their country after
>>WWII.
>>
> fronts to simply
> replace the different members of the Axis Powers
> occupation/ideology
> with the Soviets. Both of the countries which were
> split-in-half
> (Korea & Vietnam) fought a "Reunification" War with the
> Soviets egging
> them on, providing supplies, and even ideology. All part
> of their
> global revolution which also played a part in the
> destability of other
> nations that weren't split up on some arbitrary basis.
>>
>>The fight soon became a "communist" issue in the West and
>>an
>>anti-colonial war in Vietnam.
>>
> However, we
> could have helped them pick a method other then a Soviet
> Model.
>>
>>As such, we never had a chance.
>>
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take
> big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
In 1979 Vietnam showed its independence from Communist China
by fight a war to a standstill with China.
We could have traded with Vietnam, as we do today and saved
58,000 American lives if our anti-Communist zeal did not get
in the way of reason.
We never had a chance because the people of Vietnam, North
and South did not want Europeans influencing their
government.
krp
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:h4aigf$859$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> All-in-all Vietnam really should have been a fairly easy win IF our
>>> Military had been allowed to conduct the War as a War.
>> PRECISELY!
> We never had a chance.
> We looked at it as an anti-Communist war
> The Vietnamese looked at it as an anti-colonial war.
This is simple. We picked the wrong side. Ho Chi Minh camt to the U.S.
begging for U.S. support, wanting to be OUR ally. That idea was torpedoed by
John Foster Dullard. The North had a populist movement to be frrom from the
rather HARSH French rule. The French can be a very ARROGANT and ABUSIVE lot
as colonial masters. The South was entirely corrupt made up of a collection
of petty warlords and drug runners.
> They expected Europeans to get out of their country after WWII.
> The fight soon became a "communist" issue in the West and an anti-colonial
> war in Vietnam. As such, we never had a chance.
Our problem was that the South was rotten to the core. The North had the
overwhelming support of the people of Viet Nam. The French we, as they
always have been, ASSHOLES. They treated the Viet Namese as monkeys. There
is a long story to why the French are the way they ARE. The French were only
slightly better than the Japanese, in that the French weren't confiscating
large numbers of Viet Namese women as sex slaves, the Viet Namese women are
seen as not good enough to rape by the French.
krp
> We had all sorts of chances; diplomatic, political & militaristic.
> However, we completely blew most of them.
>>
>>We looked at it as an anti-Communist war
>>The Vietnamese looked at it as an anti-colonial war.
>>
> That would all depend on the timeframe. Once they got the French out
> it really wasn't all that much of a "Colonial" war, but as a
> Unification War.
>>
>>They expected Europeans to get out of their country after
>>WWII.
>>
> As did many people's. However, FDR conceded on both fronts to simply
> replace the different members of the Axis Powers occupation/ideology
> with the Soviets. Both of the countries which were split-in-half
> (Korea & Vietnam) fought a "Reunification" War with the Soviets egging
> them on, providing supplies, and even ideology. All part of their
> global revolution which also played a part in the destability of other
> nations that weren't split up on some arbitrary basis.
>>
>>The fight soon became a "communist" issue in the West and an
>>anti-colonial war in Vietnam.
>>
> Once the French were out, it was a "Reunification" War. However, we
> could have helped them pick a method other then a Soviet Model.
It would help if you better understood JOHN FOSTER DULLARD and where he
was coming from. Let's just say that he and Joe McCarthy had lots in common.
Both were EXTREME right wing NUT CASES and paranoid as hell.
krp
>
>
> We could have traded with Vietnam, as we do today and saved 58,000
> American lives if our anti-Communist zeal did not get in the way of
> reason.
We picked the WRONG SIDE in Viet Nam thanks to ONE MAN. John Foster
Dulles. The man was an IDIOT!
Slobodan Milosevic
John Foster
You goddamn cocksuker why the hell don't you mourn Walter Cronkite.
Mr.Cronkite was a good
man and good repoter i would hope that you would be able to mourn
him and remeber him by
but you cannot show respect you communist bastard you had to talk
bad about cronkiite
The Only
Dan
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You're trying to change the subject, either because you're a jerk or you
know you're wrong and can't shut up.
And son, you're the one who brought up Oct. 1962 and tried to connect it
to winning in Vietnam.
In <2Z_9m.912$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/23/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You favored wining in vietnam. That would have started WWIII --> so yes,
you do favor all out nuclear war.
Learn to connect the dots son.
In <bW_9m.910$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/23/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Stop driveling. That Oct. in 1962 had nothing to do with the Vietnam war.
In <kY_9m.911$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/23/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Listen up dumbass, we could not win the Vietnam war without annihilating
nearly every man, woman and child in NV. ...and that would have started
WWIII. That no one wins. Now stop driveling on usenet. E.g., find
another hobby.
In <f9lg65ta0tfon7mct...@4ax.com>, on 07/23/2009
at 08:20 AM, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net> said:
>On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:37:21 GMT, Igetrightw...@nospan.com wrote:
>>
>>Wow. You were in the AF so you know your tiny little personal part of a
>>few days in Oct. --->Which does not mean you know anything about whether
>>or not annihilating every man, woman and child in NV would have lead to
>>nuclear war.
>>
>And other then your deluded notion; who said winning a war has to do with
>annihilating every man, woman and child in NV?
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:fptam.1126$MA3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>
> You're trying to change the subject, either because you're a jerk or you
> know you're wrong and can't shut up.
>
> And son, you're the one who brought up Oct. 1962 and tried to connect it
> to winning in Vietnam.
What we learned in 1962 was that the people in the USSR were not insane and
they'd back down. We learned later that the "missile gap" was all a big
bluff.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:hptam.1128$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> You favored wining in vietnam. That would have started WWIII --> so yes,
> you do favor all out nuclear war.
Only in your mind was one event inevitably leading to the other. There
is no FACTUAL evidence to say that the USSR would have engaged in nuclear
war had we won in Viet Nam OR Korea.
NONE! That's your idea, and no real proof for it.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:iptam.1129$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Listen up dumbass, we could not win the Vietnam war without annihilating
> nearly every man, woman and child in NV. ...and that would have started
> WWIII. That no one wins. Now stop driveling on usenet. E.g., find
> another hobby.
That's not true. We damn near had them beat after Linebacker 2. All we
needed was enough men to invade the North.But you seem to miss that I have
constantly said we were on the wrong side.
Sid9
Where were the Vietnamese to fight for their country?
If we "damn near had them beat" how come we didn't get
sufficient support from the Vietnamese to finish the job?
The answer is simple.
Our stooge S. Vietnamese government had NO support from the
people.
We were looked upon as European colonialists.
We NEVER had a chance from day one.
58,000 lives wasted in a false anti-Communist zeal
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Wrong son. They never stopped fighting. They would have never accepted
defeat -- Nor -->and this is a fact you refuse to grasp --> Russia and
China would not have allowed a US controlled nation their border.
We were concerned enough all the way through the war, of Russian and
China moving in -- that we made SR71 flights over China and part of Russia
all the way through the war.
We also made SR71 flights above the B52 missions trying to figure out why
the bombing wasn't effective enough to make them stop fighting.
It was simple -->they were fighting for their nation. Just like we did in
1776.
In <pVxam.1155$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/25/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Stop trying to back away from your bullshit. The fact is the CIA believed
it and all the leaders of the US government believed it would lead to
nuclear war.
In <bUxam.1154$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/25/2009
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
You don't know what you are taking about. We made a deal with the
Russians in 1962. We backed down too -- because nuclear war in not
acceptable.
That missile gap from the 1957 report -->was not a gap in 1969. You can't
seem to figure out what a 12 year spread means.
In <JSxam.1153$MA3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/25/2009
krp
> Where were the Vietnamese to fight for their country?
> If we "damn near had them beat" how come we didn't get sufficient support
> from the Vietnamese to finish the job?
The people in South Viet Nam saw the government in the Saigon as
criminals. I don't know why you keep missing that I said we picked the wrong
side.
> The answer is simple. Our stooge S. Vietnamese government had NO support
> from the people.
That's what I have been saying.
> We were looked upon as European colonialists.
> We NEVER had a chance from day one.
> 58,000 lives wasted in a false anti-Communist zeal
No we weren't looked on as colonialists, we were looked on as bullies.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:KrEam.1188$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Wrong son. They never stopped fighting. They would have never accepted
> defeat -- Nor -->and this is a fact you refuse to grasp --> Russia and
> China would not have allowed a US controlled nation their border.
Sophomoric bullshit. Both Russia and China were living with U.S.
controlled nations on their borders. The problem remains that we had the
opportunity to be on the side of the North and John Foster Dullard blew it.
He picked the war lords and drug kingpins instead.
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:LrEam.1189$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> Stop trying to back away from your bullshit. The fact is the CIA believed
> it and all the leaders of the US government believed it would lead to
> nuclear war.
The CIA has always believed lots of shit. Very rarely even the truth. The
KGB led the CIA around by the nose for 60 years.
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Son, you do not know more then all the collective brains reviewing the
data -->that you never saw. Now stop your nonsense.
In <RKEam.948$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, on 07/25/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:MTJam.987$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
> Son, you do not know more then all the collective brains reviewing the
> data -->that you never saw. Now stop your nonsense.
>
And, of course, YOU DO..
OKAY, Whatever!
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
Well son, I do know something about it. I spent parts of my USAF time
reading some of that intel as it was being collected and disseminated,
sometimes as it was happening. So yes, I know enough to shut up and not
pretend that we could have won a war that would have (1) taken more troops
then America was ever going to send, and (2) would have -- according to
all the people who studied the question -- led to nuclear war.
The bottom line is this, many of the facts are in the DIAOPS (the daily
intelligence and operational summary). All the DIAOPS for the entire
period of the Vietnam war are still classified and exempt from the FOIA.
No one can get them. Think about what means.
In <taKam.1218$MA3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/25/2009
krp
news:DDQam.1012$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Well son, I do know something about it. I spent parts of my USAF time
> reading some of that intel as it was being collected and disseminated,
> sometimes as it was happening. So yes, I know enough to shut up and not
> pretend that we could have won a war that would have (1) taken more troops
> then America was ever going to send, and (2) would have -- according to
> all the people who studied the question -- led to nuclear war.
Well, Little girl, on the other hand - *I* lived it. (Cuban Missile
crisis) I didn't just READ about it. Look, clown, it is obvious that we
weren't willing to WIN Viet Nam. Just like we weren't willing to WIN in
Korea, are are not in Iraq or Afghanistan. Since the end of WW-2, WAR has
been purely a political GAME. It is there to send political messages to
various groups or nations. In the cold war it was to stop the spread of
communism. Today it is to say no to extremist Islam. America hasn't had the
will to win a war since the Civil War bled this country to death. We screwed
around in WW-1 and only entered when it was safe to do so, and after Germany
was plotting with Mexico to attack us. In WW-2 the only person with the will
to win was FDR, and plenty of people were ready to quit from the day after
December 7th. The real reason that Truman used the bombs is because Congress
was about ready to QUIT! The war was costing too much. Congress would NEVER
have stood for a half million dead invading Japan. America loses its will
to fight easily. Only a small percentage of Americans supported the
revolution, especially when people started dying. America is kidding only
itself in the idea that it is the "home of the brave." Some of our troops
are, but it ENDS there.
None of that is the question. Had we the WILL TO WIN we could have. We
NEVER had it. War, today is a GAME. I intensely dislike Bush because he was
screwing around in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's that whole cowboy bravado
bullshit. All MOUTH and no real guts. Or as we used to say in racing; "all
show and no GO."
I did not say we would win. Militarily defeating North Viet Nam would
have been easy. (Compared to WW-2) That we couldn't win the way we fought it
is obvious by the FACT that we LOST because Congress surrendered! I doubt
this country could ever handle a war like WW-2 again. All we have is our
gadgets. As long as we can lob cruise missiles at an enemy, or drones, we
are BRAVE as hell. But Congress just doesn't have the stones to fight a war.
IF the Islamists built up forces in Mexico and invaded, much of Congress
would be in favor of letting them have what they want. The Chinese call us a
"PAPER TIGER" the Islamists are even more insulting, having concluded long
ago that we are moral cowards!
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
How many time do you have to be told -- the world on 1962, was not the
world of 1969, e.g, we could not win in Vietnam without starting WWIII.
I was there! You were out by then.
PS: We didn't win anything in 1962. We compromised, just like the other
side did.
nSam.1268$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/26/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:c2Zam.1293$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> How many time do you have to be told -- the world on 1962, was not the
> world of 1969, e.g, we could not win in Vietnam without starting WWIII.
> I was there! You were out by then.
I was around as well. Both of us speculate on what Russia would or would
not have done. I can, at least, base my beliefs on past performance, you can
only base your on you being an obnoxious ass.
> PS: We didn't win anything in 1962. We compromised, just like the other
> side did.
Oh yes we did. Not only the missiles left but the plans on stationing
bombers and fighters there were abandoned. We gave up obsolete missiles that
could hit the broad side of a barn. No WW-3.
Igetrightw...@nospan.com
There is no connection between 1962 and 1969. You need to figure that
out. You also need to figure out that WE DID NOT WIN in 1962. We and
they backed down! JFK didn't know it would come out that way, he just
played it safe and we came out without a nuclear war. (And we learned
long after 1962, that if he had taken any other path, it would have meant
nuclear war.
Futhermore, we became more conservative when confronting the Russians
after 1962. Its why we didn't mine the harbors the Russians were using or
stopping their ships, for just two things. And maybe you weren't afraid
of what China would do, but the leaders sure as hell were, because we sent
the SR71 over China 3 or 4 times a month just to track their movements.
And you need to figure out that the CIA and all the leaders at the top of
our government thought invading NV in an effort to win would start a
nuclear war. No one wins a nuclear war. Those people are a hell of lot
smarter then you, especially since you think a nuclear war was okay to
have.
In <vx0bm.1312$MA3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, on 07/26/2009
krp
<Igetrightw...@nospan.com> wrote in message
news:2S5bm.1117$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> There is no connection between 1962 and 1969.
So you keep yammering. That doesn't make it so.
> You need to figure that out. You also need to figure out that WE DID
> NOT WIN in 1962.
Depends on what you define as a win, doesn't it. Let's see, the missiles
were removed and the plans to station a significat air armada in Cuba was
dropped.
> We and they backed down!
Oh really!? We took out some obsolete missiles from Turkey that had been
ordered out almost a year before, but some flunkies neglected to implement
despite the orders.
> JFK didn't know it would come out that way, he just
> played it safe and we came out without a nuclear war. (And we learned
> long after 1962, that if he had taken any other path, it would have meant
> nuclear war.
You are cluless. You really, for all your claims of SUPER DUPER CRYPTO
SECRET clearances yopu seem unaware of ALL of the events of the Cuban
Missile crisis despite your claims that ALL of the intelligence went to YOUR
DESK. (Yeah RIGHT, I believe that. I also believe that Cows attend Harvard
and get PhD's.)
> Futhermore, we became more conservative when confronting the Russians
> after 1962. Its why we didn't mine the harbors the Russians were using or
> stopping their ships, for just two things. And maybe you weren't afraid
> of what China would do, but the leaders sure as hell were, because we sent
> the SR71 over China 3 or 4 times a month just to track their movements.
Actually we DID mine Haiphong harbor.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/pocket_money.htm) AGain for a
guy who CLAIMS to have had EVERY bit of intelligence cross HIS DESK for
approval, I am a bit smused that your "FACTS" keep on turning out to be
BULLSHIT!
> And you need to figure out that the CIA and all the leaders at the top of
> our government thought invading NV in an effort to win would start a
> nuclear war. No one wins a nuclear war. Those people are a hell of lot
> smarter then you, especially since you think a nuclear war was okay to
> have.
I never disputed what the CIA thought. They have NEVER been the sharpest
tacks in the box. In reviewing 50 years of their history (WMD) I can't find
where they have gotten much right. They consistently have screwed the pooch
in Latin America. I'd say that over 600 assassination attempts on Fidel
Castro *ALL* of which were comic we'd see there is a problem. (That doesn't
mean there are No good people in the agency, it just means the people they
work for are CLOWNS. See a photo of Panetta.) The closest they came to
getting Castro a sniper took his shot. He killed a COW some 50 yards away
from Fidel.Talk about the "Gang who couldn't shoot straight."
The FACT is that the USSR knew they had led the CIA on a merry-go-round
ride as to their nuclear capabilities. They were blowing smoke up the asses
of the CIA and the CIA was loving it. The KGB regarded the CIA as a bunch of
comic idiots they could easily lead around by the nose.
The Russians were very concerned about NOT starting a nuclear war. They
understood the HYSTERIA in Washington. Does idea was it to have the RED
PHONE? The Russians. Why? Because they were afraid of the crazy shit the
CIA was feeding the Presidents.
Who WON the Cuban missile crisis?? Humanity did.