Tom Hanks's "history" of Afghanistan, vs. Oliver Stone's history of
garag...@gmail.com
"mainstream media" to Oliver Stone's film "JFK," a film which endorsed the
vast majority's distrust of the Warren Commission against the the
mandarins of the mainstream who've always stood foursquare with the govt.,
and the "mainstream's" reaction to Tom Hanks' new film, "Charlie Wilson's
War."
Hanks' film, which I saw with my son, is very entertaining, very
patriotic, very propagandistic and its history is very, very incomplete,
which is to say it's wrong. But to read reviews in the major dailies,
you'd never guess that. Apparently, flawed history in films is only
considered a problem when the the history shows the government in a
negative light, as it (rightly) did in the Stone's "JFK." But when filmic
fantasy is "patriotic," in films such as "The Green Berets," or the first
rendition of "The Quiet American," the version that had turned the real
message of Graham Greene's book upside down, why none of our moral
monitors find it necessary to correct the record.
Luckily, re "Charlie Wilson's War," a superb academic, someone with real
credentials, the University of California's Chalmers Johnson, someone who
knows something of the true history of the story covered by Hanks' film,
has weighed in. His review follows and it's devastating.
There is considerable irony in Tom Hanks' picking Vincent Bugliosi as his
vehicle to ride to the rescue of the mortally wounded Warren Commission.
Hanks, who picked the screenplay that so distorts the true history of our
repeated misadventures in Afghanistan, sure knows how to pick em. Oh,
sure, a box office success is guaranteed; but success as reasonable
history is another matter, one he apparently doesn't care a fig for.
At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war).
Gary
Imperialist Propaganda: Second Thoughts on Charlie Wilson's War
By Chalmers Johnson
TomDispatch.com
Sunday 06 January 2008
I have some personal knowledge of Congressmen like Charlie Wilson
(D-2nd District, Texas, 1973-1996) because, for close to twenty years,
my representative in the 50th Congressional District of California was
Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now serving an eight-and-a-half
year prison sentence for soliciting and receiving bribes from defense
contractors. Wilson and Cunningham held exactly the same plummy
committee assignments in the House of Representatives - the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee plus the Intelligence Oversight Committee
- from which they could dole out large sums of public money with
little or no input from their colleagues or constituents.
Both men flagrantly abused their positions - but with radically
different consequences. Cunningham went to jail because he was too
stupid to know how to game the system - retire and become a lobbyist -
whereas Wilson received the Central Intelligence Agency Clandestine
Service's first "honored colleague" award ever given to an outsider
and went on to become a $360,000 per annum lobbyist for Pakistan.
In a secret ceremony at CIA headquarters on June 9, 1993, James
Woolsey, Bill Clinton's first Director of Central Intelligence and one
of the agency's least competent chiefs in its checkered history, said:
"The defeat and breakup of the Soviet empire is one of the great
events of world history. There were many heroes in this battle, but to
Charlie Wilson must go a special recognition." One important part of
that recognition, studiously avoided by the CIA and most subsequent
American writers on the subject, is that Wilson's activities in
Afghanistan led directly to a chain of blowback that culminated in the
attacks of September 11, 2001 and led to the United States' current
status as the most hated nation on Earth.
On May 25, 2003, (the same month George W. Bush stood on the
flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln under a White-House-prepared
"Mission Accomplished" banner and proclaimed "major combat operations"
at an end in Iraq), I published a review in the Los Angeles Times of
the book that provides the data for the film Charlie Wilson's War. The
original edition of the book carried the subtitle, "The Extraordinary
Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History - the Arming of the
Mujahideen." The 2007 paperbound edition was subtitled, "The
Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA
Agent Changed the History of Our Times." Neither the claim that the
Afghan operations were covert nor that they changed history is
precisely true.
In my review of the book, I wrote,
"The Central Intelligence Agency has an almost unblemished record of
screwing up every 'secret' armed intervention it ever undertook. From
the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 through the rape of
Guatemala in 1954, the Bay of Pigs, the failed attempts to assassinate
Fidel Castro of Cuba and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, the Phoenix
Program in Vietnam, the 'secret war' in Laos, aid to the Greek
Colonels who seized power in 1967, the 1973 killing of President
Allende in Chile, and Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra war against
Nicaragua, there is not a single instance in which the Agency's
activities did not prove acutely embarrassing to the United States and
devastating to the people being 'liberated.' The CIA continues to get
away with this bungling primarily because its budget and operations
have always been secret and Congress is normally too indifferent to
its Constitutional functions to rein in a rogue bureaucracy. Therefore
the tale of a purported CIA success story should be of some interest.
"According to the author of Charlie Wilson's War, the exception to CIA
incompetence was the arming between 1979 and 1988 of thousands of
Afghan mujahideen ("freedom fighters"). The Agency flooded Afghanistan
with an incredible array of extremely dangerous weapons and
'unapologetically mov[ed] to equip and train cadres of high tech holy
warriors in the art of waging a war of urban terror against a modern
superpower [in this case, the USSR].'
"The author of this glowing account, [the late] George Crile, was a
veteran producer for the CBS television news show '60 Minutes' and an
exuberant Tom Clancy-type enthusiast for the Afghan caper. He argues
that the U.S.'s clandestine involvement in Afghanistan was 'the
largest and most successful CIA operation in history,' 'the one
morally unambiguous crusade of our time,' and that 'there was nothing
so romantic and exciting as this war against the Evil Empire.' Crile's
sole measure of success is killed Soviet soldiers (about 15,000),
which undermined Soviet morale and contributed to the disintegration
of the Soviet Union in the period 1989 to 1991. That's the successful
part.
"However, he never once mentions that the 'tens of thousands of
fanatical Muslim fundamentalists' the CIA armed are the same people
who in 1996 killed nineteen American airmen at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia,
bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, blew a hole in the
side of the U.S.S. Cole in Aden Harbor in 2000, and on September 11,
2001, flew hijacked airliners into New York's World Trade Center and
the Pentagon."
Where Did the "Freedom Fighters" Go?
When I wrote those words I did not know (and could not have
imagined) that the actor Tom Hanks had already purchased the rights to
the book to make into a film in which he would star as Charlie Wilson,
with Julia Roberts as his right-wing Texas girlfriend Joanne Herring,
and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos, the thuggish CIA
operative who helped pull off this caper.
What to make of the film (which I found rather boring and old-
fashioned)? It makes the U.S. government look like it is populated by
a bunch of whoring, drunken sleazebags, so in that sense it's accurate
enough. But there are a number of things both the book and the film
are suppressing. As I noted in 2003,
"For the CIA legally to carry out a covert action, the president must
sign off on - that is, authorize - a document called a 'finding.'
Crile repeatedly says that President Carter signed such a finding
ordering the CIA to provide covert backing to the mujahideen after the
Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. The truth of
the matter is that Carter signed the finding on July 3, 1979, six
months before the Soviet invasion, and he did so on the advice of his
national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in order to try to
provoke a Russian incursion. Brzezinski has confirmed this sequence of
events in an interview with a French newspaper, and former CIA
Director [today Secretary of Defense] Robert Gates says so explicitly
in his 1996 memoirs. It may surprise Charlie Wilson to learn that his
heroic mujahideen were manipulated by Washington like so much cannon
fodder in order to give the USSR its own Vietnam. The mujahideen did
the job but as subsequent events have made clear, they may not be all
that grateful to the United States."
In the bound galleys of Crile's book, which his publisher sent to
reviewers before publication, there was no mention of any
qualifications to his portrait of Wilson as a hero and a patriot. Only
in an "epilogue" added to the printed book did Crile quote Wilson as
saying, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed
the world. And the people who deserved the credit are the ones who
made the sacrifice. And then we fucked up the endgame." That's it.
Full stop. Director Mike Nichols, too, ends his movie with Wilson's
final sentence emblazoned across the screen. And then the credits
roll.
Neither a reader of Crile, nor a viewer of the film based on his
book would know that, in talking about the Afghan freedom fighters of
the 1980s, we are also talking about the militants of al Qaeda and the
Taliban of the 1990s and 2000s. Amid all the hoopla about Wilson's
going out of channels to engineer secret appropriations of millions of
dollars to the guerrillas, the reader or viewer would never suspect
that, when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989,
President George H.W. Bush promptly lost interest in the place and
simply walked away, leaving it to descend into one of the most
horrific civil wars of modern times.
Among those supporting the Afghans (in addition to the U.S.) was
the rich, pious Saudi Arabian economist and civil engineer, Osama bin
Laden, whom we helped by building up his al Qaeda base at Khost. When
bin Laden and his colleagues decided to get even with us for having
been used, he had the support of much of the Islamic world. This
disaster was brought about by Wilson's and the CIA's incompetence as
well as their subversion of all the normal channels of political
oversight and democratic accountability within the U.S. government.
Charlie Wilson's war thus turned out to have been just another bloody
skirmish in the expansion and consolidation of the American empire -
and an imperial presidency. The victors were the military-industrial
complex and our massive standing armies. The billion dollars worth of
weapons Wilson secretly supplied to the guerrillas ended up being
turned on ourselves.
An Imperialist Comedy
Which brings us back to the movie and its reception here. (It has
been banned in Afghanistan.) One of the severe side effects of
imperialism in its advanced stages seems to be that it rots the brains
of the imperialists. They start believing that they are the bearers of
civilization, the bringers of light to "primitives" and
"savages" (largely so identified because of their resistance to being
"liberated" by us), the carriers of science and modernity to backward
peoples, beacons and guides for citizens of the "underdeveloped
world."
Such attitudes are normally accompanied by a racist ideology that
proclaims the intrinsic superiority and right to rule of "white"
Caucasians. Innumerable European colonialists saw the hand of God in
Darwin's discovery of evolution, so long as it was understood that He
had programmed the outcome of evolution in favor of late Victorian
Englishmen. (For an excellent short book on this subject, check out
Sven Lindquist's "Exterminate All the Brutes.")
When imperialist activities produce unmentionable outcomes, such
as those well known to anyone paying attention to Afghanistan since
about 1990, then ideological thinking kicks in. The horror story is
suppressed, or reinterpreted as something benign or ridiculous (a
"comedy"), or simply curtailed before the denouement becomes obvious.
Thus, for example, Melissa Roddy, a Los Angeles film-maker with inside
information from the Charlie Wilson production team, notes that the
film's happy ending came about because Tom Hanks, a co-producer as
well as the leading actor, "just can't deal with this 9/11 thing."
Similarly, we are told by another insider reviewer, James Rocchi,
that the scenario, as originally written by Aaron Sorkin of "West
Wing" fame, included the following line for Avrakotos: "Remember I
said this: There's going to be a day when we're gonna look back and
say 'I'd give anything if [Afghanistan] were overrun with Godless
communists'." This line is nowhere to be found in the final film.
Today there is ample evidence that, when it comes to the freedom
of women, education levels, governmental services, relations among
different ethnic groups, and quality of life - all were infinitely
better under the Afghan communists than under the Taliban or the
present government of President Hamid Karzai, which evidently controls
little beyond the country's capital, Kabul. But Americans don't want
to know that - and certainly they get no indication of it from Charlie
Wilson's War, either the book or the film.
The tendency of imperialism to rot the brains of imperialists is
particularly on display in the recent spate of articles and reviews in
mainstream American newspapers about the film. For reasons not
entirely clear, an overwhelming majority of reviewers concluded that
Charlie Wilson's War is a "feel-good comedy" (Lou Lumenick in the New
York Post), a "high-living, hard-partying jihad" (A.O. Scott in the
New York Times), "a sharp-edged, wickedly funny comedy" (Roger Ebert
in the Chicago Sun-Times). Stephen Hunter in the Washington Post wrote
of "Mike Nichols's laff-a-minute chronicle of the congressman's
crusade to ram funding through the House Appropriations Committee to
supply arms to the Afghan mujahideen"; while, in a piece entitled
"Sex! Drugs! (and Maybe a Little War)," Richard L. Berke in the New
York Times offered this stamp of approval: "You can make a movie that
is relevant and intelligent - and palatable to a mass audience - if
its political pills are sugar-coated."
When I saw the film, there was only a guffaw or two from the
audience over the raunchy sex and sexism of "good-time Charlie," but
certainly no laff-a-minute. The root of this approach to the film
probably lies with Tom Hanks himself, who, according to Berke, called
it "a serious comedy." A few reviews qualified their endorsement of
Charlie Wilson's War, but still came down on the side of good old
American fun. Rick Groen in the Toronto Globe and Mail, for instance,
thought that it was "best to enjoy Charlie Wilson's War as a
thoroughly engaging comedy. Just don't think about it too much or you
may choke on your popcorn." Peter Rainer noted in the Christian
Science Monitor that the "Comedic Charlie Wilson's War has a tragic
punch line." These reviewers were thundering along with the herd while
still trying to maintain a bit of self-respect.
The handful of truly critical reviews have come mostly from blogs
and little-known Hollywood fanzines - with one major exception,
Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times. In an essay subtitled
"'Charlie Wilson's War' celebrates events that came back to haunt
Americans," Turan called the film "an unintentionally sobering
narrative of American shouldn't-have" and added that it was "glib
rather than witty, one of those films that comes off as being more
pleased with itself than it has a right to be."
My own view is that if Charlie Wilson's War is a comedy, it's the
kind that goes over well with a roomful of louts in a college
fraternity house. Simply put, it is imperialist propaganda and the
tragedy is that four-and-a-half years after we invaded Iraq and
destroyed it, such dangerously misleading nonsense is still being
offered to a gullible public. The most accurate review so far is James
Rocchi's summing-up for Cinematical: "Charlie Wilson's War isn't just
bad history; it feels even more malign, like a conscious attempt to
induce amnesia."
--------
Chalmers Johnson is the author of the Blowback Trilogy - Blowback
(2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of
the American Republic (paperbound edition, January 2008).
geovu...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't think that I would say that the movie is "suppressing" anything.
Do you really think that anyone that is interested in going to see a movie
like Charlie Wilson's War is completely unaware of the ramifications of
the policy that he pushed? There's a reason that this movie was made at
this point in time and it isn't because it is a rah rah, go America film.
The undercurrent of the whole thing (and the reason for a comedic angle)
is to show how ridiculous and misguided our foreign policy was and is,
which has lead us to the place we are today. It may not be as forward
with the political fallout, but it shouldn't have to be. Did the fact
that you didn't see Che in his beret spoil the Motorcycle Diaries for you?
I personally couldn't separate the thought of what seeds were being sown
amongst the shenanigans. It often seems to me that comedy is the highest
hurdle for the terminally conspiracy minded. I would suggest you may need
a few laughs in your life if you consider this film "Frat House" humor.
I do find it interesting that (on a JFK assassination discussion board)
you quote Crile's statement regarding the CIA and it's history of
blundering without the smallest qualifier. They did manage to cover up
the killing of our President. I guess they just blundered all around that
time.
John McAdams
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the review, Gary!
I'll make a point of seeing it.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
garyN...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is fascinating, and instructive, to compare the reaction by the
> "mainstream media" to Oliver Stone's film "JFK," a film which endorsed the
> vast majority's distrust of the Warren Commission
The vast majority also believe Oswald was an active participant in
the assassination. Why didn`t Stone get in step with mainstream
opinion on this point?
> against the the
> mandarins of the mainstream who've always stood foursquare with the govt.,
> and the "mainstream's" reaction to Tom Hanks' new film, "Charlie Wilson's
> War."
>
> Hanks' film, which I saw with my son, is very entertaining, very
> patriotic, very propagandistic and its history is very, very incomplete,
> which is to say it's wrong. But to read reviews in the major dailies,
> you'd never guess that. Apparently, flawed history in films is only
> considered a problem when the the history shows the government in a
> negative light, as it (rightly) did in the Stone's "JFK."
Stone`s film held the truth in a negative light.
> But when filmic
> fantasy is "patriotic," in films such as "The Green Berets," or the first
> rendition of "The Quiet American," the version that had turned the real
> message of Graham Greene's book upside down, why none of our moral
> monitors find it necessary to correct the record.
Gary thinks all spin should spin his way.
> Luckily, re "Charlie Wilson's War," a superb academic, someone with real
> credentials, the University of California's Chalmers Johnson,
Student? Kidding, I looked him up. He was Chair of the Political
Science Department at Berkeley, so you know he`s objective.
> someone who
> knows something of the true history of the story covered by Hanks' film,
> has weighed in. His review follows and it's devastating.
>
> There is considerable irony in Tom Hanks' picking Vincent Bugliosi as his
> vehicle to ride to the rescue of the mortally wounded Warren Commission.
> Hanks, who picked the screenplay that so distorts the true history of our
> repeated misadventures in Afghanistan, sure knows how to pick em. Oh,
> sure, a box office success is guaranteed; but success as reasonable
> history is another matter, one he apparently doesn't care a fig for.
As a conspiracy kook, you should appreciate a story being woven
using select pieces of information. Re-read "Ultimate Sacrifice" to
get a refresher course.
> At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
> credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war).
Could they give me tomorrow`s lottery number?
> Gary
>
> Imperialist Propaganda:
The left is still using this tired rhetoric? What part does
Afghanistan play in our "Empire"? We trying to corner the market on
rocky barren terrain?
The left is still smarting over this. They wanted us to throw in the
towel.
>There were many heroes in this battle, but to
> Charlie Wilson must go a special recognition." One important part of
> that recognition, studiously avoided by the CIA and most subsequent
> American writers on the subject, is that Wilson's activities in
> Afghanistan led directly to a chain of blowback that culminated in the
> attacks of September 11, 2001 and led to the United States' current
> status as the most hated nation on Earth.
Jealousy. It lonely at the top, being the world`s only superpower.
> On May 25, 2003, (the same month George W. Bush stood on the
> flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln under a White-House-prepared
> "Mission Accomplished" banner and proclaimed "major combat operations"
> at an end in Iraq), I published a review in the Los Angeles Times of
> the book that provides the data for the film Charlie Wilson's War. The
> original edition of the book carried the subtitle, "The Extraordinary
> Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History - the Arming of the
> Mujahideen." The 2007 paperbound edition was subtitled, "The
> Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA
> Agent Changed the History of Our Times." Neither the claim that the
> Afghan operations were covert nor that they changed history is
> precisely true.
> In my review of the book, I wrote,
> "The Central Intelligence Agency has an almost unblemished record of
> screwing up every 'secret' armed intervention it ever undertook. From
> the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 through the rape of
> Guatemala in 1954, the Bay of Pigs, the failed attempts to assassinate
> Fidel Castro of Cuba and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, the Phoenix
> Program in Vietnam, the 'secret war' in Laos, aid to the Greek
> Colonels who seized power in 1967, the 1973 killing of President
> Allende in Chile, and Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra war against
> Nicaragua, there is not a single instance in which the Agency's
> activities did not prove acutely embarrassing to the United States and
> devastating to the people being 'liberated.'
Amazing that with all that failure, we still ended up winning the
Cold War. Perhaps there were some successes also.
>The CIA continues to get
> away with this bungling primarily because its budget and operations
> have always been secret and Congress is normally too indifferent to
> its Constitutional functions to rein in a rogue bureaucracy. Therefore
> the tale of a purported CIA success story should be of some interest.
> "According to the author of Charlie Wilson's War, the exception to CIA
> incompetence was the arming between 1979 and 1988 of thousands of
> Afghan mujahideen ("freedom fighters"). The Agency flooded Afghanistan
> with an incredible array of extremely dangerous weapons
We gave them dangerous weapons? Get out of town!
>and
> 'unapologetically mov[ed] to equip and train cadres of high tech holy
> warriors in the art of waging a war of urban terror against a modern
> superpower [in this case, the USSR].'
> "The author of this glowing account, [the late] George Crile, was a
> veteran producer for the CBS television news show '60 Minutes' and an
> exuberant Tom Clancy-type enthusiast for the Afghan caper. He argues
> that the U.S.'s clandestine involvement in Afghanistan was 'the
> largest and most successful CIA operation in history,' 'the one
> morally unambiguous crusade of our time,' and that 'there was nothing
> so romantic and exciting as this war against the Evil Empire.' Crile's
> sole measure of success is killed Soviet soldiers (about 15,000),
> which undermined Soviet morale and contributed to the disintegration
> of the Soviet Union in the period 1989 to 1991. That's the successful
> part.
Thats the part the Lefties hate.
> "However, he never once mentions that the 'tens of thousands of
> fanatical Muslim fundamentalists' the CIA armed are the same people
> who in 1996 killed nineteen American airmen at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia,
> bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, blew a hole in the
> side of the U.S.S. Cole in Aden Harbor in 2000, and on September 11,
> 2001, flew hijacked airliners into New York's World Trade Center and
> the Pentagon."
This is the part they love. But, the Chinese and the Russians were
arming our enemies, so we armed their enemies. Russian and Chineses
weapons (and sometimes troops) were used against Americans in Korea and
Vietnam, something Gary`s ilk applaud, but it`s bad when we do it (even if
it`s successful). The Chinese armed the Vietnamese, yet years later
thousands were killed in border skirmishes between the two countries.
Arming someone doesn`t mean they will obey your wishes forever, only as
long as your goals and theirs are compatible.
> Where Did the "Freedom Fighters" Go?
They were religious fantatics before we got involved, during and
after. The US didn`t make these people religious fanatics.
He was a rich Islamic fundamentalist. He wasn`t a creation of the
US.
> When
> bin Laden and his colleagues decided to get even with us for having
> been used, he had the support of much of the Islamic world.
Nothing to do with our support of Israel? I remember OBL saying it was
the battleship New Jersey shelling Beruit that mobilized him to take
action against the US.
> This
> disaster was brought about by Wilson's and the CIA's incompetence as
> well as their subversion of all the normal channels of political
> oversight and democratic accountability within the U.S. government.
> Charlie Wilson's war thus turned out to have been just another bloody
> skirmish in the expansion and consolidation of the American empire -
> and an imperial presidency. The victors were the military-industrial
> complex and our massive standing armies. The billion dollars worth of
> weapons Wilson secretly supplied to the guerrillas ended up being
> turned on ourselves.
It seems the weapons were used successfully in achieving the goals we
gave them to the freedom fighters for, killing commies, and driving the
Russians out of Afghanistan.
> An Imperialist Comedy
> Which brings us back to the movie and its reception here. (It has
> been banned in Afghanistan.) One of the severe side effects of
> imperialism in its advanced stages seems to be that it rots the brains
> of the imperialists. They start believing that they are the bearers of
> civilization, the bringers of light to "primitives" and
> "savages" (largely so identified because of their resistance to being
> "liberated" by us), the carriers of science and modernity to backward
> peoples, beacons and guides for citizens of the "underdeveloped
> world."
I thought we were pretty much ignoring Afghanistan before 9-11, weren`t
trying to inflict Western culture on them at all. They were beheading
people for flying kites and blowing up historical artifacts, treating
women like shit, and stoning homosexuals like a good stone- age
backward-ass country should, unmolested by us until 9-11. They had the
whole country to run in a manner pleasing to Allah, but it was probably my
bigotry that prevented me from seeing it as the slice of heaven it really
was.
> Such attitudes are normally accompanied by a racist ideology that
> proclaims the intrinsic superiority and right to rule of "white"
> Caucasians.
Pop quiz... the top ten countries with the highest standard of living
are run by...?
But these lefties might be right, perhaps we should withdraw our aid to
the third-world, with our smallpox vaccines and our early warning tsunami
detectors, they will only resent our technology and smug superiority ("Is
that a human skull you are drinking from, savage? Here, try this
Tupperware")
> Innumerable European colonialists saw the hand of God in
> Darwin's discovery of evolution, so long as it was understood that He
> had programmed the outcome of evolution in favor of late Victorian
> Englishmen.
It doesn`t show on the basketball court.
> (For an excellent short book on this subject, check out
> Sven Lindquist's "Exterminate All the Brutes.")
> When imperialist activities produce unmentionable outcomes, such
> as those well known to anyone paying attention to Afghanistan since
> about 1990, then ideological thinking kicks in. The horror story is
> suppressed, or reinterpreted as something benign or ridiculous (a
> "comedy"), or simply curtailed before the denouement becomes obvious.
> Thus, for example, Melissa Roddy, a Los Angeles film-maker with inside
> information from the Charlie Wilson production team, notes that the
> film's happy ending came about because Tom Hanks, a co-producer as
> well as the leading actor, "just can't deal with this 9/11 thing."
He wasn`t making a movie about terrorism.
> Similarly, we are told by another insider reviewer, James Rocchi,
> that the scenario, as originally written by Aaron Sorkin of "West
> Wing" fame, included the following line for Avrakotos: "Remember I
> said this: There's going to be a day when we're gonna look back and
> say 'I'd give anything if [Afghanistan] were overrun with Godless
> communists'." This line is nowhere to be found in the final film.
Killing godless communists was the priority at the time.
> Today there is ample evidence that, when it comes to the freedom
> of women, education levels, governmental services, relations among
> different ethnic groups, and quality of life - all were infinitely
> better under the Afghan communists than under the Taliban or the
> present government of President Hamid Karzai, which evidently controls
> little beyond the country's capital, Kabul. But Americans don't want
> to know that - and certainly they get no indication of it from Charlie
> Wilson's War, either the book or the film.
Because they were both about an important Cold War victory. If it
was the US`s intention to make the word a better place, we`d have to
topple most of the world. And we`re only up to the "I"s.
I guess he didn`t like the movie.
zo...@yahoo.com
Don't be foolish. It started with Eisenhower's farewell speech which
he chose to use to issue a dire warning on the biggest emerging threat
he perceived, the military industrial complex.
Later, communism was at times used as a scapegoat, the "domino
theory", to justify unnecessary military invasions and occupations.
The Cold War ended, thankfully, but now we have terrorists that "hate
our freedom".
Sure, lots of our military activity has been, and is, justified and
necessary.
But there are still powerful interests pushing us towards war so that
they can profit. There are still those within the administration hell-
bent to spread american power and influence, mis-using our military
might.
That doesn't make America a bad place... we didn't get to be the
strongest military in the world through diplomatic action. But I
think your reaction to the "leftist position" is just as bad as when
the left ramps up it's "empire" rhetoric too much. They're equally
offensive and ignorant in my opinion.
Fat...@aol.com
> credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war).
>
> Gary
My old friend Gittinger (you remember him) told me that when someone
tells me that "most historians" say this or that a little red flag
should come up and the bullshit alarm should go off.
"ALL credible historians" raised a big red flag and the bullshit alarm
is ringing loud and clear.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
The US leaders must always create an enemy to focus our hate. At the end
of WWII we turned our former allies into our enemies and our former
enemies into our allies. After the Soviets left Afghanistan we turned our
former allies, Reagan's Freedom Fighters, into our enemies. They need this
trick so that we can never find out how they are stealing billions of
dollars from us. Before he was elected Vice-President Dick Cheney was
making on $1M a year. Now he is making $100M a year.
> Sure, lots of our military activity has been, and is, justified and
> necessary.
>
Did all of that stop the terrorist attacks on 9/11?
garag...@gmail.com
Dear Bill,
I just love it when someone acts the straight man around me!
Here are just a few citations from credible historians about JFK and
Vietnam and alot else!
Gary
159] Howard Jones. Death of a Generation - How the Assassinations of
Diem and JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003.
[160] "During the Bay of Pigs crisis in April 1961, against intense
pressure from the CIA and the military chiefs, [JFK] kept to his
conviction--as he had made explicitly clear to the Cuban exiles
beforehand--that under no conditions would the United States intervene
with military force to support the invasion. He held to this position
even when it became evident that without that support the invasion
would fail. I saw the same wisdom during the tense days of the Cuban
Missile Crisis ... ." Robert McNamara. In Retrospect - The Tragedy and
Lessons of Vietnam. New York: Times Books for Random House, 1995, p.
96 - 97.
[161] Kennedy's decision against sending troops to Laos is covered
particularly well in the second chapter of David Kaiser's book,
American Tragedy, entitled, "No War in Laos." David Kaiser. American
Tragedy. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press,
2000.
See also: Howard Jones. Death of a Generation - How the Assassinations
of Diem and JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003, p. 41 - 46 and 185 - 187.
[162] "McNamara privately told the Joint Chiefs, 'If you insist in
opposing [the Nuclear Test Ban] treaty, well and good, but I am not
going to let anyone oppose it out of emotion or ignorance.' ... [JFK]
was told that congressional mail was running 15 to 1 against the
treaty. His aides were astonished when [JFK] told them that, if
necessary, he would 'gladly' forfeit his reelection for the sake of
the treaty." In: Michael Bescholss. The Crisis Years - Kennedy and
Khrushchev 1960 - 1963. New York: Edward Burlingame Books, an imprint
of HarperCollins, 1991 p. 632. And see Beschloss at pp. 620 - 632 for
a good discussion of JFK's spirited campaign to win approval of the
Test Ban Treaty.
[163] Ernest R. May & Philip D. Zelikow. The Kennedy Tapes--Inside the
White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1997, p. 692.
[164] David Kaiser, letter to the editor, Harper's Magazine, June,
2000, p. 15.
That Kennedy would not have "Americanized" the Vietnam War has gained
wide support since Oliver Stone advanced that notion in his film JFK.
That idea was first proposed in 1972 by Peter Dale Scott in an essay
entitled "Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon Papers," which
appeared in volume V of the Senator Gravel edition of the Pentagon
Papers. Historian John Newman was the first to popularize it in his
book, JFK and Vietnam (Warner Books, 1992), Newman being the source
Oliver Stone relied upon for his film
But that JFK would not have sent in troops is an idea that has long
been defended by people in the know. In chronological order, a partial
listing of sources that have supported the Scott/Newman
interpretation, follows:
Roger Hilsman. To Move A Nation - The Politics of Foreign Policy in
the Administration of John F. Kennedy. New York: Doubleday & Co.,
1967, p. 537. ["No one, of course, can know for sure what President
Kennedy would have done in the future - had he lived. But his policy
had been to keep the fighting as limited as possible ... President
Kennedy made it abundantly clear to me on more than one occasion that
what he most wanted to avoid was turning Vietnam into an American war
... ."]
Kenneth P. O'Donnell. 'Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye.' New York: Little
Brown, 1972, p. 13 - 16.
Arthur Schleshinger. Robert Kennedy and His Times. New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1978, chapter 31.
George W. Ball. The Past Has Another Pattern. New York: WW Norton &
Co., 1982, p. 366.["To commit American forces to South Vietnam would,
in my (George Ball's) view, be a tragic error. Once that process
started, I said, there would be no end to it. 'Within five years
(Ball told JFK) we'll have three hundred thousand men in the paddies
and jungles and never find them again. That was the French experience.
Vietnam is the worst possible terrain both from a physical and
political point of view.' To my surprise, the President seemed quite
unwilling to discuss the matter, responding with an overtone of
asperity: 'George, you're just crazier than hell. That just isn't
going to happen.' (JFK responded)"]
William J. Rust. Kennedy in Vietnam - American Vietnam Policy 1960 -
1963. New York: A Da Capo Paperback for Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.
Copyright by U.S. News and World Report, 1985, p. 180 - 182.
Roger Hilsman, letter to the editor, New York Times, 20 January 1992.
["On numerous occasions President Kennedy told me that he was
determined not to let Vietnam become an American war ... Gen. Douglas
MacArthur told (JFK) it would be foolish to fight again in Asia and
that the problem should be solved at the diplomatic table ...
MacArthur's views made 'a hell of an impression on the President ... so
that whenever he'd get this military advice from the Joint Chiefs or
from me or anyone else, he'd say, 'Well, now, you gentlemen, you go
back and convinced General MacArthur, then I'll be convinced.'"]
John Newman. JFK and Vietnam. New York: Warner Books, 1992.
Roger Hilsman, letter to the editor, Foreign Affairs, vol. 74(4):
164-165, July/August 1995. ["(Robert) McNamara does conclude (in his
book, In Retrospect) that Kennedy would not have made Vietnam an
American war. But Kennedy's view was much stronger than McNamara
suggests. Kennedy told me, as his action officer on Vietnam, over and
over again that my job was to keep American involvement to a minimum
so that we could withdraw as soon as the opportunity presented
itself."]
Robert McNamara. In Retrospect - The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam.
Times Books for Random House, 1995, p. 97.
Mike Feinsilber. Did JFK Plan to Quit Viet War? Associated Press,
12/23/97, in: San Francisco Examiner, 12/23/97., p. A-9.["Newly
declassified government documents support the theory that weeks before
his assassination John F. Kennedy wanted his military leaders to draw
up contingency plans for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam following the
1964 presidential election."]
Tim Weiner. New Documents Hint that JFK wanted U.S. Out of Vietnam.
New York Times, 12/23/97, in: San Francisco Chronicle, 12/23/97.["The
documents also show that the Joint Chiefs were unhappy with the idea
(of withdrawal) ... Members of the Joint Chiefs believed that the United
States should go to war against North Vietnam. But as one newly
declassified memorandum shows, the chiefs knew that 'proposals for
overt (military) action invited a negative presidential decision.'"]
Oliver Stone. Was Vietnam JFK's War? Newsweek, 21 October 1996, p. 14.
["(T)he evidence is clear that he had made up his mind to pull out of
a losing effort in Vietnam."]
John Newman. The Kennedy-Johnson Transition: The Case for Policy
Reversal. In: Lloyd C. Gardner, ed. Vietnam - The Early Decisions.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997, p. 158 - 176.
Larry Berman offers an opposing view in the same volume. ["The public
record shows that Kennedy expended and never reduced military
operations. Never was there an explicit decision made to give up on
the South Vietnamese. Indeed, Fredrik Logevall documents how Kennedy
and his advisers opted to reject, at each opportunity, negotiated
resolutions to conflict and chose instead to increase American
military presence ... Never did Kennedy ever publicly state that he was
willing to leave Vietnam if the result was defeat for the South
Vietnamese. The public outcry would certainly have been loud." Larry
Berman. NSAM 263 and NSAM 273: Manipulating History. In: Lloyd C.
Gardner, ed. Vietnam - The Early Decisions. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1997, p 184.
Richard Mahoney. Sons & Brothers - The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy.
New York: Arcade Publishing, 1999, p. 278 - 281.
David Kaiser. American Tragedy - Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of
the Vietnam War. Cambridge: Belknap Press of The Harvard University
Press, 2000, p. 70 - 132.
James William Gibson. Revising Vietnam, Again, a review of David
Kaiser's American Tragedy. In: Harper's Magazine, April 2000. [P.
83:"As we know, neither Kennedy, Johnson nor Nixon stopped the United
states from going to war in Southeast Asia. To the contrary, Kennedy
and Johnson escalated the war, and Nixon continued it at a high pitch
for years."]
David Kaiser responded to Gibson in a letter to Harper's editor
(Harper's Magazine, June, 2000, p. 15), writing: "American Tragedy
extensively documents numerous occasions during 1961, 1962, and 1963
on which Kennedy did exactly that ["stopped the United States from
going to war in Southeast Asia"], rejecting the near unanimous
proposals of his advisers to put large numbers of American combat
troops in Laos, South Vietnam, or both. He also showed - and not at
all 'reluctantly' - that he preferred a neutral government in Laos to
American military involvement on behalf of pro-Western forces ... it is
now clear beyond any doubt that he had refused, on a number of earlier
occasions, to do what Johnson did during those years. He also had a
wide-ranging diplomatic agenda, explored at length in American
Tragedy, which could not be reconciled with war in Southeast Asia - an
agenda abandoned by his successor."
Robert Dallek. An Unfinished Life - John F. Kennedy 1917 - 1963. New
York: Little Brown Co., 2003, p. 670 - 693.
Howard Jones. Death of a Generation - How the Assassinations of Diem
and JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003, p. 1 - 13, p. 452 - 453.
[165] Howard Jones. Death of a Generation - How the Assassinations of
Diem and JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003, p. 1.
[166] Howard Jones. Death of a Generation - How the Assassinations of
Diem and JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003, p. 11.
Fred Kaplan. The War Room - What Robert Dallek's new biographs doesn't
tell you about JFK and Vietnam. Posted on line at Slate/MSN on May 19,
2003; available at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2083136/ ["The historian
Robert Dallek doesn't state the matter this dramatically, but his new
book, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, argues that JFK
would not have waged war in Vietnam. I agree. But if I didn't, this
book would not have persuaded me. There's a compelling case to be
made, but Dallek doesn't nail it ... What, then, is the compelling case
for why JFK wouldn't have gone to war? Those who argue that JFK would
have gone into Vietnam just as LBJ did make the point that Kennedy was
every bit as much a Cold Warrior as Johnson. They also note that the
advisers who lured Johnson into war--Bundy, Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and the rest--had been
appointed by Kennedy; they were very much Kennedy's men.
"But this is where there is a crucial difference between JFK and LBJ--a
difference that Dallek misses. Over the course of his 1,000 days as
president, Kennedy grew increasingly leery of these advisers. He found
himself embroiled in too many crises where their judgment proved wrong
and his own proved right. Dallek does note--and very colorfully so--
Kennedy's many conflicts with his military advisers in the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. But he neglects the instances--which grew in number
and intensity as his term progressed--in which he displayed equal
disenchantment with his civilian advisers. Yet Kennedy never told
Johnson about this disenchantment. It didn't help that Johnson was a
bit cowed by these advisers' intellectual sheen and Harvard degrees;
Kennedy, who had his Harvard degree, was not ...
"Indeed, the secret tapes are rife with examples of JFK's challenging
the wisdom of Bundy, McNamara, and the other architects-to-be of
Vietnam. These disputes show up nowhere in Dallek's biography. Yet the
argument that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam becomes truly
compelling only when you place his skepticism about the war in the
context of his growing disenchantment with his advisers--and, by
contrast, his failure to share this view with Johnson.
"Long before "the best and the brightest" became a term of irony,
Kennedy realized that they could be as wrong as anybody. Kennedy knew
he could trust his instincts; Johnson was insecure about trusting his.
That is why LBJ plunged into Vietnam--and why JFK would not have."]
[167] Robert Dallek. JFK's Second Term. Atlantic Monthly, June 2003,
p. 58.
[168] Robert Dallek. JFK's Second Term. Atlantic Monthly, June 2003,
p. 61.
YoHarvey
wrote:
Gary tries so hard.....and he's so disappointing. Gary? Hint for you.
Stop attempting to prove you're an intellectual. Intellectuals don't have
to convince people.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I don't think it is as simple as that. Following in the movie theme,
in Patton, George C. Scott was ready to start a war with the Soviets the
minute the Germans were vanquished.
Mac Arthur wanted to bomb China during the Korean War.
Truman did not want a war with the Soviets nor one with China.
It was Stalin that clamped what Churchil called an iron curtain accross
eastern Europe. It was Stalin that blocked off West Berlin from receiving
supplies by land. It was the East Germans who built a wall around the
city, which turned John F. Kennedy into a Berliner in 1963.
We did not make a war ally into an enemy. They chose to make one, of us.
***Ron Judge
jas
wrote:
>
> read more »
RE There is considerable irony in Tom Hanks' picking Vincent Bugliosi as
his vehicle to ride to the rescue of the mortally wounded Warren
Commission. Hanks, who picked the screenplay that so distorts the true
history of our repeated misadventures in Afghanistan, sure knows how to
pick em. Oh, sure, a box office success is guaranteed; but success as
reasonable history is another matter, one he apparently doesn't care a fig
for.
Oh yeah, here we go. CTers can't slam the people directly involved with
the Warren Commission anymore, a lot have passed on now, so they slam
current defenders of the WC, such as Tom Hanks and Vince Bugliosi.
I've got news for you my friend, "Reclaiming History" is to date the most
definitive and in-depth factual work done on the assassination and its
support of the Warren Commission's findings, and is a book so vast and
complete, you, nor I, will ever come close to writing anything close to it
in our lifetimes.
So, do yourself a favor. Save yourself some grief. Why not just accept it?
It's really not so bad to admit you have been, and are, wrong.
Fat...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 9:31 pm, "Fatm...@aol.com" <Fatm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:43 pm, "garyNOS...@gmail.com" <garagui...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
> > > credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war).
>
> > > Gary
>
> > My old friend Gittinger (you remember him) told me that when someone
> > tells me that "most historians" say this or that a little red flag
> > should come up and the bullshit alarm should go off.
>
> > "ALL credible historians" raised a big red flag and the bullshit alarm
> > is ringing loud and clear.
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> I just love it when someone acts the straight man around me!
>
> Here are just a few citations from credible historians about JFK and
> Vietnam and alot else!
>
> Gary
>
Well Gary, you and Oliver Stone certainly need someone around to keep you
straight and challenge the dishonest fork in the road that you boys love
to take. That said, I'll certainly be your "straight man". I notice I am
not alone here in taking up this mantle.
Now let us take a "straight" look at your bullshit.
> At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
> credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war).
> Gary
1. Some on your list are credible, some not so much (O'Donnel for
example). Regardless, it most certainly isn't a list of, "all credible
historians" as you falsely claim.
2. Regardless of what your historians see in their crystal ball, JFK had
already taken us to war in Vietnam before he was murdered. Remember when
this credible historian blew your goofy shit away? From: Ed Moise
(eem...@clemson.edu)Subject: Re: Kennedy's Vietnam
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfkDate: 2003-06-18 18:29:42 PST
gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote in message news:<d127717d.
030617175...@posting.google.com>...
> And, finally, as David Kaiser wrote in response to a published review
> of his book: "American Tragedy extensively documents numerous
> occasions during 1961, 1962, and 1963 on which Kennedy did exactly
> that ["stopped the United States from going to war in Southeast
> Asia"], rejecting the near unanimous proposals of his advisers to put
> large numbers of American combat troops in Laos, South Vietnam, or
> both.
I can't quite agree with this. Kennedy did take the United States to war
in Southeast Asia. When he came into office, there were less than a
thousand U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam, and they were just
advisers. When he died there were over fifteen thousand there, and they
were conducting combat operations. A pretense was maintained that they
were still just advisers, but this was just a pretense. U.S. Air Force
pilots were flying bombing missions; U.S. Army and Marine helicopter
pilots were flying combat missions both in troop-transport helicopters and
helicopter gunships; U.S. Army Special Forces troops were commanding and
leading locally recruited CIDG units in ground combat.
Kennedy did reject some proposals to take the United States to war on a
larger scale, but that does not mean he did not take the United States to
war at all.
He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
Ed Moise
Rave on, Gary.
Bill Clarke
Fat...@aol.com
>
> > On Jan 9, 9:43 pm, "garyNOS...@gmail.com" <garagui...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
> > > credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war).
>
> > > Gary
>
> > My old friend Gittinger (you remember him) told me that when someone
> > tells me that "most historians" say this or that a little red flag
> > should come up and the bullshit alarm should go off.
>
> > "ALL credible historians" raised a big red flag and the bullshit alarm
> > is ringing loud and clear.
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> I just love it when someone acts the straight man around me!
>
> Here are just a few citations from credible historians about JFK and
> Vietnam and alot else!
>
> Gary
>
Well Gary, you and Oliver Stone certainly need someone around to keep
you straight and challenge the dishonest fork in the road that you
boys love to take. That said, I'll certainly be your "straight man".
I notice I am not alone here in taking up this mantle.
Now let us take a "straight" look at your bold but false claims.
> "At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
> credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war). > Gary
1. Some on your list are credible, some not so much, some not at
all. Regardless, it most certainly isn't a list of, "all credible
historians" and you very well know it. Why make such a false claim?
2. Regardless of what your historians see in their crystal ball, JFK
had already taken us to war in Vietnam before he was murdered.
Remember when this credible historian blew your outlandish claims out
of the water?
From: Ed Moise (eem...@clemson.edu)Subject: Re: Kennedy's Vietnam
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfkDate: 2003-06-18 18:29:42 PST
gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote in message news:<d127717d.
030617175...@posting.google.com>...
> And, finally, as David Kaiser wrote in response to a published review
> of his book: "American Tragedy extensively documents numerous
> occasions during 1961, 1962, and 1963 on which Kennedy did exactly
> that ["stopped the United States from going to war in Southeast
> Asia"], rejecting the near unanimous proposals of his advisers to put
> large numbers of American combat troops in Laos, South Vietnam, or
> both.
I can't quite agree with this. Kennedy did take the United States to war
in Southeast Asia. When he came into office, there were less than a
thousand U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam, and they were just
advisers. When he died there were over fifteen thousand there, and they
were conducting combat operations. A pretense was maintained that they
were still just advisers, but this was just a pretense. U.S. Air Force
pilots were flying bombing missions; U.S. Army and Marine helicopter
pilots were flying combat missions both in troop-transport helicopters and
helicopter gunships; U.S. Army Special Forces troops were commanding and
leading locally recruited CIDG units in ground combat.
Kennedy did reject some proposals to take the United States to war on a
larger scale, but that does not mean he did not take the United States to
war at all.
He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
Ed Moise
Bill "Straight Arrow" Clarke
Anthony Marsh
It is much simpler than that.
> Mac Arthur wanted to bomb China during the Korean War.
>
China was our ally in WWII.
> Truman did not want a war with the Soviets nor one with China.
>
Truman did not want war. He was sick of it.
> It was Stalin that clamped what Churchil called an iron curtain accross
Why did Stalin do that? For protection? No. Because the Eastern Block
was hemorrhaging. It was like a tourniquet to stop the bleeding.
> eastern Europe. It was Stalin that blocked off West Berlin from receiving
> supplies by land. It was the East Germans who built a wall around the
> city, which turned John F. Kennedy into a Berliner in 1963.
>
> We did not make a war ally into an enemy. They chose to make one, of us.
>
It was the US who turned its back on the Chinese and Vietnamese.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
aeffects
>
> View this article only
> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfkDate: 2003-06-18 18:29:42 PSTgar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote in message news:<d127717d.
>
> 0306171752.37076...@posting.google.com>...
if your a CT and published Bill -- every loon in the Lone Nut bin wants a
piece of you, that also includes those revered 'asleep at the wheel' LN
historians we've along come to know and love... so what's the primary Lone
Nut failing? Most can't write, those that can, won't ....
Anthony Marsh
By that same reasoning then Eisenhower took us to war in Vietnam. Yet I
have never seen you state that? Why? Because he was a Republican like you
and because you hate Kennedy because he was a Liberal.
Grew? No. Morphed.
Fat...@aol.com
Hardly. We poured much effort into China post WW II in an attempt to
prevent it from falling to the communist. Our corrupt client and we
failed. Are you suggesting that we should have then supported the
communist? I hope not.
As for Vietnam, we did much more for Ho than he ever did for us. We
armed him, making him the only truly armed nationalist group at the
end of WW II. Damn shame he was also a virulent communist.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Pay attention. We DID help the Communists. Mao was a Communist. Stalin
was a Communist. Ho was a Communist.
> As for Vietnam, we did much more for Ho than he ever did for us. We
> armed him, making him the only truly armed nationalist group at the
> end of WW II. Damn shame he was also a virulent communist.
>
We saw no problem with their being Communists when we need their help in
WWII.
> Bill Clarke
>
Fat...@aol.com
No, it certainly does not. Did you read what Dr. Moise said? "Kennedy did
take the United States to war in Southeast Asia. When he came into
office, there were less than a thousand U.S. military personnel in South
Vietnam, and they were just advisers. When he died there were over
fifteen thousand there, and they were conducting combat operations."
I point out to you; A 15 fold increase in the number of U.S. personnel on
the ground in Vietnam. That is a major escalation.
I point out to you again; the mission creep under JFK that led to the U.S.
conducting combat operations. This one is a biggie so pay attention,
Marsh. It includes the introduction of air units and M113s to the
battlefield.
> Yet I have never seen you state that? Why?
Because it isn't true. It is faulty logic at best, a dishonest
revision of history at it's worst.
> Because he was a Republican like you and because you hate Kennedy because he was a Liberal.
John was recently commenting on your self-proclaimed ability to know so
much about others. You are wrong and wrong again here. I am a life long
Democrat (with the exception of Clinton and Kerry) and I don't hate JFK.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
I am pointing out that you are not being true to the standard you
espoused. If YOU think Kennedy took us to war, then Eisenhower took us
to way.
> I point out to you; A 15 fold increase in the number of U.S. personnel on
> the ground in Vietnam. That is a major escalation.
>
WOW! Eisenhower's 100 fold increase in the number of U.S. Personnel on
the ground. THAT is a major escalation!!!
> I point out to you again; the mission creep under JFK that led to the U.S.
> conducting combat operations. This one is a biggie so pay attention,
> Marsh. It includes the introduction of air units and M113s to the
> battlefield.
>
And what about the change in the rules of engagement. You never figured
that one out, did you?
>> Yet I have never seen you state that? Why?
>
> Because it isn't true. It is faulty logic at best, a dishonest
> revision of history at it's worst.
>
Nonsense. Simple fact.
>> Because he was a Republican like you and because you hate Kennedy because he was a Liberal.
>
> John was recently commenting on your self-proclaimed ability to know so
> much about others. You are wrong and wrong again here. I am a life long
> Democrat (with the exception of Clinton and Kerry) and I don't hate JFK.
>
Just because you are a Dixiecrat does not make you a Liberal. It makes
you a Reagan Democrat.
> Bill Clarke
>
Fat...@aol.com
And how much help did we give them after WW II? Not a hell of a lot.
> > As for Vietnam, we did much more for Ho than he ever did for us. We
> > armed him, making him the only truly armed nationalist group at the
> > end of WW II. Damn shame he was also a virulent communist.
>
> We saw no problem with their being Communists when we need their help in
> WWII.
In the first place, they needed our help a lot more than we needed
theirs. In the second place, they didn't see any problem with
accepting our capitalist help when they needed it in WW II.
Bill Clarke
Fat...@aol.com
If you can read my post and determine how I vote then how about sniffing
my ass and telling me what I ate for lunch?
Bill Clarke
P
> I am pointing out that you are not being true to the standard you
> espoused. If YOU think Kennedy took us to war, then Eisenhower took us
> to way.
Actually, Esenhower was set to escalate "support" in Laos, and handed
Kennedy plans to do exactly that. Laos was nixed due to geography.
Warfare in Vietnam started under Kennedy.
It doesn't have anything to do with how anybody votes. Kennedy was
committed to the support of SVN. Johnson carried on that policy.
Goldwater is the one who was gung-ho for war.
Rita
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 24, 1:15 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I am pointing out that you are not being true to the standard you
>> espoused. If YOU think Kennedy took us to war, then Eisenhower took us
>> to way.
>
> Actually, Esenhower was set to escalate "support" in Laos, and handed
> Kennedy plans to do exactly that. Laos was nixed due to geography.
> Warfare in Vietnam started under Kennedy.
>
Where you been? Ever hear of Dien Bien Phu? Warfare started with the
French, whom we supported. We took it over when the French pulled out in
1956.
The first American military advisers arrived in Saigon in July, 1950.
Diem became president of the newly formed Republic of Vietnam in the
South. France had withdrawn all of its troops from South Vietnam by 1956.
The United States remained the only foreign power supporting Diem.
> It doesn't have anything to do with how anybody votes. Kennedy was
> committed to the support of SVN. Johnson carried on that policy.
> Goldwater is the one who was gung-ho for war.
>
Eisenhower was the one who committed troops to Vietnam, and money.
Goldwater was the nut who wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Both
Republicans. Republicans are war mongers. They make money out of killing.
> Rita
>
Puss The Bounty Hunter
Oh, great, someone needs to reach to the French when he knows quite well
that it is American warfare of which I am speaking. Warfare by Americans
in Vietnam started under Kennedy. Eisenhower committed support in SEA due
to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
facilitator of starting "support" in Vietnam, however, warfare did not
start until Kennedy was in charge and fire was exchanged between the USA
and Vietnam.
Goldwater appears to be gung-ho for war in the sense that he wanted to use
large-scale force and he wanted to use it quickly. Eisenhower, Kennedy and
Johnson were not. Regarding the results of policy which Truman beget, it's
not so obvious that "support" was the right policy. Ergo, either fight a
war like a "war" or get the hell out.
I'm not interested in political rants. Please stop whining and stick to
historical facts as it pertained to the situation. Forget about French
zingers, too. As you well know, the discussion here concerns American
involvement, and "smart ass" is ill becoming to you.
Rita
Fat...@aol.com
>
Marsh. I hear there is a new Rambo movie out. I'm sure you will want
to catch it to beef up your extensive study of Southeast Asia,
military operations and Vietnam Vets.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
You are self-defining. Not pretty.
Eisenhower sent in advisers. Kennedy sent in advisers. If you blame
Kennedy then you also have to blame Eisenhower, but I never see you do
that. Why is that? Because Eisenhower was a Republican and you are a
Republican. Because Kennedy was a Democrat whom you detest. Because
Kennedy was a Liberal which you hate.
> to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
> were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
Jeez, how simplistic. Everyone committed support in SEA to contain the
Communist expansion. Even Kennedy once believed in the Domino Theory. And
he did not want to be pegged as the President who lost SEA just as the
Republicans charged that Truman lost China. Kennedy was a student of
history, unlike some people here.
> Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
> facilitator of starting "support" in Vietnam, however, warfare did not
> start until Kennedy was in charge and fire was exchanged between the USA
> and Vietnam.
More nonsense. Tell that to the widows.
>
> Goldwater appears to be gung-ho for war in the sense that he wanted to use
> large-scale force and he wanted to use it quickly. Eisenhower, Kennedy and
Goldwater wanted to use nuclear weapons instead of large-scale force,
which was the same rationale for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> Johnson were not. Regarding the results of policy which Truman beget, it's
> not so obvious that "support" was the right policy. Ergo, either fight a
> war like a "war" or get the hell out.
>
Again your only point is to bash Democrats. Every President supported the
South Vietnamese. Are we still fighting the Vietnam War? No. Tell everyone
who was the President when we pulled out and what party he was from.
Gerald Ford, a Republican. He lost Vietnam. Go blame him. But of course
you'd never blame a Republican for anything.
> I'm not interested in political rants. Please stop whining and stick to
You are the person starting the political rants.
> historical facts as it pertained to the situation. Forget about French
> zingers, too. As you well know, the discussion here concerns American
> involvement, and "smart ass" is ill becoming to you.
>
You want to blame everything on Kennedy because you hate him.
> Rita
>
>
Puss The Bounty Hunter
I'm not blaming anyone, Anthony, I'm "simply" pointing out the fact of
when warfare started.
> > to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
> > were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
>
> Jeez, how simplistic. Everyone committed support in SEA to contain the
> Communist expansion. Even Kennedy once believed in the Domino Theory. And
> he did not want to be pegged as the President who lost SEA just as the
> Republicans charged that Truman lost China. Kennedy was a student of
> history, unlike some people here.
You seem to require "simple," sweetheart.
> > Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
>
> Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
> Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
You do seem the unread one. Yes, it was a policy "carried on," and
escalated as was needed. You are aware of the NVA and their advancement
South in the conflict? LBJ sent in troops because Westy asked for them.
> > facilitator of starting "support" in Vietnam, however, warfare did not
> > start until Kennedy was in charge and fire was exchanged between the USA
> > and Vietnam.
>
> More nonsense. Tell that to the widows.
I will tell it to anyone. Warfare, meaning shots between the two, started
under the Kennedy administration.
> > historical facts as it pertained to the situation. Forget about French
> > zingers, too. As you well know, the discussion here concerns American
> > involvement, and "smart ass" is ill becoming to you.
>
> You want to blame everything on Kennedy because you hate him.
My dear, I am not old enough to hate Kennedy, and you are regressing
to zygote.
Rita
Fat...@aol.com
What simple and faulty logic. You conveniently ignore the number
escalation under JFK and most of all you ignore the mission creep from
being true advisors under IKE to engaging in combat, including on the
ground, under JFK. You can't dismiss Dr. Moise by calling him a
Republican, Kennedy hater or liberal hater. So what is your excuse for
skewing history now?
> > to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
> > were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
>
> > Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
>
> Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
> Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
That is an easy distinction. The problem comes with telling the
difference between JFK's ground combat troops and Ike' true advisors. 1962
works for most folks.
>
> Again your only point is to bash Democrats. Every President supported the
> South Vietnamese. Are we still fighting the Vietnam War? No. Tell everyone
> who was the President when we pulled out and what party he was from.
> Gerald Ford, a Republican. He lost Vietnam. Go blame him. But of course
> you'd never blame a Republican for anything.
>
The war was lost long before Ford became president. Why do you think
Nixon was withdrawing combat troops from Vietnam? Because we had WON and
was coming home?
By the same reasoning do you believe Regan won the Cold War?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
escalation under Eisenhower in violation of the Geneva Accords and
most of all you ignore the mission creep from being true advisors under
JFK to engaging in combat, including on the ground, under LBJ.
>>> to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
>>> were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
>
>>> Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
>> Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
>> Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
>
> That is an easy distinction. The problem comes with telling the
> difference between JFK's ground combat troops and Ike' true advisors. 1962
> works for most folks.
>
Show me. Prove it.
>> Again your only point is to bash Democrats. Every President supported the
>> South Vietnamese. Are we still fighting the Vietnam War? No. Tell everyone
>> who was the President when we pulled out and what party he was from.
>> Gerald Ford, a Republican. He lost Vietnam. Go blame him. But of course
>> you'd never blame a Republican for anything.
>>
>
> The war was lost long before Ford became president. Why do you think
> Nixon was withdrawing combat troops from Vietnam? Because we had WON and
> was coming home?
>
> By the same reasoning do you believe Regan won the Cold War?
>
Do you think Russia won the Cold War? Are you calling Reagan a coward?
The CIA won the Cold War.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
No, you are not. And the US did not start the war. Ho did.
>
>>> to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
>>> were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
>> Jeez, how simplistic. Everyone committed support in SEA to contain the
>> Communist expansion. Even Kennedy once believed in the Domino Theory. And
>> he did not want to be pegged as the President who lost SEA just as the
>> Republicans charged that Truman lost China. Kennedy was a student of
>> history, unlike some people here.
>
> You seem to require "simple," sweetheart.
>
>>> Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
>> Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
>> Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
>
> You do seem the unread one. Yes, it was a policy "carried on," and
> escalated as was needed. You are aware of the NVA and their advancement
> South in the conflict? LBJ sent in troops because Westy asked for them.
>
>>> facilitator of starting "support" in Vietnam, however, warfare did not
>>> start until Kennedy was in charge and fire was exchanged between the USA
>>> and Vietnam.
>> More nonsense. Tell that to the widows.
>
> I will tell it to anyone. Warfare, meaning shots between the two, started
> under the Kennedy administration.
>
Nonsense.
>>> historical facts as it pertained to the situation. Forget about French
>>> zingers, too. As you well know, the discussion here concerns American
>>> involvement, and "smart ass" is ill becoming to you.
>> You want to blame everything on Kennedy because you hate him.
>
> My dear, I am not old enough to hate Kennedy, and you are regressing
> to zygote.
>
We know that you were not around then. I said now. You hate Kennedy
because he was a Liberal.
> Rita
>
Can't stick with just one alias?
>
Fat...@aol.com
> Fatm...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> Eisenhower sent in advisers. Kennedy sent in advisers. If you blame
> >> Kennedy then you also have to blame Eisenhower, but I never see you do
> >> that. Why is that? Because Eisenhower was a Republican and you are a
> >> Republican. Because Kennedy was a Democrat whom you detest. Because
> >> Kennedy was a Liberal which you hate.
>
> > What simple and faulty logic. You conveniently ignore the number
> > escalation under JFK and most of all you ignore the mission creep from
> > being true advisors under IKE to engaging in combat, including on the
> > ground, under JFK. You can't dismiss Dr. Moise by calling him a
> > Republican, Kennedy hater or liberal hater. So what is your excuse for
> > skewing history now?
>
> What simple and faulty logic. You conveniently ignore the number
> escalation under Eisenhower in violation of the Geneva Accords
I do no such thing and Ho was the first to disregard the Geneva Accords
when he left the 10,000 stay-behinds in South Vietnam. So much for the
Geneva Accords.
> most of all you ignore the mission creep from being true advisors under
> JFK to engaging in combat, including on the ground, under LBJ.
You would have a point if the men under JFK had indeed been "true"
advisors. Dr. Moise says that by 1963 Kennedy's men were engaged in
combat, including on the ground. You can't dismiss Moise by calling him a
JK or liberal hater. So I'll believe the liberal historian, you cling to
your "Keep JFK Clean" revision of history.
> >>> to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
> >>> were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
>
> >>> Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
> >> Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
> >> Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
>
> > That is an easy distinction. The problem comes with telling the
> > difference between JFK's ground combat troops and Ike' true advisors. 1962
> > works for most folks.
>
> Show me. Prove it.
It is impossible to show you anything since you are under the false
impression that you already know everything. I've posted the references
before, you couldn't understand them then so I doubt you can now.
> >> Again your only point is to bash Democrats. Every President supported the
> >> South Vietnamese. Are we still fighting the Vietnam War? No. Tell everyone
> >> who was the President when we pulled out and what party he was from.
> >> Gerald Ford, a Republican. He lost Vietnam. Go blame him. But of course
> >> you'd never blame a Republican for anything.
>
> > The war was lost long before Ford became president. Why do you think
> > Nixon was withdrawing combat troops from Vietnam? Because we had WON and
> > was coming home?
>
> > By the same reasoning do you believe Regan won the Cold War?
>
> Do you think Russia won the Cold War? Are you calling Reagan a coward?
> The CIA won the Cold War.
You say Ford lost Vietnam since he was CIC at the time we got ran out of
the country. This is, of course, foolish and simple thinking. So I ask
if you also believe Regan won the Cold War since he happened to be sitting
in the chair when the wall came down. That would be just as foolish.
Bill Clarke
Puss The Bounty Hunter
I expected better from you, Anthony, even if you are a "people" hater.
American participation of warfare in Vietnam started under the Kennedy
administration.
Anthony Marsh
I expected better from you, Mr. Right Wing. Why are you defending Ho?
> American participation of warfare in Vietnam started under the Kennedy
> administration.
>
You didn't say that. You said START the war. Just as the US did not start
WWII, we did not start the Vietnam War. Eisenhower was President when the
US sent in advisors. JFK inherited that.
I hate Ho. You hate Kennedy. See the difference?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 30, 7:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Fatm...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Eisenhower sent in advisers. Kennedy sent in advisers. If you blame
>>>> Kennedy then you also have to blame Eisenhower, but I never see you do
>>>> that. Why is that? Because Eisenhower was a Republican and you are a
>>>> Republican. Because Kennedy was a Democrat whom you detest. Because
>>>> Kennedy was a Liberal which you hate.
>>> What simple and faulty logic. You conveniently ignore the number
>>> escalation under JFK and most of all you ignore the mission creep from
>>> being true advisors under IKE to engaging in combat, including on the
>>> ground, under JFK. You can't dismiss Dr. Moise by calling him a
>>> Republican, Kennedy hater or liberal hater. So what is your excuse for
>>> skewing history now?
>> What simple and faulty logic. You conveniently ignore the number
>> escalation under Eisenhower in violation of the Geneva Accords
>
> I do no such thing and Ho was the first to disregard the Geneva Accords
> when he left the 10,000 stay-behinds in South Vietnam. So much for the
> Geneva Accords.
>
That's right and your point is that Eisenhower was justified in
violating the Geneva Accords because Ho had violated them.
>> most of all you ignore the mission creep from being true advisors under
>> JFK to engaging in combat, including on the ground, under LBJ.
>
> You would have a point if the men under JFK had indeed been "true"
> advisors. Dr. Moise says that by 1963 Kennedy's men were engaged in
> combat, including on the ground. You can't dismiss Moise by calling him a
Yeah, they were being shot at.
> JK or liberal hater. So I'll believe the liberal historian, you cling to
> your "Keep JFK Clean" revision of history.
>
What does it have to do with keeping JFK clean?
You are proud of the military escalation.
>>>>> to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
>>>>> were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
>>>>> Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
>>>> Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
>>>> Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
>>> That is an easy distinction. The problem comes with telling the
>>> difference between JFK's ground combat troops and Ike' true advisors. 1962
>>> works for most folks.
>> Show me. Prove it.
>
> It is impossible to show you anything since you are under the false
> impression that you already know everything. I've posted the references
> before, you couldn't understand them then so I doubt you can now.
>
I have shown you the documents and you ignore them.
>>>> Again your only point is to bash Democrats. Every President supported the
>>>> South Vietnamese. Are we still fighting the Vietnam War? No. Tell everyone
>>>> who was the President when we pulled out and what party he was from.
>>>> Gerald Ford, a Republican. He lost Vietnam. Go blame him. But of course
>>>> you'd never blame a Republican for anything.
>>> The war was lost long before Ford became president. Why do you think
>>> Nixon was withdrawing combat troops from Vietnam? Because we had WON and
>>> was coming home?
>>> By the same reasoning do you believe Regan won the Cold War?
>> Do you think Russia won the Cold War? Are you calling Reagan a coward?
>> The CIA won the Cold War.
>
> You say Ford lost Vietnam since he was CIC at the time we got ran out of
> the country. This is, of course, foolish and simple thinking. So I ask
I didn't say run out of the country. I said run away. That's what a
Republican does. That's what Bush did in Iraq.
> if you also believe Regan won the Cold War since he happened to be sitting
> in the chair when the wall came down. That would be just as foolish.
>
Pay attention. I did not say that Reagan won the Cold War. I said that
the CIA won the Cold War.
> Bill Clarke
>
Puss The Bounty Hunter
Grow up. I have stated specifically that the conversation here concerns
American involvement in the Vietnam War. (I should not have to make that
clear in every post.) Warfare started under Kennedy. Eisenhower handed
Kennedy plans which contained the bulk of support to Laos. Kennedy chose
Vietnam as the main support for escalation by his own accord.
This is simple history, Anthony, not about whom I may or may not hate.
"If you remember -- I'm quite sure Roger does -- Kennedy was concentrating
on Laos. He really wanted to send troops into Thailand and rescue the
Laotian conservatives. and then all of a sudden in the spring of 1961, I
think mainly because of the disaster of the Bay of Pigs operation, it was
all kind of dropped; everybody decided it wasn't that important, and
Averell Harriman made a kind of semipeace. It's important to remember
that, because our views of Vietnam, which should have been related to he
Plain of Jars and the Ho Chi Minh Trail into South Vietnam, went up and
down. A lot of the time we didn't really focus on it"
--Ray Cline, Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence
Agency, 1962-66. The Johnson Years: A Vietnam Roundtable, p.6.
"When Eisenhower briefed Kennedy, the only issue he raised of significance
in terms of foreign affairs was Laos, where he warned Kennedy about the
deteriorating non-communist situation. At the Laos conference, and this is
a first-hand report, everybody was disgusted with the Laotians -- with
"our" Laotians. They couldn't get up in the morning; they were just an
impossible group of people. But the Vietnamese delegation there was very
impressive, and as the conference went on, the Vietnamese delegation
became more and more assertive. By the time the Lao conference was over,
and that very squishy arrangement was finally agreed upon, there was a
sense of, "If we're going to do anything about Southeast Asia there's no
sense in counting on the Laotians. The vibrant group, the energetic group,
the people who have pizzazz are the Vietnamese. So either we get out of
Southeast Asia altogether, or we've got to hang in with the Vietnamese."
That was the beginning of our Vietnam policy."
--Chester Cooper, Senior Member, National Security Council staff, 1963-66;
Deputy to Ambassador Averell Harriman 1966-76. The Johnson Years: A
Vietnam Roundtable, p.7.
Rita
Anthony Marsh
No, you said that Kennedy started the Vietnam War. If you want to limit it
to only American involvement that still goes back to Eisenhower. But you
won't even admit that.
> clear in every post.) Warfare started under Kennedy. Eisenhower handed
> Kennedy plans which contained the bulk of support to Laos. Kennedy chose
> Vietnam as the main support for escalation by his own accord.
>
Nonsense. Kennedy did not invent warfare. He inherited it.
> This is simple history, Anthony, not about whom I may or may not hate.
>
> "If you remember -- I'm quite sure Roger does -- Kennedy was concentrating
> on Laos. He really wanted to send troops into Thailand and rescue the
> Laotian conservatives. and then all of a sudden in the spring of 1961, I
> think mainly because of the disaster of the Bay of Pigs operation, it was
> all kind of dropped; everybody decided it wasn't that important, and
> Averell Harriman made a kind of semipeace. It's important to remember
> that, because our views of Vietnam, which should have been related to he
> Plain of Jars and the Ho Chi Minh Trail into South Vietnam, went up and
> down. A lot of the time we didn't really focus on it"
>
> --Ray Cline, Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence
> Agency, 1962-66. The Johnson Years: A Vietnam Roundtable, p.6.
>
A lot of words which say nothing about the issue at hand.
> "When Eisenhower briefed Kennedy, the only issue he raised of significance
> in terms of foreign affairs was Laos, where he warned Kennedy about the
> deteriorating non-communist situation. At the Laos conference, and this is
> a first-hand report, everybody was disgusted with the Laotians -- with
> "our" Laotians. They couldn't get up in the morning; they were just an
> impossible group of people. But the Vietnamese delegation there was very
> impressive, and as the conference went on, the Vietnamese delegation
> became more and more assertive. By the time the Lao conference was over,
> and that very squishy arrangement was finally agreed upon, there was a
> sense of, "If we're going to do anything about Southeast Asia there's no
> sense in counting on the Laotians. The vibrant group, the energetic group,
> the people who have pizzazz are the Vietnamese. So either we get out of
> Southeast Asia altogether, or we've got to hang in with the Vietnamese."
> That was the beginning of our Vietnam policy."
>
> --Chester Cooper, Senior Member, National Security Council staff, 1963-66;
> Deputy to Ambassador Averell Harriman 1966-76. The Johnson Years: A
> Vietnam Roundtable, p.7.
>
More unrelated nonsense. Eisenhower did not send in ground combat
troops. Kennedy did not send in ground combat troops. Johnson was the
first to send in ground combat troops.
> Rita
>
billc...@live.com
> Fatm...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 7:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Fatm...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >>>> Eisenhower sent in advisers. Kennedy sent in advisers. If you blame
> >>>> Kennedy then you also have to blame Eisenhower, but I never see you do
> >>>> that. Why is that? Because Eisenhower was a Republican and you are a
> >>>> Republican. Because Kennedy was a Democrat whom you detest. Because
> >>>> Kennedy was a Liberal which you hate.
> >>> What simple and faulty logic. You conveniently ignore the number
> >>> escalation under JFK and most of all you ignore the mission creep from
> >>> being true advisors under IKE to engaging in combat, including on the
> >>> ground, under JFK. You can't dismiss Dr. Moise by calling him a
> >>> Republican, Kennedy hater or liberal hater. So what is your excuse for
> >>> skewing history now?
> >> What simple and faulty logic. You conveniently ignore the number
> >> escalation under Eisenhower in violation of the Geneva Accords
>
> > I do no such thing and Ho was the first to disregard the Geneva Accords
> > when he left the 10,000 stay-behinds in South Vietnam. So much for the
> > Geneva Accords.
>
> That's right and your point is that Eisenhower was justified in
> violating the Geneva Accords because Ho had violated them.
My point is that the Accords didn't mean much to either one of them. Ike
didn't sign it and Ho knew he wasn't going to abide by it from the start.
> >> most of all you ignore the mission creep from being true advisors under
> >> JFK to engaging in combat, including on the ground, under LBJ.
>
> > You would have a point if the men under JFK had indeed been "true"
> > advisors. Dr. Moise says that by 1963 Kennedy's men were engaged in
> > combat, including on the ground. You can't dismiss Moise by calling him a
>
> Yeah, they were being shot at.
What did you expect? Peaches and cream on the veranda?
> > JK or liberal hater. So I'll believe the liberal historian, you cling to
> > your "Keep JFK Clean" revision of history.
>
> What does it have to do with keeping JFK clean?
> You are proud of the military escalation.
I wouldn't use the word proud. I believe JFK did what was necessary
and I salute him for that.
> >>>>> to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
> >>>>> were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
> >>>>> Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
> >>>> Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
> >>>> Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
> >>> That is an easy distinction. The problem comes with telling the
> >>> difference between JFK's ground combat troops and Ike' true advisors. 1962
> >>> works for most folks.
> >> Show me. Prove it.
>
> > It is impossible to show you anything since you are under the false
> > impression that you already know everything. I've posted the references
> > before, you couldn't understand them then so I doubt you can now.
>
> I have shown you the documents and you ignore them.
I have shown Dr. Moise's message to you many times and you continue to
dance around it.
> >>>> Again your only point is to bash Democrats. Every President supported the
> >>>> South Vietnamese. Are we still fighting the Vietnam War? No. Tell everyone
> >>>> who was the President when we pulled out and what party he was from.
> >>>> Gerald Ford, a Republican. He lost Vietnam. Go blame him. But of course
> >>>> you'd never blame a Republican for anything.
> >>> The war was lost long before Ford became president. Why do you think
> >>> Nixon was withdrawing combat troops from Vietnam? Because we had WON and
> >>> was coming home?
> >>> By the same reasoning do you believe Regan won the Cold War?
> >> Do you think Russia won the Cold War? Are you calling Reagan a coward?
> >> The CIA won the Cold War.
>
> > You say Ford lost Vietnam since he was CIC at the time we got ran out of
> > the country. This is, of course, foolish and simple thinking. So I ask
>
> I didn't say run out of the country. I said run away. That's what a
> Republican does. That's what Bush did in Iraq.
>
> > if you also believe Regan won the Cold War since he happened to be sitting
> > in the chair when the wall came down. That would be just as foolish.
>
> Pay attention. I did not say that Reagan won the Cold War. I said that
> the CIA won the Cold War.
In fact, the cold war was won by a joint effort of many. To single
out only one for applause is rather simplistic.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
Johnson was the first to send in intact combat units. For your non-
military mind that would be the 3rd Marine Division and such. You
continue to be unable to distinguish between ground combat troops and
a combat unit.
JFK had ground combat units in Vietnam beginning around 1962. Do you
need to see Dr. Moise's words again?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
You continue to be unable to distinguish between advisers and ground
combat troops. Eisenhower sent in advisers. JFK sent in more advisers,
but refused to send in ground combat troops. Johnson sent in ground
combat troops.
>
> JFK had ground combat units in Vietnam beginning around 1962. Do you
> need to see Dr. Moise's words again?
>
You need to read the actual documents for once.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
Doesn't that prove your point? Eisenhower did not start the war. Ho did.
Would Ho have started the war if there had been an election and he won it?
>>>> most of all you ignore the mission creep from being true advisors under
>>>> JFK to engaging in combat, including on the ground, under LBJ.
>>> You would have a point if the men under JFK had indeed been "true"
>>> advisors. Dr. Moise says that by 1963 Kennedy's men were engaged in
>>> combat, including on the ground. You can't dismiss Moise by calling him a
>> Yeah, they were being shot at.
>
> What did you expect? Peaches and cream on the veranda?
>
And who was the first American officer to die in South Vietnam and how
did he die?
http://www.usefultrivia.com/war_trivia/vietnam_war_trivia_002a.html
Did Kennedy send him in?
>>> JK or liberal hater. So I'll believe the liberal historian, you cling to
>>> your "Keep JFK Clean" revision of history.
>> What does it have to do with keeping JFK clean?
>> You are proud of the military escalation.
>
> I wouldn't use the word proud. I believe JFK did what was necessary
> and I salute him for that.
Nah. You hate him because he was a Liberal.
>
>>>>>>> to the progression of the communist bloc. Plans for the bulk of support
>>>>>>> were to go to Laos, which Kennedy nixed due to reasons of geography.
>>>>>>> Johnson carried on Kennedy's policy of support to SVN. Truman was the
>>>>>> Carried on? Escalated. You can't tell the difference between
>>>>>> Eisenhower's advisers and LBJ's ground combat troops?
>>>>> That is an easy distinction. The problem comes with telling the
>>>>> difference between JFK's ground combat troops and Ike' true advisors. 1962
>>>>> works for most folks.
>>>> Show me. Prove it.
>>> It is impossible to show you anything since you are under the false
>>> impression that you already know everything. I've posted the references
>>> before, you couldn't understand them then so I doubt you can now.
>> I have shown you the documents and you ignore them.
>
> I have shown Dr. Moise's message to you many times and you continue to
> dance around it.
>
I have written extensively about Moise.
>>>>>> Again your only point is to bash Democrats. Every President supported the
>>>>>> South Vietnamese. Are we still fighting the Vietnam War? No. Tell everyone
>>>>>> who was the President when we pulled out and what party he was from.
>>>>>> Gerald Ford, a Republican. He lost Vietnam. Go blame him. But of course
>>>>>> you'd never blame a Republican for anything.
>>>>> The war was lost long before Ford became president. Why do you think
>>>>> Nixon was withdrawing combat troops from Vietnam? Because we had WON and
>>>>> was coming home?
>>>>> By the same reasoning do you believe Regan won the Cold War?
>>>> Do you think Russia won the Cold War? Are you calling Reagan a coward?
>>>> The CIA won the Cold War.
>>> You say Ford lost Vietnam since he was CIC at the time we got ran out of
>>> the country. This is, of course, foolish and simple thinking. So I ask
>> I didn't say run out of the country. I said run away. That's what a
>> Republican does. That's what Bush did in Iraq.
>>
>>> if you also believe Regan won the Cold War since he happened to be sitting
>>> in the chair when the wall came down. That would be just as foolish.
>> Pay attention. I did not say that Reagan won the Cold War. I said that
>> the CIA won the Cold War.
>
> In fact, the cold war was won by a joint effort of many. To single
> out only one for applause is rather simplistic.
>
Ok, then you are claiming that I helped to win the Cold War also.
> Bill Clarke
>
Puss The Bounty Hunter
> Puss The Bounty Hunter wrote:
> > Grow up. I have stated specifically that the conversation here concerns
> > American involvement in the Vietnam War. (I should not have to make that
>
> No, you said that Kennedy started the Vietnam War. If you want to limit it
> to only American involvement that still goes back to Eisenhower. But you
> won't even admit that.
>
> > clear in every post.) Warfare started under Kennedy. Eisenhower handed
> > Kennedy plans which contained the bulk of support to Laos. Kennedy chose
> > Vietnam as the main support for escalation by his own accord.
>
> Nonsense. Kennedy did not invent warfare. He inherited it.
You are behaving like a child, Anthony. I have made it clear without fail
that I have all along been speaking of America's involvement in warfare in
Vietnam. That does not go back to Ike, as the references in my post
indicate. Ike was interested in Laotian policy, not Vietnamese policy.
Kennedy did not really focus on Vietnam until "after" the Lao conference,
which does make my references relevant.
Rita
billc...@live.com
And you continue to dodge the truth. JFK sent in troops to engage in
combat in the air and on the ground and water. He called them
"advisors". Whoop de Doo! LBJ did the same thing until 1965 when he
committed intact combat units.
> > JFK had ground combat units in Vietnam beginning around 1962. Do you
> > need to see Dr. Moise's words again?
>
> You need to read the actual documents for once.
I've posted Dr Moise's opinion in its entirety a zillion times for
you. You just can't fathom the thought that your hero took us to war
in Vietnam.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
I don't know which side would have started it but there most probably
would have been a war. What do you think would have happened after
the "election"? The South would have said, Oh dear, we lost the
election. Now we'll be communist. Oh joy!" Hardly.
> > I wouldn't use the word proud. I believe JFK did what was necessary
> > and I salute him for that.
>
> Nah. You hate him because he was a Liberal.
There you go again about facts you know nothing of. You still haven't
told me what I had for breakfast.
>
> > I have shown Dr. Moise's message to you many times and you continue to
> > dance around it.
>
> I have written extensively about Moise.
What you write doesn't cut much ice with me. I've noticed it doesn't
cut much with many others here.
>
> >>> if you also believe Regan won the Cold War since he happened to be sitting
> >>> in the chair when the wall came down. That would be just as foolish.
> >> Pay attention. I did not say that Reagan won the Cold War. I said that
> >> the CIA won the Cold War.
>
> > In fact, the cold war was won by a joint effort of many. To single
> > out only one for applause is rather simplistic.
>
> Ok, then you are claiming that I helped to win the Cold War also.
I don't think Regan would have made it without you. Good job, Marsh.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between advisers and
ground combat troops. Maybe you have no military experience.
>>> JFK had ground combat units in Vietnam beginning around 1962. Do you
>>> need to see Dr. Moise's words again?
>> You need to read the actual documents for once.
>
> I've posted Dr Moise's opinion in its entirety a zillion times for
> you. You just can't fathom the thought that your hero took us to war
> in Vietnam.
>
JFK did not invent the Vietnam War. He did not start the Vietnam War. He
inherited the Vietnam War.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
Brilliant theory. So, there must always be a Vietnam War according to you.
Even if Ho won the election and slaughtered 10 million South Vietnamese.
The US would step in with military action. To accomplish what, exactly?
The US didn't seem too keen on overturning the North Koreans.
> the "election"? The South would have said, Oh dear, we lost the
> election. Now we'll be communist. Oh joy!" Hardly.
>
>>> I wouldn't use the word proud. I believe JFK did what was necessary
>>> and I salute him for that.
>> Nah. You hate him because he was a Liberal.
>
> There you go again about facts you know nothing of. You still haven't
> told me what I had for breakfast.
>
> >
>>> I have shown Dr. Moise's message to you many times and you continue to
>>> dance around it.
>> I have written extensively about Moise.
>
> What you write doesn't cut much ice with me. I've noticed it doesn't
> cut much with many others here.
>
>>>>> if you also believe Regan won the Cold War since he happened to be sitting
>>>>> in the chair when the wall came down. That would be just as foolish.
>>>> Pay attention. I did not say that Reagan won the Cold War. I said that
>>>> the CIA won the Cold War.
>>> In fact, the cold war was won by a joint effort of many. To single
>>> out only one for applause is rather simplistic.
>> Ok, then you are claiming that I helped to win the Cold War also.
>
> I don't think Regan would have made it without you. Good job, Marsh.
>
Again, it wasn't Reagan. It was the CIA.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 3, 8:59 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Puss The Bounty Hunter wrote:
>
>>> Grow up. I have stated specifically that the conversation here concerns
>>> American involvement in the Vietnam War. (I should not have to make that
>> No, you said that Kennedy started the Vietnam War. If you want to limit it
>> to only American involvement that still goes back to Eisenhower. But you
>> won't even admit that.
>>
>>> clear in every post.) Warfare started under Kennedy. Eisenhower handed
>>> Kennedy plans which contained the bulk of support to Laos. Kennedy chose
>>> Vietnam as the main support for escalation by his own accord.
>> Nonsense. Kennedy did not invent warfare. He inherited it.
>
> You are behaving like a child, Anthony. I have made it clear without fail
> that I have all along been speaking of America's involvement in warfare in
> Vietnam. That does not go back to Ike, as the references in my post
No, you have been backpedaling.
billc...@live.com
Bingo! Like you, I have always thought not having any military experience
is what causes this confusion about advisors and combat troops. I have
military experience and you don't. I'm not confused about advisors and
you are. Glad we finally got that one worked out.
The last time you inferred I was a wannabe I posted evidence of my Vietnam
service. How typical of you to ignore it when it suits you.
> >>> JFK had ground combat units in Vietnam beginning around 1962. Do you
> >>> need to see Dr. Moise's words again?
> >> You need to read the actual documents for once.
>
> > I've posted Dr Moise's opinion in its entirety a zillion times for
> > you. You just can't fathom the thought that your hero took us to war
> > in Vietnam.
>
> JFK did not invent the Vietnam War. He did not start the Vietnam War. He
> inherited the Vietnam War.
Yes, that is all very true. You should add that JFK did significantly
escalate the war but I realize you can't face doing this. Now, can not
the very same thing be said of Johnson? Yes, it certainly can.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
> billcla...@live.com wrote:
> >
> > I don't know which side would have started it but there most probably
> > would have been a war. What do you think would have happened after
>
> Brilliant theory.
Thank you.
> So, there must always be a Vietnam War according to you.
I said, "Most probably". Do you not understand what that means? It
doesn't imply a certainty.
> Even if Ho won the election and slaughtered 10 million South Vietnamese.
Gee Marsh! How in hell is Ho going to kill 10 million South Vietnamese
without a war? You think the southern people will lie down like sheep and
let the Yankees cut their throat? They hadn't for the last 2,000 years.
And if Ho killed 10 million South Vietnamese there wouldn't have been too
much left of southern Vietnam at the time.
> The US would step in with military action. To accomplish what, exactly?
Please show me where I say the U.S. would have stepped in. Nice try,
Marsh.
> The US didn't seem too keen on overturning the North Koreans.
>
Gosh Anthony, have you ever studied history. First we "abandoned the
Philippines" and now we "abandoned" North Korea. The fact is that the
Chinese pushed our ass out of North Korea. Did you miss that one too?
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
>
> Again, it wasn't Reagan. It was the CIA.
>
Sorry, I must have confused you with the right wing crowd that likes to
give all the credit to Ronnie. And in what may be your only positive
remark about the CIA you give them sole credit. At least they fought the
war from beginning to end. And we have a nutcase over in awv that gives
the Air Force all the credit. How funny is that?
Bill Clarke
Puss The Bounty Hunter
> Puss The Bounty Hunter wrote:
> > You are behaving like a child, Anthony. I have made it clear without fail
> > that I have all along been speaking of America's involvement in warfare in
> > Vietnam. That does not go back to Ike, as the references in my post
>
> No, you have been backpedaling.
This is the response I gave you in the second post I made to this thread:
"Oh, great, someone needs to reach to the French when he knows quite well
that it is American warfare of which I am speaking. Warfare by Americans
in Vietnam started under Kennedy."
Either way, it is still semantically correct to say that warfare started
under Kennedy without adding the specific of which warfare. I'm sure you
understand the English language, but lost your reading comprehension
ability for a while.
It seems to upset you that Kennedy took us to war. I don't know why. If it
were not him it would have been someone else.
Rita
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 5, 11:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Puss The Bounty Hunter wrote:
>
>>> You are behaving like a child, Anthony. I have made it clear without fail
>>> that I have all along been speaking of America's involvement in warfare in
>>> Vietnam. That does not go back to Ike, as the references in my post
>> No, you have been backpedaling.
>
> This is the response I gave you in the second post I made to this thread:
>
> "Oh, great, someone needs to reach to the French when he knows quite well
> that it is American warfare of which I am speaking. Warfare by Americans
> in Vietnam started under Kennedy."
>
> Either way, it is still semantically correct to say that warfare started
> under Kennedy without adding the specific of which warfare. I'm sure you
> understand the English language, but lost your reading comprehension
> ability for a while.
>
You keept forgetting Eisenhower. And even Truman.
> It seems to upset you that Kennedy took us to war. I don't know why. If it
> were not him it would have been someone else.
>
If it were Nixon there would have been nuclear missiles involved. I am
not too fond of that.
> Rita
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 5, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> billcla...@live.com wrote:
>>> I don't know which side would have started it but there most probably
>>> would have been a war. What do you think would have happened after
>> Brilliant theory.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> So, there must always be a Vietnam War according to you.
>
> I said, "Most probably". Do you not understand what that means? It
> doesn't imply a certainty.
>
>
>> Even if Ho won the election and slaughtered 10 million South Vietnamese.
>
> Gee Marsh! How in hell is Ho going to kill 10 million South Vietnamese
> without a war? You think the southern people will lie down like sheep and
How did Hitler kill 10 million of his own citizens? Wake up.
Ever hear of the Killing Fields?
> let the Yankees cut their throat? They hadn't for the last 2,000 years.
> And if Ho killed 10 million South Vietnamese there wouldn't have been too
> much left of southern Vietnam at the time.
>
>> The US would step in with military action. To accomplish what, exactly?
>
> Please show me where I say the U.S. would have stepped in. Nice try,
> Marsh.
>
>> The US didn't seem too keen on overturning the North Koreans.
>>
>
> Gosh Anthony, have you ever studied history. First we "abandoned the
> Philippines" and now we "abandoned" North Korea. The fact is that the
> Chinese pushed our ass out of North Korea. Did you miss that one too?
>
Not I, but some will say that we abandoned the Koreans.
> Bill Clarke
>
Puss The Bounty Hunter
I'm not forgetting anyone. Eisenhower and Truman didn't take us to
war, and it wasn't Nixon. It wasn't even Goldwater, by a landslide.
Saying Kennedy did better is probably true. I am not a hawk myself,
but it still is what it is.
Rita
Anthony Marsh
You don't want to admit what you are, but we know what you are. You are
a Kennedy hater.
> Rita
>
>
billc...@live.com
> billcla...@live.com wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> billcla...@live.com wrote:
> >>> I don't know which side would have started it but there most probably
> >>> would have been a war. What do you think would have happened after
> >> Brilliant theory.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> >> So, there must always be a Vietnam War according to you.
>
> > I said, "Most probably". Do you not understand what that means? It
> > doesn't imply a certainty.
>
> >> Even if Ho won the election and slaughtered 10 million South Vietnamese.
>
> > Gee Marsh! How in hell is Ho going to kill 10 million South Vietnamese
> > without a war? You think the southern people will lie down like sheep and
>
> How did Hitler kill 10 million of his own citizens? Wake up.
> Ever hear of the Killing Fields?
Both of these were the results of war, were they not? I don't believe
Hitler killed 10 million German civilians. Yes. I believe that number was
1 million, not 10 million.
> > let the Yankees cut their throat? They hadn't for the last 2,000 years.
> > And if Ho killed 10 million South Vietnamese there wouldn't have been too
> > much left of southern Vietnam at the time.
>
> >> The US would step in with military action. To accomplish what, exactly?
>
> > Please show me where I say the U.S. would have stepped in. Nice try,
> > Marsh.
>
> >> The US didn't seem too keen on overturning the North Koreans.
>
> > Gosh Anthony, have you ever studied history. First we "abandoned the
> > Philippines" and now we "abandoned" North Korea. The fact is that the
> > Chinese pushed our ass out of North Korea. Did you miss that one too?
>
> Not I, but some will say that we abandoned the Koreans.
Well since we both agree on this point obviously these people would be
very wrong.
Bill Clarke
Puss The Bounty Hunter
Oh dear, if I hate someone, I have no trouble admitting it. For instance,
I hate intellectual cowards who would rather repeat inane accusations than
deal with facts honestly.
Rita
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 6, 10:39 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> billcla...@live.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> billcla...@live.com wrote:
>>>>> I don't know which side would have started it but there most probably
>>>>> would have been a war. What do you think would have happened after
>>>> Brilliant theory.
>>> Thank you.
>>>> So, there must always be a Vietnam War according to you.
>>> I said, "Most probably". Do you not understand what that means? It
>>> doesn't imply a certainty.
>>>> Even if Ho won the election and slaughtered 10 million South Vietnamese.
>>> Gee Marsh! How in hell is Ho going to kill 10 million South Vietnamese
>>> without a war? You think the southern people will lie down like sheep and
>> How did Hitler kill 10 million of his own citizens? Wake up.
>> Ever hear of the Killing Fields?
>
> Both of these were the results of war, were they not? I don't believe
No. Those were massacres of civilians under the control of the country,
not combat deaths.
> Hitler killed 10 million German civilians. Yes. I believe that number was
> 1 million, not 10 million.
>
Well, folks, looks like we have another Holocaust Denier here. Typical
that he's also a WC defender.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 22, 7:17 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Fatm...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 20, 7:31 pm, "garyNOS...@gmail.com" <garagui...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 11, 9:31 pm, "Fatm...@aol.com" <Fatm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 9, 9:43 pm, "garyNOS...@gmail.com" <garagui...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
>>>>>> credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war).
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>> My old friend Gittinger (you remember him) told me that when someone
>>>>> tells me that "most historians" say this or that a little red flag
>>>>> should come up and the bullshit alarm should go off.
>>>>> "ALL credible historians" raised a big red flag and the bullshit alarm
>>>>> is ringing loud and clear.
>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>>> Dear Bill,
>>>> I just love it when someone acts the straight man around me!
>>>> Here are just a few citations from credible historians about JFK and
>>>> Vietnam and alot else!
>>>> Gary
>>> Well Gary, you and Oliver Stone certainly need someone around to keep
>>> you straight and challenge the dishonest fork in the road that you
>>> boys love to take. That said, I'll certainly be your "straight man".
>>> I notice I am not alone here in taking up this mantle.
>>> Now let us take a "straight" look at your bold but false claims.
>>>> "At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
>>>> credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war). > Gary
>>> 1. Some on your list are credible, some not so much, some not at
>>> all. Regardless, it most certainly isn't a list of, "all credible
>>> historians" and you very well know it. Why make such a false claim?
>>> 2. Regardless of what your historians see in their crystal ball, JFK
>>> had already taken us to war in Vietnam before he was murdered.
>> By that same reasoning then Eisenhower took us to war in Vietnam.
>
> No, it certainly does not. Did you read what Dr. Moise said? "Kennedy did
> take the United States to war in Southeast Asia. When he came into
That is not what YOU said. YOU said that JFK STARTED the war.
> office, there were less than a thousand U.S. military personnel in South
> Vietnam, and they were just advisers. When he died there were over
> fifteen thousand there, and they were conducting combat operations."
>
Supervising, advising. Not fighting battles with only US ground combat
troops.
> I point out to you; A 15 fold increase in the number of U.S. personnel on
> the ground in Vietnam. That is a major escalation.
>
I pointed out to you; a 100 fold increase in the number of U.S.
personnel on the ground in Vietnam under Eisenhower. That is a major
escalation.
> I point out to you again; the mission creep under JFK that led to the U.S.
> conducting combat operations. This one is a biggie so pay attention,
> Marsh. It includes the introduction of air units and M113s to the
> battlefield.
>
>> Yet I have never seen you state that? Why?
>
> Because it isn't true. It is faulty logic at best, a dishonest
> revision of history at it's worst.
>
>> Because he was a Republican like you and because you hate Kennedy because he was a Liberal.
>
> John was recently commenting on your self-proclaimed ability to know so
> much about others. You are wrong and wrong again here. I am a life long
> Democrat (with the exception of Clinton and Kerry) and I don't hate JFK.
>
Oh sure. Tell everyone you voted for Carter. We know you didn't vote for
Kennedy. You can't even name any Democratic candidate you voted for in a
Presidential election.
> Bill Clarke
>
billc...@live.com
> billcla...@live.com wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 10:39 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> billcla...@live.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 5, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> billcla...@live.com wrote:
> >>>>> I don't know which side would have started it but there most probably
> >>>>> would have been a war. What do you think would have happened after
> >>>> Brilliant theory.
> >>> Thank you.
> >>>> So, there must always be a Vietnam War according to you.
> >>> I said, "Most probably". Do you not understand what that means? It
> >>> doesn't imply a certainty.
> >>>> Even if Ho won the election and slaughtered 10 million South Vietnamese.
> >>> Gee Marsh! How in hell is Ho going to kill 10 million South Vietnamese
> >>> without a war? You think the southern people will lie down like sheep and
> >> How did Hitler kill 10 million of his own citizens? Wake up.
> >> Ever hear of the Killing Fields?
>
> > Both of these were the results of war, were they not? I don't believe
>
> No. Those were massacres of civilians under the control of the country,
> not combat deaths.
I'd need to see a reference to Hitler killing 10 million Germans. Not
the Russians killing German civilians, Not the U.S. killing German
civilians but Hitler & Company killing 10 million German civilians.
Do you have a cite for this?
> > Hitler killed 10 million German civilians. Yes. I believe that number was
> > 1 million, not 10 million.
>
> Well, folks, looks like we have another Holocaust Denier here. Typical
> that he's also a WC defender.
I was referring here to the tragedy in Cambodia. If you are saying 10
million civilians were killed here I'd need to see a reference again.
I certainly do not deny the Holocaust and resent your inference that I
do. I don't partially defend the WC but neither do I see it as this
great conspiracy you boys have leaped on.
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
Well Marsh, I see our problem here. It depends on how you define,
"start". If it makes it better for you I'll say that JFK didn't start our
"involvement" in Vietnam but that he took us to a war footing in Vietnam.
Better?
> > office, there were less than a thousand U.S. military personnel in South
> > Vietnam, and they were just advisers. When he died there were over
> > fifteen thousand there, and they were conducting combat operations."
>
> Supervising, advising. Not fighting battles with only US ground combat
> troops.
Now you're talking. That would be an INTACT COMBAT UNIT and I've pointed
out this difference to you several times before. JFK didn't send these
but LBJ did some 16 months after JFK's assassination. But here is where
your lack of military knowledge raises its ugly head. You don't have to be
a member of the Big Red One to be engaged in combat.
> >> Because he was a Republican like you and because you hate Kennedy because he was a Liberal.
>
> > John was recently commenting on your self-proclaimed ability to know so
> > much about others. You are wrong and wrong again here. I am a life long
> > Democrat (with the exception of Clinton and Kerry) and I don't hate JFK.
>
> Oh sure. Tell everyone you voted for Carter. We know you didn't vote for
> Kennedy. You can't even name any Democratic candidate you voted for in a
> Presidential election.
I was too young to vote for JFK and barely too young to vote for LBJ. I
would have voted for them then and looking at our options today I would
most certainly vote for them today. I did in fact vote for Carter and HH
before him. I couldn't vote for Clinton because I thought he was a
sleezball then and I continue to think that today. I threw my vote away.
When Bush and Kerry ran I left the box blank and worried that these two
mediocre men were the best my country had to offer. Today I'll vote for
the black Kennedy. If Hillary gets the nomination I'll leave the box
blank. I think she is a sleezball too.
Bill Clarke
Puss The Bounty Hunter
>
> Bill Clarke
Well, Bill, if it makes you feel any better, I've never counted you as
a JFK hater. I see you more as a Rutherford B. Hayes hater.
Personally, I hate James K. Polk. OTOH, I've always had a belated
crush on Truman.
BTW, I'm with you on the next ballot box round.
...
billc...@live.com
Thanks on JFK.
> I see you more as a Rutherford B. Hayes hater.
Damn straight about Hayes. The double crossing corrupt rascal cut a deal
to remove Federal troops from the south. Then he sent them back down here
as snowbirds!
> Personally, I hate James K. Polk.
What is the problem with Polk? I live in Polk County.
> OTOH, I've always had a belated crush on Truman.
Forget it, Sugar. Harry was straight as an arrow.
> BTW, I'm with you on the next ballot box round.
Right on Sister!
Bill Clarke, who darn sure hates Nixon. Kissinger too.
Anthony Marsh
Jeez, can anyone figure out from that rant that you hate Liberals?
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>
>
Puss The Bounty Hunter
I dunno. I have to have somebody. How about Millard Fillmore? Is there
any good reason to hate him?
> > OTOH, I've always had a belated crush on Truman.
>
> Forget it, Sugar. Harry was straight as an arrow.
(Chortle!) I'd have ol' Harry sinnin' all over the place in no time flat.
Just to stay on topic, I have to admit that I've never thought Kennedy was
all that and a bag of chips like a lot of women did. Too gaunt and sickly
looking. I prefer a little more meat on the ribs.
Rita
billc...@live.com
Are you under the impression that Nixon and Kissinger were liberals? Just
because I have nothing good for JFK apologist (or any other kind of
apologist) doesn't mean I hate all liberals. It means that I don't care
for those that are fraudulent about history.
You skipped this one and it is, I believe, what causes your confusion
about advisor and combat troops.
>>> office, there were less than a thousand U.S. military personnel in South
>>> Vietnam, and they were just advisers. When he died there were over
>>> fifteen thousand there, and they were conducting combat operations."
>> Supervising, advising. Not fighting battles with only US ground combat
>> troops.
> Now you're talking. That would be an INTACT COMBAT UNIT and I've pointed
> out this difference to you several times before. JFK didn't send these
> but LBJ did some 16 months after JFK's assassination. But here is where
> your lack of military knowledge raises its ugly head. You don't have to be
> a member of the Big Red One to be engaged in combat.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 21, 8:28 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 7:25 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> zo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 10, 10:16 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> garyNOS...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> It is fascinating, and instructive, to compare the reaction by the
>>>>>>> "mainstream media" to Oliver Stone's film "JFK," a film which endorsed the
>>>>>>> vast majority's distrust of the Warren Commission
>>>>>> The vast majority also believe Oswald was an active participant in
>>>>>> the assassination. Why didn`t Stone get in step with mainstream
>>>>>> opinion on this point?
>>>>>>> against the the
>>>>>>> mandarins of the mainstream who've always stood foursquare with the govt.,
>>>>>>> and the "mainstream's" reaction to Tom Hanks' new film, "Charlie Wilson's
>>>>>>> War."
>>>>>>> Hanks' film, which I saw with my son, is very entertaining, very
>>>>>>> patriotic, very propagandistic and its history is very, very incomplete,
>>>>>>> which is to say it's wrong. But to read reviews in the major dailies,
>>>>>>> you'd never guess that. Apparently, flawed history in films is only
>>>>>>> considered a problem when the the history shows the government in a
>>>>>>> negative light, as it (rightly) did in the Stone's "JFK."
>>>>>> Stone`s film held the truth in a negative light.
>>>>>>> But when filmic
>>>>>>> fantasy is "patriotic," in films such as "The Green Berets," or the first
>>>>>>> rendition of "The Quiet American," the version that had turned the real
>>>>>>> message of Graham Greene's book upside down, why none of our moral
>>>>>>> monitors find it necessary to correct the record.
>>>>>> Gary thinks all spin should spin his way.
>>>>>>> Luckily, re "Charlie Wilson's War," a superb academic, someone with real
>>>>>>> credentials, the University of California's Chalmers Johnson,
>>>>>> Student? Kidding, I looked him up. He was Chair of the Political
>>>>>> Science Department at Berkeley, so you know he`s objective.
>>>>>>> someone who
>>>>>>> knows something of the true history of the story covered by Hanks' film,
>>>>>>> has weighed in. His review follows and it's devastating.
>>>>>>> There is considerable irony in Tom Hanks' picking Vincent Bugliosi as his
>>>>>>> vehicle to ride to the rescue of the mortally wounded Warren Commission.
>>>>>>> Hanks, who picked the screenplay that so distorts the true history of our
>>>>>>> repeated misadventures in Afghanistan, sure knows how to pick em. Oh,
>>>>>>> sure, a box office success is guaranteed; but success as reasonable
>>>>>>> history is another matter, one he apparently doesn't care a fig for.
>>>>>> As a conspiracy kook, you should appreciate a story being woven
>>>>>> using select pieces of information. Re-read "Ultimate Sacrifice" to
>>>>>> get a refresher course.
>>>>>>> At least Oliver Stone got the question of JFK and Vietnam right (all
>>>>>>> credible historians now agree Kennedy would not have sent us to war).
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>> Imperialist Propaganda:
>>>>>> The left is still using this tired rhetoric? What part does
>>>>>> Afghanistan play in our "Empire"? We trying to corner the market on
>>>>>> rocky barren terrain?
>>>>> Don't be foolish. It started with Eisenhower's farewell speech which
>>>>> he chose to use to issue a dire warning on the biggest emerging threat
>>>>> he perceived, the military industrial complex.
>>>>> Later, communism was at times used as a scapegoat, the "domino
>>>>> theory", to justify unnecessary military invasions and occupations.
>>>>> The Cold War ended, thankfully, but now we have terrorists that "hate
>>>>> our freedom".
>>>> The US leaders must always create an enemy to focus our hate. At the end
>>>> of WWII we turned our former allies into our enemies and our former
>>>> enemies into our allies. After the Soviets left Afghanistan we turned our
>>>> former allies, Reagan's Freedom Fighters, into our enemies. They need this
>>>> trick so that we can never find out how they are stealing billions of
>>>> dollars from us. Before he was elected Vice-President Dick Cheney was
>>>> making on $1M a year. Now he is making $100M a year.
>>> ***I don't think it is as simple as that. Following in the movie theme,
>>> in Patton, George C. Scott was ready to start a war with the Soviets the
>>> minute the Germans were vanquished.
>> It is much simpler than that.
>>
>>> Mac Arthur wanted to bomb China during the Korean War.
>> China was our ally in WWII.
>>
>>> Truman did not want a war with the Soviets nor one with China.
>> Truman did not want war. He was sick of it.
>>
>>> It was Stalin that clamped what Churchil called an iron curtain accross
>> Why did Stalin do that? For protection? No. Because the Eastern Block
>> was hemorrhaging. It was like a tourniquet to stop the bleeding.
>>
>>> eastern Europe. It was Stalin that blocked off West Berlin from receiving
>>> supplies by land. It was the East Germans who built a wall around the
>>> city, which turned John F. Kennedy into a Berliner in 1963.
>>> We did not make a war ally into an enemy. They chose to make one, of us.
>> It was the US who turned its back on the Chinese and Vietnamese.
>>
>
> Hardly. We poured much effort into China post WW II in an attempt to
> prevent it from falling to the communist. Our corrupt client and we
> failed. Are you suggesting that we should have then supported the
> communist? I hope not.
>
We were going to support the Communists until the military officer
favoring Chiang Kai-shek pulled out his revolver and threatened to kill
the OSS agent favoring Ho.
> As for Vietnam, we did much more for Ho than he ever did for us. We
OK. We save his life.
> armed him, making him the only truly armed nationalist group at the
> end of WW II. Damn shame he was also a virulent communist.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
billc...@live.com
You know Marsh that is a real interesting story. I'll file it where I
file most of your stuff.
Why the late hit here?
> > As for Vietnam, we did much more for Ho than he ever did for us. We
>
> OK. We save his life.
The medic that treated Ho said he wasn't sure Ho would have died without
his treatment. You have already posted that you know more about Ho's
condition than the medic that treated him so save us the time.
Again, what we did for Ho is to arm him. As a result he was the only
nationalist with an armed military. This came in very handy in 1945. Now
I'm as surprised as you that there were any other nationalist left what
with the French and Ho killing them for decades past but there were.
BTW. I went to your site looking for your treatment of NSAM 273 and the
draft of it. Couldn't find it.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Use FTP.
> Bill Clarke
>