Postcards from the edge
Cliff
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978057573&grpId=3659174697241980
"Ladies and gentlemen, your modern right-wing, media-driven conservative
movement"
[
Media Matters: Postcards from the edge (and by "edge," I mean "CPAC")
As the week comes to an end, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)
will rage on, with Fox News host Glenn Beck slated to deliver the gathering's
keynote address on Saturday evening. It is unclear at this time whether Beck
will have his trusty blackboard in tow.
Beck's appearance cements the hold conservative media figures have on the
movement. Remember, radio host Rush Limbaugh was last year's keynote speaker.
For those watching closely, it's becoming pretty clear how all of this works.
Limbaugh says, "I hope Obama fails," and he's offered the plum speaking role.
Beck calls Obama a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or
the white culture," and he gets tapped for the honor.
Ladies and gentlemen, your modern right-wing, media-driven conservative
movement.
It appears that Limbaugh and Beck have taught their followers well. This year's
lineup of CPAC speakers has been as light on truth and heavy on hateful vitriol
as their leaders could possibly expect.
Young America's Foundation spokesman and frequent Fox News guest Jason Mattera
got things off to an interesting start. Speaking in a crowded Washington, D.C.,
ballroom, Matterasaid to applause and laughter, "[O]ur notion of freedom doesn't
consist of snorting cocaine, which is certainly one thing that separates us from
Barack Obama."
I suppose it never occurred to Mattera that his words might make Beck, the
center-ring attraction at this year's CPAC circus, a bit uncomfortable. After
all, the Fox News host has admitted to having had a cocaine problem, saying in a
2008 DVD, "I think by 24, I was making about $300,000 a year, and most of it
went directly up my nose."
....
]
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, your modern right-wing, media-driven conservative
> movement.
In 1832, Henry Clay was convinced Andrew Jackson was a simpleton, with
wildly impractical ideas for governing this nation.
Jackson had recently vetoed a bill that would have renewed the charter
of the Second Bank of the United States (BUS). Jackson hated the idea of
paper money, and thought it an evil which only benefited large banks and
the wealthy. "Rag money," he called it, and he referred to the BUS as a
"ragg tagg bank."
His veto of the bill was strongly worded and he filled it with caustic
hyperbole. In it, he stated that the bank was monopolistic, profitable
mainly to foreigners, hostile to states rights, inefficient, and
declared that it was unconstitutional. All of these charges seemed
ridiculous to Clay and his followers--and even to some of Jackson's
supporters, especially those in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia was the
headquarters of the BUS). Clay thought Jackson was demeaning his own
credibility by appealing to the great unwashed with such silly populist
nonsense--nonsense that would never stand up to rational scrutiny.
Clay printed up 30,000 copies of Jackson's veto and distributed them
throughout the country during the campaign. He made it his prime
campaign issue. He thought Jackson own silly words would damn him.
This backfired, of course. It turns out that a great majority of
Americans held views very similar to Jackson's in regards to banks and
paper money.
Jackson picked up 219 electoral votes that election, to Clay's meager 49.
--
Neolibertarian
"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan
Cliff
IIRC Jackson ended up being one of our worst presidents.
And a drunkard & partier.
Now we ended up with a national bank anyway ... it was needed.
BTW, FOREIGN banks support the wingers & rethugs. Largest donors to
bushco IIRC.
And bin Laden too I gather. He probably just loves
rethugs & teabaggers.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <8o3vn5lifl3dg2ae5...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ladies and gentlemen, your modern right-wing, media-driven conservative
>> movement.
[
Five Muslims were arrested last December for suspicion of attempting to poison
the food supply at the Fort Jackson U.S. Army base in South Carolina.
In a news story broken by Fox News Channel�s national security correspondent
Catherine Herridge on Thursday afternoon, ....
]
[
The Christian Broadcasting Network reported that five Muslim suspects were
"arrested," a claim repeated by Michelle Malkin, Jim Hoft, the New York Post,
Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, Fox Nation, and the Drudge Report.
]
[
Shortly after 6 p.m. on February 18, Bret Baier, host of Fox News' Special
Report, stated that "[t]he Army is now investigating allegations that some
soldiers at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, have deliberately tried to poison the
food supply at that facility."
]
Faux was STILL repeating these winger lies on 20 Feb 2010.
[
The right wing has made these claims despite the fact that military officials
have said "there is currently no credible evidence to substantiate the
allegations."
]
[
Fort Jackson spokesman: "Two months of investigation, there has been no credible
evidence to support the allegations." A February 18 press release from the Fort
Jackson Public Affairs Office states:
[
In December 2009, five Soldiers were investigated for potential verbal threats
against fellow Soldiers. While the investigation continues there is currently no
credible evidence to substantiate the allegations. At no time was there any
danger to the Fort Jackson community.
]]
[
Army spokesman Garver: "[T]hey have not found any credible information to
substantiate the allegations."
]
[
The Associated Press reported on February 18 that .... "no credible information
to support the allegations has been found"
]
[
Criminal Investigation Division spokesman Chris Grey "says there is no credible
information to support the allegations,
]
[
Pentagon spokesman "said he is unaware of any arrests made."
]
[
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that "the Army says it's not true. No one
has been arrested. The National Security Council was not aware of any arrests, a
spokesperson said."
]
[
Centanni further stated, "The fact that the FBI is not actively investigating
is a fair indication it's not any kind of extremist plot."
]
Etc.
Lying winger media.
--
Cliff
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:29:34 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8o3vn5lifl3dg2ae5...@4ax.com>,
> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Ladies and gentlemen, your modern right-wing, media-driven conservative
> >> movement.
>
> [
> Five Muslims were arrested last December for suspicion of attempting to
> poison
> the food supply at the Fort Jackson U.S. Army base in South Carolina.
>
> In a news story broken by Fox News Channel�s national security correspondent
> Catherine Herridge on Thursday afternoon,
You think that's bad, you should see some old news reports by CBS and
the New York Times back during the Vietnam War.
Nothing but misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright
lies. Why, to view those old stories, you might begin to think the North
Vietnamese communists were invincible or something.
Tee-hee!
Hell, some people back then began to believe that the Vietnamese WANTED
to destroy all their human rights and freedoms--that they WANTED to
succumb to the repeated military incursions from the North.
But that was just the way the "media" was back then, when it was only
the three channels on tv, and your local newspaper got all its stories
from the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Back then you just couldn't get the truth about what was happening.
The pinnacle, or the last hurrah of the propaganda monopoly of the late
20th Century, was expressed by the Exxon Valdez brouhaha. Back then, you
might have thought that was the worst oil spill in the history of
mankind.
Now, no one is dependent on ABC, CBS, the New York Times or FoxNews.
Things are looking brighter all the time.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
That comes from the political campaigns of the time. Of course,
Presidential politics today are quite lame by comparison. You may not be
aware of the accusations candidates were exposed to back then.
Historians all seem to understand that you can't write history just by
reading the contemporary newspapers.
>
> Now we ended up with a national bank anyway ... it was needed.
It was "needed" in what sense?
To stop the pendulum of panics and booms?
The Fed came into existence in 1913. There's been no recessions, booms
or depressions since, right?
>
> BTW, FOREIGN banks support the wingers & rethugs. Largest donors to
> bushco IIRC.
You sound just like Andrew Jackson.
> And bin Laden too I gather. He probably just loves
> rethugs & teabaggers.
Probably.
After all, since December of 2001 he's been nothing more than the Rush
Limbaugh of the Global Jihad.
Well, except he only has one station, not 600, and he doesn't have a
mansion in South Florida.
Gray Ghost
news:a5n1o51oagqteod10...@4ax.com:
> IIRC Jackson ended up being one of our worst presidents.
> And a drunkard & partier.
You don't RC.
Which to means he was among the best, a teatotaller and a quiet kind of guy.
Where do you get your history? Revisionists R Us? If you'd seen "The
Presidents" series on the History Channel you might have had a clue that
there was something wrong with these smears, then you could have found a book
to read. If you can in fact read.
--
God, guns and guts made America great.
And Janet Napolitano nervous.
Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
Cliff
>Nothing but misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright
>lies. Why, to view those old stories, you might begin to think the North
>Vietnamese communists were invincible or something
Actually, in the long term, the people of Vietnam could not
help but toss out the imperialists & corrupt wingers I think.
Just as the Americans tossed out the British.
Read "Psychological Warfare" by PMA Linebarger.
http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Warfare-International-propaganda-communications/dp/040504755X
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Hell, some people back then began to believe that the Vietnamese WANTED
>to destroy all their human rights and freedoms--that they WANTED to
>succumb to the repeated military incursions from the North.
You really don't know much history, eh?
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
[
July 1945 - In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the
country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and
disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do
the same in the south.
During the conference, representatives from France request the return of all
French pre-war colonies in Southeast Asia (Indochina). Their request is granted.
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia will once again become French colonies following the
removal of the Japanese.
August 1945 - Japanese surrender unconditionally. Vietnam's puppet emperor, Bao
Dai, abdicates. ...
September 2, 1945 - Japanese sign the surrender agreement in Tokyo Bay formally
ending World War II in the Pacific. On this same day, Ho Chi Minh proclaims the
independence of Vietnam by quoting from the text of the American Declaration of
Independence which had been supplied to him by the OSS -- "We hold the truth
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of
Independence of the United States of America in 1776. These are undeniable
truths." ....
September 22, 1945 - In South Vietnam, 1400 French soldiers released by the
British from former Japanese internment camps enter Saigon and go on a deadly
rampage, attacking Viet Minh and killing innocent civilians including children,
aided by French civilians who joined the rampage. An estimated 20,000 French
civilians live in Saigon.
....
March 1946 - Ho Chi Minh agrees to permit French troops to return to Hanoi
temporarily in exchange for French recognition of his Democratic Republic of
Vietnam. Chinese troops then depart.
....
....
May 8, 1954 - The Geneva Conference on Indochina begins, attended by the U.S.,
Britain, China, the Soviet Union, France, Vietnam (Viet Minh and representatives
of Bao Dai), Cambodia and Laos, all meeting to negotiate a solution for
Southeast Asia.
July 21, 1954 - The Geneva Accords divide Vietnam in half at the 17th parallel,
with Ho Chi Minh's Communists ceded the North, while Bao Dai's regime is granted
the South. The accords also provide for elections to be held in all of Vietnam
within two years to reunify the country. The U.S. opposes the unifying
elections, fearing a likely victory by Ho Chi Minh.
.....
]
"The accords also provide for elections to be held in all of Vietnam within
two years to reunify the country."
"The accords also provide for elections to be held in all of Vietnam within
two years to reunify the country."
"The accords also provide for elections to be held in all of Vietnam within
two years to reunify the country."
"The accords also provide for elections to be held in all of Vietnam within
two years to reunify the country."
[
October 23, 1955 - Bao Dai is ousted from power, defeated by Prime Minister Diem
in a U.S.-backed plebiscite which was rigged. Diem is advised on consolidating
power by U.S. Air Force Col. Edward G. Lansdale, who is attached to the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA).
October 26, 1955 - The Republic of South Vietnam is proclaimed with Diem as its
first president. In America, President Eisenhower pledges his support for the
new government and offers military aid.
Diem assigns most high level government positions to close friends and family
members including his younger brother Ngo Dinh Nhu who will be his chief
advisor. Diem's style of leadership, aloof and autocratic, will create future
political problems for him despite the best efforts of his American advisors to
popularize him via American-style political rallies and tours of the
countryside.
....
December 1955 - In South Vietnam, President Diem rewards his Catholic
supporters by giving them land seized from Buddhist peasants, arousing their
anger and eroding his support among them. Diem also allows big land owners to
retain their holdings, disappointing peasants hoping for land reform.
1956
January 1956 - Diem launches a brutal crackdown against Viet Minh suspects in
the countryside. Those arrested are denied counsel and hauled before "security
committees" with many suspects tortured or executed under the guise of 'shot
while attempting escape.'
....
]
Tell us about those electons.
"Thousands who fear arrest flee to North Vietnam."
--
Cliff
"July 1956 - The deadline passes for the unifying elections set by the Geneva
Conference. Diem, backed by the U.S., had refused to participate."
Cliff
>Back then you just couldn't get the truth about what was happening.
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:a5n1o51oagqteod10...@4ax.com:
>
>> IIRC Jackson ended up being one of our worst presidents.
>> And a drunkard & partier.
>
>You don't RC.
>
>Which to means he was among the best, a teatotaller and a quiet kind of guy.
>
>Where do you get your history? Revisionists R Us? If you'd seen "The
>Presidents" series on the History Channel you might have had a clue that
>there was something wrong with these smears, then you could have found a book
>to read. If you can in fact read.
I was thinking of Grant on the drinking & partys, probably.
--
Cliff
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Yeah, it's STILL true.
I know, I know; you've never looked into it any further than the
mimeographed handouts your dad got from the Weather Underground in 1971.
Nevertheless, it turns out that the "Pentagon Papers" were a
ridiculously flawed study of the Vietnam Conflict.
To the pseudo "intellectuals" and marxists at the time, it seemed to be
filled with damning revelations about the war--but most of its precepts
and conclusions were horribly flawed.
For instance, the "Pentagon Papers" claimed that Ho Chi Minh was an
"Asian Tito." (For those following along at home, Tito was a petty
communist dictator in Yugoslavia who broke with Stalin when it looked
like he could wangle aid money from the Marshall Plan.) The "Papers"
cited several ludicrous reasons for believing that Ho was a fiercely
independent-minded despot. Silliest of all was Ho's supposed reply to
his ministers who thought they should turn to China for help. It was
reported that he said "I'd rather smell French shit for another 10 years
than Chinese shit for a 1000 years."
You see, the narrative of the PP's was that since communism was a
popular movement (it seems that most people back then believed that the
brown people of Asia loved despotism, and despised their human rights
and freedoms)--and since they were acting on their own with no help from
China and precious little assistance from the USSR, there was no way to
win against them.
Heh.
==Begin Quote==
In order to coordinate Chinese and Vietnamese strategies, Le Duan, VWP
First Secretary, secretly visited Beijing in mid-August [1964].
[...]
While Mao was meeting with Le Duan at the scenic Beihaihe, the Chinese
air force was busy moving a large number of air and antiaircraft units
to the Chinese-Vietnamese border area. On 12 August, the air force's
Seventh Army headquarters was moved from Guangdong to Nanning, so that
it would be able to take charge of possible operations in Guangxi and in
areas adjacent to the Tonkin Gulf
[...]
From 1965 to 1969, China's aid to Vietnam took three main forms: the
dispatch of Chinese engineering troops for the construction and
maintenance of defense works, airfields and railways in North Vietnam;
the use of Chinese antiaricraft artillery troops for the defense of
important strategic areas and targets in the northern part of North
Vietnam; and the supply of large amounts of military equipment and other
military and civilian materials.
[...]
[Beijing military supply records, totals by year]
1964
80,500 guns
1,205 artillery pieces
25,240,000 bullets
335,000 artillery shells
426 radio transmitters
2941 filed telephones
16 tanks
18 aircraft
25 vehicles
1965
220,767 guns
4,439 artillery pieces
114,010,000 bullets
1,800,000 artillery shells
2,779 radio transmitters
9,503 field telephones
7 patrol vessels
2 aircraft
114 vehicles
1966
141,531 guns
3,362 artillery pieces
178,120,000 bullets
1,066,000 artillery shells
1,568 radio transmitters
2,235 field telephones
14 patrol vessels
70 aircraft
96 vehicles
400,000 sets of uniforms
[These supplies lists continue to increase as the war progressed, but
drop off sharply after 1971]
[...]
Chinese records claim these troops [Chinese antiaircraft batteries which
had been deployed to North Vietnam during the war] had fought a total of
2,154 battles and were responsible for shooting down 1,707 American
planes and damaging another 1,608.
==End Quote==
---Chen Jian
Mao's China and the Cold War (pp 212-228)
(University of North Carolina Press, 2001)
From just weeks after the Golf of Tonkin incident, Beijing was heavily
involved in assisting Hanoi; supplying it with practically everything it
needed to conduct its unsuccessful war against the US and ARVN. Mao even
stationed 320,000 PLA (Chinese Army) troops in North Vietnam during the
war.
McNamara knew this, of course. In 1964, Mao had communicated to
Washington through back channels, threatening Johnson with another
Korean War if he crossed into North Vietnam.
Johnson seems to have classified this information at the time, and as
far as I know, it's still classified.
One wonders why McNamara even commissioned the Pentagon Papers in the
first place--obviously the Rand people, or whoever they were, didn't
have enough information available to them to make any kind of
intelligent assessment of the war effort.
In the end, no one ever knew why McNamara did any of what he did. His
tenure at the Pentagon is an amazing compilation of wrong decisions,
horrid timing, and ludicrous reasoning.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hell, some people back then began to believe that the Vietnamese WANTED
> >to destroy all their human rights and freedoms--that they WANTED to
> >succumb to the repeated military incursions from the North.
>
> You really don't know much history, eh?
> http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
Beware those who do all your thinking for you.
After the war, a million died in the camps and over a million became
"boat people."
During part of Carter's administration, almost 100,000 Vietnamese
refuges arrived every month in the US.
There's never anything "popular" about marxist regimes. Communists
cannot rule without secret police.
Hanoi never believed for a moment that it could annex the South without
a major military incursion.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Nothing but misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright
> >lies. Why, to view those old stories, you might begin to think the North
> >Vietnamese communists were invincible or something
>
> Actually, in the long term, the people of Vietnam could not
> help but toss out the imperialists & corrupt wingers I think.
> Just as the Americans tossed out the British.
>
> Read "Psychological Warfare" by PMA Linebarger.
The Americans actually were self sufficient, dummy. Read Frederick
Jackson Turner.
The North Vietnamese lived in a totalitarian dictatorship, with
institutionalized interdependence. They were destined to be a puppet
state of Beijing until Nixon began secret negotiations to get Mao a
chair at the UN. When Mao turned his back on Hanoi, they finally decided
to sit down at the negotiating table--and they didn't even care about
its shape.
But it was North Vietnam who wished to colonize, not the US.
They South Vietnamese weren't interested in "tossing out" the United
States. We weren't there to colonize Saigon. We can't even get up the
gumption to annex Puerto Rico, for crying out loud.
We were the only thing standing between them and slavery. They knew it,
but your dad had no idea about any of this when he was staging sit ins
at his dean's office.
Cliff
>> Now we ended up with a national bank anyway ... it was needed.
>
>It was "needed" in what sense?
>
>To stop the pendulum of panics and booms?
Unless you are using some other nation's money you need
your own national source & bank.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> BTW, FOREIGN banks support the wingers & rethugs. Largest donors to
>> bushco IIRC.
>
>You sound just like Andrew Jackson.
Prior to your idiot war heroes did we have that problem?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <s6v4o51a5228b0icc...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Nothing but misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright
>> >lies. Why, to view those old stories, you might begin to think the North
>> >Vietnamese communists were invincible or something
>>
>> Actually, in the long term, the people of Vietnam could not
>> help but toss out the imperialists & corrupt wingers I think.
>> Just as the Americans tossed out the British.
>>
>> Read "Psychological Warfare" by PMA Linebarger.
>
>The Americans actually were self sufficient, dummy. Read Frederick
>Jackson Turner.
Like importing all coal from England by sailing ship.
As well as Iron, Iron or Steel products & machines.
Etc.
Missed that, did you?
>The North Vietnamese lived in a totalitarian dictatorship, with
>institutionalized interdependence.
There had been no "NOrth Vietnal" til the Imperialists
created it.
Missed that, did you?
>They were destined to be a puppet
>state of Beijing
Like their democracy?
The US & the Imperialists & the corrupt US supported right-wing
dictator in the South ....
Missed that, did you?
>until Nixon began secret negotiations to get Mao a
>chair at the UN. When Mao turned his back on Hanoi, they finally decided
>to sit down at the negotiating table--and they didn't even care about
>its shape.
What happened to all your dominoes?
BTW, Found those "WMDs" yet?
>But it was North Vietnam who wished to colonize, not the US.
"Colonize" who, exactly?
And what happened to the elections???
>They South Vietnamese weren't interested in "tossing out" the United
>States.
So they did it by accident?
>We weren't there to colonize Saigon. We can't even get up the
>gumption to annex Puerto Rico, for crying out loud.
FREE CLUE TIME YET AGAIN: Puerto Rico IS a US territory.
Stolen in the faked-up Spanish-American War in 1898.
It has been a territoy of the US for over 100 years.
Why steal it AGAIN?
From whom?
>We were the only thing standing between them and slavery.
So now that the people of Vietnam won they are slaves?
>They knew it,
>but your dad had no idea about any of this when he was staging sit ins
>at his dean's office.
You continue to lie like a very confused winger.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <4hv4o51h3h02sav1a...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hell, some people back then began to believe that the Vietnamese WANTED
>> >to destroy all their human rights and freedoms--that they WANTED to
>> >succumb to the repeated military incursions from the North.
>>
>> You really don't know much history, eh?
>> http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
>
>Beware those who do all your thinking for you.
>
>After the war, a million died in the camps and over a million became
>"boat people."
Why did the US kill so many?
Cites?
>During part of Carter's administration, almost 100,000 Vietnamese
>refuges arrived every month in the US.
>
>There's never anything "popular" about marxist regimes. Communists
>cannot rule without secret police.
>
>Hanoi never believed for a moment that it could annex the South without
>a major military incursion.
Cliff
Faked up by the US wingers.
Are they still in jail?
> Beijing was heavily
>involved in assisting Hanoi; supplying it with practically everything it
>needed to conduct its unsuccessful war against the US and ARVN. Mao even
>stationed 320,000 PLA (Chinese Army) troops in North Vietnam during the
>war.
>
>McNamara knew this, of course. In 1964, Mao had communicated to
>Washington through back channels, threatening Johnson with another
>Korean War if he crossed into North Vietnam.
>
>Johnson seems to have classified this information at the time, and as
>far as I know, it's still classified.
>
>One wonders why McNamara even commissioned the Pentagon Papers in the
>first place--obviously the Rand people, or whoever they were, didn't
>have enough information available to them to make any kind of
>intelligent assessment of the war effort.
>
>In the end, no one ever knew why McNamara did any of what he did. His
>tenure at the Pentagon is an amazing compilation of wrong decisions,
>horrid timing, and ludicrous reasoning.
Gee, so why was the US supporting winger dictators & murdering people
at huge expense?
The Imperialists started it. Vietnam had ASKED FOR HELP, not invasion
or winger dictators.
--
Cliff
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:52:32 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <4hv4o51h3h02sav1a...@4ax.com>,
>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hell, some people back then began to believe that the Vietnamese WANTED
>>>> to destroy all their human rights and freedoms--that they WANTED to
>>>> succumb to the repeated military incursions from the North.
>>>
>>> You really don't know much history, eh?
>>> http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
>>
>> Beware those who do all your thinking for you.
>>
>> After the war, a million died in the camps and over a million became
>> "boat people."
>
> Why did the US kill so many?
> Cites?
>
>> During part of Carter's administration, almost 100,000 Vietnamese
>> refuges arrived every month in the US.
>>
We had 100,000 Cubans float here during the Mariel Boat Lift. That was
with Carters blessing also, we got all the jailed people from Cuba and
then some.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
You've already proven you don't know the difference between Andrew
Jackson and US Grant. No wonder you have difficulty remaining coherent.
Even less strange that you can't keep a manageable thread, or follow
Usenet protocol or etiquette.
You should fit in fine here at Usenet.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Not that I'd expect you to know this, but the United States had its own
currency long before the Federal Reserve Act.
It even had it before Bank of the United States was established.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:02:02 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <s6v4o51a5228b0icc...@4ax.com>,
> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Nothing but misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright
> >> >lies. Why, to view those old stories, you might begin to think the North
> >> >Vietnamese communists were invincible or something
> >>
> >> Actually, in the long term, the people of Vietnam could not
> >> help but toss out the imperialists & corrupt wingers I think.
> >> Just as the Americans tossed out the British.
> >>
> >> Read "Psychological Warfare" by PMA Linebarger.
> >
> >The Americans actually were self sufficient, dummy. Read Frederick
> >Jackson Turner.
>
> Like importing all coal from England by sailing ship.
> As well as Iron, Iron or Steel products & machines.
> Etc.
> Missed that, did you?
Missed what?
Independence doesn't preclude trade--either with England or anyone else.
The Colonies were self sufficient, and knew they didn't need to trade
with England exclusively for those or any other commodities.
They were a going concern by the late 18th Century. They didn't need
England anymore, and began to believe that they never really had.
>
> >The North Vietnamese lived in a totalitarian dictatorship, with
> >institutionalized interdependence.
>
> There had been no "NOrth Vietnal" til the Imperialists
> created it.
> Missed that, did you?
That was the UN, dummy.
As soon as South Vietnam was created with a demarcation line at the 17th
Parallel, 500,000 Catholics fled to the south.
The exodus, of course, didn't work both ways.
It never does.
>
> >They were destined to be a puppet
> >state of Beijing
>
> Like their democracy?
> The US & the Imperialists & the corrupt US supported right-wing
> dictator in the South ....
> Missed that, did you?
What's forever missed in that equation is the outrageous corruption of
the DRV.
Of course.
Anything Diem might have been guilty of necessarily pales in comparison.
His prisons were far smaller, and his body count far lighter.
You don't get news from inside totalitarian regimes, in case you've not
noticed.
This isn't because they've got nothing to hide.
Sadly, the human rights abuses have continued unabated--even after
Clinton became convinced that the DRV was initiating its long overdue
Perestroika. Inveterate liars find it hard to change their ways:
http://www.hrw.org/en/by-issue/publications/170
>
> >until Nixon began secret negotiations to get Mao a
> >chair at the UN. When Mao turned his back on Hanoi, they finally decided
> >to sit down at the negotiating table--and they didn't even care about
> >its shape.
>
> What happened to all your dominoes?
> BTW, Found those "WMDs" yet?
In 1975, Hanoi overwhelmed South Vietnam. That same year, communist
forces assisted by the Communist Party of Vietnam came into power in
Laos. Also, the Khmer Rouge communists took control of Cambodia. Vietnam
was soon to wrest control away from Pol Pot.
Even Dulles never thought almost all of Indochina would fall in the same
damn year.
>
> >But it was North Vietnam who wished to colonize, not the US.
>
> "Colonize" who, exactly?
> And what happened to the elections???
Eisenhower was afraid to allow elections.
Ike was convinced, along with a majority Western Cold Warriors back
then, that democracy could never stand up against communist
revolutionaries or authoritarian juntas.
It was the biggest mistake America made during the Cold War.
>
> >They South Vietnamese weren't interested in "tossing out" the United
> >States.
>
> So they did it by accident?
>
> >We weren't there to colonize Saigon. We can't even get up the
> >gumption to annex Puerto Rico, for crying out loud.
>
> FREE CLUE TIME YET AGAIN: Puerto Rico IS a US territory.
> Stolen in the faked-up Spanish-American War in 1898.
> It has been a territoy of the US for over 100 years.
>
> Why steal it AGAIN?
> From whom?
Well, it might be nice if they paid into the treasury as well as taking
from it.
>
> >We were the only thing standing between them and slavery.
>
> So now that the people of Vietnam won they are slaves?
Precisely! Very good!
http://www.hrw.org/en/by-issue/publications/170
>
> >They knew it,
> >but your dad had no idea about any of this when he was staging sit ins
> >at his dean's office.
>
> You continue to lie like a very confused winger.
Your ridiculous magic words don't work on me, dopey.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:52:32 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4hv4o51h3h02sav1a...@4ax.com>,
> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hell, some people back then began to believe that the Vietnamese WANTED
> >> >to destroy all their human rights and freedoms--that they WANTED to
> >> >succumb to the repeated military incursions from the North.
> >>
> >> You really don't know much history, eh?
> >> http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
> >
> >Beware those who do all your thinking for you.
> >
> >After the war, a million died in the camps and over a million became
> >"boat people."
>
> Why did the US kill so many?
> Cites?
Posting drunk makes it hard to compose relevant, coherent sentences,
dunnit?
Neolibertarian
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/2010 8:17 AM, Cliff wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:52:32 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In article <4hv4o51h3h02sav1a...@4ax.com>,
> >> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hell, some people back then began to believe that the Vietnamese WANTED
> >>>> to destroy all their human rights and freedoms--that they WANTED to
> >>>> succumb to the repeated military incursions from the North.
> >>>
> >>> You really don't know much history, eh?
> >>> http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
> >>
> >> Beware those who do all your thinking for you.
> >>
> >> After the war, a million died in the camps and over a million became
> >> "boat people."
> >
> > Why did the US kill so many?
> > Cites?
> >
> >> During part of Carter's administration, almost 100,000 Vietnamese
> >> refuges arrived every month in the US.
> >>
>
> We had 100,000 Cubans float here during the Mariel Boat Lift. That was
> with Carters blessing also, we got all the jailed people from Cuba and
> then some.
Maybe he took Lady Liberty's inscription a little too seriously?
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >Chinese records claim these troops [Chinese antiaircraft batteries which
> >had been deployed to North Vietnam during the war] had fought a total of
> >2,154 battles and were responsible for shooting down 1,707 American
> >planes and damaging another 1,608.
> >
> >==End Quote==
> >
> > ---Chen Jian
> > Mao's China and the Cold War (pp 212-228)
> > (University of North Carolina Press, 2001)
> >
> >
> >From just weeks after the Golf of Tonkin incident,
>
> Faked up by the US wingers.
> Are they still in jail?
Yet one more of an endless string of bad guesses.
These statistics come from the party records in Beijing. Cold War
scholars who were allowed access to them in the mid 1980's have been
cross checking and authenticating them ever since. Much is still not
known or well understood because access to records was severely
curtailed after the Tiananmen uprising.
For instance, there are records indicating that Chinese and US troops
clashed directly with each other in Cambodia--but since access was cut
off, this can't be corroborated. However, Mao had as many as 30,000 PLA
troops in Cambodia when Nixon invaded.
What the US knew of Chinese involvement in Vietnam is apparently still
classified here.
Deng Xiaoping can hardly be thought of as a lying US winger.
Beam Me Up Scotty
I don't mind taking in the poor huddled masses.... I suppose my
ancestors were once the same, but we need to get a grip on it and change
taxes to a Federal sales tax so everyone pays and check for diseases
like we did at Ellis Island.
Freedom is great, but not free.
--
Cliff
Why cannot you reply to the proper posts?
Too slow? Words too big? Palin's Disease?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <pl3ao5lgk9ub4fd1n...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:29:08 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> BTW, FOREIGN banks support the wingers & rethugs. Largest donors to
>> >> bushco IIRC.
>> >
>> >You sound just like Andrew Jackson.
>>
>> Prior to your idiot war heroes did we have that problem?
>
>You've already proven you don't know the difference between Andrew
>Jackson and US Grant. No wonder you have difficulty remaining coherent.
I admitted my slip of memory.
Now tell us some more stupid winger lies.
>Even less strange that you can't keep a manageable thread, or follow
>Usenet protocol or etiquette.
>
>You should fit in fine here at Usenet.
Too much bran in your diet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <7i3ao5d7s7okurvvh...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:29:08 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Now we ended up with a national bank anyway ... it was needed.
>> >
>> >It was "needed" in what sense?
>> >
>> >To stop the pendulum of panics and booms?
>>
>> Unless you are using some other nation's money you need
>> your own national source & bank.
>
>Not that I'd expect you to know this, but the United States had its own
>currency long before the Federal Reserve Act.
>
>It even had it before Bank of the United States was established.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
[
In the last decade of the eighteenth century the United States had just three
banks but more than fifty different currencies in circulation: English, Spanish,
French, Portuguese coinage, scrip issued by states, cities, backwood stores, and
big city enterprises. The values of these currencies were wildly unstable,
thereby making it a paradise for politically indifferent currency speculators
thriving on uncertainty. In addition, the value and exchange rate was almost
always outdated or unknown by the party agreeing to receive it, especially the
farther it moved away from the coast; and because of distances, primitive roads,
and absence of communications technology, values were not only unknown but
unknowable as well. Speculators in the United States bought up bonds for about
15 cents and through Hamilton's plan were paid their face value of one dollar.
Supporters of the bank argued that if the nation were to grow and to prosper, it
needed a universally accepted standard coinage and this would best be provided
by a United States Mint, aided and supported by a national bank and an excise
tax.
]
Did they have any problems?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <0n8ao5tergv2lttqc...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:02:02 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <s6v4o51a5228b0icc...@4ax.com>,
>> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Nothing but misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright
>> >> >lies. Why, to view those old stories, you might begin to think the North
>> >> >Vietnamese communists were invincible or something
>> >>
>> >> Actually, in the long term, the people of Vietnam could not
>> >> help but toss out the imperialists & corrupt wingers I think.
>> >> Just as the Americans tossed out the British.
>> >>
>> >> Read "Psychological Warfare" by PMA Linebarger.
>> >
>> >The Americans actually were self sufficient, dummy. Read Frederick
>> >Jackson Turner.
>>
>> Like importing all coal from England by sailing ship.
>> As well as Iron, Iron or Steel products & machines.
>> Etc.
>> Missed that, did you?
>
>Missed what?
You claimed "The Americans actually were self sufficient".
HTH
>Independence doesn't preclude trade--either with England or anyone else.
>The Colonies were self sufficient, and knew they didn't need to trade
>with England exclusively for those or any other commodities.
See above.
>They were a going concern by the late 18th Century. They didn't need
>England anymore, and began to believe that they never really had.
It's so good to know that the language is either Spanish or French.
I was worried for a bit.
>>
>> >The North Vietnamese lived in a totalitarian dictatorship, with
>> >institutionalized interdependence.
>>
>> There had been no "North Vietnam" til the Imperialists
>> created it.
>> Missed that, did you?
>
>That was the UN, dummy.
The UN was founded in 1945.
*France* set up a puppet government in the South in 1946
thus dividing the nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conference_(1954)
The Geneva Accords
[
To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further
stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: "The Conference recognizes that the
essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military
questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation
line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a
political or territorial boundary" [3]
Then U.S. Under-Secretary of State Walter Bedell Smith said, "In connection with
the statement in the Declaration concerning free elections in Vietnam, my
government wishes to make clear its position which it has expressed in a
Declaration made in Washington on June 29th, 1954, as follows: 'In the case of
nations now divided against their will, we shall continue to seek unity through
free elections, supervised by the United Nations to ensure they are conducted
fairly'"
]
Supervising that election was to be the UN. I see no note of the UN before
that.
Tell us how that election came out.
I dare you.
>As soon as South Vietnam was created with a demarcation line at the 17th
>Parallel, 500,000 Catholics fled to the south.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conference_(1954)
"Post declaration events"
[
Many viewed the South Vietnamese leadership as a French colonial, and later, an
American puppet regime. Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam looked
forward to being fairly comfortably elected in the forthcoming elections.
After the cessation of hostilities, a large migration took place. 450,000 North
Vietnameses, mostly Catholics, moved to south of the Accords-mandated ceasefire
line during Operation Passage to Freedom. The CIA attempted to further influence
Catholic Vietnamese with slogans such as 'the Virgin Mary is moving South'. At
the same time, 52,000 people from the south went north in the opposite
direction. Communist supporters were urged to remain in the south to vote in the
coming elections.
The U.S. replaced the French as a political backup for Ngo Dinh Diem, then Prime
Minister of the State of Vietnam, and he asserted his power in the south. A
referendum rigged by his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu saw Diem gain 98% of the vote,
with 133% in Saigon. American advisors had suggested that he win by a lesser
margin since it was felt that he would be able to win any fair poll against
Emperor Bao Dai. Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the
State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to
crush all remnant of communist opposition. The prospect of democratic elections
dwindling away led South Vietnamese who opposed Diem to form the Communist
National Liberation Front
]
"The CIA attempted to further influence Catholic Vietnamese with slogans such
as 'the Virgin Mary is moving South'"
"The CIA attempted to further influence Catholic Vietnamese with slogans such
as 'the Virgin Mary is moving South'"
"The CIA attempted to further influence Catholic Vietnamese with slogans such
as 'the Virgin Mary is moving South'"
>The exodus, of course, didn't work both ways.
"At the same time, 52,000 people from the south went north in the opposite
direction."
But the wingers & secret police in the south were murderng many.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem
[
Di?m's appointment came after the French had been defeated at the Battle of Dien
Bien Phu and were ready to withdraw from Indochina. At the start of 1955, French
Indochina was dissolved, leaving Di?m in temporary control of the south.[11] A
referendum was scheduled for October 23, 1955 to determine the future direction
of the south. It was contested by B?o �?i, the Emperor, advocating the
restoration of the monarchy, while Di?m ran on a republican platform. The
elections were held, with Di?m's brother and confidant Ng� ��nh Nhu, the leader
of the family's Can Lao Party, which supplied Di?m's electoral base, organising
and supervising the elections.[12][13] Campaigning for B?o �?i was prohibited,
and the result was rigged, with B?o �?i supporters attacked by Nhu's workers.
Di?m recorded 98.2% of the vote, including 605,025 votes in Saigon, where only
450,000 voters were registered. Di?m's tally also exceeded the registration
numbers in other districts.[12][14] Three days later, Di?m proclaimed the
formation of the Republic of Vietnam, naming himself President.
Under the 1954 Geneva Accords, Vietnam was to undergo elections in 1956 to
reunify the country. Di?m, noting that South Vietnam was not a party to the
convention, canceled these. Criticising the Communists, he justified the
electoral cancellation by claiming that the 1956 elections would be "meaningful
only on the condition that they are absolutely free", despite his numerically
impossible tally in the 1955 contest.[15]
After coming under pressure from within the country and the United States, Di?m
agreed to hold elections in August 1959 to form a national legislature.
Newspapers were not allowed to publish names of independent candidates or their
policies, and political meetings exceeding five people were prohibited.
Candidates were disqualified for petty reasons such as acts of vandalism against
campaign posters. In the rural areas, candidates who ran were threatened using
charges of conspiracy with the Vietcong, which carried the death penalty. Phan
Quang Dan, the government's most prominent critic, was allowed to run. Despite
the deployment of 8,000 ARVN plainclothes troops into his district to vote, Dan
still won with a 6�1 ratio. The busing of soldiers occurred across the country,
and when the new assembly convened, Dan was arrested.[16][17]
]
[
Di?m's rule was authoritarian and nepotistic. His most trusted official was his
brother, Ng� ��nh Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Di?m Can Lao political party,
who was an opium addict and admirer of Adolf Hitler. He modeled the Can Lao
secret police's marching style and torture styles on Nazi designs.[18] Ng� ��nh
C?n, his younger brother, was put in charge of the former Imperial City of Hu?.
Although neither C?n or Nhu held any official role in the government, they ruled
their regions of South Vietnam, commanding private armies and secret police.
Another brother, Ng� ��nh Luy?n, was appointed Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
His elder brother, Ng� ��nh Th?c, was the archbishop of Hu?. Despite this, Thuc
lived in the Presidential Palace, along with Nhu, Nhu's wife and Di?m. Di?m was
nationalistic, devout Catholic, anti-Communist, and preferred the philosophies
of personalism and Confucianism.[19][20]
Di?m's rule was also pervaded by family corruption. Can was widely believed to
be involved in illegal smuggling of rice to North Vietnam on the black market
and opium throughout Asia via Laos, as well as monopolising the cinnamon trade,
amassing a fortune stored in foreign banks.[21][22] With Nhu, Can competed for
U.S. contracts and rice trade.[23] Thuc, the most powerful religious leader in
the country, was allowed to solicit "voluntary contributions to the Church" from
Saigon businessmen, which was likened to "tax notices".[24] Thuc also used his
position to acquire farms, businesses, urban real estate, rental property and
rubber plantations for the Catholic Church. He also used Army of the Republic of
Vietnam personnel to work on his timber and construction projects. The Nhus
amassed a fortune by running numbers and lottery rackets, manipulating currency
and extorting money from Saigon businesses. Luyen became a multimillionaire by
speculating in piasters and pounds on the currency exchange using inside
government information.[25]
Madame Nhu, the wife of his brother Nhu, was South Vietnam's First Lady, and she
led the way in Di?m's programs to reform Saigon society in accordance with their
Catholic values. Brothels and opium dens were closed, divorce and abortion made
illegal, and adultery laws were strengthened. Di?m also won a street war with
the private army of the Binh Xuyen organised crime syndicate of the Cholon
brothels and gambling houses who had enjoyed special favors under the French and
B?o �?i. He further dismantled the private armies of the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao
religious sects, which controlled parts of the Mekong Delta. Di?m was also
passionately anti-Communist. Tortures and killings of "communist suspects" were
committed on a daily basis. The death toll was put at around 50,000 with 75,000
imprisonments, and Di?m's effort extended beyond communists to anti-communist
dissidents and anti-corruption whistleblowers.[26]
As opposition to Di?m's rule in South Vietnam grew, a low-level insurgency began
to take shape there in 1957. Finally, in January 1959, under pressure from
southern cadres who were being successfully targeted by Di?m's secret police,
Hanoi's Central Committee issued a secret resolution authorizing the use of
armed struggle in the South. On 20 December 1960, under instruction from Hanoi,
southern communists established the National Front for the Liberation of South
Vietnam in order to overthrow the government of the south. The NLF was made up
of two distinct groups: South Vietnamese intellectuals who opposed the
government and were nationalists; and communists who had remained in the south
after the partition and regrouping of 1954 as well as those who had since come
from the north, together with local peasants. While there were many
non-communist members of the NLF, they were subject to the control of the party
cadres and increasingly side-lined as the conflict continued; they did, however,
enable the NLF to portray itself as a primarily nationalist, rather than
communist, movement.
The cornerstone of Di?m's counterinsurgency effort was the Strategic Hamlet
Program, which called for the consolidation of 14,000 villages of South Vietnam
into 11,000 secure hamlets, each with its own houses, schools, wells, and
watchtowers. The hamlets were intended to isolate the NLF from the villages,
their source of recruiting soldiers, supplies and information.
]
>
>It never does.
[
Di?m's rule was authoritarian and nepotistic. His most trusted official was his
brother, Ng� ��nh Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Di?m Can Lao political party,
who was an opium addict and admirer of Adolf Hitler. He modeled the Can Lao
secret police's marching style and torture styles on Nazi designs
]
"Di?m was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists "
>>
>> >They were destined to be a puppet
>> >state of Beijing
>>
>> Like their democracy?
>> The US & the Imperialists & the corrupt US supported right-wing
>> dictator in the South ....
>> Missed that, did you?
>
>What's forever missed in that equation is the outrageous corruption of
>the DRV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam
"They were also plagued by continuing problems of severe corruption among the
officer corps."
"Generals tended to be political appointees and corruption was rampant."
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/vietnamwar/summary.html
"Therefore, in 1963, the United States backed a coup that overthrew Diem and
installed a new leader. The new U.S.-backed leaders proved just as corrupt and
ineffective."
Etc.
>
>Of course.
>
>Anything Diem might have been guilty of necessarily pales in comparison.
>His prisons were far smaller, and his body count far lighter.
Millions murdered by the US alone.
>You don't get news from inside totalitarian regimes, in case you've not
>noticed.
Like truth from Faux or Rush?
>This isn't because they've got nothing to hide.
Rethugs & wingers?
>Sadly, the human rights abuses have continued unabated--even after
>Clinton became convinced that the DRV was initiating its long overdue
>Perestroika. Inveterate liars find it hard to change their ways:
>
>http://www.hrw.org/en/by-issue/publications/170
What did bushco say?
>>
>> >until Nixon began secret negotiations to get Mao a
>> >chair at the UN. When Mao turned his back on Hanoi, they finally decided
>> >to sit down at the negotiating table--and they didn't even care about
>> >its shape.
>>
>> What happened to all your dominoes?
>> BTW, Found those "WMDs" yet?
>
>In 1975, Hanoi overwhelmed South Vietnam. That same year, communist
>forces assisted by the Communist Party of Vietnam came into power in
>Laos. Also, the Khmer Rouge communists took control of Cambodia. Vietnam
>was soon to wrest control away from Pol Pot.
Rethug winger, eh?
>Even Dulles never thought almost all of Indochina would fall in the same
>damn year.
>>
>> >But it was North Vietnam who wished to colonize, not the US.
>>
>> "Colonize" who, exactly?
>> And what happened to the elections???
>
>Eisenhower was afraid to allow elections.
Too busy with United Fruit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
>Ike was convinced, along with a majority Western Cold Warriors back
>then, that democracy could never stand up against communist
>revolutionaries or authoritarian juntas.
China fell, right?
>It was the biggest mistake America made during the Cold War.
>>
>> >They South Vietnamese weren't interested in "tossing out" the United
>> >States.
>>
>> So they did it by accident?
>>
>> >We weren't there to colonize Saigon. We can't even get up the
>> >gumption to annex Puerto Rico, for crying out loud.
>>
>> FREE CLUE TIME YET AGAIN: Puerto Rico IS a US territory.
>> Stolen in the faked-up Spanish-American War in 1898.
>> It has been a territoy of the US for over 100 years.
>>
>> Why steal it AGAIN?
>> From whom?
>
>Well, it might be nice if they paid into the treasury as well as taking
>from it.
Trying to change the subject yet again after your earlier blunders?
>>
>> >We were the only thing standing between them and slavery.
>>
>> So now that the people of Vietnam won they are slaves?
>
>Precisely! Very good!
>
>http://www.hrw.org/en/by-issue/publications/170
>>
>> >They knew it,
>> >but your dad had no idea about any of this when he was staging sit ins
>> >at his dean's office.
>>
>> You continue to lie like a very confused winger.
>
>Your ridiculous magic words don't work on me, dopey.
"magic words" = bigger than one sound?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <0i9ao51f8vrv4safi...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:52:32 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4hv4o51h3h02sav1a...@4ax.com>,
>> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:14:40 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hell, some people back then began to believe that the Vietnamese WANTED
>> >> >to destroy all their human rights and freedoms--that they WANTED to
>> >> >succumb to the repeated military incursions from the North.
>> >>
>> >> You really don't know much history, eh?
>> >> http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html
>> >
>> >Beware those who do all your thinking for you.
>> >
>> >After the war, a million died in the camps and over a million became
>> >"boat people."
>>
>> Why did the US kill so many?
>> Cites?
>
>Posting drunk makes it hard to compose relevant, coherent sentences,
>dunnit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
See "Casualties and losses".
--
Cliff
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Oh look, another poster at Usenet has discovered Wikipedia!
Your cite doesn't disprove anything I wrote, and it doesn't support
anything you wrote.
The Federal Reserve Act didn't give the US a currency, and the US had
it's own currency before the establishment of the Bank of the United
States.
Did you post the Wiki cite because you're in over your head and couldn't
determine how to make a cogent reply?
Beam Me Up Scotty
The confederate States also had paper money....
The U.S. was linked to gold/silver, the confederacy I believe was also
but they may not have been since their money did become worthless.
--
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
I stand corrected. Geneva involved the PRC, which, perhaps, precluded
utilizing the UN as a venue for the conference.
The partition was officially agreed to at that time.
> >As soon as South Vietnam was created with a demarcation line at the 17th
> >Parallel, 500,000 Catholics fled to the south.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conference_(1954)
Is Wiki the first thing that pops up in a Google search?
It is, innit?
So I was wrong again, it 800,000 to 1 million, most of whom were Roman
Catholics.
The Communist revolutionaries in the south were under the command and
control of the CPV (Vietnam Workers Party). They did what they were
ordered to do.
Of course.
Neolibertarian
National sales tax is a horrible idea. You're talking about the
populist-bureacrat regime in Washington DC, for crying out loud.
You mustn't assume that you can swap the income tax for a sales tax.
You'll get both that way.
As for immigration policy, that's a constitutional mandate. They haven't
worried about their constitutional duties for a long time now.
They won't start tomorrow. Nor next January...nor January 2013. Just
like with children, you have to be more determined than them. One sign
of weakness, and it's all over.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
No thanks, I don't go to Wikipedia on a full stomach.
Well, unless I have the time to edit the articles.
Cliff
A haven for criminals.
They become rethugs.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> >From just weeks after the Golf of Tonkin incident,
>>
>> Faked up by the US wingers.
>> Are they still in jail?
>
>Yet one more of an endless string of bad guesses.
Gulf is spelled "G U L F".
It was your guess, not mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
"In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was
declassified; it concluded ..."
"It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is
that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in
nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2."
"After the coastal attacks began, Hanoi lodged a complaint with the
International Control Commission (ICC), which had been established in 1954 to
oversee the terms of the Geneva Accords, but the US denied any involvement. Four
years later, US Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted to Congress
that the US ships had in fact been cooperating in the South Vietnamese attacks
against North Vietnam."
"What was (and is) generally not considered by US politicians at the time (and
by later historians) were the other actions taken under Operations Plan 34-Alpha
just prior to the incidents. The night before the launching of the actions
against North Vietnamese facilities on Hon Me and Hon Ngu islands, the SOG had
launched a covert long-term agent team into North Vietnam, which was promptly
captured. That night (for the second evening in a row) two flights of
CIA-sponsored Laotian fighter-bombers (piloted by Thai mercenaries) attacked
border outposts well within southwestern North Vietnam. The Hanoi government
(unlike the US government, which had to give permission at the highest levels
for the conduct of these missions) probably assumed that they were all a
coordinated effort to escalate military actions against North Vietnam."
"At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews
to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G,
the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial
action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the
Vietnamese boats fired first."
"Despite the Navy�s claim that two attacking torpedo boats had been sunk,
there was no wreckage, bodies of dead Vietnamese sailors, or other physical
evidence present at the scene of the alleged engagement."
[
At 0127 Washington time, Herrick sent a cable in which he admitted that the
attack may never have happened and that there may actually have been no
Vietnamese craft in the area: "Review of action makes many reported contacts and
torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager
sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by
Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken".[13]
One hour later, Herrick sent another cable, stating, "Entire action leaves many
doubts except for apparent ambush at beginning. Suggest thorough reconnaissance
in daylight by aircraft."[14] In response to requests for confirmation, at
around 1600 Washington time, Herrick cabled, "Details of action present a
confusing picture although certain that the original ambush was bona fide."[14]
At 1800 Washington time (0500 in the Gulf of Tonkin), Herrick cabled yet again,
this time stating, "the first boat to close the Maddox probably launched a
torpedo at the Maddox which was heard but not seen. All subsequent Maddox
torpedo reports are doubtful in that it is suspected that sonarman was hearing
ship's own propeller beat"
]
IOW Never happened.
AND the ship really had no business being there in the first place.
See maps.
[
The use of the set of incidents as a pretext for escalation of U.S. involvement
follows the issuance of public threats against North Vietnam, as well as calls
from American politicians in favor of escalating the war
]
"In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a
historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA
deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to
policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded that the
motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence
errors"
IOW The wingers lied to beef up a stupid war.
--
Cliff
Cliff
You trying to get gummer to pay taxes?
Good luck with that !!
---
Cliff
Cliff
>As for immigration policy, that's a constitutional mandate.
Where?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>One sign
>of weakness, and it's all over.
That's like lying, right?
--
Cliff
Cliff
Easier to copy than to write myself. Plus link has more clues for you.
>Your cite doesn't disprove anything I wrote, and it doesn't support
>anything you wrote.
Did they have any problems?
>The Federal Reserve Act didn't give the US a currency, and the US had
>it's own currency before the establishment of the Bank of the United
>States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
[
In the last decade of the eighteenth century the United States had just three
banks but more than fifty different currencies in circulation: English, Spanish,
French, Portuguese coinage, scrip issued by states, cities, backwood stores, and
big city enterprises. The values of these currencies were wildly unstable,
thereby making it a paradise for politically indifferent currency speculators
thriving on uncertainty. In addition, the value and exchange rate was almost
always outdated or unknown by the party agreeing to receive it, especially the
farther it moved away from the coast; and because of distances, primitive roads,
and absence of communications technology, values were not only unknown but
unknowable as well. Speculators in the United States bought up bonds for about
15 cents and through Hamilton's plan were paid their face value of one dollar.
Supporters of the bank argued that if the nation were to grow and to prosper, it
needed a universally accepted standard coinage and this would best be provided
by a United States Mint, aided and supported by a national bank and an excise
tax.
]
>Did you post the Wiki cite because you're in over your head and couldn't
>determine how to make a cogent reply?
"Unless you are using some other nation's money you need
your own national source & bank." - Cliff
See how that works yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
You don't grasp the concept of "money".
It's one of the earliest and the one of the greatest of human inventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
Now, about fire & the wheel ... and 1+1 ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
ONLY with the provision of those elections which were then to reunify
the one nation.
How did those elections turn out?
>
>
>> >As soon as South Vietnam was created with a demarcation line at the 17th
>> >Parallel, 500,000 Catholics fled to the south.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conference_(1954)
>
>Is Wiki the first thing that pops up in a Google search?
Nope but good enough.
>It is, innit?
OTOH I knew about it in the first place. I just needed a good source to
copy from. Saves typing & better written to boot.
>So I was wrong again, it 800,000 to 1 million, most of whom were Roman
>Catholics.
See the CIA propaganda bits?
Note that the dictator had Catholic support?
>The Communist revolutionaries in the south were under the command and
>control of the CPV (Vietnam Workers Party). They did what they were
>ordered to do.
How were the elections?
>
>Of course.
WHY were the people upset with the dictators the US imposed?
--
Cliff
Cliff
You are probably banned then.
I doubt that they like wingers lying.
--
Cliff
Beam Me Up Scotty
Hey Genius, all 50 states have a State tax..... my point is to get rid
of the income tax, no one would be stupid enough to have both a sales
tax and an income tax would they?
> You mustn't assume that you can swap the income tax for a sales tax.
That is the only way it works.
> You'll get both that way.
NO... all that needs to be done is amend the constitution that repeals
the income tax and states that the two... sales tax and income tax can
never exist at the same time.
> As for immigration policy, that's a constitutional mandate. They haven't
> worried about their constitutional duties for a long time now.
>
> They won't start tomorrow. Nor next January...nor January 2013. Just
> like with children, you have to be more determined than them. One sign
> of weakness, and it's all over.
That is true.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
All 50 states have a State Sales tax..... my point is to get rid
of the income tax, no one would be stupid enough to want or have both a
sales tax and an income tax would they?
> You mustn't assume that you can swap the income tax for a sales tax.
That is the only way it works.
> You'll get both that way.
NO... all that needs to be done is amend the constitution that repeals
the income tax and states that the two... sales tax and income tax can
never exist at the same time.
> As for immigration policy, that's a constitutional mandate. They haven't
> worried about their constitutional duties for a long time now.
>
> They won't start tomorrow. Nor next January...nor January 2013. Just
> like with children, you have to be more determined than them. One sign
> of weakness, and it's all over.
That is true.
--
Scott
message news:4b8804bb$0$3593$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
> All 50 states have a State Sales tax..... my point is to get rid
> of the income tax, no one would be stupid enough to want or have both a
> sales tax and an income tax would they?
Wrong. Oregon, for one, has no sales tax, but after the state and feds get
done, you loose about 31 to 40% of your earned income before you ever get
the chance to see a paycheck.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Then why did you cite Wikipedia?
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Botany Bay.
Neolibertarian
Son, my state has both a sales tax and an income tax. Mine isn't the
only one in the Union by far.
Why wouldn't Congress want the same arrangement?
>
>
> > You mustn't assume that you can swap the income tax for a sales tax.
>
> That is the only way it works.
You say that now.
But if that's a non-negotiable condition, you've just erected an almost
insurmountable obstacle to enacting the change.
>
>
> > You'll get both that way.
>
> NO... all that needs to be done is amend the constitution that repeals
> the income tax and states that the two... sales tax and income tax can
> never exist at the same time.
Even more insurmountable.
Politics is the art of the possible and practical.
>
>
> > As for immigration policy, that's a constitutional mandate. They haven't
> > worried about their constitutional duties for a long time now.
> >
> > They won't start tomorrow. Nor next January...nor January 2013. Just
> > like with children, you have to be more determined than them. One sign
> > of weakness, and it's all over.
> That is true.
Boy howdy.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Article IV obligates the United States government to defend all the
states against invasion.
The US Congress and Executive have refused to enforce their own rules
and related laws, resulting in an unabated invasion of non-naturalized
foreign citizens here illegally.
Various Congresses since have openly published statements and census
statistics proving their negligence.
Relating to the obligation to enforce the borders is Article I's
establishment of the power to regulate naturalization. And the 14th
Amendment's negative reinforcement of this power.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Truth isn't dependent upon whether or not you, or anyone else, "likes"
it.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:02:14 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >From just weeks after the Golf of Tonkin incident,
> >>
> >> Faked up by the US wingers.
> >> Are they still in jail?
> >
> >Yet one more of an endless string of bad guesses.
>
> Gulf is spelled "G U L F".
True.
> It was your guess, not mine.
Your Wikipedia cite is irrelevant to the discussion. It's certainly
irrelevant to your wrong guess about Chen Jian being a "lying winger,"
or that Deng Xiaoping, who first opened the Chinese Communist Party
records, was part of some "US winger" fakery.
Beam Me Up Scotty
I was wrong there are 5 States without sales tax and Alaska has NO sales
tax and no income tax.
--
Scott
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
And dividend checks.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> "Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
> message news:4b88995f$0$10209$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
>> On 2/26/2010 6:12 PM, Scott wrote:
>>> "Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
>>> message news:4b8804bb$0$3593$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
>>>
>>>> All 50 states have a State Sales tax..... my point is to get rid
>>>> of the income tax, no one would be stupid enough to want or have both a
>>>> sales tax and an income tax would they?
>>>
>>> Wrong. Oregon, for one, has no sales tax, but after the state and feds
>>> get
>>> done, you loose about 31 to 40% of your earned income before you ever get
>>> the chance to see a paycheck.
>>
>> I was wrong there are 5 States without sales tax and Alaska has NO sales
>> tax and no income tax.
>
> And dividend checks.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/08taxdis.html
--