Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
PICK3
New member
President Obama is sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to help local forces battle the Lord's Resistance Army
Read more: Obama Sends U.S. Troops To Central Africa To Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group | Fox News
How cum Barry doesn't send teh drones after their arses?
- Thread starter PICK3
- Start date
President Obama is sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to help local forces battle the Lord's Resistance Army
Read more: Obama Sends U.S. Troops To Central Africa To Aid Campaign Against Rebel Group | Fox News
Brothabillmatrix
New member
Or intelligence reports show an increasing chatter between LRA and Al Qaeda offshootss such as in Yemen and other places. Cut off the head before it grows more or more importantly, plants roots and learns how to grow more heads in that part of Africa.
You want another safe haven in Africa, maybe sending a quick message deters other warlords.
How many angles do you guys miss in this one?
You want another safe haven in Africa, maybe sending a quick message deters other warlords.
How many angles do you guys miss in this one?
javaguru
Banned
Indeed, and Vietnam was so essential to our national security we sent advisers in 1961...
At least in Vietnam they could justify a vast Soviet/Chinese Communist conspiracy that wanted to overwhelm the world. These terrorists can't even measure up to the standards of Carlos the Jackal and the other old timey 70's favorites. They can't figure out the basic chemistry of how to make a bomb that might bring down a plane if positioned properly or kill a dozen people under optimal conditions. The fact our government has fear mongered a bunch of third world incompetents to the level of the Soviet Union during the cold war where a full scale nuclear exchange would have actually devastated society says volumes about the society we live in. This year, roughly 40k Americans will die from influenza....just like every other year, a preventable condition, and how many Americans have died in terrorist attacks in the past 100 years...far less than that....This year more Americans will die in auto accidents than in the past 100 years from terrorist attacks....
redsamurai
Banned
yes, "advisors" soon become "airstrike only". Didn't the whole libya thing start out with "advisors"?
this is getting gay, just stop. And I'm one who normally feels it would be right to help some of these people out around the world but it's gettin to the point where any involvement on our part just fucks us down the road. We really have lost the global credibility to do stuff like this. People anymore have no idea are we there to actually help or is there some ulterior self serving motive blah blah blah....just stay out of shit for awhile till we fix things here.
this is getting gay, just stop. And I'm one who normally feels it would be right to help some of these people out around the world but it's gettin to the point where any involvement on our part just fucks us down the road. We really have lost the global credibility to do stuff like this. People anymore have no idea are we there to actually help or is there some ulterior self serving motive blah blah blah....just stay out of shit for awhile till we fix things here.
Brothabillmatrix
New member
Java, if it were only mean trying to justify that you were homicidal stalker to a nuse in Ohio, it would be so easy. Such is the good old times, turns out she was the stalker and cut off my penis and fed it to your dad, which he enjoyed and your mom asked for seconds
(it was only my foreskin of course)
Of course if only my boorish attempts at juvenile humor would at all move you from saying *yawn* to them, I might continue with them. Sadly, I know you are far too old to far for the juvenile insults that might affect the youth, as in your youth is wasted on this thinking.
Let's just go out and live man! We can can't change this shit! Let's fly balloons and ballasts and shoot rockets up Uranus (not in a gay way, just aim that way- towards the universe).
How often do we want to rule the world, like some Alexander the Great? Well I do have this magic potion, it costs 99$- just as a teaser. Then you can rule and be the benevolent well ruler of all you create in your mind. Essentially, I have a god in an oil, for less than a hundred thousand bucks, and for you, my friend, less than a hundred!
Because I trust you with such power. That is my bond to you.
So how would you like to pay for that my soon to be omnipotent one? Wire transfer, westernunion?
Most wars begin by fighting the last war, then machine guns came, then tanks, then chemical weapons about the same time, then smart bombs, then came the internet, where the next war is already being fought. If you took my potion, for only one dollar less than a hundred. I could show you the outside view.
A HUGE TICKET OF dimethyltryptiline DMT, the spirit molecule. Administered in a safe university medical center. Be part of DARPA
(it was only my foreskin of course)
Of course if only my boorish attempts at juvenile humor would at all move you from saying *yawn* to them, I might continue with them. Sadly, I know you are far too old to far for the juvenile insults that might affect the youth, as in your youth is wasted on this thinking.
Let's just go out and live man! We can can't change this shit! Let's fly balloons and ballasts and shoot rockets up Uranus (not in a gay way, just aim that way- towards the universe).
How often do we want to rule the world, like some Alexander the Great? Well I do have this magic potion, it costs 99$- just as a teaser. Then you can rule and be the benevolent well ruler of all you create in your mind. Essentially, I have a god in an oil, for less than a hundred thousand bucks, and for you, my friend, less than a hundred!
Because I trust you with such power. That is my bond to you.
So how would you like to pay for that my soon to be omnipotent one? Wire transfer, westernunion?
Most wars begin by fighting the last war, then machine guns came, then tanks, then chemical weapons about the same time, then smart bombs, then came the internet, where the next war is already being fought. If you took my potion, for only one dollar less than a hundred. I could show you the outside view.
A HUGE TICKET OF dimethyltryptiline DMT, the spirit molecule. Administered in a safe university medical center. Be part of DARPA
javaguru
Banned
Apparently this group has been operating for about twenty years...
Candidate Barry on genocide...
From the transcript of his debate with John McCain...
"And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.
But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time."
javaguru
Banned
Is this the response a hundred chimps with typewriters could theoretically produce? I suspect that's an over reach based on the coherence of the response...I could include a dictionary program in a grade school grammar algorithm that would be more coherent and thoughtful in its response...just sayin'.
Brothabillmatrix
New member
Jaba, seriously
How many years have you been typing and droning on about your views anonymously to "vent" on the internet?
All for not my friend
Tirelessly punching the keyboard as you sit with endless annoyance at how stupid the rest of mankind is. The whole time, you couldve went out at a touched a child's hand, smelled a flower. Instead you wasted a decade of your life droning to nothingness, nothing ever changed b/c of your thoughts. You wrote them for YOUR benefit. Why don't you do something for someone else's benefit for once, besides walking your dog. Get out of your shell mate
And that will be, like I promised, 1 penny less than a hundred
you have a lifetime to pay it and each time you do a personal good act for someone else instead of typing on the internet, I will deduct one penny
~God
The last edit wasnt from me- that was like Dog spelled backards or some weird
How many years have you been typing and droning on about your views anonymously to "vent" on the internet?
All for not my friend
Tirelessly punching the keyboard as you sit with endless annoyance at how stupid the rest of mankind is. The whole time, you couldve went out at a touched a child's hand, smelled a flower. Instead you wasted a decade of your life droning to nothingness, nothing ever changed b/c of your thoughts. You wrote them for YOUR benefit. Why don't you do something for someone else's benefit for once, besides walking your dog. Get out of your shell mate
And that will be, like I promised, 1 penny less than a hundred
you have a lifetime to pay it and each time you do a personal good act for someone else instead of typing on the internet, I will deduct one penny
~God
The last edit wasnt from me- that was like Dog spelled backards or some weird
Last edited:
Don't waste your energy... He does not need your oil. Java is already a god, his own.
First, was Vietnam really a threat to our national security? We had advisors in Vietnam way before 1961. The CIA were advising the French in 1954. The CIA built the French a military garrison at Dien Bien Phu. The French refused to listen to the CIA, so they did not utilize the garrison. Consequently, the Viet Minh used the garrison the CIA built and slaughtered the French. For the record, the CIA's intel was absolutely perfect during the Vietnam Conflict. You have to give them Ivy League pukes their props when it comes to the Vietnam Conflict. However, the bureaucrats did not listen because they did not want to win that war.
Do you really believe the Domino Effect Theory was true?? Do you really know the real reason why we went overt in Indo-China? Hint, I already gave you the story they sold to the American people. Do you really believe the Soviets were really that big of a threat? Tell us a little about the Military-Industrial Complex. Tell us a little about "missle gap" philosophy. Tell us why fear mongering (McCarthyism) was allowed by the United States Government for a while. If you are capable, discern Kennan's "Containment Policy." What was the United State's policy on the Cold War? What was the proverbial Cold War really about? What is your take on the Cold War? I believe it was just a "theatre of war."
Compare and contrast the indigenous people of Africa to the indigenous people of Vietnam. You make it sound like the Vietnamese made their own military armaments.Moreover, you are making it quite clear nobody is backing the Africans, are you really sure?? I suppose the Viet Minh had the resources to make .50 cals and RPG's?? Are you sure the Viet Minh were not just little yellow skinned people hiding underground equipped with spears and rocks?? That is basically how you describe the people you say the Marines fought, "little brown skinned people." I love the racist undertones. I am sure the Vietnamese were well advanced in chemistry unlike these Africans, that is your persuasion, right? I am curious to know what your definition is of a "third world" country? It has nothing to do with being underdeveloped.
Your comparison of terrorism deaths to automobile deaths is awful. All you did was justify terrorsim. There are 300 million Americans, how many people drive a vehicle? The ones who do not drive probably are transported by a vehicle. This is an everyday perpetual occurrence, even if there was a terrorist attack or attempt everyday the death toll would not remotely come close to vehicular deaths unless they used nuclear weapons. One of the worst comparisons I have ever read especially coming from a so called historian. Evidently, Homeland Security has been doing an outstanding job preventing terrorist attacks. Therefore, why would you make such a ridiculous comparison? Are you trying to say terrorism is not a serious threat??
Your entire post is suspect. I am a little skeptical about your history aptitude and your geopolitical views. I thought you had a M.A. in History? You have called me out on numerous occasions to back my claims and I did! It is your turn, I am calling you out to explain your position. I have not victimized you lately, but I am willing. I caught five bodies this week, please be #6.
PICK3
New member
Lol I didn't mean that to be bitchy. He will take that as a compliment.
mrplunkey
New member
He'll see that as a sign of your e-crush on him.
redsamurai
Banned
and knowing full well that a bundle of em at least are gonna be terrorists. That's why we let people in that we know have "zero shot" at living any kind of dream life. We want them to get disenfranchised with the covert institutional racism here and eventually succumb to some charismatic firebrands that will get them to blow themselves up in some american establishment and kill some poor little white people. Then it's go time on that country for the next 10 years while we slowly siphon that country of it's resources.
javaguru
Banned
I wrote my undergrad thesis on how and why the United States became involved in Vietnam.
To make a long thesis short it was because the United States banked on the future of a democratic China, hence their place on the UN Security Council, and a non communist France; After the fall of China to communism the United States doubled down in Vietnam because of the political instability in France. The "Domino Theory" was just a manufactured justification to continue a war with no strategic purpose...France had stabilized....unless you consider Haiphong harbor being used as a military base by the Soviet Navy a major strategic reason for fighting an undeclared war costing tens of thousands of lives? Finally, the CIA's assassination of Diem sealed the fate of the war...just sayin... If you want the BMV of the feds running foreign policy then advocate for an imperial presidency.
The more the United States acts as the worlds dictator the more the world resents the United States. If you want to pursue an American hegemony then you will have the system as it exists today. Read, "The Pursuit of Power", by William McNeill..it was a textbook in my history of European warfare class (graduate level) and traces the military industrial complex from Babylon to the 20th century.
Even your heroes in the CIA claim terrorism is "blow back" based on U.S. foreign policy; But for United States foreign policy there would not have been a Sept. 11 attack or any of the "homegrown" attacks following.
My greatest strength as an analyst is that I have studied multiple disciplines and I can call on my science and math training to analyze the "hard issues" while understanding the "soft issues" of history and the social sciences. Statistics are pretty straightforward...you were more likely to die in a freak accident (not auto...shark attack) or a rare condition (flesh eating bacteria) than die in a terrorist attack in the United States. I'm pretty sure dying from a bee sting or falling in your home have created more casualties than terrorist attacks before homeland security existed.
Ledhead, if you want to soil your panties because some incompetent that hates America might finally be able to detonate a device that kills a handful of people...Really? We've lost more military personnel fighting 9/11 than people who died in 9/11.
Finally, I'll put on my lawyerin hat...
Homeland security finds a kid that may hate America and recruits him into a plot of jihad...They arrest him and he gets sentenced to decades in prison even though he had no chance of actually pulling off the plot he was encouraged to engage in...because he happened to hate policy and the feds are looking for people with a political view..
I'll put my math hat back on...you are no safer now than before 9/11. All the legitimate plots were either foiled by the incompetence of the perpetrator or completed(Ft. Hood,underwear bomber, Times Square bomber); Where was your big government?
We've had presidents assassinated by terrorists and not reacted like this...
It never amazes me on how oblivious people are to what‘s going on in the world. Watching Fox news and thinking its news.
America has been in eastern Africa for over a decade. Dropping bombs and performing operations.
You guys are in here debating 10 year old shit.
Somalia has been bombed, and Ethiopia has been bombed. Debating POTUS’ approval to move 200 miles south west is fucking stupid.
And now you guys have JAVA saying that America acts as the worlds dictator, HOLY FUCKING CROCK OF LIBRITARIAN SHIT.
I don't even know why I even opened this shit....
America has been in eastern Africa for over a decade. Dropping bombs and performing operations.
You guys are in here debating 10 year old shit.
Somalia has been bombed, and Ethiopia has been bombed. Debating POTUS’ approval to move 200 miles south west is fucking stupid.
And now you guys have JAVA saying that America acts as the worlds dictator, HOLY FUCKING CROCK OF LIBRITARIAN SHIT.
I don't even know why I even opened this shit....
mrplunkey
New member
u mad?
Thesis: The recolonization of Southeast Asia. You probably would have received an A if this was your thesis.
I take it you do not dig my apocalyptic assertions?? Yeah, it is true, I do have "blue blood." It appears, you have "bright red blood." I have a picture of the "Mayflower" hanging on the wall in my living room.
No, I never jusified Vietnam, you justified it in your first post in this thread. Now you are trying to recant your original position. That is the reason I called you out! The "Domino Theory" was an artificial front to garner public support to go overt in Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin incident "probably" never occurred. Many historians believe the whole thing was staged to whip-up public supppot to go overt in Nam. Evidently, you do not understand the difference between imperialism and neocolonialism. You say the U.S. doubled down in Vietnam because of political instability in France, I really do not know about that one. Why did the U.S. go overt in Korea?? Do you really believe it had do with stopping communism from spreading?? Was Diem better than Bao Dai or any of the other puppet presidents the agency put into power??? Your defintion of the Domino Effect is real scanty, come again.
Does the CIA feel responsible for creating terrorsim? Why? Did it have to do with them putting "the shah" to the throne in 1953? Do any of these events have to do with "multinationalism"? It does not matter, you still justified terrorsim.. and still cannot fill in the blanks.
I know the answers to the Cold War, so it is kind of not fair, but I want to check your knowledge. I think you just know surface stuff, and not the ins and outs. I will give you some hints. In 1945, the U.S. had 5% of the worlds population and between 50-60% of the worlds wealth. During that time the U.S. was the only country in the world to possess the "atomic bomb." Do you really believe communism was a real threat to America? I have the answers and will post them, I want to see if you can decode this. Does it have to with George Kennan's realpolitik view? What was America's Cold War policy? Check out, National Security Council, Paper Number 68. How does the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine relate to recolonization of Southeast Asia (Korean, Vietnam Wars)? Very important!
I do not need to read about the Military Industrial Complex, you need to explain America's philosophy behind it. You need to explain the United State's motives behind the "missle gap" theory.
Hang your math and lawyer hats, your post is loaded with conjecture and self assertions. Not enough certainties and probabilities in your post. Answer my questions, I gave you more hints than I give my kids.
javaguru
Banned
LOL at conflating the short lived nuclear dominance of the United States; The Soviets not only detonated a nuclear bomb shortly after but made it clear they had almost instantaneous access to US funded research; It also shows you have a complete lack of knowledge of logistics. The Soviet Union had the logistical capability to overwhelm all of Europe and most of Asia thanks to US supplied locomotives and trucks but they chose to respect their boundaries and establish "buffer states."
China was supposed to be the next great ally of the west against communism and after the fall of China to communism the United States redoubled their efforts to stem the spread of communism in Asia; It wasn't rational anymore than the cold war against Japan pre-WWII.
Like I stated, the United States took over Vietnam after Dien Bien Phu as part of the Marshal Plan to rebuild Europe because a failure of French colonial policy would destabilize the government....This is common knowledge...
If you want to understand US military policy post WWII....
China was supposed to be the next great ally of the west against communism and after the fall of China to communism the United States redoubled their efforts to stem the spread of communism in Asia; It wasn't rational anymore than the cold war against Japan pre-WWII.
Like I stated, the United States took over Vietnam after Dien Bien Phu as part of the Marshal Plan to rebuild Europe because a failure of French colonial policy would destabilize the government....This is common knowledge...
If you want to understand US military policy post WWII....
javaguru
Banned
IMO, after the Cold War ended the Bureaucrats had nothing to do...their purpose in life was demonizing communism...what happens after communism has clearly failed...It became about religion... The time old divider of humanity...The United States chose to support Israel over the Palestinians and occupy Muslim holy lands...not our business.
I understand U.S. Foreign policy during the cold war but post cold war foreign policy has been the same...Free trade and no intervention unless there is a direct foreign policy issue involved would be a better objective.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Last edited:
javaguru
Banned
My favorite founding father on the role of government....
"About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people — a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of the revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority — the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia — our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected — these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation."
- Thomas Jefferson
"About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people — a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of the revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority — the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia — our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected — these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation."
- Thomas Jefferson
The Soviets detonated their first bomb in 1949, four years after we did. That is hardly a "short" time when it comes to a battle for world dominance... The Soviets made it loud and clear they had access to U.S. funded research, lololol.... that would be called "missle gap," which you failed to figure out, again! Missle Gap was totally misleading. The fundamental reason for "missle gap" was to make your enemy think you had more bombs then them (theatre of war).. lol. A simultaneous bluff..
No, re-check the thread, you never mentioned the Marshall Plan, I gave that to you... Lol@ the Soviets respected anything or anybody.. What about the Berlin Airlift?? What about Stalin killing 31 million of his own countrymen? What about the Soviets abusing the people in the Eastern Bloc? They were nothing less than down trodden, thanks to the Soviets. Yeah, real respectful.. There is 4 yrs missing from your thesis that is crucial (1945-49). Why was China supposed to become our next great ally? You failed to answer my questions again because you are not capable..
You reverted back to using the "Domino Effect" as the reason to go overt in Vietnam. In your last post you agreed with me it was an artificial front to garner public support to go overt in Nam (multinationalism)..lol again.. You never answered why we went overt in Korea??? Very Important! What are you talking about Cold War against Japan pre-WWII? We supplied them with most of the material they needed to make war armaments, so they could enter WWII, and colinize Viet Nam, China, and Korea...and they did until the Marines fucked them up!
Bro, you whole post is seriously bad (no potshot). I can go on and on, but you refuse to answer my questions because you think I am using circumvention, I honestly am not.. All you did was assume, speculate, and use aphorisms to avoid expounding your thesis.. No certainties, some probabilities, no decisive, clear thesis. A whole lot of vacilating! Then you never answered the theory behind the Military Industrial Complex. Never answered any of the questions about the Middle East.
That video of Ike tells all....lol. I am sure Ike would have disclosed the "real" United State's National Security policy to the American people... you are being willfully naive..
I like Jefferson myself. However, he was part of the hypocrisy himself. He hated the "Central Bank." He thought it was a European socialist idea, which he wanted to splinter. That is why Jefferson and Hamilton hated one another. Anyway, he made the Lousiana Purchase, which I feel was the greatest economic transaction in the history of the U.S.. However, he withdrew the 15 million dollars to pay for the purchase out of the Central Bank, total hypocrisy! Moreover, he did not even get Congressional approval, he used executive power. Does that throw a wrench into the above declaration?
What about Jefferson implementing the Embargo Act, which caused a depression? What about him owning slaves?? I know historians say he hated slavery and could not do anything about abolitioning it, but it certainly did not stop him from exploiting slavery. After reading some of Jefferson's excerpts, I am not so sure he was in a hurry to abolish slavery nor do I really believe he felt blacks were white's equals. Maybe, a product of his time, I do not know?
I know one thing is for sure, He can never get with George Washington in any aspect of life. His IQ was probably higher than Washingtons, but that is all..
javaguru
Banned
Really, you have a complete lack of knowledge when it comes to basic 20th century history. I shouldn't have to explain the United States Support of Chiang Kai Shek over the Communist Mao...You need to look at the steel and oil embargo over the "rape of Nanking" that lead to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Considering that North Korea successfully detonated a primitive WWII era bomb, after detonating a nuke that was equivalent to a truckload of TNT.... and Iran that MIGHT detonate a WWII level device are considered major threats to United States security, roughly 60 years later...four years is pretty soon. Likewise, you're assuming nuclear arms are the same as conventional forces in deterrence. How many missiles did the United States have that could reach the Soviet Industrial centers in 1949 and how many fighting divisions? I'll answer my question about missiles...zero...How many divisions did the Soviet Union have to overrun Western Europe in 1949?
I can only assume your opinion is based on your apocalyptic Christian view of the world...
How dare you indirectly call me a Millerite! How dare you criticize me, you know I am above reproach... For the record, I am a "perfectionist." I am almost there! How dare you re-word my posts, nice try! That goes to show how some people cannot take defeat that well. People should know when they are conquered..
Fyi, I am an expert on 20th Century World History. Your incapability to comprehend my thesis is a leading indicator you are inept on this subject. I spoon fed you the information you needed, but you are stll unable to decode what the Cold War was really about. I love how you use aphorisms as a comprehensive tool..
Here is the deal, I will give you the summation of the Cold War in a concise, precise, and all-inclusive manner.
The Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and Kennan's Containment Policy all run parallel with one another. After WWII, America dominated the world via military and monetary. In order to SUSTAIN its world dominance the U.S. had to refurbish Europe because the U.S. needed Western Europe for mercantilism. Therefore, the U.S. could keep the money circulating, "sustaining" its dominance of the world's wealth (50%). Economics 101 says, "war creates wealth," there is "certainty" in this philosophy. Prior to WWII the U.S. was in the middle of a world depression. In 1939, the U.S. started making war armaments, the US ranked 16th on how well the countries who suffered from the depression did economically (very poor). Nevertheless, after WWII, the U.S. held 50% of the world's wealth with 5% of the world's population. WAR CREATES WEALTH... There are couple of factors to why war creates wealth, time will fail me right now. Significantly, if communism was that big of a threat, then why didn't the U.S. nuke the Soviet Union??? We had no problem bombing Japan. Remember, from 1945-1949 the U.S. was the ONLY country in the world who possessed the "atomic bomb." Theoretically, the U.S. needed an enemy to create a WAR MACHINE. That enemy was "communism." War creates wealth, the Soviets were pawns to sustain our wealth... Communism, Soviet Union, Korea, Vietnam, fear, paranoia, ideology, Eastern Bloc, Western Bloc, McCarthyism, Domino Effect and the Evil Empire are all names that keep one guessing and prevent one from asking the real questions.
Why was the Cold War started? Was communism that big of a threat?? Who was in control?Who had the wherewithal to start the Cold War? Who was playing puppet master?
Adamantly, the U.S. started the Cold War to create a war machine in order to sustain its wealth.. I talked to historians who have PhD's and 30 yrs of study under their belt, who focus on recent U.S. History, cannot debunk this theory.. There is enough "probability," and "certainty" in my theory that says I am just about right. Remember, history is "imperfect," it is all about certainties and probabilities...
In relation to Japan, the reason why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was the U.S. enticed them because America needed an excuse to enter WWII. The Japanese invaded Southern China where we had multinational interests, so the U.S. levied sanctions on Japan. Knowing, the Japanese's only outlet was to attack the United States. Consequently, they attacked, we entered the war, and at the end we became the wealthiest country in the world. Brilliant plan, if you ask me...
Last edited:
javaguru
Banned
1. You are a self proclaimed expert...what is your pedigree? What have you published in peer reviewed journals?
2. The Soviet Union was perfectly capable of taking the rest of western Europe after WWII, that's why Patton was muzzled for his inflammatory statements towards war with the Soviet Union. The United States and western allies never faced more than 10% of the Wehrmacht fighting strength and the United States was so hurting for manpower in infantry divisions, even with a draft, they disbanded support units to provide replacements as early as 1943. Likewise, the United States was out of nukes at the end of WWII and would need bombers to deliver imaginary bombs to the major productions centers in the Soviet Union which were beyond the physical range of a B-29. The same realities that foiled the Nazis would only have been exacerbated in any United States campaign in Europe.
3. War doesn't create wealth, it's a Keynesian fallacy, if I burn down your house and you have to pay for it to be rebuilt are you wealthier? If I burn down your house and the Feds pay for it to be rebuilt are you wealthier? At best, war simply transfers resources in a very inefficient manner...look at cost plus accounting and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...misallocation of resources doesn't help anyone, that's what caused the economic crisis.
4. My god...and I'm an atheist...Why didn't the United States nuke the Soviet Union by 1949?...You can read Truman's personal letters about his feelings on the use of nukes with Japan and even if he wanted to there was no political will for a third world war.
2. The Soviet Union was perfectly capable of taking the rest of western Europe after WWII, that's why Patton was muzzled for his inflammatory statements towards war with the Soviet Union. The United States and western allies never faced more than 10% of the Wehrmacht fighting strength and the United States was so hurting for manpower in infantry divisions, even with a draft, they disbanded support units to provide replacements as early as 1943. Likewise, the United States was out of nukes at the end of WWII and would need bombers to deliver imaginary bombs to the major productions centers in the Soviet Union which were beyond the physical range of a B-29. The same realities that foiled the Nazis would only have been exacerbated in any United States campaign in Europe.
3. War doesn't create wealth, it's a Keynesian fallacy, if I burn down your house and you have to pay for it to be rebuilt are you wealthier? If I burn down your house and the Feds pay for it to be rebuilt are you wealthier? At best, war simply transfers resources in a very inefficient manner...look at cost plus accounting and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...misallocation of resources doesn't help anyone, that's what caused the economic crisis.
4. My god...and I'm an atheist...Why didn't the United States nuke the Soviet Union by 1949?...You can read Truman's personal letters about his feelings on the use of nukes with Japan and even if he wanted to there was no political will for a third world war.
You are certainly the most evangelical atheist I have ever had the displeasure to encounter. Truman was a commie sympathizer and a pussy. The US could have easily blasted the Soviets off the map, if they would have listened to Patton... But they let spies in the White House who stole our nuke blue prints then sold them to the Soviets. However, the Soviets did not dentonate their first bomb until 1949, plenty of time for the US to obliterate them... Churchill knew to get rid of them, but like I said, Truman was a pussy... My theory has yet to be debunked, you certainly did not do it.. And precisely my point, communsim was not that big of a threat because if it was Russia would have got it... Timetables are very important, the Soviets did not even really have a successful bomb dentonation until the 50's.. That goes back to the theatre of war and the "missle gap" theory.. Think on a different level.. Stop regurgitating what you have been taught, do your own research, that is what real historians do. Stop taking things at face value! I gave you my own theory... Give us your own theory instead of some elses' Stop listening to the mainstream media and one side of the story.. Investigate both sides then come up with an analysis.
Last edited:
javaguru
Banned
I wrote most of my papers with a logistical bent....The United States could barely supply the troops moving into western Germany, Patton himself was forced to stop due to a lack of supplies, let alone muster enough bodies and the logistical capability to pursue a conflict against the Soviet Union. There is a reason a general staff was created to manage strategic conflict because narcissistic self-promoting field generals can't make up their own facts to advise the political leadership.
The Atlas D, the first nuke armed US ICBM wasn't developed until 1959....The Soviet R-7 became operational in 1960...
Before ICBM's, bombers were needed to deliver payloads...good luck delivering nukes the United States didn't have because we dropped both bombs we had on Japan...
javaguru
Banned
War doesn't create wealth...just because you burned down everyone elses house in your neighborhood doesn't make your house more valuable...it simply means you eliminated the competition by destroying their wealth. Blowing up a factory in Germany didn't make a factory in Michigan more productive it simply misallocated resources based on a government policy.
I doubt you understand where I'm going with this so I'll clarify....GDP as it's calculated, the basis of your argument, is a joke. Government spending should not be included in GDP and imports should NOT be subtracted from GDP because imports create wealth by re-allocating resources by the consumers. After all, the Soviet Union had a solid GDP compared to the United States during the 1970's even though their real economic power was pathetic due to their reliance on central government planning and expenditure.
I doubt you understand where I'm going with this so I'll clarify....GDP as it's calculated, the basis of your argument, is a joke. Government spending should not be included in GDP and imports should NOT be subtracted from GDP because imports create wealth by re-allocating resources by the consumers. After all, the Soviet Union had a solid GDP compared to the United States during the 1970's even though their real economic power was pathetic due to their reliance on central government planning and expenditure.
javaguru;[B said:
Here is the deal, I guess you "doubted" that I would pick up on your plagiarism. The anaolgy you used and refused to cite belongs to Economist Henry Hazlitt, who wrote for the New York Times during FDR's tenure. The rest of your post belongs to F.A. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom. I like Hayek myself, and for the most part hate Keynes. However, "war creates wealth" if it is done correctly. Like I been trying to tell you, if you claim to be an historian you have to let go of your ideology and come up with the most facts or probabilities or certainties. How did the U.S. become the wealthiest country in the world after WWII? What did Hitler do to get Germany's economy booming? What about the Opium Wars? What about the 16th and 17th century British Empire?? What about the Roman Empire... How did they get so wealthy???
Let's talk in 19th and 20th century terms.
When a country went to war they mobilized millions of men and women and sent them abroad (consumption plummeted). Then that country made war armaments, which employed millions of people to make the material. Subsequently, unemployment pretty much drindled to nothing. Nonetheless, they had to pay for the war, so how did they pay for the war? Either by raising taxes or by plundering that country they went to war with, and then set up mercantilism... That was/ is the main objective to war. (Rise of the modern World). To imperialize to create wealth. The 20th and 21st century term is called "recolinization." Hayek and Keynes both made good arguments. However, to my dismay, I give Keynes the nod on this one, history is 20/20... If done correctly "war creates wealth." There is no doubt!! On war Keynes is on spot, however, the rest of his economic policies are wrong.
Dude, I'm done taking potshots at you, at least you debate unlike others. Bro, how in the world can you make an assumption that "imports create wealth by re-allocating resources"? There are two things very wrong with your statement. First, Economics 101 says, if you are importing more than exporting you are in a economic downturn. In other words a "trade deficit," which "usually" means you are not manufacturing you own goods. Which leads to less jobs, creating more unemployment. The whole essence of economics is "scarcity." There is never enough to go around.. The U.S. never had a trade deficit until the 1930's (the worst economic downturn in US history). Jefferson, who we both like, implemented the Embargo Act, which led to no trade, which lead to a depression.. Whatever country has the most resources has the advantage.. Because you can fend for yourself and sell the surplus abroad accumulating wealth.... Second, your term "re-allocating resources" is a communist term.. Remember, communism is when a government controls the state and homogenizes goods to its people.
No, if anyone was spread thin it was the Nazis, they fought a two front war?? No, we had nukes in 1946. YES we did, look into it more... The Soviets bluffed about their nukes, YES, Their silos were empty. The U.S. knew ever move they were going to make, the U.S. knew them inside and out...They were NO threat at all... I will expound more later...
Last edited:
javaguru
Banned
sigh....
You are speaking in 19th century Keynesian terms...we live in a non Keynesian world...I would respond...Why did all the militaristic empires you mentioned as a reason for war creating wealth collapse? There was a misallocation towards war as opposed to trade...I have purchased a cheap PC manufactured in China and used it to make wealth. If someone can purchase cheap clothing imported from China they can turn around and decide to purchase a Ford or Chrysler with the money saved that would have been spent paying someone for over priced goods. Likewise, why not levy import duties based on states, after all, southern states are producing goods much more cheaply than northern states... If you purchase a Honda or GM vehicle they both have the same amount of parts manufactured domestically...You're lost in antiquated and debunked economic ideology.
Ummm...that means the United States was a communist country during WWII and Korea? Look at price controls and central control of the economy...socialist and authoritarian yes but communist not so much...
I'm a consultant in manufacturing and there are wild claims made about manufacturing jobs lost...and they have been but those lost have been due to advances in technology and labor intensive manufacturing (jobs Americans don't like). The actual labor cost difference between a third world country and the United States is 10% of a products cost...the real liability is regulation.
The Nazi's did fight a two front war but never committed more than 10% of their fighting strength to Italy and France. In 1941 a single Soviet factory in the Urals produced more tanks in a year than the Wehrmacht possessed...
You are speaking in 19th century Keynesian terms...we live in a non Keynesian world...I would respond...Why did all the militaristic empires you mentioned as a reason for war creating wealth collapse? There was a misallocation towards war as opposed to trade...I have purchased a cheap PC manufactured in China and used it to make wealth. If someone can purchase cheap clothing imported from China they can turn around and decide to purchase a Ford or Chrysler with the money saved that would have been spent paying someone for over priced goods. Likewise, why not levy import duties based on states, after all, southern states are producing goods much more cheaply than northern states... If you purchase a Honda or GM vehicle they both have the same amount of parts manufactured domestically...You're lost in antiquated and debunked economic ideology.
Ummm...that means the United States was a communist country during WWII and Korea? Look at price controls and central control of the economy...socialist and authoritarian yes but communist not so much...
I'm a consultant in manufacturing and there are wild claims made about manufacturing jobs lost...and they have been but those lost have been due to advances in technology and labor intensive manufacturing (jobs Americans don't like). The actual labor cost difference between a third world country and the United States is 10% of a products cost...the real liability is regulation.
The Nazi's did fight a two front war but never committed more than 10% of their fighting strength to Italy and France. In 1941 a single Soviet factory in the Urals produced more tanks in a year than the Wehrmacht possessed...
So, what does any of this have to do what we are talking about???? What is your point?? I proved the Soviets were no threat to the U.S. The Nazis were spread thin, they were everywhere.. That is why historians say they lost...but I say, they lost because the Core rocked their world...
Again, your whole post is full of aphorisms, the latest sound bite of the local news, no insightful information, lack of depth, lack of knowledge on hist, eco and everthing else...
I am bored with you....
redsamurai
Banned
led, the logistics of an invasion of the old soviet union...just the logistics bor, dude...think about it. Yeah the soviets weren't churning out enough supplies to cover all of thier trooops, that is true. But god what a logistical nightmare that woudl have been. And we would have been on our own. What was France gonna help us? The british war machine had been decimated by the Germans, they would have been of little to no help. Plus most of Europe was pretty much grateful to anyone that helped destroy the Nazi's so a move against Russia would likely have been a "let them boys duke it out on their own" scenario. We could "never" have held Russia...we could have won many battles but there's absolutely no way in hell we could have subdued the Russians.
Bro, the argument was about unconventional warfare not conventional! Considering your post for a second, I think the Marines would have laughed in your face for saying such an unpatriotic statement.. Besides, the Marines landed in Russia during the Russian Revolution, and were kicked out by Wilson because they were murdering everything and everybody, even inanimated objects were being destroyed by the Marines. Remember, Marines wipeout ecosystems...Wilson, who was a commie lover did not want the core to commit genocide on his commie cousins...
"God has a hard on for Marines, because we kill everything we see. He plays His games, we play ours. To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls. God was here before the Marine Corps, so you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the corps."
redsamurai
Banned
1) exactly what is unpatriotic about saying a tour through the old soviet union would have cost money and lives that would have been indescribeable. Of course our soldiers had some superiority but we were running low on our war machine as well. I mean how many people died during ww2? Whatever number it is you can triple it if not quad it going through the soviet union.
2) and what primate said that quote by the way?
Again, the thread was about unconventional warfare (nuclear war). If you get time read the entire thread and you will see what the argument is about.. It is unpatriotic to say the United States military would have lost if they would have had a ground war with the Soviets.. I am a jingoist. I have "blue blood." I am a third generation Marine. My grandpa fought in the Pacific in WWII, my father fought in Vietnam, and I fought in Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Samolia... And we all agreed on one thing, the core never loses... That was intrenched in me long before I arrived at Parris Island. Ship Date: July 10, 1989........
Anyway, 550,000 Americans died in WWII... The quote is from Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. Senior Drill Instructor Hartman is accredited with the quote.
I will get into this a little more tomorrow, I am too tired tonight. There is a lot to it...
PICK3
New member
"The name's Francis Soyer.
But everybody calls me Psycho.
Any of you guys call me Francis,
and I'll kill you.
You just made the list, buddy.
And I don't like nobody
touching my stuff!
So just keep your meat hooks off.
If I catch any of you guys
in my stuff, I'll kill you.
Also, I don't like
nobody touching me.
Now, any of you homos...
...touch me, and I'll kill you."
Conrad Dunn as Pvt. Francis "Psycho" Soyer (Stripes, 1981)
But everybody calls me Psycho.
Any of you guys call me Francis,
and I'll kill you.
You just made the list, buddy.
And I don't like nobody
touching my stuff!
So just keep your meat hooks off.
If I catch any of you guys
in my stuff, I'll kill you.
Also, I don't like
nobody touching me.
Now, any of you homos...
...touch me, and I'll kill you."
Conrad Dunn as Pvt. Francis "Psycho" Soyer (Stripes, 1981)
redsamurai
Banned
Lol at the corp never loses....war makes a mockery of such notions. Vietnam is a perfect example. The vietnamese were peasants being fed arms by the soviets and the chinese, we killed WAY more of them then they killed of us....but we still technically lost cause nobody wins in a shithole.
Running through the old soviet union, dude...can you not see how much worse that would have been for us then vietnam? The soviets were no joke dude even if we were better. That's a massive place to invade. You can say all you want about marines but if the supply lines get drawn out they lose, period end of discussion. And the supply lines into Russia would have gotten drawn out. It would have taken every country in Europe to help us. Even the Germans. I mean look what happened to the Germans when they went there....yes they were fighting many different fronts but it wouldn't have mattered and even they admitted it. It's possible that even if America had aligned with the Nazi's we still might not have succeeded in Russia. You would have needed millions of troops in Russia for years to subdue that place.
Nobody questions what happens when the americans first go somewhere, but if we're having problems maintaining places like afghanistan and Iraq, what the hell would have happened in Russia?
Running through the old soviet union, dude...can you not see how much worse that would have been for us then vietnam? The soviets were no joke dude even if we were better. That's a massive place to invade. You can say all you want about marines but if the supply lines get drawn out they lose, period end of discussion. And the supply lines into Russia would have gotten drawn out. It would have taken every country in Europe to help us. Even the Germans. I mean look what happened to the Germans when they went there....yes they were fighting many different fronts but it wouldn't have mattered and even they admitted it. It's possible that even if America had aligned with the Nazi's we still might not have succeeded in Russia. You would have needed millions of troops in Russia for years to subdue that place.
Nobody questions what happens when the americans first go somewhere, but if we're having problems maintaining places like afghanistan and Iraq, what the hell would have happened in Russia?
Apparently, you are determined to piss me off... I already put the stats up for Vietnam... The Marines kicked the NVAs ass all over the place... Not the VC (farmers with pitchfolks). The highly trained and highly motivated NVA. My father is a "primary source," he said the NVA would hump 15 miles out of their way to avoid the Marines... He fought at Khe Sahn... the Marines destroyed the NVA, 16,000 KIA'ed opposed to 200 Marines KIA'ed... 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam. 2-3 million Vietnamese died. My Colonel, who did 3 tours in Nam, said, the Marines were responsible for at least 500,000 NVA deaths. No bombings, just straight-up, hand to hand combat...Does that sound like the Marines lost? NO, the USA lost politically, but not in a military manner...
javaguru
Banned
Keynesian economics are based on 19th century and earlier thinking...as were Hayeks...
"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." -Hayek
You have yet to explain how the United States could have delivered enough nuclear weapons deep into the interior of the Soviet Union to "defeat them" in 1946 when our ability to produce nukes was limited as well as a bomber capable of penetrating deep into the Soviet Union from bases in France and England. If you understood anything about the history of the former Soviet Union you would realize that traditional centers of mass don't really matter and they have an amazing ability to mobilize their population to fight "patriotic wars" even though they had a more diverse population than the United States...
Also, you misspelled corps...
Your whole post sounds good. However, you failed to back you claims, again, so I disown your entire post... Second, that is how we say Corps, CORE, which you are not qualified to correct me..
redsamurai
Banned
you don't read well did i not state that in combat we owned the vietnamese? There was just too many of em and we couldn't keep what we gained. THAT IS A FACT and exactly what's going on in the middle east. There's a playbood now on how to beat the U.S....you barely fight em. Of course we killed 2-3 times more vietnamese, but we still LOST in the end. And as well we should have cause we had no business being there in the first place. THe vietnamese didn't want us. If we hadn't pulled out of vietnam we'd still be there.....now if you want to call that a "win", well then fine but we have two greatly differing definitions of "a win"
I mentioned weapons were going this way a solid year ago...I got crickets
and hope I do now too
and hope I do now too
redsamurai
Banned
everybody lost on that one...you can quibble over who killed more cong, but everybody lost. It was a shithole and like I explained already, nobody wins in a shithole. THe problem was that once the army OR marines had to move on from somewhere the vietcong came right back. So no, not even the Marines could subdue the place once they moved on.
And quite frankly, because I know a little about vietnam history....in those jungles both the army and marines would have been slaughtered by those masses if it weren't for air support.
javaguru
Banned
You need to take a graduate level class on the theory of war. Body counts and military victories are not relevant, political objectives are what matters and that's the point of war...it is the failure of politics that causes war...I'll paraphrase Clausewitz, "War is politics through other means."
Probably one of the most interesting classes I took in college was "The Theory of War" taught by an Air Force helicopter pilot that was awarded two Silver Stars in Vietnam...he flew Jolly greens and was awarded his second award during the last battle of the Vietnam War...The marines left three behind that were alive and kicking....
you two are like watching two monkeys fucking a football....curious yet repulsive
javaguru
Banned
Has that scenario ever happened and why were you watching?
youre an overly analytical prick
you appear to be equally obsessed
prove it and walk (or stop typing) away
redsamurai
Banned
marines left guys behind?
javaguru
Banned
I don't expect much from jarheads but you misspelled corps...just sayin....
redsamurai
Banned
report said Col davis volunteered to go back in after those guys....I wonder if that's true. It sounds like obligatory reporting cause the guy was giving them an interview. Not sure if you can force helicopter pilots to turn around and go back but I would have tried.
now sam...i like you, you've got heart and stand by your convictions...
but would you have turned around?? how do you know
would you shoot a child because they were about to throw something at your convoy? (candy, paper, trash, rock, grenade) and do it without hesitation?
a beautiful green eyed dark complected child
but would you have turned around?? how do you know
would you shoot a child because they were about to throw something at your convoy? (candy, paper, trash, rock, grenade) and do it without hesitation?
a beautiful green eyed dark complected child
because if you cant say that with an instant unthinking YES with all the hooah, and hoorah you can muster....then you really just don't know
javaguru
Banned
I know, absolutely unacceptable, and ledhead is jerking you around with his claims about body counts. We probably did kill an entire generation of Vietnamese but they still won the war....the body count numbers were massively exaggerated because central planners in Washington decided that was the best metric for evaluating how you are performing in a war... You can google "whiz kids" and "Vietnam War" if you want to learn more.
javaguru
Banned
Everyone is more than capable of that...we just pretend we have moved beyond it. As far as "going back" is concerned...without hesitation...I would volunteer.
I have a very low metric when it comes to self-preservation and I come from a culture where you put a sidearm to your head when you fail....
killing an adult I wont argue, but killing a child? it goes against biological instinct
I thought you were going to bed
go to bed!
go to bed!
javaguru
Banned
True story, Green Berets in Desert Storm, silenced sidearm...two Iraqi children approach their position...he didn't have to shoot them because they turned back before their position was discovered.
Killing a child while allowing them to live would kill your team? That's war...It's a pretty simple formula. When I was a young man I was taught how to properly conduct a raid as light infantry and you don't give "them" the opportunity to surrender unless you're on a prisoner grab mission....op orders and blah blah blah...I'm a murderous bastard and I have no moral standing to judge anyone else...
Last edited:
redsamurai
Banned
on the going back thing shirl, absolutely...if not immediately then within a few hours, some sort of operation should have been launched. There has to be some sort of pre determined protocol if you got left behind. Like make your way to this area of the island and make yourself a ghost but keep an ear out for the rescue party. I mean it was an island, you couldn't get back up to a beach with a rubber boat? I knwo the choppers were gettin cut up, that's fine i wouldn't force some pilots to go back....but something. Those guys were alive for a couple days apparently.
as for the shoot a child thing, yeah that's a tough one. Probably not. I would hesitate just a moment and if it was grenade my vehicle would get hit. Tis why in this lifetime and none after this I am not putting myself into a human shithole where you have to deal with that kind of scenario. When you're fighting children......i mean fuck....you know you're in one of dante's levels.
mrplunkey
New member
I can relate!
redsamurai
Banned
javaguru
Banned
lol @ speculating on how you would react in a hypothetical situation...Brother...You are making decisions on OTHER peoples lives and if you make the wrong one a nice decent kid that volunteered will go home with a flag on his coffin...Not volunteering, good way to avoid it but the 1% are actually the volunteers that fight wars you didn't care enough about to end....
mrplunkey
New member
Here is the deal. By the time Nixon became president the NVA knew they could not contend with Marines in hand to hand combat. Therefore, NVA had to adjust their strategy. Instead of coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the NVA started pussying out by taking an alternative route through Laos and Cambodia hiding in sanctuaries. Where they would supply the VC with armaments and other stuff, and get into little skirmishes here and there on the border of SV. Usually, they would engage in hit and run tactics. The NVA resorted to this type of military strategy because the Marines literally crippled them. LBJ, who was terrified of the Chinese and Soviets was afraid to bomb Hanoi, Laos, and Cambodia. Which was absurd because at that juncture of the Cold War the U.S. and the Soviets had enough nukes to wipe out the world twenty times over. Consequently, neither party was willing to risk total annihilation. Therefore, the Soviets were pretty much no threat. However, the threat of the Chinese getting involved was quite possible because they got involved in the Korean War. But the Marines demolished them at the 38th parallel. Therefore, the Chinese were no real threat either. Nixon, who had balls of steel starting bombing the hell out of Cambodia bringing the NVA to their knees (Operation Menu). At the Paris Peace negotiations the NV dimplomats were ready to sign the surrender, However, the left-wing lunes pinned Watergate on Nixon giving the NVA life. That surrender was in ink! Make no mistake about it.. There are only three presidents in the history of the U.S. that there is exact data on their administrations. Kennedy, LBJ,and Nixon all recorded everything about their foreign policy (primary sources). The public has access to the records.. I will dig them up or see if my chair will turn me on to them considering he is an expert on the Vietnam War.
Second, to say the U.S. did not belong in Vietnam is irrelevant at this juncture. The fact remains that we were there and the topic is about who won, and why did they win? Robert McNamara, who was/is a brilliant numbers cruncher was the Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. By 1963, McNamara knew we could beat them in a ground war. However, he knew that setting up a democratic government and sustaining it in South Vietnam was impossible.. There are many variables to why a democracy would not of worked in SV. I will give you a couple. First, there was entirely too much corruption in the SV government. Second, they did not care about the indigenous people. The south ruled by hegemony. Therefore, the south had no support from the indigenous people. Believe it or not, communism had more to offer than democracy because of the corrupt bureaucracy in the south. Hence, the indigenous supported communism. That is why McNamara started to get reluctant to go overt in Nam. Moreover, they whacked Kennedy, and LBJ became president. LBJ had his heart set on going overt in Nam because of bureaucratic pressure. Hence, he put the heat on McNamara to devise a plan to go overt in Nam. McNamara pretty much resisted. However, LBJ fired McNamara in a de facto fashion. Then eventually McNamara resigned...But he was in essence fired (the gist). Consequently, LBJ went overt in Nam. There is a good documentary about McNamara called, The Fog of War. He tells his side of the story. IMO, very good documentary..
Again, I will reiterate what I have said. I hope you people get this because I am not going to be around here forever. The U.S. won the Vietnam War militarily, but lost politically... You can thank your friendly neighborhood democrats for that (L).
javaguru
Banned
Ledhead is the crazy conspiracy theorist of ef...lolol...
I'll just address his last statement because it's so wrong it defies common sense.
"The U.S. won the Vietnam War militarily, but lost politically."
"War is politics by other means"- Carl Von Clauswitz
Clauswitz wrote the bible of the theory of western warfare...
If you lose a war politically you obviously lost it militarily since military power is simply an extension of political power.
To put it in juicer EF terms it's like claiming your over developed triceps and under developed chest prevented you from achieving that record bench....
I'll just address his last statement because it's so wrong it defies common sense.
"The U.S. won the Vietnam War militarily, but lost politically."
"War is politics by other means"- Carl Von Clauswitz
Clauswitz wrote the bible of the theory of western warfare...
If you lose a war politically you obviously lost it militarily since military power is simply an extension of political power.
To put it in juicer EF terms it's like claiming your over developed triceps and under developed chest prevented you from achieving that record bench....
