That is your opinion.
We will see if the current "aggression doctrine" works in the long run.
It has never worked in the long run historically, this may be a first time, but I doubt it.
This war is illegal!
- Thread starter trader556
- Start date
That is your opinion.
We will see if the current "aggression doctrine" works in the long run.
It has never worked in the long run historically, this may be a first time, but I doubt it.
Some would point to Vietnam.
A case could be made that was not effective warfare. Beancounters like McNamara and a liberal President who ran the bombing by committee so it would "send a message." Further, the entire war effort was undermined by the peace movement in this country, factor relied on by the Viet Cong.
In any event, some would point to the
American Revolution
War of 1812
Civil War
WWI
WWII
Korea
just to name a few successful "acts of aggression."
Did you major in spin 101?
"A case could be made that was not effective warfare. Beancounters like McNamara and a liberal President who ran the bombing by committee so it would "send a message." Further, the entire war effort was undermined by the peace movement in this country, factor relied on by the Viet Cong."
You want to blame the peace movement for the failure in Viet Nam? Do you still blame your mother and father for your personal problems?
Korea?
Civil War?
Bottom line: failure. Some who lose will always look for someone to blame for the loss. It is called "spinning a defeat" into some sort of victory.
The further loss of life had to do with the efforts of the enemy not the peace movement, and our failure to stop the enemy, failure to fight the war on their terms, our inability to kill their spirits to resist our efforts, and our inability to keep Red China from funding their efforts. Even our missions into Laos and Cambodia were failures.
There were some that said we should have put more money into the efforts, but the majority of scholars came to a conclusion that it was a war we would not win in the long run.
It may have had some effect in stopping the spread of communism, but that is purely conjecture.
Have you ever considered the possibility that we shouldn't have to go in there in the first place?
-----We HAD to go in. We HAD no choice. World Peace was at stake! If we didn't stop them here, now, they'd poison the whole region and the World would be drawn into NUU-CUU-LAR WAR! Such was the Administration's power that we all supported the President. To question our holy right to kick ass was to risk mayhem in any cowboy bar in the land. We're behind you, Mr. President!!! The year was 1964. The President was Lyndon Johnson (1908-1973).
'Gulf of Tonkin' is seldom heard today, but it dominated and tore apart two generations in this country. We HAD to go in there, too....
On the afternoon of August 2, 1964, the US Navy destroyer Maddox (DD-731) was off of North Vietnam, near Hon Me Island in the Gulf of Tonkin on a secret DESOTO Intelligence patrol in support of U.S.-backed coastal interdiction raids. The U.S. was not officially at war. Three North Vietnamese torpedo boats reportedly came out from Hon Me and attacked the Maddox unsuccessfully, though one machine gun bullet did hit the destroyer. This was the "first attack."
The Maddox then left the Gulf of Tonkin, but came back on August 3, accompanied by another destroyer, the Turner Joy (DD-951). On the night of August 4, radar operators on Turner Joy reported 'torpedo boats' attacking and both ships fired hundreds of rounds in a confused and frantic night surface action. This was the "second attack."
On August 5, following Johnson's orders, planes from the US aircraft carriers, Ticonderoga and Constellation, carried out retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnam. At Johnson's insistence, an inflamed Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, otherwise called Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145, on August 7, 1964.
It begins, "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."
The document became an excuse, and a blank check.
About sixty thousand dead American kids later, Richard Nixon declared 'non-victory' and we ran away. The long-suffering Vietnamese people finally threw off their foreign oppressors and set to installing some dandy home-grown ones. It later surfaced that perhaps there was no actual torpedo boat "second attack" that dark night in the Tonkin Gulf. Things were 'confused.' People who were there are not sure today what the hell happened. Would the Johnson Administration dare mislead us?
The honored dead whose names give sweet majesty to the Vietnam Memorial can never know all their brave young sacrifice might have spun from a lie. At least those guys got a Wall. While today's Iraqi vets are serving in harm's way, the Republicans last week cut a tax credit that would have greatly benefitted low paid enlisted people with kids.----
You blame the pease movement trying to stop more senseless killing, instead of questioning the ones who sent our finest there in the first place!
Sad, truly sad state of affairs.
Nice cut & paste, you should have credited the author and I see you C&P'd the exact same BS on another thread. But I digress...Quote from trader556:
You blame the pease movement trying to stop more senseless killing, instead of questioning the ones who sent our finest there in the first place!
Sad, truly sad state of affairs.
I didn't "blame," it's a fact, the peace movement caused the lame Democratic admin to have even less committment than they had, which was pretty bad already, thereby causing more deaths. It wasn't a question of sending our troops there, it was doing it in a highly inefficient manner, then responding to the peace movement and compounding it.