DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on June 24, 2010, 10:42:01 PM
-
McChrystal/Obama
Singlaub/Carter
MacArthur/Truman
Funny how military insubordination to civilian Commanders in Chief seems to be restricted entirely to Democratic Presidents, isn't it?
Can anyone think of an insubordinate military officer in the 20th or 21st Century who mouthed off at a Republican C in C?
I think you will have a growing problem with an all-volunteer force and a crypto-Fascist supposedly "non-partisan" American military.
-
Patton was unco-operative , but Eisenhour settled him before it rose to the FDR level.
Eisenhour of course wasn't president yet , but when He was he was a Republican.
Bush had a little tiff with a loose lipped Air Force General.
I suppose you would object to the origional Republican President being cited , but Lincon was the best example of this pattern you could have found anytime.
-
The enlisted men might be Democrats or apolitical, but the officers tend to be Republican.
There was an AF Colonel on the faculty of my college, a Major Baker, and he was 100% gung-ho on everything military. He was in favor of US domination of everything and was especially fond of military governments everywhere: he has a lot of buddies from that War College in Georgia.
On the other hand, didn't Juniorbush fire an admiral? I seem to recall that he did over Iraq.
-
I suppose you would object to the origional Republican President being cited , but Lincon was the beat example of this pattern you could have found anytime.
=========================
When Lincoln was elected, the Republicans were hardly a party--they were mostly retread Whigs and abolitionists.
When the Civil War started. I think it is safe to say that the best West Point graduates ended up on the Confederate side.
McClellan never had enough men or weapons to attack. Eventually, Lincoln had to can him. After that, it got easier and he canned generals every three or four months until he finally decided on Grant, who was no whiz at West Point or anywhere else until he got a command.
-
<<Patton was unco-operative , but Eisenhour settled him before it rose to the FDR level.>>
Thank you for trying to prove my point with yet another Democratic President, but I was not aware of any military insubordination on Patton's part that challenged civilian control of the military.
<<Bush had a little tiff with a loose lipped Air Force General.>>
I do not catch the reference. An Air Force general was insubordinate to Bush or members of his team? Who? When? How?
Also, since I knew you would drag Lincoln into this somehow, I deliberately limited my challenge to the 20th and 21st centuries - - you know, the ones we actually live in or lived in? :)
-
Can anyone think of an insubordinate military officer in the 20th or 21st Century who mouthed off at a Republican C in C?
I am not sure it was "insubordinate" but President Bush basically fired Gen. John Abizaid, US commander
in the Middle East over Abizaid criticisms of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq.
President Bush also basically fired General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq because Casey also
opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq.
President Bush replaced General Casey with a man named David Petraeus. ;)
-
Good effort, I'd forgotten about Abizaid and Casey, whose story is here: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_replaces_top_general_in_Middle_0104.html (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_replaces_top_general_in_Middle_0104.html)
Still, I don't see any evidence of insubordination or disrespect. An honest difference of opinion can certainly be grounds for the C in C to replace any officer, since he needs to have full confidence in the officer's whole-hearted support. As far as I can tell from the story, there was no disrespect voiced over the policy disagreements between officers and a Republican President.
-
When the Civil War started. I think it is safe to say that the best West Point graduates ended up on the Confederate side.
That is demonstrably true, but hardly an indicator of anything other than fortuitous geographical dispersion of talent for the South. Had Lee and Jackson lived a little farther north, the war would have been shorter and they both would have been fine Presidents. Lincoln would have been defeated in 1864, forgotten and lived to a ripe old age. And slavery would have lasted several more decades. But if a bullfrog had wings . . .
McClellan never had enough men or weapons to attack. Eventually, Lincoln had to can him. After that, it got easier and he canned generals every three or four months until he finally decided on Grant, who was no whiz at West Point or anywhere else until he got a command.
I would have to disagree with that. McClellan WANTED the world to believe that was the case, but I think he was just far too timid a general. That may have been justified, given the abilities the South had shown, but Grant was able to win by just getting out and DOING it. McClellan was an excellent trainer, a good organizer and an adequate logistician. The union owes him a debt for preparing the army for the eventual use they got from more competent leaders. But that was his contribution. Lincoln was right to relieve him. He was not a good leader, and not a good general.
-
The enlisted men might be Democrats or apolitical, but the officers tend to be Republican.
There was an AF Colonel on the faculty of my college, a Major Baker, and he was 100% gung-ho on everything military. He was in favor of US domination of everything and was especially fond of military governments everywhere: he has a lot of buddies from that War College in Georgia.
On the other hand, didn't Juniorbush fire an admiral? I seem to recall that he did over Iraq.
Trueman himself was an officer that served in France.
Like anyone elese Officers choose their political affiliation individually. Unlike everyone elese Military and Civil Servants are forbidden to act on these politics in certain ways.
I am mindfull that in the unlikely event that I ever have any governing authority I am forbidden to exploit it already.
-
Also, since I knew you would drag Lincoln into this somehow, I deliberately limited my challenge to the 20th and 21st centuries - - you know, the ones we actually live in or lived in? :)
Oh well then , I shall now further limit the debate to only the events of the present year.
After all nothing instructive ever happened earlyer than January.
-
That is demonstrably true, but hardly an indicator of anything other than fortuitous geographical dispersion of talent for the South. Had Lee and Jackson lived a little farther north, the war would have been shorter and they both would have been fine Presidents. Lincoln would have been defeated in 1864, forgotten and lived to a ripe old age. And slavery would have lasted several more decades. But if a bullfrog had wings . . .
It didn't hurt that the Confederates were fighting on their land. Although (and I'll grant this is off-topic and probably belongs in a separate thread) I hear numerous people from both political sides that slavery was already on its way out though they grant it would have still probably lasted up until around 1900.
Though you say decades so...
On-Topic: Given that there are really only two political parties that have ever held power since the civil war, this could simply be coincidence. I'll admit the only general-presidential disagreement I know many details about is the current one.
But I will say this much: At the very least Carter, Clinton and from what I can tell Obama appear to have questionable concepts of how the military works and how to be effective military leaders. As radical as this sounds, I think the person holding supreme power over the military should have some military experience.
-
That is demonstrably true, but hardly an indicator of anything other than fortuitous geographical dispersion of talent for the South. Had Lee and Jackson lived a little farther north, the war would have been shorter and they both would have been fine Presidents. Lincoln would have been defeated in 1864, forgotten and lived to a ripe old age. And slavery would have lasted several more decades. But if a bullfrog had wings . . .
It didn't hurt that the Confederates were fighting on their land. Although (and I'll grant this is off-topic and probably belongs in a separate thread) I hear numerous people from both political sides that slavery was already on its way out though they grant it would have still probably lasted up until around 1900.
Though you say decades so...
On-Topic: Given that there are really only two political parties that have ever held power since the civil war, this could simply be coincidence. I'll admit the only general-presidential disagreement I know many details about is the current one.
But I will say this much: At the very least Carter, Clinton and from what I can tell Obama appear to have questionable concepts of how the military works and how to be effective military leaders. As radical as this sounds, I think the person holding supreme power over the military should have some military experience.
Carter did. He was a naval officer. (Coincidentally, he actually had a naval engagement while in office - with a rabbit. He won. Seriously.) But his one effort at a military response to the biggest challenge of his presidency was a tragic, horrible failure that cost eight lives and demonstrated how ineffective our military had become. Clinton played patty-cake with a few token missiles when attacked by Islamic terrorism and Obama is tripping over himself trying to figure out how to dismantle our military before it wins something. There is a very good reason Democrats are known for being untrustworthy with security - and that is why Bush won a second term in spite of his unpopularity. Dems are well-known for being "green." Unless there is a big upswell of people who live in terror that the snail-darters may go extinct, I think Obama has a hard run to re-election.
-
<<As radical as this sounds, I think the person holding supreme power over the military should have some military experience.>>
The Constitution says otherwise, and the electorate seems to follow the Constitution. Nothing prevents a civilian President from appointing military aides who can guide him through the technicalities. If the Prez is halfway bright, he should be able, with some good, solid advice, to size up the situation and manage it appropriately. FDR didn't do too bad a job of managing his war, despite his lack of military experience, while JFK, LBJ and Nixon, all with some military experience, collectively did a standup job of starting, totally fucking up and then losing the Viet Nam War.
-
<<As radical as this sounds, I think the person holding supreme power over the military should have some military experience.>>
The Constitution says otherwise, and the electorate seems to follow the Constitution. Nothing prevents a civilian President from appointing military aides who can guide him through the technicalities. If the Prez is halfway bright, he should be able, with some good, solid advice, to size up the situation and manage it appropriately. FDR didn't do too bad a job of managing his war, despite his lack of military experience, while JFK, LBJ and Nixon, all with some military experience, collectively did a standup job of starting, totally fucking up and then losing the Viet Nam War.
The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience. It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.
And we did not militarily lose Vietnam. We have, in fact, not military lost any war. Korea and Vietnam were both cease fires brought about by political dischord in our own country, not because our military was inept.
-
The entire Iran Hostage affair was a conspiracy planned by the Oligarchy to remove Carter from office. Kissinger told Carter that he had to keep those people in that Embassy, when it was clear that the Revolutionary Guards were likely to grab them as hostages. Kissinger has always worked for the Rockefellers and Exxon. That was Carter's mistake.
Carter was no more to blame for the helicopter collision in the Iranian desert than Juniorbush was for 9-11, or even less so.
Carter 8
Juniorbush over 3000, plus all those lost in an unnecessary war with Iraq.
-
<<The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience. It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.>>
It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's clear that neither the Framers of the Constitution nor the U.S. electorate had any problems with a civilian of no military experience whatsoever holding the office of President. You might as well argue that since the federal government is responsible for dealing with other states, the President must have diplomatic experience. The Framers trusted in the wisdom of the common man and did not like to exclude him from any office in favour of "experts" of any kind. As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be. It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing. The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.
<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam. We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>
Ha ha ha. No? Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary. Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going, also that the Korean cease-fire was not agreed to until after the North Korean forces and China's PLA drove American forces from the Yalu River to south of the 38th parallel. It was the failure to achieve victory in battle that led to the political discord that you refer to, not the other way round. It was the casualty rates among U.S. troops that led to the growth of the desire for peace. When American forces are winning, the public supports them. The American public will NOT, however, back a bunch of losers - - not over any extended period of time, at least.
-
The entire Iran Hostage affair was a conspiracy planned by the Oligarchy to remove Carter from office. Kissinger told Carter that he had to keep those people in that Embassy, when it was clear that the Revolutionary Guards were likely to grab them as hostages. Kissinger has always worked for the Rockefellers and Exxon. That was Carter's mistake.
Oh please. Weird conspiracy theories aside, what made Carter acquiese to the Soviet presence in Cuba? Was that Kissinger? What made him give up the spy satellite secrets? Yeah, musta been that old Kissinger fella. Dismantling the intelligence apparatus? Bet that was a Republican plot, too. Giving up the Panama Canal? Turning his back on Taiwan? Not his fault. You look close enough, I'll betcha Alexander Haig planted the damn rabbit.
Carter was an abysmal President. Nixon was no fool, but he was dishonest. Carter was not dishonest, but he was a fool.
Carter was no more to blame for the helicopter collision in the Iranian desert than Juniorbush was for 9-11, or even less so.
Yes, I forgot that Bush ordered the terrorists into action after first waffling about it for months, then sent in an ill-equipped small force to accomplish a stealth mission right in the middle of the country. Carter ORDERED the mission - he was responsible for its execution and outcome. Bush gets blamed for all of the setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan - even now that Obama is in charge. Don't try to defend Jimmy "That rabbit was a danjah to nashnul sec-yoo-ity" Carter by blaming the ghosts of the Nixon administration. That argument has so many holes in it, it ain't a bucket - it's a net.
Osama bin Laden accomplished what Jimmy Carter couldn't. He changed the world with a small force of well-trained, properly-equipped men. Osama bin Laden was a better commander-in-chief than Jimmy Carter. Carter had the assets of a once -proud army (not to mention lots of large, explosive-laden missiles to play with) and couldn't even bother the regime, much less rescue the hostages.
Carter 8
Juniorbush over 3000, plus all those lost in an unnecessary war with Iraq.
Carter -1 toppled major middle east allied regime, -1 Taiwan, - 1 major strategic asset in Central America.
Oh, but one plus - an established Soviet military presence in Cuba. He evened the "blink" count.
Bush +2 toppled, middle east enemy regimes, plus bringing Christianity to Qaddafi ("Oh Sweet Jesus, I'd better straighten up!") and causing Syria to mill about around the chapel doors.
Oh, and the first Bush term led to a SECOND Bush term. The first (and only) Carter term led to Ronald Reagan.
OK, Carter wins that one.
-
<<The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience. It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.>>
It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's clear that neither the Framers of the Constitution nor the U.S. electorate had any problems with a civilian of no military experience whatsoever holding the office of President. You might as well argue that since the federal government is responsible for dealing with other states, the President must have diplomatic experience. The Framers trusted in the wisdom of the common man and did not like to exclude him from any office in favour of "experts" of any kind. As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be. It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing. The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.
That was the idea. It hasn't been that way in a very long time. Your assessment of American history is idealistic and romantic, as was that of the people who fought the revolution. They would be taking up arms again if they were here. You're right about the intent, but then the original framers never really envisioned us as the world's military or industrial superpower. I can't get my America head around the idea of a non-civilian controlled military. Cripes what if a Patton could rise to power under such a system? Wonderful general, but like any pitbull needed to be on a leash.
<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam. We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>
Ha ha ha. No? Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary. Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going, also that the Korean cease-fire was not agreed to until after the North Korean forces and China's PLA drove American forces from the Yalu River to south of the 38th parallel. It was the failure to achieve victory in battle that led to the political discord that you refer to, not the other way round. It was the casualty rates among U.S. troops that led to the growth of the desire for peace. When American forces are winning, the public supports them. The American public will NOT, however, back a bunch of losers - - not over any extended period of time, at least.
Pup is right. We were not defeated in battle (including the infamous Tet offensive) and were not driven out of the country. We lost the war, in the sense that you have suggested, by unloading our guns and walking away. The casualty count was not what did it. We have less than a tithe of that count in this war and people are grousing. You and Osama are right - our people lack the stomache to accept death as part of the sacrifice for freedom. But it is the whining of leftists using those statistics to beat an anti-American drum that "inspired" the largest generation in American history to start chanting the idealistic slogans of the sixties (not to mention the increasing fear of cowards who ran from the draft).
We didn't lose, we forfeited.
If given free reign our military has both the manpower and the technology (that latter being a massive force multiplier) to defeat anyone and impose our governments wherever we want. But the check we have to that kind of tyranny (as it would become regardless of how benign any original intent) is the power of the press and the people to speak out. It sucks, it TRULY sucks, to have to appease whining pacifists but in the end it nevertheless beats the hell out of the other extreme. I'd rather have to be very careful about how many soldiers die and how many innocent civilians die than be given free reign to create My Lai's without concern for the consequences. You greatly exaggerate the degree to which soldiers commit - or are willing to commit - atrocities. But you are certainly correct that some soldiers ignore the barriers in place to prevent those atrocities. There is no question that would become much worse if those barriers were removed. So I'll take the whiny leftists in the streets. They are nowhere near as effective as they dream they are, and they shouldn't be. But they do give us pause, and that - I must grudgingly admit - is a service to freedom.
As to the Michael Tee Dictionary definition of loser, does it include a nation that has been unable to accomplish anything in over half a century except starving its people, wasting its resources and spouting off blustery threats to the point where even its budding-superpower protector is getting sick of it? Yeah, we totally lost the Korean war. Occasionally, we and the prosperous portion of that peninsula stop and think about that. Then we get distracted by something more important. We had a north and south war in the US too. The losers still grouse generations later. The winners forgot about it and went on with life. I can just hear the frantic voices in Korea: "Save your anti-capitalist phrases, comrades, the North will rise again!"
-
<<The Constitution does not dictate whether or not a person who is in power should have military experience. It is not a requirement, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.>>
It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's clear that neither the Framers of the Constitution nor the U.S. electorate had any problems with a civilian of no military experience whatsoever holding the office of President. You might as well argue that since the federal government is responsible for dealing with other states, the President must have diplomatic experience. The Framers trusted in the wisdom of the common man and did not like to exclude him from any office in favour of "experts" of any kind. As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be. It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing. The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.
This is not a classist argument. I'm not saying anything like we should reinstate a caste system, I'm saying I wouldn't hire a doctor to build my house or a lawyer to do my yardwork (or a lobbyist making my pizza :D).
The person who runs the military should know what he is doing militarily. He should also be a great politician and diplomat, as you say.
You know there are eight different titles for the POTUS? Among them are Chief Citizen and Commander-In-Chief. One man must be many things.
<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam. We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>
Ha ha ha. No? Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary. Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going, also that the Korean cease-fire was not agreed to until after the North Korean forces and China's PLA drove American forces from the Yalu River to south of the 38th parallel. It was the failure to achieve victory in battle that led to the political discord that you refer to, not the other way round. It was the casualty rates among U.S. troops that led to the growth of the desire for peace. When American forces are winning, the public supports them. The American public will NOT, however, back a bunch of losers - - not over any extended period of time, at least.
Stray Pooch took the words right out of my mouth.
-
<<Your assessment of American history is idealistic and romantic, as was that of the people who fought the revolution.
The other side of that coin is that modern-day Americans are cynical and mercenary.
<<You're right about the intent, but then the original framers never really envisioned us as the world's military or industrial superpower. >>
They didn't WANT to be the world's military superpower, they just wanted to defend themselves against encroachments on their sovereignty by the European powers of the day. As far as world's industrial superpower, fuhgeddabaowdit. The Chinese are about to relieve you of that title if they haven't done so already.
<<I can't get my America head around the idea of a non-civilian controlled military. Cripes what if a Patton could rise to power under such a system? Wonderful general, but like any pitbull needed to be on a leash.>>
Patton would have been a non-starter as top dog without civilian control. He was a certifiable nut-case and I think even he must have recognized that fact at some level. Even inside the military, with civilians in control at the top, he needed a soldier with better judgment at the other end of his leash to save the civilians the headache. Think General Douglas MacArthur if you want to keep your speculations within the realm of the possible. Or Eisenhower. They both had a good deal more common sense than Patton would ever have been capable of.
<<Pup is right. We were not defeated in battle (including the infamous Tet offensive) and were not driven out of the country. We lost the war, in the sense that you have suggested, by unloading our guns and walking away. The casualty count was not what did it. >>
No, eh? Funny how that casualty count just kept rising and rising, and all the time it was rising, the anti-war feeling was rising too, at the same time. Personally I think the steady stream of returning body bags had a lot to do with the growth of popular revulsion at the war. This wasn't the mercenary, all-volunteer force of motherless thugs and hoodlums that nobody gives a shit about, this was a draftee army of Americans with mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who took the loss of their drafted sons in a pointless war of unprovoked aggression kind of seriously. Not that the Powers That Be really give a shit about what the public wants or doesn't want, but they can't just totally ignore it, either.
<<We have less than a tithe of that count in this war and people are grousing. >>
That is just misleading bullshit. The "grousing" of "people" is a tiny fraction of the massive anti-war protests of the Viet Nam War. Nobody gives a shit about the dead because they were all dumb enough to volunteer for this crap and so deserve whatever they get. THAT is one reason why there is no real popular outcry. What kind of pathetic losers will volunteer for an occupation whose main objective is to kill and maim other human beings? These guys die with no particular public outrage or protest because, in truth, their deaths are no great loss to anyone. Other reasons for the absence of massive popular protest are the drastic consolidation of the MSM that has taken place since the mid-Seventies and the administration's stranglehold on the press, using the new techniques of pool reporting and embedding, which has cut down enormously on the breadth and depth of media war coverage and virtually guarantees a pro-military slant in all reporting from the war zones.
<<You and Osama are right - our people lack the stomache to accept death as part of the sacrifice for freedom.>>
More BS. Neither OBL nor I have said anything about sacrificing life for freedom, precisely because neither the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan has anything at all to do with "freedom." Let's quit characterizing these wars of unprovoked aggression as wars of "freedom." That's total crap and nonsense. The invasion of Iraq was built up on a superstructure of outrageous lies and bullshit claims about non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" that were not even "discovered" as a threat before Bush and his henchmen had already decided to invade Iraq on a pretext that would be invented as and when required. The invasion of Afghanistan was even more ludicrous - - supposedly, the Americans "justified" it by the Afghans' refusal to hand over OBL, when in fact the Afghans had already offered to turn him over if the Americans would first produce their evidence of his guilt - - something the American government never did, probably because it had no evidence.
<<But it is the whining of leftists using those statistics to beat an anti-American drum that "inspired" the largest generation in American history to start chanting the idealistic slogans of the sixties . . . >>
Really? Maybe you could explain how outrage over the pointless sacrifice of American lives becomes an "anti-American drum?" What would you consider a "pro-American drum," the desire to see even more dead Americans coming home in body bags? And how do you really know what "inspired" the chanting of anti-war slogans - - what makes you think it was "whining leftists" use of the casualty statistics rather than genuine outrage over the war itself, the massive number of civilian casualties, the use of torture on prisoners of war, the napalming of villages, the massacres of civilians as, for example, in the My Lai Massacre, that drove the antiwar movement just as much as the weekly toll of dead Americans? How do you know what drove the protestors? Were you one of them?
<< (not to mention the increasing fear of cowards who ran from the draft). >>
Still more bullshit. A coward who ran from the draft did not have to join the protest movement. He could have found other ways to keep his ass safe from the hazards of war. He could even have supported the war, while scrupulously avoiding any personal involvement in it - - as did George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich and most of the "Chicken Hawk" generation of the GOP. What proof have you that it was cowardice and not idealism that drove anyone into the anti-war protest movement?
<<We didn't lose, we forfeited.>>
LMFAO. The time to "forfeit" was before you entered the match, certainly before you lost the 57,000 American lives thrown away. That was hilarious. But maybe you're right, maybe a more factual description exists for what happened to you in the Viet Nam War. Something that would satisfy both of us and yet avoid the illusory duality of terms based on winning and losing, as in recreational or professional athletics. How be instead of claiming, say, that the Vietcong "beat" you, we were to say merely that they whipped your scurvy, sorry ass, does that work for you?
<<If given free reign our military has both the manpower and the technology (that latter being a massive force multiplier) to defeat anyone and impose our governments wherever we want. But the check we have to that kind of tyranny (as it would become regardless of how benign any original intent) is the power of the press and the people to speak out. It sucks, it TRULY sucks, to have to appease whining pacifists but in the end it nevertheless beats the hell out of the other extreme. I'd rather have to be very careful about how many soldiers die and how many innocent civilians die than be given free reign to create My Lai's without concern for the consequences. You greatly exaggerate the degree to which soldiers commit - or are willing to commit - atrocities. But you are certainly correct that some soldiers ignore the barriers in place to prevent those atrocities. There is no question that would become much worse if those barriers were removed. So I'll take the whiny leftists in the streets. They are nowhere near as effective as they dream they are, and they shouldn't be. But they do give us pause, and that - I must grudgingly admit - is a service to freedom.>>
Well, now, you just . . . Uhh, that is just pure bullshit because, umm . . . Mmmmm, see . . . Uh, Pooch, are you feeling OK? Because what you just said in that last paragraph actually makes some kinda sense. Sorta. Mostly. You sure you don't want to reconsider?
<<As to the Michael Tee Dictionary definition of loser, does it include a nation that has been unable to accomplish anything in over half a century except starving its people, wasting its resources and spouting off blustery threats to the point where even its budding-superpower protector is getting sick of it? >>
Uh, no, it doesn't, actually. A loser is an army or a country that gets its ass whipped and then quits the fight and goes home. The U.S. Army came to Korea to fight. They fought and then they got sick of fighting and quit. They all went home except for a small garrison force, which doesn't want to fight any more, and hasn't for over 50 years. The North which they invaded remains independent half a century after they were driven out by force of arms. Well, anyway, that's how MY dictionary defines "loser." Sorry about yours.
BTW, for a nation that "has been unable to accomplish anything," I was kinda wondering what is with their nuclear weapons? Were they found growing in the wild under lily pads or something? Did these "wild nukes" grow their own delivery vehicles and triggers so as to create the illusion of successful weapons tests? inquiring minds need to know.
<<Yeah, we totally lost the Korean war.>>
Well, ya got that right. Or at least, ya lost the North.
<<Occasionally, we and the prosperous portion of that peninsula stop and think about that. Then we get distracted by something more important.>>
Yeah, I get it. You lost the war. And once in awhile, you think about losing the war. But then you get distracted by "something more important." Of course, many things are probably "more important" than the wasted lives of thousands of American boys. Sunday afternoon football for example. Must be lots of stuff that distracts you. It is all very understandable.
<<We had a north and south war in the US too. The losers still grouse generations later. The winners forgot about it and went on with life. >>
God, I hope you copied this to plane.
<<I can just hear the frantic voices in Korea: "Save your anti-capitalist phrases, comrades, the North will rise again!">>
You're lucky. I don't speak Korean.
-
Rather than fruitlessly trying to get you to see what I believe to be an error in your way of thinking, I would like to address one particular quote:
Maybe you could explain how outrage over the pointless sacrifice of American lives becomes an "anti-American drum?" What would you consider a "pro-American drum," the desire to see even more dead Americans coming home in body bags?
Are you saying that deaths caused by a (in your mind) not pointless war would be treated with less outrage? Soldiers die, it's the sad reality of life. 37,000 soldiers dead in three years is tragic. Nobody wants to see soldiers die on both the "pro-" and "anti-" american side.
Frankly because of the efforts in Korea at least half of the country remained free. It's not a complete victory sure, but (and I speak on behalf of my South Korean friends whose families were free to move the US) I'd call that a victory.
-
Carter was only a fool for trusting the lying Kissinger. As for Cuba, Castro came to power there in 1959, Carter became president in 1977. All he did in Cuba was to leave it alone, and welcome the Mariel refugees, which was perhaps a mistake, but that old bastard Reagan said "we should welcome them with one arms."
Note that the hostages were released about ONE MINUTE after Reagan took office. I bet you are going to tell me that that was just a coincidence. Later, Reagan sent the ayatollah a cake and sold him a mess of used Israeli weapons. There was that whole Iran-Contra mess.
-
<<We had a north and south war in the US too. The losers still grouse generations later. The winners forgot about it and went on with life. >>
God, I hope you copied this to plane.
Good Greif!
Your great Grandfathers won.
Getoveryourself.
-
It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing. The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.
Well said , color me surprised at who it was who said it , but well said.
<<And we did not militarily lose Vietnam. We have, in fact, not military lost any war. >>
Ha ha ha. No? Then I'd better correct the definition of "lose" and "loser" in my dictionary. Seemed to me that Vietnam went exactly the way your military tried to prevent it from going,....
Yes, unfortunately for those who were thereby trapped in Vietnam.
Do you think we would have liked to trade the casualty numbers of ours for the casualty numbers of theirs?
We did not walk away winners , but we left aware that we had stayed long after the point of diminishing returns .
But I would not want to trade the state of our economy , morale , social organisation or anything at all with the state Vietnam was in, the winners walked away with their hard won victory and used it to construct a neat little hell. We didn't want that , too bad the evil side was able to exact a pyrric victory.
There were not a million boat people trying desprately to escape the US in the following decade , now was there?
You can force me to admit that the Vietnameese communists acheived thair aims and were the victors , but it is also quite clear that they paid too much for it and that the victory of the Communists was the loss of the people.
-
<<You can force me to admit that the Vietnameese communists acheived thair aims and were the victors . . . >>
Thank you, plane, that is making considerable progress.
<< . . . but it is also quite clear that they paid too much for it >>
Unlike the Americans who mindlessly parrot Patrick Henry speeches while they follow their country's wars on the TV, as their government's agents pore over their library cards and e-mails, the Vietnamese are a people that in fact had to fight for their freedom from foreign occupation and paid the price in blood. In all honesty, they set the price that they were prepared to pay and the chickenshit Americans, who ran like whipped dogs before they lost even 60,000 men, don't have the right to any opinion at all as to whether the price was too high or too low. Many good Communists died in that struggle, every one of them a martyr and a hero. They really believed in "Give me liberty or give me death" whereas the Americans are nothing but bullshit artists and phonies who talk big but live small.
<< . . . and that the victory of the Communists was the loss of the people. >>
"Loss of the people" my ass. The only people who lost were the French-educated élite who the French had left in power behind them as they pulled out. Everyone else supported Ho Chi Minh and the Communists.
-
<<You can force me to admit that the Vietnameese communists acheived thair aims and were the victors . . . >>
Thank you, plane, that is making considerable progress.
<< . . . but it is also quite clear that they paid too much for it >>
Unlike the Americans who mindlessly parrot Patrick Henry speeches while they follow their country's wars on the TV, as their government's agents pore over their library cards and e-mails, the Vietnamese are a people that in fact had to fight for their freedom from foreign occupation and paid the price in blood. In all honesty, they set the price that they were prepared to pay and the chickenshit Americans, who ran like whipped dogs before they lost even 60,000 men, don't have the right to any opinion at all as to whether the price was too high or too low. Many good Communists died in that struggle, every one of them a martyr and a hero. They really believed in "Give me liberty or give me death" whereas the Americans are nothing but bullshit artists and phonies who talk big but live small.
<< . . . and that the victory of the Communists was the loss of the people. >>
"Loss of the people" my ass. The only people who lost were the French-educated élite who the French had left in power behind them as they pulled out. Everyone else supported Ho Chi Minh and the Communists.
What elese could they do ?
Take to the sea in tiny boats a million at a time?
"Everyone" that supported the communists got the little hell that they deserve .
There are a lot of people in the US who are disatisfied , but there arn't a million at a pop risking very likely death to boat away from here. What the Vietnameese Communists offered was Communism and that is not liberty, it is slavery.
Compare the state of the looser and the state of the winner , there isn't a huge number of Americans migrated to Vietnam trying to stay alive or seeking freedom.
I wouldn't trade half as good as the US for ten times better than Vietnam, and for this crud they paid such a price?
-
Carter was only a fool for trusting the lying Kissinger. As for Cuba, Castro came to power there in 1959, Carter became president in 1977. All he did in Cuba was to leave it alone, and welcome the Mariel refugees, which was perhaps a mistake, but that old bastard Reagan said "we should welcome them with one arms."
Note that the hostages were released about ONE MINUTE after Reagan took office. I bet you are going to tell me that that was just a coincidence. Later, Reagan sent the ayatollah a cake and sold him a mess of used Israeli weapons. There was that whole Iran-Contra mess.
Are you guys speaking of James Earl Carter the chief architect of the demise of the Soviet Union? Zibignew Brezniki was a great idea man , but it was Carter that realised that the Soviet Union was more vunerable to a Vietnam like catspaw than the US ever was.
Soviet Authoritys kept the conflict in Afganistan a secret from the Soviet public in a way that the US never could , but this turned out to be no advantage . That they found out the scope of the losses seemingly suddenly compressed the Vietnam experience for the Soviet people.
-
Brezenski, not Carter, was the guy who got the Saudis to send guerrillas and missionaries to Afghanistan. The US had previously tried to provoke a Muslim fundamentalist rebellion in Afghanistan with the help of the Saudis. The idea was Saudi money, Afghan and Paki guerrillas turned fanatics. This was a CIA plan that want back into the late 60's. Brezenski wanted revenge for the Katina Forest massacres in the days of Stalin. Guys like the Pipes (father and son)were in on this in the Ford Administration. The plan was to cause the Soviets grief, not only in Afghanistan, but in the Soviet "stans" that surrounded them: Uzbek, Tazik, Kazakh. So the Soviets took over Afghanistan, and naturally got mired down there. Carter should have told Brezinski to go fuck himself, but instead, he appointed him to the Cabinet. That was dumb and naive, I will admit. Carter was a trusting soul and he was surrounded by traitors like Kissinger and guys with a hateful agenda, like Brezinski.
This was a typical stupid and cruel CIA plan that has resulted in millions of Afghans, Soviets, Pakistanis and others being killed and their lives ruined. What we are facing now in pakistan and Afghanistan is blowback to this stupid CIA plan, just like the Ayatollah and the Iranian Revolution is blowback for the stupid CIA/MI5 overthrow of the sectarian and democratically elected government of Mossadeagh in Iran.
The Soviets also had dirty tricks as well, but most of their sins were more overt, along the lines of "wake the town and shoot the people". Where the Soviets tended to be cruel, the CIA was tricky and cruel. And doing their nefarious deeds on MY nickel.
-
As between some egg-head Ivy League college grad and an unlettered frontiersman, the Constitution is content to let the voters make the choice, and so it should be. It is the man, and not his experience or credentials that is the important thing. The U.S.A. was never intended to be the kind of country where only men of a certain class or degree could hold office.
Good to see you are rethinking your position re:Palin
-
<<Are you saying that deaths caused by a (in your mind) not pointless war would be treated with less outrage? >>
Sure, if he died in a good cause, he died a hero. If he died for a pack of lies and bullshit, he died a schmuck. Nobody's outraged when their son dies a hero, but a lot of people are outraged when their son dies as a schmuck. Just ask Cindy Sheehan.
<< Soldiers die, it's the sad reality of life. 37,000 soldiers dead in three years is tragic. Nobody wants to see soldiers die on both the "pro-" and "anti-" american side.>>
You are wrong. Same reasoning as above.
<<Frankly because of the efforts in Korea at least half of the country remained free. It's not a complete victory sure, but (and I speak on behalf of my South Korean friends whose families were free to move the US) I'd call that a victory.>>
South Korea was a dictatorship when the Korean War began and remained a dictatorship till relatively recently. Overall, there was more freedom in the South than in the North, but in both countries opponents of the ruling power were arbitrarily arrested, tortured and murdered. Ask your South Korean friends how "free" they were to demonstrate in the streets during the years of the dictatorship.
-
<< . . . there arn't a million at a pop risking very likely death to boat away from here.>>
As a percentage of the general population, the boat people are barely a blip. Considering that the Vietnamese lost 2 million dead in their national struggle against foreign occupation, those lousy scum who had collaborated with the American invaders against their own countrymen had much to fear. It is no surprise to anyone that they would want to risk their sorry ass at sea rather than face the righteous vengeance of their own people for their treasonous actions.
The boat people were right to flee. In the wake of the Allied invasion of France, some 40,000 French collaborators with the Nazi occupation lost their lives to the French Resistance, executed on street corners and in public squares. Had they been able to flee to a safe refuge by boat, I'm sure they would have done so, but I hardly think that their desperate flight by sea would have found anyone credulous or foolish enough to take it as proof that the end of the Nazi occupation had been a catastrophe for the French people.
-
<< . . . there arn't a million at a pop risking very likely death to boat away from here.>>
As a percentage of the general population, the boat people are barely a blip. Considering that the Vietnamese lost 2 million dead in their national struggle against foreign occupation, those lousy scum who had collaborated with the American invaders against their own countrymen had much to fear. It is no surprise to anyone that they would want to risk their sorry ass at sea rather than face the righteous vengeance of their own people for their treasonous actions.
The boat people were right to flee. In the wake of the Allied invasion of France, some 40,000 French collaborators with the Nazi occupation lost their lives to the French Resistance, executed on street corners and in public squares. Had they been able to flee to a safe refuge by boat, I'm sure they would have done so, but I hardly think that their desperate flight by sea would have found anyone credulous or foolish enough to take it as proof that the end of the Nazi occupation had been a catastrophe for the French people.
How can there be a rightiousness in vengence that decimates ones own people?
Many people have died for Communisms sake ,Communism not being deserveing of a single one of these.
As I have recently been told dieing for a looseing cause is being a smuck.
-
<<How can there be a rightiousness in vengence that decimates ones own people?>>
Nobody "decimated" anyone. Unless I'm missing some basic math skill, the 40,000 French collaborators executed by the French Resistance after the Liberation were not a tenth of the population; I'm pretty sure there were more than 400,000 French men and women in 1944, and I'm pretty sure that the number of treasonous scum found amongst the Vietnamese people was nowhere near a tenth of the population either. So, historically speaking, I think we have to find another word than "decimate" unless it's agreed to be some kind of metaphor for what really happened.
What is righteous about one's own people executing the enemies of the people among them? Maybe if you were a Vietnamese whose relatives were tortured to death by the Americans in Operation Phoenix or crippled for life by their incarceration in the "Tiger Cages" or napalmed by U.S. aircraft, or massacred in pits at My Lai, you would not have to ask such a dopey question when those collaborators who supported the American invaders and their puppets were finally brought forward to face the people's justice. But I think most people understood who exactly were fleeing from the righteous vengeance of the Vietnamese people and why they were doing so. Very few people were taken in by the corporate MSM's absurd claims of "Boat People" seeking "freedom" in the West. All actions have consequences, they were attempting to escape the consequences of theirs. Unfortunately, many of them succeeded.
<<Many people have died for Communisms sake ,Communism not being deserveing of a single one of these.>>
You have your opinion and the martyrs have theirs. They believed in a cause and died for it. Did the cause later betray their faith? Possibly. But that doesn't mean that the cause was bad, only that it had been taken over by bad people. Look at how many times America has fallen short of the ideals of those who died for it. Doesn't mean that America was not deserving of a single life of those who fell. Your judgments are remarkably one-sided and prejudiced, blindly, so that you don't even see the bias there.
<<As I have recently been told dieing for a looseing cause is being a smuck.>>
What I said was that dying for an unjust and immoral cause is being a schmuck. Those who died in the invasions and occupations of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, died in immoral, unjust and illegal causes and are therefore schmucks.
-
What I said was that dying for an unjust and immoral cause is being a schmuck. Those who died in the invasions and occupations of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, died in immoral, unjust and illegal causes and are therefore schmucks.
Schmuckiness apparently is widespread. The Chinese who died in Korea and the Soviets who died in Hungary and Czechoslovakia as well as the Cubans in Angola all meet that criteria.
-
Chinese died in Korea to prevent the takeover of a fellow socialist state by American imperialism.
Red Army troops killed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were a tiny handful, not even worth discussing. More American soldiers die every year in non-combat operations.Many of the Hungarian rebels were fascist anti-Semites, and the Red Army was doing God's work in killing them off. You should read the Soviet White Book, a multi-volume work detailing the atrocities committed by the Hungarian fascist movement in 1956, but unfortunately this is never gonna be made availabhle to the American public.
Angola was a battle on behalf of socialist revolutionaries against stooges backed by white racist South Africans and the U.S.A. - - every Cuban soldier who fell there died a hero in the fight against racism and fascism.
-
Chinese died in Korea to prevent the takeover of a fellow socialist state by American imperialism.
Red Army troops killed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were a tiny handful, not even worth discussing. More American soldiers die every year in non-combat operations.Many of the Hungarian rebels were fascist anti-Semites, and the Red Army was doing God's work in killing them off. You should read the Soviet White Book, a multi-volume work detailing the atrocities committed by the Hungarian fascist movement in 1956, but unfortunately this is never gonna be made availabhle to the American public.
Angola was a battle on behalf of socialist revolutionaries against stooges backed by white racist South Africans and the U.S.A. - - every Cuban soldier who fell there died a hero in the fight against racism and fascism.
So i guess unjust, illegal and immoral are in the yes of the beholder and subjective at best.
-
<<So i guess unjust, illegal and immoral are in the yes of the beholder and subjective at best. >>
You wish! It would excuse every fucking crime and atrocity that your country has committed since the end of the Second World War.
Unfortunately for you, there are binding legal treaties, such as the Charter of the UN, the UN Convention Against Torture and Cruel and Unusual Punishment, the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Prisoners, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of the Organization of American States among others, to which reference can be had in case of doubt.
But yes, there is a subjective element here - - most legal scholars of reputable standing would have to interpret those treaties in a way that the U.S.A. would be found in violation of all of them, whereas eminent legal scholars such as John Yoo have different opinions, probably that the U.S. has violated none of them. There is an International Court of Justice to whose jurisdiction the U.S. has stubbornly refused to submit, which could easily resolve such differences of opinion.
Personally, the refusal of the U.S. to submit its version of conflicting interpretations of international law to a court which the U.S. itself took a leading role in founding, tells me all I need to know about the validity of the U.S. position with regard to any and all alleged violations of law by the U.S. There is nothing at all "subjective" about the injustice, immorality or illegality of the U.S. actions over the past 65 years, just a disgraceful perversion of the law or outright defiance, masked over poorly by the shyster opinions of a few government hack lawyers without even the fig-leaf of a submission to the World Court for a final determination.
-
Perhaps you can remind me as to when the Soviets went before the world court for Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the Chinese for their invasion of Korea.
-
Ahh, but BT, they were "justified" in those actions. No need to take anything to the World Court....they were trying to stamp out those evil imperialist Americans and their puppet takeovers. Didn't you get the memo?
-
<<Perhaps you can remind me as to when the Soviets went before the world court for Hungary and Czechoslovakia . . . >>
So at least you admit that the U.S. invasions of Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic and Panama (to name but a few) were as criminal and immoral as you consider the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia to have been?
<< . . . and the Chinese for their invasion of Korea. >>
Same response, plus which I'm not sure they didn't actually step into Korea at the invitation of the North Korean government whose forces were unable to prevent the American invaders from driving through their country to the Chinese border.
-
So at least you admit that the U.S. invasions of Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic and Panama (to name but a few) were as criminal and immoral as you consider the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia to have been?
I admit nothing. You are the one who set the bar of appearing before the world court to ascertain legitimacy.
I'm just wondering if that would be a universal requirement or only for those governments you disapprove of.
Same response, plus which I'm not sure they didn't actually step into Korea at the invitation of the North Korean government whose forces were unable to prevent the American invaders from driving through their country to the Chinese border.
If being invited bestows legitimacy, the the US involvement in Viet Nam was as legitimate as it can get. South Viet Nam was a member of the South Asian Treaty Organization, modeled after NATO.
-
Same response, plus which I'm not sure they didn't actually step into Korea at the invitation of the North Korean government whose forces were unable to prevent the American invaders from driving through their country to the Chinese border.
If being invited bestows legitimacy, the the US involvement in Viet Nam was as legitimate as it can get. South Viet Nam was a member of the South Asian Treaty Organization, modeled after NATO.
D'oh 8)
-
Chinese died in Korea to prevent the takeover of a fellow socialist state by American imperialism.
Socialist state survived mission accomplished
Korean people decimated several times mission accomplished.
People of Korea enslaved , starved kept in state of ignorance inside of large prison mission accomplished.
Large number of Chineese draftees die in complete smuckhood mission____________?
As Soviet state is worth more than any number of persons?
-
<<I admit nothing. You are the one who set the bar of appearing before the world court to ascertain legitimacy.>>
Fair enough. You don't draw any adverse inference against a country that refuses to submit its actions to the World Court's scrutiny because none of the big players will do that. However of all the big players, it is the U.S.A. only that pats itself endlessly on the back for its devotion to the rule of law and it was the U.S.A. that took the lead in the founding of the World Court. Therefore I find it particularly suspicious that this one country, supposedly so devoted to the Rule of Law, exempts its own action from the scrutiny of the court that it itself took the lead in founding.
<<I'm just wondering if that would be a universal requirement or only for those governments you disapprove of.>>
Nope, just the hypocritical bullshit U.S.A.. for the reasons stated above.
<<If being invited bestows legitimacy, the the US involvement in Viet Nam was as legitimate as it can get. South Viet Nam was a member of the South Asian Treaty Organization, modeled after NATO.>>
South-East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an organization bought and paid for by the U.S.A. and could confer no legitimacy on any government. South Vietnam was not created as a country, but as one of two zones of Viet Nam, the north half of which had a democratically elected Communist government led by Ho Chi Minh, and the south half of which was, by the treaty that created it, obligated to hold elections within a stated period of the separation, for national leadership. The U.S. government took over the sponsorship of the southern government from the French and encouraged it NOT to hold free elections, on the grounds frankly admitted by Eisenhower, that in a free election, Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote. With U.S. backing the former French puppets then declared themselves an independent nation and attempted to repress the will of their own people for unification with the north, ultimately of course failing spectacularly. They were never a legitimate nation, membership in an organization of U.S. puppet states and collaborators could not confer legitimacy upon them and there was no way that any invitation they extended could have any legitimacy at all, particularly when the invitation was to the very power that had backed it and encouraged it not to hold the elections that the founding treaty obligated them to hold.
-
Funny how legitimacy comes and goes. Take for example Iraq, a sovereign country illegally invaded by the US, except that is was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the British and its existence was dependent on the sponsor states to whom it sold its oil. So how did we illegally invade an illegitamate state whose existence was determined by the stroke of a pen, much like Viet Nam .
-
Re: The World Court
The World Court opened its doors in 1921 after the Covenant of the League of Nations was ratified by forty-two nations (sixty-three governments would join the league before its demise in 1946). President Woodrow Wilson, despite his passionate efforts, failed to convince the Senate to ratify the treaty; therefore, the United States would not be a member of the league or the court. Ironically, Germany joined the league in 1926 and the Soviet Union became a member in 1934 (only to be expelled in 1939).
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/world-court.htm (http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/world-court.htm)
-
Chinese died in Korea to prevent the takeover of a fellow socialist state by American imperialism.
===================================
It is pretty hard to justify anyone dying to defend Kim Il Sung in Korea. First off, North Korea invaded South Korea. They did this because the understood that the US would not retaliate, based on statements from the US government that should never have been made.
Second, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il have to be among the least competent rulers on the planet of any ideology. They make Mugabe look good: at least Zimbabweans can flee his incompetence.
The PRC soldiers may have been told that they were defending a workers' state, but the reality is that China did not want any capitalist state on its border. They had to put up with Hong Kong and Macau, but they were not going to put up with a capitalist Korea, which was a threat from both a military and a political view.
South Korea was a wreck in 1950, after the Japanese occupation, as was the North, but by 1990 it had passed out of the "developing world" status" and now it is clearly first world. In North Korea, they are still eating grass and weeds, if they are not starving. The North Korean Army could overthrow Kim, but the officers know that they would lose their prestige and could only hope for driving cabs in Seoul at best. It will take North Korea around 30 years at least to approximate the development standards of the South. East Germany was already pretty well developed, but North Korea sucks at every level.
I don't see any way anyone can defend North Korea as a society or as a country, compared to what it could be after unification.
-
well said .
The Koreans I have met do not consider North and South Korea to be two nations , but one nation unfortunately divided , they didn't like a map I had that showed the DMZ as a bold line as if it were a real border.
-
Of course, in 1952, both Koreas were run by dictators who were heavily influenced by foreign powers. It was certainly not obvious that South Korea would evolve into another Japan. It was not clear that Japan would become what it has become.
-
Of course, in 1952, both Koreas were run by dictators who were heavily influenced by foreign powers. It was certainly not obvious that South Korea would evolve into another Japan. It was not clear that Japan would become what it has become.
It was clear to General McArther.
He was the hero of the peace .
-
I really doubt that McArthur would have predicted that by 2010, the Japanese would have cornered the US luxury car market with the Lexus, Acura and Infiniti. McArthur was a military genius, but his idea of nuking the Chinese was a very bad idea, and we are lucky Truman fired his ass.
I recall the Republican Convention of 1952, when some Senator from Oklahoma nominated MacArthur for the Republican candidate. I told my father and he snickered and said that Eisenhower was better, because he wasn't nuts.
And so it came to pass.
-
I really doubt that McArthur would have predicted that by 2010, the Japanese would have cornered the US luxury car market with the Lexus, Acura and Infiniti. McArthur was a military genius, but his idea of nuking the Chinese was a very bad idea, and we are lucky Truman fired his ass.
I recall the Republican Convention of 1952, when some Senator from Oklahoma nominated MacArthur for the Republican candidate. I told my father and he snickered and said that Eisenhower was better, because he wasn't nuts.
And so it came to pass.
What makes his idea of nukeing the Chineese a bad idea?
If he had been given the chance to write the constitution of China , he might have done just as good a job as he did in Japan*.
*Actually he deligated this task to his staff , but the national treasures preservation was his idea.
-
What makes his idea of nukeing the Chineese a bad idea?
If he had been given the chance to write the constitution of China , he might have done just as good a job as he did in Japan*.
*Actually he deligated this task to his staff , but the national treasures preservation was his idea.
===========================================================================
I hardly think that MacArthur would have been authorized to CONQUER China with nuclear weapons. Nor would the US have been able to have occupied China the way it occupied Japan. Occupying Japan was easy to do, being as nearly all the men between the ages of 15 and 60 had been killed in the War. It was largely a nation of women and children, and a few old men. China is exponentially larger than Japan, and of course, there already was a Nationalist Constitution that is really rather well done. It is the Sun Yatsen Constitution, which is still in force in Taiwan, and far more in harmony with China and its people than anything that MacArthur could write.
Japan is a society which values its heritage far more than the US. I really doubt that its national treasures were likely to be endangered by Japanese.
-
<<What makes his idea of nukeing the Chineese a bad idea?>>
In all seriousness, don't you think the idea of nuking the U.S.A. is a bad idea?
If you're not a racist, how come you can plainly see why nuking the U.S.A. is bad but seem to think that nuking the Chinese might not be bad?
-
If the US were nuked, Plane might be one of the nukees, though this is doubtful, I do not think here he is is all that strategic. If China were nuked, he would not be a nukee for certain.
MacArthur's plan was to nuke the major invasion routes of the Chinese forces at the Yalu River. He did not plan to conquer China, or at least that was not part of his proposal. It would have stopped the Chinese advance, and then the UN troops would have mopped up the North Korean Army and Korea would have been unified, separated from the Chinese by a border that glowed in the dark.
No doubt there would have been some dolts in Congress who would have wanted him to conquer China by whatever means and return it to Chaing and his Dragon Lady wife. But I do not think that this would have happened.
-
Once you burst an A- bomb on their territory , but you don't really destroy their strength , can you then simply stop?
If China had been so directly attacked, how could they refrain reciprocation?
I think that the Yalu could have been made more of an obsticle by planting minefeilds deeply on the southern bank , blowing up the south end of the bridges and pumping water over the roads to glaze them with ice .
But I could come up with many possible preparations from my perch in the future here and now, I have the advantage of hindsight. Could the massive cristmass attack have been forseen soon enough to prepare in any way at all?