LOL, Americans are funny stuff

Discussion in 'History' started by mountainhare, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Communist:
    That's rather subjective. There are many individuals who would argue that Stalin was the greater of the evils. Including me.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RAW2000 suburban Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Thats the worst 'but,' I think I've ever read, "55'000 dead but...."
    I thought the US government was almost bankrupted by the vietnam war? at least thats what they taught me in class.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,026
    By all means, the margin is extremely narrow betweeen Hitler and Stalin. But surely, 'tis better to have a single dictator in power than two?

    (Also, just because my username includes the word "Communist", don't think I'm favouring Stalin. I am not.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Not "surely."

    Both were trying to do the other in, despite their "non aggression pack." Stalin, with the help of the allies, did in Hitler. Too bad for Eastern Europe that the effort did not kill him. Where was the CIA, when we needed them!!!!!!!?? They could have done something useful, for once, at Yalta.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The KGB, while also inept, was always less so than the CIA. Perhaps they did "take care of" Roosevelt. - He was giving Stalin much more resistance than Churchill, but perhaps Churchill was begining to grow senile - soon he was just a quiet "back bencher" in Parliament until he died.

    PS - Closer to the thread - The CIAis not "funny stuff." In the long run, their activity has hurt USA more than just about any agency of US I can think of. They are exactly the opposite of what is the best part of America. - Its seldom followed ideals.

    Thank God they are usually inept, but even this causes problems. If they knew how to do what they are supposed* to be doing, it would have, at least, been much harder for GWB to get the US into the Iraq mess he has.
    ------------------------------
    *Their proper job is reflected in their name. Most of the many military dictators they have set up all over the world for short term gains end up making the populations hate the US and later get put into jail** etc., if not killed, sometimes by the CIA itself. Pakistan had a democratically elected government, until US needed (and made IMHO) "regime change" there to get one that would help, in short term, "win the war on terror." It will be years before we know, but I would take 2:1 odds against me and still bet this was the CIA's latest disaster in the making. There is no doubt some CIA report somewhere telling GWB that the people of Pakistan will soon forget that the US agreed to help India advance its nuclear programs against the non-proliferations treaty. I would LOL except it is all so sad.
    --------------------------
    ** Their Nicaraguan guy is now in a Florida jail, but usually if they get to live, it is like the Shaw of Iran's exile in "house arrest" in Egypt. They do seem to have a soft heart for the widows they leave behind. Emilda Markos got to take more than 100 pairs of shoes when she was flown out. Diem's widow (Vietnam) did much better - a plane load of gold, that sutained (still now?) her large household staff in Paris and keeps her in the latest fashons, etc. "Papa Doc" also went to Paris, with a lot of CIA gold, I think, or at least it was transported there in a CIA plane for him. etc. etc. & etc. - I am sure we still do not know the half of it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2006
  8. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    I see this thinking frequently– "But X costs money to the US government, leaders would never do something like that to make money!"

    The US government doesn't make bombs. It doesn't make tanks. It doesn't make guns or rockets or subs. Nor does it build its own roads, or its own bridges, police stations, stadiums or schools. That would be fascism.

    Instead, the US government contracts out companies. Someone else makes all the weapons, the US just buys the guns from them. The US coffers may have been drained, but the money went to private companies who were in the war business. We call this the military-indsutrial complex, and you can invest in it. Those who invested in it during 'Nam made a lot of money. Bombs ain't cheap.
     
  9. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Clockwood,
    Nixon got us out of Vietnam. Wait, was that your complaint?
    Yeah, a prolonged war would have been sweet. Images like this always turn me on:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Damn I'm tittilated.
     
  10. OliverJ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    349
    LOL- I was about to post the same thing until I got to your post.

    Nevermind it was the democrats that got us into the war and republicans got us out. Truth dont matter.
     
  11. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    It was obviously a war, just not a declared war, which is irrelevant to the ultimate outcome. I know of no American that would argue that the US didn't lose the war. The argument is over the lack of a declaration for war as described by the Constitution, and whether executives have the constituitonal authority to declare 'police actions'.


    Actually, the Gulf of Tonkin incident did happen, just not the 2nd incident. The first incident, the torpedo boat assault on the Maddox on the night of 2 Aug., did happen. Of that there is no question. The North Vietnamese even acknowledge it did. It's the second assault on the night of 2 Aug. that we know didn't happen. But it's silly to say that it was a trumped up incident to start a war ordered by the Johnson admin on behalf of the military/industrial complex. If that was the case, the real incident on 2 Aug. would have been sufficient. Although the subsequent resolution gave Johnson a 'blank check', Johnson didn't finally commit the US to war until the following Feb., following 3 more NV attacks, and we know from the released classified documents the admin agonized for months over committing ground troops. In hindsight, we know they made the wrong decision, but there is no evidence it was a trumped up war. The more likely reasons were an oversensitive fear of the spread of communism, and concern of losing political ground to Republicans if South Vietnam was lost to the communists (Truman caught political hell for supposedly losing China to the communists).
     

Share This Page