Usa Thread

[Flashermac]

"Today, I don’t believe the Vietnam War was winnable, and I lament the enormous amount of destruction we visited on the Vietnamese and their country, which I’ve written about in other articles, here and here for example.

Update (8/27/2014): Having watched the recent HBO documentary Nixon by Nixon: In His Own Words, it’s now glaringly obvious that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.  Indeed, that’s precisely what Nixon and Kissinger (secretly) concluded.  As they talked publicly about “peace with honor,” Nixon and Kissinger were privately conceding that the war was lost.  They were looking only to deflect blame from themselves, for “a decent interval” between when US troops withdrew and when South Vietnam collapsed, which is exactly what they got — roughly three years, by which time Nixon had resigned in disgrace due to Watergate.  Nixon and Kissinger also cast about for scapegoats; at the time, they planned to blame the inevitable defeat on the corruption of South Vietnamese leaders.  

Why did the U.S. lose in Vietnam?  A big reason, I think, is the dishonesty of our own government in consistently misleading the American people about the war and the region as well.  This dishonesty started just after World War II and extended to LBJ and Nixon as revealed in “The Pentagon Papers.”   In other words, Nixon’s “silent majority” wasn’t silent because it supported his policies.  It was silent because it had been lied to by Nixon and his predecessors.  If the U.S. government had had the guts to level with the American people, the worst of the war may have been averted.  Even Watergate would have been averted, since you can draw a clear line from Daniel Ellsberg and “The Pentagon Papers” to attempts to “get” Ellsberg to the “dirty tricks” of the Nixon Campaign in 1972 that ended in his resignation.  Lies begat crimes that begat more lies that begat more crimes."

 

https://contraryperspective.com/2014/04/19/how-the-u-s-could-have-won-the-vietnam-war-1982/

 

 

[Steve]

On 9/11/2019 at 3:11 PM, Coss said:

 

A note on strategy - I think that maybe the Dems are deliberately confusing the issue on Trump/Impeachment/etc etc.

With the intent together Trump to explode and take down the GOP with him.

Long game.

The Dems are no where close to being that smart or Machivelian. They are totally clueless  as a party. The choices we have are Machivelian right or "Dumb and Dumber" left. 

[Steve]

On 9/11/2019 at 4:51 PM, radioman said:

I recommend the BBC documentary series on the Vietnam war. Made over a period of ten years it is quite the body of work. There are currently 10 hours worth on iPlayer, possibly available elsewhere, and provides a very interesting take especially with a lot of recently released material, government phone conversations etc. Scary to think that senior people in the US knew in 68/69 there was no way out and no way to win.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b096k7q7/episodes/guide

 

One of the most outrageous things that surprisingly enough rarely gets talked about is Nixon breaking American law and every moral/ethical standards because of the lives lost, talked the South Vietnam leader into rejecting peace with promises and assurances from him of what Nixon would do for him after he is elected. It was supposed to be a November gift to the Democrat nominee in 1968 to have peace and Nixon killed it, and anyone killed in that war since 1968 lies squarely on his bloody hands. He further compounds it by not paying promised reparations of $3 billion to the North Vietnamese in the Paris peace talks. The North Vietnamese didn't trust him (rightfully so) and held back on POWs until they got the check that never came. Nixon knew about it. The CIA said there was a distinct undercount of POWs/MIAs that returnees said were in the various prison camps, names and numbers. Nixon doomed them all to whatever cruel fate that would face (torture and death most likely) knowingly because he didn't want to pay them out of spite and pettiness. This isn't talked about at all. Any, and I mean ANY positive reference to him, in any way shape or form is an affront. Sold out his own people. 

[Flashermac]

John Everingham, a Bangkok resident Australian journallist, travelled in Laos even after the communist takeover (though they did eventually kick him out). He told me that he was arrested for a few days by the Pathet Lao forces in eastern Laos. He said they informed him that something like 150 US POWs still remained in Laos, having been held back in hopes of bribing the US to pay millions for their release. When the US government refused to do so, he figured they were just shot.  😮

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/01/02/pow-pilots-left-

[cavanami]

19 hours ago, chocolat steve said:

The Dems are no where close to being that smart or Machivelian. They are totally clueless  as a party. The choices we have are Machivelian right or "Dumb and Dumber" left. 

Spot on, CS!

The Dems continue to shoot themselves in the foot!! The Dems make it so plain that they are slow walking this "impeachment" so as to have political ammo for the 2020 elections....all to the detriment of the USA citizens!!!

[Flashermac]

The 20 Democratic choices are hardly very inspiring. I like Bernie, but he's a hypocrite. (Maybe all politicians are.) Biden would probably be the best if they want to beat Trump, but I doubt if the Dems will go for him. Trump may win re-election simply by default.

 

[Steve]

5 hours ago, Flashermac said:

The 20 Democratic choices are hardly very inspiring. I like Bernie, but he's a hypocrite. 

 

I've heard him criticized for many things but not hypocrisy (not that I don't put it past him) but specifically what so I am educated about him.

Secondly, can Biden beat Trump? I am not sure he will even get the nomination? Long term, I think the Republicans are going to have to trouble with a candidate after Trump. Its still very early but, win or lose (and you never know who emerges) I think Trump has made running for GOP a whole lot harder or obvious and not so obvious reasons. 

[Coss]

Liz

Elizabeth Warren - does not have the Hillary face or unlikeable attitude

- has a brain

If you've been following the 'Wait but Why' guy's posts, you'll see that the 'thought pile' has moved.

[Flashermac]

Warren is apparently considered too left to be elected, even more so than Bernie.  

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-hypocrisy-of-bernie-sanders-income-inequality_b_10096298

 

[Coss]

But the thought pile has moved, the speech curve is catching up, but won't till after the election.

_

 

If these bold speakers are wrong about where the Thought Pile is, they often end up in trouble, penalized by the market. But when they’re right, they’re handsomely rewarded. They become iconic stand-up comedians, best-selling authors, and election-sweeping politicians.

One example that pops to mind is Obama being like, “Yeah duh I smoked pot. Smoking pot is fun.” The widespread assumption at the time was that saying something like that would sink a politician (which is why a few election cycles earlier, Clinton pretended he never inhaled)—but Obama was savvy enough to see that the Thought Pile had shifted and the Speech Curve was lagging behind.

And it turned out to be a boost for his popularity.  Saying what everyone is thinking but not saying is a form of leadership. It formalizes a Thought Pile shift that has already happened, clearing the way for everyone else to start saying those things too.

A few bold speakers with big platforms are usually all it takes for the whole Speech Curve to shift and realign with the Thought Pile.

https://waitbutwhy.com

 

* note: the colours on this graphic do not represent any political view, they are just there to be pretty, so the red, green and the blue are not GOP and Dems or any one else.