Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4118
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:48 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:54 am
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm

Come now, I have been observing American politics for decades.
So have I!
I know that it is the Democrat Party (America's left) that has the support of the black community.


Presumably because they have found by experience that, as a rule. they get a better deal from them while from the Republican side they usually get nothing. Stop assuming that blacks are vacuous dupes who do not know on which side their bread is buttered. I refuse to believe that!
The black community was deceived first by LBJ and then by subsequent Democrats ever since. Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln while the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK and Jim Crow laws. LBJ allegely boasted to his Southern white colleagues that he will have the n.gg.rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years.
I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
Allegedly said to two governors (whose names were not given) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33.
The Democrats succeeded in conning the black community by a blend of welfarism, affirmative action, and posing as defenders of the black community against usually false charges of racism. Look at the results of cities that have been run by Democrats, often black Democrats. Has anything improved? No. Their policies don't work. Instead of changing policies, they maintained failed policies year after year.

These politicians don't really care for the black community. They just want their votes and know how to con them. The black community is still enslaved, this time to the Democratic Party Plantation. Instead of chains of iron, they are using chains of lies, dependency and the ideology of victimhood. Only the truth will set them free.

But the dawn may finally be breaking with the "Blexit" movement.
Which is why Democrats are nervous about President Trump’s embryonic popularity with African Americans, after he won just 8 percent of the black vote in 2016.

You can see the seeds in rising poll numbers, with one Rasmussen poll last year placing the president’s approval rating among black Americans at 36 percent. It was quickly dismissed as an outlier, but other polls since have confirmed a smaller upward trajectory.

The NAACP’s own poll in August showed Trump’s approval rating at 21 percent.
In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:48 pm
If they did then they did it unchallenged in the midst of an ideaological vacumn. The government side represented by President LBJ failed to present a valid reason to the American public as to why so many their sons should be conscripted to die in a war in an obscure foreign country that few Americans at the time could even locate on the map and even fewer cared a shit about?
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm
He explained that the US was trying to stop the spread of Communism,
.... and he also earned himself a reputation for being a liar. No one believed Johnson in the end.
That explains why the Americans were sacrificing the lives of their young and lots of $$$ for ten years. Very few other nations could have generated so much willingness to sacrifice for the good of others.
"Americans" (if by that you mean their general public) were NOT. It was being done, forced upon them, in their name by those placed over them.

From where do you get the silly impression that "saving Vietnam" was ever a popular cause within American society at large?

Indeed, when are you going to finally snap outm of your private world of romantic make believe?
When will you see the big picture? It may not have been popular. Sacrifices never are. But enough Americans were idealistic enough for the war to be sustained for a very long period - 10 years. You must also see the context. The US took on the role as Defender of the Free world, without much opposition. It had troops in Europe and was committed to defend Western Europe against a Warsaw Pact invasion. It had troops in South Korea to defend against a North Korean invasion and had fought a long and bloody war there. It also then had troops in Taiwan to defend against a Communist Chinese invasion.

The US public had plenty of time to think about the possible consequences of these commitments. Despite the risks, they were generally willing to make the sacrifices. Vietnam war was the bloody consequence they paid for undertaking the role as Defender of the Free World against Socialism/Communism. Yet, they were willing to make the sacrifices for 10 long years.

As I admitted, my countrymen would not have been willing to make a similar sacrifice even though Vietnam was so close by. Granted that we were poor at that time, but the main reason was that we simply lacked the idealism that the Americans had. We only do things that will profit us. As I said, Vietnam was dirt poor with little natural resources that would have enriched the US. Nor will it provide a rich consumer market for US companies. The only reason was that the US was willing to make sacrifices to stop the spread of Socialism/Communism. This requires idealism. They believed that they were doing good for the world.
I already admitted that my own country would not and did not make such a sacrifice.
In 1965, the year that Johnson made the fatal decision to ramp up US troop numbers in South Vietnam requiring conscripted young men to make up the numbers; Singapore was struggling to get itself set up as a sovering republic having just bheen kicked out of malaysia. Your country was then in no position to pursue ambitious foreign policy goals. That non-committal positioning for the sake of commerce and trade advantages abroad may have to come to an end soon as the global geopolitical shift presently coming about bears down upon it. No one likes a passive hitchhiker-passenger for an ally.
Yes, that is true. But by 1991, we were rich. We had a credible arm forces by that time, said to be the best in SE Asia. Yet we only sent 30 member medical team to Riyadh, far away from harm's way. At least you Aussies were more willing to make sacrifices for the good of others. Otherwise, Chin Peng might be ruling Malaya and Singapore.
After a while, even the generally more idealistic American public got tired and wanted to stop their sacrifices.
Especially as those sacrifices were patently inequible and the USA itself was in no danger.
That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won.
If the Americans has "nearly won" in Vietnam they would not have sought out, almost bgegged for, a peace treaty with Hanoi in order to permit them a dignified exit from the war (or at least the appearence of one).
Because America is a democracy. The voters wanted out. Their generosity and idealism won thin, partly worn down by Leftists who portrayed the war as immoral. The war was won on the battlefield but lost at the home front. The home front is America's weakness, especially with some members of the left who secretly wanted their fellow Socialists/Communists in N Vietnam to win.
Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.


:lol: Against the terms and conditions of the Paris peace accord with Hanoi - are you joking, Cass?
The Paris Peace Accord allowed the Americans to replace weapons and munitions that were expended in any renewed fighting. But Congress (pressured by leftists who wanted the Commies to win) balked.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5591
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:40 pm

cassowary wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:48 pm


The black community was deceived first by LBJ and then by subsequent Democrats ever since. Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln while the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK and Jim Crow laws. LBJ allegely boasted to his Southern white colleagues that he will have the n.gg.rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years.
BULLSHIT! I have let you get away with that old slander unchallenged for far too long.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/p ... act-1.html

Just five days after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson went before Congress and spoke to a nation still stunned from the events in Dallas that had shocked the world.

Johnson made it clear he would pursue the slain President's legislative agenda—especially a particular bill that Kennedy had sought but that faced strong and vehement opposition from powerful southern Democrats.
It took the martyrdom of JFK, in Johnson's home state of Texas no less (a segregation state probalby with plenty of trigger-happy physcopaths within) to turn Johnson a convert from being anti-black civil rights into a supporter. (That strikes me as more like a Catholic than a protestant response to Kennedy's murder :D ). Johnson's subsequent conduct of black civil rights policy while president demonstrates that this rough-hewn veteran from the Good Old Boys network of the Deep South was sincere in his new found committment.
I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
Allegedly said to two governors (whose names were not given) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33.
No doubt a comforting lie meant to placate his Southern listeners - telling the buggers what they wanted to hear so they would not withdraw their support. Circumstances change the meaning of what was uttered.

Given that the Democrats party had its "Dixie" wing along with its northern industrial wing; safe to say that it is not a party you can attach labels like left wing or right wing with impunity. The two blocks of supporters (I believe theire were others but these were the two biggest) mean that the Democrats Party was, in the Kennedy-Johnson years as it probably is today, a pluralist party with a talent for accommodating a wide variety of interests and (sometimes incompatable) agendas within its "umberella" party organisation.

I object to the way in which you misrepresent a party like that as though it were like the Communist Party in a state ruled by one - with the Party creed a standardised one imposed top-down on the party membership.

I also object to your frequent misuse of selective facts to distort the historical record. I see that as a deliberate attempt to distort the truth: not the bi-product of ignorence.

You give me the impression that you are trying to wage a one-man idealogical struggle instead of seeking to arrive at objective truth. I fail to see what joy you get out of perpetrating lies to attain your obscure objective but morally it places you at the same level of bakruptcy as those you purport to despise.

So I have chosen to ignore the rest of the drivel you have published in this post: knowing that trying to convince you otherwise is tantamount to hitting my head against a brick wall.

Cassowary: for God's sake stop resisting the truth. Own up that you are wrong.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4118
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:33 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:40 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:48 pm


The black community was deceived first by LBJ and then by subsequent Democrats ever since. Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln while the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK and Jim Crow laws. LBJ allegely boasted to his Southern white colleagues that he will have the n.gg.rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years.
BULLSHIT! I have let you get away with that old slander unchallenged for far too long.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/p ... act-1.html

Just five days after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson went before Congress and spoke to a nation still stunned from the events in Dallas that had shocked the world.

Johnson made it clear he would pursue the slain President's legislative agenda—especially a particular bill that Kennedy had sought but that faced strong and vehement opposition from powerful southern Democrats.
It took the martyrdom of JFK, in Johnson's home state of Texas no less (a segregation state probalby with plenty of trigger-happy physcopaths within) to turn Johnson a convert from being anti-black civil rights into a supporter. (That strikes me as more like a Catholic than a protestant response to Kennedy's murder :D ). Johnson's subsequent conduct of black civil rights policy while president demonstrates that this rough-hewn veteran from the Good Old Boys network of the Deep South was sincere in his new found committment.
I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
Allegedly said to two governors (whose names were not given) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33.
No doubt a comforting lie meant to placate his Southern listeners - telling the buggers what they wanted to hear so they would not withdraw their support. Circumstances change the meaning of what was uttered.

Given that the Democrats party had its "Dixie" wing along with its northern industrial wing; safe to say that it is not a party you can attach labels like left wing or right wing with impunity. The two blocks of supporters (I believe theire were others but these were the two biggest) mean that the Democrats Party was, in the Kennedy-Johnson years as it probably is today, a pluralist party with a talent for accommodating a wide variety of interests and (sometimes incompatable) agendas within its "umberella" party organisation.

I object to the way in which you misrepresent a party like that as though it were like the Communist Party in a state ruled by one - with the Party creed a standardised one imposed top-down on the party membership.

I also object to your frequent misuse of selective facts to distort the historical record. I see that as a deliberate attempt to distort the truth: not the bi-product of ignorence.

You give me the impression that you are trying to wage a one-man idealogical struggle instead of seeking to arrive at objective truth. I fail to see what joy you get out of perpetrating lies to attain your obscure objective but morally it places you at the same level of bakruptcy as those you purport to despise.

So I have chosen to ignore the rest of the drivel you have published in this post: knowing that trying to convince you otherwise is tantamount to hitting my head against a brick wall.

Cassowary: for God's sake stop resisting the truth. Own up that you are wrong.
Neverfail,

You are wrong. Not me. LBJ had a change of heart? A road to Damascus moment? I don’t believe that. You have too much faith in human nature. I don’t.

Ninety percent of the time people act out of self interest. That’s a good assumption to make when assessing people’s motives. People act out of self interest. LBJ wanted to be elected President. To win outside the Deep South, he had to ditch his segregationist, racist past. That’s all.

Now of course, only God knows what was in his heart. My guess is that he did it to fulfil his ambition of becoming President. You think he had a sincere change of heart. I think there is a 90% chance that I am right.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by Doc » Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:06 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:33 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:40 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:48 pm


The black community was deceived first by LBJ and then by subsequent Democrats ever since. Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln while the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK and Jim Crow laws. LBJ allegely boasted to his Southern white colleagues that he will have the n.gg.rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years.
BULLSHIT! I have let you get away with that old slander unchallenged for far too long.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/p ... act-1.html

Just five days after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson went before Congress and spoke to a nation still stunned from the events in Dallas that had shocked the world.

Johnson made it clear he would pursue the slain President's legislative agenda—especially a particular bill that Kennedy had sought but that faced strong and vehement opposition from powerful southern Democrats.
It took the martyrdom of JFK, in Johnson's home state of Texas no less (a segregation state probalby with plenty of trigger-happy physcopaths within) to turn Johnson a convert from being anti-black civil rights into a supporter. (That strikes me as more like a Catholic than a protestant response to Kennedy's murder :D ). Johnson's subsequent conduct of black civil rights policy while president demonstrates that this rough-hewn veteran from the Good Old Boys network of the Deep South was sincere in his new found committment.
I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
Allegedly said to two governors (whose names were not given) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33.
No doubt a comforting lie meant to placate his Southern listeners - telling the buggers what they wanted to hear so they would not withdraw their support. Circumstances change the meaning of what was uttered.

Given that the Democrats party had its "Dixie" wing along with its northern industrial wing; safe to say that it is not a party you can attach labels like left wing or right wing with impunity. The two blocks of supporters (I believe theire were others but these were the two biggest) mean that the Democrats Party was, in the Kennedy-Johnson years as it probably is today, a pluralist party with a talent for accommodating a wide variety of interests and (sometimes incompatable) agendas within its "umberella" party organisation.

I object to the way in which you misrepresent a party like that as though it were like the Communist Party in a state ruled by one - with the Party creed a standardised one imposed top-down on the party membership.

I also object to your frequent misuse of selective facts to distort the historical record. I see that as a deliberate attempt to distort the truth: not the bi-product of ignorence.

You give me the impression that you are trying to wage a one-man idealogical struggle instead of seeking to arrive at objective truth. I fail to see what joy you get out of perpetrating lies to attain your obscure objective but morally it places you at the same level of bakruptcy as those you purport to despise.

So I have chosen to ignore the rest of the drivel you have published in this post: knowing that trying to convince you otherwise is tantamount to hitting my head against a brick wall.

Cassowary: for God's sake stop resisting the truth. Own up that you are wrong.
Neverfail,

You are wrong. Not me. LBJ had a change of heart? A road to Damascus moment? I don’t believe that. You have too much faith in human nature. I don’t.

Ninety percent of the time people act out of self interest. That’s a good assumption to make when assessing people’s motives. People act out of self interest. LBJ wanted to be elected President. To win outside the Deep South, he had to ditch his segregationist, racist past. That’s all.

Now of course, only God knows what was in his heart. My guess is that he did it to fulfil his ambition of becoming President. You think he had a sincere change of heart. I think there is a 90% chance that I am right.
LBJ voted against every civil rights act as a member of congress or gutted them as speaker of the house

https://www.truthorfiction.com/candace- ... ights-act/

That would include the republican civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960. Johnson was clearly a racist and only changed when he started running for president.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 5591
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:16 am

Doc wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:06 am

LBJ voted against every civil rights act as a member of congress or gutted them as speaker of the house

https://www.truthorfiction.com/candace- ... ights-act/

That would include the republican civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960. Johnson was clearly a racist and only changed when he started running for president.
Yes, while he was a representative of the (segregationist) State of Texas he did just that (I did not deny it). But given the constituency he served he may not have had any choice in the matter - displease the establishment in a place like that and you can kiss your political career "goodbye". I am glad you can see that Doc.

(It is wrong to presume that any politican is absolutely free to vote whichever way he wants.)

Johnson had the coarse, roughhewn persona of someone of underpriveleged background who had to struggle his way up. For white southerners of his generation and class I believe that being anti-black almost came to you with mother's milk

But by the time he became president LBJ had changed. I would not be surprised if during his time of association with President Kennedy we a warm friendship with the guy (JFK always came across as likeable) and subsequently the JFK assassanation in Dallas had the catharic effect of bringing about a sort of Damascene conversion in Johnson. Recalling his friend Kennedy for his better qualities Johnson must have made a solemn vow to push Kennedy's legislative agenda - above all the black civil rights bill.

It would have also symbolically given Johnson the satisfaction of exacting some vengeance of those bigots down in Dixie who had wanted Kennedy dead.

Being no longer in Congress meant he was out of the clutches of the Democrats establishment in his home state of Texas for good. His 1964 election win over Barry Goldwater finally gave him the authority to pursue that agenda.
......................................................................................................................................

I object to the way that Cassowary quoted select 'facts' about LBJ's life out of context in order to posthumously slander Johnson's reputation. That is the underhand tactic of any low politican attempting to rub out an opponent.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4118
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:23 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:16 am
Doc wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:06 am

LBJ voted against every civil rights act as a member of congress or gutted them as speaker of the house

https://www.truthorfiction.com/candace- ... ights-act/

That would include the republican civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960. Johnson was clearly a racist and only changed when he started running for president.
Yes, while he was a representative of the (segregationist) State of Texas he did just that (I did not deny it). But given the constituency he served he may not have had any choice in the matter - displease the establishment in a place like that and you can kiss your political career "goodbye". I am glad you can see that Doc.

(It is wrong to presume that any politican is absolutely free to vote whichever way he wants.)

Johnson had the coarse, roughhewn persona of someone of underpriveleged background who had to struggle his way up. For white southerners of his generation and class I believe that being anti-black almost came to you with mother's milk

But by the time he became president LBJ had changed. I would not be surprised if during his time of association with President Kennedy we a warm friendship with the guy (JFK always came across as likeable) and subsequently the JFK assassanation in Dallas had the catharic effect of bringing about a sort of Damascene conversion in Johnson. Recalling his friend Kennedy for his better qualities Johnson must have made a solemn vow to push Kennedy's legislative agenda - above all the black civil rights bill.

It would have also symbolically given Johnson the satisfaction of exacting some vengeance of those bigots down in Dixie who had wanted Kennedy dead.

Being no longer in Congress meant he was out of the clutches of the Democrats establishment in his home state of Texas for good. His 1964 election win over Barry Goldwater finally gave him the authority to pursue that agenda.
......................................................................................................................................

I object to the way that Cassowary quoted select 'facts' about LBJ's life out of context in order to posthumously slander Johnson's reputation. That is the underhand tactic of any low politican attempting to rub out an opponent.
Neverfail, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by the Republicans. See this link.

Unlike a Southern Democrat like LBJ, Kennedy was from New England. So he had no excuse.

As always, I see things by asking, “What was in it for Kennedy (or anybody else) to behave that way?”

Again, it’s very likely to be ambition. Like Johnson, Kennedy wanted to be President. To do that, he needed to be nominated by the racist Democratic Party Plantation.

So ...
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5591
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some SINGAPORE Chinese want to refight the Vietban War,

Post by neverfail » Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:27 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:48 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:54 am
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm

Come now, I have been observing American politics for decades.
So have I!
I know that it is the Democrat Party (America's left) that has the support of the black community.


Presumably because they have found by experience that, as a rule. they get a better deal from them while from the Republican side they usually get nothing. Stop assuming that blacks are vacuous dupes who do not know on which side their bread is buttered. I refuse to believe that!
The black community was deceived first by LBJ and then by subsequent Democrats ever since. Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln while the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK and Jim Crow laws. LBJ allegely boasted to his Southern white colleagues that he will have the n.gg.rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years.
I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
Allegedly said to two governors (whose names were not given) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33.
The Democrats succeeded in conning the black community by a blend of welfarism, affirmative action, and posing as defenders of the black community against usually false charges of racism. Look at the results of cities that have been run by Democrats, often black Democrats. Has anything improved? No. Their policies don't work. Instead of changing policies, they maintained failed policies year after year.

These politicians don't really care for the black community. They just want their votes and know how to con them. The black community is still enslaved, this time to the Democratic Party Plantation. Instead of chains of iron, they are using chains of lies, dependency and the ideology of victimhood. Only the truth will set them free.

But the dawn may finally be breaking with the "Blexit" movement.
Which is why Democrats are nervous about President Trump’s embryonic popularity with African Americans, after he won just 8 percent of the black vote in 2016.

You can see the seeds in rising poll numbers, with one Rasmussen poll last year placing the president’s approval rating among black Americans at 36 percent. It was quickly dismissed as an outlier, but other polls since have confirmed a smaller upward trajectory.

The NAACP’s own poll in August showed Trump’s approval rating at 21 percent.
In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:48 pm
If they did then they did it unchallenged in the midst of an ideaological vacumn. The government side represented by President LBJ failed to present a valid reason to the American public as to why so many their sons should be conscripted to die in a war in an obscure foreign country that few Americans at the time could even locate on the map and even fewer cared a shit about?
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm
He explained that the US was trying to stop the spread of Communism,
.... and he also earned himself a reputation for being a liar. No one believed Johnson in the end.
That explains why the Americans were sacrificing the lives of their young and lots of $$$ for ten years. Very few other nations could have generated so much willingness to sacrifice for the good of others.
"Americans" (if by that you mean their general public) were NOT. It was being done, forced upon them, in their name by those placed over them.

From where do you get the silly impression that "saving Vietnam" was ever a popular cause within American society at large?

Indeed, when are you going to finally snap outm of your private world of romantic make believe?
When will you see the big picture? It may not have been popular. Sacrifices never are. But enough Americans were idealistic enough for the war to be sustained for a very long period - 10 years. You must also see the context. The US took on the role as Defender of the Free world, without much opposition. It had troops in Europe and was committed to defend Western Europe against a Warsaw Pact invasion. It had troops in South Korea to defend against a North Korean invasion and had fought a long and bloody war there. It also then had troops in Taiwan to defend against a Communist Chinese invasion.

The US public had plenty of time to think about the possible consequences of these commitments. Despite the risks, they were generally willing to make the sacrifices. Vietnam war was the bloody consequence they paid for undertaking the role as Defender of the Free World against Socialism/Communism. Yet, they were willing to make the sacrifices for 10 long years.

As I admitted, my countrymen would not have been willing to make a similar sacrifice even though Vietnam was so close by. Granted that we were poor at that time, but the main reason was that we simply lacked the idealism that the Americans had. We only do things that will profit us. As I said, Vietnam was dirt poor with little natural resources that would have enriched the US. Nor will it provide a rich consumer market for US companies. The only reason was that the US was willing to make sacrifices to stop the spread of Socialism/Communism. This requires idealism. They believed that they were doing good for the world.
I already admitted that my own country would not and did not make such a sacrifice.
In 1965, the year that Johnson made the fatal decision to ramp up US troop numbers in South Vietnam requiring conscripted young men to make up the numbers; Singapore was struggling to get itself set up as a sovering republic having just bheen kicked out of malaysia. Your country was then in no position to pursue ambitious foreign policy goals. That non-committal positioning for the sake of commerce and trade advantages abroad may have to come to an end soon as the global geopolitical shift presently coming about bears down upon it. No one likes a passive hitchhiker-passenger for an ally.
Yes, that is true. But by 1991, we were rich. We had a credible arm forces by that time, said to be the best in SE Asia. Yet we only sent 30 member medical team to Riyadh, far away from harm's way. At least you Aussies were more willing to make sacrifices for the good of others. Otherwise, Chin Peng might be ruling Malaya and Singapore.
After a while, even the generally more idealistic American public got tired and wanted to stop their sacrifices.
Especially as those sacrifices were patently inequible and the USA itself was in no danger.
That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won.
If the Americans has "nearly won" in Vietnam they would not have sought out, almost bgegged for, a peace treaty with Hanoi in order to permit them a dignified exit from the war (or at least the appearence of one).
Because America is a democracy. The voters wanted out. Their generosity and idealism won thin, partly worn down by Leftists who portrayed the war as immoral. The war was won on the battlefield but lost at the home front. The home front is America's weakness, especially with some members of the left who secretly wanted their fellow Socialists/Communists in N Vietnam to win.
Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.


:lol: Against the terms and conditions of the Paris peace accord with Hanoi - are you joking, Cass?
The Paris Peace Accord allowed the Americans to replace weapons and munitions that were expended in any renewed fighting. But Congress (pressured by leftists who wanted the Commies to win) balked.
It could not have been of course that by then he US Congress had as little confidence in the regime in South Vietnam as everyone else did .

( :roll: Sigh!) Hitler blamed a back-stabbing Jewish conspiracy for Germany's defeat during the First World War and likewise you blame an imaginary leftist betrayal within the United States for that country's defeat in Vietnam. So when are YOU going to see the big picture and realise what a bloody fool you are?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4118
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some SINGAPORE Chinese want to refight the Vietban War,

Post by cassowary » Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:44 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:27 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:48 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:54 am
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm

Come now, I have been observing American politics for decades.
So have I!
I know that it is the Democrat Party (America's left) that has the support of the black community.


Presumably because they have found by experience that, as a rule. they get a better deal from them while from the Republican side they usually get nothing. Stop assuming that blacks are vacuous dupes who do not know on which side their bread is buttered. I refuse to believe that!
The black community was deceived first by LBJ and then by subsequent Democrats ever since. Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln while the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK and Jim Crow laws. LBJ allegely boasted to his Southern white colleagues that he will have the n.gg.rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years.
I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
Allegedly said to two governors (whose names were not given) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33.
The Democrats succeeded in conning the black community by a blend of welfarism, affirmative action, and posing as defenders of the black community against usually false charges of racism. Look at the results of cities that have been run by Democrats, often black Democrats. Has anything improved? No. Their policies don't work. Instead of changing policies, they maintained failed policies year after year.

These politicians don't really care for the black community. They just want their votes and know how to con them. The black community is still enslaved, this time to the Democratic Party Plantation. Instead of chains of iron, they are using chains of lies, dependency and the ideology of victimhood. Only the truth will set them free.

But the dawn may finally be breaking with the "Blexit" movement.
Which is why Democrats are nervous about President Trump’s embryonic popularity with African Americans, after he won just 8 percent of the black vote in 2016.

You can see the seeds in rising poll numbers, with one Rasmussen poll last year placing the president’s approval rating among black Americans at 36 percent. It was quickly dismissed as an outlier, but other polls since have confirmed a smaller upward trajectory.

The NAACP’s own poll in August showed Trump’s approval rating at 21 percent.
In the case of Vietnam, they spread the notion that the Vietnam war was an ignoble enterprise and America was the aggressor or imperialist power.

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:48 pm
If they did then they did it unchallenged in the midst of an ideaological vacumn. The government side represented by President LBJ failed to present a valid reason to the American public as to why so many their sons should be conscripted to die in a war in an obscure foreign country that few Americans at the time could even locate on the map and even fewer cared a shit about?
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm
He explained that the US was trying to stop the spread of Communism,
.... and he also earned himself a reputation for being a liar. No one believed Johnson in the end.
That explains why the Americans were sacrificing the lives of their young and lots of $$$ for ten years. Very few other nations could have generated so much willingness to sacrifice for the good of others.
"Americans" (if by that you mean their general public) were NOT. It was being done, forced upon them, in their name by those placed over them.

From where do you get the silly impression that "saving Vietnam" was ever a popular cause within American society at large?

Indeed, when are you going to finally snap outm of your private world of romantic make believe?
When will you see the big picture? It may not have been popular. Sacrifices never are. But enough Americans were idealistic enough for the war to be sustained for a very long period - 10 years. You must also see the context. The US took on the role as Defender of the Free world, without much opposition. It had troops in Europe and was committed to defend Western Europe against a Warsaw Pact invasion. It had troops in South Korea to defend against a North Korean invasion and had fought a long and bloody war there. It also then had troops in Taiwan to defend against a Communist Chinese invasion.

The US public had plenty of time to think about the possible consequences of these commitments. Despite the risks, they were generally willing to make the sacrifices. Vietnam war was the bloody consequence they paid for undertaking the role as Defender of the Free World against Socialism/Communism. Yet, they were willing to make the sacrifices for 10 long years.

As I admitted, my countrymen would not have been willing to make a similar sacrifice even though Vietnam was so close by. Granted that we were poor at that time, but the main reason was that we simply lacked the idealism that the Americans had. We only do things that will profit us. As I said, Vietnam was dirt poor with little natural resources that would have enriched the US. Nor will it provide a rich consumer market for US companies. The only reason was that the US was willing to make sacrifices to stop the spread of Socialism/Communism. This requires idealism. They believed that they were doing good for the world.
I already admitted that my own country would not and did not make such a sacrifice.
In 1965, the year that Johnson made the fatal decision to ramp up US troop numbers in South Vietnam requiring conscripted young men to make up the numbers; Singapore was struggling to get itself set up as a sovering republic having just bheen kicked out of malaysia. Your country was then in no position to pursue ambitious foreign policy goals. That non-committal positioning for the sake of commerce and trade advantages abroad may have to come to an end soon as the global geopolitical shift presently coming about bears down upon it. No one likes a passive hitchhiker-passenger for an ally.
Yes, that is true. But by 1991, we were rich. We had a credible arm forces by that time, said to be the best in SE Asia. Yet we only sent 30 member medical team to Riyadh, far away from harm's way. At least you Aussies were more willing to make sacrifices for the good of others. Otherwise, Chin Peng might be ruling Malaya and Singapore.
After a while, even the generally more idealistic American public got tired and wanted to stop their sacrifices.
Especially as those sacrifices were patently inequible and the USA itself was in no danger.
That's with hindsight. And I believe they nearly won.
If the Americans has "nearly won" in Vietnam they would not have sought out, almost bgegged for, a peace treaty with Hanoi in order to permit them a dignified exit from the war (or at least the appearence of one).
Because America is a democracy. The voters wanted out. Their generosity and idealism won thin, partly worn down by Leftists who portrayed the war as immoral. The war was won on the battlefield but lost at the home front. The home front is America's weakness, especially with some members of the left who secretly wanted their fellow Socialists/Communists in N Vietnam to win.
Had they kept some forces there as in South Korea, the South could have survived.


:lol: Against the terms and conditions of the Paris peace accord with Hanoi - are you joking, Cass?
The Paris Peace Accord allowed the Americans to replace weapons and munitions that were expended in any renewed fighting. But Congress (pressured by leftists who wanted the Commies to win) balked.
It could not have been of course that by then he US Congress had as little confidence in the regime in South Vietnam as everyone else did .

( :roll: Sigh!) Hitler blamed a back-stabbing Jewish conspiracy for Germany's defeat during the First World War and likewise you blame an imaginary leftist betrayal within the United States for that country's defeat in Vietnam. So when are YOU going to see the big picture and realise what a bloody fool you are?
What are you talking about? In any war, munitions and weaponry get used up and need to be replaced. Congress balked. Sending them replacements won’t cost a single American life.

The South would have survived if not for this.
..................................................

You know Neverfail, from the vantage of 1965, I can understand why sending in troops by the US made sense to the policy makers.

At that time, there were four countries that were divided into two parts - one non-communist and one communist. Germany, Korea, China and Vietnam. There were significant number of US troops in West Germany, South Korea, Taiwan just before the big increase of US forces in South Vietnam.

In West Germany, South Korea and Taiwan 🇹🇼, the presence of US forces stabilised the boundaries and brought peace. So it was unstandable if the US policy makers thought that sending troops into South Vietnam would achieve the same results.

They overlooked the infernal tropical jungles of Vietnam which negated superior American firepower. While, there was no guerilla war in West Germany, South Korea and Taiwan, the jungles of Vietnam allowed the communists to wage one.

This is the type of war the US was and is still not good at. Guerrilla wars test the patience of the American public not known for its patience.
The Imp :D

Post Reply