A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
According to Al Haig and Kissinger in this dicussion the bombing was really effective.

If Kissinger and Haig say their policies were effective, what else do you need to know? Kissinger in particular is renowned for his integrity, right?

[Penske_Account]

FoxNews is showing tens of thousands of American-Iraqis in Dearborne Michigan taking to the streets celebrating the impending justice upon Saddam......Hank, are you there?



eta: fox reporting, he has entered the gallows.....breaking....

[Penske_Account]

less than 60 seconds.........

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know much about Dr. Caldicott and am happy to accept your characterization of her for these purposes. Since she continues to be Australian (I thought she was a Kiwi, but Googled), she continues to be irrelevant for present purposes,

Just recently she and Robert McNamara have been "hanging out". A couple of weeks ago she was telling me about all these things that McNamara had been telling her that confirmed what she has been claiming all along about Vietnam and US nuclear policy. Things that she had been lecturing me about since my early childhood (poor Less suffered some of the same abuse). I told her she was full of it. She couldn't believe that I had the temerity to question what she had told me, so we made a bet and all of a sudden I was on her cell phone with the former Secretary of Defense and architect of the Vietnam war. I went through all things she had claimed he had said to her and he denied every single one.

One of the happiest moments of my life.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
less than 60 seconds.........

DEAD!!!!! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

BABYJESUS BE PRAISED!

[Penske_Account]

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Kissinger and Haig say their policies were effective, what else do you need to know? Kissinger in particular is renowned for his integrity, right?

Actually, Haig admitted that many of the things they did failed and said that those involved, like him, had to take responsibility for all the negative consequences of the war. Kissenger did not seem to share this attitute. But he and Kissinger both averred that the Christmas bombings were quite effective.

Valenti stated that Johnson was reluctant to do such bombings because it might start WWIII and that they didn't think it would influence North Vietnam to change their actions much. I guess Johnson avoided bombing Hanoi pretty much all together. Valenti expressed that he was also amazed at how the bombing got the North Vietnamese to the Table and to start conceding to US demands. He did not expect that to happen and that is why, when he was part of the decision making process, the decision to massively bomb Hanoi was not made. He conceded that may have been a mistake. Although in his own defense, he did say that Nixon, and everyone else, didn't think the bombing would be as effective as it turned out to be. He seem to imply that Nixon chose to do the bombing because he was so exasperated by the North Vietnamese sudden disregard of their Paris accord pledges that up till that point they had been keeping. He impliled that Nixon wasn't sure if the bombings would do much good, but had limited options, so he went ahead with them. According to Valenti, everyone was caught by surprise at how effective the bombing was. Kissinger and Haig didn't seem to dispute this statement. Neither claimed that they forsaw the effectiveness of this strategy.

Haig said that because of the intense international pressure and pressure from Congress that they stopped the bombing and he went along and supported that decision. In hind sight he said that the biggest mistake he made concerning the war was that that he didn't push for more bombing (and he claimed that Nixon said the same thing to him to him in private). In other words, he admitted that he screwed up, and his screw up was very costly. Kissinger, unlike Haig, didn't seem to think that even though the bombing was working, that continuing it was an option. Kissinger didn't seem to be willing to admit to any mistakes.

In other words, Haig was saying that they could be blamed for stopping the bombing where Kissinger was saying that they could not be blamed for stopping the bombing because they really had no choice (because of Congress and the international outcry).

Am I the only one that saw this yesterday? What I didn’t get from the discussion (which it seemed everyone watching was expected to know because it was common knowledge) was all these incredible concessions and actions that North Vietnamese took because of the bombing. Any one know what this supposed amazing turnaround on the part of the North Vietnamese entailed?

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
I'm drinking. sorry. I'll still hit 230 this month

If you stopped boozing so much, you might only weigh in at 215.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you stopped boozing so much, you might only weigh in at 215.

Its not so much the booze but the cheese and chocolate courses i have to compliment it.

[Penske_Account]

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I have posted on littlegreenfootballs, albeit in the guise of my DU sock, but, a post is a post. why are you opposed to seeking the blogospheric insight of blogs with a much broader reach than this one? Afraid you will find out the ideas of the loonie liberals here are, well, loonie????

I was referring to DU, not LGF. I was also refering to posters who add substance, not bullshit.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I was referring to DU, not LGF. I was also refering to posters who add substance, not bullshit.

I am not sure if this answer is bourne out ignorance or stupidity, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your reason is clouded by the grief of recent loss. Anyhoo, it is common knowledge that I have posted at DU for the last 4-5 years under several prominent (for that board) monikers, and, I daresay, I am one of the more substantive posters on that shitepool.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not sure if this answer is bourne out ignorance or stupidity, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your reason is clouded by the grief of recent loss. Anyhoo, it is common knowledge that I have posted at DU for the last 4-5 years under several prominent (for that board) monikers, and, I daresay, I am one of the more substantive posters on that shitepool.

are you libraliz?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually, Haig admitted that many of the things they did failed and said that those involved, like him, had to take responsibility for all the negative consequences of the war. Kissenger did not seem to share this attitute. But he and Kissinger both averred that the Christmas bombings were quite effective.

Valenti stated that Johnson was reluctant to do such bombings because it might start WWIII and that they didn't think it would influence North Vietnam to change their actions much. I guess Johnson avoided bombing Hanoi pretty much all together. Valenti expressed that he was also amazed at how the bombing got the North Vietnamese to the Table and to start conceding to US demands. He did not expect that to happen and that is why, when he was part of the decision making process, the decision to massively bomb Hanoi was not made. He conceded that may have been a mistake. Although in his own defense, he did say that Nixon, and everyone else, didn't think the bombing would be as effective as it turned out to be. He seem to imply that Nixon chose to do the bombing because he was so exasperated by the North Vietnamese sudden disregard of their Paris accord pledges that up till that point they had been keeping. He impliled that Nixon wasn't sure if the bombings would do much good, but had limited options, so he went ahead with them. According to Valenti, everyone was caught by surprise at how effective the bombing was. Kissinger and Haig didn't seem to dispute this statement. Neither claimed that they forsaw the effectiveness of this strategy.

Haig said that because of the intense international pressure and pressure from Congress that they stopped the bombing and he went along and supported that decision. In hind sight he said that the biggest mistake he made concerning the war was that that he didn't push for more bombing (and he claimed that Nixon said the same thing to him to him in private). In other words, he admitted that he screwed up, and his screw up was very costly. Kissinger, unlike Haig, didn't seem to think that even though the bombing was working, that continuing it was an option. Kissinger didn't seem to be willing to admit to any mistakes.

In other words, Haig was saying that they could be blamed for stopping the bombing where Kissinger was saying that they could not be blamed for stopping the bombing because they really had no choice (because of Congress and the international outcry).

Am I the only one that saw this yesterday? What I didn?t get from the discussion (which it seemed everyone watching was expected to know because it was common knowledge) was all these incredible concessions and actions that North Vietnamese took because of the bombing. Any one know what this supposed amazing turnaround on the part of the North Vietnamese entailed?

Not shooting at us as we left and giving back POWs. Also, not requiring us to depose Theiu and hand over power to the NLF before we left. Seriously. According to Kissinger (yes, that's who I meant by "Hank" -- apologies for the confusion) in his memoirs, his negotiations with Le Duc Tho were very much like that, and it was a source of real frustration.

That's what amazes me about your take on Vietnam. There is no dispute that militarily, we could have prevented the North from winning. But we also could not prevent the South from losing, and even with half a million US soldiers patrolling the South, and more bombs dropped than in all other wars combined, we were unable to prevent Tet. The government in the South lacked popular support in the South because of corruption and the legacy of French colonialism, and we were hated by many of the people in the South because we propped them up.

Even without the North sending tanks down Highway 1 in the spring of 1975 (and ARVN was larger and supposedly better equipped and trained even then, but they crumbled), it was just a question of time before the South fell from within.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Not shooting at us as we left and giving back POWs. Also, not requiring us to depose Theiu and hand over power to the NLF before we left. Seriously. According to Kissinger (yes, that's who I meant by "Hank" -- apologies for the confusion) in his memoirs, his negotiations with Le Duc Tho were very much like that, and it was a source of real frustration.

That's what amazes me about your take on Vietnam. There is no dispute that militarily, we could have prevented the North from winning. But we also could not prevent the South from losing, and even with half a million US soldiers patrolling the South, and more bombs dropped than in all other wars combined, we were unable to prevent Tet. The government in the South lacked popular support in the South because of corruption and the legacy of French colonialism, and we were hated by many of the people in the South because we propped them up.

Even without the North sending tanks down Highway 1 in the spring of 1975 (and ARVN was larger and supposedly better equipped and trained even then, but they crumbled), it was just a question of time before the South fell from within.

Oh, and Sorenson is either a liar or ignorant if he said that the Kennedy Administration (including Mr. Marilyn Monroe) wasn't involved in the coup to overthrow Diem by at least giving the generals a wink and a nod. And did Kissenger mention his and Nixon's actions via Clare Chennault and Madame Chiang to get General Theiu to scuttle a peace deal in October 1968?