Ignorance

[jeremypayne]

>>> "Eisenhower warned the nation against a land war in Asia. He sent some very limited materiel assistance to the French when they were bogged down at Dien Bien Phu, but he refused to commit American troops."

The French actually requested a nuclear strike on the Viet Minh forces surrounding Dien Bien Phu and Eisenhower politely refused ... Churchill also went ballistic and refused to support such a move.

My favorite part of this discussion so far was where it was asserted that the natural state of the Arab Near East "100 years ago" was "united, peaceful and free" ... I'd like to know from what fairy tale that was taken!  I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.

[BernardLanguillier]

1.  Russia was a threat to world peace and yes the nuclear deterrent probably kept them from invading most of Europe and then some and taking advantage of post war weakness and unsurping America's Marshall plan for Germany and rebuilding of Japan.  But I don't think a demonstration on live humans was necessary to show the power of the bomb.  Sharing scientific data and allowed observation would have done the trick.

The key was not just to proof Russia that the USA had the bomb, it was to show Russia that the leaders of the USA had the guts to use is if "required". This is by the way by far the most logical explanation when taking historical facts into account.

Beyond a certain level of stakes logic and reasonnable odds basically always prevail.

This is also one of the reasons why it is unlikely that 9/11 was perpetrated according to the official conspiration theory. That is way too illogical and unlikely to have happened. I still don't understand why the US has now mostly accepted the fact that its leaders purposedely  lied about the reasons to attack Irak - generating thousands of billions of US$ of spending and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualities (no exageration here) - but doesn't want to consider seriously the possibility that the same leaders might have lied also about Al Qaida having triggered 9/11. Talk about crazy irrational. Oh... I was bout to forget.... the 9/11 commission said it was true...  

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the possibility that the same leaders might have lied also about Al Qaida having triggered 9/11...

Oh, no, you didn't!!!

... open another can of worms, that is

As the saying goes: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"... I know you meant the best when starting the thread, but what if it ends with a complete obliteration of the mankind?

[BernardLanguillier]

he he he... 

[DarkPenguin]

Oh, no, you didn't!!!

... open another can of worms, that is

As the saying goes: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"... I know you meant the best when starting the thread, but what if it ends with a complete obliteration of the mankind?

5 pages in that doesn't seem so bad to me.

[John McDermott]

 

In my 72+ years of existence I have learned that ignorance ALWAYS triumphs. It is simply a numbers game!

[stamper]

Stamper, I'm afraid whatever you're using as reference material is even more flaky than I thought it was.

1. What do you think Agent Orange is?

2. Where and when did all these troops mutiny and murder their officers?

Please give references for your answers to both these questions.

Russ I already gave a reference in post 72 but I will repeat it.

Jonathan Neale

The American War

Bookmarks Publications Ltd

You possibly won't like the book. It is written from a left wing perspective. Off the top of my head I will try and remember some of the salient points. Nearly 100 officers murdered in various locations. One flung from a dugout and machine gunned. It all started with leaving grenades in officer's bunks or blankets without a pin in them. They called it fragging. If an officer insisted in going into the jungle with his men as soon as they reached it the officer was murdered and the men camped for about 10 days and returned. As far as I can remember no men were ever court martialed. I have another book which I have misplaced. I am sure a Google search will return some information. As to Agent Orange it is a pesticide. A chemical that is hazardous to humans. Unfortunately it affected the GI's as well as the Vietnamese. Many of the GI's returned with mental health problems that the authorities blamed on post traumatic stress. I have read two books that list the events concerning mutiny. I suspect that they might not be readily available in the US?

An internet link and quote.

http://libcom.org/history/vietnam-gi-resistance

“Frag incidents” or “fragging” was soldier slang in Vietnam for the killing of strict, unpopular and aggressive officers and NCO’s (Non-Commissioned Officers, or “non-coms”). The word apparently originated from enlisted men using fragmentation grenades to off commanders. Heinl wrote, “Bounties, raised by common subscription in amounts running anywhere from $50 to $1,000, have been widely reported put on the heads of leaders who the privates and SP4s want to rub out.” Shortly after the costly assault on Hamburger Hill in mid-1969, one of the GI underground newspapers in Vietnam, GI Says, publicly offered a $10,000 bounty on Lieutenant Colonel Weldon Hunnicutt, the officer who ordered and led the attack.

Agent Orange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

[stamper]

This re-defines the whole problem. The war "couldn't be won" precisely because we did not wage it at 100% deadly capacity. That is the whole point you continue missing ...

John 100% effort in anything doesn't always guarantee success. If the enemy is pursuing it 100% as well then who is going to be the winner?



BTW John your second and third quotes in Reply76 weren't made by me but by other posters which you have wrongly attributed to me

[stamper]

Deleted post.

[stamper]

>>> "Eisenhower warned the nation against a land war in Asia. He sent some very limited materiel assistance to the French when they were bogged down at Dien Bien Phu, but he refused to commit American troops."

The French actually requested a nuclear strike on the Viet Minh forces surrounding Dien Bien Phu and Eisenhower politely refused ... Churchill also went ballistic and refused to support such a move.

My favorite part of this discussion so far was where it was asserted that the natural state of the Arab Near East "100 years ago" was "united, peaceful and free" ... I'd like to know from what fairy tale that was taken!  I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.

In 1915 Palestine was under British control. The Palestinians and Jews led a peaceful existence together. It wasn't till the arrival of the Zionists from Europe that tensions in Palestine were raised. Ultimately the British in Palestine left in 1947 after hundreds were murdered by the Zionists, mainly by the Stern gang. BTW not all Jews are Zionists. Most of them want to live in peace. It is the right wing fanatics who want to conquer Palestine. For further reading buy a copy of

A History of Modern Palestine: by

Ilan Pappe

Publishers Cambridge University Press

The author is a senior lecturer in Political Science at Haifa University in ISRAEL.

You can now pick yourself up from the floor. If you read the book and and re educate yourself it will probably be best read from your chair!

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I'd like to see some ignorance related photography in this thread.

[john beardsworth]

I'd like to see some ignorance related photography in this thread.

Coffee corner: "A forum for open discussion of both photographic and non-photographic topics of a general nature."

Don't like it, don't read it.

John

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I know.
I can actually read.
I'd still like to see some ignorance related photography in this thread.

[Joe Behar]

In 1915 Palestine was under British control. The Palestinians and Jews led a peaceful existence together. It wasn't till the arrival of the Zionists from Europe that tensions in Palestine were raised. Ultimately the British in Palestine left in 1947 after hundreds were murdered by the Zionists, mainly by the Stern gang. BTW not all Jews are Zionists. Most of them want to live in peace. It is the right wing fanatics who want to conquer Palestine.

Stamper, you are getting dangerously close to being very offensive with a statement like "not all Jews are Zionists...some of them want to live peacefully"

As far as your sources go, you seem to have conveniently left out a number of facts.

1.  The Balfiour declaration  of 1923...if you don't know what that is, look it up...then  you pick yourself up off the floor

2.  The British did not "leave" Palestine, they were forced out after almost 23 years of not honouring their own declarations. Although I was not born at the time, my father, mother, both grandfathers and at least four uncles of mine were, and the first hand accounts I got from them of recieving regular beatings from British soldiers as well as others would make you cringe.

3. Jews and Arabs lived in peace under the British regime in much the same way the Hindus and Muslims did in India around that time

4. Just so you know, Israel was founded and built not by European Zionists but by Jews that were born in Palestine for generations, and yes, me, my parents, their parents, their parents and their parents all were born in what was called Palestine, now Israel.

Get a grip and lose your racist, offensive views...you'll help make this world a better place.

[JohnKoerner]

John 100% effort in anything doesn't always guarantee success. If the enemy is pursuing it 100% as well then who is going to be the winner?

You sure do like to avoid the whole point, don't you?

Let us see if we can agree on some simple logic: if (as you say) 100% effort doesn't always guarantee success, then surely a half-assed effort will guarantee even less of a chance of success. Would you not agree with this? I hope so, because it's basic logic.

Now, regarding 100% vs. 100%, let's see if we can agree this point as well: if one country has more men, more sophisticated weapons, as well as more total weapons than another country ... then, if both countries operate at 100% capacity, the country with the most manpower and firepower should theoretically win.

However ... if the more advantaged country chooses NOT to use its full soldiery and chooses NOT to use its full weaponry ... then that country is NOT putting forth 100% effort to win, is it? Said country is putting-out a half-assed effort to win, which thereby allows the other, disadvantaged country to remain competitive (not to mention places the former country's own men in greater peril). Now, if the latter country is 100% committed to win, and uses every means at its disposal to do so, then (even though the smaller country may be technically out-manned and out-weaponed) the smaller country can still win, precisely because its resolve to do so is greater than the larger county. Well, is this not exactly what happened in Vietnam? (Is this not what continues to happen elsewhere?)

One of my very favorite quotes is, "He who resolves to conquer or die is seldom conquered." And the reason why it's a favorite quote of mine is because it's true. When applying this quote to this discussion, the US keeps struggling in these confrontations with "technically-inferior" countries precisely because we are NOT going in there with a 100% resolve to win as brutally and decisively as possible, nor are we using every means at our disposal to win ... and yet we are trying to beat indigenous peoples who are passionately defending their own lands, and thue who ARE 100% COMMITTED essentially "to conquer or die." The truth is, you cannot expect to vaquish any foe by fighting on their terms, by not using all of your available weapons, and by fighting with a less passionate resolve to win than they have. This is why we didn't win in Vietnam: it all goes back to the fact we never had a 100% commitment to win, using every means at our disposal to do so.

In conclusion, if you are not prepared to fight with MORE resolve, and if you are not prepared to fight with every means at your disposal to win, then you shouldn't be waging war at all.

It reminds me of the popular saying on the bathroom wall: "If your hose is too short, and your pump is too weak, stand a little closer dude or you'll piss on your feet."

Jack




.

[jeremypayne]

Wow, Stamper ... you've got some real issues. 

I'm out ... I don't argue with people like you ... I warn my children about them and keep a safe distance.

Am Yisrael Chai! 

[RSL]

Stamper, Like Jeremy, I'm out as of now. Evidently your information sources are even flakier than at first I surmised.

Jonathan Neale is a left-wing novelist and college professor. His knowledge of the subject he's writing about in this work of fiction is nil. I spent two years in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. Do you really believe I don't know what the term "fragging" means? Fragging incidents were, to say the least, extremely rare. To call that history "mutiny" is more than simply over-the-top; it's sadistic prostitution of the English language.

As far as Agent Orange is concerned, what you suggest in your post is that it's an antipersonnel agent. In fact, it was a defoliant -- formulated in a way very similar to some defoliants people had been using on their lawns and in their gardens for decades. The Wikipedia article you reference actually admits that it takes most of its inflammatory photographs and information from the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs; in other words, from the Vietnamese propaganda agency. I know several pilots who spent most of their Vietnam tours flying Ranch Hand missions. They practically swam in Agent Orange during those flights. They're still healthy. Their kids are healthy. Their grandkids are healthy. Evidently it's true that in a lab, dioxin can cause problems for rats, but the possible effects on humans have been blown all out of proportion by mob hysteria. That Wikipedia article is full of more s--t than a 20 pound canary.

If Jonathan Neale is your favorite kind of author I'd suggest you stick to photography and avoid reading.

[stamper]

In 1915 Palestine was under British control. The Palestinians and Jews led a peaceful existence together. It wasn't till the arrival of the Zionists from Europe that tensions in Palestine were raised. Ultimately the British in Palestine left in 1947 after hundreds were murdered by the Zionists, mainly by the Stern gang. BTW not all Jews are Zionists. Most of them want to live in peace. It is the right wing fanatics who want to conquer Palestine.

Stamper, you are getting dangerously close to being very offensive with a statement like "not all Jews are Zionists...some of them want to live peacefully"






Get a grip and lose your racist, offensive views...you'll help make this world a better place.

My first statement was in defence of the majority of Jews who want a peaceful existence. You have chosen to twist what I stated.

[stamper]

Stamper, Like Jeremy, I'm out as of now. Evidently your information sources are even flakier than at first I surmised.

Jonathan Neale is a left-wing novelist and college professor. His knowledge of the subject he's writing about in this work of fiction is nil. I spent two years in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. Do you really believe I don't know what the term "fragging" means? Fragging incidents were, to say the least, extremely rare. To call that history "mutiny" is more than simply over-the-top; it's sadistic prostitution of the English language.

As far as Agent Orange is concerned, what you suggest in your post is that it's an antipersonnel agent. In fact, it was a defoliant -- formulated in a way very similar to some defoliants people had been using on their lawns and in their gardens for decades. The Wikipedia article you reference actually admits that it takes most of its inflammatory photographs and information from the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs; in other words, from the Vietnamese propaganda agency. I know several pilots who spent most of their Vietnam tours flying Ranch Hand missions. They practically swam in Agent Orange during those flights. They're still healthy. Their kids are healthy. Their grandkids are healthy. Evidently it's true that in a lab, dioxin can cause problems for rats, but the possible effects on humans have been blown all out of proportion by mob hysteria. That Wikipedia article is full of more s--t than a 20 pound canary.

If Jonathan Neale is your favorite kind of author I'd suggest you stick to photography and avoid reading.

Any images of deformed Vietnamese won't be available from American sources. You asked for links and they were provided. Russ you are better off out of it. Anyone who suggest invading Iran and possibly starting world war three doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. I won't lower myself to denigrate you. As for you Jeremy you didn't contribute anything useful and when information was posted to rebut your post you obviously spat the dummy. It seems like this forum is American dominated and when someone posts an alternative point of view then it is taken the wrong way ... deliberately. Anyone holding their breadth waiting for an apology should exhale now. I haven't unlike some been offensive but put my point of view, which I am entitled to, in a reasonable manner. If none of you like it.....tough. As for you Joe I am not a racist merely someone who has an alternative point of view.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I know.
I can actually read.
I'd still like to see some ignorance related photography in this thread.

OK, Christoph, here are my photographic responses to this thread (they are all part of the newest gallery called "Consequences" on my website, which you can see here: http://myrvaagnes.com/signs/index.php?1

First, what most of us are seeking (or claiming) in this thread: