Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That is what I have been tying to say as well. So you are either turning into a conservative or I am a liberal. Which is it?Aeth, I don't think Tet and My Lai are related. I think the cause of My Lai is directly related to the number of casualties suffered by that unit in the days and weeks immediately preceding the massacre. Losses that had nothing to do with the wider Tet Offensive by the way. The timing is coincidence. 1968 overall was the deadliest year for American forces in Vietnam. The Americal Division, whose troops perpetrated the massacre, was in one of the hottest zones of the country and saw lots of contact both before and after Tet. Sometimes coincidence is just that. Don't forget that My Lai did not become known about until almost a year after the fact when Haeberle started selling his personal photos of the incident to the press. My Lai had absolutely nothing to do with public perceptions of the war in 1968 because the public did not even know that it had happened.
You and I both know that the body count was totally bogus. We learn early in life that the the yardstick bywhich we are measured, rewarded and promoted will usually dictate our actions and color our reports.The body count was easy to understand and easy to fake.SHEEP? Yes--we are--but why? What is it in our culture that makes us so "herdable" and so easily deceived? Are we as a people unusually stupid, ignorant, retarded and misinformed? I think not. Ithink that we choose the easy path because it requires less pain, less resolve and less work. Let theChinese and Koreans do the heavy lifting overseas and the Mexicans can pull weeds and hang drywallin the Arizona heat. I must practice my Baa- ing now--adieu.
I am familiar with this argument and cannot refute it. The point is that our military and political leadersdo what all leaders do when involved in a difficult situation--they fail to tell us the whole truth. We could both construct a valid argument that as the general populace is ignorant, emotional and clueless in termsof geography and international relations, this is the best way to deal with them--they way mushroom farmers raise their crops to use a crude analogy.This works for a while, but when the populace finds out that there is a wide disparity between what theywere told and what they now perceive, a gap of mistrust emerges and further statements from the "authorities" becomes suspect whether it is true or not.Surely we could have had a military victory in Viet Nam, but as you said--it was a political no go especiallyin light of Nixon's plight at the time. Here is a thought that haunts me. The Vietnamese always said andI believe they always believed that we, like the French and the Chinese, were a temporary affliction who,in time, would go away. I also believe that they would never give up--never--never--never. Did LBJ or Nixon have Historians who advised him of the tenacity of these people?
There is a wonderful book about the Pacific War by William Manchester–Goodbye Darkness. It iswritten in a most moving manner and is sure to appeal to the literary-history types in the forum. Mr.Manchester was in the war, served and was wounded on Okinawa, but writes of several other battlesin which he did not serve. Yes--he uses secondary sources and in doing so gets to the heart of the matter.Linear thinkers beware; you might object to his methods.
Here is a different approach. In order to run an Empire such as Rome became in an age where the horse and the sailing ship were the fastest method of communication, you needed skilled administrators and bureaucrats.Here is a short poem dedicated to people like I used to be.Imagine Actium is won and young Octavian--not an Emperor--is strolling about his new city named afterthe greatest military commander that ever lived. See him happy.OCTAVIAN IN ALEXANDRIABY W.R. JOHNSONBY HER OWN HAND THE CLEVER FIEND IS DEAD(SO THINKS THE WORLD FOR SO THE WORLD WAS TOLD),AND I, POLITE AND SMILING, SIMPLY DRESSED,I SAUNTER DOWN THE FAMOUS BOULEVARDSWHERE CENTURIES OF PTOLEMIES HAVE PACEDTHEIR PURPLE PATH TO BRIGHT OBLIVION--THE CITY THEY GLORIED IN IS MINE.I'LL PRAISE OF COURSE, THEIR BUILDINGS AND THEIR PARKS,I'LL MAKE A GRACIOUS SPEECH IN CAREFUL GREEK,I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT ALEXANDER'S GRAVE,AND THEN--I'LL HAVE SOME LONG AND COZY CHATSWITH WHAT IS HERE MY SPECIAL PRIZE:THOSE CUNNING DRONES WHO MADE HER EMPIRE WORK,HER LOWLY, FACELESS, BRILLIANT BUREAUCRATSMaybe the whole enterprise just got too big and fractured became, too broke and grew too hard to manage--just an additional idea.
Freedom is a wonderful thing. I have had it all of my life except for the five years I served in the military,but that was my doing as I was no conscript and had accepted the limitations willingly.Freedom has not been the fate of most men throughout history. We were slaves, serfs, subjects ormerely "the great unwashed" for thousands of years and we lived without freedom as we would now define it. What is freedom worth? The pat answer is that its worth anything to achieve, but that answer is, in reality, untrue. For many of our species freedom would be willingly sacrificed for a full belly and a secure life. We are all not brave, we are all not interested in who or what governs us and we are all not willingto sacrifice the tangible reality of comfort for the theoretical benefits of freedom.Is spreading freedom a worthy goal? In 1788 you would have been deemed a radical for such a statementand dealt with harshly in some countries. A former president once said that freedom was a wonderful thing but:Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America?s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.Mr. Adams had a point. What right do we have to interfere with a government who may not be veryinterested in our concept of freedom. Is it possible that they might object if we send political missionaries to their little nations and tell the people to be unhappy with the staus quo, that womenought to have rights, that child brides are wrong, that their god is a false one, that their marriage laws are barbaric, that girls ought to go to school and that Walmart is their friend?Can you think of a situation where you would give up your freedom for security--thousands did as theRoman Empire slowly rotted and the Dark Ages and Feudalism emerged from the ruins--they were called serfs. Most of us are their descendants.I think you have to be might careful about spreading freedom--look what happened to Allende in Chileand Mossadegh in Iran in 1953.
We did not blink; we cringed and were unwilling to pay the price necessary to WIN. Militarily, we were never defeated and could not be defeated, the college students and liberals decided that winning was not enough. Make love not war, right. The Vietnam era marked the beginning of the descent of the modern American left into French surrender monekyism. The left decided that nothing was worth fighting for anywhere until America itself was perfect. I do not have a problem with civil rights and many so-called left-wing causes; I do have a problem with backing out and leaving things unfinished. We betrayed the South Vietnamese people; that is a black mark on America's honor that will always remain. Luckily we are not doing the same in Iraq or Afghanistan despite all the efforts of the left to make it happen there too. Sometimes the right thing is very hard to do.The left in my eyes often chooses to do what my father told me not to, which is "choose the easy wrong over the hard right". TET was only a defeat because we let it be. If the modern left had been as influential twenty-five years earlier, Europe would be speaking German now.Blinked, cringed or shuddered at the potential cost in blood and treasure--have it whatever way you wish. Of course we could not be defeated--we bestrode the world, but on the other hand could we have won? That depends on what "win" means. Could we have convinced the North, through diplomatic or military means, that the country should be divided a la Korea. I do not see this as an acceptable solution for the North even if it were possible to create a viable democracy (sic) in the South. So how would you define "win"? I am at a loss to bury this beast.Also: I am of the opinion that concerning our successes in Iraq and Afghanistan--it is too soon to tell.Enjoy the remains of the day.WillyD
QuoteAmerica lost the PR battle after Tet. The military had been saying the VC were almost defeated and then they pulled off Tet which led Cronkit to opine that the war was unwinnable and fed the perception in the states that he was right. We did not lose militarily, we lost in the court of Public opinion.Report to moderator LoggedAs I said--we blinked!
Freedom of will.A crucial point for Erasmus. In his De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (1524), he lampoons the Lutheran view on free will. He lays down both sides of the argument impartially. In response, Luther wrote his De servo arbitrio (On the Bondage of the Will) (1525), which attacks the "Diatribe" and Erasmus himself, going so far as to claim that Erasmus was not a Christian. Erasmus responded with a lengthy, two-part Hyperaspistes (1526?27). In this controversy Erasmus lets it be seen that he would like to claim more for free will than St. Paul and St. Augustine seem to allow. For Erasmus the essential point is that humans have the freedom of choice.As the popular response to Luther gathered momentum, the social disorders, which Erasmus dreaded and Luther disassociated himself from, began to appear, including the Peasants' War, the Anabaptist disturbances in Germany and in the Low Countries, iconoclasm and the radicalization of peasants across Europe. Would Erasmus be responsible for having started the war between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants ?How tolerant was the doctrine of Luther based on his position on Predestination against Freedom of Will ?Theologians usually do not start wars. Princes, always on the lookout for an advantage or opportunity,see in their teachings a means of furthering their own interests--usually, but not always, secular. Ifyou study the history of the 30 Years War and conclude it was a religious conflict, you should ask for your tuition money back or at least read the tests this time. Theologians speak out in town squares or places of worship--leaders order ranks to be formed on battlefields and sent off to war.
I think because large numbers of people began to suspect that perhaps we had a literal tiger by the tailand the war, despite our overwhelming superiority in planes, tanks, helicopters and equipment, wasquite possibly going to end in failure. In 1968, I was teaching on a college campus and remember thisevent quite well as I did Uncle Walter's comment about it. We blinked!
My brother majored in Geography. he next year they eliminate the department–no connection. he lovedthe subject and found out that there were more than seven seas!
You are not bad! There are no bad Historians–just those with an obstinate refusal to compromise.The Semi-Sciences are always good to discuss--so hard to be really wrong.
