#1
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. It's a popular lie, by low-information individuals, that Democrats start wars, when if you actually examine the evidence, since the end of WWII, it's Democrats that tend to end wars, and Republicans that tend to start them. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On 8/29/2017 5:44 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/29/2017 1:47 PM, wrote: Do you think that after 9/11 Bush should have done nothing? He could have attacked the country responsible for 9-11, which might have made more sense than attacking a country that had nothing to do with it. I don't think there's anyone that still believes that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. :-) In a logical world nobody would still believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. But a brief reading of Usenet will show there are still "true believers." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 2:44:38 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Wrong. That commitment ended when Bảo Đại was deposed. I sent you the actual history privately - at what point did the political control of this country fall into your hands? It was Nixon that ended Vietnam and not a Democrat. Wrong. Ford was president when we withdrew from Vietnam, but it was because the Democratic congress would not appropriate any more money to continue to support South Vietnam. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-war-is-ending He could have attacked the country responsible for 9-11, which might have made more sense than attacking a country that had nothing to do with it. I don't think there's anyone that still believes that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ration...r_the_Iraq_War Or do you think that he should have stopped any possibility that WMD would become available to terrorists? All the experts agreed that Iraq did not have any WMDs. Saddam Hussein wanted to give that impression to Iran, but there was no evidence that any WMDs still existed.] What "experts" are these? You shouldn't try to rewrite history to serve the right-wing agenda. That's straight out of 1984. I actually worked on military contracts and know what really occurred. You on the other hand are perfectly willing to accept the words from the mouths of people with political power to gain by denying the facts. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/w...s.html?mcubz=0 If these were old and useless exactly how did out troops get serious injuries from miles away from where these weapons were detonated? If people READY for things like this were seriously injured what do you think would have occurred should a terrorist detonate one of these "old worn out" weapons in Times Square at noon on a workday? I was seriously injured by gas because I rushed into the chamber before it was fulling evacuated. The levels HAD to be millions to one. Do you think that this is games that you can play with other's lives and pretend to be surprised if people are killed if some fool followed your jackass advice? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms
wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. -- Cheers, John B. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM: |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM: Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely revolt. Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic, pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it is completely free. Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over 80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and about 90% of these resident households own their home. Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has increased by nearly 30%. Has the U.S. a universal health program where you pay $8.00 and everything else is free? Has the U.S. developed a low cost housing plan that houses 80% of their population? Have average U.S. wages increased by 30% in the past three years. Tell me more about " looking out for the common man". -- Cheers, John B. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On 8/30/2017 9:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:33:22 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:37:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 8/28/2017 5:35 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. Technically, the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Eisenhower sent "advisors" as a prelude to sending troops. He also supported the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, even though Diem was a major reason for the Vietnam war. The Geneva Accords in 1954 partitioned the country temporarily in two at the 17th parallel until 1956, when democratic elections would be held under international supervision. All parties involved agreed to this (Ho Chi Minh had strong support in the north, which was more populous than the south, and was thus comfortable that he would win an election), except for the US, who did not want to see Communism spreading in a domino effect throughout Asia. The U.S., supporting the South, installed Ngo Dinh Diem, initially as Prime Minister to Bao Dai, the Emperor, and later after a rigged election as President of the Republic of South Vietnam. He and his brother were assassinated in 1963 during a coup led by General Duong Van Minh. While Diem was a fanatical Catholic and did contribute to the Buddhist/Christian problems in S. Vietnam he was not responsible for the Vietnam war which was almost entirely a U.S. effort. Had the original Geneva Accords been followed and the elections been held Vietnam would have been united, in 1956, under a Communist government. It might be noted that while engaged in a war in Vietnam to make the world safe from communism the U.S. was buying supplies used in the war from Yugoslavia. The so called Domino effect espoused by the Eisenhower Administration is, in retrospect a bunch of whooee. The two greatest heroes of Vietnam are the Trung Sisters who lead a revolution against Chinese dominance of Vietnam and Vietnam fought a (small) war against China in 1979. While the U.S. exited Vietnam under Gerald Ford, it was the Democrats that forced the exit, President Ford wanted to continue military aid. My guess is that the U.S.'s abandonment of the Vietnam war was primarily an effort to get out of the war in any manner possible rather then a political scheme of either political party as to be frank the North had won the war. Well we can always say you certainly look out for the common man. We can see the great advances for the communist state of North Korea. Instead of the North this could have been the entire country. But I guess that living in Thailand has taught you to totally ignore the common man as most of Asia does. https://www.google.com/search?q=Sate...Px3RCbfyWplDM: Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely revolt. Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic, pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it is completely free. Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over 80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and about 90% of these resident households own their home. Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has increased by nearly 30%. Has the U.S. a universal health program where you pay $8.00 and everything else is free? Has the U.S. developed a low cost housing plan that houses 80% of their population? Have average U.S. wages increased by 30% in the past three years. Tell me more about " looking out for the common man". -- Cheers, John B. OK, but we don't have your Rice Subsidy either. We achieved our humongous debts without even giving away rice! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:52:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
Hardly. In fact the South East Asian nations are very interested in heir citizens welfare, likely because satisfied citizens rarely revolt. That's right but when push comes to shove let's see just what goes. Thailand, for example, has universal health care. You go to a clinic, pay 1/10th of the minimum daily salary and any and all treatment proscribed by the doctor is free. And, of course if you are over 65 it is completely free. You're joking right? I have had over $18,000 in medical bills this year. Most of it paid for by insurance and every bit of it possible only because of modern medical instruments some of which I helped develop. Are you telling me that a Thai can go to a clinic and have a $500,000 panoramic x-ray taken of his jaw? How many of these clinics are there? How many doctors trained in doing a sinus lift that requires donated bone material to achieve? That requires three different medications before and afterwards top stave off infections? We have antobiotics in the USA that you can't even get in Europe and you're telling me that things are better than that in Thailand? Singapore built low cost housing for their people. They brag that over 80% of Singapore's resident population reside in this housing and about 90% of these resident households own their home. Vietnam? Well, in the past three years the average income has increased by nearly 30%. Do you mean 30% more than nothing? Why don't you tell us all that the common Vietnamese isn't nothing more than a rice farmer now just as they were before the communists took over. Tell me more about " looking out for the common man". At what point did it became MY responsibility to make sure you took care of yourself? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is jobst gone? | Crescentius Vespasianus | Techniques | 7 | June 23rd 11 12:08 AM |
When Jobst ... | Steve Freides[_2_] | Techniques | 1 | January 20th 11 09:28 PM |
Jobst | Brad Anders | Racing | 20 | January 19th 11 05:31 PM |
Jobst | TriGuru55x11 | Rides | 1 | January 19th 11 01:13 PM |