Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148256)	9/29/2002 8:23:03 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Our direct entry into the Vietnam "police action" with US combat troops required that we fabricate a pretext -- the "attack" in the Gulf of Tonkin was that pretext.... <Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."> fair.org

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148256)	9/29/2002 8:34:04 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 164684

Or you can take it from the link you posted. There is no evidence that the "attack" which became the basis for our entry into the war ever happened. It is generally accepted that there was no attack. By the way, if you actually knew anything about Vietnam you would also know that old Ho Chi Minh tried very hard to develop a relationship with the US long before he turned to Communist allies, but the State department did not think Ho Chi Minh, or Vietnam for that matter, was important enough for Washington to take the time to respond to his letters. Years later, Vietnam was worth 50,00 American lives. But when Ho wanted to establish a diplomatic relationship that could have avoided the war, it was not worth the effort. <<August 3, 1964 - The Maddox, joined by a second destroyer U.S.S. C. Turner Joy begin a series of vigorous zigzags in the Gulf of Tonkin sailing to within eight miles of North Vietnam's coast, while at the same time, South Vietnamese commandos in speed boats harass North Vietnamese defenses along the coastline. By nightfall, thunderstorms roll in, affecting the accuracy of electronic instruments on the destroyers. Crew members reading their instruments believe they have come under torpedo attack from North Vietnamese patrol boats. Both destroyers open fire on numerous apparent targets but there are no actual sightings of any attacking boats. August 4, 1964 - Although immediate doubts arise concerning the validity of the second attack, the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly recommend a retaliatory bombing raid against North Vietnam. Press reports in America greatly embellish the second attack with spectacular eyewitness accounts although no journalists had been on board the destroyers. At the White House, President Johnson decides to retaliate. Thus, the first bombing of North Vietnam by the United States occurs as oil facilities and naval targets are attacked without warning by 64 U.S. Navy fighter bombers. "Our response for the present will be limited and fitting," President Johnson tells Americans during a midnight TV appearance, an hour after the attack began. "We Americans know, although others appear to forget, the risk of spreading conflict. We still seek no wider war.">>

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148256)	9/29/2002 8:53:17 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Bill, GST's got you on this one. There was no provocation from the north. And based on the day-by-day account you linked, the provocation really came from the south. Perhaps you are thinking of Korea? According to researchers at the Library of Congress, the United States has never in its 213-year history launched a preemptive attack against another country. Depends on what you definition of a "country" is. Remember, we were quite an expansionist country for much of our history. Were we provoked into expanding westward to the Pacific - by force whenever "necessary?" More recently, what about Granada? Anyway, it is a made-up issue - whether or not there is precedent for preemptive attacks. Gore talked last week about it as if this is new ground in international law - it's not. I think the UN charter even allows for "anticipatory self-defense." Bob