Ed:
Since you seem to be struggling here, let me help you with your
<<I didn't know there was a formula that could tell you it wasn't Nixon's war and that it was Johnson's war. Nor did I know it was an either/or proposition. I thought it was Johnson's AND Nixon's war, and that Kennedy started it.>>
Well, now, if you have an open mind, you have been enlightened, you have traveled from ignorance to knowledge on at least one point. BY THE NUMBERS, Kennedy and LBJ account for about 50,000 of the 59,000 casualties in Vietnam. By the numbers. 85% of the casualties. Very clear.
And Kerry has the chutzpah to call it, at the Dem convention, "Nixon's War." When his service ended less than 2 months into Nixon's first administration. And, if one is very logical about things, the percentage is probably even higher, since Nixon's troop numbers were constantly falling as he attempted (yes, peace with honor, etc.) to extricate us from the tar baby of Vietnam.
As for: "And that press is pesky, isn't it? Sometimes they don't know the difference between printing what we want to hear, printing what we think is best for the country to hear or just getting stuck trying to print reality."
You're setting up a straw man here, Ed, but you're missing at least one other possibility about the press--how about misrepresenting reality? How about lying? How did a Tet Offensive which cost the north 32,000 dead and 6,000 captured (versus US 1,000 dead and ARVN 3,000 dead) turn into a "communist victory"???
<<In the first week of the attack the NVA/VC lost 32,204 confirmed killed, and 5,803 captured. US losses were 1,015 KHA, while ARVN losses were 2,819 killed. ARVN losses were higher because the NVA/VC, reluctant to enter into a set-piece battle with US forces, attacked targets defended almost exclusively by South Vietnamese troops.>>
11thcavnam.com
Or:
<<The NLF and the NVA lost around 35,000 men killed, 60,000 wounded and 6,000 POWs for no military success. The US and ARVN dead totalled around 3,900 (1,100 US). But this was not the conflict as the US public saw it. Without there being an active conspiracy the US media reports were extremely damaging and shocked the American public and politicians. Apparently the depth of the US reaction even surprised the North Vietnamese leadership, as well as delighting them.>>
vietnam-war.info
Now, I realize that you probably won't take ANY knowledge away from my research for you here, but others might be interested.
Finally, as for your sniffing comments about the Brit who thought Moore a slob (well, I mean, Moore has to be carrying about 120 extra pounds with him, morbidly obese in any culture other than the modern US one), I posted the article only because it might be of general interest; the only part I found of real interest was the description of the Franco-British conflict over Iraq and the Anglo US alliance in the post modern world.
(As for the lengths of your posts, you are the poster boy for the phrase, "I'm sorry to write you such a long letter but I didn't have the time [energy, discipline, etc.] to write you a short one.")
Kb |
