New Homes for Iraqis....

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Oedipus
And highly applicable to why we were there was that the US thought Vietnam would be  "easy way" to regain face after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Wrong.  Absolutely and utterly wrong.  First of all, the United States was involved in Vietnam long before Fidel Castro became a concern.  Second of all, the common belief within the Kennedy and Johnson administrations was that Vietnam was a tarbaby with no face-saving exit strategy and no real way to avoid getting embroiled in endless conflict.

Tape recordings of Lyndon Johnson talking to Secretary of Defense McNamara and various key members of Congress (Mansfield, Russell, Halleck, etc) almost a year before the Gulf of Tonkin have him continually expressing his concern over military escalation in Vietnam.  He saw it as virtually unwinnable, but also as impossible to simply abandon because of the message that would send to America allies abroad.

Throwing out blatantly and factually incorrect statements like the one you make above serves to undermine everything else you say, Oedipus.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Toad]

Originally posted by Oedipus
 I do believe that US strikes and military intervention with conventional arms could have saved them.

Pure speculation on your part, although there's nothing wrong with that. But while this opinion is not unheard of amongst military historians, it is generally a minority opinion. The French waited so long to ask that IMO it was to late for US airpower to save them in any event. It would merely have delayed capitulation a little longer with accompanying higher casualties on both sides.



 

Originally posted by Oedipus
 IMO Ike and crew ultimately did not help because they wanted the French to fail and go home....
 
Oed

I totally agree that this is your opinion.

One that I do not agree with! But that's my opinion.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Oedipus
If you disagree with my opinion  then say so.  There's no need to try and discredit my thoughts and what I subscribe to by trying to label me a liar and fraud to make your point appear better.

LOL!

Oedipus, this is not a matter of opinion vs. opinion.  You're making statements of fact that have no empirical basis.  It's easy to test your assertion by looking at the historical record, and the historical record directly contradicts you.  This is what gives the appearance that you're a "liar" and "fraud" (your words, not mine; I only argue that it undermines other more valid arguments that you make).

(1)  American involvement in Vietnam predates Castro's Cuba and the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

(2)  Kennedy was seeking a face-saving means to exit Vietnam before his assassination; he most certainly was not seeking escalation in the form that later occurred.

(3)  Lyndon Johnson specifically stated in secretly recorded phone conversations to principle actors involved in Vietnam policy that he did not feel a war there was desirable or winnable, but he did not feel that he could simply exit the area without enormous loss of American military and political credibility abroad.

(4)  In these conversations, the Bay of Pigs is never mentioned as a reason for escalation.  In fact, it's almost never mentioned at all from my recollection.

These are facts that directly contradict your "opinion."

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Oedipus
You're into symantics besides history.

[/B]

Should I post the definitions of "opinion" and "fact" for you?

Opinion -- A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

Fact -- Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

Yes.  That's right.   It's my opinion that what you are calling me is a liar and a fraud by saying I'm deliberately posting falsely.

[/B]

First of all, I didn't say you were deliberately posting falsely.  What I did say is that by posting "facts" that were clearly incorrect -- or hell, even an opinion that is based upon obviously incorrect facts or misunderstanding of facts -- you undermine the parts of your argument that do have considerable merit.

For having my own opinion based on the facts as I've read and remembered what you're trying to discredit me, not my opinion.

And let's revisit your original statement:

"And highly applicable to why we were there was that the US thought Vietnam would be "easy way" to regain face after the Bay of Pigs fiasco."

It seems to me that your opinion on why we were in involved in Vietnam is based on the fact that we were using Vietnam to regain face after the Bay of Pigs.  In other words, you're supporting a previously stated opinion with a statement of fact.  Unless you're supporting opinion with further opinions?  That's no way to build a case for or against something.

The historical record does not support this statement, and that is what undermines your argument.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[funkedup]

LMAO
Where would this BBS be without passive-agressive contrarians?
I can't believe you guys turned a thread about a charity idea into a noodle size contest about Dien Bien Phu.

[Puke]

Even FDR was for an independent Vietnam but had to tread lightly on that subject with his allies in the 2nd World War.  And that actually pre-dates Bay Of Pigs.
France even entered into agreements with Vietnam for self-rule but later in one case used the excuse of semantics to say that's not what they meant and reneged on the agreement.  In fact, Dulles had enough of the French who kept renegging on Independence granted to Indochina.
And why are you in such strong support for the French controlling the region?  

Isn't Operation Condor a movie or something?  Or is this a translation-thing and you mean Vulture?

USA wasn't going to support Imperialism in the region.  Accept it.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Oedipus
IMO, it's just ONE of thes reasons we were involved in Vietnam.

[/B]

Wait, didn't you say earlier that the reason we were in Vietnam was because "it was much more about capitalism prevailing (can't lose more of the 'free' market), checking China and the Soviets and thier [sic] sphere of influence?"  THAT is a statement of opinion which you then back up with the factually incorrect statement that "the US thought Vietnam would be 'easy way' to regain face after the Bay of Pigs fiasco" -- and hence check Chinese and Soviet influence as per your opinion.  

I'm not going to argue your way.  I'm not going to ensure that I dot my 'I''s, cross my 'T's right and have a dictionary standing off to the side so that there is no possible misinterpretation of my words.

[/B]

I can't believe that you still refute, opinion or otherwise, the facts that show that the Bay of Pigs had absolutely nothing to do with American involvement in Vietnam.

I've seen you're M.O. (example: the argument on music applied to a video some time ago) and IMO you enjoy the argument and subtle personal barbs more then disussing the actual subject matter.

[/B]

That was an argument?  That was more like a DejaVu meltdown over things that obviously, of course, were opinion.  I'm not trying to subtly barb you, Oedipus -- you were the one who called yourself a liar, not me.

If my history "facts" which I base my opinion on are wrong then I'll change my opinion.  Albeit without your 'help.'

[/B]

Ignorance is bliss.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by funkedup
I can't believe you guys turned a thread about a charity idea into a noodle size contest about Dien Bien Phu.

Hey, I didn't mention a damn thing about Dien Bien Phu.

Fatass!  <--- fact  

-- Todd/Leviathn