F****ed again!?!

[Just a guy]

By coincidence i came across an article concerning how the conflict in Vietnam came to escalate. Well, as usual intellegence forces where in action. Not be surprised. It's history now, but when reading about it thought:
- Them guys back in the 70:ties...! Damn rascals! (With a smile on my face)

But then again... Thinking about Iraq, - am I fooled now again? Will new documents show up in 40 years to tell me that, well...

"We knew about no WMD's... We just said so to get the action started. Like we did in Vietnam!"

And will I think the same then:
- Those rascals back in the -00:s!

I think I'm tired of being fed lies. Am I (are we) lied to?

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mhq/bltonkin/

Many of President Lyndon B. Johnson's detractors have long claimed he escalated American participation in the Vietnam War through fraud by insisting that U.S. naval forces had been attacked on the night of August 4 when, in fact, they had not been fired upon. This event has been cited by a number of observers as the beginning of an age when Americans began to distrust the federal government.

ddd

 

[MtnBiker]

From the article:

Amid these allegations and counterclaims, exactly what happened on the night of August 4, 1964, in the Gulf of Tonkin will likely remain unresolved until the United States and Vietnam completely open their archival material on the incident.

hmmmm......


So a person cannot say if the Johnson administration was accurate or not.

 

[Just a guy]

From the article:
So a person cannot say if the Johnson administration was accurate or not.

So?

 

[Just a guy]

I might clearify:

It isn't the truth itself, it is the fact that a lie or no lie after 40 years doesn't even bother me...

I feel small and constantly lied to.
(I mean, if Johnsson didn't lie, someone else is)

 

[MtnBiker]

You are trying to draw a parallel between infromation from the Johnson admin and the Bush admin. But cannot prove that the infromation from the Johnson admin is fraudulant, only speculation.

 

[Just a guy]

You are trying to draw a parallel between infromation from the Johnson admin and the Bush admin. But cannot prove that the infromation from the Johnson admin is fraudulant, only speculation.

Ah. I see...
Hot potatoe...

Well, don't think too much of the parallel. The names doesn't count, and it is no "admin" and not even U.S.A. It's just that people with power do what they like. Whoever has it.

 

[Annie]

Ah. I see...
Hot potatoe...

Well, don't think too much of the parallel. The names doesn't count, and it is no "admin" and not even U.S.A. It's just that people with power do what they like. Whoever has it.

Do you have anything that backs up whatever point you are attempting to make?

 

[dilloduck]

I might clearify:

It isn't the truth itself, it is the fact that a lie or no lie after 40 years doesn't even bother me...

I feel small and constantly lied to.
(I mean, if Johnsson didn't lie, someone else is)

Probably because you ARE small and no one lets you in on everything that's going on. Join the masses.

 

[Just a guy]

Do you have anything that backs up whatever point you are attempting to make?

No, not really - it is the beauty of lies!
But if you take a look on a timeline it is easy to see that there are alot of wars going on constantly. All of those wars have one or more sides of which all claims a just cause. So half of them are lying (at least).

Just for fun I dug up a link like this one: www.amenusa.org/lying.htm I have no idea who wrote this or why. But clearly U.S.A is no exception in the world, a war needs to be fought and the public needs to hear a lie or two. Just like sudden changes are to take place within the wellfare system just before an election. This isn't exactly my point (that US presidents are lying about war, but it is much easier to find things about U.S.A. on the Internet)

Why did leaders in France decide to invade Mexico? Or Algeria?

Why did leaders in Soviet decide to invade Afghanistan? Was it really the concern about law and order, and womens rights? Or Chechnya?

Saddam just had to invade Kuwait didn't he? He really thought he could get away with it too. What true reasons could he have had?

Why did leaders in North Korea decide to attack South Korea?

Why did leaders in Egypt decide to attack Isreal in -67?

Why did leaders in Turkey decide to invade Cyprus?

Why did leaders in Pakistan decide to invade Kashmir?

Anyway, all of them probably had very good reasons and they probably laid it out fair and square to their public...?

To the point:
The reasons leaders claim they do things for, around the world, aren't always - or maybe even rarley - what they say. Anyone who disagree is just fooled. I shouldn't have re-read "1984"...