7 Dec. 1941

[DiveCon]

So the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a real event?

That wasn't a deception that led America into greater involvement in Vietnam?

I'm crazy for knowing this truth .. or is it more curious that you do not?

uh, yes, its what was reported about it that was exagerated
an event DID occure
but not the way it was reported

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I see. So the Gulf of Tonkin incident equates to the entire war? Never mind the fact we were already involved in Vietnam up to our ears?

Yes the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a real incident. Ever read the radio reports? My guess would be no, just as I would guess by your opinion that you have never been under fire, nor thought you were under fire.

Be that as it may, equating the Gulf of Tonkin Incident with the entire war; which, was already going on is lame. It was the pretext Johnson used to introduce ground combat units into South Vietnam. If not that, there would have been another. But the fact remains, the war was already going on and US servicemen were already fighting in it.

Being under fire does not make you any smarter than sone who has not been .. in fact, it often clouds one's judgment about truth .. respectfully, you demonstrate that cloudiness in your post here.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident WAS NOT A REAL EVENT and how you believe that it was is absolutely mindboggling with all the information available.

Nor did I say that false flag was the entire war .. I said it was a deception of war that led to greater involvement in Vietnam. A great many people and historians who have not been under fire recognize this undeniable truth.

Are you sure you want to argue this point .. because I'll be more than happy to do so.

Man up .. back up your assertion that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident actually happened as stated by Johnson.

 

[Gunny]

To "man up" my brother is to speak the truth regardless of it's unpopularity, not buying into what one has been told to believe.

Churchill is not my "sole means" of proff .. but I do believe it is quite definitive. I respect your right to believe otherwise.

And, as I've said to Editec, there had been prior attacks on US vessels, what was needed was a catostrophic event which Pearl Harbor most certainly was .. and one that changed the mood of the country overnight.

I find the argument that FDR knew an attack was imminent but paid little attention to all the obvious warnings before the attack on Pearl began to be totally and completely illogical.

The argument that attack was imminent but FDR paid little attention to the warnings has not been made. The argument being made is he did not expect it to come at Pearl Harbor. It is completely logical given the American mindset to assume he considered a Japanese attack on the strength of our fleet unlikely. It is also completely logical to assume that no one would believe the Japanese Navy could get that close to Hawaii without being detected.

As editec has stated, a catastrophic event was not required. We expected an attack in the Far East and that would have been reason enough to declare war.

What I find illogical is that ANY politician/President would take a risk of that magnitude. There's no way FDR could have gotten the information alone. That means others would have to be involved. That means he could be exposed and he'd have been falt-out lynched for it. That's just not going to happen.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

uh, yes, its what was reported about it that was exagerated
an event DID occure
but not the way it was reported

Then it was a deception, a contrived deception just as I said.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The argument that attack was imminent but FDR paid little attention to the warnings has not been made. The argument being made is he did not expect it to come at Pearl Harbor. It is completely logical given the American mindset to assume he considered a Japanese attack on the strength of our fleet unlikely. It is also completely logical to assume that no one would believe the Japanese Navy could get that close to Hawaii without being detected.

As editec has stated, a catastrophic event was not required. We expected an attack in the Far East and that would have been reason enough to declare war.

What I find illogical is that ANY politician/President would take a risk of that magnitude. There's no way FDR could have gotten the information alone. That means others would have to be involved. That means he could be exposed and he'd have been falt-out lynched for it. That's just not going to happen.

I'm glad that we can at least have this discussion civily. I appreciate that .. however, I agree wih you .. the Japanese fleet getting that close to Pearl without being detected is completely unbelieveable.

I make the argument that FDR did not act upon the all too obviuos warnings that an attack was imminent on Pearl.

PLease explain how Japanese minisubs were sunk prior to the attack and Japanese planes were detected one hour before the attack and there was no response to either.

Was it common for Japanese minisubs to be crusing around Pearl?

With war exploding all over the world and the knowledge that an attack was imminent, please explain how such warnings were ignored?

 

[Gunny]

Being under fire does not make you any smarter than sone who has not been .. in fact, it often clouds one's judgment about truth .. respectfully, you demonstrate that cloudiness in your post here.

You are wrong that it clouds MY judgement. I was 6 years old when it happened and not aboard the USS Maddox.

You keep using the word "truth." Truth is about perception and the perception that you are under fire means you are reacting as if you are under fire.

What matters are the actual facts. That is the REAL truth. You seem quite willing to cherrypick through them and use only the ones that support what you want to see.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident WAS NOT A REAL EVENT and how you believe that it was is absolutely mindboggling with all the information available.

You are incorrect. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident took place and was as real as you are. The USS Maddox engaged 3 North Vietnamese torpedo boats and damaged them. Two days later they reported a second incident that was LATER found to be in error. The Maddox however engaged radar and sonar targets for two hours believing they were under attack.

Giap even 'fessed up to the August 2nd attacks, while denying the August 4th ones.

So, it happened.

Nor did I say that false flag was the entire war .. I said it was a deception of war that led to greater involvement in Vietnam. A great many people and historians who have not been under fire recognize this undeniable truth.

That is not what you stated or I would not have taken exception to what you DID state. Obviously, the Monday morning quarterbacks have a better vantage point in after the fact analysis than those who are on the ground (or sea) at the time. I never stated otherwise, and you are mixing the apples and oranges in trying to use my statement about being under fire in this context.

Are you sure you want to argue this point .. because I'll be more than happy to do so.

Man up .. back up your assertion that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident actually happened as stated by Johnson

I have not made any such assertion. I stated the Gulf of Tonkin Incident happened. I did NOT assert that it happened as Johnson stated. And I DID back up what I asserted earlier in this post, thanks.

 

[Gunny]

I'm glad that we can at least have this discussion civily. I appreciate that .. however, I agree wih you .. the Japanese fleet getting that close to Pearl without being detected is completely unbelieveable.

I make the argument that FDR did not act upon the all too obviuos warnings that an attack was imminent on Pearl.

PLease explain how Japanese minisubs were sunk prior to the attack and Japanese planes were detected one hour before the attack and there was no response to either.

Was it common for Japanese minisubs to be crusing around Pearl?

With war exploding all over the world and the knowledge that an attack was imminent, please explain how such warnings were ignored?

You keep resting your case on the fact that YOU think that knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent even though it has been repeatedly stated that while an attack was expected, it was not expected at Pearl.

I know of one minisub that was sunk an hour before the air forces arrived and that was not proven fact until 2002.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm glad that we can at least have this discussion civily. I appreciate that .. however, I agree wih you .. the Japanese fleet getting that close to Pearl without being detected is completely unbelieveable.

not really---what were they supposed to be seen by--satellites ?

 

[Orange_Juice]

Not even a good try. Conservatives at the time were isolationists. Until Reagan, Democrats got us into every war we fought in the 20th century.

Save your revisionist, partisan hackery for another thread, huh?

Pretty stupid point. I guess McCarthy and the rest of the Republican animals were against Korea and Vietnam?

 

[Gunny]

Pretty stupid point. I guess McCarthy and the rest of the Republican animals were against Korea and Vietnam?

Actually, a completely valid point. I don't know what McCarthy was for besides keeping his face in the paper as much as possible by accusing everyone and his brother of being a commie. Witchhunting American commies and foreign wars are two completely seperate topics.

Who got us into Korea and who got us out? Who got us into Vietnam and who got us out?

You're not making yourself look real good.

 

[Againsheila]

Getting back to Pearl Harbor....I talked to a college student last night and asked him if he knew the significance of Dec 7th in our history. He had to look it up before he could tell me.

Our educational system is bad...really bad.

Guess it didn't really live in "infamy" as Rousevelt said.

 

[Gunny]

You keep resting your case on the fact that YOU think that knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent even though it has been repeatedly stated that while an attack was expected, it was not expected at Pearl.

I know of one minisub that was sunk an hour before the air forces arrived and that was not proven fact until 2002.

Upon further review, Japan lost a total of 5 minisubs that day. The one previously mentioned an hour before the aerial assault, the other 4 four during and after the battle.

Their transport were full-size subs which in and of themselves is not an indicator of anything but submarine activity. Certainly not an indicator of an aerial assault since subs don't carry planes.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Actually, a completely valid point. I don't know what McCarthy was for besides keeping his face in the paper as much as possible by accusing everyone and his brother of being a commie. Witchhunting American commies and foreign wars are two completely seperate topics.

Who got us into Korea and who got us out? Who got us into Vietnam and who got us out?

You're not making yourself look real good.

We got out of Korea? That's news to me. Perhaps you need to review your history a little and then maybe you wouldn't look like such a complete imbicile

 

[Gunny]

We got out of Korea? That's news to me. Perhaps you need to review your history a little and then maybe you wouldn't look like such a complete imbicile

Sure because you're going to try and deflect rather than answer the obvious.

Is that clapping for your new spelling of imbecile? Or the fact that you don't want to answer the questions that put mud all over your face?

 

[Orange_Juice]

Upon further review, Japan lost a total of 5 minisubs that day. The one previously mentioned an hour before the aerial assault, the other 4 four during and after the battle.

Their transport were full-size subs which in and of themselves is not an indicator of anything but submarine activity. Certainly not an indicator of an aerial assault since subs don't carry planes.

Japanese subs actually could carry a single search plane in WW2

Japanese Submarines

 

[Orange_Juice]

Sure because you're going to try and deflect rather than answer the obvious.

Is that clapping for your new spelling of imbecile? Or the fact that you don't want to answer the questions that put mud all over your face?

It was a stupid point to begin with, McKinely got us into the Empire business and Teddy Roosevelt was screaming for war in 1914. You might have the lucky dates on your side, but that's all

 

[Gunny]

Japanese subs actually could carry a single search plane in WW2

Japanese Submarines

Cool. I stand corrected.

I don't think anyone would consider 5 subs with 5 search planes would constitute and aerial threat.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Getting back to Pearl Harbor....I talked to a college student last night and asked him if he knew the significance of Dec 7th in our history. He had to look it up before he could tell me.

Our educational system is bad...really bad.

Guess it didn't really live in "infamy" as Rousevelt said.

naw, PH lives in infamy. don't confuse the date with it all. people forget dates that are important all the time. just ask any wife.


btw, who is Rousevelt? see? is it more important that I correct you or that I got what you meant?

 

[Gunny]

It was a stupid point to begin with, McKinely got us into the Empire business and Teddy Roosevelt was screaming for war in 1914. You might have the lucky dates on your side, but that's all

Of course it was stupid. Oh and lucky. Never changes with you, does it?

What is stupid is you even interjecting this political hackery crap into this thread. It was doing just fine without it.

Besides, don't you usually start your own thread when you want to spin? Out of character for you to jump into someone else's.

 

[Gunny]

naw, PH lives in infamy. don't confuse the date with it all. people forget dates that are important all the time. just ask any wife.


btw, who is Rousevelt? see? is it more important that I correct you or that I got what you meant?

Rousevelt was a distant cousin of FDR who phoned in all the important decisions.

I guess it really depends in whether or not you want to be known as "one of THOSE people" or not whether you become a spellchecker ...