Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

[Flanders]

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further
White House says US will not be intimidated by 'bellicose rhetoric' and is fully capable of defending itself and its allies
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 March 2013 14.33 EDT

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further | World news | guardian.co.uk

The Korean War was sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore, the American Left had their hands tied. American Communists could not protest a military action against the spread of communism without criticizing the UN. The Vietnam War was not sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore; American Communists were free to bring defeat their own country.

NOTE: America’s “loyal” ally, the UK, did not fight with America in Vietnam. I always found that despicable. Communists were determined to destroy America just as Germany would have destroyed England in two wars, yet the Brits always behaved as though it was America’s duty to come to England’s aid while they were under no obligation to fight alongside America against its enemy. I should also point out that the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were really hot battles in the Cold War against communism. Had the United Nations not sanctioned the Korean Police Action ——ONLY 5 YEARS AFTER THE END OF WWII —— I doubt if the UK would helped us there.

Now that Kim Jong-un is doing a lot more than saber-rattling let me quote President Truman on stopping Communist expansion in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

For many years I suggested asking every top Democrat the following:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting against communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not? since both wars were fought for the same reason.

Thank you Kim Jong-un for making the question more important today than it’s ever been in the past.

This is where it gets interesting. Is the UN’s stamp of approval still in effect should North Korea attack South Korea ?

If so, American Communists may not have to face the dilemma of demonstrating against the United Nations this time around because three traitors are perched at the top of government. Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hussein. Biden and Kerry took an active part in betraying this country, and the men and women who were doing the fighting, during the Vietnam war. Hussein was born in 1961; so he was too young to do the things Biden and Kerry did, but there is no doubt as to where his loyalties lie.

Next question

Will America’s allies support us again? Answer: Possibly because of the nuclear bomb factor.

Also, Americans have seen damn few loyal Democrats in high office since Harry Truman stuck it to the Soviet Union in 1950. None in Hussein’s administration. Back in 1950 Communist China was not a member of the UN. Today, they have a seat on the Security Council. Guess how the Chicoms feel about Kim Jong-un’s expansion plans.

Logically, North Korea’s military planners must rely on three things:

1. China will back their play when push comes to shove.

2. American traitors will do everything in their power to portray a second Korean War as another Vietnam.

3. Most importantly, Kim Jong-un is counting on Hussein & Company to keep the United Nations out of it à la Vietnam. In short: Kim would not be poking the lion without Hussein & Company in power.

Incidentally, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is from South Korea. I don’t know what Ban is doing behind the scenes, or how it plays into North Korea’s plans.

On the bright side, no matter how it goes North Korea could trigger the UN’s downfall. The majority of Americans already despise the UN. It won’t take much to push it over the edge. And there would be no better example of poetic justice than to have it happen when UN-loving traitors are in charge.

 

[Sallow]

South Korea, the area the US was charged with getting back on it's feet after WWII was attacked.

The US didn't really have much of a choice.

 

[Friends]

The Korean War and the War in Vietnam were different conflicts meriting different responses.

The Korean War began with a conventional invasion across a recognized boundary. By every criterion South Korea has a better government and economy than North Korea. The Korean War was therefore justified.

Gen. MacArthur's mistake was to try to conquer all of North Korea. He should have conquered enough to keep what remained from being strong enough to threaten South Korea, while leaving a buffer zone between American troops and Communist China.

The War in Vietnam happened because the United States refused to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954. That agreement scheduled elections to be held July 1956 to unify North and South Vietnam. It said that the division of Vietnam was not to be permanent, and forbade the entry of foreign troops into Vietnam.

In his memoirs President Eisenhower admitted that his advisers told him that Ho Chi Minh would have won at much as 80 percent of the Vietnamese vote if the scheduled election had been held.

The United States deserved to win the Korean War. The United States deserved to lose the War in Vietnam.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

No invading nation deserves to win any war pursuant to the invasion.

The sad thing is citizens of war mongering nations don't have the same choices as the filthy ******* scum who cause wars.

 

[Friends]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soy3PHV3RiM]Country Joe & The Fish- Feel Like I'm Fixing To Die Rag - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veMwTqvsozA]ENGLISH - The national anthem of Vietnam (socialist) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldguy]

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further
White House says US will not be intimidated by 'bellicose rhetoric' and is fully capable of defending itself and its allies
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 March 2013 14.33 EDT

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further | World news | guardian.co.uk

The Korean War was sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore, the American Left had their hands tied. American Communists could not protest a military action against the spread of communism without criticizing the UN. The Vietnam War was not sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore; American Communists were free to bring defeat their own country.

NOTE: America’s “loyal” ally, the UK, did not fight with America in Vietnam. I always found that despicable. Communists were determined to destroy America just as Germany would have destroyed England in two wars, yet the Brits always behaved as though it was America’s duty to come to England’s aid while they were under no obligation to fight alongside America against its enemy. I should also point out that the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were really hot battles in the Cold War against communism. Had the United Nations not sanctioned the Korean Police Action ——ONLY 5 YEARS AFTER THE END OF WWII —— I doubt if the UK would helped us there.

Now that Kim Jong-un is doing a lot more than saber-rattling let me quote President Truman on stopping Communist expansion in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

For many years I suggested asking every top Democrat the following:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting against communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not? since both wars were fought for the same reason.

Thank you Kim Jong-un for making the question more important today than it’s ever been in the past.

This is where it gets interesting. Is the UN’s stamp of approval still in effect should North Korea attack South Korea ?

If so, American Communists may not have to face the dilemma of demonstrating against the United Nations this time around because three traitors are perched at the top of government. Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hussein. Biden and Kerry took an active part in betraying this country, and the men and women who were doing the fighting, during the Vietnam war. Hussein was born in 1961; so he was too young to do the things Biden and Kerry did, but there is no doubt as to where his loyalties lie.

Next question

Will America’s allies support us again? Answer: Possibly because of the nuclear bomb factor.

Also, Americans have seen damn few loyal Democrats in high office since Harry Truman stuck it to the Soviet Union in 1950. None in Hussein’s administration. Back in 1950 Communist China was not a member of the UN. Today, they have a seat on the Security Council. Guess how the Chicoms feel about Kim Jong-un’s expansion plans.

Logically, North Korea’s military planners must rely on three things:

1. China will back their play when push comes to shove.

2. American traitors will do everything in their power to portray a second Korean War as another Vietnam.

3. Most importantly, Kim Jong-un is counting on Hussein & Company to keep the United Nations out of it à la Vietnam. In short: Kim would not be poking the lion without Hussein & Company in power.

Incidentally, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is from South Korea. I don’t know what Ban is doing behind the scenes, or how it plays into North Korea’s plans.

On the bright side, no matter how it goes North Korea could trigger the UN’s downfall. The majority of Americans already despise the UN. It won’t take much to push it over the edge. And there would be no better example of poetic justice than to have it happen when UN-loving traitors are in charge.

Boy, you REALLY need to study history before you make a complete fool of yourself.

 

[Oldguy]

Korean War - UK Military Casualties

 

[Flanders]

South Korea, the area the US was charged with getting back on it's feet after WWII was attacked.

The US didn't really have much of a choice.

To Sallow: Nice attempt at misdirection.

I don’t know who you think had the authority to charge Americans with the task of rebuilding South Korea. Truman did what he did to stop communism’s expansion. No matter. There would have been damn little rebuilding had the Soviet Union not missed a Security Council meeting for the first and only time because Stalin would have vetoed the Police Action irrespective of your interpretation.

Say what you will about Truman and Korea, but say this as well; he bought this country six decades to build some of kind of defense against communism spreading in Asia. Instead of inventing false motives for Truman’s actions you should be praying that the traitors in the current administration do not throw it all away.

No invading nation deserves to win any war pursuant to the invasion.

To Dugdale_Jukes: You are eliminating a preemptive strike for self defense. Muslims & Communists must love you. Don’t attack us until after we attack you. Get real.

The sad thing is citizens of war mongering nations don't have the same choices as the filthy ******* scum who cause wars.

To Dugdale_Jukes: Name the nations you have in mind.

NOTE: America’s “loyal” ally, the UK, did not fight with America in Vietnam. I always found that despicable. Communists were determined to destroy America just as Germany would have destroyed England in two wars, yet the Brits always behaved as though it was America’s duty to come to England’s aid while they were under no obligation to fight alongside America against its enemy. I should also point out that the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were really hot battles in the Cold War against communism. Had the United Nations not sanctioned the Korean Police Action ——ONLY 5 YEARS AFTER THE END OF WWII —— I doubt if the UK would helped us there.

Boy, you REALLY need to study history before you make a complete fool of yourself.

Korean War - UK Military Casualties

To Oldguy. Instead of attacking me you halfwit, post your history.

And what is your point in posting British casualties in Korea? Have someone explain my NOTE in the OP. Obviously you are too stupid to understand what I said.

 

[Desperado]

Both war were a waste of our men and our money.
The US had no business getting involved in either war.

 

[Flanders]

The Korean War and the War in Vietnam were different conflicts meriting different responses.

To Friends: The only difference is where they were fought. They were fought for the same reason. See the answer to the title question in the OP.

The Korean War began with a conventional invasion across a recognized boundary. By every criterion South Korea has a better government and economy than North Korea. The Korean War was therefore justified.

To Friends: Can’t we simply say that stopping communism’s expansion is the reason for South Korea’s prosperity?

Gen. MacArthur's mistake was to try to conquer all of North Korea. He should have conquered enough to keep what remained from being strong enough to threaten South Korea, while leaving a buffer zone between American troops and Communist China.

To Friends: General MacArthur wanted to bomb China. He was correct just as General Patten was correct when he advocated knocking off the Soviet Union. Both enemies were much weaker at the time.

You might get a better understanding of what Korea was all about if you to listen to the first six minutes of MacArthur’s farewell address to Congress:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuagi9kZe8A&feature=player_detailpage]General Douglas MacArthur Farewell Speech - YouTube[/ame]​

The War in Vietnam happened because the United States refused to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954. That agreement scheduled elections to be held July 1956 to unify North and South Vietnam. It said that the division of Vietnam was not to be permanent, and forbade the entry of foreign troops into Vietnam.

To Friends: The US is under no obligation to honor any of the Geneva Conventions. And you’re talking to the wrong guy if you think the Geneva’s Conventions mean anything.

The Geneva Conventions are gaining legitimacy because five activist High Court liberals are legislating the Democrat party’s International agenda. By speaking so highly of the Geneva Conventions, liberals have subliminally taught many generations to love the GCs; much like children love to hear the same bedtime stories told night after night. It is time the GCs were examined in a critical light.

First, enforcing the GCs is a pipe dream. Lacking enforcement the Geneva Conventions are nothing more than a fairy tale told by the touchy-feely crowd.

Somewhere along the way the United Nations set itself up as the authority on the Geneva Conventions. The UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, tried the same thing.

I want to jump back to 2008 Republican debate for a second. This is Senator McCain talking to Mitt Romney:

“Then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions.”

Romneycare was not an issue in 2008; so if Romney replied “You got that right.” he would have been the nominee instead of McCain. Romney would have clinched it had he added that civilized behavior does not flow from the Geneva Conventions nor does peace.

Now, let’s look at the history of the GCs.

The Geneva Conventions originated in the 1860s. The one and only impetus for the first Convention was better treatment for wounded soldiers.

Here is some background about the Geneva Conventions taken from my computer almanac. There are two separate entries. The first is about the Red Cross when the Geneva Conventions were in the rudimentary stage. Should you do more research you’ll find that in the beginning there was no mention of torture, prisoners of war, habeas corpus, or anything else:

Initiative for founding the Red Cross came from the 19th-century Swiss philanthropist Jean Henri Dunant. Appalled by the almost complete lack of care for wounded soldiers, he appealed to national leaders to establish societies devoted to the aid of the wounded in wartime. Five Swiss citizens formed a committee, which later became the ICRC, and issued a call for an international conference. The first conference was held in Geneva in October 1863.

Before moving on, let me suggest that caring for the wounded in accordance with the Geneva Conventions evolved into deliberately wounding enemy combatants. Professional soldiers in every modern army know that a wounded enemy soldier ties up more resources and manpower than does a dead enemy. I am not suggesting that the wounded should be treated as they were treated in long-forgotten wars. I am simply pointing out one result of the Geneva Conventions. Call it one more example of “The highway to hell is paved with good intentions.”

The next entry gives a brief history of the Geneva Conventions:

The Geneva Conventions are 4 international treaties governing the protection of civilians in time of war, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the care of the wounded and sick in the armed forces. The first convention, covering the sick and wounded, was concluded in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864; it was amended and expanded in 1906. A third convention, in 1929, covered prisoners of war. Outrage at the treatment of prisoners and civilians during World War II by some belligerents, notably Germany and Japan, prompted the conclusion, in August 1949, of 4 new conventions. Three of these restated and strengthened the previous conventions, and the fourth codified general principles of international law governing the treatment of civilians in wartime.

The 1949 convention for civilians provided for special safeguards for the wounded, children under 15, pregnant women, and the elderly. Discrimination was forbidden on racial, religious, national, or political grounds. Torture, collective punishment, reprisals, the unwarranted destruction of property, and the forced use of civilians for an occupier’s armed forces were also prohibited.

Also included in the new 1949 treaties was a pledge to treat prisoners humanely, feed them adequately, and deliver relief supplies to them. They were not to be forced to disclose more than minimal information.

Most countries have formally accepted all or most of the humanitarian conventions as binding. A nation is not free to withdraw its ratification of the conventions during wartime. However, there is no permanent machinery in place to apprehend, try, or punish violators.

Notice how the original mandate grew:

The First Convention covered care for the wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field.

The Second Convention covered care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea as well as shipwreck victims.

The Third Convention covered prisoners of the war.

The Fourth Convention covered civilians in times of war.

When the inevitable Fifth Convention convenes guess what will be added? You guessed right if you said habeas corpus and enemy combatants being tried in civilian courts. It will all be made to appear that GI Joe is being protected, but the new additions will include protections for the people who gave the orders as well as the people who carried them out. There will be no more War Crimes Trials where Nazi and Japanese leaders were executed by military tribunals. There will be no more hanging dictators à la Saddam.

Parenthetically, the Rule of Law, rather than the GCs, should protect traitors of every stripe. First give them a trial then hang them.

WW II torture, inhumane treatment of prisoners, and the executions of Americans by the enemy shows that the League of Nations and the Geneva Conventions were as big a joke as is the UN. Flying planes into skyscrapers in violation of the Fourth Convention is a no-no, but that did not stop it from happening.

The Geneva Conventions (non-existent International law) tells Americans how to behave while enemy countries ignore the “law” with impunity. Not every country is a signatory. Those that have not signed have no “legal” obligation to comply. That makes punishment a more useful deterrent than are the Geneva Conventions, or at least it did before American liberals decided otherwise.

Countries that have signed onto the Geneva Conventions often engage in the most brutal forms of torture. Proponents of the GCs seem to be saying that America should avoid war against the non-signers if it expects captured Americans to get better treatment than they get from Muslim fanatics who are non-signers.

The Geneva Conventions would be wonderful things if all wars were fought by gentlemen. And please don’t think that an end to war will be an end to government murders. The do-gooders who are driving the world toward a global government seem to think that the brutes will admit defeat after the birth of global government. The truth is: The butchers will take control of the machinery the instant it is up and running.

America should not be bound by non-existent international law. That is where Supreme Court internationalists are pushing this country. Americans will always dictate their own conduct in war. So I see no reason to give the Geneva Conventions legitimacy.

My point is this: There is no evidence to support the claim that says the Geneva Conventions made the world a better place. There is much evidence to support the opposite view. TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS have become increasingly barbaric from the outset of the Geneva Conventions in 1864.

Prior to 1864, governments not at war concentrated on killing ambitious citizens they saw as threatening. Since 1864, the GCs gained worldwide attention and respectability. During that time governments have taken to killing everyone those in power do not like. The Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, along with countless lesser-known brutal regimes have slaughtered well over 100 million of their own citizens.

Brutality strengthened by new technology will always outpace good intentions. In the hands of the politically powerful, technology developed in the last century alone made it the most murderously efficient century in history. Mankind cannot possibly be worse off after scrapping the Geneva Conventions.

So long as the GCs remain a political force nothing else will be tried. Scrap the Geneva Conventions and see what develops. Reinstitute the GCs if things are worse at the end of this century.

In his memoirs President Eisenhower admitted that his advisers told him that Ho Chi Minh would have won at much as 80 percent of the Vietnamese vote if the scheduled election had been held.

To Friends: His advisors made a prediction about an election in Vietnam? What the hell does that mean?

The United States deserved to win the Korean War. The United States deserved to lose the War in Vietnam.

To Friends: The US never deserves to lose a war, and certainly not to Communists with the help of American traitors.

 

[MaryL]

If I remember right, Gen. MacArthur wanted to nuke Chinese forces to stop the war, and was fired for his outspokenness as being insubordinate. Now we have communist north Korea which has become a loose cannon with nukes NOW pointed squarely at both South Korea and the US, and I have to wonder, what if we HAD used Nuclear weapons THEN what would the world be like NOW? This seems itself an odd question after we invaded Iraq in 2003 because it might of possibly had WMD's, seems so ironic NOW. American foreign policies, then and now, seem out of touch and fickle as hell.

 

[Bleipriester]

Communists were determined to destroy America just as Germany would have destroyed England in two wars, yet the Brits always behaved as though it was America’s duty to come to England’s aid while they were under no obligation to fight alongside America against its enemy. I should also point out that the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were really hot battles in the Cold War against communism. Had the United Nations not sanctioned the Korean Police Action ——ONLY 5 YEARS AFTER THE END OF WWII —— I doubt if the UK would helped us there.

It is the same:
Nobody forced England to declare war on Germany.
And nobody forces the US and South Korea to fight against North Korea. I think even the British government sees that N. Korea is
1.) No threat to the western world or global peace
2.) Not bluffing about its military capacities

 

[Flanders]

It is the same:

To Bleipriester: You’ll have to clarify that statement!

Nobody forced England to declare war on Germany.

To Bleipriester: Empire required it.

I am more interested in Woodrow Wilson taking America to war after promising he wouldn’t. Over the years I posted some thoughts on why he did it, and why he sided with England and not Germany. There’s a lot to it; so I’m not going to get into it this thread. And please do not tell me about the Lusitania.

And nobody forces the US and South Korea to fight against North Korea.

To Bleipriester: Is South Korea allowed to defend itself with America’s help in your little world. China will certainly help North Korea as it did the first time around.

I think even the British government sees that N. Korea is
1.) No threat to the western world or global peace

To Bleipriester: North Korea is no threat to European socialism. It is a threat to the rest of the world. General MacArthur understood it , as did many others at the time, yet many of today’s American can’t seem to grasp it. They all seem to think they will only lose on paper when the UN says “You lose. The Communists win.” Perhaps they will wake up when they start thinking about being conquered and occupied.

The United Nations enforcing worldwide socialism/communism with America’s military might under UN command is the only peace American traitors will settle for.

2.) Not bluffing about its military capacities

To Bleipriester: I hope not. Then maybe America will fight to win instead of engaging in another one of Wilson’s Peace Without Victory wars.

 

[Flopper]

Both war were a waste of our men and our money.
The US had no business getting involved in either war.

That's easy to say looking back, but each time a country fell to communism, the US saw it as another step toward thermonuclear war. Stopping an invasion in southeast asia was seen as preferable to stopping one in the skies over American cities.

 

[Bleipriester]

To Bleipriester: You’ll have to clarify that statement!

If England would not have declared war on Germany, no war with England would have taken place.

I am more interested in Woodrow Wilson taking America to war after promising he wouldn’t. Over the years I posted some thoughts on why he did it, and why he sided with England and not Germany. There’s a lot to it; so I’m not going to get into it this thread. And please do not tell me about the Lusitania.

For economical reasons America joined the war against Germany. Germany had no choice but to declare war on America because the Americans already fired at every German ship they saw.

The Lusitania thing is a conspiracy theory and we don´t know what´s fact about it.

If America would have joined Germany´s side, it would have been not good for the economy by two reasons:
The war against the British Empire would have been over very soon.
The war against the Soviet Union would have lasted too long.

To Bleipriester: Is South Korea allowed to defend itself with America’s help in your little world. China will certainly help North Korea as it did the first time around.

South Korea is allowed to defend itself even with America´s help in my opinion. But North Korea wants no war and will not strike at first. So, the USA has no reason to deploy more and more troops if it´s about defense.

To Bleipriester: North Korea is no threat to European socialism. It is a threat to the rest of the world. General MacArthur understood it , as did many others at the time, yet many of today’s American can’t seem to grasp it. They all seem to think they will only lose on paper when the UN says “You lose. The Communists win.” Perhaps they will wake up when they start thinking about being conquered and occupied.

The United Nations enforcing worldwide socialism/communism with America’s military might under UN command is the only peace American traitors will settle for.

That´s bullshit. Neither do we have socialism in Europe nor is North Korea a threat to anyone. They just want be.

To Bleipriester: I hope not. Then maybe America will fight to win instead of engaging in another one of Wilson’s Peace Without Victory wars.

There is no honor attacking small countries.

 

[Trajan]

2 points to flesh out some history; we ( Teddy Roosevelt) gave korea to the japs in the treaty of Portsmouth ( 1905) ....at the very time korean national envoys were being entertained by Taft and the rest of Teddys cabinet in DC and being told different....we also supported the post ww2 south Korean gov. that was headed by Syngman Rhee, who was almost as bad as his northern counter part Kim IL Sung......but Rhee was 'our son of a *****'....

 

[Friends]

To Friends: General MacArthur wanted to bomb China. He was correct just as General Patten was correct when he advocated knocking off the Soviet Union. Both enemies were much weaker at the time.

During the Second World War the Soviet Union suffered 28 million dead and the loss of one third of its industrial and farm plant. Inflicting more suffering on the Soviet people would have been immoral, and we might have even lost. At the end of the Second World War there was no support in the United States for an equally costly war with the Soviets.

Gen. Patton died just in time. He may have caused problems if he had lived.

By 1953 the Soviet Union had the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb. Bombing Communist China would have killed millions of Chinese, and may have started a nuclear war with the Soviets.

Toward the end of his life MacArthur told President Johnson, "Son, don't get into a war on the mainland of Asia."

 

[Friends]

To Friends: The US never deserves to lose a war, and certainly not to Communists with the help of American traitors.

Vietnam was unimportant to America's security or economy. The United States devastated Vietnam in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. That was evil.

Treason during an immoral war is virtuous.

In his Reflections on the French Revolution Edmund Burke wrote, "To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely."

During the War in Vietnam the United States was not lovely.

 

[Friends]

There is no honor attacking small countries.

 

[Friends]

Flanders,

After the Second World War the United States greatly overestimated the threat of Communism. During the War the Soviet Union lost an estimated 28 million dead, and one third of its industrial and farm plant. A country that had suffered like that was in no position to embark on a career of world conquest.

Communist subversion was never a legitimate concern for the United States. It was only effective against countries where right wing dictatorships oppressed an impoverished majority in order to protect a parasitic oligarchy. Even then it usually failed.

After the Second World War a certain amount of tension with the Soviet Union was probably inevitable. Nevertheless, the United States could have behaved unilaterally in order to reduce tensions.

Although a nuclear war was a real danger, there was never the slightest danger that the United States would somehow "go Communist."

The fear millions of Americans had of the American Communist Party was preposterous. The CPUSA never consisted of more than a few thousand members. It was never more than a Marxist discussion group.