0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was the press wrong for publishing The Pentagon Papers?
Posted on 10/16/26 at 1:21 pm to VOR
Posted on 10/16/26 at 1:21 pm to VOR
quote:
Was Nixon “the left”?
Decidedly not.
His increased pressure on North Vietnam, including bombing North Vietnamese forces using Cambodia as a staging area was his clear strategy to pressure the North to the table for peace talks. This is something the left didn't care to do as they fiddlefricked around in a passive strategy that allowed our servicemen to die while accomplishing nothing.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 1:23 pm to VOR
I wish they would make the Watergate scandle clear. I know many people would love to know how ex-CIA operative, Woodward was made point man on everything and who was really behind it.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 1:39 pm to VOR
quote:
Internally, the government doubted that the U.S. could prevail in that particular guerilla war.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification. The “papers” generally showed that military advisors to Eisenhower, Kennedy, and LBJ all recommended much higher troop numbers than those presidents ultimately committed.
It wasn’t as much as the presidents lied, they just disagreed with their advisors (which is their right as political leaders).
So those who claim they “lied” are just upset the political process doesn’t allow complete transparency.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 1:47 pm to theballguy
quote:
no Nixon was not the "left
I don’t disagree. That is wholly irrelevant to you focusing on MAGA in a thread about Vietnam. TDS makes otherwise smart people act really really dumb.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 2:28 pm to theballguy
Serious question. Are you retarded?
Posted on 10/16/26 at 2:30 pm to VOR
No, but he ended the war for us.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 2:39 pm to NC_Tigah
Nailed it
Posted on 10/16/26 at 2:49 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
THIS X 1,000. The whole Vietnam tragedy was based on a false premise. The governance of a foreign country is not of national concern to the United States.
It was even worse because we had conscription.
They sent tens of thousands of Americans to their deaths on a lie and if you said no you could be sent to prison.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 3:07 pm to Diamondawg
You arent wrong.
Here;s a quick synopsis:
Here;s a quick synopsis:
quote:
Harry S. Truman (1945–1953)
Truman’s administration marked the beginning of U.S. involvement in Vietnam by providing aid to French colonial forces after World War II, motivated by fears of communist expansion in Southeast Asia. His support laid the groundwork for future American engagement, even as the French struggled to maintain control over Vietnam
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961)
Eisenhower intensified U.S. support for South Vietnam following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. He promoted the “domino theory,” believing that the fall of Vietnam to communism could trigger the spread of communism throughout the region. His administration provided military and economic assistance to the South Vietnamese government
John F. Kennedy (1961–1963)
Kennedy increased U.S. involvement through military advisors and covert operations, aiming to strengthen South Vietnam against communist insurgency. His policies focused on counterinsurgency and supporting the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, though he faced challenges with political instability in South Vietnam
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969)
Johnson escalated the war significantly after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, committing large numbers of U.S. combat troops to Vietnam. His administration oversaw major military campaigns and sustained bombing operations, leading to a peak in American troop presence and casualties. Johnson’s policies intensified domestic opposition and anti-war protests
Richard Nixon (1969–1974)
Nixon inherited the conflict and pursued “Vietnamization,” aiming to gradually withdraw U.S. troops while transferring combat responsibilities to South Vietnamese forces. Despite his promise to end U.S. involvement, military actions continued, including secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos, until the eventual withdrawal of American forces and the Paris Peace Accords in 1973
Posted on 10/16/26 at 3:24 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Tigah, do you think it was a good idea for us to meddle in Vietnam's domestic affairs?
It's amazing to me that y'all isolationists cannot see that Vietnam was not about Vietnam.
That's like saying, "So what if 20 illegals got across the Rio Grande? I'll never meet them, so they won't ever bother me."
Vietnam was a proxy war with the USSR as part of the Domino Theory of Communism.
And since we ultimately defeated the USSR by bankrupting them, and since proxy wars with them were an integral part of that bankrupting, and since they were the greatest threat to not only the United States in our entire history, but the greatest threat to all life on planet Earth in the 20th century, I don't even see how it's debatable that it was a good idea.
We can debate whether how it was done was a good idea, but you isolationists have no answer for one indisputable fact: During the first 150 years of our existence, the US followed an isolationist policy. During that time we fought several wars—many of them on our own soil—and globally we had two world wars and two incidences of nuclear weapons used on civilians.
Since we stopped with that childish nonsense we've had zero world wars, fought zero wars on our own soil, and had zero incidences of nuclear weapons used on anybody, despite the fact that 9 countries have nuclear weapons now.
And yes, we've greatly escalated the number of military operations, but we've also greatly reduced the number of American soldiers put in harm's way even with the increase in ops.
Turns out, when you stop something from festering and growing into a conflict that involves multiple factions, you eliminate the need to send mass numbers of troops to deal with it. Nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand, it never gets out of hand.
Like any 6th grader couldn't figure that out.
Y'all all whine like 2 year olds about "endless wars in the ME," but we've only lost around 7,000 troops in the entirety of every military operation we've conducted in all the countries we've intervened in in the ME—combined—since 1979.
We lost almost 20,000 American soldiers in a single battle—the Battle of the Bulge—in WWII.
And yeah, we lost a lot of troops in Vietnam, but nothing like we did in the world wars we had to fight when we were still acting like we could just ignore the rest of the world. Over 400,000 in three years and nine months in WWII vs 50,000 over a period of 8 years (or 20, depending on whether you count the time we had any military personnel over there) in Vietnam.
And there were three times that the USSR was seconds away from launching their nukes at the US. The B-59 Sub incident, which was saved only because policy required a unanimous vote among three officers; two voted to launch and one guy held out for more information. If he hadn't, none of us would be here to post on this board.
The September 26rd, 1983 malfunction of a Soviet satellite that told command that the US had launched five nukes at the USSR. Saved only because the Soviet commander in charge failed to follow orders to immediately retaliate.
The Able Archer 83 Incident, just two months later. fricking stupid NATO simulated a "wargames" exercise that included a nuclear strike scenario that the Soviets thought was real at first. Again, we were seconds away from blowing the whole world up. This incident and the next one were what inspired the movie "WarGames." That movie was based on real events.
1979 NORAD Tape-Slip. Some dumb-arse at NORAD this time, but same scenario. Loaded a war simulation without telling anybody and this time it was us who almost launched on them.
That's what was happening back then. THAT'S why we went to Vietnam, not to "meddle in their affairs" because we gave a damn about a tiny rural country thousands of miles away. Because were were trying to survive global disaster with an enemy who was even more paranoid than we were.
Thats why I'm so amazed at people my age and older who whine and cry about Iran. I can understand some idiot 20 year old who has never lived with the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of someone who is willing—maybe even eager, as many Soviet officials have been described as being—to use them. I can't understand somebody who grew up when the USSR existed blowing it off. It's the height of stupidity to me.
In any case, I'll take the zero WWs, nuclear strikes, and wars on our on soil.
Every.
Day.
Of.
The.
Week.
Even if there's a cost for it.
This post was edited on 10/16/26 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 10/16/26 at 3:34 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
any case, I'll take the zero WWs, nuclear strikes, and wars on our on soil.
Thanks for your analysis. I don't agree with you, but I really appreciate you laying it all out.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 3:50 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
any case, I'll take the zero WWs, nuclear strikes, and wars on our on soil.
Wack, I didn't mean to dismiss your analysis. It's an impressive one.
Don't have time to fully respond, but, generally I think that the US has such great economic and cultural advantages over our adversaries that we don't need the proxy wars.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 4:05 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
We can debate whether how it was done was a good idea, but you isolationists have no answer for one indisputable fact: During the first 150 years of our existence, the US followed an isolationist policy. During that time we fought several wars—many of them on our own soil—and globally we had two world wars and two incidences of nuclear weapons used on civilians
Two my man. We fought two wars on our own soil and one was with ourselves. We had a total of three wars if you count the Spanish/American (Mexican American war was not on US soil nor did involve tUSA). The Indian wars, well that was us not being that isolationist.
As far as both world wars, we could have happily sat out of the first.
Whatever happened during the Cold War may have been justified, but that becomes mute when our own government lies to us to get shite done.
Say whatever you will about constant meddling in the ME. Most of what affects us is known as blowback from our prior actions (like being the largest state sponsor of terror in modern history...yeah, that is us and no one else. It cannot be debated).
This bring us to another point that cannot be debated. We have been at almost constant war now that we decided not to be isolationist. We have spent more money on it and have made more enemies doing it and have put ourselves in a less safe position globally.
What it all gets us is right where Eisenhower warned us we would be. There is no going back. It is full steam ahead from here no matter what we want. The ride is almost over.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 4:05 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Thanks for the post.
And there were three times that the USSR was seconds away from launching their nukes at the US. The B-59 Sub incident, which was saved only because policy required a unanimous vote among three officers; two voted to launch and one guy held out for more information. If he hadn't, none of us would be here to post on this board.
The September 26rd, 1983 malfunction of a Soviet satellite that told command that the US had launched five nukes at the USSR. Saved only because the Soviet commander in charge failed to follow orders to immediately retaliate.
The Able Archer 83 Incident, just two months later. fricking stupid NATO simulated a "wargames" exercise that included a nuclear strike scenario that the Soviets thought was real at first. Again, we were seconds away from blowing the whole world up. This incident and the next one were what inspired the movie "WarGames." That movie was based on real events.
1979 NORAD Tape-Slip. Some dumb-arse at NORAD this time, but same scenario. Loaded a war simulation without telling anybody and this time it was us who almost launched on them.
I was keenly aware of submarine and nuclear artillery near-misses during the Cuban Missile crisis, preceding the GoT incident. You didn't mention those, and they frequently slip through the Cuban crisis narrative. but either of those could/would have resulted in WWIII.
However, the 1979/83 episodes, I'd not heard of at all.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 4:29 pm to UtahCajun
quote:What is the purpose of "meddling"
Say whatever you will about constant meddling in the ME.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 4:35 pm to VOR
quote:
You do know that Nixon expanded the war into Cambodia and bombed the North with the “Christmas Bombing”, right?
Yep. And he did it secretly, while in peace negotiations.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News