Why The US Lost The Vietnam War

When one gets into a conversation about the Vietnam War there is always an armchair general that knows all there is as to why the US lost that war.

Ken Burns new documentary on the Vietnam War has given rise to more analysis of this conflict.

This is a good opportunity to discuss the War….a discussion that should have been had 40 years ago.

The U.S was not simply outfought. It was out-thought. .. For all of the self-satisfied voyeurism surrounding the Vietnam War, it’s hard to find a concrete idea about why the U.S. lost.  For more than a decade, the U.S. had declared that it would not let Vietnam fall to the communists.  Yet, Vietnam fell to the communists.  Why?The absence of a clear explanation is not an accident.  None of the institutions that led the U.S. into the War or prosecuted the War want to be tarred with having lost the War.   They would rather its loss be left ambiguous, murky.  Or worse, blamed on others.

Source: Why the US Lost the Vietnam War | By | Common Dreams

Advertisements

Hospital Update

Things are going well. And kindness is still flowing in. Does the old professor heart good. Such great friends.

Ihave been in hyperbaric tubes way tt much. LOL

Still no timeline for me to go home. Imiss my ‘puter.

Again I cannot thank all you for your kindness. Hopefully I will be back soon.

When Did We Ever Have A Secret President?

Political History is a fascinating subject of study…..and if done correctly then the student can learn some fantastic information.

Last election the US came as close as we ever have to electing a woman as president …..but it was not to be.

But did you know that almost a century ago….the US was controlled by a woman in the White House…..you see our president at the time, Woodrow Wilson, suffered a stroke….a severe stroke.

Woodrow Wilson may have been one of our hardest-working chief executives and by the fall of 1919, he looked it.

For most of the six months between late Dec. 1918 and June 1919, our 28th president was in Europe negotiating the Treaty of Versailles and planning for the nascent League of Nations, efforts for which he was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize (an award he did not officially receive until 1920). Back home, however, the ratification of the treaty met with mixed public support and strong opposition from Republican senators, led by Henry Cabot Lodge (R-Mass.), as well as Irish Catholic Democrats. As the summer progressed, President Wilson worried that defeat was in the air.

Bone-tired but determined to wage peace, on Sept. 3, 1919, Woodrow Wilson embarked on a national speaking tour across the United States so that he could make his case directly to the American people. For the next three and a half weeks, the president, his wife Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, assorted aides, servants, cooks, Secret Service men and members of the press rode the rails. The presidential train car, quaintly named the Mayflower, served as a rolling White House. Also joining the party was the president’s personal physician, Cary T. Grayson, who had grave concerns over his patient’s health.

Source: When a secret president ran the country | PBS NewsHour

AS usual your history lesson for the day is complete…..now use it the next time someone wants a debate…..

No Better Regulars

Since I have been in hospital I’ve learned the meaning of loyalty and cmpassion. I can find no better people……love and gratitude…from the bed of the old
Professor. Type on my friend and thank you.
My street name is now “”sammy. Six toes”love you guys.

A Saner U.S. Policy Towards North Korea

There has been volumes written on how to handle the North Korean situation……most of which has centered around some sort of military action…..very little on a more sane approach.

Some will ask…..mostly those on the neocon Right, that will ask if that is even possible. The American Conservative offers up a look at a more sane foreign policy.

There are seven postulates that ought to inform U.S. policy regarding North Korea.

First, our objective. Nothing is more important than to be clear about what we are trying to accomplish. Our purpose should be to provide for our own security and that of our allies, especially South Korea and Japan, while avoiding war. Our purpose should not be regime change in Pyongyang or forcing Kim Jong-un to abandon his nuclear weapons program. Both of those may be desirable. Neither is worth a large-scale war.

(Read on……..)

Source: Seven Steps to a Saner U.S. Policy Towards North Korea | The American Conservative

I will not, no cannot agree with everything they put forward but it is good to see that the Right still has thinkers….put as quickly as the Trump group is trying to purge any actual conservatives from the party…..how long before these saner voices are silenced?

Closing Thought–18Oct17

Are You An Anti-Semite?

We hear this term used a lot these…it seems that if you criticize Israel then you are by default a anti-Semite.

Sorry but that is crap!

I can criticize Israel and still respect the religion….but for those that still have this gnawing ignorance…..I offer this…..keep in mind this site has a Libertarian lean to it….

This is a topic which has had so much written about it that you could fill an entire city library with books entirely dedicated to this topic. Marx took a shot at it. As did Sartre. There were, of course, also plenty of good books written on this topic, but rather than list them all, I want to suggest a few simple common sense points and then go to what I consider an authoritative explanation of this thing we call “antisemitism” and which, of course, has nothing to do with Semites.

So first, let’s dump this silly term and replace it by a simple and straightforward one: judeophobia. Just like any other phobia (say, for example, russophobia) the phobia of X is the 1) fear and/or hatred of X. Some people hate Jews, others fear them (think of the “fear of the Jews” in the Scripture), some do both. So judeophobia seems both logical and uncontroversial to me.

Source: A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism” – The Unz Review

I do not agree with the premise….for me my criticism is of the treatment of people by the government of Israel not their religious beliefs….