Ambassador Murdered

[Big Sarge]

There was only one attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson fabricated the second incident in order to obtain the power to wage war without the approval of Congress.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

There was only one attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson fabricated the second incident in order to obtain the power to wage war without the approval of Congress.

What second incident? I've only read about and talked about the one on August 2. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was done days later as a response to the attack on August 2.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Griff

I lay the War ® at Johnson's feet, but CyberWolf was digging into the roots of the conflict which was us re-arming the previous Vichy French occupiers after Japan went belly up.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. The Official War on Paper was under Johnson, but the military actions, events and battles with US involvement that led to Johnson making that decision was started much earlier under Eisenhower. He's not blameless in this.

[DanaC]

Kind of like suggesting Obama fucked up the economy and broke the democracy.

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Kind of like suggesting Obama fucked up the economy and broke the democracy.

I thought he did

[Happy Monkey]

Of course you did.

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

What second incident? I've only read about and talked about the one on August 2. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was done days later as a response to the attack on August 2.

Johnson reported 2 attacks initiated by the North Vietnamese to Congress. I'm referring to the Aug 4th incident. When the National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4.

The report stated regarding August 2: At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.

Regarding August 4: It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Johnson reported 2 attacks initiated by the North Vietnamese to Congress. I'm referring to the Aug 4th incident. When the National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4.

The report stated regarding August 2: At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.

Regarding August 4: It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2

So either we were actually the aggressor in that fight, as was apparently not reported, or we were still responding to a perceived aggressive act, which was reported.

Not defending a fabrication, but the first night's issue was enough to warrant an escalation. The North was already an enemy at that point and what good commander lets an enemy ship during active fighting get within firing range? Do the released secrets say if the enemy ship knew we were there before fighting? Did they know to back the eff up?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

So either we were actually the aggressor in that fight, as was apparently not reported, or we were still responding to a perceived aggressive act, which was reported.

One American destroyer was involved in covert actions against N Vietnam when challenged by Vietnam torpedo boats. A second destroyer joined. On the second night, Turner Joy and Maddox were fighting radar images and false reports of torpedos in the water. Crews were nervous.

Back in Washington doubt about that second night. Did not matter. The powers that be were looking for any excuse to escalate.

Later confirmed is what happened. Did not matter. Saddam had WMDs. An exact same attitude needed any excuse to escalate ever since Johnson visited Vietnam saying those were yellow skinned American boys who needed our help. Big dics in the millitary (including Gen LeMay) wanted any excuse for war.

Johnson eventually realized his mistake. Even Johnson apparently learned the war was not winnable. When Walter Cronkite said so, Johnson was looking for a way out. Even sent Vietnam a promise for massive aid if we and they only ended the conflict. But Vietnam was not interested. Vietnam knew they had won.

Nixon and Kissenger also knew Vietnam had already won. But one difference existed. Nixon could not have America's first military defeat on his watch. So Nixon massacred more American soldier than all other presidents combined to only protect his legacy. The worse and most destructive parts of that war (that also causes a recession) were what Nixon did starting 1968. The massacre of American soldiers for the greater glory of one leader.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Nixon massacred more American soldier than all other presidents combined

What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad, but the US Civil War had way way more casualties. Are you talking about total casualties, or something else?

According to Wikipedia
Civil War dead: 625K
WWII dead: 405K
WWI dead: 117K
Vietnam dead: 58K

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad, but the US Civil War had way way more casualties. Are you talking about total casualties, or something else?

According to Wikipedia
Civil War dead: 625K
WWII dead: 405K
WWI dead: 117K
Vietnam dead: 58K

Civil, I, and II were not massacred, only Nixon massacred due to 85% of top management wanting VN war. Others were martyred.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad,

The president sent soldiers to death in a war that had already been lost. Even Le Duc Thou would share their secret military assessments with Kissinger (in Paris). And Kissenger would agree with them. So why were we massacring 33,000 Americans and almost one half million other people in a war that had was already lost. Nixon and Kissenger knew it was lost before massacring all those people uselessly.

He we surrendered and returned to the 1954 Geneva Convention, how many would not have been massacred? But Nixon's legacy would be harmed.

We had to burn the village to save it.

And then there was the massacre at Alice's Restaurant.

[Big Sarge]

Can't we all agree that "war" is just good ole fun???

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by tw

And then there was the massacre at Alice's Restaurant.

MassaCREE, tw. MasaCREE. with four part harmony.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Can't we all agree that "war" is just good ole fun???

No. There's a war on drugs. That's not fun. Or funny.