Respect for Clinton!
 

For this I respect Bill Clinton:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...5605-6954r.htm


He was planning to use atomic weapons against North Korea!

It appears from the number of bombs, he may have considered using low yield
atomic weapons to clear away the brush to get at the Communists. Right from
the Goldwater playbook!

Hoo-Yaa!

Gilligan

A vote for Bush is a vote for Bin Laden.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
link.net...
For this I respect Bill Clinton:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...5605-6954r.htm


He was planning to use atomic weapons against North Korea!

It appears from the number of bombs, he may have considered using low
yield
atomic weapons to clear away the brush to get at the Communists. Right
from
the Goldwater playbook!

Hoo-Yaa!

Gilligan

And black is white, right is wrong, and Ganz is truth.

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
A vote for Bush is a vote for Bin Laden.


Wake up, DD. Bush let Bin Laden go free along with his whole family. ALL flown
out of the country after 9/11. Bush "claims" they were questioned, but how much
questioning could have been done in such a short time.
You believe Bush tried to catch Bin Laden? I have a bridge to sell you. Scotty
already owns half.

RB

"Gilligan" wrote
For this I respect Bill Clinton:
He was planning to use atomic weapons against North Korea!

Sneaky blighter, what? Killed the dudes who bombed Cole too, whithout
killing any Americans or invading and foreign countries. In fact it was the
intel structure Clinton set up that gave us an easy win against the Taliban.

Now Bush is destroying the *moderate* Sunni ability to resist the *radical*
anti-US Shiite Muslims so the government the latter install next year can
get into bed with Al Qaeda without any internal squabbling. New
definitions:

To clinton: To screw up - like get a BJ and get caught.
To bush out: To REALLY blunder - like get drunk, roll your SUV and kill your
kids.

Actually it was Goldwater's opponent Lyndon B. for Butcher Johnson who
started a war causing the death of 60,000 US Soldiers for nothing. But then
it was Clinton who preached for eight years that US Soldiers ARE nothing.
And it was John Boy Kerry who paid the price. Paybacks truely are a
m..........................r! No way I'd believe Clinton would push the
button for something as meaningless as N. Korea. Unless of course they were
wearing purple dresses.

M.



"Gilligan" wrote in message
link.net...
For this I respect Bill Clinton:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...5605-6954r.htm


He was planning to use atomic weapons against North Korea!

It appears from the number of bombs, he may have considered using low
yield
atomic weapons to clear away the brush to get at the Communists. Right
from
the Goldwater playbook!

Hoo-Yaa!

Gilligan

Well, you're crowd believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old, so I'm
not surprised.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Actually it was Goldwater's opponent Lyndon B. for Butcher Johnson who
started a war causing the death of 60,000 US Soldiers for nothing. But
then it was Clinton who preached for eight years that US Soldiers ARE
nothing. And it was John Boy Kerry who paid the price. Paybacks truely
are a m..........................r! No way I'd believe Clinton would push
the button for something as meaningless as N. Korea. Unless of course
they were wearing purple dresses.

M.



"Gilligan" wrote in message
link.net...
For this I respect Bill Clinton:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...5605-6954r.htm


He was planning to use atomic weapons against North Korea!

It appears from the number of bombs, he may have considered using low
yield
atomic weapons to clear away the brush to get at the Communists. Right
from
the Goldwater playbook!

Hoo-Yaa!

Gilligan

No doubt. It was Clinton.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:15:08 -0600, "Michael"
said:

Actually it was Goldwater's opponent Lyndon B. for Butcher Johnson who
started a war causing the death of 60,000 US Soldiers for nothing.

There's a man who doesn't know his history.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

No doubt. It was Clinton.

It was you, you old fart.

Max

Here's a man who doesn't know his history.

Depending on how you define it, that would include everybody.

So, Oz, you also think Johnson started the Vietnam war?


OzOne wrote:
Nope, AFAIK Johnson DID start the war.

Kennedy had about 16,000 military advisors in Vietnam when he was
assasinated.

Check.

Johnson ordered a retaliatory attack after torpedo boats attacked the
Ticonderoga, and two other US vessels, the names of which escape me
atm, while they were providing radar tracking for Sth Viet forces and
on station in the Tonkin.
The war progressed rapidly from that point in August '64.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the political excuse that LBJ used to
get Congressional support for "widening" the war. The shooting was
already going on, and US main force ground units were already in place &
committed... the question is: on what scale, with what objective, under
what rules of engagement, and (perhaps the paramount question) under
what conditions would they be pulled out.

You could make the case that Kennedy started the war by sending in U.S.
airborn forces to protect the "military instructors" we had working with
the South Vietnamese army. Then of course Kennedy had to send in real
grunts to protect the aircraft.

You could make the case that Eisenhower started the war by sending in
those "military instructors" and you could further that case against
Eisenhower by pointing out that S.E.A.T.O. was formed by his
administration with his explicit approval (the Dulles boys did a lot
behind his back, but not this one).

You could make the case that Truman started the war by committing U.S.
policy to supporting the French re-occupation of Viet Nam; and further
that case by pointing out that he sent a lot of military aid to the
French including U.S. air support, although that air support was always
based outside the country AFAIK.

You could make the case that Louis XIV started the war by giving up
French colonial possessions to the British; then turning around and
encouraging French free-style capitalists & Catholic missionaries to go
out and seek new colonies to exploit & convert, which is what led them
to the shores of what is now Viet Nam.


There were actually some secret bombing raids under Pres Johnson prior
to that, flown by US military pilots in old US aircraft, but these did
not amount to a commitment to war.

That didn't come until Jan '65 then Feb '65 when the US launched its
first bombing strikes but without any official declaration of war.
IIRC Johnson said something like "I've had enough of this crap" before
ordering the attack.

March '65 saw two battalions of marines move in and Rolling Thunder
kicked off.

Yep... and let the historic record show that the Marines were very
optimistic at the time because the landings were almost completely
unopposed, a novelty for them.

DSK

OzOne wrote in message

Nope, AFAIK Johnson DID start the war.

Are you referring to *America entering the war?* The French had been there
for some time before we got involved. It was already a shooting conflict by
the time JFK sent "advisors" to Vietnam.

Max

wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:37:18 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote:

In your heart, you know he's right!

In your guts you know he's nuts!

Use your head; you know he's dead.

Max

"John Cairns" wrote

With the blessing of just about every Republican in the US. ......

This is simply not true. I helped in Nixon's campaign and most Republicans
and cross-over voters hoped and expected him to get us out of "LBJ's War"
ASAP. Most turned on him when he failed to do so.

Bush supporters can't see the irony here. But you are right about one
thing,
a true conservative like Goldwater would never approve of the military
adventurism or fiscal irresponsibility that the Bush neocons so heartily
approve of.

True, but that cost Goldwater the election. When asked about 'nam,
Goldwater *honestly* replied that, as senator, he lacked all of the facts
needed to make a firm decision "but I'll tell you one thing - I'll either
get out or go in and win". LBJ seizd on that, branded Goldwater a warmonger
and vowed "I'll never send your sons to die in Vietnam!" Lies have trumped
honesty ever since.

"Maxprop" wrote
Are you referring to *America entering the war?* The French had been
there
for some time before we got involved. It was already a shooting conflict
by
the time JFK sent "advisors" to Vietnam.

Nope. The French had admitted defeat and left. There was no significant
shooting until the South Vietnamese Government refused to abide by the
agreement and hold reunification elections.

"Maxprop" wrote
Are you referring to *America entering the war?* The French had been
there
for some time before we got involved. It was already a shooting conflict
by
the time JFK sent "advisors" to Vietnam.



Vito wrote:
Nope.

???


... The French had admitted defeat and left.

True, but...

... There was no significant
shooting

bull****, unless by "no significant shooting" you choose to ignore the
thousands of North Vietnamese shooting at South Vietnamese people, and
occasionally vice versa.

Read the Vietnamese gov't's own version of history, they will tell you
that they had a significant cadre infiltrated "freedom fighters" into
South Viet Nam, where they took over isolated villages (peacefully of
course), recruited Viet Cong fifth-columnists, and disrupted as much of
the country's normal activities as they could, including murdering gov't
officials.

... until the South Vietnamese Government refused to abide by the
agreement and hold reunification elections.

yeah yeah, you will not ever grasp the fact of this matter, will you?
I've already worn out two sledgehammers trying to drive it in.

DSK

OzOne wrote:
OK, I went hunting....found this.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...nam/index.html

Thanks Oz1, that's a pretty good link.

A slightly different perspective is that of the Vietnamese people... in
their opinion, the Viet Nam War started in the 1790s when the first
French military officers intervened on behalf of rench missionaries.
Armed resistnace against the foreigners began immediately and didn't
stop until the Americans left 220 years later.

A historical parallel is their heroic wars of independence against the
Chinese, which were quite protracted... hundreds of years. It is this
tradition that Ho Chi Mihn capitalized on to inspire people to join his
party... of course, he concealed his intention to form a repressive &
dictatorial gov't from all but a chosen few.

Originally, Viet Nam was two or three different countries, with
different ethnicities, different folk ways, even different languages in
the beginning (google up "Champa"). In partitioning Viet Nam, the Geneva
Convention was really following a good historical precedent.

BTW the Viet Nam War is really ancient history. My wife & I eat dinner
in a great Vietnamese restaurant; a while ago we were discussing food &
culture & language with the waitress and she enthusiastically told us
about their New Year holiday traditions. My wife said, "I've never heard
of that" and I teasingly said, "Yes, you have, I'll explain later." When
we were driving home she asked about it, and I said one word... Tet.

Regards
Doug King

OzOne wrote:
You see there was an attack prior to the one you mention which
occurred the next day



DD730 wrote:
No, there wasn't. It was an invention after the only "incident" was
discredited.

Can you provide some references other than your say-so?

My understanding was that the illusory attacks were in the context of an
ongoing operation, and that US forces had come under fire from North
Vietnamese forces several times.

DSK

"Vito" wrote in message

Nope. The French had admitted defeat and left.

Now there's a revelation of major proportion! :-)))))))))

Max

OzOne wrote in message

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:29:09 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message

Nope, AFAIK Johnson DID start the war.

Are you referring to *America entering the war?* The French had been
there
for some time before we got involved. It was already a shooting conflict
by
the time JFK sent "advisors" to Vietnam.

Actually the French had bailed out.

I wasn't implying that they were still in VN. But looking back at my
statement, I also failed to mention they had cut and run.

Of course we did the same thing in '75.

Max

OzOne wrote in message ...
On 9 Nov 2004 09:24:08 -0600, Dave scribbled
thusly:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:19:43 +1100, OzOne said:

Yep, Dave, you apparently don't have any clue!

So, Oz, you also think Johnson started the Vietnam war?

Nope, AFAIK Johnson DID start the war.

Kennedy had about 16,000 military advisors in Vietnam when he was
assasinated.

I suppose it depends on your point of view. I view it as a continuation
of
the war between NV and the French dating from the partition of the
country
after WWII. I recall seeing the newsreels in the theater when I was a kid
showing the fighting, and later the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu
(sp?). It was Eisenhower who coined, or at least popularized, the
so-called
domino theory. He was the first to put U.S. troops in, though supposedly
as
"advisers." The U.S. involvement increased under Kennedy, and, as you
say,
massively increased under Johnson. But saying Johnson "started" the war
is a
bit like saying WWII started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.


Of course, I was looking at the chain of events from a US perspective
....It wasn't a war until we got involved... ;-)


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

OzOne wrote
I suppose it depends on your point of view. I view it as a continuation
of
the war between NV and the French dating from the partition of the
country
after WWII. ....

Not really.

Of course, I was looking at the chain of events from a US perspective
....It wasn't a war until we got involved... ;-)

We were involved in WW2 when Ho & co helped rescue US airmen and later when
Ho begged Truman and Ike to help him keep France out. Ho'd seen both western
and communist "democracies" and knew that people lived better in the former.
OTOH we had left his country to France. So after beating France they
decided to briefly partition the country north and south, then after a time
let the people choose in a reunification election. Ike saw the opportunity
to influence that choice by pouring assistance into the south so that, come
elections, the south would be rich and the north still poor. Might have
worked except that Diem and the old French collaborators diverted all our
aid into personal accounts and set up a Catholic regime similar to Saddams
baathists (remember buddists burning?). Ike left that problem for JFK who
dawdled til it was too late for Ike's plan to work. There was little or no
fighting during that period (except in the south when villages tried to
elect non-catholic leaders) because both sides assumed they'd win the
election.

"DSK" wrote
bull****, unless by "no significant shooting" you choose to ignore the
thousands of North Vietnamese shooting at South Vietnamese people, and
occasionally vice versa.

Read the Vietnamese gov't's own version of history, they will tell you
that they had a significant cadre infiltrated "freedom fighters" into
South Viet Nam, where they took over isolated villages (peacefully of
course), recruited Viet Cong fifth-columnists, and disrupted as much of
the country's normal activities as they could, including murdering gov't
officials.

First, the Viet Cong didn't need to infiltrate because many never left. They
controlled both the Mecong Delta region AND the North when the country was
partitioned. Those who'd whipped France simply hid their weapons awaiting
the election. Then Diem & Co set up a government similar to Saddam's
Baathists. Only family were allowed any national authority and only
Catholics were allowed to hold even local village offices. If an "isolated
village" of Buddists elected a Buddist leader Diem sent a squad to kill the
electee and install a Catholic. That led some Viet Cong to dig up their guns
and indeed disrupt Diem's plans by murdering those appointed 'Government
Officials'.

... until the South Vietnamese Government refused to abide by the
agreement and hold reunification elections.

yeah yeah, you will not ever grasp the fact of this matter, will you?

That's because your "facts" are in fact faith-based and without foundation -
except of course in Diem's notes (c:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Vito" wrote in message

Nope. The French had admitted defeat and left.

Now there's a revelation of major proportion! :-)))))))))

But you'd be amazed how many doubt it happened.

Vito wrote:
First, the Viet Cong didn't need to infiltrate because many never left.


I guess that explains why, according to Viet Nam's own version of
events, they sent 10,000+ infiltrators to the South.



.... They
controlled both the Mecong Delta region AND the North when the country was
partitioned.

No they didn't. Ho Chi Mihn's gov't didn't even 'control' all of the
North, there were serious revolts & uprisings against him right through
the 1950s and most of the 1960s too.


... Those who'd whipped France simply hid their weapons awaiting
the election.

With orders to disrupt same, since it was obvious that nobody... nobody
at all... was going to vote to "unite" under Ho's gov't.


... Then Diem & Co set up a government similar to Saddam's
Baathists. Only family were allowed any national authority and only
Catholics were allowed to hold even local village offices.

While I'm not going to claim the Diem gov't wasn't corrupt & ineffective
at the end, it certainly didn't start out that way. Diem began
appointing his family only after a few years of "disloyalty" by others.
I don't know where you get the idea that only Catholics could hold
office, there weren't enough Catholics in the country.


Diem won a legitimate election as Prime Minister, then engineered a
gov't changeover that left him with more power and the emporer with
less, then engineered another election.

Of course, according to your version of "history" this never happened.

... If an "isolated
village" of Buddists elected a Buddist leader Diem sent a squad to kill the
electee and install a Catholic.

???

Funny how I've never heard anything about that.

....That led some Viet Cong to dig up their guns
and indeed disrupt Diem's plans by murdering those appointed 'Government
Officials'.

Yeah, somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand.


... until the South Vietnamese Government refused to abide by the
agreement and hold reunification elections.

yeah yeah, you will not ever grasp the fact of this matter, will you?


That's because your "facts" are in fact faith-based and without foundation -
except of course in Diem's notes (c:

Funny thing about that... my facts are from people who were there when
it all happened. Your version seems to be free-form pro-communist
fantasy... except that even the communists don't make some of the claims
that you do.

DSK

DD730 wrote:
Proving a negative is always difficult.

Yep. That's why it's convenient to make such claims. one thing that Vito
doesn't understand, if you're going to substitute fantasy for history,
then you have to choose a version that isn't directly contradicted by
reliable witnesses. Choose something that has no witnesses, instead!


... I suppose you'll have to interview
those who were there. I haven't done any research to see if anyone has done
so. At the time it was the talk of WestPac. All anyone saw was "blips" on
the radar screens.

In the second attack, yes.


... Even at the time, no one could "prove" that no
gunboats were out there, nor could they prove that there were. The
concluding "scuttlebutt" was that it was bogus, but a lot of careers were on
the line.

Right. And that's how a lot of policy gets started, unfortunately.

Anyway, having read quite a lot about the whole affair, it has been
pretty consistently said that the Tonkin Gulf incident was part of an
ongoing operation, that the North Vietnamese had fired on U.S. forces
several times during the course of it.

DSK

OzOne wrote:

On 8 Nov 2004 17:51:11 -0600, Dave scribbled
thusly:


On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:19:45 +1100, OzOne said:


Here's a man who doesn't know his history.


Yep, Dave, you apparently don't have any clue!

So, Oz, you also think Johnson started the Vietnam war?


Nope, AFAIK Johnson DID start the war.

Kennedy had about 16,000 military advisors in Vietnam when he was
assasinated.
Johnson ordered a retaliatory attack after torpedo boats attacked the
Ticonderoga, and two other US vessels, the names of which escape me
atm, while they were providing radar tracking for Sth Viet forces and
on station in the Tonkin.
The war progressed rapidly from that point in August '64.

There were actually some secret bombing raids under Pres Johnson prior
to that, flown by US military pilots in old US aircraft, but these did
not amount to a commitment to war.

That didn't come until Jan '65 then Feb '65 when the US launched its
first bombing strikes but without any official declaration of war.
IIRC Johnson said something like "I've had enough of this crap" before
ordering the attack.

Oz, the US doesn't declare war on other countries. It just invades or
topples their government. Now, what did happen to Chile's elected
government in September...?

Cheers

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Vito wrote:
First, the Viet Cong didn't need to infiltrate because many never left.

I guess that explains why, according to Viet Nam's own version of
events, they sent 10,000+ infiltrators to the South.

When you say "Viet Nam's version" do you mean Diem's version or Ho's
version?

.... They
controlled both the Mecong Delta region AND the North when the country
was
partitioned.

No they didn't. Ho Chi Mihn's gov't didn't even 'control' all of the
North, there were serious revolts & uprisings against him right through
the 1950s and most of the 1960s too.

Which were quickly and savagely put down. I call that "control". YMMV


... Those who'd whipped France simply hid their weapons awaiting
the election.

With orders to disrupt same, since it was obvious that nobody... nobody
at all... was going to vote to "unite" under Ho's gov't.

On the contrary. Given a choice between Diem and Diem's Catholics CIA polls
showed commies by a landslide. That's why we got involved militarily - to
buy time to turn that around.


... Then Diem & Co set up a government similar to Saddam's
Baathists. Only family were allowed any national authority and only
Catholics were allowed to hold even local village offices.

While I'm not going to claim the Diem gov't wasn't corrupt & ineffective
at the end, it certainly didn't start out that way.

Oh?
Diem began appointing his family only after a few years of "disloyalty" by
others.

Yup they were so 'disloyal' that some wanted a say in the government and
others a cut of the US money.

I don't know where you get the idea that only Catholics could hold
office, there weren't enough Catholics in the country.

Sue their were. It wasn't so much a religious thing as a cultural one.
Catholics reflected the French values of the old colonial regime but, like
people outside the family, Buddists couldn't be trusted to support Diem.


Diem won a legitimate election as Prime Minister, then engineered a
gov't changeover that left him with more power and the emporer with
less, then engineered another election.

Of course, according to your version of "history" this never happened.

In my version Diem's election was less than legitimate. Hitler was elected
too - the same way.

... If an "isolated
village" of Buddists elected a Buddist leader Diem sent a squad to kill
the
electee and install a Catholic.

I got it from some SEALs who were there to terrorize the Cong - but you know
how them sailors lie (c:

....That led some Viet Cong to dig up their guns
and indeed disrupt Diem's plans by murdering those appointed 'Government
Officials'.

Yeah, somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand.

'bout right.


... until the South Vietnamese Government refused to abide by the
agreement and hold reunification elections.

yeah yeah, you will not ever grasp the fact of this matter, will you?


That's because your "facts" are in fact faith-based and without
foundation -
except of course in Diem's notes (c:

Funny thing about that... my facts are from people who were there when
it all happened.

Sure - and unbiased as well (c: Per ozzies post
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...ndex-1945.html

The Geneva Accords divide Vietnam in half at the 17th parallel, with Ho Chi
Minh's Communists ceded the North, while Bao Dai's regime is granted the
South. The accords also provide for elections to be held in all of Vietnam
within two years to reunify the country. The U.S. opposes the unifying
elections, fearing a likely victory by Ho Chi Minh. .....

In the South, Bao Dai has installed Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister. The
U.S. now pins its hopes on anti-Communist Diem for a democratic South
Vietnam .....

The deadline passes for the unifying elections set by the Geneva Conference.
Diem, backed by the U.S., had refused to participate.

Vito wrote:
When you say "Viet Nam's version" do you mean Diem's version or Ho's
version?

The version taught in current gov't schools, which would be distantly
related to Ho's version.



.... They
controlled both the Mecong Delta region AND the North when the country

was

partitioned.

No they didn't. Ho Chi Mihn's gov't didn't even 'control' all of the
North, there were serious revolts & uprisings against him right through
the 1950s and most of the 1960s too.


Which were quickly and savagely put down. I call that "control". YMMV

Then why did the tax revolt in Nge Ahn province, Ho's hometown, take
over 18 months to regain "control" as defined by collecting taxes? Why
was mutiny one of the most persistant problems in the NVA, complained of
over and over in official reports?




... Those who'd whipped France simply hid their weapons awaiting
the election.

With orders to disrupt same, since it was obvious that nobody... nobody
at all... was going to vote to "unite" under Ho's gov't.


On the contrary. Given a choice between Diem and Diem's Catholics CIA polls
showed commies by a landslide. That's why we got involved militarily - to
buy time to turn that around.

You're dreaming. I'm obviously not going to be able to wake you up.

However, answer this question please... if the people in South Viet Nam
were truly going to vote to join North Viet Nam under Ho Chi Mihn, then
how come millions and millions of refugees left the North and came
South, and how come the North was adamant that these people not be
allowed to vote?

DSK

"Vito" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote in message

"Vito" wrote in message

Nope. The French had admitted defeat and left.

Now there's a revelation of major proportion! :-)))))))))

But you'd be amazed how many doubt it happened.

Really? Whom? French folks?

News to moi.

Max

DD730 wrote:
My conclusions are based on being there, speaking with those who were there,
and reading reams and reams of real time traffic from and to the principals.
Your's are based on other sources, so we'll probably never agree. But with
your Naval experience, you know how actions and how they are reported in
public differ.

Oh yeah. Big difference.


... More often than not, there is little resemblance. I have
read a number of "histories" of the war in the Gulf of Tonkin that make me
wonder where the hell I really was in 1965. Certainly my experiences don't
mesh with their "history."

Yes, but remember that it's not all due to malice or deliberate
falsification. Sometimes stories are "edited" all out of recognition
just because of column space constraints. Then of course there is the
natural human tendency to highlight favorable aspects and diminish (or
leave out) unfavorable ones.

But I'm uneasy with the claim that the whole action (or series of
actions) before the thunderstorm indcident were falsified. A CO or
battle group commander would be setting himself up for big trouble
falsifying reports on that scale, and it would be too easy to check
up... for example, if it was claimed to be in action & shooting at
hostiles, it would be easy to explain no damage the the ship ("they
missed, we didn't") but what about your weapons inventory? The Navy
keeps careful track of it's shells. Even with great political favoritism
it would be potential big trouble to falsify document like that.

Regards
Doug King

The SEAL were under CIA so not all their boat movements were coordinated
with the Navy as they normally would be so some unID'd blips were likely
them banging on the NVA base to elicit a run on the DDs, also the SEALs
Funero radars looked alot like Styx targeting radars on Komar/ Ossa boats
and caused no end of confusion.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
DD730 wrote:
Proving a negative is always difficult.

Yep. That's why it's convenient to make such claims. one thing that Vito
doesn't understand, if you're going to substitute fantasy for history,
then you have to choose a version that isn't directly contradicted by
reliable witnesses. Choose something that has no witnesses, instead!


... I suppose you'll have to interview
those who were there. I haven't done any research to see if anyone has
done
so. At the time it was the talk of WestPac. All anyone saw was "blips"
on
the radar screens.

In the second attack, yes.


... Even at the time, no one could "prove" that no
gunboats were out there, nor could they prove that there were. The
concluding "scuttlebutt" was that it was bogus, but a lot of careers
were on
the line.

Right. And that's how a lot of policy gets started, unfortunately.

Anyway, having read quite a lot about the whole affair, it has been
pretty consistently said that the Tonkin Gulf incident was part of an
ongoing operation, that the North Vietnamese had fired on U.S. forces
several times during the course of it.

DSK

"Vito" wrote in message
...
Note the number of my fellow Americans here on this NG who believe that we
could have won in Vietnam were it not for the protesters and also hold
that
Saddam was holding WMDs for Al Qaeda.

Sorry Vito, meant to send this to only the ng.

Ah, the old conundrum, how do you support your country if you don't support
the course of action the current administration has taken? Some folks can
never solve this one, though the answer is obvious.
John Cairns