NationStates Jolt Archive

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Report_reveals_Vietnam_War_hoaxes_f_01082008.html


2 pieces to this article:

1) Communists/NVA were able to crack our communications and call in fake air strikes on our own troops.

2) The NVA never attacked the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (which helped push the US into war).


Amazing that this only comes out now, 4 decades after the fact.

[url]
2) The NVA never attacked the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (which helped push the US into war).


You just realized this now? Virtually every war the US has ever been involved in was based on some staged "provocation".

You just realized this now? Virtually every war the US has ever been involved in was based on some staged "provocation".

World War I? World War II? Korea? Desert Storm? That shit in Bosnia?

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Report_reveals_Vietnam_War_hoaxes_f_01082008.html

2) The NVA never attacked the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (which helped push the US into war).


Amazing that this only comes out now, 4 decades after the fact.

This has been well-known in the US for decades!

Interesting, however, that LBJ has never been skewered in the press for "lying" to get America into war in Vietnam, whereas Bush gets excoriating for "lying" about Saddam Hussein and WMDs... Oh wait, LBJ was a Democrat. Makes sense now:rolleyes:

World War I? World War II? Korea? Desert Storm? That shit in Bosnia?he did use the word virtually

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_actions_by_or_within_the_United_States

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Report_reveals_Vietnam_War_hoaxes_f_01082008.html


2 pieces to this article:

1) Communists/NVA were able to crack our communications and call in fake air strikes on our own troops.

2) The NVA never attacked the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (which helped push the US into war).


Amazing that this only comes out now, 4 decades after the fact.


Well, I'm convinced. Looks like your work here is done. Buh-bye.

:)








...








...










...



is he gone yet?

World War I?
"Aiee, the Mexicans are going to invade us"
World War II?
Agreed.
Korea?
"Shit, commies!"
Desert Storm?
"I don't really like Saddam Hussein, so it's time for a war"
That shit in Bosnia?
Was peacekeeping.




Anyway - to the OP - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_Hoax

Relevant.

This has been well-known in the US for decades!

Interesting, however, that LBJ has never been skewered in the press for "lying" to get America into war in Vietnam, whereas Bush gets excoriating for "lying" about Saddam Hussein and WMDs... Oh wait, LBJ was a Democrat. Makes sense now:rolleyes:

Oh please. At least LBJ had the good sense to NOT RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN as a result of his utter bungling of the whole mess.

Anyway, artificial pretexts for military action aren't exclusively American, and US history has known about the faux Gulf of Tonkin attack for decades. This isn't really news.

Or, in the words of Douglas Adams:

The history of every major civilization passes through three distinct phases: those of survival, inquiry, and sophistication, also known as the how, why, and where phases. Survival is characterized by the question "how can we eat"; inquiry by the question "why do we eat"; and sophistication by the question "where shall we have lunch?"

The history of warfare also passes through three phases -- those of retribution, anticipation, and diplomacy. Hence, retribution: "I'm going to kill you because you killed my brother." Anticipation: "I'm going to kill you because I killed your brother." And diplomacy: "I'm going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it."

You just realized this now?

well, at least now he's learned something... think of all the people who still believe the Tonkino fraud.

World War I? The Lusitania was knowingly sent into the path of German U-Boats. And Woodrow Wilson had the "Committee for Public Information" spreading all kinds of disinformation in order to raise public ire against Germany ... German soldiers ripping the arms off Belgian babies and all of that nonsense.


World War II? [QUOTE]
If the American military really had no idea that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour, then they are alot dumber than I give them credit for. But coveniently, they had alot of expendable ships in the harbour that day and the carriers weren't there.

[QUOTE]
Korea? Is an exception. I didn't say every war.

Desert Storm?

Why did Saddam invade Kuwait?

That shit in Bosnia?

NATO mission, as pointed out. Perhaps I should have said every major war.

You might also want to look into the Maine incident in Havana HArbour that triggered the Spanish-American war as well.

Not to mention WMD's In Iraq, and so on ...

World War I? World War II? Korea? Desert Storm? That shit in Bosnia?

WW1: sinking of Lusitania
WW2: Pearl Harbour
wanna talk about frauds and misreported facts?

eh.

If the American military really had no idea that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour, then they are alot dumber than I give them credit for. But coveniently, they had alot of expendable ships in the harbour that day and the carriers weren't there.
Erm, seeing as they also took Singapore and a lot of the islands in the Pacific in pretty short succession, I think that the capabilities of the Jap military, and their aircraft in particular, in addition to these plans, must have been basically unknown - I know that they certainly didn't think that the Japs' torpedo bombers could be even remotely as good as they were.

This has been well-known in the US for decades!

Interesting, however, that LBJ has never been skewered in the press for "lying" to get America into war in Vietnam, whereas Bush gets excoriating for "lying" about Saddam Hussein and WMDs... Oh wait, LBJ was a Democrat. Makes sense now:rolleyes:Plenty of people that are actually mad at Bush weren't around to get mad at LBJ, you know. It's called "not having been born yet" and is an affliction very common where historical events are concerned.

Erm, seeing as they also took Singapore and a lot of the islands in the Pacific in pretty short succession, I think that the capabilities of the Jap military, and their aircraft in particular, in addition to these plans, must have been basically unknown - I know that they certainly didn't think that the Japs' torpedo bombers could be even remotely as good as they were.

The fact that they underestimated their capabilities does not mean they had no knowledge that they were planning to attack. Just that they thought that such an attack would not be as succesful as it was.

Erm, seeing as they also took Singapore and a lot of the islands in the Pacific in pretty short succession, I think that the capabilities of the Jap military, and their aircraft in particular, in addition to these plans, must have been basically unknown - I know that they certainly didn't think that the Japs' torpedo bombers could be even remotely as good as they were.

Wasn't the bombers, was the torpedoes. From what I understand, anti-torpedo netting was strung out across the harbor to keep a normal torpedo bomber strike from doing any damage. Since you had to have quite a bit of running room for the torpedo to go from its drop depth to normal depth, this would have worked. Normally.

The bombers in Pearl Harbor had some sort of wooden floats attached to their torpedoes, allowing them to rise to a higher depth faster than normal ones could, bypassing the netting.

The history of warfare also passes through three phases -- those of retribution, anticipation, and diplomacy. Hence, retribution: "I'm going to kill you because you killed my brother." Anticipation: "I'm going to kill you because I killed your brother." And diplomacy: "I'm going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it."

LULLLLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZz

Amazing that this only comes out now, 4 decades after the fact.

IMHO, what is amazing is that this is the first you seem to have heard about the lie.

[QUOTE=Intangelon;13357908]Oh please. At least LBJ had the good sense to NOT RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN as a result of his utter bungling of the whole mess. QUOTE]

Not sure it was really his "choice" - the protests at the Democratic National Convention (his own party) did him in.

If the American people really felt the GWB was "bungling" the Iraq affair after three years, they certainly had the opportunity to vote him out of office in 2004, right?

You just realized this now? Virtually every war the US has ever been involved in was based on some staged "provocation".

I call bullshit.

That shit in Bosnia?
Actually I attribute our involvement there to the fact that we actually honor our treaties and Europe seems incapable of cleaning up their own back yard.

I call bullshit.

Then refute what I said above.

Then refute what I said above.Actually the burden of proof would legally be pressed upon you. If you want to get technical. Since you made the accusation that "virtually every war the US has ever been involved in was based on some staged 'provocation'. " You would be required to present some sort of evidence to back up your claim. I am waiting. And not just the conspiratorial bull either, hard, damning evidence, if you don't mind.

I call bullshit.

Next time, use one of these:

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/bs.gif

[QUOTE=Intangelon;13357908]Oh please. At least LBJ had the good sense to NOT RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN as a result of his utter bungling of the whole mess. QUOTE]

Not sure it was really his "choice" - the protests at the Democratic National Convention (his own party) did him in.

If the American people really felt the GWB was "bungling" the Iraq affair after three years, they certainly had the opportunity to vote him out of office in 2004, right?

lbj announced that he was not going to run for re-election months before the convention.

but he was getting a ration of shit over vietnam. far more than bush is getting today over iraq.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Report_reveals_Vietnam_War_hoaxes_f_01082008.html


2 pieces to this article:

1) Communists/NVA were able to crack our communications and call in fake air strikes on our own troops.

2) The NVA never attacked the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (which helped push the US into war).


Amazing that this only comes out now, 4 decades after the fact.

we were in vietnam long before the gulf of tonkin incident. lbj used it as an excuse to increase our involvement.

Actually the burden of proof would legally be pressed upon you. If you want to get technical. Since you made the accusation that "virtually every war the US has ever been involved in was based on some staged 'provocation'. " You would be required to present some sort of evidence to back up your claim. I am waiting. And not just the conspiratorial bull either, hard, damning evidence, if you don't mind.

Yes, your honour.

If you want some proof regarding Pearl Harbour, read Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett.

If you want some proof regarding the Lusitinia read almost any book regarding its sinking. The Committe on Public Information's activities are well known. Almost any book on the subject will tell you what you need to know.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident is a well-documented fraud.

As for the Maine, repeated inquiries have shown that the explosion was internal, and not caused by a mine.

Yes, your honour.

If you want some proof regarding Pearl Harbour, read Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett.

If you want some proof regarding the Lusitinia read almost any book regarding its sinking. The Committe on Public Information's activities are well known. Almost any book on the subject will tell you what you need to know.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident is a well-documented fraud.

As for the Maine, repeated inquiries have shown that the explosion was internal, and not caused by a mine.
I was asking for a list of sources, You listed one, verifiable source.

I was asking for a list of sources, You listed one, verifiable source.

As I said, almost any book will provide some evidence. You want a source? Try a library.

But to help you along ...

With regard to the Maine incident, check for the 1911 Court of Inquiry and the 1976 Rickover Report (or Rickover's book). For a contradictory opinion, check the 1999 Naitonal Geographic Investigation. Thomas B. Allen has also written several articles on the subject.

For the Lusitania, try Colin Simpson's book on the subject, although there are other books that disagree with him and several that take positions in beween (i.e. if not deliberate, it was grossly negligent).

Again, pretty much any book or article on the subject of the Gulf of Tonkin incident will tell you it is a hoax.

At the end of the day, I can't do your research for you. If you choose to ignore the evidence around you, and wait for the facts to come to you, ring your doorbell, and implant themselves in your head, you'll be waiting the rest of your life.

The bombers in Pearl Harbor had some sort of wooden floats attached to their torpedoes, allowing them to rise to a higher depth faster than normal ones could, bypassing the netting.

They nicked this idea from the Royal Naval Air Service's Operation Judgement - the air strike at Taranto, where several Italian ships were damaged, sunk, or crippled. The strength of the Italian navy was halved in one night and their threat in the Mediterranean effectively ended by a carrier-based air raid.

No wonder the Japanese liked the idea.

However, the US did know that it was about to go down - the British had warned them beforehand thanks to communications intercepts. The result? The US Carriers were out of port, and the US gov't got a nice pretext for handing the Japanese their arses.

No, the real mystery is why the fuck Hitler declared war on the Americans when the Japanese, by attacking the US and not the USSR, had thrown their alliance with Germany in the bin.

At the end of the day, I can't do your research for you. If you choose to ignore the evidence around you, and wait for the facts to come to you, ring your doorbell, and implant themselves in your head, you'll be waiting the rest of your life.Did I ever say I disputed some of these facts? I was curious as to where you got your information. Not hearsay. I was attempting to get hard facts. If you feel the need to impune other's integrity go ahead. And if I came across that way I apologize.
And yes, I do go to the library quite often. The only thing consistant I've found is it doesn't take an awful lot to declare something a "conspiracy". It happens all to often.

I think I found a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts. Something did happen in the Gulf of Tonkin but not to the scale that the President stated. Regarding the sinking of the USS Maine. It turned out to be an internal explosion but it took decades to figure that out. The US and Spanish government conducted investigations at the time. The US government stated it was a mine while the Spanish stated it was an internal explosion. Most Americans probably didn't believe the Spanish investigation. And before you say the government deliberately mislead the populous there is no evidence of that. Regarding Pearl Harbor the closes that the United States had of forewarning of the attack was when the USS Ward fired upon a midget sub a few hours before the attack and the detection of the inbound aircraft just before the aircraft reached the island.

The Lusitania was knowingly sent into the path of German U-Boats. And Woodrow Wilson had the "Committee for Public Information" spreading all kinds of disinformation in order to raise public ire against Germany ... German soldiers ripping the arms off Belgian babies and all of that nonsense.

Actually, it was the return of unrestricted submarine warfare that drove the United States into World War One, not solely a single event such as the sinking of the Lusitania or the Zimmerman telegram. In fact, American entry into the First World War is a complex web of disparate elements, eventually meshing with the American entry into the war.


If the American military really had no idea that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour, then they are alot dumber than I give them credit for. But coveniently, they had alot of expendable ships in the harbour that day and the carriers weren't there.

Here's a plum choosing regarding a quick and dirty, forum friendly refutation of Stinnet.

Stinnett demonstrates ignorance of fundamental issues around cryptanalysis, such as being unable to recognize JN-25 as the "5-num" system. In addition, he presumes unambiguous intent, by drawing attention to things like lines of latitude, as if this somehow clearly demonstrates the location of Japan's targets, neglecting to note they also imply Baja California. He ignores the reality of triangulation in radiolocation implying that a single WWII vintage radio direction finder (RDF) could pinpoint a transmitter location. Additionally, he talks about numerous intercepts as proof of detection yet displays a list of RDF contacts from earlier in 1941, well before the Japanese Carrier fleet was in transit to Hawaii.

Moreover, his thesis twists McCollum's memo, which can as easily be read to mean things to avoid doing to prevent war with Japan, instead presuming intent to provoke Japan. Furthermore, he ignores the contradiction when he quotes an analyst as saying MacArthur got all the information denied Kimmel and Short, yet neglects to mention MacArthur was also caught by surprise. He also fails to mention FDR's efforts in the Atlantic to provoke Germany, which would aid Britain, as well as the salient fact war in the Pacific would not—as, in the event, it did not.

Mr. Stimmett writes for 171 pages before mentioning that the Hawaiian commanders received a WAR warning with direction to prepare for attack just 10 days before the December 7th attack. At one point he goes into depth about Adm. Kimmel's alleged concerns that were supposedly strong enough he planned a sortie to the Seamount where previous practice attacks had launched from. This action Exercise 191 was supposedly quashed by superiors, yet in the aftermath of this terrible disappointment Adm. Kimmel didn't not keep the sea approaches thoroughly under long range air surveillance. Also, Mr. Stimmett goes into considerable detail about the "Vacant Seas theory" yet neglects to note that 2 complete Carrier Groups (Carriers plus escorts) were dispatched after the War warning.

Finally, all of the assertions that Washington withheld necessary information neglect the fact that our codebreaking successes (especially Purple Code) was one of America's most closely held secrets. Even today USN operational security doctrine would not permit the dissemination of such Top Secret intelligence information (see the 2007 NSA spying controversy as an example) to people (no matter how highly ranked) who were not cleared for such material. As in 1941, sanitized data would be supplied to commanders suggesting conditions that can be inferred from this data without revealing means or methods. The November 27, 1941 war warning was an early example of this type of sanitized intelligence.

That ought to clear that up substantially.

Why did Saddam invade Kuwait?

A whole host of reasons, but top amongst them are goals of nationalist aggrandizement, perception of grievance in regards to Kuwaiti demands for repayment of war debts, monetary acquisition and poorly communicated American positions.



You might also want to look into the Maine incident in Havana HArbour that triggered the Spanish-American war as well.

A boiler explosion that, in the lack of any actual immediately available evidence, was trumped up by irresponsible journalism as a direct attack on an American ship.

The fact that they underestimated their capabilities does not mean they had no knowledge that they were planning to attack. Just that they thought that such an attack would not be as succesful as it was.

And the date on which the military expected an attack was on the Sunday a week before the actual general attack. They had three days war warning before that event, and it didn't materialize.

And, even at that, the outstanding intelligence estimates indicated that the Japanese would move southwards first, towards Singapore and the Dutch East Indies in order to secure their oil supply lines, and maybe, a smaller force would be sent to attempt to contain the US forces in the western Pacific. No one, not a soul, had the slightest idea that the attacks would be coming against some place so central, and seemingly strong, as Hawaii.

Actually I attribute our involvement there to the fact that we actually honor our treaties and Europe seems incapable of cleaning up their own back yard.
Since the British and French were in Bosnia, which is hardly in our neck of the woods, before you Yanks, I'm not sure you're really right on that matter.

I think I found a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts. Something did happen in the Gulf of Tonkin but ....I think I found a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts. Something did happen with the WMD but I dont know what.... :D

I think I found a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts. Regarding the sinking of the USS Maine. It turned out to be an internal explosion but... I think I found a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts. Regarding the War on Iraq, It turned out it was justified because Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911 :p

No, the real mystery is why the fuck Hitler declared war on the Americans when the Japanese, by attacking the US and not the USSR, had thrown their alliance with Germany in the bin.
Plenty of reasons.

The Japs had thrown their weight around against the USSR in 1939 and were semi-active on their borders, which was keeping some of the better generals in the Red Army tied down there, which I'm sure Hitler didn't mind.

The amount of materiel given to us by the US was quite high, and due to Hitler being in a not entirely tragic position war-wise at this point, he thought he might stand a chance of taking out the US Navy on the eastern side of things - the fact that the Type IX U-boats could get to the West Indies and back without resupply, carrying 22 Torps, up to 66 mines and being armed with a 105mm gun to destroy smaller surface targets, as well as having conning towers large enough to carry handy amounts of Flak was probably a factor, too.

That and that he was a wee bit mad.

[QUOTE=Intangelon;13357908]Oh please. At least LBJ had the good sense to NOT RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN as a result of his utter bungling of the whole mess. /QUOTE]

Not sure it was really his "choice" - the protests at the Democratic National Convention (his own party) did him in.

I'll cop to forgetting about the riots of '68 in my post, but what, apart from civil rights, were they protesting about?

If the American people really felt the GWB was "bungling" the Iraq affair after three years, they certainly had the opportunity to vote him out of office in 2004, right?

Which they may just have done, but Ohio made that a bit difficult by turning shitloads of voters away.

[QUOTE=Chowda25;13358309]

lbj announced that he was not going to run for re-election months before the convention.

but he was getting a ration of shit over vietnam. far more than bush is getting today over iraq.

All that last fact shows me is that public docility is friend to the misguided and the corrupt, and fear is their favorite tool (ZOMG, teh tewwowists!).

Actually, it was the return of unrestricted submarine warfare that drove the United States into World War One, not solely a single event such as the sinking of the Lusitania or the Zimmerman telegram. In fact, American entry into the First World War is a complex web of disparate elements, eventually meshing with the American entry into the war.

True, and I didn't blame it solely on the Lusitania incident. The Committee for Public Information had a big role as well.



Here's a plum choosing regarding a quick and dirty, forum friendly refutation of Stinnet.

Yes, which has been disputed for bias and is preceded by a whole section which supports Stinnet's thesis. Good job with the selective quotation.


A boiler explosion that, in the lack of any actual immediately available evidence, was trumped up by irresponsible journalism as a direct attack on an American ship.

Which fit nicely into the expansionist designs of the American government.

Connect the dots. Your government has consistently manufactured reasons to drag a reticent population into war.

You just realized this now? Virtually every war the US has ever been involved in was based on some staged "provocation".

Just don't let on about the whole moon/cheese thing.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Report_reveals_Vietnam_War_hoaxes_f_01082008.html


2 pieces to this article:

1) Communists/NVA were able to crack our communications and call in fake air strikes on our own troops.

2) The NVA never attacked the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (which helped push the US into war).


Amazing that this only comes out now, 4 decades after the fact.

And now we're looking forward to the Strait of Hormuz/Persian Gulf Incident...

However, the US did know that it was about to go down - the British had warned them beforehand thanks to communications intercepts. The result? The US Carriers were out of port, and the US gov't got a nice pretext for handing the Japanese their arses.

Source?


No, the real mystery is why the fuck Hitler declared war on the Americans when the Japanese, by attacking the US and not the USSR, had thrown their alliance with Germany in the bin.

He was overly arrogant? This is the same guy who went from crushing Britain's nearly collapsed air force to terror raids which made any prospect of Operation Sea Lion a failure. The same dude who decided that rather than finishing up Britain on its last legs, diverting his forces into a second front with Russia was a good idea.

He probably thought he was invincible.

The Lusitania was knowingly sent into the path of German U-Boats. And Woodrow Wilson had the "Committee for Public Information" spreading all kinds of disinformation in order to raise public ire against Germany ... German soldiers ripping the arms off Belgian babies and all of that nonsense.

[QUOTE]
World War II? [QUOTE]
If the American military really had no idea that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour, then they are alot dumber than I give them credit for. But coveniently, they had alot of expendable ships in the harbour that day and the carriers weren't there.

Is an exception. I didn't say every war.



Why did Saddam invade Kuwait?



NATO mission, as pointed out. Perhaps I should have said every major war.

You might also want to look into the Maine incident in Havana HArbour that triggered the Spanish-American war as well.

Not to mention WMD's In Iraq, and so on ...

Expendable? Hardly. At that poin in the war, the US only had six modern battleships, the 2 1937 North Carolina class battleships and 4 1939 South Dakota class battleships, the latter of which had barely completed sea trials. The massive Iowa class had just had their keels laid. In this situation, the World War I vintage battleships were the only line of defence that the US had for their Pacific fleet, as the 6 fast battleships were needed as carrier escorts. Furthermore, modernization efforts had taken place on the ships in Pearl Harbour, and the radar sets and gus were also valuable so a staged attack would have been contrary to the intrests of the US.

Since the British and French were in Bosnia, which is hardly in our neck of the woods, before you Yanks, I'm not sure you're really right on that matter.I suppose I could've stated that a little better. But if thats the whole case then why did they need the US? The obvious answers being our NATO treaties, but still. If people complain about us getting tangled in stuff that has no bearing to us why did we get involved when many nations had already sent in troops? Besides, we really didn't do anything exvept provide airpower until others had sent in ground pounders first.