Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have been to Europe. But so far, Never have I been to Korea. I do not play a role in this governments decisions. Clearly you sympathize with the Chinese. Me, not at all. Russia gets the blame for all of it's incursions into Ukraine. Ukraine did not invite them to invade, did not invite Russia to conquer Crimea nor invite them to screw all over Donbass, etc.You shouldn't be in Korea, i already said why the Chinese got involved because they felt threatened by American forces arriving on their border, you keep making the same mistake like in Ukraine threatening the Russian border with Nato, WTF don't you just stay home?
When Gen. MacArthur's successful Inchon landing forced a retreat of North Korean troops from the Pusan Perimeter Zhou Enlai told India, which had diplomatic relations with India and the United States, that China would not oppose the presence of South Korean troops in North Korea, but that China would not let American troops reach the Yalu River.American troops on the Chinese border they would see as a threat.
There are no NATO forces in Ukraine. Russia's invasion was completely unprovoked.You shouldn't be in Korea, i already said why the Chinese got involved because they felt threatened by American forces arriving on their border, you keep making the same mistake like in Ukraine threatening the Russian border with Nato, WTF don't you just stay home?
I have read that an older and wiser Douglas MacArthur told Lyndon Johnson, "Son, don't get involved in a war on the continent of Asia."The option of invading China ended up a 'no go.'
Pull the other one, at the very least they provide intel targeting info weapons which some will be operated by Nato, and many so called mercenaries have been killed, how many are sheep dipped Nato we may never know.There are no NATO forces in Ukraine. Russia's invasion was completely unprovoked.
If you had watched the Carlson interview you would have got some answers, but you probably won't like the answers because it doesn't fit the narrative coming out of Washington.I have been to Europe. But so far, Never have I been to Korea. I do not play a role in this governments decisions. Clearly you sympathize with the Chinese. Me, not at all. Russia gets the blame for all of it's incursions into Ukraine. Ukraine did not invite them to invade, did not invite Russia to conquer Crimea nor invite them to screw all over Donbass, etc.
This myth was debunked decades ago, but I it's still repeated by some liberals. The myth is based on a deceptively cherry-picked quote from Eisenhower's book Mandate for Change. I quote from Dr. Robert F. Turner's book Myths of the Vietnam War (1972):This page from President Eisenhower's Memoires, Mandate for Change, page 372, shows that he believed Ho Chi Minh would have won any free election in Vietnam in 1954. This is certainly why the U.S. did not permit such an election, though the Geneva Convention of 1954 required it.
I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the populations would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai.
I plan to watch it. Been too busy so far.If you had watched the Carlson interview you would have got some answers, but you probably won't like the answers because it doesn't fit the narrative coming out of Washington.
Let's us try to see this as Douglas MacArthur saw it. Doug's experience at that point was his success at Inchon. Due to that, the lower part of Korea also was taken over by his force. And they were racing like they were greyhounds at a race. Doug could have finished had Truman backed him. Doug needed more forces at the top of Korea than he had. This allowed China to attack our military forces. China waged war very different. They would sacrifice troops all day long. And not mind them dying.When Gen. MacArthur's successful Inchon landing forced a retreat of North Korean troops from the Pusan Perimeter Zhou Enlai told India, which had diplomatic relations with India and the United States, that China would not oppose the presence of South Korean troops in North Korea, but that China would not let American troops reach the Yalu River.
China had valid security concerns because in 1931 Japan invaded China by crossing the Yalu river.
Walter Lippmann said the United States and South Korea should conquer the southern half of North Korea, while leaving the northern half as a buffer zone between China and the United States.
MacArthur thought China was bluffing, and issued a demand for unconditional render from North Korea. China was not bluffing, and the Korean War continued for another three years.
A more restrained policy by Gen. MacArthur could have achieved a far better conclusion to the Korean War with much less cost. What remained of North Korea would have been too weak to again threaten South Korea.
I believe Americans should buy books on this topic and engage in wholesale reading.This myth was debunked decades ago, but I it's still repeated by some liberals. The myth is based on a deceptively cherry-picked quote from Eisenhower's book Mandate for Change. I quote from Dr. Robert F. Turner's book Myths of the Vietnam War (1972):
Another very popular myth — related to both the 1956 elections and the "Ho Chi Minh as George Washington" myth, is the "Eisenhower quote." As Senator Wayne Morse phrased it in 1965:
"Undoubtedly, the Viet Minh under Ho Chi Minh would have won such a free election. President Eisenhower declares in his Mandate for Change that all the experts he talked to in that period believed Ho would get at least eighty percent of the vote."
Other critics quote directly from President Eisenhower's memoirs. Felix Greene, for example, writes:
"The reason the US refused to allow elections was abundantly clear. No one who knew the conditions in Vietnam was in any doubt that, if elections were held, Ho Chi Minh would be elected by an overwhelming majority of the people."
He then (mis-) quotes Eisenhower:
I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held . . . possibly eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh. (President Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, p. 372.)
It is instructive to compare what President Eisenhower really said with what Greene and the others quote:
I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for. (Emphasis added to denote omissions).
Thus, (1) President Eisenhower was talking about an election which might have taken place in 1954, not 1956 (and the situation in both North and South Vietnam during this two-year period changed significantly to Ho Chi Minh's disadvantage, as will be shown shortly); and (2) he was talking about a contest between Ho and the French puppet Bao Dai. There is little question that Ngo Dinh Diem would have defeated Bao Dai by eighty percent of the vote, too. The "feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for" was largely the result of having a choice between a French puppet and a Communist dictator, when the majority of Vietnamese really wanted a true nationalist. (pp. 32-33)
That is even worse.According to Robert McNamara, LBJ's Secretary of Defense, LBJ never had any intention of winning the war. He was trying to send a message to the communists in the PRVN government that their aggression wouldn't be tolerated. If anyone should know LBJ's intentions, it would be McNamara since he was involved in every one of them.
Because you keep willfully ignoring the glaring fact that you are wrongHitler was on a Global rampage invading all over Europe, the Vietnamese had no intention of invading anywhere they just wanted to liberate their own Country, why people can't get that i have no idea.
That is a bald faced lieYou must be retarded, i already proved it was Diem who refused the election.
Give it a rest you arsehole, that is why they were going to have a election to unify the Country, the election Diem refused.Because you keep willfully ignoring the glaring fact that you are wrong
They were not ONE country. North vietnam attacked and invaded south vietnam which was a legitimate seperat nation
So much for your ignorant bullshit
Read this you clown.Because you keep willfully ignoring the glaring fact that you are wrong
They were not ONE country. North vietnam attacked and invaded south vietnam which was a legitimate seperat nation
So much for your ignorant bullshit
Give it a rest you arsehole, that is why they were going to have a election to unify the Country, the election Diem refused.
I did read it ASSWIPERead this you clown.
1956 in the Vietnam War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Communist China would not have allowed the United States to conquer all of North Korea without a fight.Let's us try to see this as Douglas MacArthur saw it. Doug's experience at that point was his success at Inchon. Due to that, the lower part of Korea also was taken over by his force. And they were racing like they were greyhounds at a race. Doug could have finished had Truman backed him. Doug needed more forces at the top of Korea than he had. This allowed China to attack our military forces. China waged war very different. They would sacrifice troops all day long. And not mind them dying.
The only thing you taught me is how stupid some people are and you take the biscuit.I did read it ASSWIPE
and it does not prove anything to the contrary of what i taught you
