Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CharlesHouston last won the day on February 20 2018

CharlesHouston had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

981 profile views
  1. Why am I replying!! This discussion is already WAY TOO long, and has too many nonsense comments. But still - how do we let some egregious errors get by?? Scott said that the atomic bomb was to prevent Staling from taking over Asia - do you have any idea what you are saying??? How would Stalin have the resources to take over "Asia" as in China, Japan, Korea, all of Southeast Asia, etc etc etc?? Stalin took over Eastern Europe - some of the control was not firm until well after we dropped an atomic bomb. The Communists also took over half of Korea, Manchuria, etc etc etc. The atomic bomb was NOT to prevent "Stalin from taking over Asia". And more nonsense - the "level of hatred in the U.S. (snip) was very intense." that is very wrong. Our occupation troops generally treated the Japanese with respect, sure there was anger but there were no massacres, no widespread mistreatment of the Japanese. When the Soviets occupied Eastern Germany they terribly mistreated the German people, they stripped the country of usable machines, etc etc. The Soviets paused at the outskirts of Warsaw so that the Germans and Polish Home Army would tear each other apart - that was hatred.
  2. As you say this topic has gone on for years. As the direct ancestor of people who fought in the Army of Georgia, and who's farms were torched by General Sherman - your facts are wrong. Wrong. The war was primarily over slavery - just look at the declarations of independence. The Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free all slaves in the Confederate States - just those in areas that were still contested. General Lee's wife's family was rich (and Arlington was their ancestral plantation) - General Grant came from a poor family and did not own slaves. Now his wife's family was well off (sort of like General Lee) and they owned slaves. Blacks were only grudginglhy accepted into the Federal armies - at least at first they did NOT join in droves. Now a lot of freed slaves did follow Gen Grant's army around and many were impressed to build fortifications, etc. If you are going to post answers on this site you are going to have to put up with the replies by people who really have the facts - and put up with them contradicting your incorrect information. I am satisfied that many of my relatives were valuable members of their military units, that they obeyed orders and conducted themselves in a reasonable manner. Their family can be proud of their camraderie and sacrifice. But the cause they fought for was wrong.
  3. We all know that they also used lots of cannons - does this apply to cannon fire as well? And swords?? This is a funny but totally invented idea - there are plenty of times when only one side is firing (ambushes, when one retreats, etc etc) as well.
  4. My understanding - not that I have a book that gives references - is that the U.S. used tear gas in Cambodia but not any sort of poison. I will look through my library...
  5. Giving you the benefit of the doubt - do you want to clarify your question? Perhaps English is not your native language and you are trying to have a reasonable discussion. Of course we know that the U.S. cannot "put a ban" on weapons - those are internationally negotiated treaties. The U.S. has unilaterally decided to NOT use some weapons due to our feelings about the side effects, etc of those weapons.
  6. One factor that the U.S. has lost track of is: what capability do we need (can we use)? Do we need stealth? How likely is it that we will ever need a stealth aircraft? My opinion is that we will never actually need one - lots of technology could be useful but it is easier to use standoff missiles, drones, etc to wipe out an enemy air defense system. Then aircraft with pilots can go in. Simply because we can build a system with some technology does not mean that we need it - we have gotten along pretty well without the B-70 Valkyrie. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan - we could fly B-24 bombers. They would not face the anti-aircraft that they faced in WWII and could operate just fine. Of course the military loves to claim that we must be able to go up against a "peer" like Russia or China. When have we battled them in an unrestricted war? We did face an enormous anti-aircraft system in Vietnam - but today we have cruise missiles, drones, etc etc. We would not send aircraft with people in them if we had standoff weapons. We would be FAR SAFER if we had numerous F-18s, F-15s, and F-16s than if we had a tiny number of F-22s and F-35s. We are starting on the B-21 and will be able to afford about 5 of them.
  7. Ron - you know that the rest of us here are talking about the Middle East, while you have wandered into IndoChina?
  8. It is apparent that Ron issues a "stream of consciousness" of notes that effortlessly segues from unrelated topic to unrelated topic (I don't often get to work the word segue into a note) and that he doesn't have any actual opinions, he is just looking to argue.
  9. Perhaps I should reassure Joris, et al that I do have strong reactions when people post stuff that I personally know to be wrong. I will remain respectful of the group and of people that I disagree with. We should all aspire to that.
  10. Ron claims to be a researcher since he can Google phrases, this reminds me of a funny video of a job interview for a young woman who is asked if she can do research. She says Yes, just ask Siri. I did Google that phrase and behold - www.marxists.com comes up with "facts" to back up Ron's assertion. Sorry, Ron, but I could refer to several books about FDR that I have read, several books about Truman, several about Eisenhower. But the best source of information is my own travels in Germany and Austria, my career in the USAF working with our Canadian allies, and my ability to process multiple news sources. The Allies have had a very good relationship since the mid-1950s at least. We have worked together well in Iraq (a couple of times), in Afghanistan, in various conflicts around the world. Good relationships like this are not built on exploitation. As a comparison, would Latvian or Finnish troops deploy to work with Russians? No. I read a great book by Wes Clark (I did not have to depend on the results of a search of questionable sources) who describes the relationship between NATO allies and how they interfaced with Russians in the Balkans. Now Wes Clark was a bit too hostile for my tastes but I believe him when he says that the NATO allies did not get along well with the Russians. Who's claims? Ron Walker's claims. False. You said that the US refused to help the French retake IndoChina - as though there was organized resistance. If there was any, it was minor. Ho Chi Minh (actually Nguyen Sinh Cung) was active in the northern part of Vietnam during WWII and did try to control Hanoi, but the Chinese put the French-backed emperor back in charge. Actual real hostilities started in Oct 1946 after Ho tried to have a peaceful transition - French forces in Haiphong were attacked by Vietnamese forces. But at the actual end of WWII, there was no need for the US to help the French - the Chinese in the north and British in the south helped the French. But that does not fit Ron's assertion since the Chinese and British did not want to sell Cokes to Vietnamese rice farmers. Ron needs a "reason" for the US to get involved, an evil plot by the Americans to sell Fords to Vietnamese soccer moms. Who's claims? Ron Walker's claims. False. Do we have time to dissect some story about a British film mogul who wants to have Germans watch cartoons in their bombed out theaters? I didn't think so. Ron - when you post here you are subject to review by people with decades of experience, study, etc. People that do not get all of their "facts" from www.marxist.com
  11. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of President Obama. His phony "Red Line" in Syria was one of many blunders he made. But he did not blab publicly about how NATO was taking advantage of us - and privately support NATO. Obama consistently mainly ignored our European relationships, he is not the hypocrite that donald is. But the big point of the discussion is that we have decades of close alliance with many partners - European and others. We cannot (and did not) build this relationship on earlier attempts to cheat other countries. I have visited Europe several times and have always been impressed with the friendly reception I got.
  12. Here, with Ron's reply, we see someone who wants to ram his opinion down our throats; we see a guy who twists history to fit his notions. Pardon my sharp reply but he says a lot of things that are easily shown to be false and so it is hard to answer politely. This assertion is of course ridiculous - if FDR had any such aim his actions would have been to let the Germans crush England and all of France and then step in. Much as the Russians let the Germans and Poles wear each other out in Warsaw, while they waited outside the gates. And if Europe was totally devastated - who was gonna by American stuff (as Ron later claims)? Are French farmers, trying to rebuild their fields, gonna stop for a Coke?? Ron does not understand history or economics. Ron certainly has not bothered with history - the French for instance did not need to retake control of IndoChina, but to maintain it. Ron - just to let you know that there was no French amphibious assault to retake Hanoi, you are thinking of the Allied assault to retake Seoul. That was a different war - if you look closely you will realize that. Yes - and slaves the world over got free room and board, and free clothes! It was really a good deal for them, right Ron? It was such a good deal that Ron wonders why they revolted. Yes, the USA - the country that plundered what was left in Germany. Oops, the USA had that Marshall Plan - must have been a mistake? In fact Ron wants us to forget that the USA sacrificed to help Europe and Japan - are the Germans and Japanese our allies today? YES. Why? Because of their lingering gratitude over the way that their countries have been able to rebuild. Compare the attitude of the Polish nation to the Russians (acting as the Soviets in the late 1940s) - the relationship is hostile at best. Eastern Europe still remembers how the Soviet (Russian) armies treated their citizens brutally - certainly people in the cross fire did what they had to to survive but today's relationship between the USA and Germany as compared to Russia and Germany - the conclusions are obvious. Ron's transparent attempt to convince us that there was some evil plan behind WWII is too obvious. The current relationship (sadly diminished by the current American administration) is all the evidence we need of the (flawed but well intended) efforts of the Allies to stand together and build a better world. Ron obviously has not read the book that I was talking about and will not read it - he will look for some more conspiratorial book.
  13. If you are willing to have a polite exchange (even if we disagree) I am also willing to. So my contention that a few cannons could close the Suez canal is slightly ridiculous? A cannon could easily target a slow moving ship, cannons are not only usable on locks. There are few ships and few crews that would sail the Suez Canal if cannons were even only on one side - the ships would be targeted easily. That is why I fail to see why my contention is at all ridiculous, unless you just want to disagree with people. In our previous exchanges you equated winning, as the British did in Malaya, with being "necessary and provoked" where as there is no connection.
  14. Espionage is a part of warfare so this is written in that spirit. I just finished a book “Operation SOLO” by John Barron and it was very good - also a dense book since it is full of details. For my taste, John pushes his opinions into the book too much - he works hard to insert some criticism of Martin Luther King, Angela Davis, etc. That criticism may or may not be accurate but it didn’t fit well into this narrative. The story is how Morris Childs started out as a Communist who attended a school in Moscow that trained people to go back to their home countries and be agents of the Soviet Union. He went back to the U.S. and worked his way into being the Deputy for the U.S. Communist Party, and the financier for it. Morris Childs worked with Gus Hall, Chairman of the U.S. Communist Party, for decades. Morris was brought into the confidence of all of the significant Communist figures of the Cold War, traveled to all of the significant Communist countries and meetings, etc. After reading the “secret” speech by Kruschev he became disillusioned and started working for the FBI. The FBI ran Morris and most of his family as political agents - they visited the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Europe, etc etc etc and gathered the thoughts and goals of the various leaders. The book has some remarkable photos - Morris Childs with Brezhnev, Gus Hall, and lots of Soviet luminaries! But also with FBI Director William Sessions! Morris was decorated by the highest levels of both sides of the Cold War. Morris worked both sides from 1958 until 1981 - an amazing length of time. It is amazing that the Childs family could carry off this deception for years - giving the U.S. a tremendous insight into the thoughts of all of the significant Communist leaders. The Soviets passed millions of dollars to Morris, who reported it all to the FBI - so they knew exactly who was getting the money and how much. During most of this time, Morris Childs had terrible health. He had had heart attacks, etc. but he kept traveling the world going to Communist meetings. It is remarkable that he is quoted many times saying how he despised the Communists he worked so closely with for so very long - how can you spend so much time with them and hide your true feelings? With all of this insight, I have to ask why the U.S. was caught unaware so many times. The answer is in part that the information was so valuable that the FBI could only tell a very few people about it - which is a tremendous handicap. Also leaders on both sides do things that make sense at the time - to appease political needs, to reward or punish people, etc. I have read a number of books about the Cold War and espionage and have to conclude that very little is ever kept secret. Both sides were riddled with spies - Oleg Penkovsky, Aldrich Ames, etc etc etc. This tells me that no conspiracy can ever be kept secret long - Morris Childs got away with his mission so long since so few people knew about it.
  • Create New...