The Alaska Chat Thread (Metlakatla: lease, art, moving to)

[User 2]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

From 1950-1953, the US was in korea, where we lost 142,000 soldiers trying to stop the North from taking South Korea.

Korea did not stop us from our involvement in Vietnam, it's irrelevant except to demonstrate our escalating involvement in affairs in Eastern Asia.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The French surrendered Vietnam in 1954. The same year, the US sent a 12-man team of advisors to Saigon. And later on, the US aided South Vietnam with $250-million per year.

The French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu. The US had been commited and had been sending men and materials, military supplies and economic aid since 1945.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

In 1960 President Kennedy took office. In 1961, Kennedy agreed to provide the funds necessary to increase the South Vietnam forces to 170,000 members. By 1962, there were 12,000 US military advisors in Vietnam. Also, 300 helicopters were donated to the South Vietnam forces. The US pilots and advisors were ordered not to engage the North.

Before Kennedy took office, Eisenhower had already announced the commitment of the US and had already sent in over 900 troops before Kennedy was ever elected.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

After the assassination of President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson took office temporarily. In 1964, Johnson won the presidency. In 1965, the US officially became engaged in the Vietnam War. The war officially anded in April 1975, and I was very happy because just before it ended I was on stan-by to go to Vietnam

The US was 'officially' engaged long before even Kennedy was elected.

Whatever revisionist history you may wish to recreate from whatever other revisionist sources don't change the reality.

[ASpilot2be]

Originally Posted by Xa'at

It's pretty typical Juneau fare, though. I'm so bummed, I left my xtra-tuffs in Idaho... now I have to have them shipped back.

Where were you in Idaho? I am currently going to school in Moscow

[RayinAK]

User2

Your posts are just too long, and your meandering from subject to subject, like a child suffering from ADD, makes it too difficult for me to keep pace with you. It's plain boring.

-I will keep it at this: The link I posted above has a timeline of France's involvement in Vietnam, and well as the US involvement in the US/Vietnam portion of that war. While France had been in Vietnam for many years prior, the US involvement in this war began after the French left. Before the US engaged North Vietnam, the US was in Korea.

-President Bush is not a true conservative. The "No Child Left Behind" is just another government program imposed on the States. It's sort of "socialist and liberal" in nature, although Cesar Chavez, and Fidel castro would disagree with me. Amnesty for illegals is being pushed by both liberal Democrats and Republicans, not by the more conservative ones, and the only reason why it's not on the table at the moment is because of the upcoming elections, since a great majority of American (US) voters opose illegal immigration.

Other liberal programs are as follows:
-Farm Bill
-Education Bill
-The protectionist decisions on steel and lumber imports
-The campaign finance laws to protect incumbent politicians
-Health care entitlements
-National debt

This is all I have to say about these TWO subjects. End, fin, finito.

[User 2]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

User2

Your posts are just too long, and your meandering from subject to subject, like a child suffering from ADD, makes it too difficult for me to keep pace with you. It's plain boring.

In order to address the misinformation and misperceptions in your posts, I took each point in the order you provided them,

if there was any meandering, I merely followed your meandering.

That you can't keep up is demonstrated by your continuing to ignore what's plainly inconsistent with the mythical revisionism you continue to try to repeat.

Yes, it is boring to have to continually correct misinformation you keep posting over and over again.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

-I will keep it at this: The link I posted above has a timeline of France's involvement in Vietnam, and well as the US involvement in the US/Vietnam portion of that war. While France had been in Vietnam for many years prior, the US involvement in this war began after the French left. Before the US engaged North Vietnam, the US was in Korea.

You are not considering what went on before your links 'timeline', you need to include all history, not just the part you want to prop up your misperceptions.

Digital History

Regardless of a link which shows French involvement, or US involvement after the French defeat, the US, through the OSS, was already supporting Ho in 1945 and later, the US started propping up Boa Dai's regime in 1950. US involvement started well before the French defeat which didn't come about until 1954.



Again, Eisenhower had committed men, military supplies and economic aid before Kennedy was elected.

Eisenhower officially committed the US to maintaining South Vietnam's independence in 1959.

As noted earlier, the US already had suffered deaths of OSS personnel and military advisors in Vietnam before Kennedy was elected.

The US had already sent MAAG troops to Vietnam before Kennedy was elected.

..

It was Eisenhower who coined the term 'domino theory' while explaining his ordering the US commitment to Vietnam.

Originally Posted by The Brookings Institute

The rationale developed by the Eisenhower Administration to explain its economic and military support of South Vietnam became known as the "domino theory." Likening the countries of southeast Asia as a row of dominos, the President argued that if one country fell, it would trigger the fall of others (like a row of dominos). In The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked (Brookings Institution, 1969)

Originally Posted by RayinAK

-President Bush is not a true conservative. The "No Child Left Behind" is just another government program imposed on the States. It's sort of "socialist and liberal" in nature, although Cesar Chavez, and Fidel castro would disagree with me. Amnesty for illegals is being pushed by both liberal Democrats and Republicans, not by the more conservative ones, and the only reason why it's not on the table at the moment is because of the upcoming elections, since a great majority of American (US) voters opose illegal immigration.

I'm meandering? Cesar Chavez and Fidel Castro are equated with NCLB?

Again, you are describing imaginative suppositions which have nothing to do with reality.

The current NCLB has not one thing to do with being a liberal proposal or a liberal policy.

Your use of 'dog whistle' terminology trying to conflate socialism and liberalism with communists, human rights and labor activism is amazingly pretentious, not to mention there's no relationship with the current NCLB.

If it's indicative of anything, it's indicative of how your odd circular reasoning must confuse you when you attempt to separate fact from the odd fictions you create.

As to Amnesty, again ray, nice try but you're still wrong. Immigration reform is a concern of liberals and democrats, Amnesty was originated by Reagan, pushed and passed by Republicans and the current Amnesty was Bush's creation.

The only reason it couldn't be rammed through was it was being diluted by Democratic efforts to bar Bush from adding another 400,000 'guest workers' to the bill. It was killed in the 109th Congress, ray, ....we're well into the 110th Congress now.

The Amnesty bill wasn't killed because of the next election.

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Other liberal programs are as follows:
-Farm Bill
-Education Bill
-The protectionist decisions on steel and lumber imports
-The campaign finance laws to protect incumbent politicians
-Health care entitlements
-National debt

What Orwellian nonsense.

Corporate welfare built into the Farm bill is not a liberal program. What at one time was an act to protect family farmers, has now been co-opted so that it's nothing but corporate welfare and a policy to further weaken the small family farmer.

Protectionist decisions are liberal? You don't even define 'protectionism', ( and there are many forms)


Bush instituted tariffs as a form of 'punishment' after tantrum in a fit of distemper, is that what you refer to? Nothing liberal about that.

Outside of that, liberal policies are formulated to protect the rights, safety and ability to earn a living wage for the average American worker.

No Republican and no conservative has pushed any policy to protect the American worker in ages, all they try to do is push legislation to make offshoring jobs and manufacturing more lucrative for their corporate campaign donors. The conservatives and the Republicans haven't given a tinkers damn about American workers since Reagan.

Protectionism in the sense of non intervention might have kept us from the falsely justified fiasco in Iraq. That type of protectionism is non partisan, both liberals and conservatives have advocated such positions in our history.

Campaign finance that protects incumbents is a liberal policy? You're obviously reaching far for anything substantive to offer....

Originally Posted by RayinAK

This is all I have to say about these TWO subjects. End, fin, finito.

All you had to say was misinformation and misperceptions, deceptions and deceit.

If you really do stop, it will be a blessing for all those who must wade through the same...

(even though you claim that's the last of it, ....I'll be around to see your next attempt.

And I will again debunk the myths and correct what fact needs be corrected.)
.
..

[Xa'at]

Originally Posted by ASpilot2be

Where were you in Idaho? I am currently going to school in Moscow

I was up by the Canadian border... Moscow is okay. Scenery wise is isn't anything to write home about but it isn't as culturally barren as far-North and far-Southeast ID.
I assume you are going to U of I. It's a nice university.

[Manmountain]

Why dont ya just call it 'New Deal Socialism ' ? Be easier.


Did ya see this? ;

Rupert Murdoch Calls Fox News Viewers Morons & White Trash

New York, New York - In a conversation with Fox News celebrities, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, that was picked up by an open microphone, Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO of News Corp., repeatedly referred to Fox News viewers as morons and white trash. The incident took place as the three men were sitting together at a benefit dinner for the Ann Coulter defense fund. Apparently, they had been drinking heavily which may account for their lack of restraint and obliviousness to the open microphone that was positioned directly in front of them.

At one point, while addressing O'Reilly and Hannity, Murdoch said, "Can you believe the **** we get away with? Good thing our viewers are dumb as doorknobs or else we would be in trouble." To which, Hannity laughed and then replied, "Yeah, I heard that people who watch Fox News have to wear bibs to catch their drool so their sofas won't be stained by the tobacco juice, and that's just the women." O'Reilly, also laughing, then joined in by saying, "Hey, how many Fox viewers does it take to change a light bulb? None, they all refuse to change the bulb because they prefer living in the dark."

However, the unkindest cut of all that is sure to enrage Fox viewers came at the end of the conversation when Murdoch raised his glass in a toast and said, "God bless trailer park trash and idiots everywhere. Without them Fox News would be nothing and I would not be a billionaire."

After news of the recorded conversation became public, Fox News released the following brief statement, "We encourage our viewers to reject anything they hear or see that does not come directly from Fox News. Fox News is the only source of information you need for Fair and Balanced? coverage."


http://assimilatedpress.blogspot.com...s-viewers.html

[icarian]

Where in the world do you get this stuff?

[Arcticthaw]

Originally Posted by icarian

Where in the world do you get this stuff?

Please don't encourage them!

[Rance]

I have about 600 but I'm gonna start with these...click to enlarge...

At Sweden's Aunt's place in Katrinholm, Sweden


Katrinholm has the coolest cobblestone streets


Our view of the old town Stockholm at night


Enjoying a well deserved beer and tea whilst enjoying the view


Sweden has cool police cars


Norway spells police kinda funny


We drove through Huskvarna (yup, where they make chainsaws and sewing machines etc)


The one and only Huskvarna factory, in Huskvarna


Time out for icecream in Jonkoping, Sweden


Leaving Stockholm just clearing the clouds


The western coastline of Norway heading toward Iceland and Greenland


Dropping out of the clouds coming into Chicago

[RayinAK]

There you go again, User2: meandering just like I said before.

Again:

-Big government = liberal
-The government programs I mentioned above = liberal
-Tax increases = liberal
-Services = mostly liberal
-Some republicans and most Democrats in Congress = liberals
-Welfare for all = liberal
-Big budgets = big governments = liberal
-You = I am starting to wonder


-Tax cuts = conservative
-No tax payers paying companies for stem cell research = conservative
-Small governments = smaller budgets = conservative
-Right for life = conservative
-Me = conservative = not Republican, nor Democrat

Finally, please do me a favor. Cut the following, and then paste it in Google for a search: "In what year did the Vietnam War began for the US?"
You will notice that this war began before the US became officially involved, and that was right after the US provided the South with 300 helicopters.

For the US it was 1965-1975.
Vietnam Yesterday & Today: Chronology of U.S. Vietnam Relations, Timeline

August 7, 1964
Congress approves the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which allows the president to take any necessary measures to repel further attacks and to provide military assistance to any South Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) member. Senators Wayne L. Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska cast the only dissenting votes. President Johnson orders the bombing of North Vietnam. For additional information, see New Light on Gulf of Tonkin, McNamara Asks Giap, "What Happened at Tonkin Gulf?", and 30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched the Vietnam War.

March 8-9, 1965
The first American combat troops arrive in Vietnam.

Ray, a Vietnam Era veteran.