No, the burden of proof isn't on anyone. The burden was on Truman and his
DoD Chiefs of Staff. They had to look at it from their day. As far as
they could see, Stalin had begun implementing 5 year plans, had built the
bomb, had MIGs and tanks they were giving to the North Koreans, and was
intent on
JWR confessed:
>I've got to stop this. It's killing me.
It would be a good idea to take a political break. It kills me too. I
just can't handle too much of it.
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access T
At 05:42 PM 11/14/2002, you wrote:
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with:
Were it not for economic and technical assistance given to the Soviet
Union and Red China by the United States the North Koreans would never
have invaded the South. They wouldn't have been in a position
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
You mean Congress isn't doing its duty if it isn't always declaring war on
someone? No wonder they want to invade Canuckistan now -- there are no
other rogue
states left.
Congress has no duty to declare war. It just has a constitutional
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
It was. The Korean war was basically a civil war. The North Koreans already
controlled part of Korean; hence their distinction as 'North' Koreans. Our
scope was limited to ensuring that they did not overthrow the government,
and thus control all o
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
The negative impacts were the complete loss of an entire generation of
young men vs. a relative handful, significant economic hardship for the
people that remained home, and the very real probability that Russia might
drop a nuke on American soil.
After much pondering, Steven Montgomery favored us with:
Were it not for economic and technical assistance given to the Soviet
Union and Red China by the United States the North Koreans would never
have invaded the South. They wouldn't have been in a position to do so. In
fact, a good position
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
Actually, no. We had a treaty, signed by Congress, stating we would
defend Korea from any invasions. Congress also ratified our working with
the UN on fighting the war. So, it was done under the okay of our
Constitution.
Sorry, in the USA treatie
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
Would you say that the Nephites and Capt Moroni should then have trudged
into Lamanite territory and totally obliterated the enemy? Or was their
defensive war a villanous thing to do? This sounds totally opposite what
you have been saying concernin
You mean Congress isn't doing its duty if it isn't always declaring war on
someone? No wonder they want to invade Canuckistan now -- there are no other rogue
states left.
Gary Smith wrote:
> Actually, no. We had a treaty, signed by Congress, stating we would
> defend Korea from any invasions. Con
>No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. We went into
>Korea with a limited plan; do not allow the Communists to take over Korea.
John:
And that is the whole problem. Nations have no business going to war with
a "limited plan." Do you think that either the North Koreans or
At 10:51 AM 11/14/2002, Gary wrote:
If it were just us against the North Koreans, I can see your point. But
as Jesus told us that the wise man counts his pennies before building the
house, we had to determine just what level of interdiction we were
willing to make in Korea. Given that the Soviet
Actually, no. We had a treaty, signed by Congress, stating we would
defend Korea from any invasions. Congress also ratified our working with
the UN on fighting the war. So, it was done under the okay of our
Constitution. You see, the Constitution doesn't say we have to declare
war, it only says tha
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
Jon Spencer wrote:
>
>> All that we really needed to do was to destroy the bridges and keep them
out
>> of commission, and we would have been OK.
>That's what pontoon bridges are for. The Yalu is not a swift-flowing river
and is
>today a smuggler's paradise, for getting Ru
Truman gave specific objectives for MacArthur to accomplish. This was to
drive the Chinese and North Koreans out of South Korea. Mac was not
authorized to expand the war into other nations. Just as we were on the
side of South Korea, the Chinese were fighting on the side of the North.
Truman had es
Well, I mean partisan type of ideology. Greed is universal.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
> At 09:44 AM 11/13/2002, Marc wrote:
>
> >Nobody does anything out of ideology anymore.
>
> I disagree. What about the ideology underlying the drive for power and gain?
>
> --
> Steven Montgomery
> [EMAIL PROTEC
>If it isn't, then it is a traitor and betrayer. Which just
>about sums up what I feel about Truman. He betrayed our armed forced,
and
>deserves to be remembered as one of the blackest villains of our
national
>history.
I wonder if his temple ordinances have been performed yet? Hmmm.
;-)
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
Define "win" John.
To me this is like asking me to define "is." Obviously, "win" means to
defeat the enemy. Did we defeat the North Koreans? No. Did we defeat the
Chinese? No.
No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. We
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
A military officer who disobeys a superiors orders (unless they are
illegal) is not fit to be an officer.
Unless the order is illegal. And Truman's orders were clearly illegal by
any constitutional standards. The whole war was unconstitutiona
Marc:
Nobody does anything out of ideology anymore. Bush used Iraq to gain
control of
the Senate. Period. Watch: there won't be a war -- Iraq will blink.
Dan:
Unless of course he only winks; then he'll get whacked.
Marc:
As von Clausewitz said, war is diplomacy by other means.
Dan:
Exactly.
John:
I don't know how to say this, but I'll try. In a fight, a combatant must
not be allowed sanctuary. If he can attack from sanctuary, there is no way
to defeat him. And he is free to kill at his convenience. In war, a
general must be allowed to pursue those who retreat to keep them from
At 09:44 AM 11/13/2002, Marc wrote:
Nobody does anything out of ideology anymore.
I disagree. What about the ideology underlying the drive for power and gain?
--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Explore Freedom: http://www.geocities.com/graymada
/
Foreign policy is like a boomerang -- it always comes back. And when you're a
superpower, it's like a big boomerang in a tornado. It comes back, but brings the
kitchen sink and a few cows with it.
Jon Spencer wrote:
> So John, are you now saying that we SHOULD be engaged in foreign conflicts?
> :
ram, not the other way around. Ditto the military.
As von Clausewitz said, war is diplomacy by other means.
>
> Jon
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12,
As Rick said, "Hogwash." Macarthur couldn't stand his ground without taking
out the bridges. The US gov't, infiltrated as it was (and it was) with
traitors, convinced Truman that if this were to occur, the Chinese would be
upset and turn nasty.
However, Macarthur violated the US Constitution and
So John, are you now saying that we SHOULD be engaged in foreign conflicts?
:-)
By the way, if you are, in this case I fully agree with you. We would not
have the problem we have today had we done so. of course, we might have had
WORSE problems.
Jon
John W. Redelfs wrote:
> After much ponderi
ideological reasoning.
But it doesn't really matter, does it? Macarthur was right in his opinion,
and wrong in his disobedience.
Jon
- Original Message -
From: "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:20 AM
You see what happens when we get a person perfectly fitted to be a prophet,
and make him a US President? :-)
Jon
>
>
> >Wilford Woodruff divided the nations after WWI, including making a new
> >nation called Yugoslavia.
>
> He did? If so, he must have done so as a resurrected being. ;-)
//
Gary Smith wrote:
> Man! Talk about a bunch of ravenous wolves we have on this list! Throw
> them a bone and they'll have it devoured before it hits the ground.
>
> Fortunately for all of you, I'm in a good mood. So none of you will be
> exiled from the Zion list this week. Instead, I'll expec
Man! Talk about a bunch of ravenous wolves we have on this list! Throw
them a bone and they'll have it devoured before it hits the ground.
Fortunately for all of you, I'm in a good mood. So none of you will be
exiled from the Zion list this week. Instead, I'll expect all of you to
do penance to
Ooops. I meant Woodrow Wilson. Yeah, you know the OTHER president. ;-)
Wilford Woodruff was a decent president.
K'aya K'ama,
Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www
.geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." -
Joha
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with:
No, he _wasn't_ ordered to "stand down". He was ordered to stand his
ground, and retreat only if necessary.
MacArthur's problem was that he wanted to invade China - regardless of the
cost, and challenged the orders of the Joint Chiefs publicly. Th
John:
Who cares? At the time, Red China didn't have any power. They couldn't
have fought us without losing gazillions of people. They were fighting
with clubs and pitchforks. We would have toppled Mao's regime, and the
genocide of the Cultural Revolution would never have taken place. By som
Your point about the UN is well-taken, but that was my point, too -- the US
decided to run the war under the auspices of the UN. Perhaps, I don't know, so it
wouldn't have to be a so-called "constitutional" war.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
>
Obviously, Woodrow Wilson was what was meant here, and I believe he was
instrumental in pushing the creation of both Yugoslavia and
Czechoslovakia, which were created out of the then-defunct
Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires.
Geoff
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/12/02 09:23AM >>>
He was probably t
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Except that the war wasn't being waged under the US Constitution, and as
Gary has
pointed out, if the UN had pushed too hard or threatened to use nuclear
weapons,
all of Red China would have been down our throats.
Who cares? At the time,
He was probably thinking of Czechoslovakia.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
> At 08:15 PM 11/11/2002, Gary wrote:
>
> >Wilford Woodruff divided the nations after WWI, including making a new
> >nation called Yugoslavia.
>
> He did? If so, he must have done so as a resurrected being. ;-)
>
> --
> Steven
Except that the war wasn't being waged under the US Constitution, and as Gary has
pointed out, if the UN had pushed too hard or threatened to use nuclear weapons,
all of Red China would have been down our throats.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
> >We
At 21:15 11/11/2002 -0600, Gary wrote:
Wilford Woodruff divided the nations after WWI, including making a new
nation called Yugoslavia.
Whoa, I think this must be a typo. 8>))
Till the getting dizzier by the minute
//
At 08:15 PM 11/11/2002, Gary wrote:
Wilford Woodruff divided the nations after WWI, including making a new
nation called Yugoslavia.
He did? If so, he must have done so as a resurrected being. ;-)
--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
". . . it is as much their [The Elders of Israel] duty
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
We can attack individuals for the choices they made through hindsight, or
we can realize that such decisions are complicated. Chaos theory states
that a butterfly flapping its wings today in China can cause storms in
America in two weeks. Do we con
Knowing no one is perfect, I try to judge a person for all that they try
to do, even if their choices end up occasionally being wrong. Truman
chose not to continue the Korean War into China, because he realized a
few things: First, they outnumbered us by hundreds of millions. Second,
we had just fi
42 matches
Mail list logo
