[ZION] Truman the villain
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 Lenin's world wide revolution. Truman and his chiefs saw this as just one more step toward a communist/socialist global encroachment. The intelligence we had in that day suggested the Russians were equal to us in military capability and nuclear armament (yes, even that soon after WWII). Remember, only a few years more and Russia would succeed in sending the first satellites (read: ICBM and spying) into space. Yes, their people were starving, but the military machine looked very strong from the USA's viewpoint. China and Russia were close allies at that time, and had agreements to defend one another. Only in the 1970s would they break, giving the USA the opportunity to make treaties with China and change the balance of power somewhat. At this time, Mao hadn't killed/slaughtered millions of his own (at least not to our knowledge). Mao had barely taken China in 1949, and his millions of potential soldiers were on par with our military in 1950, when our technology was not very advanced. In reality, we could have quickly finished the Korean war when the North Koreans first invaded. We had troops waiting for them NK army in one of the few valleys they could go through to Seoul. When they approached, our artillery fired, only to have the old WWI shells bounce harmlessly off the NK vehicles. The NK successfully pushed us back to the Chosun Reservoir (with Chinese help), before we were able to bring in more capable and modern equipment. As for us entering WWII earlier, we should have. Hitler invaded other nations and was doing atrocities outside his own nation. Mao did his slaughtering within his own country. Yes, it is a tragedy, but a nation must handle its own problems. However, when one nation invades another and then slaughters their people, it is up to the league of nations to step in and stop the atrocities. As for defending a Democrat-- I grew up in a family of Democrats. However, my family turned Republican with Reagan. My parents tended to vote Democrat, but primarily for the person with character. They hated LBJ, voted for Nixon, only to be disgusted with him, and passing around petitions to impeach Ford for pardoning Nixon. My Mom was proud she voted for Hubert H Humphrey. Back then, there were some good Democrats (not all, of course) who truly cared for the nation and its people. Today, I think the party has lost its way, seeking more to stay in power than to help the people. I admire Truman, even though I do not fully agree with all he did. He made some tough decisions, rather than worrying about the popular choice, he made what he thought was the right one. It wasn't easy to drop the Bomb. It wasn't easy for him to fire MacArthur. But he did what was needed. As the sign on his desk said, "the buck stops here." 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." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe JWR: The burden of proof is on those who claim that Russia would have entered the war and nuked the USA. I don't believe either contention. Mao went on to kill up to 75 million Chinese to consolidate his power over the new communist regime in China. Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Truman the Villain
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 Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] truman the villain
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 to do so. In fact, a good position can be made that it was aid, trade and diplomacy which built up the Soviet Union, Red China, and their satellite states over the years. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan being a good case in point. How did the Russians invade Afghanistan? Over a highway built by U.S. Foreign Aid Dollars with trucks built at the Kama River Truck Plant also built by U.S. help. Specifically by Ford with the authorization of our government. And I'll bet it was financed with government guaranteed loans backed by the good credit of the American taxpayer. --JWR Exactly so. $153 million from the export-import bank ran by William J. Casey at the time. The bank providing the money was David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. Other contractors involved in building the Kama River Truck Plant besides the Ford Company was Glidden Machine & Tool Company, Gulf and Western Industries, Honeywell, the Swindell-Dressler Company, Warner & Swazey, the Ingersoll Milling Machine Company, and the E.W. Bliss Company. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] ". . . it is as much their [The Elders of Israel] duty to study correct political principles as well as religion, and to seek and know and comprehend the social and political interests of man, and to learn and be able to teach that which would be best calculated to promote the interests of the world."--John Taylor // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] truman the villain
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 prerogative to do so that the Executive Branch doesn't have. But it's all academic anyway. Our government abides by the Constitution only when it is convenient. It wants us to obey the law but feels that it is above the law. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === At present, the Book of Mormon is studied in our Sunday School and seminary classes every fourth year. This four-year pattern, however, must not be followed by Church members in their personal and family study. We need to read daily from the pages of the book that will get a man "nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Ezra Taft Benson, October 1988) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Truman the Villain
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 of the Korean peninsula. The Chinese were likely _hoping_ that we would start a full scale war with them; they were expecting backup from the Russians. Once that battle started, there would have been nothing to stop the Russians from rolling over Europe. This is just baloney. I don't believe a word of it. China was not hoping any such thing. And Russia was in no position to be "rolling over Europe." It was completely trashed by Germany only eight years earlier and it nuclear capability was something stolen, not developed in house. Further, it was such a fledgling industry they couldn't possibly have prevail against the USA. Plus we were still fully mobilized and gaining steam after our WWII victory. Of all the nations on this planet we were among the most untouched by WWII. None of the fighting was done on our soil, and the war had only made us stronger by mobilizing our industry. I've got to stop this. It's killing me. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Truman the Villain
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. I would like to challenge this notion that Russia would have gotten involved if we had gone to war with China as a result of the Korean War. I would also like to challenge the notion that Russia would have nuked us. The Korean War was in 1953, less than 8 years after the end of WWII. Russia was torn to pieces and in shambles because of its desperate war with Germany. It was in economic shambles because the USA and the west hadn't had enough time to prop them up with foreign aid as occurred later. It's nuclear industry was desperately trying to play catchup with the United States because they hadn't developed their own bomb but had to steal ours. And for every nuke they had, we had many. Not even Russia is stupid enough to open a nuclear conflict with a vastly better prepared opponent. The burden of proof is on those who claim that Russia would have entered the war and nuked the USA. I don't believe either contention. Mao went on to kill up to 75 million Chinese to consolidate his power over the new communist regime in China. We could have prevented that if we had just let MacArthur "take it to the enemy." China would have capitulated so fast it would have made a head spin. Look how fast it caved in to Japan before we got into the war. In what way was China better suited to wage a war against the United States just a few years later? Why is it that so many Americans feel we should have gotten into WWII earlier in order to prevent Hitler from killing 6 million domestic Jews, but they feel perfectly justified in letting China kill 75 million domestic Chinese. When China attacked us across the Yalu, we should have cleaned their clock. And when Truman ordered MacArthur to let them go, he should have resigned his commission. Truman's action in giving such an order to MacArthur was unspeakably immoral. And those who don't agree, just don't understand the situation. Truman was a Democrat for Pete's sake. Why are you sticking up for him? Why are you trying to justify undeclared wars that are "police actions?" I just don't understand how you and Jon can have swallowed all this public school textbook propaganda. Anyway, I'm starting to get angry about this thread, so I'm going to quit participating in it. No wonder this country is wallowing in the sewer when the best people I know support it criminal folly. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Laurie got offended that I used the word "puke." But to me, that's what her dinner tasted like. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] truman the villain
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 can be made that it was aid, trade and diplomacy which built up the Soviet Union, Red China, and their satellite states over the years. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan being a good case in point. How did the Russians invade Afghanistan? Over a highway built by U.S. Foreign Aid Dollars with trucks built at the Kama River Truck Plant also built by U.S. help. Specifically by Ford with the authorization of our government. And I'll bet it was financed with government guaranteed loans backed by the good credit of the American taxpayer. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Truman the villain
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 treaties have to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Was that done? I doubt it. And in any case, a civil war is not an invasion. You see, the Constitution doesn't say we have to declare war, it only says that it is Congress' duty to declare war. That sounds like clever lawyer talk to me, sort of like "That all depends on what 'is' means." As I understand the Constitution--you know, plain English--Congress decides whether, when and who we fight, while the Executive Branch carries on the war. For our Commander and Chief to instigate wars and execute them without a congressional declaration of war is a clear violation of the intent of the Constitution, clever lawyer language notwithstanding. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === At present, the Book of Mormon is studied in our Sunday School and seminary classes every fourth year. This four-year pattern, however, must not be followed by Church members in their personal and family study. We need to read daily from the pages of the book that will get a man "nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Ezra Taft Benson, October 1988) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Truman the Villain
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 concerning the possible upcoming war with Iraq. We just see it differently. Come on, Gary. Surely you can see the difference between deciding the question of whether or not we should go to war, and how we conduct it once we are involved in one. I have repeatedly said that we should have stayed home and not gone to fight in Korea. That is exactly what I have said about Iraq. But once we decide to go to war, we have an obligation to our fighting men to win a victory. Anything less, is a betrayal of them and our whole nation. If we go to war with Iraq again, and let Saddam off again as we did the last time. I will be just as disgusted as I am about Korea. We should stay out of it, and if we don't, we should finished it with an overwhelming and complete victory. These "limited" wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq are evil wars. They trivialize war, and slaughter good people on both sides to no good purpose. Jon, to you and all those in favor of going to war with Saddam, remember that Iraq is not a democracy. When we kill ten of thousands and hundreds of thousand of Iraqis without killing Saddam, we are killing people who are forced to fight, people who would refuse to fight if they could. They don't deserve to die no matter how offensive Saddam is. They are trapped in a situation not of their own making. We have no right to kill them unless they are a direct threat to our own population. I know. I know. I'm just wasting my breath. I should give a squat about all those hundreds of thousands who are going to die through no fault of their own. And it shouldn't bother me that it is my own country that is going to perpetrate this atrocity. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to ask is if they ever press charges. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] truman the villain
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. 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 that it is Congress' duty to declare war. > > 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 concerning the possible upcoming war with Iraq. We > just see it differently. Different enemies require different treatments. > Some can be persuaded with diplomacy, some with a little muscle and > containment, while others require full out offensive. > > 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 Soviets would have jumped in on > the war if we were to have invaded China, we were looking at nuclear > holocaust. Truman wasn't willing to go that far, and I thank him for it. > > 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." - > Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > > JWR: > Unless the order is illegal. And Truman's orders were clearly illegal by > > any constitutional standards. The whole war was unconstitutional. > > 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 China > had > a "limited plan?" Talking about a "limited plan" is talking about > pulling > your punches. And in any fight, pulling your punches is the road to > defeat such as we suffered in Vietnam. > > > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com > > // > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Truman the Villain
>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 China had a "limited plan?" Talking about a "limited plan" is talking about pulling your punches. And in any fight, pulling your punches is the road to defeat such as we suffered in Vietnam. Dan: Sure they do, the 'ideal' limited plan would be to just defend our country right? The North Korean's plans were limited to the overthrow of the sitting government. The Chinese plan was limited to helping the North Koreans with theirs; else why didn't the Chinese take the opportunity to invade Japan? A limited plan takes into account what your intentions, abilities, and resources are. Expanding the scope of the Korean war, as MacArthur wanted to do, would have involved the Russians and their nukes at some point. Our intentions from the beginning of the Korean war was simply to reject the North Korean take over of the Korean government. We were doing that, quite successfully, until the Chinese stepped in. Truman had no intention of attacking China because of their alliance with Russia; he didn't want to try to take both of them on at the same time. A war with China was outside the scope of the original purpose of our actions in Korea. >When the Chinese entered the battle the scope completely changed . Truman >was not willing to throw us into another full-scale war with all of the >negative impacts it would have at home. John: Truman was a traitor to his country and a betrayer of the men who served under him in battle. And if "negative impacts" were going to keep us from going for a victory, then we never should have gone into Korea in the first place. Victory is the ONLY moral objective in a war. First, may darn sure you are justified in going to war, and second, win it or die trying. Korea was an undeclared, ie. unconstitutional, police action. We had no business there, especially as part of a UN operation. And all of the top civilian leaders who put us there and then didn't let us take the war to the enemy are going to burn in hell unless they repented. Dan: Where does the Constitution state what specific wording is required for congress to declare war? The Senate ratified the multinational treaty creating the UN in '45. Congress ratified the UN resolution stipulating the use of military force in Korea. In addition, we had a treaty with the Korean government to come to their aid if attacked. Our involvement in the Korean war was constitutionally sound - even though the treaties that made it so were certainly closed-minded. 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. The moral objective of going into Korea was _very_ clear; until the Chinese jumped in. >The Korean war needed to stay within the initial scope of denying the >Communists all of Korea. John: Wrong. The only morally acceptable "initial scope" should have been defeating North Korea for their incursion into the south. And China should have known up front that if they interfered they would have to deal with us in a full scale war. Dan: 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 of the Korean peninsula. The Chinese were likely _hoping_ that we would start a full scale war with them; they were expecting backup from the Russians. Once that battle started, there would have been nothing to stop the Russians from rolling over Europe. John: The truth of the matter is, we had people in our government that were on the side of North Korea and China. That is why they conducted the war the way they did. The same thing happened in Vietnam. If a country isn't going to go all out to win a war, it should stay out of it in the first place. Anything else is a betrayal of the men who fight, their families, their communities, and the nation. Dan: In war you have to choose which battles you want to focus your efforts on. You don't want to throw away resources on something that will provide limited tactical or strategic benefit. We have also had government leaders that wanted our country to be a monarchy instead of the constitutional republic it's supposed to be. We also had an Army General who was more interested in fighting than the good of the country. We owe it to our fighting men to waste as little of their blood as possible while living up to our agreements. I personally would like to see most of those agreements scratched, but until they are we have a
Re: [ZION] truman the villain
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 Soviets would have jumped in on the war if we were to have invaded China, we were looking at nuclear holocaust. Truman wasn't willing to go that far, and I thank him for it. 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 can be made that it was aid, trade and diplomacy which built up the Soviet Union, Red China, and their satellite states over the years. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan being a good case in point. How did the Russians invade Afghanistan? Over a highway built by U.S. Foreign Aid Dollars with trucks built at the Kama River Truck Plant also built by U.S. help. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.getusout.org";>http://www.getusout.org/images/guolink.gif";> // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] truman the villain
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 that it is Congress' duty to declare war. 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 concerning the possible upcoming war with Iraq. We just see it differently. Different enemies require different treatments. Some can be persuaded with diplomacy, some with a little muscle and containment, while others require full out offensive. 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 Soviets would have jumped in on the war if we were to have invaded China, we were looking at nuclear holocaust. Truman wasn't willing to go that far, and I thank him for it. 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." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe JWR: Unless the order is illegal. And Truman's orders were clearly illegal by any constitutional standards. The whole war was unconstitutional. 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 China had a "limited plan?" Talking about a "limited plan" is talking about pulling your punches. And in any fight, pulling your punches is the road to defeat such as we suffered in Vietnam. Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Truman the Villain
>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. ;-) Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Truman the Villain
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 went into Korea with a limited plan; do not allow the Communists to take over Korea. 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 China had a "limited plan?" Talking about a "limited plan" is talking about pulling your punches. And in any fight, pulling your punches is the road to defeat such as we suffered in Vietnam. When the Chinese entered the battle the scope completely changed . Truman was not willing to throw us into another full-scale war with all of the negative impacts it would have at home. Truman was a traitor to his country and a betrayer of the men who served under him in battle. And if "negative impacts" were going to keep us from going for a victory, then we never should have gone into Korea in the first place. Victory is the ONLY moral objective in a war. First, may darn sure you are justified in going to war, and second, win it or die trying. Korea was an undeclared, ie. unconstitutional, police action. We had no business there, especially as part of a UN operation. And all of the top civilian leaders who put us there and then didn't let us take the war to the enemy are going to burn in hell unless they repented. The Korean war needed to stay within the initial scope of denying the Communists all of Korea. Wrong. The only morally acceptable "initial scope" should have been defeating North Korea for their incursion into the south. And China should have known up front that if they interfered they would have to deal with us in a full scale war. The truth of the matter is, we had people in our government that were on the side of North Korea and China. That is why they conducted the war the way they did. The same thing happened in Vietnam. If a country isn't going to go all out to win a war, it should stay out of it in the first place. Anything else is a betrayal of the men who fight, their families, their communities, and the nation. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Truman the Villain
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 unconstitutional. Truman, as Commander-in-Chief, was responsible for more than just the army in the field; The minute that Truman committed troops to the field he only had one responsibility: victory. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Laurie got offended that I used the word "puke." But to me, that's what her dinner tasted like. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Truman the Villain
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 regrouping. If he isn't allowed to do this, he is being forced to make targets of his men with no recourse. Dan: A ground war is about occupying ground. In Korea, the enemy wanted the ground we were occupying. Korea was never intended to be an 'all-out' war - which is what you are describing. The intent was to kick them out of territory that they had occupied, not start another world war. MacArthur was tasked with holding a defensive position, and allowed to take whatever measures he felt necessary to do that - but not occupy territory beyond that line. The Chinese were not attacking us from "sanctuary" [strawman alert], but were trying to reoccupy territory we had denied them. MacArthur continued to send patrols beyond his line, attack 'targets of opportunity', and generally bloody the Chinese army whenever he had the opportunity. Which makes a better target to an army advancing on-line: a soldier in a fortified bunker, or one lying down in the tall grass? John: This is what Reagan did in Lebanon and why we lost 277 Marines there in that truck bombing. The factions fighting us could attack at will be we were effectually forbidden to return fire which would have entailed going and getting whoever was shooting at us. Instead our troops were confined to an indefensible position on an airport runway. This is little more than murder of ones own troops. Dan: What Reagan did in Lebanon of completely different that what Truman _and_ MacArthur did in Korea. Apples and Oranges. Not sure what the airport comment is in reference to. John: In any case, if Truman wasn't going to let MacArthur win the Korean War even if it meant following Chinese combatants across the Yalu, he should never have sent our troops over there. When China attacked us we were at war with China, weren't we? Well, if China wants to attack us, we must defeat them. What we did was dishonest and a betrayal of our fighting men in the field. Don't we owe something to our fighting men in time of war? Don't we owe them the support to let them win? The military should be subject to civilian leadership, but that leadership needs to be loyal to the troops. 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. Dan: Define "win" John. 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. When the Chinese entered the battle the scope completely changed . Truman was not willing to throw us into another full-scale war with all of the negative impacts it would have at home. The Korean war needed to stay within the initial scope of denying the Communists all of Korea. We were not there fighting for our very existence, but the right of a separate people to have a chance at democracy. Following MacArthur's plans would have been a far _greater_ betrayal of our country than what we ended up with. We owe it to our fighting men, and now women, to ensure that their sacrifices are not wasted on egotistical empire building. MacArthur was a brilliant tactician, but in many ways he was more interested in his legacy than what was right for the country. Truman had his own problems, some of which were created in dealing with the mess Roosevelt left him, but betrayal of the military was not one of them. John: MacArthur shouldn't have disobeyed his civilian leaders. He should have resigned his commission. As it was, he humiliated himself and let Truman win the argument. Truman was scum. MacArthur should have quit and then taken his plea to the American people. Not that they would have paid any attention to him. The average voter in this country is a vile as Truman was. They don't care how dishonorably their government acts. They don't even seem to understand that in a democracy we are responsible for the actions of our government. Dan: A military officer who disobeys a superiors orders (unless they are illegal) is not fit to be an officer. Truman, as Commander-in-Chief, was responsible for more than just the army in the field; he was also responsible for putting the country back together, and taking care of all of the dirty deals Roosevelt had started. As Commander-in-Chief he had every right to expect MacArthur to take care of the one small part of the overall picture he was tasked with. By taking his argument into the public sector MacArthur showed that he could not be trusted to obey orders. Had Truman followed MacArthur's plan, the Korean war would have escalated into another world war, and we would hav
[ZION] Truman the Villain
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. The military doesn't look kindly on that kind of activity - it suggests a lack of unity and control. The American People are not part of the chain of command. The problem with MacArthur's plan was that it would all but require the use of Nukes once we made into China proper. Truman didn't want to be backed into that corner, so he moved MacArthur out of the way. 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 regrouping. If he isn't allowed to do this, he is being forced to make targets of his men with no recourse. This is what Reagan did in Lebanon and why we lost 277 Marines there in that truck bombing. The factions fighting us could attack at will be we were effectually forbidden to return fire which would have entailed going and getting whoever was shooting at us. Instead our troops were confined to an indefensible position on an airport runway. This is little more than murder of ones own troops. In any case, if Truman wasn't going to let MacArthur win the Korean War even if it meant following Chinese combatants across the Yalu, he should never have sent our troops over there. When China attacked us we were at war with China, weren't we? Well, if China wants to attack us, we must defeat them. What we did was dishonest and a betrayal of our fighting men in the field. Don't we owe something to our fighting men in time of war? Don't we owe them the support to let them win? The military should be subject to civilian leadership, but that leadership needs to be loyal to the troops. 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. MacArthur shouldn't have disobeyed his civilian leaders. He should have resigned his commission. As it was, he humiliated himself and let Truman win the argument. Truman was scum. MacArthur should have quit and then taken his plea to the American people. Not that they would have paid any attention to him. The average voter in this country is a vile as Truman was. They don't care how dishonorably their government acts. They don't even seem to understand that in a democracy we are responsible for the actions of our government. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to ask is if they ever press charges. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
