• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Robert McNamara, ex-defense secretary, dies

Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

Ahh you do bring up good points then :lol:

But, keep in mind the huge paradox that would've occured if no American intervention had occured... Since that is such a huge thing to say, there is really no telling what would've occured otherwise except that the North Vietnamese would've been able to conquer the south much more easily and with much less casualities. The Chinese and Soviet Union would see American resolve as weak and would not be wary of their expansionist policies.

Had there not been US intervention, there's no telling how far the slaughter would have went.
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

The Chinese and Soviet Union would see American resolve as weak and would not be wary of their expansionist policies.
What Chinese expansionist policies would those be?
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

What Chinese expansionist policies would those be?

I'm talking about general Communist expansionist policies, especially in East Asia. But if you want to talk about the Chinese reds specifically then:

Chinese intervention in Korea - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about Chinese intervention in Korea

CIA DOCUMENT OF CHINESE FORCES IN VIETNAM-1966

Chinese support of the Khmer rouge

“Best turn it into a bigger war…I’m afraid you really ought to send more troops to the South…Don’t be afraid of U.S. intervention, at most it’s no worse than having another Korean War. The Chinese army is prepared, and if America takes the risk of attacking North Vietnam, the Chinese army will march in at once. Our troops want a war now.”

-- Mao speaking to the North Vietnamese in 1964
 
Last edited:
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

What Chinese expansionist policies would those be?

China expands labor probe of McDonald’s, KFC


"SHANGHAI, China - U.S. fast-food chains McDonald’s and KFC said Thursday they are working with Chinese authorities to resolve allegations that the companies underpay their part-time workers, as a labor probe expands to other cities. "

They are expanding the fast food market quite nicely.
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

China expands labor probe of McDonald’s, KFC


"SHANGHAI, China - U.S. fast-food chains McDonald’s and KFC said Thursday they are working with Chinese authorities to resolve allegations that the companies underpay their part-time workers, as a labor probe expands to other cities. "

They are expanding the fast food market quite nicely.

You clearly have 0 idea what we're talking about here... This is about the 50s and 60s, you know, the Vietnam era? :roll:


:lol:
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

I'm talking about general Communist expansionist policies, especially in East Asia. But if you want to talk about the Chinese reds specifically then:

Chinese intervention in Korea - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about Chinese intervention in Korea

CIA DOCUMENT OF CHINESE COMMUNIST FORCES 1966

Chinese support of the Khmer rouge



-- Mao speaking to the North Vietnamese in 1964
Korea and Vietnam were in response to presence by the UN and the US, respectively. If that is expansionist, then so would the Monroe Doctrine.

As to Taiwan, that's an ongoing civil war.
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

Korea and Vietnam were in response to presence by the UN and the US, respectively. If that is expansionist, then so would the Monroe Doctrine.

As to Taiwan, that's an ongoing civil war.

dude, please do not just come in the middle of a discussion... We are talking about Communist expansion during the 50s and 60s, which would include the Soviet Union and China which both supported Third World Communist revolutions and new Second World governments. I am not talking about China today... Read the thread and a few of the posts man, seriously :roll:

As for the Monroe Doctrine, I don't mind freedom and democracy expanding.
 
Last edited:
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

dude, please do not just come in the middle of a discussion... We are talking about Communist expansion during the 50s and 60s, which would include the Soviet Union and China which both supported Third World Communist revolutions and new Second World governments. I am not talking about China today... Read the thread and a few of the posts man, seriously :roll:

As for the Monroe Doctrine, I don't mind freedom and democracy expanding.
I will post as I see fit, "dude," and if you don't like it, I believe this board has an ignore function that you are more than free to use. So kindly shove it, "man."

If you can't argue your points, simply say so, m'kay?
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

You clearly have 0 idea what we're talking about here... This is about the 50s and 60s, you know, the Vietnam era? :roll:


:lol:

Joke little rooster. Put your comb down.

US foreign policy since 1947 was sheer containment and was fine until we got all up in nato again in 49(Have we seen something like this before?).

Between the Marshall plan and the truman doctrine almost 12.5 billion dollars was dumped into Europe to rebuild and prevent communism. 1950 dollars= 1/9th of todays dollars so it was a big dump.


Stalin blockaded Berlin and Truman dropped food and supplies in Berlin until Stalin realized the allies wont capitulate and lifted the blockade.


In response the warsaw pact of 55 was formed to agree to kick all our asses if we got too in their face.

1950-53 the Korean conflict occurred in another effort at containment.

The total line difference was 10 parallels.

It could be argued that North Korea attacked South Korea in the first place because the USA Korean aid bill was defeated in the senate by a single vote that same January.

The rhetoric of the leader of the time (Rhee) helped not at all.


So yeah as soon as the US lowers its guard the enemies do not lower theirs. They take advantage of the opportunity to screw us.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We are in for a hellish time coming and soon.
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

I will post as I see fit, "dude," and if you don't like it, I believe this board has an ignore function that you are more than free to use. So kindly shove it, "man."

If you can't argue your points, simply say so, m'kay?

If your gonna bring something up that doesn't have to do with the argument, please say so, m'kay. And, oh, you can definetely shove it up yours. Not kindly. :2wave:
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

US foreign policy since 1947 was sheer containment and was fine until we got all up in nato again in 49(Have we seen something like this before?).

What occured between 1947-1949 that you approved of that didn't occur during NATO membership in the 50s and 60s? The US brought the Korean conflict to the UN, so what does being "all up in" NATO have to do with it?

So yeah as soon as the US lowers its guard the enemies do not lower theirs. They take advantage of the opportunity to screw us.

You would be keen to review my posts and this argument. I do not know what your claiming, but if it is relevant to the discussion than I certainly can't see how.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We are in for a hellish time coming and soon.
Explain.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Tubub and Coronado. Cease the personal attacks and the internet bravado, or you both will find yourselves with thread bans and possibly infractions.
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

What occured between 1947-1949 that you approved of that didn't occur during NATO membership in the 50s and 60s? The US brought the Korean conflict to the UN, so what does being "all up in" NATO have to do with it?.
The Truman Doctrine, 1947
Standing against communism without being chained to a particular country.

Nato and Warsaw was deja vu hence the recreation of nearly the same treaty structure that drew the world powers into World War I and II.

except that the North Vietnamese would've been able to conquer the south much more easily and with much less casualities. The Chinese and Soviet Union would see American resolve as weak and would not be wary of their expansionist policies.
..

When our leaders are seen as weak or inexperienced or even both we can ususally expect trouble.

Did North Korea Launch a Sophisticated Cyber Attack Against the U.S.?

Defiant N Korea launches rocket

North Korea fires missiles in 4th of July salvo

It is interesting how the events of yesterday sometimes mirror the events of today.
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

I would disbute that the Soviet Union ever wanted to take over the world. It was more concerned with maintaining hemogency over its borders then anything else.

:rofl Well you can “dispute” it all you want but your history is desperately seeking some facts. The notion that the Soviet Union was not trying to export it’s version of Communism throughout the world defies logic and requires either willful ignorance or the willful suspension of disbelief.

How do you explain the Berlin Wall; the Soviet Tanks in Hungary; Cuba?


It gave aid to the Afgan monarchy and refused to assist in overthrowing the Shah of Iran [whom they even gave weapons/aid to at one stage] as they feared it would damage their entente with the West.

First off, did you not see when Soviet troops invaded and took over the country of Afghanistan and installed a puppet Communist regime?

Secondly, what the hell does the Soviet Union have to do with the Shah of Iran? WE were the ones supporting the Shah while the Soviet Union armed Egypt, Syria and Jordan.


The whole idea of exporting revolution across the world died with Lennin.

Stalin was much worse than Lenin. For your edification, Stalin came AFTER Lennin and was in power during the Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis and the building of the Berlin Wall.


As regards Robert McNamara the one thing you can say to his credit is that he showed a degree of repetance and recognition of how non-sensical much of the cold war was [and as Middleground said it his perspective shreads alot of light on the Vietnam war] Have a look at

YouTube - The For of War (Part 9)

Repentance is something we should give credit for after 58,000 American lives were sacrificed at the alter of Kennedy/Johnson’s and McNamara’s failed policies?

You know what profound irony is; it comes about when dealing with liberals like you, when you are so willing to give credit to those who screwed up badly but so quick to impugn those you wish would screw up badly for the simple fact that they are Republicans.

Based on your version of historic events, I can only say that I am not surprised by your lack of knowledge and why you would support Liberal causes. I find that the “uninformed” or “ill” informed usually gravitate towards Liberalism.
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

The Truman Doctrine, 1947
Standing against communism without being chained to a particular country.

Nato and Warsaw was deja vu hence the recreation of nearly the same treaty structure that drew the world powers into World War I and II.



When our leaders are seen as weak or inexperienced or even both we can ususally expect trouble.

Did North Korea Launch a Sophisticated Cyber Attack Against the U.S.?

Defiant N Korea launches rocket

North Korea fires missiles in 4th of July salvo

It is interesting how the events of yesterday sometimes mirror the events of today.

oh... so your agreeing with me?
 
Re: Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara Dies

TD, I think you meant to say Khrushchev.
 
The tragedy of Robert McNamara is we failed to learn from the mistakes of Vietnam, and thus repeated them again. Afghanistan was the right war, the just war, and the war we needed to fight then and there.

Iraq was a distraction that has cost us dearly in Afghanistan, the lives of thousands of US personal, 150,000+ minimum death toll for Iraqis. Our credibility, favorability, and respect plummeted at a time when we most needed cooperation. There was no Al-Qaeda, although we actually managed to create the environment for Al-Qaeda in Iraq to form post invasion. We did exactly as Bin Laden preached for years that we would do, invade an oil rich Arab nation. To make matters worse we had the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib. Our one success post invasion seemed to be a uniting of Arab populations against us, to actually increase the level of human and material support to the very enemy. We alienated friends, and strengthened our enemies. Iran certainly became a bigger winner in all of this, more so than the U.S. (anyone thinking maybe we should just send them the bill?). Afghanistan has now lingered for 8+ years with a lack of resources. What a novel concept the new offensive being undertaken in the south today, that concept of actually holding territory instead of giving it back to the Taliban.....something that needed to be done 8 years ago.

I would give anything to someday, somehow, be the fly on the wall in a private meeting of both Bushes, Cheney, and Brent Scowcroft. Strangely, and I guess ironically, George Bush I achievement at building a true international coalition must certainly be respected and admired more so now today. If GWB would have truly been his father's son, we would be in a much different world today, a much better one at that.

Point is there are a lot of parrellels to the mistakes in Vietnam that we replicated 40 years after. Watching one of McNamara's final interviews was strange in how much he could have been talking about Iraq. Worst, by every single account we will sweep the mistakes of Iraq under the rug, and insure that a future generation will make the same f** up.
 
The tragedy of Robert McNamara is we failed to learn from the mistakes of Vietnam, and thus repeated them again. Afghanistan was the right war, the just war, and the war we needed to fight then and there.

Iraq was a distraction that has cost us dearly in Afghanistan, the lives of thousands of US personal, 150,000+ minimum death toll for Iraqis. Our credibility, favorability, and respect plummeted at a time when we most needed cooperation. There was no Al-Qaeda, although we actually managed to create the environment for Al-Qaeda in Iraq to form post invasion. We did exactly as Bin Laden preached for years that we would do, invade an oil rich Arab nation. To make matters worse we had the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib. Our one success post invasion seemed to be a uniting of Arab populations against us, to actually increase the level of human and material support to the very enemy. We alienated friends, and strengthened our enemies. Iran certainly became a bigger winner in all of this, more so than the U.S. (anyone thinking maybe we should just send them the bill?). Afghanistan has now lingered for 8+ years with a lack of resources. What a novel concept the new offensive being undertaken in the south today, that concept of actually holding territory instead of giving it back to the Taliban.....something that needed to be done 8 years ago.

I would give anything to someday, somehow, be the fly on the wall in a private meeting of both Bushes, Cheney, and Brent Scowcroft. Strangely, and I guess ironically, George Bush I achievement at building a true international coalition must certainly be respected and admired more so now today. If GWB would have truly been his father's son, we would be in a much different world today, a much better one at that.

Point is there are a lot of parrellels to the mistakes in Vietnam that we replicated 40 years after. Watching one of McNamara's final interviews was strange in how much he could have been talking about Iraq. Worst, by every single account we will sweep the mistakes of Iraq under the rug, and insure that a future generation will make the same f** up.
:bravo: Great speech, but why do you stop at Vietnam? Every single war has the same mistakes made in it, except for one thing. That is whether the war ends in victory or defeat for our side.

You associate Desert Storm as a victory because we achieved our objectives, but Hussein was not defeated. You associate OIF as a defeat because you think it was a wasted war. Actually there was only one Gulf War, and it just ended more or less. Just as WWII was a continuation of WWI, OIF was a continuation of Desert Storm. OEF is a completely different "war". It has a different kind of enemy. It's not a war against a state, but against an ideology or an extreme sect of a religion (Islam).
 
Iraq was a distraction that has cost us dearly in Afghanistan, the lives of thousands of US personal, 150,000+ minimum death toll for Iraqis. Our credibility, favorability, and respect plummeted at a time when we most needed cooperation. There was no Al-Qaeda, although we actually managed to create the environment for Al-Qaeda in Iraq to form post invasion. We did exactly as Bin Laden preached for years that we would do, invade an oil rich Arab nation. To make matters worse we had the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib. Our one success post invasion seemed to be a uniting of Arab populations against us, to actually increase the level of human and material support to the very enemy. We alienated friends, and strengthened our enemies. Iran certainly became a bigger winner in all of this, more so than the U.S. (anyone thinking maybe we should just send them the bill?). Afghanistan has now lingered for 8+ years with a lack of resources. What a novel concept the new offensive being undertaken in the south today, that concept of actually holding territory instead of giving it back to the Taliban.....something that needed to be done 8 years ago.
You are looking at the negatives of the Iraq war, which have undoubtedly been very well reported. But what you seem to ignore is that Iraq was still a battlefield and political defeat for Al Qaida. Al Qaida did not have an alignment with Saddam Hussein, but they still had a small pool of people operating and recruiting in Iraq... That is why Al Zarqawi was in Iraq in 2002. Saddam Hussein, indifferent to such forces and a sponsor of other terrorist groups, has been overthrown and his brutal regime ended. The Ba'athists have been replaced by a free, democratic government... one that fights terror instead of supporting it. It is unclear whether it will truely end on the right side and it a lot of bloodshed could've been avoided, but the war was not a failure or defeat in the same sense Vietnam was. Vietnam embodied the serious ills with Western society that weren't shared by our Vietnamese foes... self-dissent and free media at its very worst and most counter-productive.


Point is there are a lot of parrellels to the mistakes in Vietnam that we replicated 40 years after. Watching one of McNamara's final interviews was strange in how much he could have been talking about Iraq. Worst, by every single account we will sweep the mistakes of Iraq under the rug, and insure that a future generation will make the same f** up.

The only physical things Iraq shares with Vietnam is that there was an insurgency in both wars, and incompetent leadership in the first years of both wars. But if you dissect either, it is clear they are completely different wars... Starting with the fact one is the ME in the other in South East Asia, and going into the matter that one was launched against Communism and the other purpoted to be launched against Militant Islam and Tyranny.
 
Back
Top Bottom