Coffin money

Dutch Uncle said:
Blah, blah, blah. Not a fucking word answering the question. The fact is obvious: It's not in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/war_powers
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/

As for undeclared wars, the US has fought many of those too...

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/

The US obviously can as a sovereign nation fight wars with other nations or against specific groups whether you like it or not.

Now, I will say that LBJ used a blatant lie (the Gulf of Tonkin incident) to get America into Vietnam.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/war_powers
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/

As for undeclared wars, the US has fought many of those too...

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/

The US obviously can as a sovereign nation fight wars with other nations or against specific groups whether you like it or not.

Now, I will say that LBJ used a blatant lie (the Gulf of Tonkin incident) to get America into Vietnam.
Click to expand...

From your link: "The questions of whether the President possesses authority to use the military absent a Congressional declaration of war and the scope of such power, if it exists, have proven to be sources of conflict and debate throughout American history. In general, scholars express various views on the amount of power that the President actually has and the amount of power that the Constitution promises to the holder of that position."

It's not a said and done deal. As the link states, it's been "sources of conflict and debate".
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The lesson from Vietnam is that often the results you get aren't the ones you wanted but can still work to your advantage. In the case of Vietnam, the US in fighting that war, caused Communist insurgencies in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to fail miserably as the Russians and Chinese couldn't support them with Vietnam going on.
Click to expand...
I reject your premise and your wishfull thinking.

That's the first time in my life I heard anyone claim that our war in Vietnam was responsible for saving Indonesia, Phillupines, Malaysia.
 
Cypress said:
I reject your premise and your wishfull thinking.

That's the first time in my life I heard anyone claim that our war in Vietnam was responsible for saving Indonesia, Phillupines, Malaysia.
Click to expand...

Then you aren't much on military history...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25797931
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-lost-vietnam-but-saved-southeast-asia-11548624224

I have considerably more on this that isn't on the internet but in books.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then you aren't much on military history...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25797931
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-lost-vietnam-but-saved-southeast-asia-11548624224

I have considerably more on this that isn't on the internet but in books.
Click to expand...

Frantically googling for links and then rushing back here to post them doesn't cut the mustard.

Especially when you didn't even ready or vette the articles yourself. Your first link was subscription only.

I am not going to waste my time trusting links that you obviously frantically googled for without reading yourself
 
Cypress said:
Frantically googling for links and then rushing back here to post them doesn't cut the mustard.

Especially when you didn't even ready or vette the articles yourself. Your first link was subscription only.

I am not going to waste my time trusting links that you obviously frantically googled for without reading yourself
Click to expand...

Fine, you lost the argument. Enough said.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Fine, you lost the argument. Enough said.
Click to expand...

Your first post was a journal article only available through university or library subscription.

Meaning you didn't even read it yourself. You just stumbled across it in a frantic Google search.

Posting articles you didn't even read and which no one else can access does not win any debates.

It just makes other posters question your good faith and integrity.
 
Cypress said:
Your first post was a journal article only available through university or library subscription.

Meaning you didn't even read it yourself. You just stumbled across it in a frantic Google search.

Posting articles you didn't even read and which no one else can access does not win any debates.

It just makes other posters question your good faith and integrity.
Click to expand...

Wrong, I have access to JSTOR for military history research.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong, I have access to JSTOR for military history research.
Click to expand...
so you are posting articles only you supposedly have access to, and then do a victory dance that you won a debate?

I don't believe for a second you actually read all three of those articles you frantically googled for.

Why don't you cut and paste the words from all three of those articles that unequivocally state that the only reason Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia did not become Communist is because the USA fought a futile ten year war in Vietnam..

Make sure they are articles not requiring subscription so your cut and paste can be confirmed and corroborated for accuracy and context.
 
Cypress said:
so you are posting articles only you supposedly have access to, and then do a victory dance that you won a debate?

I don't believe for a second you actually read all three of those articles you frantically googled for.

Why don't you cut and paste the words from all three of those articles that unequivocally state that the only reason Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia did not become Communist is because the USA fought a futile ten year war in Vietnam..

Make sure they are articles not requiring subscription so your cut and paste can be confirmed and corroborated for accuracy and context.
Click to expand...

Others do it here regularly. They (and you) post from the WaPo or NYT which require a subscription to read. What's the difference?

Also, I never said we fought the Vietnam war to keep Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines from going Communist. I stated that was an outcome that occurred largely because of our involvement in Vietnam that denuded Russia and China of a means to support those other insurgencies. It was a side effect, and unrecognized at the time.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Others do it here regularly. They (and you) post from the WaPo or NYT which require a subscription to read. What's the difference?

Also, I never said we fought the Vietnam war to keep Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines from going Communist. I stated that was an outcome that occurred largely because of our involvement in Vietnam that denuded Russia and China of a means to support those other insurgencies. It was a side effect, and unrecognized at the time.
Click to expand...

So you can't find, or refuse to supply, the actual words from a body of expert testimony which supports your contention and are just reduced to randomly posting links, some of which nobody can access but you.


I do not doubt there is a fringe minority of pundits who believe great things came of our involvement in the Vietnam war, and that our contributions saved the rest of Southeast Asia from certain disaster.

There has always been a fringe minority that loved the Vietnam War and insisted we should have stayed to fight on to the final victory.

That's why it's a fringe minority.

The bottom line is I have never heard a consensus view in the reputable historical and political science scholarship that our futile ten year war in Vietnam saved the rest of SE Asia from impending disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top