Liberal Vietnam Narrative Is Orwellian Lie

The Vietnam War article linked below, like many articles this week, is Orwellian in that it edits the past in order to control the future. It states as fact all of the self-serving left wing lies about the Vietnam War, including the whopper that mass executions did not occur.

We did not start the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese started the war after agreeing to a peace treaty and partition, then ignoring what they agreed to and starting a guerrilla war in South Vietnam. We became involved as part of the containment strategy of the time. There is no way we could have avoided involvement given the prevailing attitudes about Communist expansionism. As the war progressed, we were trying to prevent a bloodbath that would result from a complete Communist takeover in Indochina. Given the ultimate outcome, people like me who expected the Communists to kill thousands were proved to be overly optimistic. They killed millions.

We signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 and guaranteed the South Vietnamese that we would support them if the North broke the agreement. Then Congress, dominated by Democrats, cut 75% of the military aid to South Vietnam. Once the invasion from the North started, Congress outlawed any US air support. We did not support the South Vietnamese at all.

The Communist Khmer Rouge killed 2 million Cambodians. The Communists in Vietnam and Laos killed several hundred thousand people. About 2 million people were placed in forced labor camps called "reeducation" camps in Vietnam. About 2 million Vietnamese fled Vietnam in leaky boats to escape the persecution and slaughter. Many drowned when their boats sank before reaching safety.
About 10 times more people died after the war was officially over than died during the war.

The Antiwar Crowd never even noticed the slaughter the success of their protests caused. They are proud to this day of their successful effort to stop the war, or more precisely the American involvement in the war. These same folks are running US foreign policy right now, with 200,000 deaths in Syria alone and still counting. As a Vietnam Era veteran who as an ROTC cadet got called a trained killer and spit at a lot, I am tired of ignorant leftists calling Vietnam a meaningless war or a failure from the start. It was meaningless only in the sense that American leftists ignored the bloody disastrous results for self-serving reasons. It was a failure because the left wanted it to fail. They wanted a peace dividend to spend buying votes domestically, no matter how many Asians got killed in the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

When challenged on post Vietnam War events, liberal responses fail to address the post war deaths and refugees. All they want to talk about is American war crimes.

The Vietnam War Crimes Working Group found 320 war crimes after examining all the evidence. Vietnam Veterans Against the War, including especially John Kerry, are liars who promoted the fiction that everyone in uniform committed war crimes routinely, including people like me who never left the US and in my entire military career fired only 72 rounds from a .38 caliber pistol at a target. There's a reason Mr. Kerry got "Swift Boated." Here's a link for the war crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

The president who escalated the war to over 500,000 US soldiers was Lyndon Johnson, D. Texas. He did this while lying, repeatedly promising that he would send no more troops to Vietnam while the troops were boarding ships to go there. The description "credibility gap" was invented for him. I know he's a Great Society and Civil Rights Act hero, but it's Orwellian to try to blame Richard Nixon for Lyndon Johnson's escalations.

Liberals are still apologists for Communist genocide. Their entire effort is a red herring lie to distract attention from the bloody results of leftist folly. Liberals don't care about the victims because they were Asians so they don't count, and because the perpetrators were Communists and liberals have no enemies on the left.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/40-years-later-will-end-games-iraq-and-afghanistan-follow-vietnam-playbook

US Strategy So Complex, It's Incoherent

The US Middle East strategy is so complex, it's incoherent. Our Dear Leader is making it up as he goes along. Barry the Brilliant's tilt towards Iran was meant to win us an arms control treaty. Nothing else mattered. And we are so close! Just a few more days and we can wrap it all up! Sure. In the meantime we have a mess where the US provided close air support for the Iranian Quds Force militias in Iraq, while we provide intelligence to the Saudis so they can attack an Iranian Quds Force militia in Yemen.

For those of you not familiar with the Quds Force, it's the part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard responsible for sponsoring terrorism and paramilitary organizations in foreign countries. The Quds Force has managed to combine the less attractive aspects of the German SS and the Russian KGB with numerous terrorist bombings. The Shi'ite militias that just took Tikrit, Iraq, after helpful US air strikes are run by Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force. He had his picture taken in several places all over Iraq, including near Tikrit. He was touring Iraq like he owned the place, because he does. The Quds Force militias are the friendly folks who planted the deadliest roadside bombs that killed and maimed hundreds of Americans during the Iraq War. If you think supporting Quds Force militias is a popular thing to do in US military circles then you will believe almost anything the Smartest President Ever says.

In the meantime, we are helping our friends the Saudis and the Egyptians with their Yemen problems. The Yemen problems are from Houthi militia trained and supplied by the Quds Force. In military terms, sanitized for a family publication, this is a cluster foul up. To believe the Middle East situation was the result of some grand master plan, a military analyst would need a ton of Maui Wowie consumed in the company of your buddy Jose Cuervo.

The only good thing to come out of it is that the Saudis and Israelis are so scared of the Iranians that they are negotiating quietly on military cooperation with each other. That fact alone says a lot about how bad things are.

Continued Sanctions Would Be Much Better Than Obama's Bad Deal

Every Liberal in creation is saying the choice is between Obama's bad deal and immediate war with Iran.  I think that's a false choice.  It's possible that sanctions combined with the falling price of oil may seriously weaken the regime. Manufacturing and running centrifuges is expensive. The Iranians also have a huge and expensive security structure. They are sponsoring Shi'ite militias or armies in wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. They have expensive internal subsidies for food and gasoline to keep the populace under control. All of this has to be paid for by oil revenues. Estimates vary, but the Mad Mullahs need somewhere between $100 to $130 a barrel of oil to pay for all of this. Right now the price is about $55 a barrel. Iran has lots of natural gas reserves, but no export terminals and limited export pipelines. They will not be able to borrow money for export facilities if they are under sanctions. The US could put even more pressure on them by legalizing the export of crude oil and natural gas.

While I'm sure that the Mullahs won't cut the centrifuges, if they cut sponsoring wars and terrorism, their allies would be defeated. Defeats in foreign adventures can be deadly to the prestige authoritarian governments need for survival. If they cut in domestic subsidies they could be overthrown in the resulting unrest. If they cut domestic security they could lose control of dissidents and be overthrown. Add to the mix that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has terminal cancer and is expected to die within 2 years. The combination of financial stress and a succession struggle could topple the whole regime. It's worth at shot. The current agreement guarantees an Iranian nuclear weapon within 10 years or less.  That's a lock on a nuclear war in 10 years or less.

Why There Was Jewish Support For Civil Rights in 1964

It wasn't just the holocaust that made Jews sympathetic to civil rights protest. Even in the US, Jews were subject to some of the same discrimination as blacks. There were restrictive deeds which prevented Jews from owning property in certain areas. There were quotas on college admissions of Jews because admitting people based on objective criteria lead to too many Jews and not enough of the "right people" being admitted.

My grandfather was Jewish. My grandmother was a Methodist minister's daughter. When they married in 1929, both of their families thought they were nuts. However, one of the tricks they used to beat restrictive deeds was funny. They lived wherever they wanted to live. If the deed or lease said no Jews, my grandmother bought the property or signed the lease by herself. She wasn't Jewish. Restrictive deeds were outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964