Lyndon Johnson And Harry Truman’s Civilian Napalm

5 Responses to Lyndon Johnson And Harry Truman’s Civilian Napalm

1. forgottenman2013 says:

   August 31, 2013 at 1:38 pm

   Reblogged this on GovCrimes.

   Reply
2. Ian says:

   August 31, 2013 at 4:55 pm

   Steve:

   I’m confused. You refer to Johnson, yet the first picture actually is from the Nixon era (8 June 1972). The use of Napalm continued unabated under Nixon, who had carriage of and escalated the Vietnam war from 1969 – 1973.

   I’m also unclear on when (if ever) you feel the use of military force is valid. Was it appropriate for the US to be involved in any of the conflicts in which it has engaged? If so, which ones, and why?

   For the record, I think the idea of US military intervention in Syria is poorly conceived, not well justified and unlikely to bring results which, by any rational standard, would be considered positive. (Indeed, it’s hard to see a positive outcome from that conflict, however, it develops.)

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     August 31, 2013 at 4:58 pm

     Obama’s justification for war in Syria is complete bullshit. The US has killed hundreds of thousands with chemical and incendiary weapons.

     Reply
   • GoneWithTheWind says:

     August 31, 2013 at 11:00 pm

     Two points: From the moment Nixon first took office he began cutting the number of troops in Vietnam and trying to get North Vietnam to agree to some kind of truce to end the war. So to say he “escalated” the war is simply inaccurate. The reason to mention Johnson is because even though Kennedy started that crazy old Asian war it was truely Johnson’s war in every way.
     Second point: The first picture was indeed after a napalm attack but the attack was by the South Vietnamese not U.S. forces and the attack was on the North Vietnamese who were in the process of committing war crimes in this small village. Interesting that this picture is often attributed to the U.S. forces AND that the North Vietnamese attack on these civilians gets a pass. Should the South Vietnames used napalm and bombs to try to prevent the North from killing everyone in the village? maybe not but the young lady in the center of that picture escaped ONLY because the South Vietnamese attack allowed many of the villagers to escape.

     Reply
3. Ian says:

   August 31, 2013 at 8:53 pm

   I agree that the justification for involvement in the Syrian conflict is weak – the headline on the post, however, does not match the photograph. That’s also not to suggest that napalm wasn’t used during the Johnson years of the Vietnam conflict: merely that limiting the headline to Johnson & Truman seems a parochial approach, particularly when you’ve chosen a photograph that evidences its use under Nixon (and napalm likely also was used under Eisenhower during the last year of the Korean conflict).

   Again, this is not in any way to suggest support for Obama’s position on this issue. HIs approach is ill-considered and unlikely to work to the advantage of either the United States or any of the countries in the Middle East. His pre-election posturing is also thrown into high relief by his current disregard of Congress and willingness to commit the United States to military adventurism without due regard to either process or consequences.

   It would also be interesting to understand why the French are so gung-ho for intervention. Syria was part of the French mandate after the First World War – perhaps a bit the old colonialism rising once more to the top? As for the British – all I can say is that it is nice to see that the Parliamentary system can occasionally work as it should. Perhaps Obama fears a similar outcome if it were considered in a similar manner by Congress?

   Reply