What are the chances of a new Gulf of Tonkin incident?

a reply to: Zaphod58

No I have read what you wrote, and respect your opinion. I just disagree with it.

If the times change (super fast news reporting) that just means, in this case, the MIC changes with that.

For an example, the video we get from the pentagon from 911, a crap smear that is not even identifiable to what is going on. There are an many cameras that the public is not allowed to see. That's it, a decision was made to with hold the video by someone. So if things (news reporting) gets faster. Just clamp down on all info, evolve.

a reply to: seasonal

And again with the super competent, omniscient MIC. It's amazing what they can pull off without even breaking a sweat, or apparently even trying.

So how are they going to clamp down on South Korea getting the word out? Or stop them from reporting to the UN or anyone else that will listen?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Are you not impressed with Vietnam? Bush's WMD war?

And rest assured, there will be more info about other "actions" that were taken that are equally FF. History is full of them. But perhaps your right, they are lucky rather than than good ( I think they are that good).

a reply to: seasonal

Those were wars that primarily involved only US forces, and allies on a much smaller scale. You're talking about them fighting on South Korean territory, them taking hundreds of thousands of casualties, some of their cities being hammered into rubble, and possibly getting hit with nuclear weapons if the North could pull that off.

And you think they're just going to sit back and let that happen because the MIC tells them to?

a reply to: Zaphod58

No I am saying that they will have no choice. For a FF to work, it has to be a 911, Pearl Harbor or they are throwing babies out of incubators onto the floor style event or story.

So a nuke would do it? Right.

a reply to: seasonal

Of course they will. Why wouldn't they have a choice if it's an American ship that was involved. Especially if they have evidence it didn't happen the way we said it did. The only way they wouldn't have a choice is if it happened in one of their cities, and there was concrete proof the North did it, not just the MIC saying they did.

Proof that the North did it would do it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The point of a FF is to get the war drums beating at a frenzy. That way all thought goes out the window.

If a FF happened, it would be in such a way it would take months to sort out the truth. Cooler heads must NOT prevail. As you pointed out, news is fast, so a FF must be done in such a way that it can't be disproved (right now) and we must go with the info we have. WMD's come to mind.

a reply to: seasonal

And against an American ship, which doesn't directly affect South Korea, the South Korean government isn't going to instantly scream "WAR! WAR NOW!" They're going to be very careful about it, because they're going to take the vast majority of the casualties and the damage if a war breaks out. The American's might be calling for war, depending on what happens, but the South Korean government and people are VERY well aware of what's going to happen if war breaks out on the Peninsula. They're NOT going to be dragged into something, unless a nuclear weapon goes off in a major city. And then they're going to want proof that it was North Korea, because, again, they're more aware of what North Korea has in terms of their weapons programs than we are in the US.

The chances of a new Tonkin incident are not that severe, but there are clearly some political forces that are intent in dragging the US into a disastrous war ...

"but there are clearly some political forces that are intent in dragging the US into a disastrous war ..."

The US did not go to war in Vietnam to win it, they went to war to make money.

That is why they killed Kennedy.

There would be no war with Russia, Cuba or Vietnam as long as Kennedy was president. The rich just want to get richer and Vietnam was the best choice out of the three.

If the war ended, there would be no more money. So they had to prolong the war, which meant limited bombing in the North. They could not make money if they "bombed them back into the stone age" so they kept Goldwater out of the White House and they stopped bombing the North for about four years.

When Nixon decided to end it they bombed the North for only a few weeks before the North sued for peace talks.

As for the Tonkin Gulf, it actually did happen on August 1st, three days before the "official" incident. And that was all the excuse they needed to go to war to make their money.

There seems no doubt that this mindset still lives in the military government. Even though the world is now on instant notice and looking for it, do not be surprised if someone tries to make it happen again.