The Bay of Pigs: The Sickening Truth Part II, The Battle is Joined

They fought like Tigers," wrote a CIA officer who helped train the Cuban freedom-fighters who landed at The Bay of Pigs 61 years ago this week... "But their fight was doomed before the first man hit the beach."

That CIA man, Grayston Lynch, knew something about fighting -- and about long odds. He carried scars from Omaha Beach, The Battle of the Bulge and Korea's Heartbreak Ridge. But in those battles, Lynch and his band of brothers could count on the support of their own chief executive.

At the Bay of Pigs, Lynch and his band of Cuban brothers learned -- first in speechless shock and finally in burning rage -- that their most powerful enemies were not Castro's Soviet-armed and led soldiers massing in Santa Clara, Cuba, but the Ivy League's Best and Brightest dithering in Washington.

Lynch trained, in his own words, ''brave boys most of whom had never before fired a shot in anger." Short on battle experience, yes, but they fairly burst with what Bonaparte and George Patton valued most in a soldier -- morale. They'd seen the face of Castro/Communism point-blank: stealing, lying, jailing, poisoning minds, murdering.

They'd heard the chilling "Fuego!" as Castro and Che's firing squads murdered thousands of brave countrymen. More importantly, they heard the "Viva Cuba Libre!" from the bound and blindfolded patriots, right before the bullets ripped them apart. They set their jaws and resolved to smash this murderous barbarism that was ravaging their homeland. And they went at it with a vengeance.

The reason I asked is that you seem to be convinced that if you or people like you or people like you or people you like had been running things that the country wouldn't have had any problems.

Countries always have problems, and things aren't looking that great for us now, but we settled the continent, we got rid of slavery and segregation, we won two world wars, we prevailed in the Cold War, we built what may be the first mass affluence society, we had great inventions and created marvelous things, we put a man on the moon.

I don't know if we would have achieved any of that if you or people who think like you or people you approve of had been in charge. Maybe we wouldn't have survived. Maybe we'd be living in caves, wearing animal skins and trying to stay warm by rubbing sticks together.

Every society has inequality. Every society has an elite. If you and people like you were running things, you'd be the elite and you'd make the same stupid mistakes other elites have made. So for the love of all that is holy, get off your high horse and stop assuming that you have all the answers to everything. And don't lecture about logical fallacies if you can't see how illogical and fallacious your own point of view is.

The reason I asked is that you seem to be convinced that if you or people like you or people like you or people you like had been running things that the country wouldn't have had any problems.

I would like to think I don't know any sort of person who would leave people to die on the beaches after promising them support in their fight. I've noticed Bill Clinton made the same sort of promise for Ukraine, and look what happened.

we won two world wars,

Wouldn't it have been better for everyone if both world wars had never happened?

Every society has an elite. If you and people like you were running things, you'd be the elite and you'd make the same stupid mistakes other elites have made.

I have long come around to believing that you have to be the "elite" before you have the sort of attitude necessary to make such mistakes. As for me and people like me, I very greatly doubt they would be making the same sort of mistakes as the "elite" we have had for a very long time. You have to be insulated from reality by wealth, and it's usually the second generation that has no grasp of actual reality.

Perhaps if I was immersed in wealth from infancy I might be able to make those same sort of mistakes, but that is not the case with me.

I am reminded of what Whittaker Chambers said.

"“You don’t understand the class structure of American society,” said Smetana, “or you would not ask such a question. In the United States, the working class are Democrats. The middle class are Republicans. The upper class are Communists.”

So for the love of all that is holy, get off your high horse and stop assuming that you have all the answers to everything.

Never pretended I have all the answers to everything, but many of the "answers" that other people put forth are clearly wrong, like leaving men to die on a beach after you promised them air and naval support.

Clearly wrong. Virtually any other course of action is better than that. That is probably the worst possible answer to the problem.

Same thing with how Vietnam was fought. Go in full bore or don't go in.

I also turned out to be absolutely right about the war in Iraq. I also turned out to be absolutely right about George HW Bush breaking his promise. I also turned out to be absolutely right about all the queer stuff going on in the 1980s.

Now that I think about it, I have a pretty d@mn fine track record of calling out really bad ideas when they are first proposed.

And don't lecture about logical fallacies if you can't see how illogical and fallacious your own point of view is.

People can sometimes be blind to their own point of view. I am aware of no illogical and fallacious aspects to my point of view. Perhaps you can point them out for me?

I would like to think I don't know any sort of person who would leave people to die on the beaches after promising them support in their fight.

We didn't leave people to die on the beaches at Normandy or Tarawa or Okinawa or Inchon, and according to your own theory it was more or less the same elite running the country in the Forties as it was in the Sixties. If you blame them for getting it wrong in the Sixties you ought to at least recognize that they did get something very important right at another time. Or are you too petty to do so?

People can sometimes be blind to their own point of view. I am aware of no illogical and fallacious aspects to my point of view. Perhaps you can point them out for me?

Look at the other thread. You were completely illogical about the Confederate invasion of Kentucky. You also didn't understand economic dumping or why a country would want to control transport between its own cities rather than let foreigners run everything.

I also turned out to be absolutely right about the war in Iraq.

I don't think I was wrong about that either, but the discussion was so complicated and so heated and people that I otherwise respected were so wrong that I don't like to boast about maybe getting it right. In any case, I notice you only started posting here in 2011, so nobody will know if you're truthful about that or not.

Now that I think about it, I have a pretty d@mn fine track record of calling out really bad ideas when they are first proposed.

I don't know about that. You've had some nutty ideas yourself even apart from the Civil War stuff. I'll have to start keeping track of them.

It would seem to me the earlier elite still had some sense of ethics that the later elite had lost. The Kennedys were effectively Mafiosos because their fortunes were made with criminal activity. John, Robert and Teddy were spoiled rotten rich brats. Second generation wealth always seems less capable than the earlier generations.

If you blame them for getting it wrong in the Sixties you ought to at least recognize that they did get something very important right at another time.

The WWII generation has been regarded as the "greatest generation" for good reasons. It was a time when everyone was pulling for what they believed to be the best interests of the country.

You were completely illogical about the Confederate invasion of Kentucky.

Disagree. The North had already invaded Missouri and Maryland, and the South was trying to grab whatever it could at that point. Kentucky should have been a natural ally for them, and so the effort made sense in the context of a war which had already began.

You also didn't understand economic dumping or why a country would want to control transport between its own cities rather than let foreigners run everything.

Addressed in the message prior to this one. Even if your theory about economic dumping would have occurred in an independent South, the end consequence would be a gain in value for the Southern states, and a massive loss of income in the Northern manufacturing states.

Well what was *your* position on the war in Iraq?

I notice you only started posting here in 2011, so nobody will know if you're truthful about that or not.

I have posted elsewhere before 2011, and I have mentioned my position on the war in Iraq many times on this forum, so if I'm lying, I've been doing it for a long time.

In a nutshell, Paul Bremmer with the acquiescence of George W Bush, absolutely f***ed up everything. They showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Nature of the Iraqi people and their society. They turned a victory into a nightmare by the stupid decisions they made, and it could have turned out so very much better.

I predicted exactly what was going to happen when Bremmer made his announcement that he was both disbanding the Iraqi army and banning any member of the Ba'ath party from working in the Government.

I said at the time, "He has just given the most dangerous men in Iraq a very good reason to kill as many Americans as they possibly can." They will now attempt to wipe us out in any manner of which they can conceive.

The bombs started going off days later, exactly as I knew they would.

Said at the time, " I can't believe all those "War College" graduates did not tell Bremmer that this is absolutely the most stupid thing he could possibly do. "

We didn't even do this with Nazi Germany, and that's because our leadership back then had better sense.

You've had some nutty ideas yourself even apart from the Civil War stuff.

Would be interested to know what ideas I have advanced that you regard as "nutty."

Now I do occasionally engage in hyperbole and attempting to get a rise out of people, so sometimes I will say things that are a little outrageous just to provoke a conversation, but I also argue soberly and seriously, so I guess it would depend on the subject and my mood at the time.

But by all means, identify any of my ideas you consider nutty.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.