# Should America have just allowed the vietcong to overrun the Southern Vietnam?



## Theowl32 (Jun 4, 2016)

Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies? 

Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country. 

Let us know what we should have done. Let us hear your plan. Not defend our allies like we did with South Korea (make no mistake, the left still think we were wrong for defending South Korea from the COMMUNISTS.)?

I say it is not that we defended the South Vietnam from the scumbag murdering communists. It is that we conducted the war from a political angle. We allowed the scumbags here to dictate foreign policy that eventually led to the killing fields and slaughter of millions. That, was what was immoral. 

To me. 

Lets hear it left wingers. Should America have not got involved at all and allowed the vietcong to just take over and murder our allies? Should we have allowed the spread of communism with out ANY sort of defense of any of our allies?

Go ahead and please explain it. Behold the double talk everyone.


----------



## kaz (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...



The domino theory was right and we should have gone in and won the war.  However, it would have been better to have stayed out of it than to do it the way we did


----------



## Freewill (Jun 4, 2016)

If it hadn't happened anyway I think your point would be more solidly made.

The US fought to a draw with the north in Vietnam.   Cronkite and his lying was just too much.  He painted the TET offensive as a huge US loss when in fact it was nearly the death nell for the North.  They threw everything they had at the South and got their asses handed to them by our brave men.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...



Yes.  It was none of our business.


----------



## Siete (Jun 4, 2016)

as I was typing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nam, like Iraq is another country we had no business fucking with ... sooner or later the damn war-dogs will figure out minding their own business is cheaper and far less lethal ..


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 4, 2016)

kaz said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...


Indeed,they were never trying to win it,they had their hands tied.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 4, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...


so very true.


----------



## kaz (Jun 4, 2016)

[





9/11 inside job said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > The domino theory was right and we should have gone in and won the war.  However, it would have been better to have stayed out of it than to do it the way we did
> ...



Yep.  I come from a military family and military community.  One family friend was a pilot.  He would fly over factories making weapons to kill Americans and if he had fired one shot at them would have been court marshaled, it killed him to not be able to do that.

Johnson turned the war into his economic policy


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 4, 2016)

You do know that the Commies took over Vietnam anyway.  All we did was delay them and killed a whole bunch of Vietnamese in the process. Plus, was it not a French colony and somehow they left that mess to us?

Do you mean Korea? South Korea did come about from our intervention.  Hell, I bet if North Koreans could see SK, they would realize the commies are full of crap.  Then again, I bet North Koreans knew that anyway


----------



## Preacher (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...


Yep. It was none of our god damn business oh and if you hadn't realized we lost 58,000 American soldiers and we STILL LOST THE FUCKING WAR! Funny how they had no problem dropping a nuke on Japan but not one on Vietnam.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Jun 4, 2016)

Siete said:


> as I was typing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Nam, like Iraq is another country we had no business fucking with ... sooner or later the damn war-dogs will figure out minding their own business is cheaper and far less lethal ..



Nah, too much profit in it.  US arms corps are cleaning up selling to all sides.  Why do you think our 6 multinational corporate owned media/indoctrination machine is always selling fear and anxiety?  Over half of all discretionary spending goes to the war industry and military.  And that’s just the bits we can get a look at, much of that type of spending is hidden now within the surveillance state apparatus.  That spending contributes to the financial hollowing out of society at home.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2016)

No but at the same time the US military should have been allowed to fight the war...not politicians


----------



## Preacher (Jun 4, 2016)

Jews started communism,Vietnam war was about STOPPING the spread of Jewish Communism hence the war was Jewish attempt to have as many young able bodied for the most part WHITE MEN die as possible. Kill the able bodied,strong,fertile generation off of the gentile you are closer to having world domination at the same time having your Jew pals in the US stick politics into fighting a war thousands of miles away and to stop any real attempt at winning the war.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 4, 2016)

Siete said:


> as I was typing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Nam, like Iraq is another country we had no business fucking with ... sooner or later the damn war-dogs will figure out minding their own business is cheaper and far less lethal ..



Yeah, we should just do what we did in Libya and Syria.  Bomb the shit out of them so their leader is murdered creating a power vacuum. Then arming the Syrian rebels creating ISIS/ISSL.  Which has resulted in one of the big humanitarian crisis in history.  Thankfully Europe is bearing most of the brunt of our misadventure.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 4, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> No but at the same time the US military should have been allowed to fight the war...not politicians



What more would you have done then Operation Linebacker?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 4, 2016)

Odium said:


> Jews started communism,Vietnam war was about STOPPING the spread of Jewish Communism hence the war was Jewish attempt to have as many young able bodied for the most part WHITE MEN die as possible. Kill the able bodied,strong,fertile generation off of the gentile you are closer to having world domination at the same time having your Jew pals in the US stick politics into fighting a war thousands of miles away and to stop any real attempt at winning the war.









The idiotic anti-Semites have to try and spam every topic and every thread with their stupid pet fear/obsession. Idiotic weaklings.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2016)

Freewill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > No but at the same time the US military should have been allowed to fight the war...not politicians
> ...



Unleashed the most powerful military on the planet. No ROE....no mercy


----------



## Siete (Jun 4, 2016)

Freewill said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > as I was typing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ...




we should stay home, 

the end


----------



## Freewill (Jun 4, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Really, isn't that what we did? I think if pushed any further then the US would have been fighting China, as we did in NK.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 4, 2016)

amrchaos said:


> You do know that the Commies took over Vietnam anyway.  All we did was delay them and killed a whole bunch of Vietnamese in the process. Plus, was it not a French colony and somehow they left that mess to us?
> 
> Do you mean Korea? South Korea did come about from our intervention.  Hell, I bet if North Koreans could see SK, they would realize the commies are full of crap.  Then again, I bet North Koreans knew that anyway



Yeah, they took over cause we did not commit to beating the commies back. Maybe you did not get it.

The commies would not have "taken over anyway." That was the point of the South Korea. WE were still a country with national pride.

However, by the 60s,  the commies had clearly infiltrated so many aspects of our government, the media and entertainment industry. (McCarthy was also pretty much vindicated about his paranoia. Considering the testimony of EX KGB agents after the fall of the USSR in the VENONA PAPERS.)

That was what was truly offensive to the pathetic left and what is truly pathetic now. The left believe it was bad to stop the spread of communism.....CAUSE THEY ARE FEAKING COMMUNISTS!!!

Everything in this country changed (our nationalistic pride) after the assassination of Kennedy. You ever know what the KGB did? Go ahead and look it up. They planted a letter that was deliberately intercepted by the media where it insinuated the CIA assassinated Kennedy. That was a stroke of genius on their part.

After the fall of this country and if the world exists in a couple hundred years, they will identify that incident as the beginning of the fall. No way, and I mean no way could the leftists (clearly infiltrated the country by Kennedy) allow the FACT that a COMMUNIST like LEE HARVEY OSWALD assassinated their hero Kennedy. No way.

It had to be done by a good ole boy south conservative. It just had to be. To this day people believe it and no one has really believed the government since then. We have been in the age of cynicism since that point.

Defending our ally in South Vietnam was the right thing. Conducting the war the way they did was pathetic.


----------



## Jack4jill (Jun 4, 2016)

*Should America have just allowed the vietcong to overrun the Southern Vietnam? *

Since we were getting our asses kicked, it wasn't really a choice now was it?


----------



## Freewill (Jun 4, 2016)

Siete said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



yeah we should have but LBJ didn't, Bush didn't and Obama didn't.  But some how I am thinking you will blame only Bush.


----------



## Siete (Jun 4, 2016)

Freewill said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




you brought up 43, not me.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 4, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> *Should America have just allowed the vietcong to overrun the Southern Vietnam? *
> 
> Since we were getting our asses kicked, it wasn't really a choice now was it?



the US NEVER got their ASSES kicked, you are wrong. (on edit I changed you lie to are wrong because I think you are like most liberals, you don't remember or understand history)

EVERY major battle was won by the US, except the one with liars like you and Cronkite.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 4, 2016)

Freewill said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



We did up to Hanoi...then the politicians stepped in


----------



## my2¢ (Jun 4, 2016)

Eisenhower should have stuck with initial assessment back in '54 of,  "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions."  LBJ should not have gone back on his peace pledge of '64 but instead turned conduct of our intervention over to the military in early '65.


----------



## turzovka (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...



_"We war not against flesh and blood but against the evil spirits in the air." _  Ephesians 6:12

The devil was Soviet and Chinese communism.   Who would have stopped them if the USA did not?    I imagine the reason we could not have gone in their and just won the war was because it would have come off as a massacre of the North Vietnamese people.   And war is so hated by all, it was a political disaster and catch 22.  

I would have supported military aggression to save the South Vietnamese from brutal oppression just as I believe it ws surely right to save South Korea from a similar fate.      Just as I supported going into Afghanistan after 9/11.   I did not support the Iraq invasion at all.     But choices to go to war or not will always be difficult and unpopular.


----------



## konradv (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Yeah, they took over cause we did not commit to beating the commies back


There was no "beating them back".  They were a part of the fabric of the country.  It was a civil war in which we chose to back the losing side.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 4, 2016)

turzovka said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...


The thing you need to remember post 911 was how our paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats from abroad.

We ALL witnessed what 19 men could do to our country WITH OUT A GUN (that fact pisses right in the face of the anti-gun communist left doesn't it?).

The entire world knew saddam had WMDs. We all knew he was attempting to get a nuclear arsenal. This was confirmed by ex generals and even his two son in laws who he had executed. It culminated in the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs signed by Clinton.

After 911 we became more proactive rather than reactive.

It is easy to say it was wrong NOW, however it is a better world with out saddam in it. The moronic hypocrites on the left who hate everything about America and claim they are on the side of the poor and down trodden still wish saddam was in power torturing and murdering those people they claim they love so much.

There is no limit to how hypocritical the left wing COMMUNISTS allow themselves to get. Make no mistake. The were offended by the Vietnam conflict cause we had the gall to stop the spread of their dream. Communism around the world.

They are even admitting it in this thread. They are too stupid to even realize it.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 4, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> *Should America have just allowed the vietcong to overrun the Southern Vietnam? *
> 
> Since we were getting our asses kicked....



Wrong.


----------



## Jack4jill (Jun 4, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > *Should America have just allowed the vietcong to overrun the Southern Vietnam? *
> ...


We could never win, you dumb bitch.  It's in the Pentagon Papers, why they fought to keep them from being released.

And like every war, with the possible exception of GW1, we should not have been fighting it.  It was none of our goddamned business.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 4, 2016)

The war between north and south Vietnam was an internal civil war.

Which the U.S. had no business being involved in.    ..........


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 4, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...







As someone already told you, we never lost a single major engagement throughout the war.


Your arbitrary declaration about what was or was not "any of our business," reveals the severity of your ignorance and naïveté.


----------



## Jack4jill (Jun 4, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Did Vietnam attack us?  Were they invading California?

What the fuck business of ours was it to be there?

Right, it wasn't.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...


Vietnam was a Civil War
The U.S. Treated it like a Cold War

The French fucked up the political situation and the U.S. Came in and tried to pretend we were defending Democracy


----------



## turzovka (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Pretty much in agreement with you on much here.

But I do not think going into Iraq and the inevitable nightmare was the best way of dealing with Saddam and WMDs.   I did not perceive Iraq as any greater threat to the region or the USA than other Arab states or Iran.   And not as great of a concern as terrorist cells dotted across the region, not just in Afghanistan.   I would have preferred something like putting all Arab states and Iran on notice  --- if we can prove they are allowing terrorist cells or movements to train and reside within their borders then we will assume the privilege for the sake of innocents and the free world to engage in surgical strikes at our discretion.    Stealth missions to blow up their encampments and terrorists themselves.     

It would be prolonged, no doubt, but something to that effect would probably be more humane and understandable by the greater part of nations.    I would still do it now.    If a nation allows terrorists to train and reside in their country then they are on the side of terrorism.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...



2016- Vietnam- America and the United States are at peace, and are great business partners- and Vietnamese themselves are as prosperous and as 'free' as their neighbors.

We know what happened- we know we were involved and thousands of Americans died, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese- and here we are today- at peace with 'Communist' Vietnam- which is Communist in name only.

What did we accomplish in the Vietnamese war? I say that not to dishonor our veterans who fought on behalf of our country- but to look honestly at what we accomplished.


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 4, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...



Don't you mean WWII?  We were attacked in that war.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

amrchaos said:


> You do know that the Commies took over Vietnam anyway.  All we did was delay them and killed a whole bunch of Vietnamese in the process. Plus, was it not a French colony and somehow they left that mess to us?
> 
> Do you mean Korea? South Korea did come about from our intervention.  Hell, I bet if North Koreans could see SK, they would realize the commies are full of crap.  Then again, I bet North Koreans knew that anyway




You do know that the same people that got us into Vietnam were also supporting the Viet-Cong, right? The same people that run the western world also built up communism. Don't be a condescending asswipe, douchebag.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2016)

LBJ never gave a damn about Vietnam. 
But he was not going to let it fall to the Communists on his watch. His advisors told him that if he would just send in 100,000 more boys we would be home by Christmas. Then another 100,000 and another and another

We ended up with 60,000 dead for no reason


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 4, 2016)

The Korean war was a civil war in which our involvement saved SK.

In fact, the comparison makes a hard argument for interventionism.

However, Eisenhower stopped the Korean War and negotiated a truce.  Nixon was probably expected to do the same but did not.

If we got serious with breaking the north, we could have the war.  But Vietnam would need serious rebuilding afterwards.


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 4, 2016)

If the West hadn't demanded rubber latex from slavish work conditions there, there would never have been Vietnamese communists.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2016)

The South Vietnamese basically refused to fight for their own country. That final NVA offensive? It started out as bit of recon. And at first contact, the ARVN fled, leaving all the massive stockpiles of weapons we had given them behind. The NVA gladly picked them up and said "Well golly, if they're giving us all their weapons and running away, we may as well keep on going to Saigon."

Hence, the war was a lost cause. You can't win a civil war if one side won't fight.

Hence, it was smart to cut our losses.


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > You do know that the Commies took over Vietnam anyway.  All we did was delay them and killed a whole bunch of Vietnamese in the process. Plus, was it not a French colony and somehow they left that mess to us?
> ...


Are you talking about the French? 
 They run the western world and built up communism!!?!!
Sacrebleu!!


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 4, 2016)

Jack4jill said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Jack4jill said:
> ...








You have the luxury of being this much of a short-sighted fool because your betters have more sense than the likes of you.


----------



## Camp (Jun 4, 2016)

Unkotare said:


> Jack4jill said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


I always had a problem with the interpretation and definition of "never losing a major battle or engagement".


----------



## Camp (Jun 4, 2016)

Truman should have never accepted the recolonization and claims by France for Indochina after WWII. Neither he nor Eisenhower should have turned the other way and permitted arms and war materials designated for the rebuilding of French forces in Europe to be covertly transferred to Indochina for their recolonization efforts. Eisenhower should not have supported the agreed upon elections in North and South Vietnam being canceled. That is my opinion. Others obviously feel differently.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> LBJ never gave a damn about Vietnam.
> But he was not going to let it fall to the Communists on his watch. His advisors told him that if he would just send in 100,000 more boys we would be home by Christmas. Then another 100,000 and another and another
> 
> We ended up with 60,000 dead for no reason




As usual, you don't have a fucking clue. It was because of LBJ that they went in to Vietnam in the first place.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

amrchaos said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



I am talking about the banking oligarchs that have their central banks in every country but a few...some of which just happen to be enemies of USA.INC....you do know that this "gubermint" is actually a massive corporate entity...right?

Vietnam was all about making money for the military industrial complex, importing opium and killing monks that had defied and kicked out the jesuits back in the day. The Vietnam war was often referred to as "Spelly's War" as in New York's Cardinal Spellman that was a jesuit. That seems to be one of our biggest problems now....too many fucking jesuit trained people in places of high power....which is what jesuits do when they get a foothold in any country.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 4, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...



We accomplished nothing. What our relationship is now is not the point. Then again giving that communist nation WEAPONS......oh never mind. 

My point is we SHOULD HAVE defended our allies. It was a GOOD THING to stop the rampant expansion of the COMMUNISTS. 

IF we did not do that for South Korea, there would be NO SOUTH KOREA. Maybe you have not noticed, but North Korea is run by despotism. That would have been ALL of Korea. Yet, the left here still think we should not have been involved in that campaign. 

Hardly do I ever see any left winger ever criticize anything communist. Nothing. In fact the left still think the vietcong had every right to rage across South Vietnam. They had every right to rape and murder. The Khmer Rouge had every right to be the thugs they were and for Pol Pot to murder millions. 

I swear I have not seen a thing by ANY of them criticizing that. No, the offensive part for the left was the fact that WE had the gall to stop the spread of communism. 

I blame EVERY DEATH committed by Pol Pot and the left wingers here. Especially that disgusting pathetic disgraceful traitor Hanoi Jane.


----------



## Camp (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LBJ never gave a damn about Vietnam.
> ...


Please contact the Vietnam Veterans Memorial at once with your new information. Those people put names of Americans serving in Vietnam on the Wall all the way back to 1959 and still have not added the names of the five soldiers killed in 1957. No doubt they will be glad to hear from you so they can get their history straight.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

Camp said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




USA.INC has covert operatives in nearly every fucking country and has for over 100 years and soldiers get killed all the time but there was nothing obligating any more resources of American involvement in Vietnam until LBJ and his cronies that killed JFK made the false claim that a ship was attacked in the Gulf Of Tonkin....you know, false flag events that morons like you and your leftard pals claim never happen???


----------



## longknife (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LBJ never gave a damn about Vietnam.
> ...



It is clear you have a total lack of knowledge about Indochina and the centuries of history there. Your simplistic comment about LBJ shows your ignorance of the subject.


----------



## longknife (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Another ignorant response. Where do you get your talking points? Off a public bathroom wall?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

longknife said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...



How about 16,000 plus hours of reading, listening to documentaries and lectures......where do you get yours?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Jun 4, 2016)

Odium said:


> Jews started communism


No they didn't. Karl Marx was just the first to identify it and give it a name.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

JQPublic1 said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > Jews started communism
> ...




The Jesuits are the ones that created communism. Marx and Engels were coached and directed by jesuit priests.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...


 And the Jesuits got it from their Master and Lord: Jesus Christ! Brotherly love and altruism is the ultimate definition of Communism! Materialism is the antithesis of that you capitalist devils,heh heh heh!


----------



## longknife (Jun 4, 2016)

I'm going to make this short. 

The French were in Indochina for economic reasons, tea and latex from rubber trees. They united a number of warring ethnic factions.

As usual, at the end of WWII, politicians with absolutely not idea of the realities of the region, came to agreements that would eventually lead to turmoil.

Ho Chi Mihn actually tried to get the western allies to allow him to fight for them against the emerging Chinese Communists who he felt would try to take over the whole region.

Rubber was considered a vital product for industrialization and was exactly why we became involved even though Ike strongly advised against it. Once the French got their butts kicked (as usual), the USA stepped in to fill the void and stop the commies - which Ho Chi Mihn ended up turning to in order to save the integrity of the country he wanted independent of foreign rule.

The US politicians never allowed the military to actually win the war. As they do today in Afghanistan and did in Iraq, they constantly put obstacles in the way of winning the conflict. Refusal to cut off supplies along the Ho Chi Mihn Trail and - just like in Korea - restrictions on activities north of the DMZ.

Ironically, it was the billions in weaponry we left behind that allowed Vietnam to fight off incursions from China and to protect its borders from Cambodia.

So, instead of spouting off without the slightest idea of what you're talking about, take the time to READ the history of the entire area!


----------



## longknife (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



Do you continually wallow in the more of stupidity?

I know better than to suggest that you actually come up with FACTS to back up your drivel.


----------



## Zander (Jun 4, 2016)

I think it was a mistake. The entire "containment" strategy was a failure. Communism doesn't need to be "contained", it always fails on it's own.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Jun 4, 2016)

TIMOTHY 1:6:

*6*But godliness with contentment is great gain.

*7*For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.

*8*And having food and clothing let us be with these things content.

*9*But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which plunge men into destruction and perdition.

*10**For the love of money is the root of all evil:* which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 4, 2016)

Zander said:


> I think it was a mistake. The entire "containment" strategy was a failure. Communism doesn't need to be "contained", it always fails on it's own.


True enough, however not before MASS devastation and some sort of genocide is committed. The overall point is we defended an ally. 

It is stopping the spread of communism that offended the left. Under the guise of "peace" they seduced the morons in the country. 

Meaning most of the protests were done by impressionable moronic college students. "Pawns" for the communists that infiltrated the highest levels of our government and entertainment industry. 

Highlighted by the whore that partied it up with the murdering vietcong. To this day that unreal moron still thinks she was on the side of "victims" of mean white right wing war America. 

I hate left wingers. They are either too stupid to know they are pawns or they are the pawn pushers.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

JQPublic1 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...




Obviously you do not know much about what the jesuits are all about.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 4, 2016)

*Should America have just allowed the vietcong to overrun the Southern Vietnam?*


UHHHHhhh?????  We did.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

longknife said:


> I'm going to make this short.
> 
> The French were in Indochina for economic reasons, tea and latex from rubber trees. They united a number of warring ethnic factions.
> 
> ...




I know exactly what I am talking about. The oligarchs that control this world allowed China to turn communist and they funded the communists in Russia as well. All wars are banker wars...period. It's not fucking complicated at all and it's very depressing when you come to the realization that there is too much power and wealth in too few hands controlling the fates of billions but that is the reality we live in. BTW, I don't trust one fucking thing I was taught in school when it comes to our history because I have found it to be utter bullshit from beginning to end.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 4, 2016)

It's all in the past.

But Our (once) New Messiah has just went all kissy-faced with them so if you don't sing an enthusiastic hymn of praise to the children  of Comrade Ho then you're Democrat-defined as "unpatriotic".....

Now raise those voices LOUD!


----------



## longknife (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to make this short.
> ...



It must be tough to live in a world filled with so many conspiracies. Do you check under your bed every night before climbing into it? And run an electronic check for bugs?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

longknife said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Google "Jesuits, Communism, Paraguay" and let me know what you come up with.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

longknife said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...




It must be tough to believe even half of the shit that shoveled to you by the lamestream media and the public school system.  Operation Gladio....look it up. It's been declassified. Just curious, what exactly did I post that has put such a bug up your ass?  I usually give your postings high ratings because I agree with a lot of stuff you post. I study this shit every day and I have a very good grasp on what is going on, what has gone on and where we are heading and it ain't good unless people wake up to it.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


No, I want you to tell me how YOUR definition alters this one:

Jesuit |ˈjeZHəwətˈjezəwət| nouna member of the Society of Jesus, a Roman Catholic order of priests founded by St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, and others in 1534, to do missionary work. The order was zealous in opposing the Reformation. Despite periodic persecution it has retained an important influence in Catholic thought and education.
*`generic dictionary*


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...



If you knew history, you wouldn't need to have anything explained, and might understand why the worlds is as it is today.

State of Vietnam referendum, 1955 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1956 in the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You also might look into how the CIA & DOD interfered in Iran during the Eisenhower Administration.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

JQPublic1 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



The real purpose of the Jesuits was to counter the Reformation started by Martin Luther that put the Bible into the hands of everyone which was costly to the catholic church because the people came to the realization that the catholic church was nothing but a pagan religion with a little Christianity thrown in for affect. No such thing as pergatory, no such thing as confession, no such thing as paying in advance for indulgences (sins) and it cost the Vatican in money and power. The Jesuits were created to go after heretics and they killed millions in Europe that would not pledge loyalty to the pope. They were kicked out of 83 countries from the mid 1500's to 1930 for subterfuge, political intrigue and plotting to take over governments. Guy Fawkes, the one that was immortalized by the movie "V for Vendetta" because of the mask was a jesuit that wanted to blow up Parliament because they had kicked out the Jesuits. After so much killing, the catholic church suppressed them in 1773 and that was when Adam Weishaupt was commissioned by the House of Rothschild to create the Bavarian Illuminati manifesto that finished on May 1st, 1776 which by the way is a communist holiday. Weishaupt was a jesuit and studied Canon law. The pope that suppressed the jesuits was poisoned and died a very painful and slow death. They were re-instated around 1815 or so much to the chagrin of a few of our founding fathers. John Adams had this to say "_My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola.”
_


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...



You don't know how it pains me to have to agree with you......


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LBJ never gave a damn about Vietnam.
> ...


Are you an absolute nutjob on every issue?

We were already there

LBJ listened to the "commie menace" advisors and believed they could be quickly dispatched. He did not want to be the President that Vietnam turned commie on


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



100 percent UTTER bullshit. This is a topic that never fails to piss me off because I know the truth and idiots like you lack the intellectual properties to put the pieces of this puzzle in place. There would not have been ANY communist threat had it not been for the power brokers that run the banks and Wall Street and the same goes for Nazism in Germany. All of it was planned and funded by these pieces of shit.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



A mind is a terrible thing to waste

Yours is past saving


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Coming from a Fabian socialist piece of shit like you? That's beyond fucking funny..,...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Fabian?

I liked Bobby Darin


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...



It was none of your business. The US and the world - as it was subsequently shown - didn't collapse when Ho took over. Countries should be in charge of their own destinies.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 4, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...


Got it. Allow genocide cause it is none of our business.

Do me favor.  Don't tell me how you care for anyone.  At least be honest about your selective outrage.


Geee, if only south Korea was overrun too. Another American "unjust" war in your pathetic left American hating pathetic hand book.

Everything is America's fault. We have no right to defend allies. If genocide is happening,  just Fuckem. 

Duly noted.  Yeap, they are indeed the hypocritical double talking piles of crap I say they are and they proudly reveal it in this thread.

6 million slaughtered but the world "did not come to an end" according to this unreal hypocrite.

Don't you love it when I reveal their double standards with my threads?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> [
> Got it. Allow genocide cause it is none of our business.
> 
> Do me favor.  Don't tell me how you care for anyone.  At least be honest about your selective outrage.
> ...



Allow genocides? Really? Stop being so fucking selective. Genocide? That bothers you? When are you going to invade North Korea? China? Name a country in Africa? What about South and Central America? Burma? I could go on.

Everything is America's fault? Hardly, but you sure like sticking your nose into everybody's else's business and it is rarely for ultruistic reasons so stop pretending it is. Since WWII you have been very selective about your interventions and almost all have served your own self-interests and have nothing to do with helping the citizens of the country being invaded. So stop the crap.

As opposed to genocides on the subject at hand -Vietnam - what genocides? It was a wasted war based on nothing. Want proof? The US lost. What happened after? Not a lot. Vietnam is humming along quite nicely under its own steam and has had little or no effect on the Western world. Go figure. And just to rub salt into your wound the South Vietnam Govt - the one the US was 'defending' was hardly a paragon of freedom, justice and the American way...


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 4, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


What genocide?  Holy shit.



What genocide?

Dear God I hate the left.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 4, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> What genocide?
> 
> Dear God I hate the left.



Your video is not working. Is it of My Lai? And is that all you took out of my post.? No wonder the right are so one dimensional...


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 4, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > What genocide?
> ...


You are a freaking loser. 


No genocide? You deranged ignorant damn piece of shit. ALL AMERICA'S FAULT.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 4, 2016)

konradv said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, they took over cause we did not commit to beating the commies back
> ...


No, you chose to back the French imperialists who had no business being there. Ho Chi Minh actually based his constitution on the US one. 


The US was dead wrong on this.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 4, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



Really? Ho Chi Minh wasn't a communist? Yeaaaah, I don't think so.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 5, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



First time I've read Fabian socialist since the Odd one disappeared.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

Siete said:


> as I was typing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Nam, like Iraq is another country we had no business fucking with ... sooner or later the damn war-dogs will figure out minding their own business is cheaper and far less lethal ..


Vietnam and Iraq are not really comparable. The USA had no national security concerns in Vietnam.

It was just another one of those unnecessary wars that the evil Democrats used as an excuse to enslave young Americans, throw them in a meat grinder and use them as cannon fodder while they enrich themselves.

Then a bit of sanity took over and America elected a Republican president in order to get us out of Vietnam. He had his faults, but that is one reason that Nixon should be commended.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

Agit8r said:


> If the West hadn't demanded rubber latex from slavish work conditions there, there would never have been Vietnamese communists.


The US did not need rubber. Thanks to B.F. Goodrich, the US was producing more than double the amount of synthetic rubber than the entire world's production of natural rubber.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

On the lighter side...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 5, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



lol, General Armchair weighs in.

Why?  What business of ours was a civil war in Vietnam?


----------



## Freewill (Jun 5, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



And another Monday quarterback is heard from.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 5, 2016)

Freewill said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



I was in the military 71 to 73.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 5, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Where do you get that I stated he wasn't. The word communist didn't even appear in my post.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 5, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > as I was typing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ...


Nixon supported and encouraged the war in Vietnam from the get go. When he became President he actually increased America's involvement in the war and started bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia. Nixon also secretly blocked President Johnson's efforts for a cease fire back in 1968.
George Will Confirms Nixon's Vietnam Treason


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 5, 2016)

So, the left continue to celebrate the genocide committed by the communists in South Vietnam.

They also never ever ever express any sort of disdain towards the genocide committed by any communist regime throughout history.


Ohhhh,  but they sure are quick to point their pathetic bony pot stained fingers at America for having the unmitigated gall to stop the spread of tyranny.

This entire thread pretty much says that. They sure show their disgust towards America and none of them have expressed any disgust towards the vietcong or the khmer rouge.

Just towards America.


Can you believe it?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> So, the left continue to celebrate the genocide committed by the communists in South Vietnam.
> 
> They also never ever ever express any sort of disdain towards the genocide committed by any communist regime throughout history.
> 
> ...



60,000 dead Americans


----------



## whitehall (Jun 5, 2016)

Korea was justified even though Troops were sent on an executive order but under an inept democrat administration it was handled so badly that we still live with the legacy today. LBJ sent Troops to Vietnam and typical of democrat administrations he set the rules so that we could win every battle and still fail to liberate the country. Today the president jets all over the world on an apology tour while Americans come home with no legs fighting in a conflict in Afghanistan which is guaranteed by a democrat administration to fail. That's the way liberalism works. .


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


Bullshit.

Nixon was elected to END US involvement in the war. That is his most notable campaign promise. And he lived up to it.

He also, much to the chagrin of DNC apologists, abolished slavery in the USA.

THINK!


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 5, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Not Bullshit. US had supported the French during their war years with Vietnam. The Eisenhower administration which Nixon was a part of were for sending millions of dollars to the french and the Republicans were always about supporting the war whether it was US involvement or the French.

As for Nixon's campaign promise, Johnson campaigned on US De-esculation in Vietnam. Looks like they both broke their promises. I noticed you completely ignored the article I presented in which Nixon himself kept the war going on longer than it should have.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 5, 2016)

Just in case you have any question as to why I hate ALL of them. HATE. ALL. OF. THEM. 











America sure has been bad to her and her family, hasn't it? 











She is still a communist. If you do not hate the pathetic double talking hypocritical morons on the left as much as me, why don't you?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Just in case you have any question as to why I hate ALL of them. HATE. ALL. OF. THEM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


History has proven Jane Fonda right about Vietnam

It was the war Hawks demanding more troops who were the traitors


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 5, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



Do not worry man. Good news for you. America lost and the commies committed genocide. Too bad the North Koreans did not get that chance. 

Oh well, cannot win them all. 

You can continue to celebrate though at America's failure and the mass murders committed by the vietcong and Khmer rouge.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 5, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Just in case you have any question as to why I hate ALL of them. HATE. ALL. OF. THEM.
> ...


 Like I said loser. Celebrate. 

Over 6 million South Vietnamese were killed. Yeeeah, she sure was right. 

I hope I get to kick the teeth out of your face. Know that.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 5, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



She wanted our boys home where they belonged

Those calling to escalate the war were responsible for 60,000 deaths......traitors

I am an Internet badass......you better not mess with me or you will end up like the others


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 5, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Are you aware the the US supported the Khmer Rouge. Are you also aware that it was the Vietnamese that defeated the Khmer Rouge. You keep branching off into different factions, You need to stay focused. Are we talking about Vietnam, Cambodia or North Korea. You are all over the place.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


The ridiculous blog article you linked to is garbage. Nobody who is not very ignorant of the subject takes it seriously.



THINK!


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 5, 2016)

I am a vet and have fellow veterans this question, "What good did we do in Vietnam?".

All I have ever gotten was blank stares and silence.   .......


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> I am a vet and have fellow veterans this question, "What good did we do in Vietnam?".
> 
> All I have ever gotten was blank stares and silence.   .......


What would you expect in response to such an ignorant question?


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 5, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> What would you expect in response to such an ignorant question?


What's ignorant about the question?

Maybe you can answer it?

I am only here to learn.    ......


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > What would you expect in response to such an ignorant question?
> ...


I can tell that English, the official language of USMB, is not you first language.

The problem is not your necessarily your opinion on the matter, I think it is that the wording of your question is presumptuous.

The premise of your question presumes that the US did good in Vietnam in the first place.

You are committing a logical fallacy known as Petitio Principii (aka begging the question) when you propose that type of question.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 5, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> I can tell that English, the official language of USMB, is not you first language.
> The problem is not your necessarily your opinion on the matter, I think it is that the wording of your question is presumptuous.
> The premise of your question presumes that the US did good in Vietnam in the first place.
> You are committing a logical fallacy known as Petitio Principii (aka begging the question) when you propose that type of question.



Here ya go..... I'll rephrase the sentence so that even a simpleton like you can comprehend the question.

"What did we accomplish in Vietnam"?     .......


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I can tell that English, the official language of USMB, is not you first language.
> ...


You are making the same mistake again.

Your question is premised on the presumption that we accomplished something in Vietnam in the first place.

Try again.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 5, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Your question is premised on the presumption that we accomplished something in Vietnam in the first place.
> 
> Try again.


Nope.......you are too stupid to fool with.

Welcome to Ignore land.

Bye   .....


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 5, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Your question is premised on the presumption that we accomplished something in Vietnam in the first place.
> ...



Your concession is respectfully accepted.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 6, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> What genocide?
> 
> Dear God I hate the left.



God you're ignorant. Just so you know Cambodia is not Vietnam, but idiots like you probably think they're all gooks, right? You know the US was not at war with Cambodia, right? You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 6, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> So, the left continue to celebrate the genocide committed by the communists in South Vietnam.
> 
> They also never ever ever express any sort of disdain towards the genocide committed by any communist regime throughout history.
> 
> ...



Couple of things here, Moron. You don't even know the difference between Cambodia and Vietnam so you come across as an ignorant hack. The Khmer Rouge govt was a very different one from Ho Chi Mihns. 

The Vietcong wanted what they saw as foreign oppressors out of their country. You mean you wouldn't mind foreigners invading your country and telling you what to do? Also, you act like the South Vietnamese govt was a freedom-loving, pius regime. It was oppressive and treated those who opposed it with disdain and murdered them too.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 6, 2016)

Mao escalated his war in Viet Nam immediately after hitting a stalemate in Korea; his ultimate plans were to take over VN followed immediately by Laos and Cambodia. He was hoping to pressure France into giving him western technology to launch his 'superpower programme' of modernization and reducing his dependence on the Soviets as a complementary goal. Dien ben Phu was a battle ordered by Mao, and Ho was also supposed to drive on Hanoi as well, which would have exhausted Ho's forces, something Mao didn't care about, and thus was born Ho's switch to Soviet support. More later, I'm out of time now, but yes, Viet Nam was very important, for a number of key strategic reasons.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 6, 2016)

Vietnam was nothing but a proxy war with the USSR
It was a poorly played game of brinkmanship that did nothing but kill a lot of people for absolutely nothing
My Dad included


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 6, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


It's based on the transcripts of FBI wiretaps that were released to the public. The final ones were released on August 19, 2013.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 6, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


It is based on no such thing.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 6, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Nrxt you're going to tell me the BBC and the Washington Post are blogs too.
Nixon’s long shadow
The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason' - BBC News


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 6, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Those links do not support your assertions. You are simply ignorant of history. Period.

I gave you a free history lesson, however, some people are very hard learners. That's why they spend their life wallowing in ignorance.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 6, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Yet the titles of those links are exactly what I stated. Time to move on.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 6, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Your unwise decision to remain ignorant is your choice alone.


----------



## longknife (Jun 6, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > So, the left continue to celebrate the genocide committed by the communists in South Vietnam.
> ...



And the uncounted thousands of Vietnamese killed by the communist regime. Not counting the 2+ million slaughtered in Cambodia and unknown numbers in Laos.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 10, 2016)

Well, it is true. The pathetic left has shown that they were more offended by America trying to stop the spread of communism and that is what they were most offended by. 

They have proven conclusively that not only do they not care about the genocide committed by the communists upon our withdrawal from Vietnam, but they celebrate to this day that America failed in that endeavor. 

Then again, the pathetic left in this country has shown they fully support ALL genocide committed by communists throughout history. 

Have you ever seen any of them condemn any of it? Neither have I.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

longknife said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Very true...there were unnecessary losses on both sides of the conflict

If we had stayed out of a Civil War it would have been quickly resolved with a small percentage of the losses....and we would have saved 60,000 of our soldiers


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 10, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...


We shouldn't have gotten involved in WW 1.  That was not our business, not at fucking all.

But leftist wanted us to die for their cause, so they got us involved, and when we didn't want to go, they drafted us.

We learned it was a horrid idea.

But the left needed dead Americans and war to get out to the Great Depression, so off, by force, to WW 2.

That created the Cold war

And war, by Force in Korea and Viet Nam.


I'm tired of Americans dying for other people.

fuck them, they are ages overdue to lear to get along.


----------



## eflatminor (Jun 10, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> 
> Just in case you want to know what truly offended the left in this country.
> 
> ...



While I'm clearly no 'left winger'...and I share your ire for scumbag murdering communists, I would say we should NOT have sent our boys to fight in Vietnam.  For one, I do believe in involuntary service (aka, the draft).  If US civilians really wanted to help the South Vietnamese, they were free to travel there and fight for that army.  Secondly, I am confident the ideology of communism is so fundamentally flawed, it will always fail, just as we see it doing so today.  Lastly, I do not think America should go looking for monsters to destroy.  Protect our borders and let the rest of the world work out their own mess.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 10, 2016)

eflatminor said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...



This has been a common sentiment shared by many dating back to the inception of this country. It is a common sentiment dating back to ancient times.

There is more than one reason why conflicts do happen and why it is not prudent just to abandon our allies etc. The most popular example of appeasement is the one that we always bring up. It is the reason why the League of Nations was dissolved and the reason why we had to deal with what had to deal with in hitler. We saw the price of not getting involved and the price the world pays for ignoring the rise of a tyrant.

Make no mistake, every president dating back to Washington had to deal with world events. Merchants in this country depend heavily on trade. Building allies with trade partners complicates issues greatly. It is not as simple as just ignoring what goes on in the world. It really is not. Sure seems like a good idea and in my ignorant days I use to think the same way.

The point of this thread was not about whether or not we should have been involved in Vietnam. It is what offended the left wingers. Not the PAWNS mind you. You know, the Hanoi Janes or the  pot head college students thinking they were all on the side of "peace."

No, this is about what offended those communists that had clearly infiltrated the deepest parts of our government and our entertainment industry. Those elements in THIS COUNTRY were offended by US preventing the spread of the tyrannical communist expansion.

Why? CAUSE THEY WERE COMMUNISTS. THEY ARE COMMUNISTS. McCarthy btw was shown that he was actually quite vindicated in his level of paranoia. That was proven by testimony by EX KGB agents in the Venona Papers. It was very much understood long before McCarthy came into the picture. The infiltration dates back to the 30s or even before. Turn of the century really.

The inception of the ACLU founded by Roger Baldwin who was a staunch communist. Influenced by the likes of the Emma Goldmans of the world.

What we are seeing now is the full CHANGE of our government and our paradigm into full blown MARXISM. The march of the world into a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT under the guise of "SOCIALISM." Pure socialism IS COMMUNISM.

The point is what we see from the Vietnam conflict. AMERICA IS BLAMED by those elements. They never ever bring up the barbarism of the communists as they raged across the land. They certainly hardly ever bring up the GENOCIDE committed by these murderous regimes.

Why do you suppose they are so quick to BLAME AMERICA and hardly say a PEEP about the mass murders?


----------



## Camp (Jun 10, 2016)

eflatminor said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...


The Domino Theory was believed and a viable threat. Communists were supporting revolutions in not only Asia but South Ameria and Africa as well. This was a time when sanctions had little if any effect and it was thought that the only way to stop communist expansion was through military means. Right or wrong, that was the mindset of the times. Failure to address Vietnam would have caused the complete takeover of Indo-China and placed Thailand as the next Domino. 
Many of the time viewed Vietnam as the last battle of WWII, a continuation of the Korean War and a pressure valve for the Cold War.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 10, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> This has been a common sentiment shared by many dating back to the inception of this country. It is a common sentiment dating back to ancient times.
> 
> There is more than one reason why conflicts do happen and why it is not prudent just to abandon our allies etc.


Even if the allies are wrong? Completely wrong?



> The most popular example of appeasement is the one that we always bring up. It is the reason why the League of Nations was dissolved and the reason why we had to deal with what had to deal with in hitler. We saw the price of not getting involved and the price the world pays for ignoring the rise of a tyrant.


But in the case of Vietnam, France, The US and to a smaller degree Britain were the tyrants. In the US they worship the people who fought against the colonialism of British Rule. When other countries do the exact same thing you simply charge them as communists to vindicate any slaughter against them. After WW2 The US, France and Britain do not recognize the Republic of Vietnam. Instead France send troops in. Ho Chi Mihn allows the troops in providing they recognize their independence. The French break down the negoiations and install a puppet government in the South. Ho Chi Mihn gets no support from France and their allies but support then in turn comes from China and the USSR. 





> The point of this thread was not about whether or not we should have been involved in Vietnam.


The title of the thread is about letting the Vietcong overrun the South, which is a ridiculous premise. The border between the 2 Vietnam's was drawn by France. It's not like everyone living north of the border were communists and everyone living south of the border were allies of the west. Most of the people on both sides were fighting for independence



> It is what offended the left wingers. Not the PAWNS mind you. You know, the Hanoi Janes or the  pot head college students thinking they were all on the side of "peace."
> 
> No, this is about what offended those communists that had clearly infiltrated the deepest parts of our government and our entertainment industry. Those elements in THIS COUNTRY were offended by US preventing the spread of the tyrannical communist expansion.


It was not a tyrannical communist expansion. The allies left no choice for the North Vietnamese to deal with anyone but the Communists. During WW2 the allies worked with the communists. Both France and Britain had communists serving in their government. Ho Ch Mihn was a well educated person who studied various political and economic strategies. His Declaration of Independence was a copy of the United States.



> Why? CAUSE THEY WERE COMMUNISTS. THEY ARE COMMUNISTS. McCarthy btw was shown that he was actually quite vindicated in his level of paranoia.


Thet were forced to deal with communists because the west wouldn't recognize their state and the west was too busy trying to run their country.


> That was proven by testimony by EX KGB agents in the Venona Papers. It was very much understood long before McCarthy came into the picture. The infiltration dates back to the 30s or even before. Turn of the century really.


To many countries the world communist didn't mean the big scary bogeyman like it does to the US. Their were definitely elements of communism in the early stages of Vietnam's independence. We know Ho Chi Mihn studied in China and the USSR. But he also studied in Britain, France and the US. 



> The inception of the ACLU founded by Roger Baldwin who was a staunch communist. Influenced by the likes of the Emma Goldmans of the world.


What does this have to do with Vietnam.



> What we are seeing now is the full CHANGE of our government and our paradigm into full blown MARXISM. The march of the world into a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT under the guise of "SOCIALISM." Pure socialism IS COMMUNISM.


No you are not. Every government in the world has various aspects of socialism. Socialism is not Communism. Rabid paranoia and completely not understanding political and social-economic labels is the only thing you have achieved in these post.



> The point is what we see from the Vietnam conflict. AMERICA IS BLAMED by those elements. They never ever bring up the barbarism of the communists as they raged across the land. They certainly hardly ever bring up the GENOCIDE committed by these murderous regimes.
> 
> Why do you suppose they are so quick to BLAME AMERICA and hardly say a PEEP about the mass murders?


Well for one thing you keep getting everyone mixed up. You will first talk about the Vietcong and the switch to the Khmer Rouge and the drop of a hat as if they were the same thing. May I suggest you actually read the history on how the Vietnam war started. Go back even before WW2. There is no living intelligent human that believes the US & France were not at complete fault for the lives lost during the Vietnam war.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 10, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > This has been a common sentiment shared by many dating back to the inception of this country. It is a common sentiment dating back to ancient times.
> ...


Holy shit.

Stalin was the innocent one? The vietcong were actually good people and America and South Vietnam were the tyrants?

This piece of unreal shit just keeps proving me right.

I am telling you all right now folks. The left wing in this country are bloated arrogant morons and they are very dangerous.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 10, 2016)

Camp said:


> The Domino Theory was believed and a viable threat. Communists were supporting revolutions in not only Asia but South Ameria and Africa as well. This was a time when sanctions had little if any effect and it was thought that the only way to stop communist expansion was through military means. Right or wrong, that was the mindset of the times. Failure to address Vietnam would have caused the complete takeover of Indo-China and placed Thailand as the next Domino.
> Many of the time viewed Vietnam as the last battle of WWII, a continuation of the Korean War and a pressure valve for the Cold War.



Indeed. Stalin immediately rejected compliance with the Yalta agreements re Poland and the other eastern European states, and launched an expansionist program of establishing military puppet regimes in every country he occupied, not just Poland, but Azerbaijan and occupied northern Iran, Iran wasn't even a combatant state, and refused to leave, and this was before Japan had surrendered, even. The isolationists were wrong about both wars, and they were dead wrong about Viet Nam, too; the SEATO alliance was the only treaty organization that could fill the vacuum left by the end of colonialism in Asia, and the U.S. the only power who could stand up to Stalin and Mao. The isolationists like to pretend they could go back to hiding under their beds and just ignore the rest of the world, despite the fact that fantasy policy would result in far bigger wars at a much more horrendous cost in mere decades. 

That policy didn't even make it through Jefferson's first term as President, and he was the biggest promoter of 'Neutrality'. If he saw the folly of it when the world was a much bigger place and our enemies much further away time wise, it shouldn't be rocket science to see the folly of it now. FDR saw it in WW I. There is no hiding from wars and imperialists; you can stop them early, before they get too big, or you wait and lose many times more blood later.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 10, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



You can just ignore these psychos; they aren't to be taken seriously at all. They'll go away if they can't get any attention for their venal idiocy and ignorant tropes.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 10, 2016)

Nam was doomed from the day the "war" that was not a war started under a president who could not comprehend that wars are for winning.  We get a lot of those.


----------



## Camp (Jun 10, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> Nam was doomed from the day the "war" that was not a war started under a president who could not comprehend that wars are for winning.  We get a lot of those.


Ya, because Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy didn't understand war, is that what you are saying?


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 10, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Holy shit.
> 
> Stalin was the innocent one? .


Did not say that at all. Please point out where I stated that.



> The vietcong were actually good people and America and South Vietnam were the tyrants?


I merely pointed out that the whole war could have been avoided if the US, France and Britain allowed Vietnam their Independence back in 1946.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 10, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


C'mon Picro, try me. Point out anything wrong I posted.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 10, 2016)

Camp said:


> Ya, because Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy didn't understand war, is that what you are saying?



They might once have understood war - thoroughly. But, once president, they forgot (if they ever knew) that wars are for winning, not just for bleeding America dry.


----------



## Camp (Jun 10, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Ya, because Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy didn't understand war, is that what you are saying?
> ...


They understood they were attempting to restrict war and minimize it with the hopes that little wars could prevent a World War such as they had lived through.


----------



## guno (Jun 10, 2016)

kaz said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It was a civil war gotten into with the phony gulf of tonkin "incident", fast forward: over 58,000 Americans used for cannon fodder, hundreds of thousands Vietnamese dead. Now we have diplomatic relations , have trade and are going to have joint military  exercises



The *Gulf of Tonkin incident* (Vietnamese: _Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ_), also known as the *USS Maddox incident*, involved what were originally claimed to be two separate confrontations involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. The original American report blamed North Vietnam for both incidents, but eventually became very controversial with widespread claims that either one or both incidents were false, and possibly purposefully so. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS _Maddox_, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, was pursued by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron.[1][2] The _Maddox_ fired 3 warning shots and the North Vietnamese boats then attacked with torpedoes and machine gun fire.[2] The _Maddox_ expended over 280 3-inch and 5-inch shells in what was claimed to be a sea battle. One US aircraft was damaged, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were allegedly damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were said to have been killed, with six more wounded. There were no U.S. casualties.[3] The _Maddox_ "was unscathed except for a single bullet hole from a Vietnamese machine gun round."[2]

It was originally claimed by the National Security Agency that a *Second Gulf of Tonkin incident* occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead evidence was found of "Tonkin ghosts"[4] (false radar images) and not actual North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In the 2003 documentary _The Fog of War_, the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 2 USS _Maddox_ attack happened with no Defense Department response, but the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.[5]

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying US conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

In 1995, former Secretary of Defense McNamara met with former Vietnam People's Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on 4 August 1964 in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "Absolutely nothing", Giáp replied.[6] Giáp claimed that the attack had been imaginary.[7]

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that _Maddox_ had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding the first incident on August 2 that "at 1500G,[note 1] Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G,[note 1] the _Maddox_ fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first


Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## namvet (Jun 10, 2016)

we had no business being there. should have let them fight it out


----------



## Picaro (Jun 10, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Holy shit.
> ...



No it couldn't. Mao was going to run the place, and as much as he could grab after the war. Viet Nam had no hope of independence. Mao ordered Ho to attack at Dein Ben Phu, and had ordered him to go on from there and attack Vientiane and then Cambodia. It's a lie that Stalin or Mao were anything but scumbags and would have left any of their neighboring countries alone. Ho didn't want to be used and get his own men sacrificed so he ran to Stalin for a mentor, and got Mao off his back, for a while anyway. To ignore Viet Nam would be to cede Asia to Mao and Stalin. Unacceptable, period. Somethimes all the choices are bad, and we have to go with the least bad options. that's just real life.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 10, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


Yeap, and what was most offensive to scumbag left wing communists here was we had the unmitigated gall to try and stop the spread of it.

It is too bad that the left still believes America were the tyrants.  Look at the unreal scumbag posting here. 

The asshole still has not acknowledged any of the atrocities done by the vietcong, stalin, Pol pot, none of them.

Instead he cast aspersions at of course America.  They are such unreal scumbags with no clue about world history.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 10, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



They are just fashion victims. they like vermin like Noam Chomsky, the scum who admired Pol Pot and defended him and his butchery, and then they turn around and pretend they care about others out of the other sides of their mouths, and even try to pretend they genuinely cared about the American soldiers who lost their lives, when it's obvious they don't, they just like to use them as a gimmick 'talking point', which is all they mean to them. 

In the event, we managed to drive the Khrushchev/Brezhnev Doctrine and the Soviets into bankruptcy, reduced their influence with dictators around the world, and they ended up dependent on western wheat and petroleum imports after 1973, and made it impossible for them to follow through with their plans for a major naval base in VN, sitting right on the key trade and shipping routes of Asia, the real point of VN. They tried to do that in 1979, but had to abandon it, and never were a threat again in that region. Our allies are grateful, and we should be too.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 10, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Well, the democommiecrats, combined with Hollycommiewood and the help of the American Pravda media, the brainwashed squishpots parrot the same utter crap you have been reading by that pathetic loser. 

Just watch this and see what their plans are. 


Ought to scare the shit out of everyone. See what happens when the useful idiots are no longer useful. Mass killings. Happens every time. 

Not here though eh? 

Did we ever think there would be a day where it is illegal to use certain pronouns? Re-education.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

What would have happened if we just allowed Vietnam to fight its Civil War without outside involvement?

Vietnam would have had a million fewer deaths
The U.S. Would have 60,000 deaths
The North would have won and the country would be as well off or better than it is today


----------



## Picaro (Jun 10, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> What would have happened if we just allowed Vietnam to fight its Civil War without outside involvement?
> 
> Vietnam would have had a million fewer deaths
> The U.S. Would have 60,000 deaths
> The North would have won and the country would be as well off or better than it is today



I'll bite:

So, how would you have gotten Mao and his hundreds of thousands of troops out and realized this notion of 'no outside interference'. That would have meant no Ho Chi Min as well.


----------



## Desperado (Jun 10, 2016)

Yes, we should have stayed out of it.
It was a civil; war between the North and South....
It was none of out business, we did not have anything in play/
As time has proved the North took over and now they are a favored trading partner.
So that means 50,000 American lives were wasted for nothing, not to mention the wounded Americans who will never be the same.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2016)

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What would have happened if we just allowed Vietnam to fight its Civil War without outside involvement?
> ...



explain


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 10, 2016)

Camp said:


> They understood they were attempting to restrict war and minimize it with the hopes that little wars could prevent a World War such as they had lived through.



True....and there IS a name for that:

_*LOSER*_​


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


The war just ended.  Following the surrender of Japan to Allied forces, Ho Chi Minh and his People's Congress create the National Liberation Committee of Vietnam to form a provisional government. Ho Chi Mihn declares Independence for Vietnam and his speech was modeled on the U.S. Declaration of Independence . His speech can be found here. Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Elections were called in 1946 and Ho Chi Mihn won 182 out of the 302 seats.



> Viet Nam had no hope of independence.


 They already had their independence. France, their former imperialist occupiers didn't recognize their independence. Great Britain and the US would follow suit.



> Mao ordered Ho to attack at Dein Ben Phu, and had ordered him to go on from there and attack Vientiane and then Cambodia.


Never heard that before. Got any evidence for that baseless assertion?



> It's a lie that Stalin or Mao were anything but scumbags and would have left any of their neighboring countries alone.


Pure conjecture. History has shown us that the US was far more involved in other country's affairs than China and the USSR.


> Ho didn't want to be used and get his own men sacrificed so he ran to Stalin for a mentor, and got Mao off his back, for a while anyway.


Wrong again. Ho tried for more than 3o years to work with many nations to gain Vietnam's independence. He traveled and wrote letters to the French Government. He Wrote Letters to Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. Ho Chi Mihn also during WW2 helped to rescue downed American pilots and gathered intelligence on the Japanese for the American OSS. Ho worked closely with the American intelligence community during WWII and his views of an independent Vietnam were well known to them. Due to the fact that Ho had tried every conceivable way to cooperate with both the French and Americans in gaining Vietnamese independence, and all of those efforts had been fruitless, Ho turned to the Communists for help.



> To ignore Viet Nam would be to cede Asia to Mao and Stalin.


The US and France forced Ho Chi Mihn to align with Mao & Stalin. 


> Unacceptable, period. Sometimes all the choices are bad, and we have to go with the least bad options. that's just real life.


No, the US went with the worst possible option and every single decision they made after this concerning Vietnam was just as bad as the last.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


What? You're avoiding answering. Why? It isn't a tough question.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...



they like Commie style 'elections', and making heroes of vermin like Ho, who hardly even lived in Viet Nam. Here's his history, and how those alledged 'elections' he won are ridiculous nonsense, like any other Communist 'election' ever held. The apologists and fellow travelers of mass murderers would try and sell the idea he had no history before 1946, for obvious reasons.

Ho Chi Minh

And why do these apologists for murderers think that when these vermin model their joke propaganda 'Constitutions' and 'Declarations' after ours it is some kind of point? Hey, so did the Soviet Union, and only utter morons or liars would claim the Soviet Union actually practiced any of those platforms. They're ridiculous loons to be claiming there is any resemblance.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


You are making wild claims

If you can back them up, we can discuss them

Start with the hundreds of thousand of Chinese troops in Vietnam


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


I was waiting for some fool to bring up elections



> In 1954 Vietnam was divided into North and South Vietnam and Bao Dai and his French advisors attempted to take control of South Vietnam.  At this point America had enough of dealing with the French, who had so far been losing their hold on the region, so the US backed Ngo Dinh Diem who American leaders felt would be agreeable to American authority in Vietnam.  Ngo Dinh Diem, who lived in the United States during the French-Indochina war, was the first "democratically" elected president of South Vietnam. The election was coerced however.  The only choices were between Bao Dai and Ngo Dinh Diem, both leaders that were favored by Western powers.  Voters complained that they were told who to vote for, to vote for Diem, some of those that did not were beaten by CIA supported Vietnamese forces.
> 
> 
> The result of the election was 98.2% for Diem.  Diem's American advisors told him to change the vote count and release a number no larger then 70% or else the vote would not be believable.  As one of his first acts of non-cooperation he refused and claimed a 98.2% victory.  The world immediately knew that the election had been rigged and his authority was undermined.
> ...


The American involvement in Vietnam

So don't even begin to pretend you're all about free elections. If you were you would be criticizing the US which has done this numerous times. 
You do know the definition of hypocrite, don't you?


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> You are making wild claims
> 
> If you can back them up, we can discuss them
> 
> Start with the hundreds of thousand of Chinese troops in Vietnam



Dodge duly noted. You know the answer already, and hope to bury your embarrassment with a couple of pages of spam posts, demanding replies from others while not answering any yourself, as usual. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> I was waiting for some fool to bring up elections



lol .. so you forgot that fool was yourself. typical.



> So don't even begin to pretend you're all about free elections. If you were you would be criticizing the US which has done this numerous times.
> You do know the definition of hypocrite, don't you?



Another nonsensical response, avoiding addressing the facts, again typical; just shift the topic elsewhere and avoiding addressing the facts, just keep 'playing "I Touched You Last!!!" until everybody gets bored and goes away. lol pathetic.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You are making wild claims
> ...


I know the answer

You are a conspiracy whack job who cannot back up your claims


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



you hope, you mean. You don't know squat, just some knee jerk poster. Apparently you did some Google Scholaring and found out you made an idiot out of yourself. lol


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Tell us about the hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops in Vietnam 
They were " secret" troops disguised as NVA

U.S. can't tell the difference anyway......they all look alike


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What would have happened if we just allowed Vietnam to fight its Civil War without outside involvement?
> ...



Now, this is the post of mine you cited, and my question, again, just so you can't distort or ignore it. Answer it: How would you have kept Mao out of it to achieve this 'no outside involvement' thing you fantasized about?

Or do you mean that Mao and Stalin's involvement somehow doesn't count as outside involvement or something silly like that? Ridiculous.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Already posted on it. Go refute it if you don't think the Chinese never sent troops into North Viet Nam or helped Ho. Should be easy, right?


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 11, 2016)

I questioned some of our war policies back then, but I still believed in the domino theory.   The free world vs communism.  Now a much worse domino situation.  Islam vs the free world.  Looks like Islam might win out on this one,  considering the amount of babies their women have, and how much the obamas and clintons want to flood our country with this enemy.  And if course in Europe too,  with the clinton retreads like merkle in charge.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Chinese troops in Vietnam.   For sure.   Russian migs too.  Free world vs. communist world.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

jasonnfree said:


> I questioned some of our war policies back then, but I still believed in the domino theory.   The free world vs communism.  Now a much worse domino situation.  Islam vs the free world.  Looks like Islam might win out on this one,  considering the amount of babies their women have, and how much the obamas and clintons want to flood our country with this enemy.  And if course in Europe too,  with the clinton retreads like merkle in charge.



I've never claimed there was much that was mishandled, and could have been done a lot better; hindsight arm-chairing is easy, after all, but that doesn't conflate to doing nothing at all, or misrepresenting the facts, or anything else about it. I can't find much I would have done differently if I had to have made those decisions, except I wouldn't have taken the military and intelligence reports at face value then, which contributed to a lot of false perceptions, and still do today.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

jasonnfree said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Hell, they built Ho's railroads for him, for one, and that was in the early 1950's, long before we had a single boot on the ground.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 11, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So you were there?   Tell us about it.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 11, 2016)

Doesn't really matter today.  Looks like the east won that war considering we're in debt to china now.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > I was waiting for some fool to bring up elections
> ...


Again, please challenge me on anything I posted you feel is not accurate. You yourself have been challenged on 2 of your baseless assertions and have not shown any evidence it happened. Which "fact" did you post that anyone is avoiding addressing. Still waiting for that assertion that "Mao ordered Ho to attack at Dein Ben Phu, and had ordered him to go on from there and attack Vientiane and then Cambodia"

I have backed up everything I said and can provide further documentation. You spout nonsense with nothing to back it up.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > I was waiting for some fool to bring up elections
> ...


Again, please challenge me on anything I posted you feel is not accurate. You yourself have been challenged on 2 of your baseless assertions and have not shown any evidence it happened. Which "fact" did you post that anyone is avoiding adressing. Still waitnf for that assertion that Mao


Theowl32 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


No, the most offensive thing whas the US and France decided to label someone a communist even before they had any contact with Communist governments and forced them to get support from Communist regimes after bailing on them.



> America became less and less inclined to support Ho Chi Min due to his Communist affiliation yet at the same time American analysts could not draw any link between Ho Chi Minh and Moscow, writing that Ho Chi Minh did not seem to be following any directive from Moscow and that the policies of Ho Chi Minh did not correlate with Russian policy.
> ...Had the United States or France given support to Ho Chi Minh and supported the right of Vietnam to self determination at any time up to this point, it is very likely that Vietnam would never have pursued Communism. The only reason that the Vietnamese did was because the Communists were the only ones who were supporting Vietnam's goal of independence.






> It is too bad that the left still believes America were the tyrants.


 They were. When it comes to the subject of Vietnam the US were tyrants. We haven't even gotten into Agent Orange, the Gulf Of Tonkin incident or the Mai Lai Massacre. The US on this issue were tyrants. Only a blind nationalist yourself doesn't see this.



> Look at the unreal scumbag posting here.


Is the profanity coming out because you know deep down you're wrong



> The asshole still has not acknowledged any of the atrocities done by the vietcong, stalin, Pol pot, none of them.


What do the atrocities of Stalin have to do with this? Everyone know Stalin's atrocities. Again, nothing to do with Vietnam. Pol Pot's atrocities fail miserably when compared to the US's and like I posted before. The atrocities of Pol Pot would have never happened if the US didn't bomb Cambodia to smithereens and you are also glossing over the fact that the US supported the Khmer Rouge.



> Instead he cast aspersions at of course America.  They are such unreal scumbags with no clue about world history.


Please point out anything I stated that is not accurate.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 11, 2016)

I think this passage from the book Sister Revolutions by Susan Dunn fits here nicely.



> Roosevelt’s promise to grant independence to the Philippines buoyed Ho Chi Minh, for the American President had also urged the European colonial powers to grant independence to their own colonies. Ho hoped that his case for the independence of Vietnam would reach the attention of “the great president Roosevelt.”
> 
> The situation changed somewhat, however, after de Gaulle’s visit to America the summer of 1944. The French leader proposed the idea of a French federation in which Indochina would have representation. As for the Vietnamese, they wanted Vietnamese unity and independence, not Indochinese citizenship within a “French Union.” But Roosevelt wavered, finding it increasingly difficult to thwart the colonial claims of his close allies, England and the Free French.
> 
> After Roosevelt’s death, America’s diplomatic policy changed sharply. Only a few months after Ho’s declaration of independence, the American State Department’s Far Eastern Bureau declared that the United States would respect French sovereignty in Indochina. Roosevelt’s anti-colonialism was displaced by the Cold War’s demands for an anti-Communist foreign policy. By 1946 all official American references to Ho in Washington were prefixed with the word “Communist.” Dean Acheson, the Acting Secretary of State, branded Ho Chi Minh an “agent of international communism.” Though the American OSS officers in Hanoi had liked and trusted Ho, even joining him in celebrating his Vietnamese “Fourth of July,” by the end of the decade Ho had been transformed into a Communist enemy.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

jasonnfree said:


> Doesn't really matter today.  Looks like the east won that war considering we're in debt to china now.



Of course, given the current state of the Fed and domestic economy, they're probably going to end up with a lot of worthless paper; they can't even unload it now without it driving the value down drastically as it is. The mighty BRICS scam that was supposed to ruin the Evul Empire that is America is also unraveling on them already. It's actually pretty funny.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 11, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



you were done a long time ago. You had nothing then, and you never will. Go annoy the children in the conspiracy theory forums for a while.


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 11, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


Your reality is a conspiracy theory.


You've been challenged. I can see you are waving the white flag of defeat. Thanks for coming out. Come back when you're able to read a book.


----------



## kaz (Jun 11, 2016)

guno said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No idea what your point is


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 11, 2016)

kaz said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


His point is the US lied to get themselves in a war with Vietnam. Ever hear of a False Flag Operation.

See # 17
42 FALSE-FLAG ATTACKS OFFICIALY ADMITTED TO  | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


----------



## kaz (Jun 11, 2016)

Tuatara said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...



OK, let me rephrase the question.  Why did he say that to me?  What does it have to do with what I said?  I said that Eisenhower did not start the war, and the two of you geniuses are arguing that oh yeah, the war started four years after Eisenhower left office!

OK, fine, I concede.   I was right.  Are you happy?


----------



## Picaro (Jun 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Their points are that they cherry pick isolated factoids and ignore the other 99% of facts that don't support their infantile ranting and paranoid fantasies.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 12, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?



One has to ask if the American defeat in Vietnam allowed communism to spread around the world.

Given that country is still communist and the US is now arming it, one has to question all the reasons the US invaded.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jun 12, 2016)

Odium said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...


----------



## Picaro (Jun 12, 2016)

Indofred said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...



the problem with this line of reasoning is that it's wrong. America wasn't defeated in Viet Nam; its forces left in 1973, and the south didn't fall until the American Congress stabbed them in the back and cut off all funding for them, while the Soviets and Chinese kept the North Vietnamese in the field. If the SEATO alliance hadn't been propped up with force, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and every other country in the region wouldn't have been able to stand against Mao.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 12, 2016)

Indofred said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what we should have done? Allowed the commies to spread around the world and overrun our allies?
> ...


Who did the US "invade?"

I hate fucking "liberals."

I just fucking hate them.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 12, 2016)

Theowl32 said:


> Who did the US "invade?"
> 
> I hate fucking "liberals."
> 
> I just fucking hate them.



Either Vietnam is in Florida, maybe California, or you sent troops half way around the world to invade a foreign land.

Do you have a map handy?

As for liberals, I'm a Thatcherite so I'm not all that keen either.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 12, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and every other country in the region wouldn't have been able to stand against Mao.



My history might be a bit off here, but I'm pretty sure America got its arse kicked but those countries were never invaded.
I might be wrong, perhaps I'll have to google the communist invasion of and takeover of Thailand.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 12, 2016)

I'll go further.
Vietnam, where America lost, is now pretty much a capitalist society, now armed by the US.
Korea, that's the one where you managed a draw, is still run by an obnoxious set of bastards, and no capitalism.

It seems America losing is a good move for the world.


----------



## kaz (Jun 12, 2016)

Indofred said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Who did the US "invade?"
> ...



We went there to help the South Vietnamese government.  Whatever your position on Vietnam is, to call that to "invade" Vietnam is retarded.  May I suggest you buy a dictionary


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 12, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


South Vietnam had superior weapons to the North

They just lacked the will to fight


----------



## Indofred (Jun 12, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> South Vietnam had superior weapons to the North
> 
> They just lacked the will to fight



Given their leader was a mass murdering dictator, they probably thought they would be better off under the communists.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 12, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LBJ never gave a damn about Vietnam.
> ...


 
No it wasn't. The first military advisors went in under Eisenhower, JFK increased involvement.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 12, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



You have a good grasp on you tinfoil hat. Nothing more.


----------



## kaz (Jun 12, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



"they" meant combat troops, I mean duh


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Kennedy increased the number of advisors from 700 to 15,000 before being shot in Dallas.  To say there were no combat troops in Viet Nam before LBJ ramped up US involvement in the war after the Gulf in Tonkin, is to be wilfully blind.  Most people weren't aware of US involvement, but the US was heavily involved and committed under Kennedy.


----------



## kaz (Jun 12, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Kennedy sent advisers and trainers, not combat troops.  And you're word parsing for no apparent point


----------



## Camp (Jun 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Nick Rowe and Rocky Versace were advisors captured in 1963 while participating in combat missions as "advisors" in 1963. The names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall begin with 1959. If someone is referring to ground combat units instead of advisors they should distinguish the point. Otherwise, it is an insult to those who served before that period. They were certainly involved in ground combat roles.


----------



## kaz (Jun 12, 2016)

Camp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Yes, by saying we didn't send combat troops until Johnson, I was obviously spitting on the grave and dishonoring anyone who died before that.

What a fucking moron you are, fuck you and the fart that blew you in


----------



## Camp (Jun 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I did not say you were spitting on Special Forces and other advisors who were fulfilling combat roles. I said it was an insult to imply that no combat forces were in Vietnam prior to full combat units arriving under Johnson.
You were defending a comment made by dale, who is rarely correct about his claims.


----------



## kaz (Jun 12, 2016)

Camp said:


> I did not say you were spitting on Special Forces and other advisors who were fulfilling combat roles. I said it was an insult to imply that no combat forces were in Vietnam prior to full combat units arriving under Johnson



How is that an insult to anyone?  How stupid are you?  Advisers and trainers of military are in dangerous places, including combat. But they weren't sent there to fight the communists, they were there to advise and train Vietnamese to do it.  Johnson sent US troops to directly fight the Vietnamese. You thought by training I was saying they were on the Microsoft campus?

What point do you think you making with this word parsing, stupid prick?

And leftists saying you give a shit about the troops after time and again Democrats undercutting them calling them terrorists, murderers and knee jerk believing every accusation is just laughable, other than that it's not funny


----------

