# VietNam..April 30th....How It Ended.



## PoliticalChic

1. The weakness of Nixon due to the Watergate scandal allowed the Left-Wing Democrats to *destroy any hope of either the United States living up to its commitments in South Vietnam*, or of even allowing the aid that would have allowed the South to defend itself. Starting with the 1974 budget, they refused to allocate another penny, and forbade US military action in or over Indochina. Thus, no airstrikes if the North violated the peace treaty. 
*They wanted the North to win*.and they did.

a.	When the Pentagons accountants tried to use a couple of hundred million dollars of unused appropriations left over from 1972 and 1973 to aid the South,* Ted Kennedy organized Senators, 43-38, to forbid the expenditure.*
David Frum, How We Got Here, p. 305.






2. In the scholarly The Black Book of Communism, Stephane Courtois, et. al. calculate (p. 572) that* the Communists immediately shipped between 200,000 and a million to reeducation camps out of a population of 20 million. Execution numbered about 65,000 not counting those who died slowly in the camps.*

a. The new Communist Vietnam caused *hundreds of thousands of ordinary people to flee their homes, with over 800,000 taking to the high seas in tiny boats.*
 Commentary magazine, Who Won Vietnam?, May 1994.

3. One marvels at the* lack of concern by the Left *after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: *These boat people *"Why would any Vietnamese come to America after what America did for Vietnam? Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though *this country stole large parts of their country* from them in the first place." 
Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center 





4.* Leftist intellectuals *such as Susan Sontag was one of a legion of what Paul Hollander identified as political pilgrims who *journeyed to Communist countries in search of an earthly paradise, *and nearly always persuaded themselves that they had found it. Sure enough, Sontag was struck by the grace, variety, and established identity of the Vietnamesean effectively organized society And she explained why she traveled to North Vietnam: Vietnam offered the key to a systematic criticism of America. 
Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society, p. 198, 271.

a.* Ramsey Clark, LBJs attorney general*: You can see no internal conflict in the country.a unity in spirit. I doubt seriously that I could walk in safety in Saigon or the cities and villages of South Vietnam, as I have here Ibid.

b. Novelist* Mary McCarthy *decided that North Vietnam is preferable to South Vietnam, as she never saw a child with a dirty face, nor beggars, nor prostitutes nor squalor. Wherever you go, you are met with smiles, cheers, hand clapping. Mary McCarthy, The Seventeenth Degree, p. 215, 222.  
Confronted with the fact that the North has* no free press, she opined that the right to criticize is just another capitalist luxury.*

c. *McCarthy went on to explain it was Americas fault*Until the Americans go home, the self-imposed rationing system in the realm of ideas that limited the [North Vietnamese] diet to what was strictly necessary to the national interest [must remain] Ibid. Of course, after the Americans left, totalitarians continued to be totalitarians.






5. When Nixon responded to a North Vietnamese offensive in 1972 by mining the Haiphong harbor, *Democrats unleashed the Nazi comparisons. *Congressman Ron Dellums: In the last years of the Second World War, after the Germans knew they were defeated, they went on an orgy of killingwill  our removal be in the same frenzied manner? Anonymous Author for the Black Panther Newspaper, The Black Panther. In Black Panther 8 no. 9

6. Well never know what JFK would have thought of this, but Democrat Senator Scoop Jackson summed it up nicely:  I do not what to see* the Democratic Party become a party which gives any aid and comfort whatever to people who applaud Vietcong victories or wave Vietcong flags*. Our party has room for hawks and doves, but not for mockingbirds who chirp gleefully at those who are shooting at American boys.
 Richard Whalen, Taking Sides, p.177. 

a. During a Washington, D.C., anti-war rally, *government workers at the Peace Corps seized the building and flew the Vietcong flag *from its roof. 
Kissinger, The White House Years, p. 514.





7.  Today....an anniversary of sorts:
*April 30th, 1975* Operation Frequent Wind: Evacuation of the last US personnel from the embassy in Saigon. *Thousands of desperate Vietnamese gathered at the embassy gate and begged to be taken with them; others committed suicide. *In early 1975 the communist launched a massive attack, and Gerald Ford asked for $1 billion in supplemental funds to help the South. Even though US forces had won every battle, *Congress refused:* Ford had no choice but to order Operation Frequent Wind.
* At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea. *






8.  In 1979, Humanitas, the organization of* anti-war activist Joan Baez, purchased a newspaper ad* that ran in five large circulation dailies, called An Open Letter to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which ran in part:
  Thousands of innocent Vietnamese, many of whose only crimes are those of conscience, are being arrested, detained and tortured in prison and re-education camps The jails are overflowing with thousands upon thousands of detainees* People disappear and never return People are used as human mine detectors, clearing live mine fields with their hands and feet.  For many, life is hell and death is prayed for. *  With tragic irony, the cruelty, violence and oppression practiced by foreign powers in your country for more than a century continue today under the present regime.

It was an abiding commitment to fundamental principles of human dignity, freedom and self-determination that motivated so many Americans to oppose the government of South Vietnam and our country's participation in the war. It is that same commitment that *compels us to speak out against your brutal disregard of human rights. As in the 60s, we raise our voices now so that your people may live.                             * And a Voice to Sing With -- A Memoir, by Joan Baez

a. Baez mailed the letter to 350 anti-war activists. Among those who *refused to sign was Jane Fonda. *Your name would mean much more than any other, she told Fonda, in a long letter. Fonda wrote that the add would lend credence to those who believe that Communism is worse than death 
Washington Post, Lynn Darling, Joan Baez at 38, June 29, 1979




Last week, one of our members referred to waterboarding as 'dragging out flag through the mud."

I wonder what he thinks of the behavior of the Democrat Party after Viet Nam.....



One looks at the above, and wonders whether the Leftist Democrats acted during the war to save lives....
...or to injure the United States.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Yes the U.S. was in shambles for decades after losing that crucially important tiny bit of land over there.

We should not be the world's police.


----------



## namvet

its the 58,000 plus kids I remember most


----------



## whitehall

The callus democrat majority could have withdrawn funding any time during the LBJ administration but they waited to stab a republican in the back and abandon all the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US. Treasonous democrats authorized Bush to use combat Troops in Iraq and then undermined the mission and tried to impact the morale of the troops like Harry Reid's "the war is lost" just before the Troop Surge.


----------



## PoliticalChic

whitehall said:


> The callus democrat majority could have withdrawn funding any time during the LBJ administration but they waited to stab a republican in the back and abandon all the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US. Treasonous democrats authorized Bush to use combat Troops in Iraq and then undermined the mission and tried to impact the morale of the troops like Harry Reid's "the war is lost" just before the Troop Surge.



Dynamite post.

Especially this: "....all the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US...."


The name of the party should be 'the Treacherous Party.



Every chance they get, they support communism....Mao, Vietnam, Stalin, Sandanistas....


No wonder they manipulated the symbol of their party from red to blue......red was far too close to the truth.


----------



## bodecea

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The weakness of Nixon due to the Watergate scandal allowed the Left-Wing Democrats to *destroy any hope of either the United States living up to its commitments in South Vietnam*, or of even allowing the aid that would have allowed the South to defend itself. Starting with the 1974 budget, they refused to allocate another penny, and forbade US military action in or over Indochina. Thus, no airstrikes if the North violated the peace treaty.
> *They wanted the North to win*.and they did.
> 
> a.	When the Pentagons accountants tried to use a couple of hundred million dollars of unused appropriations left over from 1972 and 1973 to aid the South,* Ted Kennedy organized Senators, 43-38, to forbid the expenditure.*
> David Frum, How We Got Here, p. 305.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. In the scholarly The Black Book of Communism, Stephane Courtois, et. al. calculate (p. 572) that* the Communists immediately shipped between 200,000 and a million to reeducation camps out of a population of 20 million. Execution numbered about 65,000 not counting those who died slowly in the camps.*
> 
> a. The new Communist Vietnam caused *hundreds of thousands of ordinary people to flee their homes, with over 800,000 taking to the high seas in tiny boats.*
> Commentary magazine, Who Won Vietnam?, May 1994.
> 
> 3. One marvels at the* lack of concern by the Left *after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: *These boat people *"Why would any Vietnamese come to America after what America did for Vietnam? Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though *this country stole large parts of their country* from them in the first place."
> Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.* Leftist intellectuals *such as Susan Sontag was one of a legion of what Paul Hollander identified as political pilgrims who *journeyed to Communist countries in search of an earthly paradise, *and nearly always persuaded themselves that they had found it. Sure enough, Sontag was struck by the grace, variety, and established identity of the Vietnamesean effectively organized society And she explained why she traveled to North Vietnam: Vietnam offered the key to a systematic criticism of America.
> Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society, p. 198, 271.
> 
> a.* Ramsey Clark, LBJs attorney general*: You can see no internal conflict in the country.a unity in spirit. I doubt seriously that I could walk in safety in Saigon or the cities and villages of South Vietnam, as I have here Ibid.
> 
> b. Novelist* Mary McCarthy *decided that North Vietnam is preferable to South Vietnam, as she never saw a child with a dirty face, nor beggars, nor prostitutes nor squalor. Wherever you go, you are met with smiles, cheers, hand clapping. Mary McCarthy, The Seventeenth Degree, p. 215, 222.
> Confronted with the fact that the North has* no free press, she opined that the right to criticize is just another capitalist luxury.*
> 
> c. *McCarthy went on to explain it was Americas fault*Until the Americans go home, the self-imposed rationing system in the realm of ideas that limited the [North Vietnamese] diet to what was strictly necessary to the national interest [must remain] Ibid. Of course, after the Americans left, totalitarians continued to be totalitarians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. When Nixon responded to a North Vietnamese offensive in 1972 by mining the Haiphong harbor, *Democrats unleashed the Nazi comparisons. *Congressman Ron Dellums: In the last years of the Second World War, after the Germans knew they were defeated, they went on an orgy of killingwill  our removal be in the same frenzied manner? Anonymous Author for the Black Panther Newspaper, The Black Panther. In Black Panther 8 no. 9
> 
> 6. Well never know what JFK would have thought of this, but Democrat Senator Scoop Jackson summed it up nicely:  I do not what to see* the Democratic Party become a party which gives any aid and comfort whatever to people who applaud Vietcong victories or wave Vietcong flags*. Our party has room for hawks and doves, but not for mockingbirds who chirp gleefully at those who are shooting at American boys.
> Richard Whalen, Taking Sides, p.177.
> 
> a. During a Washington, D.C., anti-war rally, *government workers at the Peace Corps seized the building and flew the Vietcong flag *from its roof.
> Kissinger, The White House Years, p. 514.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.  Today....an anniversary of sorts:
> *April 30th, 1975* Operation Frequent Wind: Evacuation of the last US personnel from the embassy in Saigon. *Thousands of desperate Vietnamese gathered at the embassy gate and begged to be taken with them; others committed suicide. *In early 1975 the communist launched a massive attack, and Gerald Ford asked for $1 billion in supplemental funds to help the South. Even though US forces had won every battle, *Congress refused:* Ford had no choice but to order Operation Frequent Wind.
> * At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8.  In 1979, Humanitas, the organization of* anti-war activist Joan Baez, purchased a newspaper ad* that ran in five large circulation dailies, called An Open Letter to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which ran in part:
> Thousands of innocent Vietnamese, many of whose only crimes are those of conscience, are being arrested, detained and tortured in prison and re-education camps The jails are overflowing with thousands upon thousands of detainees* People disappear and never return People are used as human mine detectors, clearing live mine fields with their hands and feet.  For many, life is hell and death is prayed for. *  With tragic irony, the cruelty, violence and oppression practiced by foreign powers in your country for more than a century continue today under the present regime.
> 
> It was an abiding commitment to fundamental principles of human dignity, freedom and self-determination that motivated so many Americans to oppose the government of South Vietnam and our country's participation in the war. It is that same commitment that *compels us to speak out against your brutal disregard of human rights. As in the 60s, we raise our voices now so that your people may live.                             * And a Voice to Sing With -- A Memoir, by Joan Baez
> 
> a. Baez mailed the letter to 350 anti-war activists. Among those who *refused to sign was Jane Fonda. *Your name would mean much more than any other, she told Fonda, in a long letter. Fonda wrote that the add would lend credence to those who believe that Communism is worse than death
> Washington Post, Lynn Darling, Joan Baez at 38, June 29, 1979
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week, one of our members referred to waterboarding as 'dragging out flag through the mud."
> 
> I wonder what he thinks of the behavior of the Democrat Party after Viet Nam.....
> 
> 
> 
> One looks at the above, and wonders whether the Leftist Democrats acted during the war to save lives....
> ...or to injure the United States.



And now those evil communists are valuable trading partners.


----------



## namvet

I was in training at RTC Sdiego when this boroadcast was made. we jumped for joy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-FibDxpkb0]Lyndon Johnson - Remarks on Decision to not seek Reelection - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

bodecea said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The weakness of Nixon due to the Watergate scandal allowed the Left-Wing Democrats to *destroy any hope of either the United States living up to its commitments in South Vietnam*, or of even allowing the aid that would have allowed the South to defend itself. Starting with the 1974 budget, they refused to allocate another penny, and forbade US military action in or over Indochina. Thus, no airstrikes if the North violated the peace treaty.
> *They wanted the North to win*.and they did.
> 
> a.	When the Pentagons accountants tried to use a couple of hundred million dollars of unused appropriations left over from 1972 and 1973 to aid the South,* Ted Kennedy organized Senators, 43-38, to forbid the expenditure.*
> David Frum, How We Got Here, p. 305.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. In the scholarly The Black Book of Communism, Stephane Courtois, et. al. calculate (p. 572) that* the Communists immediately shipped between 200,000 and a million to reeducation camps out of a population of 20 million. Execution numbered about 65,000 not counting those who died slowly in the camps.*
> 
> a. The new Communist Vietnam caused *hundreds of thousands of ordinary people to flee their homes, with over 800,000 taking to the high seas in tiny boats.*
> Commentary magazine, Who Won Vietnam?, May 1994.
> 
> 3. One marvels at the* lack of concern by the Left *after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: *These boat people *"Why would any Vietnamese come to America after what America did for Vietnam? Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though *this country stole large parts of their country* from them in the first place."
> Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.* Leftist intellectuals *such as Susan Sontag was one of a legion of what Paul Hollander identified as political pilgrims who *journeyed to Communist countries in search of an earthly paradise, *and nearly always persuaded themselves that they had found it. Sure enough, Sontag was struck by the grace, variety, and established identity of the Vietnamesean effectively organized society And she explained why she traveled to North Vietnam: Vietnam offered the key to a systematic criticism of America.
> Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society, p. 198, 271.
> 
> a.* Ramsey Clark, LBJs attorney general*: You can see no internal conflict in the country.a unity in spirit. I doubt seriously that I could walk in safety in Saigon or the cities and villages of South Vietnam, as I have here Ibid.
> 
> b. Novelist* Mary McCarthy *decided that North Vietnam is preferable to South Vietnam, as she never saw a child with a dirty face, nor beggars, nor prostitutes nor squalor. Wherever you go, you are met with smiles, cheers, hand clapping. Mary McCarthy, The Seventeenth Degree, p. 215, 222.
> Confronted with the fact that the North has* no free press, she opined that the right to criticize is just another capitalist luxury.*
> 
> c. *McCarthy went on to explain it was Americas fault*Until the Americans go home, the self-imposed rationing system in the realm of ideas that limited the [North Vietnamese] diet to what was strictly necessary to the national interest [must remain] Ibid. Of course, after the Americans left, totalitarians continued to be totalitarians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. When Nixon responded to a North Vietnamese offensive in 1972 by mining the Haiphong harbor, *Democrats unleashed the Nazi comparisons. *Congressman Ron Dellums: In the last years of the Second World War, after the Germans knew they were defeated, they went on an orgy of killingwill  our removal be in the same frenzied manner? Anonymous Author for the Black Panther Newspaper, The Black Panther. In Black Panther 8 no. 9
> 
> 6. Well never know what JFK would have thought of this, but Democrat Senator Scoop Jackson summed it up nicely:  I do not what to see* the Democratic Party become a party which gives any aid and comfort whatever to people who applaud Vietcong victories or wave Vietcong flags*. Our party has room for hawks and doves, but not for mockingbirds who chirp gleefully at those who are shooting at American boys.
> Richard Whalen, Taking Sides, p.177.
> 
> a. During a Washington, D.C., anti-war rally, *government workers at the Peace Corps seized the building and flew the Vietcong flag *from its roof.
> Kissinger, The White House Years, p. 514.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.  Today....an anniversary of sorts:
> *April 30th, 1975* Operation Frequent Wind: Evacuation of the last US personnel from the embassy in Saigon. *Thousands of desperate Vietnamese gathered at the embassy gate and begged to be taken with them; others committed suicide. *In early 1975 the communist launched a massive attack, and Gerald Ford asked for $1 billion in supplemental funds to help the South. Even though US forces had won every battle, *Congress refused:* Ford had no choice but to order Operation Frequent Wind.
> * At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8.  In 1979, Humanitas, the organization of* anti-war activist Joan Baez, purchased a newspaper ad* that ran in five large circulation dailies, called An Open Letter to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which ran in part:
> Thousands of innocent Vietnamese, many of whose only crimes are those of conscience, are being arrested, detained and tortured in prison and re-education camps The jails are overflowing with thousands upon thousands of detainees* People disappear and never return People are used as human mine detectors, clearing live mine fields with their hands and feet.  For many, life is hell and death is prayed for. *  With tragic irony, the cruelty, violence and oppression practiced by foreign powers in your country for more than a century continue today under the present regime.
> 
> It was an abiding commitment to fundamental principles of human dignity, freedom and self-determination that motivated so many Americans to oppose the government of South Vietnam and our country's participation in the war. It is that same commitment that *compels us to speak out against your brutal disregard of human rights. As in the 60s, we raise our voices now so that your people may live.                             * And a Voice to Sing With -- A Memoir, by Joan Baez
> 
> a. Baez mailed the letter to 350 anti-war activists. Among those who *refused to sign was Jane Fonda. *Your name would mean much more than any other, she told Fonda, in a long letter. Fonda wrote that the add would lend credence to those who believe that Communism is worse than death
> Washington Post, Lynn Darling, Joan Baez at 38, June 29, 1979
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week, one of our members referred to waterboarding as 'dragging out flag through the mud."
> 
> I wonder what he thinks of the behavior of the Democrat Party after Viet Nam.....
> 
> 
> 
> One looks at the above, and wonders whether the Leftist Democrats acted during the war to save lives....
> ...or to injure the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now those evil communists are valuable trading partners.
Click to expand...





These guys aren't among the traders:

"At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea."


But I'm heartened to see that you haven't denied that these guys are traitors:

The Leftist Democrats.


----------



## konradv

Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI7-m919ynU]OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube[/ame]

CSN&Y- Ohio


----------



## bodecea

PoliticalChic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The weakness of Nixon due to the Watergate scandal allowed the Left-Wing Democrats to *destroy any hope of either the United States living up to its commitments in South Vietnam*, or of even allowing the aid that would have allowed the South to defend itself. Starting with the 1974 budget, they refused to allocate another penny, and forbade US military action in or over Indochina. Thus, no airstrikes if the North violated the peace treaty.
> *They wanted the North to win*.and they did.
> 
> a.	When the Pentagons accountants tried to use a couple of hundred million dollars of unused appropriations left over from 1972 and 1973 to aid the South,* Ted Kennedy organized Senators, 43-38, to forbid the expenditure.*
> David Frum, How We Got Here, p. 305.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. In the scholarly The Black Book of Communism, Stephane Courtois, et. al. calculate (p. 572) that* the Communists immediately shipped between 200,000 and a million to reeducation camps out of a population of 20 million. Execution numbered about 65,000 not counting those who died slowly in the camps.*
> 
> a. The new Communist Vietnam caused *hundreds of thousands of ordinary people to flee their homes, with over 800,000 taking to the high seas in tiny boats.*
> Commentary magazine, Who Won Vietnam?, May 1994.
> 
> 3. One marvels at the* lack of concern by the Left *after the success of their machinations. Linda Ellerbee, commentator for ABC and CBS, made the following joke: *These boat people *"Why would any Vietnamese come to America after what America did for Vietnam? Don't they remember My Lai, napalm, Sylvester Stallone? Clearly they have no more sense over there, than say, Mexicans who keep trying to get into this country even though *this country stole large parts of their country* from them in the first place."
> Best of Notable Quotables 1991 -- Media Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.* Leftist intellectuals *such as Susan Sontag was one of a legion of what Paul Hollander identified as political pilgrims who *journeyed to Communist countries in search of an earthly paradise, *and nearly always persuaded themselves that they had found it. Sure enough, Sontag was struck by the grace, variety, and established identity of the Vietnamesean effectively organized society And she explained why she traveled to North Vietnam: Vietnam offered the key to a systematic criticism of America.
> Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society, p. 198, 271.
> 
> a.* Ramsey Clark, LBJs attorney general*: You can see no internal conflict in the country.a unity in spirit. I doubt seriously that I could walk in safety in Saigon or the cities and villages of South Vietnam, as I have here Ibid.
> 
> b. Novelist* Mary McCarthy *decided that North Vietnam is preferable to South Vietnam, as she never saw a child with a dirty face, nor beggars, nor prostitutes nor squalor. Wherever you go, you are met with smiles, cheers, hand clapping. Mary McCarthy, The Seventeenth Degree, p. 215, 222.
> Confronted with the fact that the North has* no free press, she opined that the right to criticize is just another capitalist luxury.*
> 
> c. *McCarthy went on to explain it was Americas fault*Until the Americans go home, the self-imposed rationing system in the realm of ideas that limited the [North Vietnamese] diet to what was strictly necessary to the national interest [must remain] Ibid. Of course, after the Americans left, totalitarians continued to be totalitarians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. When Nixon responded to a North Vietnamese offensive in 1972 by mining the Haiphong harbor, *Democrats unleashed the Nazi comparisons. *Congressman Ron Dellums: In the last years of the Second World War, after the Germans knew they were defeated, they went on an orgy of killingwill  our removal be in the same frenzied manner? Anonymous Author for the Black Panther Newspaper, The Black Panther. In Black Panther 8 no. 9
> 
> 6. Well never know what JFK would have thought of this, but Democrat Senator Scoop Jackson summed it up nicely:  I do not what to see* the Democratic Party become a party which gives any aid and comfort whatever to people who applaud Vietcong victories or wave Vietcong flags*. Our party has room for hawks and doves, but not for mockingbirds who chirp gleefully at those who are shooting at American boys.
> Richard Whalen, Taking Sides, p.177.
> 
> a. During a Washington, D.C., anti-war rally, *government workers at the Peace Corps seized the building and flew the Vietcong flag *from its roof.
> Kissinger, The White House Years, p. 514.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.  Today....an anniversary of sorts:
> *April 30th, 1975* Operation Frequent Wind: Evacuation of the last US personnel from the embassy in Saigon. *Thousands of desperate Vietnamese gathered at the embassy gate and begged to be taken with them; others committed suicide. *In early 1975 the communist launched a massive attack, and Gerald Ford asked for $1 billion in supplemental funds to help the South. Even though US forces had won every battle, *Congress refused:* Ford had no choice but to order Operation Frequent Wind.
> * At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8.  In 1979, Humanitas, the organization of* anti-war activist Joan Baez, purchased a newspaper ad* that ran in five large circulation dailies, called An Open Letter to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which ran in part:
> Thousands of innocent Vietnamese, many of whose only crimes are those of conscience, are being arrested, detained and tortured in prison and re-education camps The jails are overflowing with thousands upon thousands of detainees* People disappear and never return People are used as human mine detectors, clearing live mine fields with their hands and feet.  For many, life is hell and death is prayed for. *  With tragic irony, the cruelty, violence and oppression practiced by foreign powers in your country for more than a century continue today under the present regime.
> 
> It was an abiding commitment to fundamental principles of human dignity, freedom and self-determination that motivated so many Americans to oppose the government of South Vietnam and our country's participation in the war. It is that same commitment that *compels us to speak out against your brutal disregard of human rights. As in the 60s, we raise our voices now so that your people may live.                             * And a Voice to Sing With -- A Memoir, by Joan Baez
> 
> a. Baez mailed the letter to 350 anti-war activists. Among those who *refused to sign was Jane Fonda. *Your name would mean much more than any other, she told Fonda, in a long letter. Fonda wrote that the add would lend credence to those who believe that Communism is worse than death
> Washington Post, Lynn Darling, Joan Baez at 38, June 29, 1979
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week, one of our members referred to waterboarding as 'dragging out flag through the mud."
> 
> I wonder what he thinks of the behavior of the Democrat Party after Viet Nam.....
> 
> 
> 
> One looks at the above, and wonders whether the Leftist Democrats acted during the war to save lives....
> ...or to injure the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now those evil communists are valuable trading partners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These guys aren't among the traders:
> 
> "At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea."
> 
> 
> But I'm heartened to see that you haven't denied that these guys are traitors:
> 
> The Leftist Democrats.
Click to expand...


Nor are those burned by napalm or killed in places like My Lai.


----------



## bodecea

konradv said:


> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio



Damn....I remember that one well.


----------



## namvet

I worked with a Vietnamese dude who worked at an air base over there. they murdered his brother and his family fled south. he was just two steps ahead of them and just got out with his life. he found a sponsor and came back here. but I remember how it haunted him. he goes back there sometimes to visit his family but has to take a lot of money to bribe the officials.


----------



## Dante

bullshit revisionist history  





please.....this shit stinks


----------



## Dante

namvet said:


> its the 58,000 plus kids I remember most



half of them with Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people


----------



## Dante

Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Vietnam was just another game of political brinksmanship where our brave soldiers were used a pawns their lives thrown away over nothing.


----------



## namvet

Dante said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> its the 58,000 plus kids I remember most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> half of them with Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
Click to expand...


so LBJ had NO responsibility here at all. thanks for clearing that up


----------



## namvet

Dante said:


> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.



so did Japan and germany and Iraq and afghan


----------



## Dante

namvet said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> its the 58,000 plus kids I remember most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> half of them with Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so LBJ had NO responsibility here at all. thanks for clearing that up
Click to expand...


LBJ? Who said he didn't. 

We all see you do not deny or refute what you are attacking. 

half of the US serivce deaths happened with the Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people

Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.


----------



## Oldguy

Dante said:


> bullshit revisionist history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please.....this shit stinks




Right.  The eventual outcome of that war was decided the day Lyndon Johnson opted not to invade the North.  Given the times, I can't fault him for that, but the decision to fight what was basically a defensive war sealed the deal from the very beginning, right wing propaganda about the media and Democrats not withstanding.


----------



## José

The state of South Vietnam was so unbelievably shambolic, so absurdly devoid of any popular support and nationalist legitimacy in the eyes of the vietnamese people that many times throughout its history, the whole country found itself on the verge of total collapse without any north vietnamese/vietcong military activity.

Social convulsion alone (endless succession of general strikes, political protest, anti-government manifestations, etc) almost did the trick numerous times without a single bullet fired.

Paraphrasing Saddam, that was the mother of all puppet states.


----------



## Oldguy

whitehall said:


> The callus democrat majority could have withdrawn funding any time during the LBJ administration but they waited to stab a republican in the back and abandon all the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US. Treasonous democrats authorized Bush to use combat Troops in Iraq and then undermined the mission and tried to impact the morale of the troops like Harry Reid's "the war is lost" just before the Troop Surge.



Bullshit.  I thought you were smarter than that.


----------



## Dante

namvet said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so did Japan and germany and Iraq and afghan
Click to expand...


Japan and Germany and Iraq and Afghanistan belonged to the Vietnamese?? 

America was attacked by Japan and Germany was Japan's ally and we went to war against them. Afghanistan harbored a rag tag group of international terrorists who attacked America. We gave warning and then went in.

Iraq?   Dante supported going in for reasons other than the bs wmd. Dante also was stunned into disbelief when Bush/Cheney took support for going in as a mandate to remake and rebuild Iraq from the ground up.   As soon as Bush/Cheney allowed that asshole Bremer to run things...it was turned into a different ballgame where Bush/Cheney used the support to go in for support of a strategic plan that no one voted on...and we all know no one would have supported it ahead of time.

Even now Bush will address questions about Iraq by deflecting/mentioning 'removing Saddam was the right thing to do'


----------



## Dante

Oldguy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit revisionist history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please.....this shit stinks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The eventual outcome of that war was decided the day Lyndon Johnson opted not to invade the North.  Given the times, I can't fault him for that, but the decision to fight what was basically a defensive war sealed the deal from the very beginning, right wing propaganda about the media and Democrats not withstanding.
Click to expand...


All the Vietnamese had to do was wait us out like they did the French. It was their country. We were acting like cold warriors, like the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.


----------



## PoliticalChic

konradv said:


> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio



1. Let's note in passing that you have not one gripe with the construction of the OP....because not only is every item correct...but the conclusion is indisputable.

So....what remains for you?
Yup.....try to change the subject.


2. Now...that particular subject....a terrific fall-back for a Leftist, 'cause you have been trained to respond to the phrase 'Kent State' similarly to the efforts of Pavlov, with his subjects.




And this is largely because you don't know what you think you know....I'm reminded of the saying about how mushrooms are raised.


3. The folks who control the information that leads you down the primrose path, are the same ones who brought you the upheavals of the 60's.

Instructive of the movement is the* new evidence released by the FBI as to the causes of the Kent State shootings of 1970.*
 Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more *meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others *on that searing day in May 1970.

Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed* a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.*And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue  evidence, the report stated, that indicated that *at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard.*
New light shed on Kent State killings - Washington Times


4.	For perspective, consider the famous Weathermen Days of Rage protests of the Chicago 7 trial in October 1969. Planned as war in the streets, even the Black Panthers decided that these folks were too psychotic even for them. Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP), said We oppose the anarchistic, adventuristic, chauvinistic, individualistic, masochistic, Custeristic Weathermen. 
Susan Braudy, Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left,: p. 188

a.	Too nuts for the Black Panthers, but they became respected advisors and co-authors to the current Democratic President.



b.	At a 1969 War Council in Flint, Michigan, Bernardine Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman* fork salute, she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victims stomach! Wild! *Bernardine Dohrn - Discover the Networks


5.	So...these are the folks that serve as teachers to you Leftists?
At other rallies, Dohrn said, "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at."


How very easy it is to lead the uninformed.


----------



## namvet

Dante said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> half of them with Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so LBJ had NO responsibility here at all. thanks for clearing that up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LBJ? Who said he didn't.
> 
> We all see you do not deny or refute what you are attacking.
> 
> half of the US serivce deaths happened with the Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
> 
> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
Click to expand...


you launched the attack I just asked a question. ill ask another. why did LBJ order the bombing halt after TET???


----------



## PoliticalChic

Oldguy said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The callus democrat majority could have withdrawn funding any time during the LBJ administration but they waited to stab a republican in the back and abandon all the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US. Treasonous democrats authorized Bush to use combat Troops in Iraq and then undermined the mission and tried to impact the morale of the troops like Harry Reid's "the war is lost" just before the Troop Surge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  I thought you were smarter than that.
Click to expand...



Actually, the OP proves what he states.

And, for the record, I didn't think you were smarter than you appear.
It was hardly necessary for you to verify same.


----------



## Dante

namvet said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> so LBJ had NO responsibility here at all. thanks for clearing that up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBJ? Who said he didn't.
> 
> We all see you do not deny or refute what you are attacking.
> 
> half of the US service deaths happened with the Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
> 
> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you launched the attack I just asked a question. ill ask another. why did LBJ order the bombing halt after TET???
Click to expand...


you attack while refuting nothing.

LBJ left office in 1968


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. The weakness of Nixon due to the Watergate scandal...






Bring the boys home now!  And we did.


----------



## Dante

Nixon promised to end the war, not win it.  He promised 'peace' not 'victory'


Why are right wingers like PoliChic so incredibly ignorant about American history?


The Nukes of October: Richard Nixon's Secret Plan to Bring Peace to Vietnam


> During his campaign for the presidency the year before, Richard Nixon had vowed to end that conflict. But more than 4,500 Americans had died there in the first six months of 1969, including 84 soldiers at the debacle of Hamburger Hill.
> 
> Meanwhile, the peace negotiations in Paris, which many people hoped would end the conflict, had broken down. The Vietnamese had declared that they would just sit there, conceding nothing, "until the chairs rot."
> 
> Frustrated, Nixon decided to try something new: threaten the Soviet Union with a massive nuclear strike and make its leaders think he was crazy enough to go through with it. His hope was that the Soviets would be so frightened of events spinning out of control that they would strong-arm Hanoi, telling the North Vietnamese to start making concessions at the negotiating table or risk losing Soviet military support.


----------



## namvet

Dante said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> LBJ? Who said he didn't.
> 
> We all see you do not deny or refute what you are attacking.
> 
> half of the US service deaths happened with the Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
> 
> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you launched the attack I just asked a question. ill ask another. why did LBJ order the bombing halt after TET???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you attack while refuting nothing.
> 
> LBJ left office in 1968
Click to expand...


no. you attack while refuting nothing. man this is waaaay over your head


----------



## Dante

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_5.pdf

VIETNAM And The Republicans
The War In Vietnam.

The Text of the Controversial Republican White Paper

Prepared by the Staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Washington, .D. C.,

Public Affairs Press. 1967,


----------



## Dante

namvet said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> you launched the attack I just asked a question. ill ask another. why did LBJ order the bombing halt after TET???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you attack while refuting nothing.
> 
> LBJ left office in 1968
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no. you attack while refuting nothing. man this is waaaay over your head
Click to expand...



yet a timeline of posts proves you are full of shit. why is that?




namvet said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> its the 58,000 plus kids I remember most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> half of them with Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so LBJ had NO responsibility here at all. thanks for clearing that up
Click to expand...




> LBJ? Who said he didn't.
> 
> We all see you do not deny or refute what you are attacking.
> 
> half of the US serivce deaths happened with the Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
> 
> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.


----------



## Dot Com

Curiously, no one has mentioned McNamara's book  This coincides w/ what Dante was saying. They continued sending people there KNOWING there was no chance of winning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Post-World_Bank_activities_and_assessments


> McNamara's memoir, _In Retrospect_, published in 1995, presented an account and analysis of the Vietnam War from his point of view. According to his lengthy New York Times obituary, *"[h]e concluded well before leaving the Pentagon that the war was futile, but he did not share that insight with the public until late in life. In 1995, he took a stand against his own conduct of the war, confessing in a memoir that it was 'wrong, terribly wrong.'" In return, he faced a "firestorm of scorn"* at that time


----------



## namvet

Dante said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> you attack while refuting nothing.
> 
> LBJ left office in 1968
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no. you attack while refuting nothing. man this is waaaay over your head
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yet a timeline of posts proves you are full of shit. why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> so LBJ had NO responsibility here at all. thanks for clearing that up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBJ? Who said he didn't.
> 
> We all see you do not deny or refute what you are attacking.
> 
> half of the US serivce deaths happened with the Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
> 
> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


a timeline of posts proves you are so full of shit the whites of your eyes are brown. why is that?


----------



## namvet

Dot Com said:


> Curiously, no one has mentioned McNamara's book  This coincides w/ what Dante was saying. They continued sending people there KNOWING there was no chance of winning.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Post-World_Bank_activities_and_assessments
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara's memoir, _In Retrospect_, published in 1995, presented an account and analysis of the Vietnam War from his point of view. According to his lengthy New York Times obituary, *"[h]e concluded well before leaving the Pentagon that the war was futile, but he did not share that insight with the public until late in life. In 1995, he took a stand against his own conduct of the war, confessing in a memoir that it was 'wrong, terribly wrong.'" In return, he faced a "firestorm of scorn"* at that time
Click to expand...


LBJ was a soft headed idiot that McNamara used like a lap dog


----------



## Dante

poor namvet, too much 
Orange Koolaid


----------



## Oldguy

Dante said:


> Why are right wingers like PoliChic so incredibly ignorant about American history?



It's deliberate.  Can't have anything conflicting with the official meme.


----------



## Oldguy

Dante said:


> http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_5.pdf
> 
> VIETNAM And The Republicans
> The War In Vietnam.
> 
> The Text of the Controversial Republican White Paper
> 
> Prepared by the Staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Washington, .D. C.,
> 
> Public Affairs Press. 1967,




OOOOO!  Good find!


----------



## Dot Com

Two citations for all of that?  Notable quotables & a Joan Baez quote link?  

Anyway, you ever hear of the gulf of Tonkin "incident"? What are your views of the military industrial complex and the lengths to which it will go to feed the beast (contractors like the modern day Halliburtons, KBR's, BlackWaters, ect... and their politician, water-carrier's campaign coffers and promises of future employment)?


----------



## Oldguy

Dot Com said:


> what brought this on PoliChic? Two citations for all of that as well?  Notable quotables & a Joan Baez quote link?
> 
> Anyway, you ever hear of the gulf of Tonkin "incident"? What are your views of the military industrial complex and the lengths to which it will go to feed the beast (contractors like the modern day halliburtons, KBR's, BlackWaters, ect... and their politician, water-carriers)?




All I know about the Tonkin Gulf incident is that I personally knew a guy who was on the USS Maddox that day in the FDC shack and HE says there was definitely somebody out there and they WERE shooting at them.


----------



## namvet

Dante said:


> poor namvet, too much
> Orange Koolaid



Koolaid Drinker  



> People who believe anything they are told. people who refuse to change there minds when confronted with facts.
> *a koolaid drinker is the liberal democrat who is liberal because they are told they should be. they have made no attempt to decide why the are liberal.*
> often a koolaid "drinker" simply wants to hate anything a republican does good or bad.
> koolaid people are the vocal howard dean wing of the democrat party. the converse of rightwing loonies.
> koolaid drinkers are the ones that went first when jim jones said drink.



up and down liberal


----------



## namvet

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_krQH_zZqE]Bill Frederick - Hey, Hey, LBJ - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dante said:


> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.



*South *Vietnam belonged to the *South *Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese had no more right to it than anyone else.

The US congress was responsible for making sure that RSVN and US military sacrifices were ineffective. We abandoned an ally in it's time of need and proved that we could not be trusted to honor our commitments, Certainly a cause for shame.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

bodecea said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn....I remember that one well.
Click to expand...


So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths.


----------



## Desperado

VietNam..April 30th....How It Ended

Many things can be said about the way it ended.
"Badly" comes to mind as well as "not soon enough"
Way to many American lives were lost for no apparent reason.
We gained nothing by fighting in that country.


----------



## Oldguy

Desperado said:


> VietNam..April 30th....How It Ended
> 
> Many things can be said about the way it ended.
> "Badly" comes to mind as well as "not soon enough"
> Way to many American lives were lost for no apparent reason.
> We gained nothing by fighting in that country.



We gained precisely nothing by fighting there and the effects of it are still being felt today.

But, who could have known that then?


----------



## Oldguy

9thIDdoc said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn....I remember that one well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths.
Click to expand...



Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!


----------



## 9thIDdoc

April 30...WHAT YEAR??? That detail does make considerable difference.


----------



## konradv

9thIDdoc said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *South *Vietnam belonged to the *South *Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese had no more right to it than anyone else.
Click to expand...


Then why weren't they allowed to vote on what government they wanted?  The north didn't get involved until it became apparent that the people of the south weren't going to get to choose whether they wanted separate countries or unification.


----------



## konradv

PoliticalChic said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Let's note in passing that you have not one gripe with the construction of the OP....because not only is every item correct...but the conclusion is indisputable.
> 
> So....what remains for you?
> Yup.....try to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...that particular subject....a terrific fall-back for a Leftist, 'cause you have been trained to respond to the phrase 'Kent State' similarly to the efforts of Pavlov, with his subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is largely because you don't know what you think you know....I'm reminded of the saying about how mushrooms are raised.
> 
> 
> 3. The folks who control the information that leads you down the primrose path, are the same ones who brought you the upheavals of the 60's.
> 
> Instructive of the movement is the* new evidence released by the FBI as to the causes of the Kent State shootings of 1970.*
> Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more *meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others *on that searing day in May 1970.
> 
> Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed* a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.*And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue  evidence, the report stated, that indicated that *at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard.*
> New light shed on Kent State killings - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 4.	For perspective, consider the famous Weathermen Days of Rage protests of the Chicago 7 trial in October 1969. Planned as war in the streets, even the Black Panthers decided that these folks were too psychotic even for them. Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP), said We oppose the anarchistic, adventuristic, chauvinistic, individualistic, masochistic, Custeristic Weathermen.
> Susan Braudy, Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left,: p. 188
> 
> a.	Too nuts for the Black Panthers, but they became respected advisors and co-authors to the current Democratic President.
> 
> 
> 
> b.	At a 1969 War Council in Flint, Michigan, Bernardine Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman* fork salute, she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victims stomach! Wild! *Bernardine Dohrn - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 5.	So...these are the folks that serve as teachers to you Leftists?
> At other rallies, Dohrn said, "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at."
> 
> 
> How very easy it is to lead the uninformed.
Click to expand...


You're the truly uninformed.  The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course.  We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## Oldguy

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Let's note in passing that you have not one gripe with the construction of the OP....because not only is every item correct...but the conclusion is indisputable.
> 
> So....what remains for you?
> Yup.....try to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...that particular subject....a terrific fall-back for a Leftist, 'cause you have been trained to respond to the phrase 'Kent State' similarly to the efforts of Pavlov, with his subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is largely because you don't know what you think you know....I'm reminded of the saying about how mushrooms are raised.
> 
> 
> 3. The folks who control the information that leads you down the primrose path, are the same ones who brought you the upheavals of the 60's.
> 
> Instructive of the movement is the* new evidence released by the FBI as to the causes of the Kent State shootings of 1970.*
> Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more *meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others *on that searing day in May 1970.
> 
> Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed* a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.*And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue  evidence, the report stated, that indicated that *at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard.*
> New light shed on Kent State killings - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 4.	For perspective, consider the famous Weathermen Days of Rage protests of the Chicago 7 trial in October 1969. Planned as war in the streets, even the Black Panthers decided that these folks were too psychotic even for them. Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP), said We oppose the anarchistic, adventuristic, chauvinistic, individualistic, masochistic, Custeristic Weathermen.
> Susan Braudy, Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left,: p. 188
> 
> a.	Too nuts for the Black Panthers, but they became respected advisors and co-authors to the current Democratic President.
> 
> 
> 
> b.	At a 1969 War Council in Flint, Michigan, Bernardine Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman* fork salute, she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victims stomach! Wild! *Bernardine Dohrn - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 5.	So...these are the folks that serve as teachers to you Leftists?
> At other rallies, Dohrn said, "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at."
> 
> 
> How very easy it is to lead the uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the truly uninformed.  The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course.  We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history.
Click to expand...



BINGO!  You get the brass ring!


----------



## PoliticalChic

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Let's note in passing that you have not one gripe with the construction of the OP....because not only is every item correct...but the conclusion is indisputable.
> 
> So....what remains for you?
> Yup.....try to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...that particular subject....a terrific fall-back for a Leftist, 'cause you have been trained to respond to the phrase 'Kent State' similarly to the efforts of Pavlov, with his subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is largely because you don't know what you think you know....I'm reminded of the saying about how mushrooms are raised.
> 
> 
> 3. The folks who control the information that leads you down the primrose path, are the same ones who brought you the upheavals of the 60's.
> 
> Instructive of the movement is the* new evidence released by the FBI as to the causes of the Kent State shootings of 1970.*
> Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more *meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others *on that searing day in May 1970.
> 
> Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed* a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.*And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue  evidence, the report stated, that indicated that *at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard.*
> New light shed on Kent State killings - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 4.	For perspective, consider the famous Weathermen Days of Rage protests of the Chicago 7 trial in October 1969. Planned as war in the streets, even the Black Panthers decided that these folks were too psychotic even for them. Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP), said We oppose the anarchistic, adventuristic, chauvinistic, individualistic, masochistic, Custeristic Weathermen.
> Susan Braudy, Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left,: p. 188
> 
> a.	Too nuts for the Black Panthers, but they became respected advisors and co-authors to the current Democratic President.
> 
> 
> 
> b.	At a 1969 War Council in Flint, Michigan, Bernardine Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman* fork salute, she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victims stomach! Wild! *Bernardine Dohrn - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 5.	So...these are the folks that serve as teachers to you Leftists?
> At other rallies, Dohrn said, "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at."
> 
> 
> How very easy it is to lead the uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the truly uninformed.  The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course.  We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history.
Click to expand...


The reference to 'uninformed' was of your changing of the subject to Kent State.

But, you know that....don't you.

If the National Guard had been fired upon as the FBI states....that changes things, doesn't it?
And, since you were unaware of same, that pretty much proves who was uninformed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Oldguy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn....I remember that one well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
Click to expand...



"... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"

Well...glad you're open to education.

The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....

...and open gulags,....

...and slay 25 million Americans.


Take notes:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk]Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8apP1IxVUUc]Communists on Campus: The Weather Underground - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Desperado

PoliticalChic said:


> If the National Guard had been fired upon as the FBI states....that changes things, doesn't it?
> And, since you were unaware of same, that pretty much proves who was uninformed.



A great read on the Kent State Massacre:
Four Dead In Ohio: Was There A Conspiracy At Kent State?


----------



## PoliticalChic

"KENT, Ohio -- A noisy, violent altercation and four pistol shots took place about 70 seconds before Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University, according to a new analysis of a 40-year-old audiotape of the event.
The discovery adds new perspective to -- and raises new questions about -- one of the signature events of the 20th century, after four decades of spirited discussion and research."
Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings (audio) | cleveland.com


----------



## bornright

PoliticalChic said:


> These guys aren't among the traders:
> 
> "At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea."
> 
> 
> But I'm heartened to see that you haven't denied that these guys are traitors:
> 
> The Leftist Democrats.



I spoke to a Vietnamese American about six months ago.  He told me after we left and the North took over they came to his house and dragged his father off and killed him.  This man was only 9 when this occurred he still cries and did so in front of me.  I did the "Obama thing" and apologized to him for our government abandoning them.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *bornright*
> I spoke to a Vietnamese American about six months ago.  He told me after we left and the North took over they came to his house and dragged his father off and killed him.  This man was only 9 when this occurred he still cries and did so in front of me.  I did the "Obama thing" and apologized to him for our government abandoning them.



Indeed.

France/America's disastrous interference in Vietnam's internal affairs to create and maintain an artificial, pseudo-country "led" by vietnamese puppets of french colonialism, turned what would be a peaceful declaration of independence soon after the japanese withdrawal into a wholesale bloodbath that lasted 30 years and claimed the lives of 1 million vietnamese.

All the fire of Hell is too little punishment for what those 2 countries did to Vietnam.


----------



## Desperado

Oldguy said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> VietNam..April 30th....How It Ended
> 
> Many things can be said about the way it ended.
> "Badly" comes to mind as well as "not soon enough"
> Way to many American lives were lost for no apparent reason.
> We gained nothing by fighting in that country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We gained precisely nothing by fighting there and the effects of it are still being felt today.
> 
> *But, who could have known that then*?
Click to expand...


How about all those people that were protesting the war.  I believe they had a clue.


----------



## Oldguy

Desperado said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> VietNam..April 30th....How It Ended
> 
> Many things can be said about the way it ended.
> "Badly" comes to mind as well as "not soon enough"
> Way to many American lives were lost for no apparent reason.
> We gained nothing by fighting in that country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We gained precisely nothing by fighting there and the effects of it are still being felt today.
> 
> *But, who could have known that then*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about all those people that were protesting the war.  I believe they had a clue.
Click to expand...



I doubt most of them did.  Protesting was a social event and a good way to get laid for the majority.


----------



## konradv

PoliticalChic said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Let's note in passing that you have not one gripe with the construction of the OP....because not only is every item correct...but the conclusion is indisputable.
> 
> So....what remains for you?
> Yup.....try to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...that particular subject....a terrific fall-back for a Leftist, 'cause you have been trained to respond to the phrase 'Kent State' similarly to the efforts of Pavlov, with his subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is largely because you don't know what you think you know....I'm reminded of the saying about how mushrooms are raised.
> 
> 
> 3. The folks who control the information that leads you down the primrose path, are the same ones who brought you the upheavals of the 60's.
> 
> Instructive of the movement is the* new evidence released by the FBI as to the causes of the Kent State shootings of 1970.*
> Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more *meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others *on that searing day in May 1970.
> 
> Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed* a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.*And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue  evidence, the report stated, that indicated that *at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard.*
> New light shed on Kent State killings - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 4.	For perspective, consider the famous Weathermen Days of Rage protests of the Chicago 7 trial in October 1969. Planned as war in the streets, even the Black Panthers decided that these folks were too psychotic even for them. Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP), said We oppose the anarchistic, adventuristic, chauvinistic, individualistic, masochistic, Custeristic Weathermen.
> Susan Braudy, Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left,: p. 188
> 
> a.	Too nuts for the Black Panthers, but they became respected advisors and co-authors to the current Democratic President.
> 
> 
> 
> b.	At a 1969 War Council in Flint, Michigan, Bernardine Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman* fork salute, she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victims stomach! Wild! *Bernardine Dohrn - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 5.	So...these are the folks that serve as teachers to you Leftists?
> At other rallies, Dohrn said, "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at."
> 
> 
> How very easy it is to lead the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the truly uninformed.  The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course.  We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reference to 'uninformed' was of your changing of the subject to Kent State.
> 
> But, you know that....don't you.
> 
> If the National Guard had been fired upon as the FBI states....that changes things, doesn't it?
> And, since you were unaware of same, that pretty much proves who was uninformed.
Click to expand...


There's all sorts of uninformed.  You're uninformed and passing it along by ignoring the basis for the war.


----------



## editec

WE lost in South VeitNam and still 

no dominos fell.​
Instead we have become a valued trading partner with the communists that we _so feared._

Which means people my age knew one fuck of a lot of our generation who 

died for a lie​


----------



## PoliticalChic

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the truly uninformed.  The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course.  We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reference to 'uninformed' was of your changing of the subject to Kent State.
> 
> But, you know that....don't you.
> 
> If the National Guard had been fired upon as the FBI states....that changes things, doesn't it?
> And, since you were unaware of same, that pretty much proves who was uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's all sorts of uninformed.  You're uninformed and passing it along by ignoring the basis for the war.
Click to expand...


You brought up Kent State.

It was your attempt to change the subject.

I'll accept your acknowledgement that you didn't know the details of the incident.

Do you do so?



Now...if I can open a larger can of worms.....the real 'basis for the war' was the Roosevelt-Truman administrations' infiltration by communists, who gave aid to Mao, and opposed nationalist Chiang Kai-shek 


No Mao, no communist China, no Viet Nam war.


But, heck....you're probably not even here today....you must be out celebrating May Day....


----------



## konradv

PoliticalChic said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reference to 'uninformed' was of your changing of the subject to Kent State.
> 
> But, you know that....don't you.
> 
> If the National Guard had been fired upon as the FBI states....that changes things, doesn't it?
> And, since you were unaware of same, that pretty much proves who was uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's all sorts of uninformed.  You're uninformed and passing it along by ignoring the basis for the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought up Kent State.
> 
> It was your attempt to change the subject.
> 
> I'll accept your acknowledgement that you didn't know the details of the incident.
> 
> Do you do so?
> 
> Now...if I can open a larger can of worms.....the real 'basis for the war' was the Roosevelt-Truman administrations' infiltration by communists, who gave aid to Mao, and opposed nationalist Chiang Kai-shek
> 
> No Mao, no communist China, no Viet Nam war.
> 
> But, heck....you're probably not even here today....you must be out celebrating May Day....
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is astounding.  We supported Chiang at every turn.  If he lost, it was his own fault.

As for Viet Nam, the north was supported by the USSR, not China.  China was their traditional enemy.  Regardless of whether Mao won or not, Ho Che Mihn was a nationalist who would have tried to oust the French or any other power.

Why do I bring up Kent State?  To counter your one-sided analysis of the war.  Not everyone that opposed it was a Communist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's all sorts of uninformed.  You're uninformed and passing it along by ignoring the basis for the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up Kent State.
> 
> It was your attempt to change the subject.
> 
> I'll accept your acknowledgement that you didn't know the details of the incident.
> 
> Do you do so?
> 
> Now...if I can open a larger can of worms.....the real 'basis for the war' was the Roosevelt-Truman administrations' infiltration by communists, who gave aid to Mao, and opposed nationalist Chiang Kai-shek
> 
> No Mao, no communist China, no Viet Nam war.
> 
> But, heck....you're probably not even here today....you must be out celebrating May Day....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding.  We supported Chiang at every turn.  If he lost, it was his own fault.
> 
> As for Viet Nam, the north was supported by the USSR, not China.  China was their traditional enemy.  Regardless of whether Mao won or not, Ho Che Mihn was a nationalist who would have tried to oust the French or any other power.
> 
> Why do I bring up Kent State?  To counter your one-sided analysis of the war.  Not everyone that opposed it was a Communist.
Click to expand...




I'm actually beginning to enjoy proving what a dullard you are.


As your education, as well as that of tecy's, is near and dear to my heart, take the following down:
Both Roosevelt and Truman relied on the Institute of Pacific Relations for direction in dealing with China. The icon of the IPC was communist Owen Lattimore. The Institute was riddled with communists.

Further, so were the two administrations, and Treasury, specifically, held back loans promised to Chiang Kai-shek.

I will provide some links below...but, I look forward to the day when you guys will realize that I am never wrong.



1. . From the book &#8220;Blacklisted From History,&#8221; by M. Stanton Evans: Soviet agents in the U.S. State department (and Treasury) worked actively to damage confidence of our government, in the (Nationalist) Chinese fighting in their own country, as our allies against the Japanese, and *in favor of the Communist insurgency of Mao *Tse-Tung and Chou En-Lai. 
While Chiang Kai-Shek was busy as our ally fighting the Japanese, White, Currie, Coe, Glasser, and Hiss were doing all they could to undermine him in favor of Mao and the communists.


2. .[Owen] Lattimore was a scholar of Chinese history who taught at Johns Hopkins University. During World War II, President Franklin D. *Roosevelt appointed him as a special representative to the Nationalist Chinese government of Chiang Kai-Shek. *Lattimore also served in the Office of War Information. His troubles began after the war, when it became apparent that Chiang's government would fall to the communist forces of Mao Zedong. When China fell to the communists in 1949, shocked Americans looked for scapegoats to blame for the debacle. Individuals such as Lattimore, who had been *unremitting in their criticism of Chiang's regime,* were easy targets.
McCarthy charges that Owen Lattimore is a Soviet spy ? History.com This Day in History ? 3/26/1950


3.  "Mr. Truman said that the nationalists should have surrendered because they didn't have a chance to win...the opinion of American ambassador Leighton Stuart was that the *failure of American aid to come at the opportune moment* was the real cause of the weakness of nationalists and the disintegration of their armies....many military commanders went over to the enemy because they saw the United States withdrawing moral support from Chiang Kai-shek. Mr. Truman boldly defends what Treasury did. He doesn't mention* Harry Dexter White, mentioned in congressional hearings as a communist spy, sat at Treasury with full power to say when the money promised Chiang Kai-shek *would be forwarded or withheld." Toledo Blade, Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search



I can provide far more detail if necessary.


----------



## Dot Com

its just like Sobchak said:  "The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fucking adversary."

Seriously though, there was no way the U.S. was going to kill their way to victory. Same w/ the present day Taliban. Theres was/is too many of them.

Are you claiming that the Vietnam war was winnable PoliChic?   You know how many tons of bombs & agent orange were dropped on that country and they STILL won.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_tons_of_bomb_were_dropped_in_Vietnam_War


> Over 7 million tons of bombs were dropped by the US during the Vietnam War; over 2 million tons were dropped during WW2.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> its just like Sobchak said:  "The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fucking adversary."
> 
> Seriously though, there was no way the U.S. was going to kill their way to victory. Same w/ the present day Taliban. Theres was/is too many of them.
> 
> Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic?   You know how many tons of bombs & agent orange were dropped on that country and they STILL won.



"Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic"

What is the basis of your query?



If the OP was too difficult for you to understand, just say so.

I constructed it to show that Democrats prevented the US from keeping its commitment to folks who supported us.

This was in the center of the OP:
" One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations."


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Oldguy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn....I remember that one well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
Click to expand...


Simple. It was the "protesters"-led by communists and communist sympathizers- who started and escalated the violence at Kent State and this time they got the violent  response they wanted and martyrs to the cause.


----------



## Dot Com

PoliticalChic said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like Sobchak said:  "The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fucking adversary."
> 
> Seriously though, there was no way the U.S. was going to kill their way to victory. Same w/ the present day Taliban. Theres was/is too many of them.
> 
> Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic?   You know how many tons of bombs & agent orange were dropped on that country and they STILL won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic"
> 
> What is the basis of your query?
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP was too difficult for you to understand, just say so.
> 
> I constructed it to show that Democrats prevented the US from keeping its commitment to folks who supported us.
> 
> This was in the center of the OP:
> " One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations."
Click to expand...


any additional funds, in addition to the lion's share that had already allocated, would'nt have made a dimes worth of difference to the outcome because it would've been to little, too late. 

You get the gist of McNamara's book on the subject?  He was the SECDEF and he said he knew the war was lost years before it was "officially" ended. If he knew, others in the Cabinet knew as well. Besides the West's supply lines were waaay long (which suited def contractors just fine because it added to the $ flowing into the def industrial complex) BUT favored the N Vietnamese because they were resupplied locally at a fraction of the time & cost.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Let's note in passing that you have not one gripe with the construction of the OP....because not only is every item correct...but the conclusion is indisputable.
> 
> So....what remains for you?
> Yup.....try to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...that particular subject....a terrific fall-back for a Leftist, 'cause you have been trained to respond to the phrase 'Kent State' similarly to the efforts of Pavlov, with
> 
> 
> 
> And this is largely because you don't know what you think you know....I'm reminded of the saying about how mushrooms are raised.
> 
> 
> 3. The folks who control the information that leads you down the primrose path, are the same ones who brought you the upheavals of the 60's.
> 
> Instructive of the movement is the* new evidence released by the FBI as to the causes of the Kent State shootings of 1970.*
> Previously undisclosed FBI documents suggest that the Kent State antiwar protests were more *meticulously planned than originally thought and that one or more gunshots may have been fired at embattled Ohio National Guardsmen before their killings of four students and woundings of at least nine others *on that searing day in May 1970.
> 
> Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed* a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.*And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue  evidence, the report stated, that indicated that *at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard.*
> New light shed on Kent State killings - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 4.	For perspective, consider the famous Weathermen Days of Rage protests of the Chicago 7 trial in October 1969. Planned as war in the streets, even the Black Panthers decided that these folks were too psychotic even for them. Fred Hampton, deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP), said We oppose the anarchistic, adventuristic, chauvinistic, individualistic, masochistic, Custeristic Weathermen.
> Susan Braudy, Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left,: p. 188
> 
> a.	Too nuts for the Black Panthers, but they became respected advisors and co-authors to the current Democratic President.
> 
> 
> 
> b.	At a 1969 War Council in Flint, Michigan, Bernardine Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman* fork salute, she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victims stomach! Wild! *Bernardine Dohrn - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 5.	So...these are the folks that serve as teachers to you Leftists?
> At other rallies, Dohrn said, "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at."
> 
> 
> How very easy it is to lead the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the truly uninformed.  The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course.  We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reference to 'uninformed' was of your changing of the subject to Kent State.
> 
> But, you know that....don't you.
> 
> If the National Guard had been fired upon as the FBI states....that changes things, doesn't it?
> And, since you were unaware of same, that pretty much proves who was uninformed.
Click to expand...


One or more gunshots MAY have been fired? Sounds like a coverup. I knew people who were there. One guy was a Vietnam vet who was a Hawk until this incident. No one heard any gunshots, you have to do better than this.


----------



## Dante

9thIDdoc said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *South *Vietnam belonged to the *South *Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese had no more right to it than anyone else.
> 
> The US congress was responsible for making sure that RSVN and US military sacrifices were ineffective. We abandoned an ally in it's time of need and proved that we could not be trusted to honor our commitments, Certainly a cause for shame.
Click to expand...


What a moron you are. But hey, you are consistent


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"
> 
> Well...glad you're open to education.
> 
> The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....
> 
> ...and open gulags,....
> 
> ...and slay 25 million Americans.
> 
> 
> Take notes:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk]Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I was a leader in the anti war movement, and WE had no such intentions.


----------



## Dante

Oldguy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_5.pdf
> 
> VIETNAM And The Republicans
> The War In Vietnam.
> 
> The Text of the Controversial Republican White Paper
> 
> Prepared by the Staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Washington, .D. C.,
> 
> Public Affairs Press. 1967,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOO!  Good find!
Click to expand...


yeah, I thought so. Facts and history go against most right wing arguments. It is why they must live in their little bubble.


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"
> 
> Well...glad you're open to education.
> 
> The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....
> 
> ...and open gulags,....
> 
> ...and slay 25 million Americans.
> 
> 
> Take notes:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk]Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...



What was the membership of that Underground?
JEsus, right world is whacky


----------



## editec

Oldguy said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We gained precisely nothing by fighting there and the effects of it are still being felt today.
> 
> *But, who could have known that then*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about all those people that were protesting the war.  I believe they had a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt most of them did.  Protesting was a social event and a good way to get laid for the majority.
Click to expand...


Give it just a moment's thinking and you'd realize how utter silly that statement is.

Remember the DRAFT?

People were paying attention to VietNam because about half of us were worried about getting out asses sent there or aready had friends and relatives who were in county.

Remember that at one point we have over one half million troops stationed there.

People, especdially those protesting that war knew far more about that nation and its history than most of CONGRESS apparently did.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like Sobchak said:  "The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fucking adversary."
> 
> Seriously though, there was no way the U.S. was going to kill their way to victory. Same w/ the present day Taliban. Theres was/is too many of them.
> 
> Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic?   You know how many tons of bombs & agent orange were dropped on that country and they STILL won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic"
> 
> What is the basis of your query?
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP was too difficult for you to understand, just say so.
> 
> I constructed it to show that Democrats prevented the US from keeping its commitment to folks who supported us.
> 
> This was in the center of the OP:
> " One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations."
Click to expand...


The folks who 'supported us' were a corrupt government fighting to hold onto the drug trade in the Golden Triangle.


----------



## NoNukes

9thIDdoc said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple. It was the "protesters"-led by communists and communist sympathizers- who started and escalated the violence at Kent State and this time they got the violent  response they wanted and martyrs to the cause.
Click to expand...


Total bullshit from someone who was not there and not involved.


----------



## NoNukes

Dante said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"
> 
> Well...glad you're open to education.
> 
> The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....
> 
> ...and open gulags,....
> 
> ...and slay 25 million Americans.
> 
> 
> Take notes:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk]Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What was the membership of that Underground?
> JEsus, right world is whacky
Click to expand...


Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest. I was almost blown up trying to talk reason with a guy who was making a bomb. It went off as I was leaving the apartment.


----------



## Dante

Conservatives and Republicans have been playing games and shifting blame for Vietnam since teh 1950s:



> The Republican study emphasizes that the Geneva Agree-
> ment did not make the 17th parallel a permanent boundary
> and that elections were required in two years. However.
> the Republicans attempt to limit the responsibility of the
> Dulles policy for undermining the Geneva Agreement by
> placing the blame on Diem. Diem's actions inVietnam were
> a phase of U. S. policy in Asia set by Dulles by creating
> SEAT0 in September ,1954, less than two months after the
> Geneva conference, and by the U. S. letter to Diem of
> October 23. 1954 which had been dictated by a Thai repre-
> senative. By concentrating upon Diem's actions, however.
> the Republicans come to present an accurate description
> of the devglopment of the National Liberation Frontof South
> Vietnam. The study notes that the guerrilla activity began
> in 1957 as a result of Diem's refusal to bold the 1956
> elections provided for at Geneva. This opposition was in-
> tensified when Diem replaced the local village chiefs
> with Saigon appointees who naturally became the objects of
> local "terrorism," i,e., popular justice.
> 
> The Republican statement, in its attempts to shift blame
> from bi-partisan US imperialism to the Democratic add
> ministration elected in November, 1960, fails to note the
> importance of that election for the Vietnamese. Diem was
> so closely identified with the Republican administration
> that its defeat by the Democrats led the anti-Diem opposi-
> tion to revolt against Diem, on November 11.1960. The Ken-
> nedy administration, however, was to support Diem as
> strongly as the Eisenhower administration. Meanwhile.
> as a result of the unsuccessful revolt of the Saigon military
> and political leaders supported by the paratroop forces.
> the only effective opposition to the US-puppet regime was
> now the guerrilla forces, and "in December 1960, the
> National Front for Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF)
> was formed by militant South Vietnamese insurgents."


 http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_5.pdf


----------



## Dot Com

Vietnam was mentioned in that movie- A Fish Called Wanda. The Brit was ribbing the Yank over the outcome of that war. Getting back at the Yank for the Revolution I guess  

Didn't lose Vietnam, it was a tie Sound Clip and Quote - Hark

BTW- I'm VERY serious about those who fought & died there. Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen just follow orders. Its the one's who started & continued it past the point of reason.


----------



## Dante

NoNukes said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"
> 
> Well...glad you're open to education.
> 
> The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....
> 
> ...and open gulags,....
> 
> ...and slay 25 million Americans.
> 
> 
> Take notes:
> 
> Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the membership of that Underground?
> JEsus, right world is whacky
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest. I was almost blown up trying to talk reason with a guy who was making a bomb. It went off as I was leaving the apartment.
Click to expand...


I knew a couple from the Boston area schools. Most were all talk,


and


the Republicans  http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_5.pdf


> The Republicans say:
> 
> It should be noted that the NLF has been southern
> oriented.
> 
> * Forty of their senior leaders were native
> South Vietnamese. The South Vietnamese Communists
> have, in the past, found Hanoi quite willing to enter
> into agreements at the expense of the South Vietna-
> mese whether Communist or not. *
> 
> Examples: . . .
> 
> *Three, the Geneva Agreements of July 1954, left the
> south under control of the Diem government for at
> least 2 more years-this when most of the south
> was already under Communist control. *
> 
> Four, there-after, neither Hanoi nor Peking, nor Moscow made
> strong representations against dropping elections in
> 1956, in effect confirming Diem's control and leaving
> the South Vietnamese Communists out in the col&
> All of which is a reminder to the South Vietnamese
> Communists that North Vietnam has separate in-
> terests, and has not in the past been the most re-
> liable of allies.
> 
> Besides this must be placed the Four Points of the North
> Vietnam government of April 13. 1965. quoted by the
> Republicans, including point three: "The internal affairs of
> South Vietnam must be settled by the South Vietnamese
> people themselves, in accordance with the program of the
> South Vietnam Front for Liberation, without any foreign
> interference."
> To emphasize the


----------



## Dante

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like Sobchak said:  "The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fucking adversary."
> 
> Seriously though, there was no way the U.S. was going to kill their way to victory. Same w/ the present day Taliban. Theres was/is too many of them.
> 
> Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic?   You know how many tons of bombs & agent orange were dropped on that country and they STILL won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic"
> 
> What is the basis of your query?
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP was too difficult for you to understand, just say so.
> 
> I constructed it to show that Democrats prevented the US from keeping its commitment to folks who supported us.
> 
> This was in the center of the OP:
> " One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The folks who 'supported us' were a corrupt government fighting to hold onto the drug trade in the Golden Triangle.
Click to expand...


what a load of simplistic bullshit


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"You're the truly uninformed. The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course. We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history." ___________________

When the area was partitioned into North and South (as was Korea) hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese left most of what they owned behind and went South to avoid Uncle Ho's communist government. Do you really think that they would want a rigged election to negate their efforts?

The North left behind thousands of troops to make sure of the results of any vote. In short there was never any real possibility of an honest vote and any attempt to hold one would very likely have resulted in a bloodbath to no point. The stay behinds formed the cadre of the VC and the majority were to die during the '68 Tet offensive after slaughtering thousands of SVN civilians.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"
> 
> Well...glad you're open to education.
> 
> The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....
> 
> ...and open gulags,....
> 
> ...and slay 25 million Americans.
> 
> 
> Take notes:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk]Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a leader in the anti war movement, and WE had no such intentions.
Click to expand...





Have you heard the term "Useful Idiots"?

They didn't want to use your real name.


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"
> 
> Well...glad you're open to education.
> 
> The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....
> 
> ...and open gulags,....
> 
> ...and slay 25 million Americans.
> 
> 
> Take notes:
> 
> Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a leader in the anti war movement, and WE had no such intentions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard the term "Useful Idiots"?
> 
> They didn't want to use your real name.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, it is PoliChic who is a useful idiot of the Boat People and Conservatives bullshit


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> its just like Sobchak said:  "The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fucking adversary."
> 
> Seriously though, there was no way the U.S. was going to kill their way to victory. Same w/ the present day Taliban. Theres was/is too many of them.
> 
> Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic?   You know how many tons of bombs & agent orange were dropped on that country and they STILL won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic"
> 
> What is the basis of your query?
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP was too difficult for you to understand, just say so.
> 
> I constructed it to show that Democrats prevented the US from keeping its commitment to folks who supported us.
> 
> This was in the center of the OP:
> " One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The folks who 'supported us' were a corrupt government fighting to hold onto the drug trade in the Golden Triangle.
Click to expand...




"At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea."


----------



## Dante

9thIDdoc said:


> _"You're the truly uninformed. The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course. We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history." ___________________
> 
> When the area was partitioned into North and South (as was Korea) hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese left most of what they owned behind and went South to avoid Uncle Ho's communist government. Do you really think that they would want a rigged election to negate their efforts?
> 
> The North left behind thousands of troops to make sure of the results of any vote. In short there was never any real possibility of an honest vote and any attempt to hold one would very likely have resulted in a bloodbath to no point. The stay behinds formed the cadre of the VC and the majority were to die during the '68 Tet offensive after slaughtering thousands of SVN civilians.



exactly, and Republicans have been playing games with this since day one  http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_5.pdf


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"
> 
> Well...glad you're open to education.
> 
> The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....
> 
> ...and open gulags,....
> 
> ...and slay 25 million Americans.
> 
> 
> Take notes:
> 
> Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the membership of that Underground?
> JEsus, right world is whacky
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest. I was almost blown up trying to talk reason with a guy who was making a bomb. It went off as I was leaving the apartment.
Click to expand...


"Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest"....just followed their orders......


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic"
> 
> What is the basis of your query?
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP was too difficult for you to understand, just say so.
> 
> I constructed it to show that Democrats prevented the US from keeping its commitment to folks who supported us.
> 
> This was in the center of the OP:
> " One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks who 'supported us' were a corrupt government fighting to hold onto the drug trade in the Golden Triangle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea."
Click to expand...


A civil war. Do you know what happened to the French and Americans who were on the losing sides of their civil wars?


----------



## Dot Com

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic"
> 
> What is the basis of your query?
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP was too difficult for you to understand, just say so.
> 
> I constructed it to show that Democrats prevented the US from keeping its commitment to folks who supported us.
> 
> This was in the center of the OP:
> " One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks who 'supported us' were a corrupt government fighting to hold onto the drug trade in the Golden Triangle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the &#8220;liberation,&#8221; and up to 250,000 died in &#8220;re-education&#8221; camps. Thousands of &#8220;boat people&#8221; tried to flee, and perished at sea."
Click to expand...


Are you still claiming that was a "winnable" war?  Maybe if we just threw more money at it? Do you believe the American Revolutionaries would have lost had the Brits just threw more money at it?


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!"
> 
> Well...glad you're open to education.
> 
> The radicals in charge of groups such as the Weather Underground were communists, and planned to turn parts of the nation to China, Cuba, the Soviets....
> 
> ...and open gulags,....
> 
> ...and slay 25 million Americans.
> 
> 
> Take notes:
> 
> Larry Grathwohl interview about William Ayers,Obama's Mentor - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a leader in the anti war movement, and WE had no such intentions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard the term "Useful Idiots"?
> 
> They didn't want to use your real name.
Click to expand...


Name calling simply shows your failure.


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the membership of that Underground?
> JEsus, right world is whacky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest. I was almost blown up trying to talk reason with a guy who was making a bomb. It went off as I was leaving the apartment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest"....just followed their orders......
Click to expand...


The fact that everyone agrees the weathermen were instigators, proves they were outsiders coming into peaceful demonstrations..

Sort of like Tea Party assholes during election times


----------



## NoNukes

Dante said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Are you claiming that the vietnam war was winnable PoliChic"
> 
> What is the basis of your query?
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP was too difficult for you to understand, just say so.
> 
> I constructed it to show that Democrats prevented the US from keeping its commitment to folks who supported us.
> 
> This was in the center of the OP:
> " One marvels at the lack of concern by the Left after the success of their machinations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks who 'supported us' were a corrupt government fighting to hold onto the drug trade in the Golden Triangle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a load of simplistic bullshit
Click to expand...


Are you denying that there is any truth here?


----------



## there4eyeM

Both sides miscalculated and erred in that 'war'. Overlooking the lead-in (the '40s and '50s) and who was right or wrong about the origins of the fighting, the conflict was the result of neither side really understanding the other's motivations and goals. Over a million Vietnamese civilians died out of stupidity.
America did not take into account that big white westerners were not going to be accepted by a people that had resisted every outsider for centuries.
The Vietnamese did not understand what America was after and what the goal was (who did?). They continued fighting despite losing almost every military battle, receiving more tonnage of bombs than were dropped on Germany in WWII and having to put up with the Russians as allies. 
Everyone knew the Americans would lose interest after a while if the fighting stopped and leave Vietnam to the Vietnamese. N.V. and the V.C. should have just said, "OK, Uncle Sam, you're just too much for us! We give up" after Tet in '68. Then, a couple of years later after the inevitable withdrawal of US interest and forces, taken over the country. After all, that's essentially what eventually happened. A lot fewer people would have perished all around.


----------



## there4eyeM

PoliticalChic said:


> "KENT, Ohio -- A noisy, violent altercation and four pistol shots took place about 70 seconds before Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University, according to a new analysis of a 40-year-old audiotape of the event.
> The discovery adds new perspective to -- and raises new questions about -- one of the signature events of the 20th century, after four decades of spirited discussion and research."
> Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings (audio) | cleveland.com



There is no excuse for National Guard presence at Kent state.

There is no justification for their carrying loaded weapons.

There is no justification for firing indiscriminately into a crowd of students.

There is no justification for those who killed that day not to be at least in prison.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dante said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest. I was almost blown up trying to talk reason with a guy who was making a bomb. It went off as I was leaving the apartment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest"....just followed their orders......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that everyone agrees the weathermen were instigators, proves they were outsiders coming into peaceful demonstrations..
> 
> Sort of like Tea Party assholes during election times
Click to expand...


Instigators??

No....your accepted leaders.


And you follow them to this day.


1.	*The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities*They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalismI watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.  Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.


2.	The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, *anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence. *
Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51


3.	*[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds*; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood. Ibid p. 53


----------



## PoliticalChic

there4eyeM said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "KENT, Ohio -- A noisy, violent altercation and four pistol shots took place about 70 seconds before Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University, according to a new analysis of a 40-year-old audiotape of the event.
> The discovery adds new perspective to -- and raises new questions about -- one of the signature events of the 20th century, after four decades of spirited discussion and research."
> Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings (audio) | cleveland.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no excuse for National Guard presence at Kent state.
> 
> There is no justification for their carrying loaded weapons.
> 
> There is no justification for firing indiscriminately into a crowd of students.
> 
> There is no justification for those who killed that day not to be at least in prison.
Click to expand...





Thanks for dropping by, Mr. Alinsky


----------



## NoNukes

there4eyeM said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "KENT, Ohio -- A noisy, violent altercation and four pistol shots took place about 70 seconds before Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University, according to a new analysis of a 40-year-old audiotape of the event.
> The discovery adds new perspective to -- and raises new questions about -- one of the signature events of the 20th century, after four decades of spirited discussion and research."
> Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings (audio) | cleveland.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no excuse for National Guard presence at Kent state.
> 
> There is no justification for their carrying loaded weapons.
> 
> There is no justification for firing indiscriminately into a crowd of students.
> 
> There is no justification for those who killed that day not to be at least in prison.
Click to expand...


They were not supposed to have live ammunition in their guns.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

editec said:


> WE lost in South VeitNam and still
> 
> no dominos fell.​
> Instead we have become a valued trading partner with the communists that we _so feared._
> 
> Which means people my age knew one fuck of a lot of our generation who
> 
> died for a lie​



Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia. 

*"died for a lie"? *That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.


----------



## Oldguy

9thIDdoc said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple. It was the "protesters"-led by communists and communist sympathizers- who started and escalated the violence at Kent State and this time they got the violent  response they wanted and martyrs to the cause.
Click to expand...



That's funny.  They got what they wanted?  Well...then I assume what they wanted was no more violent campus protests because there weren't any after Kent State and Jackson State.


----------



## there4eyeM

PoliticalChic said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "KENT, Ohio -- A noisy, violent altercation and four pistol shots took place about 70 seconds before Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University, according to a new analysis of a 40-year-old audiotape of the event.
> The discovery adds new perspective to -- and raises new questions about -- one of the signature events of the 20th century, after four decades of spirited discussion and research."
> Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings (audio) | cleveland.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no excuse for National Guard presence at Kent state.
> 
> There is no justification for their carrying loaded weapons.
> 
> There is no justification for firing indiscriminately into a crowd of students.
> 
> There is no justification for those who killed that day not to be at least in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping by, Mr. Alinsky
Click to expand...


Glad to be of service, Ms Reifenstahl.


----------



## Oldguy

9thIDdoc said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE lost in South VeitNam and still
> 
> no dominos fell.​
> Instead we have become a valued trading partner with the communists that we _so feared._
> 
> Which means people my age knew one fuck of a lot of our generation who
> 
> died for a lie​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia.
> 
> *"died for a lie"? *That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.
Click to expand...



Yes, there was a bloodbath in the aftermath of the war, and especially in Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Tell me...who finally put an end to the murderous Khymer Rouge?


----------



## editec

9thIDdoc said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE lost in South VeitNam and still
> 
> no dominos fell.​
> Instead we have become a valued trading partner with the communists that we _so feared._
> 
> Which means people my age knew one fuck of a lot of our generation who
> 
> died for a lie​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia.
> 
> *"died for a lie"? *That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.
Click to expand...


Did any dominos fall, Lad?  I ask because that dubious theory was the entire justification for why the USA had to insinuate itself in that stupid fucking war

_No, editec, no dominos fell,"_ should have been your answer if you were being honest

Quite the contrary Viet Nam has become one of our favored trading partners.

So the basic justification for that stupid fucking war was _entirely bullshit._


----------



## PoliticalChic

Oldguy said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE lost in South VeitNam and still
> 
> no dominos fell.​
> Instead we have become a valued trading partner with the communists that we _so feared._
> 
> Which means people my age knew one fuck of a lot of our generation who
> 
> died for a lie​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia.
> 
> *"died for a lie"? *That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was a bloodbath in the aftermath of the war, and especially in Pol Pot's Cambodia.
> 
> Tell me...who finally put an end to the murderous Khymer Rouge?
Click to expand...





How about I tell you a more important truth, and an eternal truth, at that:

The link between communism and the massacre of millions is indelible.

And this: Democrat record of aiding communism every chance they get is as indelible.


1.	The record of Communist states massacring large numbers of their own people is well documented. Starting with the Soviet Union, which pioneered the terror-famine, mass deportations, concentration camps and mass executions, Stalin murdered up to 20 million. Under Mao Tse-Tung, an estimated 65 million Chinese were killed by execution, torture, and starvation. Vietnam, over a million. North Korea, about two million. Courtois, et.al., The Black Book of Communism, p. 611. 
While high on the list proportionally, the Cambodian Communists were not qualitatively different from the rest.


a.	Khmer Rouge leader Khieu Samphan, who had studied in Paris, wrote in his doctoral dissertation that the Cambodian economy and social structure would be renewed by tapping the dormant energy of the peasant mass against the cities. Kissinger, The White House Years, p. 518.
 The ideology was influenced by Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, and Mao.


b.	True to the collectivist doctrines, family feeling and other human connections were sternly discouraged, as were displays of affection, compassion and kindness. A man who attempted to keep his wounded son by his side was chastised You have individualist tendencies. You must shed these illusions. Courtois, Ibid, p. 605.



2.	Starting in April 75, the Communist Khmer Rouge defeated Lon Nol in Cambodia. *Democrats, starting with the 1974 budget, refused to allocate another penny, *and forbade US military action in or over Indochina. Just as the right had warned, the communists began a systematic war on the entire populations of their nation, so savage, it is hard to comprehend. It is estimated that the number of dead numbered between 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million. Killing Fields - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 a.	The pedicab did not move to the side of the road so a soldier killed the driver with machine gun fire.A young soldier thrust his rifle through the window of the car, then shot the driver through the heart, and he crumpled in the arms of his wifeIm going to pick up my family, Without warning, a soldier sprayed him with machine gun bullets.The frantic parents protested and sought to reclaim their children on the other side of the communist column. The patrol leader thereupon fired a volley of rifle shots, killing both mother and father. Barron and Paul, Murder of a Gentle Land,  p.26-28.


b.	Later, to save bullets, the Khmer Rouge switched to other methods of execution, including clubbing, asphyxiation, and dousing the head with gasoline and setting it on fire. Courtois, et.al., The Black Book of Communism, p. 611



3.  Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals. The revisionist is aware of the horrors of Communism; the tortures, the Gulags, the over 100 million persons done to death.


----------



## oldfart

there4eyeM said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping by, Mr. Alinsky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to be of service, Ms Reifenstahl.
Click to expand...


PC would probably get off on Leni's life story if she ever read it.  Especially her recreational activities while filming "Olympia".


----------



## Dante

NoNukes said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The folks who 'supported us' were a corrupt government fighting to hold onto the drug trade in the Golden Triangle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a load of simplistic bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you denying that there is any truth here?
Click to expand...


there is always a kernel of truth in every successful lie


----------



## Dante

9thIDdoc said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE lost in South VeitNam and still
> 
> no dominos fell.​
> Instead we have become a valued trading partner with the communists that we _so feared._
> 
> Which means people my age knew one fuck of a lot of our generation who
> 
> died for a lie​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia.
> 
> *"died for a lie"? *That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.
Click to expand...


Dominoes fell. What happened? Nothing. It was a stupid fucking scare tactic meant to be used in a stupider game with the Soviets and Red Chinese


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Most of us in the anti war movement were against the Weathermen and any form of violent protest"....just followed their orders......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that everyone agrees the weathermen were instigators, proves they were outsiders coming into peaceful demonstrations..
> 
> Sort of like Tea Party assholes during election times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instigators??
> 
> No....your accepted leaders.
> 
> 
> And you follow them to this day.
> ,,,
Click to expand...


How you've survived this far in life is beyond me.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dante said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that everyone agrees the weathermen were instigators, proves they were outsiders coming into peaceful demonstrations..
> 
> Sort of like Tea Party assholes during election times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instigators??
> 
> No....your accepted leaders.
> 
> 
> And you follow them to this day.
> ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How you've survived this far in life is beyond me.
Click to expand...


Survive????

Pshaw....


THRIVE!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dante said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that everyone agrees the weathermen were instigators, proves they were outsiders coming into peaceful demonstrations..
> 
> Sort of like Tea Party assholes during election times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instigators??
> 
> No....your accepted leaders.
> 
> 
> And you follow them to this day.
> ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How you've survived this far in life is beyond me.
Click to expand...




For a less frivolous answer:

 The human attempt for self-gratification is usually kept in check, within bounds, by religion, morality, law, and, by the necessity to work hard based on the fear of want. Much of the former was removed by the French Revolution, and in modern America, and another restriction was removed by the rising affluence of the last century; suppressed by WWI, and then by the Depression, but released by the 9-year expansion of the 1960s. 

 The effect of affluence was increased, multiplied, by the fact that parents, who had known the hardships of the Depression, and WWII, were determined to give their children every comfort that they could.
Bork, Op. Cit., chapter one.


a.	A leader of SDS wrote : Without thinking about it, we all took the fat of the land for granted. 
Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, p. 104


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instigators??
> 
> No....your accepted leaders.
> 
> 
> And you follow them to this day.
> ,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you've survived this far in life is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Survive????
> 
> Pshaw....
> 
> 
> THRIVE!
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

PoliticalChic said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instigators??
> 
> No....your accepted leaders.
> 
> 
> And you follow them to this day.
> ,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you've survived this far in life is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a less frivolous answer:
> 
> The human attempt for self-gratification is usually kept in check, within bounds, by religion, morality, law, and, by the necessity to work hard based on the fear of want. Much of the former was removed by the French Revolution, and in modern America, and another restriction was removed by the rising affluence of the last century; suppressed by WWI, and then by the Depression, but released by the 9-year expansion of the 1960s.
> 
> The effect of affluence was increased, multiplied, by the fact that parents, who had known the hardships of the Depression, and WWII, *were determined to give their children every comfort that they could.*
> Bork, Op. Cit., chapter one.
> 
> 
> a.	A leader of SDS wrote : Without thinking about it, we all took the fat of the land for granted.
> Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, p. 104
Click to expand...


*and in so doing they raised a generation of misfits and miscreants...the me generation(s)*


----------



## there4eyeM

oldfart said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping by, Mr. Alinsky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to be of service, Ms Reifenstahl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PC would probably get off on Leni's life story if she ever read it.  Especially her recreational activities while filming "Olympia".
Click to expand...


Which were...?


----------



## Spoonman

the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.



Meaning, they were counting on free speech?


----------



## konradv

9thIDdoc said:


> _"You're the truly uninformed. The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course. We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history." ___________________
> 
> When the area was partitioned into North and South (as was Korea) hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese left most of what they owned behind and went South to avoid Uncle Ho's communist government. Do you really think that they would want a rigged election to negate their efforts?
> 
> The North left behind thousands of troops to make sure of the results of any vote. In short there was never any real possibility of an honest vote and any attempt to hold one would very likely have resulted in a bloodbath to no point. The stay behinds formed the cadre of the VC and the majority were to die during the '68 Tet offensive after slaughtering thousands of SVN civilians.



Instead you had rigged elections by the government we supported, 50,000+ American dead and millions of Vietnamese.  Hardly seems worth it.


----------



## there4eyeM

"...and in so doing they raised a generation of misfits and miscreants...the me generation(s)"

Yes, with Cheney  and Co. as prime examples.


----------



## konradv

there4eyeM said:


> "...and in so doing they raised a generation of misfits and miscreants...the me generation(s)"
> 
> Yes, with Cheney  and Co. as prime examples.



Gore was there.  Bush stayed home.


----------



## Dante

Spoonman said:


> the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.



they also said since it was their country they would just wait us out like they did the French

see?


----------



## Oldguy

Dante said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they also said since it was their country they would just wait us out like they did the French
> 
> see?
Click to expand...



They were prepared to fight 100 years.  We weren't.  We're not in Afghanistan either.  Or Iraq.


----------



## Sunni Man

Dante said:


> they also said since it was their country they would just wait us out like they did the French


They didn't have to wait out the French.

The French military was soundly defeated by the Viet Minh under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh.    ..


----------



## Spoonman

Dante said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they also said since it was their country they would just wait us out like they did the French
> 
> see?
Click to expand...


the french lost twice with a home court advantage.  you really expected them to win on the road?


----------



## Dante

hating on the French...another great American tradition


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning, they were counting on free speech?
Click to expand...


yea free speech. you know where journalists visited the POW's in Hanoi and reported how well the criminals were being treated but neglected to mention they were being tortured and killed.


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they also said since it was their country they would just wait us out like they did the French
> 
> see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the french lost twice with a home court advantage.  you really expected them to win on the road?
Click to expand...


Lost what twice? 

With all the wars all the Europeans fought, everyone lost at least two wars. How many countries had the military success of the French under Napoleon? How many great armies and empires did they humiliate 'on the road'?

WWII started poorly for France (in large part because they allowed the English to dominate with a flawed plan) and perhaps lost the first round, but under De Gaulle and with its allies, the enemy was expelled. People should give up this idiotic Franophobia. The American Revolution should make Americans eternally love the French (whom were never repaid, by the way, for the loans they made). 

The problem with wars is if you fight enough of them, you lose sometime. Rewriting history may help, though.

Did the US win in Vietnam? Was it a war? What about Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are victories? And what are they? Did Congress make them formally wars?

One more point; isn't it odd that no one referred to Indochina and the fighting there as Christians against Buddhists.


----------



## Spoonman

Dante said:


> hating on the French...another great American tradition



well that and facts don't lie


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> they also said since it was their country they would just wait us out like they did the French
> 
> see?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the french lost twice with a home court advantage.  you really expected them to win on the road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lost what twice?
> 
> With all the wars all the Europeans fought, everyone lost at least two wars. How many countries had the military success of the French under Napoleon? How many great armies and empires did they humiliate 'on the road'?
> 
> WWII started poorly for France (in large part because they allowed the English to dominate with a flawed plan) and perhaps lost the first round, but under De Gaulle and with its allies, the enemy was expelled. People should give up this idiotic Franophobia. The American Revolution should make Americans eternally love the French (whom were never repaid, by the way, for the loans they made).
> 
> The problem with wars is if you fight enough of them, you lose sometime. Rewriting history may help, though.
> 
> Did the US win in Vietnam? Was it a war? What about Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are victories? And what are they? Did Congress make them formally wars?
> 
> One more point; isn't it odd that no one referred to Indochina and the fighting there as Christians against Buddhists.
Click to expand...


please, the built defenses based on old technology and then buried their heads in the sand.   oh and Waterloo


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning, they were counting on free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea free speech. you know where journalists visited the POW's in Hanoi and reported how well the criminals were being treated but neglected to mention they were being tortured and killed.
Click to expand...


Many people like free speech when they like what it says.


----------



## Dot Com

Oldguy said:


> They were prepared to fight 100 years.  We weren't.  We're not in Afghanistan either.  Or Iraq.



exactly what I was thinking. Ancient cultures look at time in different ways. Who was it that said "you have the watch but we have the time."? Someone in Afghanistan  The Afghanis will simply wait us out/wear us down over time just like the Vietnamese did. 

FAILTHREAD!!!


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning, they were counting on free speech?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea free speech. you know where journalists visited the POW's in Hanoi and reported how well the criminals were being treated but neglected to mention they were being tortured and killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many people like free speech when they like what it says.
Click to expand...


and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the french lost twice with a home court advantage.  you really expected them to win on the road?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lost what twice?
> 
> With all the wars all the Europeans fought, everyone lost at least two wars. How many countries had the military success of the French under Napoleon? How many great armies and empires did they humiliate 'on the road'?
> 
> WWII started poorly for France (in large part because they allowed the English to dominate with a flawed plan) and perhaps lost the first round, but under De Gaulle and with its allies, the enemy was expelled. People should give up this idiotic Franophobia. The American Revolution should make Americans eternally love the French (whom were never repaid, by the way, for the loans they made).
> 
> The problem with wars is if you fight enough of them, you lose sometime. Rewriting history may help, though.
> 
> Did the US win in Vietnam? Was it a war? What about Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are victories? And what are they? Did Congress make them formally wars?
> 
> One more point; isn't it odd that no one referred to Indochina and the fighting there as Christians against Buddhists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please, the built defenses based on old technology and then buried their heads in the sand.   oh and Waterloo
Click to expand...


Oh, and know nothing!
Did the Germans come through the Maginot line? They came through the Ardennes Forest while the French Army was over to the west with the Brits at the latter's insistence. Then, they covered the English forces' ass as they evacuated and left the French to the tender mercies of the Germans. At that point, Paris was indefensible. 

Napoleon was not a great man in my book, but he was a military genius. Of course, no general wins all the time.

But isn't this thread about something else?


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea free speech. you know where journalists visited the POW's in Hanoi and reported how well the criminals were being treated but neglected to mention they were being tortured and killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people like free speech when they like what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda
Click to expand...


If the 'liberals' were so omnipresent and powerful as you and others seem to want us to believe, they would have totally taken over and your butt would be in a re-education camp somewhere, or worse.

You live in a make-believe world where everything bad is your opposing camp. How is it that whatever it is that you imagine your side is (conservatives) could never effectively resist these 'liberals' (whatever that means)? Moral inferiority? Intellectual incapacity? Lack of funding? Please, explain.


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people like free speech when they like what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the 'liberals' were so omnipresent and powerful as you and others seem to want us to believe, they would have totally taken over and your butt would be in a re-education camp somewhere, or worse.
> 
> You live in a make-believe world where everything bad is your opposing camp. How is it that whatever it is that you imagine your side is (conservatives) could never effectively resist these 'liberals' (whatever that means)? Moral inferiority? Intellectual incapacity? Lack of funding? Please, explain.
Click to expand...


but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control.  which is most of the universities and the media.


----------



## Dot Com

Sunni Man said:


> The French are surrender monkeys.......always have been.  ..



They were smart enough to run away. For some reason the Americans thought they could do better


----------



## there4eyeM

Is it possible for people to know less than nothing?


----------



## Spoonman

Dot Com said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French are surrender monkeys.......always have been.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were smart enough to run away. For some reason the Americans thought they could do better
Click to expand...


americans could do better.  when they fought wars to win wars.  when wars became a political statement and negotiation tool is when we started to have problems


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French are surrender monkeys.......always have been.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were smart enough to run away. For some reason the Americans thought they could do better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> americans could do better.  when they fought wars to win wars.  when wars became a political statement and negotiation tool is when we started to have problems
Click to expand...


So, those protesting for peace were right.


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were smart enough to run away. For some reason the Americans thought they could do better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americans could do better.  when they fought wars to win wars.  when wars became a political statement and negotiation tool is when we started to have problems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, those protesting for peace were right.
Click to expand...


no, they were mostly left and asking not what they could do for their country but what their country could do for them.


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> americans could do better.  when they fought wars to win wars.  when wars became a political statement and negotiation tool is when we started to have problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, those protesting for peace were right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, they were mostly left and asking not what they could do for their country but what their country could do for them.
Click to expand...


But you just said the war was wrong. Shouldn't patriots look out for what's best for the country?


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, those protesting for peace were right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, they were mostly left and asking not what they could do for their country but what their country could do for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you just said the war was wrong. Shouldn't patriots look out for what's best for the country?
Click to expand...


no i didn't. where did i say that?


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, they were mostly left and asking not what they could do for their country but what their country could do for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said the war was wrong. Shouldn't patriots look out for what's best for the country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no i didn't. where did i say that?
Click to expand...


You do agree that someone who loves America should freely express an opinion about what is thought to be best for it, don't you?


----------



## NoNukes

Dante said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a load of simplistic bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that there is any truth here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is always a kernel of truth in every successful lie
Click to expand...


Must be a shitload of truth in that then.


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said the war was wrong. Shouldn't patriots look out for what's best for the country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i didn't. where did i say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree that someone who loves America should freely express an opinion about what is thought to be best for it, don't you?
Click to expand...


so back to my question.  no i didn't where did i say that?  well show me.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea free speech. you know where journalists visited the POW's in Hanoi and reported how well the criminals were being treated but neglected to mention they were being tortured and killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people like free speech when they like what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda
Click to expand...


Yes, to end the war and stop Americans from being killed.


----------



## there4eyeM

"...when wars became a political statement and negotiation tool is when we started to have problems"

This was not a reference to 'Nam? Sorry.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 'liberals' were so omnipresent and powerful as you and others seem to want us to believe, they would have totally taken over and your butt would be in a re-education camp somewhere, or worse.
> 
> You live in a make-believe world where everything bad is your opposing camp. How is it that whatever it is that you imagine your side is (conservatives) could never effectively resist these 'liberals' (whatever that means)? Moral inferiority? Intellectual incapacity? Lack of funding? Please, explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control.  which is most of the universities and the media.
Click to expand...


Where you need an education.


----------



## there4eyeM

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people like free speech when they like what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to end the war and stop Americans from being killed.
Click to expand...


And killing unnecessarily. That's good, too.


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> "...when wars became a political statement and negotiation tool is when we started to have problems"
> 
> This was not a reference to 'Nam? Sorry.



oh yea, I see how you spun I was against the war out of that


----------



## Spoonman

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 'liberals' were so omnipresent and powerful as you and others seem to want us to believe, they would have totally taken over and your butt would be in a re-education camp somewhere, or worse.
> 
> You live in a make-believe world where everything bad is your opposing camp. How is it that whatever it is that you imagine your side is (conservatives) could never effectively resist these 'liberals' (whatever that means)? Moral inferiority? Intellectual incapacity? Lack of funding? Please, explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control.  which is most of the universities and the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where you need an education.
Click to expand...


an education consists of presenting facts and only facts and letting you form your own opinion.  What you support is refered to as an indoctrination


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...when wars became a political statement and negotiation tool is when we started to have problems"
> 
> This was not a reference to 'Nam? Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh yea, I see how you spun I was against the war out of that
Click to expand...


I don't think that was a leap of understanding, but I did say, "sorry". What did you mean? The fighting in Vietnam was not that type of 'war'?


----------



## PoliticalChic

konradv said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...and in so doing they raised a generation of misfits and miscreants...the me generation(s)"
> 
> Yes, with Cheney  and Co. as prime examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gore was there.  Bush stayed home.
Click to expand...



Konny......did you like the job I did in post #66?


It was a classic....wasn't it?


You were on the batting side of a no-hitter, huh?


----------



## Spoonman

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people like free speech when they like what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to end the war and stop Americans from being killed.
Click to expand...


where were they in WWI WWII, Korea?


----------



## there4eyeM

But, 'Chic, you can't be defending Chiang Kai-shek, one of the most corrupt heads of state this sad world has ever seen! Just because he was right doesn't mean he was correct. In the time of WWII, it was not clear which was worse, he or Mao, and if the former had won out it isn't certain things would have been much better for the Chinese. Hindsight might cause us to think so, but you know as well as anyone that is 20/20.
You don't need four eyes to see it.


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to end the war and stop Americans from being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where were they in WWI WWII, Korea?
Click to expand...


Just because someone realizes Vietnam was wrong for America doesn't indicate anything about any other war.


----------



## bornright

Dot Com said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The folks who 'supported us' were a corrupt government fighting to hold onto the drug trade in the Golden Triangle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "At least 65,000 Vietnamese were murdered after the liberation, and up to 250,000 died in re-education camps. Thousands of boat people tried to flee, and perished at sea."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still claiming that was a "winnable" war?  Maybe if we just threw more money at it? Do you believe the American Revolutionaries would have lost had the Brits just threw more money at it?
Click to expand...


Prior to us entering WWII Japan walked into Vietnam easily.  We defeated Japan in WWII.  How do you fight a war when you give your enemy refuge?  Hard to say we lost a war when the only troops in country at the time were the ones in the American embassy.  Our congress refused to arm the south so they lost.  They were defeated for the most part because of the Congress.


----------



## bornright

Spoonman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> hating on the French...another great American tradition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well that and facts don't lie
Click to expand...


The French plant trees along roadways so invading armies can march in the shade.


----------



## PoliticalChic

there4eyeM said:


> But, 'Chic, you can't be defending Chiang Kai-shek, one of the most corrupt heads of state this sad world has ever seen! Just because he was right doesn't mean he was correct. In the time of WWII, it was not clear which was worse, he or Mao, and if the former had won out it isn't certain things would have been much better for the Chinese. Hindsight might cause us to think so, but you know as well as anyone that is 20/20.
> You don't need four eyes to see it.





"...you can't be defending Chiang Kai-shek,...."

Oh, man.....there's a driveway that doesn't quite reach the garage!

1. "Mao Zedong, founder of the Peoples Republic of China, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history, an expert who had unprecedented access to official Communist Party archives said yesterday."
» New Report: Mao Killed 45 Million (But He?s Still Cool) - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

2. "OBAMA DEBATE COACH NAMED MAO AS FAVORITE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER"
Obama Debate Coach Named Mao as Favorite Political Philosopher

3. No further proof needed of the lack of respect the Left has for human life.


----------



## there4eyeM

There is no doubt (outside of the P.R.C.) that Mao was a major catastrophe for humankind. I didn't say otherwise. What I said was that as of 1945, it wasn't clear who was worse. We won't argue over the numbers, which cannot be known for certain, but what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others did for any reason, political or not, are horrendous and indefensible. But Chiang Kai-Shek? He is also indefensible. 

Now can I back my car out?


----------



## PoliticalChic

there4eyeM said:


> There is no doubt (outside of the P.R.C.) that Mao was a major catastrophe for humankind. I didn't say otherwise. What I said was that as of 1945, it wasn't clear who was worse. We won't argue over the numbers, which cannot be known for certain, but what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others did for any reason, political or not, are horrendous and indefensible. But Chiang Kai-Shek? He is also indefensible.
> 
> Now can I back my car out?




Absurd.

"What I said was that as of 1945, it wasn't clear who was worse."

Simply absurd.

The unmistakable implication is that there was some sort of evaluation going on. 
There was not.

The forces of communism drove the argument....and there was no other voice in either Roosevelt's or Truman's ear.

Malcolm Muggeridge was one Jeremiah whose warnings were ignored. McCarthy the same.

1. The results of communism were on view for almost half a century.....and the dupes who acquiesced were willfully blind. 
They wanted to be blind to it.

2.  [Malcollm] Muggeridge was one of the few western journalists to recognize the evil of Soviet Communism when most western thinkers were still taken in by the utopian promises of Marxism. For his honest reporting on the Stalinist show trials he lost his job and was blacklisted for a time. He never lost his critical touch. Malcolm Muggeridge -- The Great Liberal Death Wish


a. Muggeridge goes on to explain, not only how horrible the Soviet Union really was, but how [t]he thing that impressed me, and the thing that touched off my awareness of the great liberal death wish, my sense that western man was, as it were, sleep-walking into his own ruin, was the extraordinary performance of the liberal intelligentsia, who, in those days, flocked to Moscow like pilgrims to Mecca. And they were one and all utterly delighted and excited by what they saw there. Clergymen walked serenely and happily through the anti-god museums, politicians claimed that no system of society could possibly be more equitable and just, lawyers admired Soviet justice, and economists praised the Soviet economy.
Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue




Muggeridge saw.
McCarthy warned, but the Democrats wouldn't hear the truth.
Why wouldn't Roosevelt or Truman??

To this day, folks like you are still using the same excuses.....'we didn't know.'


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the truly uninformed.  The whole reason why there was a war in Viet Nam is because we failed to allow democracy to take its course.  We backed a minority regime that refused to allow a plebiscite on reunification and the rest, as they say, is history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reference to 'uninformed' was of your changing of the subject to Kent State.
> 
> But, you know that....don't you.
> 
> If the National Guard had been fired upon as the FBI states....that changes things, doesn't it?
> And, since you were unaware of same, that pretty much proves who was uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One or more gunshots MAY have been fired? Sounds like a coverup. I knew people who were there. One guy was a Vietnam vet who was a Hawk until this incident. No one heard any gunshots, you have to do better than this.
Click to expand...



Audio of gunshots in link in post #57.


----------



## Oldguy

Just out of curiosity, how many people in this thread have ever even been to Vietnam?


----------



## bornright

Oldguy said:


> Just out of curiosity, how many people in this thread have ever even been to Vietnam?



I was there in 1970.  Thought of going back to see the changes


----------



## Oldguy

bornright said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, how many people in this thread have ever even been to Vietnam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was there in 1970.  Thought of going back to see the changes
Click to expand...


That's when I got there too, and went straight to I Corps where I stayed.

I'd like to go back too.  In the meantime, you oughta check out Google Earth.  You can see the changes, which are many.


----------



## bornright

Oldguy said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, how many people in this thread have ever even been to Vietnam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was there in 1970.  Thought of going back to see the changes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's when I got there too, and went straight to I Corps where I stayed.
> 
> I'd like to go back too.  In the meantime, you oughta check out Google Earth.  You can see the changes, which are many.
Click to expand...


I have looked at the Google Earth and it is unbelievable.  

Check out Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall - The Virtual Wall (TM) it is a site that not only list kia's but also has stories from family members on some.  I found it interesting.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and they knew they could count on free speech that was one sided.  They knew liberals always had an agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to end the war and stop Americans from being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where were they in WWI WWII, Korea?
Click to expand...


We were not born yet.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control.  which is most of the universities and the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where you need an education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an education consists of presenting facts and only facts and letting you form your own opinion.  What you support is refered to as an indoctrination
Click to expand...


Indoctrination is what people do with their children instead of letting them form their own opinions.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reference to 'uninformed' was of your changing of the subject to Kent State.
> 
> But, you know that....don't you.
> 
> If the National Guard had been fired upon as the FBI states....that changes things, doesn't it?
> And, since you were unaware of same, that pretty much proves who was uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One or more gunshots MAY have been fired? Sounds like a coverup. I knew people who were there. One guy was a Vietnam vet who was a Hawk until this incident. No one heard any gunshots, you have to do better than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Audio of gunshots in link in post #57.
Click to expand...


Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you need an education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an education consists of presenting facts and only facts and letting you form your own opinion.  What you support is refered to as an indoctrination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indoctrination is what people do with their children instead of letting them form their own opinions.
Click to expand...


....as opposed to government schools.

(guffaw....)


----------



## 9thIDdoc

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> One or more gunshots MAY have been fired? Sounds like a coverup. I knew people who were there. One guy was a Vietnam vet who was a Hawk until this incident. No one heard any gunshots, you have to do better than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Audio of gunshots in link in post #57.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.
Click to expand...


Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?


----------



## NoNukes

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Audio of gunshots in link in post #57.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
Click to expand...


Yes, this was the National Guards defense, the students were throwing rocks and bottles. There was never any mention that they were being fired upon. Audio tape or not, the Guardsmen did not hear shots.


----------



## PoliticalChic

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Audio of gunshots in link in post #57.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
Click to expand...


I got a kick out of NoNoodles unintentional humor....EYEwitnesses didn't HEAR any gunshots....


Although, the audio equipment picked up the gunfire, none of the EARwitnesses admitted to.....


...so that mean.....what?


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got a kick out of NoNoodles unintentional humor....EYEwitnesses didn't HEAR any gunshots....
> 
> 
> Although, the audio equipment picked up the gunfire, none of the EARwitnesses admitted to.....
> 
> 
> ...so that mean.....what?
Click to expand...


The National Guard did not hear any gunshots.


----------



## NoNukes

PC, why did they delete your new thread?


----------



## Spoonman

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you need an education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an education consists of presenting facts and only facts and letting you form your own opinion.  What you support is refered to as an indoctrination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indoctrination is what people do with their children instead of letting them form their own opinions.
Click to expand...


yes, liberal education


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> an education consists of presenting facts and only facts and letting you form your own opinion.  What you support is refered to as an indoctrination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indoctrination is what people do with their children instead of letting them form their own opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, liberal education
Click to expand...


Yes, proper education


----------



## Spoonman

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indoctrination is what people do with their children instead of letting them form their own opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, liberal education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, proper education
Click to expand...


and there you have it, a liberal calling indoctrination a proper education


----------



## there4eyeM

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Audio of gunshots in link in post #57.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
Click to expand...


Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.

And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?

The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, liberal education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, proper education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and there you have it, a liberal calling indoctrination a proper education
Click to expand...


I am calling education education. What most people do with their kids is indoctrination.


----------



## Spoonman

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, proper education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and there you have it, a liberal calling indoctrination a proper education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am calling education education. What most people do with their kids is indoctrination.
Click to expand...


most liberals


----------



## NoNukes

there4eyeM said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.
> 
> And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?
> 
> The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.
Click to expand...


If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?


----------



## there4eyeM

Isn't this thread about the denouement of America's involvement in Vietnam?


----------



## Spoonman

NoNukes said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.
> 
> And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?
> 
> The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?
Click to expand...


the rules of engagement in a real war or a liberal war?


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.
> 
> And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?
> 
> The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the rules of engagement in a real war or a liberal war?
Click to expand...


Choose whatever pleases you.

 Kent State was a disgusting, shameful crime and only the failure to convict the criminals comes close to equaling it.

But back to Vietnam; was that a 'real' war or a 'liberal' war? Did 'liberals' want to fight Ho Chi Min or was it anti-communist conservatives?

Personally, I wouldn't call it a real war since, like Iraq, Congress didn't have the strength of character to declare it.

As for who wanted and directed it, that can be defined as fools.


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the rules of engagement in a real war or a liberal war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Choose whatever pleases you.
> 
> Kent State was a disgusting, shameful crime and only the failure to convict the criminals comes close to equaling it.
> 
> But back to Vietnam; was that a 'real' war or a 'liberal' war? Did 'liberals' want to fight Ho Chi Min or was it anti-communist conservatives?
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't call it a real war since, like Iraq, Congress didn't have the strength of character to declare it.
> 
> As for who wanted and directed it, that can be defined as fools.
Click to expand...


the real crime was letting terrorists like bill ayers off and still walking freely today. 

so kennedy and johnson who got us into the war and escalated it are now conservatives?


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the rules of engagement in a real war or a liberal war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choose whatever pleases you.
> 
> Kent State was a disgusting, shameful crime and only the failure to convict the criminals comes close to equaling it.
> 
> But back to Vietnam; was that a 'real' war or a 'liberal' war? Did 'liberals' want to fight Ho Chi Min or was it anti-communist conservatives?
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't call it a real war since, like Iraq, Congress didn't have the strength of character to declare it.
> 
> As for who wanted and directed it, that can be defined as fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the real crime was letting terrorists like bill ayers off and still walking freely today.
> 
> so kennedy and johnson who got us into the war and escalated it are now conservatives?
Click to expand...


Your revisionism is showing, as is your refusal to understand English.

Eisenhower sent the first US troops and it was under his administration that the agreed elections were not held.
Where did I say Kennedy and Johnson were conservatives?
I don't care what they were, and I am neither a 'conservative' nor a 'liberal'. I did clearly state they were all fools, especially Nixon and Kissinger.

I await your misinterpretation of this.


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Choose whatever pleases you.
> 
> Kent State was a disgusting, shameful crime and only the failure to convict the criminals comes close to equaling it.
> 
> But back to Vietnam; was that a 'real' war or a 'liberal' war? Did 'liberals' want to fight Ho Chi Min or was it anti-communist conservatives?
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't call it a real war since, like Iraq, Congress didn't have the strength of character to declare it.
> 
> As for who wanted and directed it, that can be defined as fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the real crime was letting terrorists like bill ayers off and still walking freely today.
> 
> so kennedy and johnson who got us into the war and escalated it are now conservatives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your revisionism is showing, as is your refusal to understand English.
> 
> Eisenhower sent the first US troops and it was under his administration that the agreed elections were not held.
> Where did I say Kennedy and Johnson were conservatives?
> I don't care what they were, and I am neither a 'conservative' nor a 'liberal'. I did clearly state they were all fools, especially Nixon and Kissinger.
> 
> I await your misinterpretation of this.
Click to expand...


nixon and kissenger ended the war.  Eisnehower only follwed through on a commitment maid by truman.   kennedy and johnson escalated the war.    looks like you are the revisionist.


----------



## there4eyeM

They are the fools.

And you didn't fail my expectations.


----------



## Spoonman

NoNukes said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, this was the National Guards defense, the students were throwing rocks and bottles. There was never any mention that they were being fired upon. Audio tape or not, the Guardsmen did not hear shots.
Click to expand...


hey No Nukes,  FL Biker told me to tell you to STFU   lol


----------



## Dante

Spoonman said:


> nixon and kissenger ended the war.  Eisnehower only follwed through on a commitment maid by truman.   kennedy and johnson escalated the war.



  and 

Ike had to follow Truman?   

Nixon/Kissinger had a secret peace plan to end the war (not win it) that cost almost as many lives in 4 short years to equal the deaths from Truman to Johnson? 



> When *Nixon took office in 1969, the America's involvement in the war in Vietnam had been going on for nearly five years. Over 30,000 Americas had died*, and a vocal contingent of citizens at home had taken to the streets to demand peace. Nixon optimistically predicted that a satisfactory truce would come in time for the Congressional elections of 1970, but his policy of Vietnamization, or gradual withdrawal of American troops, foundered when South Vietnam failed to hold up its end of the fighting.
> 
> *Nixon managed to end the war not in 1970, but in early 1973. By then, 25,000 more American soldiers had died*, and Nixon's chance to earn the title of peacemaker had evaporated. Although Nixon withdrew American troops steadily from the time he took office, he had also extended the war into Cambodia and Laos. In the minds of many, Vietnam would always be Richard Nixon's war. Legacy . Nixon . WGBH American Experience | PBS



and some people strongly believe Nixon/Kissinger prolonged the war in order to win reelection


----------



## Spoonman

Yea he did. it was part of the agreement that came out of WWII.

yea, they ended the war.  they listened to what the american public wanted, and end to the war.  so if you want to place blame for the deaths of american soldiers, blame the protestors, media and universities,


----------



## 9thIDdoc

NoNukes said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.
> 
> And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?
> 
> The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?
Click to expand...


Do you idiots ever get tired of trying to reinvent history? As I noted earlier I was in fact in Cambodia in a unit actively involved in combat with a hostile force following *real* ROE when those spoiled brats decided to riot at Kent State. My Bn. (2/47, 3rd Bde., 9th ID) was awarded a Valorous Unit Citation and I was to receive an Army Commendation Medal and a  Combat Medical Badge for actions during this time period. There were no recorded violations of ROE and this is a matter of record.
The rioters at Kent State were in fact violent criminals; not peaceful protesters. They were in their 4th day of arson, property destruction, and assault on police and firefighters. They were given every opportunity to act in a legal and civilized manner and simply refused to do so. I have no sympathy for them.


----------



## Spoonman

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.
> 
> And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?
> 
> The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you idiots ever get tired of trying to reinvent history? As I noted earlier I was in fact in Cambodia in a unit actively involved in combat with a hostile force following *real* ROE when those spoiled brats decided to riot at Kent State. My Bn. (2/47, 3rd Bde., 9th ID) was awarded a Valorous Unit Citation and I was to receive an Army Commendation Medal and a  Combat Medical Badge for actions during this time period. There were no recorded violations of ROE and this is a matter of record.
> The rioters at Kent State were in fact violent criminals; not peaceful protesters. They were in their 4th day of arson, property destruction, and assault on police and firefighters. They were given every opportunity to act in a legal and civilized manner and simply refused to do so. I have no sympathy for them.
Click to expand...


i love this line - Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific?    yet these jokers will be the first ones demanding the military go out and confiscate guns from the citizens of the USA if obama ever gets his laws passed.  and they will welcome deadly force against any who resist.  hypocrites


----------



## there4eyeM

It has sometimes been considered by international law experts that invading neutral countries is a war crime. Would anyone here care to disagree with those experts?


----------



## there4eyeM

Some things are so indefensible that speaking with those who defend them loses all sense. 

Goodbye.

(Damn, I hate when I let typos in! Fixed it, though.)


----------



## bornright

there4eyeM said:


> It has sometimes been considered by international law experts that invading neutral countries is a war crime. Would anyone here care to disagree with those experts?



Which neutral country are you referring to?


----------



## bornright

I have been outside checking on my cows.  We haven't invaded Sweden have we?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

there4eyeM said:


> It has sometimes been considered by international law experts that invading neutral countries is a war crime. Would anyone here care to disagree with those experts?



Obviously the N. Vietnamese would not agree.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and there you have it, a liberal calling indoctrination a proper education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am calling education education. What most people do with their kids is indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> most liberals
Click to expand...


Liberals are more likely to teach their children to form their own opinions.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.
> 
> And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?
> 
> The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the rules of engagement in a real war or a liberal war?
Click to expand...


If you have nothing intelligent to say, try silence.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the real crime was letting terrorists like bill ayers off and still walking freely today.
> 
> so kennedy and johnson who got us into the war and escalated it are now conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your revisionism is showing, as is your refusal to understand English.
> 
> Eisenhower sent the first US troops and it was under his administration that the agreed elections were not held.
> Where did I say Kennedy and Johnson were conservatives?
> I don't care what they were, and I am neither a 'conservative' nor a 'liberal'. I did clearly state they were all fools, especially Nixon and Kissinger.
> 
> I await your misinterpretation of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nixon and kissenger ended the war.  Eisnehower only follwed through on a commitment maid by truman.   kennedy and johnson escalated the war.    looks like you are the revisionist.
Click to expand...


The American people ended the war.


----------



## NoNukes

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this was the National Guards defense, the students were throwing rocks and bottles. There was never any mention that they were being fired upon. Audio tape or not, the Guardsmen did not hear shots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey No Nukes,  FL Biker told me to tell you to STFU   lol
Click to expand...


He would never tell me to shut up. Ask him if he has been in Amsterdam lately.


----------



## NoNukes

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.
> 
> And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?
> 
> The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you idiots ever get tired of trying to reinvent history? As I noted earlier I was in fact in Cambodia in a unit actively involved in combat with a hostile force following *real* ROE when those spoiled brats decided to riot at Kent State. My Bn. (2/47, 3rd Bde., 9th ID) was awarded a Valorous Unit Citation and I was to receive an Army Commendation Medal and a  Combat Medical Badge for actions during this time period. There were no recorded violations of ROE and this is a matter of record.
> The rioters at Kent State were in fact violent criminals; not peaceful protesters. They were in their 4th day of arson, property destruction, and assault on police and firefighters. They were given every opportunity to act in a legal and civilized manner and simply refused to do so. I have no sympathy for them.
Click to expand...


Says someone who was in Cambodia at the time. We taking advantage of our rights to speak out and protest, what do you think you guys were fighting for?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

NoNukes said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> If 9thDoc were really an ex soldier, would you have to explain the Rules of Engagement to him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots ever get tired of trying to reinvent history? As I noted earlier I was in fact in Cambodia in a unit actively involved in combat with a hostile force following *real* ROE when those spoiled brats decided to riot at Kent State. My Bn. (2/47, 3rd Bde., 9th ID) was awarded a Valorous Unit Citation and I was to receive an Army Commendation Medal and a  Combat Medical Badge for actions during this time period. There were no recorded violations of ROE and this is a matter of record.
> The rioters at Kent State were in fact violent criminals; not peaceful protesters. They were in their 4th day of arson, property destruction, and assault on police and firefighters. They were given every opportunity to act in a legal and civilized manner and simply refused to do so. I have no sympathy for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says someone who was in Cambodia at the time. We taking advantage of our rights to speak out and protest, what do you think you guys were fighting for?
Click to expand...


We were* not *fighting for anyone's "right" to burn down buildings or assault other people.


----------



## t_polkow

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots ever get tired of trying to reinvent history? As I noted earlier I was in fact in Cambodia in a unit actively involved in combat with a hostile force following *real* ROE when those spoiled brats decided to riot at Kent State. My Bn. (2/47, 3rd Bde., 9th ID) was awarded a Valorous Unit Citation and I was to receive an Army Commendation Medal and a  Combat Medical Badge for actions during this time period. There were no recorded violations of ROE and this is a matter of record.
> The rioters at Kent State were in fact violent criminals; not peaceful protesters. They were in their 4th day of arson, property destruction, and assault on police and firefighters. They were given every opportunity to act in a legal and civilized manner and simply refused to do so. I have no sympathy for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says someone who was in Cambodia at the time. We taking advantage of our rights to speak out and protest, what do you think you guys were fighting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were* not *fighting for anyone's "right" to burn down buildings or assault other people.
Click to expand...



You a solder? Yea right, you sound like an arm chair warrior


----------



## 9thIDdoc

t_polkow said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says someone who was in Cambodia at the time. We taking advantage of our rights to speak out and protest, what do you think you guys were fighting for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were* not *fighting for anyone's "right" to burn down buildings or assault other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You a solder? Yea right, you sound like an arm chair warrior
Click to expand...


Like you have any kind of clue.


----------



## Spoonman

there4eyeM said:


> It has sometimes been considered by international law experts that invading neutral countries is a war crime. Would anyone here care to disagree with those experts?



neutral countries usually don't attack their neighbors to the south


----------



## there4eyeM

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has sometimes been considered by international law experts that invading neutral countries is a war crime. Would anyone here care to disagree with those experts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neutral countries usually don't attack their neighbors to the south
Click to expand...


I do believe you have N. Vietnam (definitely not neutral or pacific) confused with Cambodia, which was neutral and pacific until destabilized by American invasion (you remember, those geniuses of international relations, Nixon and Kissinger). Also, the U.S. did not invade the north, which also indicates that the 'war' aims were mitigated, limited, short sighted and stupid. Engaging in war is the most severe thing a country can do. It should not be dabbled in. It is either done or not done. Just gradually feeding youth into a meat grinder and expecting it to be accepted is as stupid as conducting such an action in the first place. The efforts to stop American involvement on the part of U.S. citizens was at least as patriotic as going to Vietnam. It was classically the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, conducted in the wrong way.

Were the V.C. and N.V.A. wrong and war criminals to be there in neutral countries? Yes. Is being like the enemy a trait of superiority?


----------



## NoNukes

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots ever get tired of trying to reinvent history? As I noted earlier I was in fact in Cambodia in a unit actively involved in combat with a hostile force following *real* ROE when those spoiled brats decided to riot at Kent State. My Bn. (2/47, 3rd Bde., 9th ID) was awarded a Valorous Unit Citation and I was to receive an Army Commendation Medal and a  Combat Medical Badge for actions during this time period. There were no recorded violations of ROE and this is a matter of record.
> The rioters at Kent State were in fact violent criminals; not peaceful protesters. They were in their 4th day of arson, property destruction, and assault on police and firefighters. They were given every opportunity to act in a legal and civilized manner and simply refused to do so. I have no sympathy for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says someone who was in Cambodia at the time. We taking advantage of our rights to speak out and protest, what do you think you guys were fighting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were* not *fighting for anyone's "right" to burn down buildings or assault other people.
Click to expand...


You focus on the exception to the rule. Most protestors were peaceful. It would be like all of us calling you guys who fought in Vietnam baby killers.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, proper education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and there you have it, a liberal calling indoctrination a proper education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am calling education education. What most people do with their kids is indoctrination.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k_tUXnxIz0]MMM, MMM, MMM Barack Hussein Obama - Indoctrination In Schools - 'Distribute The Wealth' Worksheet - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

t_polkow said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says someone who was in Cambodia at the time. We taking advantage of our rights to speak out and protest, what do you think you guys were fighting for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were* not *fighting for anyone's "right" to burn down buildings or assault other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You a solder? Yea right, you sound like an arm chair warrior
Click to expand...




Hey, porky.....know who you sound like?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maF9WGLrj2Q]a Porky Pig Cartoon Ending _That's All Folks!_.flv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"You focus on the exception to the rule. Most protestors were peaceful." _

Who said otherwise? I'm also sure that there were some very nice and peaceful Nazis and members of the KKK. That doesn't change the fact that this particular group were violent criminals. 
I would not try to defend soldiers who commit such crimes. Can you see anything moral in defending protestors who do?


----------



## Friends

whitehall said:


> The callus democrat majority could have withdrawn funding any time during the LBJ administration but they waited to stab a republican in the back and abandon all the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US.


 
If the United States had really cared about "the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US" this country could have evacuated them before the Communist victory. At the very least the US could have sent Naval and Coast Guard vessels over to pick up the boat people. 

Abandoning the boat people to the Thai pirates was the shameful end of a shameful war.


----------



## Friends

PoliticalChic said:


> But I'm heartened to see that you haven't denied that these guys are traitors:
> 
> The Leftist Democrats.


 
To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.

- Edmund Burke 



A traitor during an unjust war is a just man.


----------



## Friends

Oldguy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit revisionist history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please.....this shit stinks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The eventual outcome of that war was decided the day Lyndon Johnson opted not to invade the North.  Given the times, I can't fault him for that, but the decision to fight what was basically a defensive war sealed the deal from the very beginning, right wing propaganda about the media and Democrats not withstanding.
Click to expand...

 
What was achieved by invading North Korea during the Korean War? 

Communist China would not have allowed American troops on the other side of the border with North Vietnam.  Also, the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese supported the Communists. The United States military is not good at occupying hostile populations that are willing to fight back. It had enough trouble in South Vietnam.


----------



## Friends

PoliticalChic said:


> How very easy it is to lead the uninformed.



During the War in Vietnam anti war sentiment was most prominent at the most prestigious universities.


----------



## Friends

Dante said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The weakness of Nixon due to the Watergate scandal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bring the boys home now!  And we did.
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm heartened to see that you haven't denied that these guys are traitors:
> 
> The Leftist Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.
> 
> - Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> A traitor during an unjust war is a just man.
Click to expand...


1. Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!
 Stephen Decatur


2. "A traitor during an unjust war is a just man."
The only crime actually described in the United States Constitution is treason.
It does not describe such as being 'just.'


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How very easy it is to lead the uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the War in Vietnam anti war sentiment was most prominent at the most prestigious universities.
Click to expand...


"Katherine Boudin is an adjunct professor at Columbia University and has been named the Sheinberg Scholar-in-Residence at NYU Law School. She is also a communist, a Weather Underground radical, a terrorist, and a convicted felon."
The Gory Details About Terrorist Teacher Kathy Boudin


Nothing's changed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit revisionist history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please.....this shit stinks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The eventual outcome of that war was decided the day Lyndon Johnson opted not to invade the North.  Given the times, I can't fault him for that, but the decision to fight what was basically a defensive war sealed the deal from the very beginning, right wing propaganda about the media and Democrats not withstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was achieved by invading North Korea during the Korean War?
> 
> Communist China would not have allowed American troops on the other side of the border with North Vietnam.  Also, the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese supported the Communists. The United States military is not good at occupying hostile populations that are willing to fight back. It had enough trouble in South Vietnam.
Click to expand...




The 'trouble' the United States had in South Vietnam was the Fifth Column known as the Democrat Party.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The callus democrat majority could have withdrawn funding any time during the LBJ administration but they waited to stab a republican in the back and abandon all the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the United States had really cared about "the Vietnamese who were loyal to the US" this country could have evacuated them before the Communist victory. At the very least the US could have sent Naval and Coast Guard vessels over to pick up the boat people.
> 
> Abandoning the boat people to the Thai pirates was the shameful end of a shameful war.
Click to expand...


You really have no clue, do you.

When the Pentagons accountants tried to use a couple of hundred million dollars of unused appropriations left over from 1972 and 1973 to aid the South, Ted Kennedy organized Senators, 43-38, to forbid the expenditure. 
David Frum, How We Got Here, p. 305.


----------



## Friends

namvet said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor namvet, too much
> Orange Koolaid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koolaid Drinker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe anything they are told. people who refuse to change there minds when confronted with facts.
> *a koolaid drinker is the liberal democrat who is liberal because they are told they should be. they have made no attempt to decide why the are liberal.*
> often a koolaid "drinker" simply wants to hate anything a republican does good or bad.
> koolaid people are the vocal howard dean wing of the democrat party. the converse of rightwing loonies.
> koolaid drinkers are the ones that went first when jim jones said drink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> up and down liberal
Click to expand...

 
This kind of attitude can be found in ideologues and partisans regardless of political persuasion. Many Republicans hate President Obama so much that they hope the economy gets worse. That is what Rush Limbaugh meant when he said of the President shortly after his inauguration, "I hope he fails."

Many Republicans believe nonsense about Obama. They believe that he wants the terrorists to win, that he hates whites, even that he is the anti-Christ.

Poll: 1 of 5 Republicans Believe Obama is the Antichrist - Atlanta Black Star


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor namvet, too much
> Orange Koolaid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Koolaid Drinker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who believe anything they are told. people who refuse to change there minds when confronted with facts.
> *a koolaid drinker is the liberal democrat who is liberal because they are told they should be. they have made no attempt to decide why the are liberal.*
> often a koolaid "drinker" simply wants to hate anything a republican does good or bad.
> koolaid people are the vocal howard dean wing of the democrat party. the converse of rightwing loonies.
> koolaid drinkers are the ones that went first when jim jones said drink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> up and down liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This kind of attitude can be found in ideologues and partisans regardless of political persuasion. Many Republicans hate President Obama so much that they hope the economy gets worse. That is what Rush Limbaugh meant when he said of the President shortly after his inauguration, "I hope he fails."
> 
> Many Republicans believe nonsense about Obama. They believe that he wants the terrorists to win, that he hates whites, even that he is the anti-Christ.
> 
> Poll: 1 of 5 Republicans Believe Obama is the Antichrist - Atlanta Black Star
Click to expand...




It appears that there are innumerable subjects about which your are dumber than asphalt.

Obama's economic policies are even more brainless than your posts.


His greatest supporter in economic policy is the 'prize winner' Paul Krugman.

How about the 'stimulus' as an example.

1. Krugman embraces the Keynesian idea that there is value in increasing spending for its own sake, no matter if jobs are temporary, or unskilled...digging ditches and filling them in...as long as workers are employed, and pay taxes. 

" Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.[of the Depression]...

If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better " Watch GPS: Krugman calls for space aliens to fix U.S. economy? ? Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs


a. Really? It doesn't matter how resources are spent? Was 'Cash for Clunkers' the way to go? Spending on alternative energy companies? Ethanol, when gasoline costs half as much and produces more energy? Give that man a prize!

2. For Obama, the Liberal, the Keynesian, i.e., Krugman, government spending is the panacea for all that ails ya.' What is forgotten is that the level of government spending determines the level of taxation ( well, for conservatives....for liberals it must be multiplied to advance 'equality). 

And financing spending through borrowing simply means even higher taxes in the future. Most importantly, taxes discourage investment and work. Despite Keynes, and Krugman's happy theories, taxes are a drag on the economy.


How's that for a reason to hate his policies?


Or, are you too much of an  "ideologue and partisan"?


----------



## Friends

NoNukes said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am calling education education. What most people do with their kids is indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most liberals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals are more likely to teach their children to form their own opinions.
Click to expand...

 
Unless it is about the relationship between genes, IQ, success in life, race, and crime, but that's a topic for another thread.


----------



## Friends

NoNukes said:


> The American people ended the war.


 
The War was won by the North Vietnamese Army. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veMwTqvsozA]ENGLISH - The national anthem of Vietnam (socialist) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Friends

PoliticalChic said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were* not *fighting for anyone's "right" to burn down buildings or assault other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You a solder? Yea right, you sound like an arm chair warrior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, porky.....know who you sound like?
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maF9WGLrj2Q]a Porky Pig Cartoon Ending _That's All Folks!_.flv - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

 
You seem incapable of anything but childish sarcasm and long blasts of right wing hot air consisting of cliches learned from right wing hate radio.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You a solder? Yea right, you sound like an arm chair warrior
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, porky.....know who you sound like?
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maF9WGLrj2Q]a Porky Pig Cartoon Ending _That's All Folks!_.flv - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem incapable of anything but childish sarcasm and long blasts of right wing hot air consisting of cliches learned from right wing hate radiol.
Click to expand...



You've been proven to be both stupid and dishonest....

Both posts #221 and 223 are specific and factual.


Just the usual boilerplate hate-America posts.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people ended the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War was won by the North Vietnamese Army.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veMwTqvsozA]ENGLISH - The national anthem of Vietnam (socialist) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...




Liar.


----------



## Friends

Final declaration, dated July 21, 1954, of the Geneva Conference on the problem of restoring peace in Indochina, in which the representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, France, Laos, the People's Republic of China, the State of Viet-Nam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America took part...

4. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam prohibiting the introduction into Viet Nam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as of all kinds of arms and munitions...

5. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam to the effect that no military base at the disposition of a foreign state may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties...

7. The Conference declares that, so far as Viet-Nam is concerned, the settlement of political problems, effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence, unity, and territorial integrity, shall permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot.

In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general *elections shall be held in July 1956*, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities. 
Modern History Sourcebook: The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference: On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954

---------

Those elections were never held because the South Vietnamese dictatorship did not allow them to be held. The United States did not sign and did not honor that the Geneva Agreement of 1954. This is why:

"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm 

---------

Vietnam was unimportant to American security and the U.S. economy. The United States provoked a war in which at least two million Vietnamese were killed in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. The War in Vietnam happened because the Untied States stole an election.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> Final declaration, dated July 21, 1954, of the Geneva Conference on the problem of restoring peace in Indochina, in which the representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, France, Laos, the People's Republic of China, the State of Viet-Nam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America took part...
> 
> 4. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam prohibiting the introduction into Viet Nam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as of all kinds of arms and munitions...
> 
> 5. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam to the effect that no military base at the disposition of a foreign state may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties...
> 
> 7. The Conference declares that, so far as Viet-Nam is concerned, the settlement of political problems, effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence, unity, and territorial integrity, shall permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot.
> 
> In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general *elections shall be held in July 1956*, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities.
> Modern History Sourcebook: The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference: On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954
> 
> ---------
> 
> Those elections were never held because the South Vietnamese dictatorship did not allow them to be held. The United States did not sign and did not honor that the Geneva Agreement of 1954. This is why:
> 
> "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
> 
> Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372.
> https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm
> 
> ---------
> 
> Vietnam was unimportant to American security and the U.S. economy. The United States provoked a war in which at least two million Vietnamese were killed in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. The War in Vietnam happened because the Untied States stole an election.





The history of the Vietnam conflict goes back at least to 1945-1946. 

In stating that the North Vietnamese army won the war you remain a liar.

The United States army won every battle.

It lost it in the Congress, the enemies were known as the Democrat Party.


----------



## Friends

PoliticalChic said:


> The history of the Vietnam conflict goes back at least to 1945-1946.
> 
> In stating that the North Vietnamese army won the war you remain a liar.
> 
> The United States army won every battle.
> 
> It lost it in the Congress, the enemies were known as the Democrat Party.



My point is that the U.S. military effort was immoral and not in America's national interest. You have done nothing to refute that point. 

When the United States military fled from Saigon in helicopters it did not look like a victory parade.

One time Ho Chi Minh said to an American journalist, "You will kill ten of us. We will kill one of you. In the end you will tire of it."


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The history of the Vietnam conflict goes back at least to 1945-1946.
> 
> In stating that the North Vietnamese army won the war you remain a liar.
> 
> The United States army won every battle.
> 
> It lost it in the Congress, the enemies were known as the Democrat Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the U.S. military effort was immoral and not in America's national interest. You have done nothing to refute that point.
> 
> When the United States military fled from Saigon in helicopters it did not look like a victory parade.
> 
> One time Ho Chi Minh said to an American journalist, "You will kill ten of us. We will kill one of you. In the end you will tire of it."
Click to expand...




I've identified you a stupid, America-hating liar.....


....that's not enough?



But,...you must be used to it by now.


----------



## Friends

This is how preposterous the War in Vietnam was. A young man did not need a genius level IQ to figure out that the War was unworthy of his life, and the life of anyone he might kill over there. It seemed to help, however. Anti war sentiment was strongest at the best universities.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuUBCF3KKxc]Country Joe & the Fish -- Vietnam song - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Friends

PoliticalChic said:


> I've identified you a stupid, America-hating liar.....
> 
> ....that's not enough?
> 
> But,...you must be used to it by now.


 
Instead of insulting me, try to refute my argument. Why was the War in Vietnam morally justified? Why was it in America's national interest? Why did the United States have the right to devastate Vietnam in order to prevent the ascension of a leader as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese wanted?  

I was raised to be very patriotic. I thrilled to the sight of the American flag, the National Anthem, "rocks and rills," "woods and templed hills," and all that. The War in Vietnam took that away from me. I never got it back. Appeals to American nationalism fill me with cold disgust.


----------



## bornright

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The history of the Vietnam conflict goes back at least to 1945-1946.
> 
> In stating that the North Vietnamese army won the war you remain a liar.
> 
> The United States army won every battle.
> 
> It lost it in the Congress, the enemies were known as the Democrat Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the U.S. military effort was immoral and not in America's national interest. You have done nothing to refute that point.
> 
> When the United States military fled from Saigon in helicopters it did not look like a victory parade.
> 
> One time Ho Chi Minh said to an American journalist, "You will kill ten of us. We will kill one of you. In the end you will tire of it."
Click to expand...


The US military, except for a small number of military advisors and the guards at the Embassy, had been gone for a while.  The only reason the North defeated the South was because the US Congress defunded the war.  No Money - No weapons - No Ammunition its over.


----------



## bornright

Friends said:


> This is how preposterous the War in Vietnam was. A young man did not need a genius level IQ to figure out that the War was unworthy of his life, and the life of anyone he might kill over there. It seemed to help, however. Anti war sentiment was strongest at the best universities.



Anti war sentiment was strongest in Universities where the children that attended it were most spoiled.


----------



## bornright

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've identified you a stupid, America-hating liar.....
> 
> ....that's not enough?
> 
> But,...you must be used to it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of insulting me, try to refute my argument. Why was the War in Vietnam morally justified? Why was it in America's national interest? Why did the United States have the right to devastate Vietnam in order to prevent the ascension of a leader as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese wanted?
> 
> I was raised to be very patriotic. I thrilled to the sight of the American flag, the National Anthem, "rocks and rills," "woods and templed hills," and all that. The War in Vietnam took that away from me. I never got it back. Appeals to American nationalism fill me with cold disgust.
Click to expand...


I have never heard the 80% figure before.  Surely you would not make something like that up.

I was raised to be patriotic.  My dad was a WWII veteran and I served as a Marine in Vietnam and I am still patriotic.  As 80% of Americans told people like you, back in the sixties, "Love it or Leave it".


----------



## Friends

bornright said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The history of the Vietnam conflict goes back at least to 1945-1946.
> 
> In stating that the North Vietnamese army won the war you remain a liar.
> 
> The United States army won every battle.
> 
> It lost it in the Congress, the enemies were known as the Democrat Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the U.S. military effort was immoral and not in America's national interest. You have done nothing to refute that point.
> 
> When the United States military fled from Saigon in helicopters it did not look like a victory parade.
> 
> One time Ho Chi Minh said to an American journalist, "You will kill ten of us. We will kill one of you. In the end you will tire of it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US military, except for a small number of military advisors and the guards at the Embassy, had been gone for a while.  The only reason the North defeated the South was because the US Congress defunded the war.  No Money - No weapons - No Ammunition its over.
Click to expand...

 
Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South.


----------



## Friends

bornright said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how preposterous the War in Vietnam was. A young man did not need a genius level IQ to figure out that the War was unworthy of his life, and the life of anyone he might kill over there. It seemed to help, however. Anti war sentiment was strongest at the best universities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anti war sentiment was strongest in Universities where the children that attended it were most spoiled.
Click to expand...


Anti war sentiment was strongest where the average IQ was highest. The War in Vietnam was immoral and not in America's national interest for reasons I have explained in this thread. No one has even tried to refute my argument.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've identified you a stupid, America-hating liar.....
> 
> ....that's not enough?
> 
> But,...you must be used to it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of insulting me, try to refute my argument. Why was the War in Vietnam morally justified? Why was it in America's national interest? Why did the United States have the right to devastate Vietnam in order to prevent the ascension of a leader as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese wanted?
> 
> I was raised to be very patriotic. I thrilled to the sight of the American flag, the National Anthem, "rocks and rills," "woods and templed hills," and all that. The War in Vietnam took that away from me. I never got it back. Appeals to American nationalism fill me with cold disgust.
Click to expand...




You're a liar....you have no argument beyond that.


----------



## Friends

PoliticalChic said:


> You're a liar....you have no argument beyond that.



What have I said that is not true?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar....you have no argument beyond that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have I said that is not true?
Click to expand...


Posts 213, 214, 222, 225,226.


Your palpable hatred of America is sickening.

And, as Wm. Safire correctly said of Hillary Clinton, you are " a congenital liar."



Back into the sewer, offal.


----------



## Friends

PoliticalChic said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar....you have no argument beyond that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have I said that is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posts 213, 214, 222, 225,226.
> 
> Your palpable hatred of America is sickening.
> 
> And, as Wm. Safire correctly said of Hillary Clinton, you are " a congenital liar."
> 
> Back into the sewer, offal.
Click to expand...

 
Your support for the War in Vietnam just because the United States was fighting it is sickening. People of your persuasion do not want the U.S. government to tell them what to do, but you think the U.S. government has the right to tell people in other countries what to do, and it has the right to kill them if they disobey. 

You are incapable of arguing rationally. Your insults are only impressive to ideologues of like mind and similarly low character. 

You illustrate a statement James Boswell attributed to Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." 

There are decent Americans who continue to believe that the War in Vietnam was an honorable cause. The comments you have posted in this thread must embarrass them.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have I said that is not true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posts 213, 214, 222, 225,226.
> 
> Your palpable hatred of America is sickening.
> 
> And, as Wm. Safire correctly said of Hillary Clinton, you are " a congenital liar."
> 
> Back into the sewer, offal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your support for the War in Vietnam just because the United States was fighting it is sickening. People of your persuasion do not want the U.S. government to tell them what to do, but you think the U.S. government has the right to tell people in other countries what to do, and it has the right to kill them if they disobey.
> 
> You are incapable of arguing rationally. Your insults are only impressive to ideologues of like mind and similarly low character.
> 
> You illustrate a statement James Boswell attributed to Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
> 
> There are decent Americans who continue to believe that the War in Vietnam was an honorable cause. The comments you have posted in this thread must embarrass them.
Click to expand...



Liar.


Step off.


----------



## Mad Scientist

I wish I was born about 10 years earlier so I could have fought for the Military Industrial Complex in Vietnam, that would have been really cool.

I was in during Grenada, Panama and Gulf War I but was never deployed. Damn!


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_Those elections were never held because the South Vietnamese dictatorship did not allow them to be held. The United States did not sign and did not honor that the Geneva Agreement of 1954. This is why:_ 

The US should have honored an agreement it didn't make? How silly. And what do you think the US could have done to make those elections happen?
The North Vietnamese wanted the elections held only because they never intended to allow an honest secret ballot and had left behind thousands of agents whose mission it was to assure the results of any vote. At gunpoint if necessary.

"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
_ Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower,_ Mandate for Change, 1953-56[/I] 

So you think Eisenhower's speculation actually matters? 
You might also note that his speculation was voiced several years before our serious involvement there.

_Vietnam was unimportant to American security and the U.S. economy. The United States provoked a war in which at least two million Vietnamese were killed in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. The War in Vietnam happened because the Untied States stole an election._

Untrue. The war was quite simply necked aggression on the part of North Vietnam and it's continual efforts to overrun and occupy South Vietnam. The war could have stopped at any time North Vietnam quit attacking. The idea that the US somehow started the war is simply idiotic.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South. _

If that were true they wouldn't have given such a serious ass-kicking to the NVA in '72.


----------



## Friends

9thIDdoc said:


> _Those elections were never held because the South Vietnamese dictatorship did not allow them to be held. The United States did not sign and did not honor that the Geneva Agreement of 1954. This is why:_
> 
> The US should have honored an agreement it didn't make? How silly. And what do you think the US could have done to make those elections happen?
> The North Vietnamese wanted the elections held only because they never intended to allow an honest secret ballot and had left behind thousands of agents whose mission it was to assure the results of any vote. At gunpoint if necessary.
> 
> "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
> _ Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower,_ Mandate for Change, 1953-56[/I]
> 
> So you think Eisenhower's speculation actually matters?
> You might also note that his speculation was voiced several years before our serious involvement there.
> 
> _Vietnam was unimportant to American security and the U.S. economy. The United States provoked a war in which at least two million Vietnamese were killed in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. The War in Vietnam happened because the Untied States stole an election._
> 
> Untrue. The war was quite simply necked aggression on the part of North Vietnam and it's continual efforts to overrun and occupy South Vietnam. The war could have stopped at any time North Vietnam quit attacking. The idea that the US somehow started the war is simply idiotic.


 
In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities. Consultations will be held on this subject between the competent representative authorities of the two zones from April 20, 1955, onwards.
Modern History Sourcebook: The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference: On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954

President Eisenhower is the best authority on the popularity of Ho Chi Minh. The war could have ended as soon as the United States decided to stop interfering in the internal affairs of Vietnam and withdraw. 

If Ho Chi Minh had been a better man, and a more clever man, he would have allowed the elections to be held in North Vietnam to demonstrate his popularity. Nevertheless, the moral shortcomings of one side do not demonstrate that the other side deserves to win.


----------



## Circe

namvet said:


> I was in training at RTC Sdiego when this boroadcast was made. we jumped for joy
> 
> Lyndon Johnson - Remarks on Decision to not seek Reelection - YouTube



I was in a graduate students dorm TV room. Everyone leaped to their feet as one person and cheered and screamed.

I would say LBJ was the worst president in my lifetime, and I include Nixon.


----------



## Circe

9thIDdoc said:


> _Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South. _
> 
> If that were true they wouldn't have given such a serious ass-kicking to the NVA in '72.



We always have weak allies and they always lose. Same deal is going on in Afghanistan now.

Well, the people who ally with the foreign conquerors are never popular. Look at the Quislings in Norway or the Vichy government in France, both cooperated with the Nazis and as soon as possible after the war, they were all put in jail.

We always say we're coming to "help" them, and it's never true. We're coming to conquer them and force them to do what we want, and they hate that. We wouldn't like it if they came to our county seats and did the same thing. If our county officials cooperated with the invaders, they'd soon be killed too.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Circe said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South. _
> 
> If that were true they wouldn't have given such a serious ass-kicking to the NVA in '72.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We always have weak allies and they always lose. Same deal is going on in Afghanistan now.
> 
> Well, the people who ally with the foreign conquerors are never popular. Look at the Quislings in Norway or the Vichy government in France, both cooperated with the Nazis and as soon as possible after the war, they were all put in jail.
> 
> We always say we're coming to "help" them, and it's never true. We're coming to conquer them and force them to do what we want, and they hate that. We wouldn't like it if they came to our county seats and did the same thing. If our county officials cooperated with the invaders, they'd soon be killed too.
Click to expand...


In Vietnam *North Vietnam *was the hated invader. Simple truth.


----------



## Friends

9thIDdoc said:


> In Vietnam *North Vietnam *was the hated invader. Simple truth.


 
9thIDdoc,

That is not a "simple truth." It is a _fixe idee_ that inhabits your simple mind. Even if you fought in Vietnam you know little about the history of the War in Vietnam, and little about the history of Vietnam itself. What is more, you refuse to learn. 

I guess it is necessary for me to post this again:

"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm 



"it was almost impossible to make the average Vietnamese peasant realize that the French, under whose rule his people had lived for some eighty years, were really fighting in the cause of freedom, while the Vietminh, people of their own ethnic origins, were fighting on the side of slavery. It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier." 

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 ( Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc, 1963), pp. 337-38
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/55election.htm


----------



## Friends

9thIDdoc said:


> _Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South. _
> 
> If that were true they wouldn't have given such a serious ass-kicking to the NVA in '72.


 
In 1972 the ARVN was still backed up by the U.S. Air Force. As soon as the odds were even the ARVN folded.

I get the idea that you fought in Vietnam. Do you seriously maintain that the South Vietnamese peasants appreciated your presence there? Why did American soldiers and Marines call rural South Vietnam "Indian country?"


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Friends said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Vietnam *North Vietnam *was the hated invader. Simple truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc,
> 
> That is not a "simple truth." It is a _fixe idee_ that inhabits your simple mind. Even if you fought in Vietnam you know little about the history of the War in Vietnam, and little about the history of Vietnam itself. What is more, you refuse to learn.
> 
> I guess it is necessary for me to post this again:
> 
> "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
> 
> Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
> https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm
> 
> 
> 
> "it was almost impossible to make the average Vietnamese peasant realize that the French, under whose rule his people had lived for some eighty years, were really fighting in the cause of freedom, while the Vietminh, people of their own ethnic origins, were fighting on the side of slavery. It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier."
> 
> 
> Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 ( Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc, 1963), pp. 337-38
> https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/55election.htm
Click to expand...


Please rejoin the discussion after you've learned something about the actual history involved. Eisenhower's speculation-even if were 100% correct-has absolutely nothing to do with the history of the war and certainly nothing to do with my statement.


----------



## Friends

9thIDdoc said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Vietnam *North Vietnam *was the hated invader. Simple truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc,
> 
> That is not a "simple truth." It is a _fixe idee_ that inhabits your simple mind. Even if you fought in Vietnam you know little about the history of the War in Vietnam, and little about the history of Vietnam itself. What is more, you refuse to learn.
> 
> I guess it is necessary for me to post this again:
> 
> "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
> 
> Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
> https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm
> 
> 
> 
> "it was almost impossible to make the average Vietnamese peasant realize that the French, under whose rule his people had lived for some eighty years, were really fighting in the cause of freedom, while the Vietminh, people of their own ethnic origins, were fighting on the side of slavery. It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier."
> 
> 
> Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 ( Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc, 1963), pp. 337-38
> https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/55election.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please rejoin the discussion after you've learned something about the actual history involved. Eisenhower's speculation-even if were 100% correct-has absolutely nothing to do with the history of the war and certainly nothing to do with my statement.
Click to expand...

 
Eisenhower's statement has everything to do with the War in Vietnam, and why you lost. You were not fighting for the freedom of an ally. You were fighting to maintain a satellite, like the satellites of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. As soon as the Soviet Army stopped supporting the Communist governments in Eastern Europe they fell. As soon as the U.S. Air Force stopped supporting the South Vietnamese government it fell.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_Eisenhower's statement has everything to do with the War in Vietnam,_

You keep saying that but you have yet to provide any support for that idea.

_...and why you lost_

We may not have won (we were never tasked with doing so) but we certainly didn't lose. We successfully carried out the mission we were given until we were given a new one. The American people betrayed our ally; not us. North Vietnam was being supported by the USSR and the PRC it was our cutting RSVN's supply line that doomed them. Lack of ammo rather than lack of will.


----------



## Circe

Friends said:


> Eisenhower's statement has everything to do with the War in Vietnam, and why you lost. You were not fighting for the freedom of an ally. You were fighting to maintain a satellite, like the satellites of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. As soon as the Soviet Army stopped supporting the Communist governments in Eastern Europe they fell. As soon as the U.S. Air Force stopped supporting the South Vietnamese government it fell.



As soon as the Nazis couldn't support the French Vichy government, it fell. And all the rest: Mussolini, for instance. Nobody likes a government that is allied with the foreign enemy. 

The British have a saying about Afghanistan, they have been there losing wars so often: "They always kill the emir." They always put in a puppet emir government, and somebody always kills him. 

Same deal with us. Afghanistan will fall apart as soon as we leave, like Iraq is falling apart now. It seemed we had learned not to wage war this way after the catastrophe of Vietnam, but somehow, the Bush administration and Rumsfeld had not learned it. Probably because they didn't actually fight in it. So they did it all again: invading a foreign country with troops, staying ten years or more, losing, losing, losing, everyone hates us, everything much worse after we leave than before we came.

I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next.

After we lose a long war they always do whatever they want anyway, so let's give that part a miss.


----------



## Friends

9thIDdoc said:


> We may not have won (we were never tasked with doing so) but we certainly didn't lose. We successfully carried out the mission we were given until we were given a new one. The American people betrayed our ally; not us. North Vietnam was being supported by the USSR and the PRC it was our cutting RSVN's supply line that doomed them. Lack of ammo rather than lack of will.


 
The United States gave far more support to the South Vietnamese government than the amount of support given to North Vietnam by the Soviets and the Communist Chinese. 

You seem to have served in Vietnam. Why did American servicemen call rural South Vietnam "Indian country?" Why were there so many enemy villages there? 

During the Second World War there were no enemy villages in France, or even in Italy, which had recently been an ally of Germany. American troops were greeted as liberators when they went through rural villages there. Why did this not happen in South Vietnam?


----------



## Circe

Friends said:


> During the Second World War there were no enemy villages in France, or even in Italy, which had recently been an ally of Germany. American troops were greeted as liberators when they went through rural villages there. Why did this not happen in South Vietnam?




Good analogy.

In Vietnam, we were the equivalent of the Nazi occupation force, of course.

And the North Vietnam forces were the equivalent of the American liberators marching through France.

We have so got to quit doing this; we didn't learn from Vietnam and we did the same exact thing again in Iraq and Afghanistan and are losing again and taking another ten years each to lose and leave.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next._

Great idea!
Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_The United States gave far more support to the South Vietnamese government than the amount of support given to North Vietnam by the Soviets and the Communist Chinese. _

Untrue. Very* very *untrue.

_You seem to have served in Vietnam. Why did American servicemen call rural South Vietnam "Indian country?" Why were there so many enemy villages there? _

During long periods of time the ambush was the most common type of engagement for both sides. Armor and mech. units often formed night defensive positions in a manor similar to "circling the wagons as they did in the "wild west". There weren't many actual "enemy villages" as such. If the enemy were in a village and we went there they would usually leave and come back again after we were gone again. In those cases where a village was defended by either side the civilians would leave if they could.

_During the Second World War there were no enemy villages in France, or even in Italy, which had recently been an ally of Germany. American troops were greeted as liberators when they went through rural villages there. Why did this not happen in South Vietnam? _

Entirely different types of countryside, warfare, strategies and goals. Apples, oranges, peaches and pears. After the first ten or twelve times people get tired of coming out to wave. Although it did happen in this Cambodian ville:


----------



## editec

I cannot help but notice the distinct _lack_ of fallen dominos.


----------



## Gadawg73

Ho Chi Minh was our ally for how many years and when? He rescued downed pilots for us in WWII. Read OSS reports from that era and their praise for him and his operation detailing Jap troop movements. Ask the pilots how they were treated.  Trained by communists but he was a nationalist seeking independence for his country and was sympathetically pro American. We betrayed him and gave IndoChina back to the French. How many years did the French torture any and all Vietnamese people no matter what political party they were in? We financed and advised the French until 1954 when we betrayed them and gave Indochina to Diem. We financed and advised Diem until 1963 when we betrayed him and gave power to a list of failed leaders.  What country fully supported the French and their colonial rule? Did France give independence to Viet Nam or hold it under their colonial grip in 1946? How many years did the French fight the Vietminh? A decade later they got their asses kicked and so what do we do? Support a dividing of the nation that props up a dictator in the south.

The South Vietnamese government we propped up over there was as corrupt as it gets. My brother served 3 tours there. Few if any of the young men that were related to everyone in power in the south served in the military there. Our men carried all the load.

Monday morning QBs are out in force again. Viet Nam was a massive fuck up. Our brave soldiers won every battle over there and for what? Sure, fucked up American politics fucked up the war as we should have never gone there. So if we would have bombed the north back to the stone age? What then, nore support for a corrupt government there. Their own army could not do shit with all the advanced weaponry we left.  I hate the sorry ass bastard communists as much or more than anyone but ask the men on the ground over there what they feel. They will tell you the sorry ass in country citizens would not fight. ARVN troops were as bad as French troops and many would turn and run. Sure, some good troops with the mountain people and help from the Aussies and South Koreans but the government there was a cluster fuck.


----------



## Circe

9thIDdoc said:


> _I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next._
> 
> Great idea!
> Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.



Wrong: that is the only way that does work. See: Clinton's war on Serbia, 10 1/2 weeks, a total win.

What has been shown not to work is the ten-year plus losing wars that go on forever, and then we retreat, having lost bad, bankrupt as a nation and severely divided.

You'd think we'd have had more than thirty years after the failed Vietnam War not to go down that same path with Iraq and Afghanistan, but noooooooooooooooo............

The guys who never served --- Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld --- never learned the lesson.

Not having served in Vietnam was probably key. They simply didn't grok it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

9thIDdoc said:


> _I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next._
> 
> Great idea!
> Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.



And the alternative has?  Have you visited the Vietnam Wall?


----------



## Gadawg73

Circe said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next._
> 
> Great idea!
> Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong: that is the only way that does work. See: Clinton's war on Serbia, 10 1/2 weeks, a total win.
> 
> What has been shown not to work is the ten-year plus losing wars that go on forever, and then we retreat, having lost bad, bankrupt as a nation and severely divided.
> 
> You'd think we'd have had more than thirty years after the failed Vietnam War not to go down that same path with Iraq and Afghanistan, but noooooooooooooooo............
> 
> The guys who never served --- Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld --- never learned the lesson.
> 
> Not having served in Vietnam was probably key. They simply didn't grok it.
Click to expand...


Mississippi National Guard could have gone into Serbia and won with air support.
Clinton never served, he publicly "loathed the military".


----------



## Gadawg73

My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:

WASTED.

And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.


----------



## Circe

Gadawg73 said:


> Mississippi National Guard could have gone into Serbia and won with air support.
> Clinton never served, he publicly "loathed the military".




Yep, that's what we always, always say.

"Lindsey Lohan's bellybutton lint could go into [Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Mogadishu, etc., etc.] and win in a few days!!!!" we brag.

And it's never, never true. 

Clinton at least had the sense to understand THAT.

Clinton probably shouldn't have bothered, especially since we were bombing on behalf of Muslims, but at least he didn't get us bogged down in a ten-year losing war with no point whatsoever.


----------



## Gadawg73

Circe said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mississippi National Guard could have gone into Serbia and won with air support.
> Clinton never served, he publicly "loathed the military".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's what we always, always say.
> 
> "Lindsey Lohan's bellybutton lint could go into [Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Mogadishu, etc., etc.] and win in a few days!!!!" we brag.
> 
> And it's never, never true.
> 
> Clinton at least had the sense to understand THAT.
> 
> Clinton probably shouldn't have bothered, especially since we were bombing on behalf of Muslims, but at least he didn't get us bogged down in a ten-year losing war with no point whatsoever.
Click to expand...


It was true in Serbia and that is all I stated was true. 
Many historians label Clinton's involvement there "The Blowinsky Deflection".
For those of us that have a clue about military capabilities and logistics the cast dates back to Tito post WWII. Albanian nationalism led to this cluster fuck. Add in the League of Communists of Kosovo and the cocktail for disaster begins. Throw in Milosevic becoming President of Serbia and the brew cooks. He rallies all of the above.
Aircraft flew 40,000 combat missions.
Norwegian and British special forces brokered back room deals for a peace agreement.
Boy Scout Troop 401 from Hahira, Ga. could have come in and cleaned up after 40,000 combat mission air strikes.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Circe said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next._
> 
> Great idea!
> Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong: that is the only way that does work. See: Clinton's war on Serbia, 10 1/2 weeks, a total win.
> 
> What has been shown not to work is the ten-year plus losing wars that go on forever, and then we retreat, having lost bad, bankrupt as a nation and severely divided.
> 
> You'd think we'd have had more than thirty years after the failed Vietnam War not to go down that same path with Iraq and Afghanistan, but noooooooooooooooo............
> 
> The guys who never served --- Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld --- never learned the lesson.
> 
> Not having served in Vietnam was probably key. They simply didn't grok it.
Click to expand...


Well lets see. Your way was attempted throughout WWII and it didn't work. Clinton tried it in Iraq and it didn't work.  And-if you actually knew something about history-you would know that it *was* attempted in Vietnam. We dropped more bombs there than we did during all of WWII and we certainly didn't get what we wanted.

We could have "won" in Vietnam. We weren't allowed to try. And we did in fact win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actual lesson we should have learned in Vietnam was that you shouldn't fight wars unless you intend to win.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Wry Catcher said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next._
> 
> Great idea!
> Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the alternative has?  Have you visited the Vietnam Wall?
Click to expand...


I served in Vietnam. Those are much more than names to me. Yeah, tell me about the wall.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Gadawg73 said:


> My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:
> 
> WASTED.
> 
> And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
> Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.



*BULLSHIT*. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.


----------



## Oldguy

Friends said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We may not have won (we were never tasked with doing so) but we certainly didn't lose. We successfully carried out the mission we were given until we were given a new one. The American people betrayed our ally; not us. North Vietnam was being supported by the USSR and the PRC it was our cutting RSVN's supply line that doomed them. Lack of ammo rather than lack of will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States gave far more support to the South Vietnamese government than the amount of support given to North Vietnam by the Soviets and the Communist Chinese.
> 
> You seem to have served in Vietnam. Why did American servicemen call rural South Vietnam "Indian country?" Why were there so many enemy villages there?
> 
> During the Second World War there were no enemy villages in France, or even in Italy, which had recently been an ally of Germany. American troops were greeted as liberators when they went through rural villages there. Why did this not happen in South Vietnam?
Click to expand...


To be fair, "enemy village" is a bit of a misnomer.  Just because we weren't welcomed with open arms doesn't necessarily mean they supported the other side.  For that matter, just because American and ARVN soldiers received fire from a village didn't mean it was "enemy" either.  Villages in the countryside were used by all sides for their own purposes and designating one enemy or friendly often had little to do with the political persuasion of the inhabitants.


----------



## Circe

9thIDdoc said:


> And we did in fact win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actual lesson we should have learned in Vietnam was that you shouldn't fight wars unless you intend to win.[/COLOR]



I agree that we should have learned in Vietnam that we should not fight wars we don't intend to win. 

But I certainly do not agree we have done anything but lost, lost, lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Got driven out, in fact. Same as in Vietnam.

It's a failed warmaking model, and I do not understand why they keep using it.

These perpetual wars are the greatest danger to our nation's stability, because war is what bankrupts societies most often so that they collapse, and we keep waging these long, far away, incredibly expensive wars and never getting ANYthing out of them except huge deficits and the world hating us.


----------



## Gadawg73

9thIDdoc said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:
> 
> WASTED.
> 
> And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
> Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.
Click to expand...


I agree with that, did not state any different.
You won every battle over there. That is my point.


----------



## regent

But if we don't go to war for whatever reason, every so often, what happens to our John Wayne America? Do new generations coming along need a war every twenty or thirty years or so? Even Teddy Roosevelt apologized for the size and scope of the Spanish American War. Who makes our wars for us, politicians, genetics, the military, egos, bar room talk, fear, what? Wars are the one constant of history.


----------



## Skull Pilot

How Vietnam ended

With the deaths of 58,000 American soldiers and 1.1 million NVA soldiers and 1.2 million injured over absolutely nothing.


----------



## Circe

regent said:


> But if we don't go to war for whatever reason, every so often, what happens to our John Wayne America? Do new generations coming along need a war every twenty or thirty years or so? Even Teddy Roosevelt apologized for the size and scope of the Spanish American War. Who makes our wars for us, politicians, genetics, the military, egos, bar room talk, fear, what? Wars are the one constant of history.



Genetics, IMO --- humans are evolved to war with each other and take the resources from the weaker populations and expand at their expense. (The American Indians, for example.) There are other ways to expand genetic populations at other populations' expense --- taking slaves who then populate most of the New World, for instance. 

But mostly it's done by war. The Romans expanded at the Gauls' expense, then several hundred years later, the Gauls expanded at the Romans' expense.

New presidents and kings always have to have their very own war. If they have a long reign, they want several wars. Often this bankrupts the country, but there is something about a king or a president that just has to have a war of his very own.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dante said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> its the 58,000 plus kids I remember most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> half of them with Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people
Click to expand...




exactly.well said.It pisses me how the lie  was created that that bastard DICK Nixon ended the war in vietnam.

It was the american people that ended the war.Not Dick Nixon.

Nixon sabotoged the paris peace talks delaying the war and expanding it letting it go on for another 4 more years.If he really had wanted to end the war,he could have done so in 1969.

It wasnt the vietcong or the NVA that murdered all those 58,000 americans.it was  those bastards Dick Nixon and LBJ.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lbj-tapes-nixon-sabotaged-vietnam-peace-talks/

http://disinfo.com/2013/03/newly-de...nixon-sabotaged-vietnam-peace-to-get-elected/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668


----------



## LA RAM FAN

konradv said:


> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio



Our wonderful DICK Nixon sending the military after protesters murdering four college students.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dante  
Quote: Originally Posted by namvet  

so LBJ had NO responsibility here at all. thanks for clearing that up
LBJ? Who said he didn't. 

We all see you do not deny or refute what you are attacking. 

half of the US service deaths happened with the Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people

Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
you launched the attack I just asked a question. ill ask another. why did LBJ order the bombing halt after TET???
you attack while refuting nothing.



yet a timeline of posts proves you are full of shit. why is that?

LbJ left office in 1968
You've noticed that about him as well huh?


Nixon promised to end the war, not win it. He promised 'peace' not 'victory'


Why are right wingers like PoliChic so incredibly ignorant about American history?


The Nukes of October: Richard Nixon's Secret Plan to Bring Peace to Vietnam

Quote:
must be because she is a die hard republican.No surprise since she thinks Reagan was a great president as you also proved to be untrue as well did many others.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> Two citations for all of that?  Notable quotables & a Joan Baez quote link?
> 
> Anyway, you ever hear of the gulf of Tonkin "incident"? What are your views of the military industrial complex and the lengths to which it will go to feed the beast (contractors like the modern day Halliburtons, KBR's, BlackWaters, ect... and their politician, water-carrier's campaign coffers and promises of future employment)?



whats interesting is the commander of that ship has now come out and admitted they intentonally provoked the war and fired on the vietnamese first unprovoked .excellent post.


So do I became I lost more friends at close to exactly the same time in Cambodia and in both cases it was communist assholes ultimately responsible for the deaths. 

actually it was Nixon responsible. for their deaths in Cambodia.


We gained precisely nothing by fighting there and the effects of it are still being felt today.

But, who could have known that then? 
Johnson and Nixon thats who.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's all sorts of uninformed.  You're uninformed and passing it along by ignoring the basis for the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up Kent State.
> 
> It was your attempt to change the subject.
> 
> I'll accept your acknowledgement that you didn't know the details of the incident.
> 
> Do you do so?
> 
> Now...if I can open a larger can of worms.....the real 'basis for the war' was the Roosevelt-Truman administrations' infiltration by communists, who gave aid to Mao, and opposed nationalist Chiang Kai-shek
> 
> No Mao, no communist China, no Viet Nam war.
> 
> But, heck....you're probably not even here today....you must be out celebrating May Day....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding.  We supported Chiang at every turn.  If he lost, it was his own fault.
> 
> As for Viet Nam, the north was supported by the USSR, not China.  China was their traditional enemy.  Regardless of whether Mao won or not, Ho Che Mihn was a nationalist who would have tried to oust the French or any other power.
> 
> Why do I bring up Kent State?  To counter your one-sided analysis of the war.  Not everyone that opposed it was a Communist.
Click to expand...


----------



## numan

9/11 inside job said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.
> 
> OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube
> 
> CSN&Y- Ohio
> 
> 
> 
> Our wonderful DICK Nixon sending the military after protesters murdering four college students.
Click to expand...

I will never forget those streaming, unending, panicked flights of helicopters hightailing it out of Saigon -- and being pushed overboard into the sea because there was not room enough for all of them on the American aircraft carriers stationed off the coast.

That is what the USA got for bankrupting itself over ten long years, enriching the bank accounts of the War Profiteers and sacrificing its soldiers to the False God of the Military-Industrial Complex. 

"Tricky Dicky" Nixon also shamed himself by getting the union bosses of the construction workers of New York City  to order their workers to attack a peaceful demonstration protesting the murder of the Kent State students.

Here is, to me, the quintessential photograph of the Vietnam War era, summing up America's idiocy, anger, violence and hysteria. 

I look at the obese, bawling, mindless goon in the center of the picture and see America's answer to the German Nazi Party member.






.


----------



## Auteur

9thIDdoc said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:
> 
> WASTED.
> 
> And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
> Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.
Click to expand...


All who are sent to fight in the military should know exactly what they are doing, and why. Otherwise, they simply become automatons, lethal weapons under the control and direction of others; "good Germans" who obey orders without question.

This was one of the bitter lessons of Vietnam. Sending draftees off to sacrifice themselves for political gamesmanship was no longer going to be a viable option. The population, or at least a significant portion of it, recognized the madness of sending kids to their deaths for a- completely wrong headed, as it turned out- global great game.

Military action should be an absolute last resort, after all else has failed. Unfortunately, this is a concept that has still not caught on, and the geopolitical games (and bitter defeats) continue, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.


----------



## Circe

Auteur said:


> Military action should be an absolute last resort, after all else has failed. Unfortunately, this is a concept that has still not caught on, and the geopolitical games (and bitter defeats) continue, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.




I would say not a "last resort" but war justified on purely defensive grounds. Military action is a "last resort" for a lot of desirable political goals: the Iraq adventure, No. 2, was a last resort for dealing with problem dictators who seem to get a Fountain of Youth out of sanctions and last forever -- Qaddafi, Castro, Kim, etc. Rumsfeld decided to try out "regime change" as a way to scare them into better behavior. Okay, maybe that was a last resort, but it sure didn't work out! We got bogged down and no dictator was scared by it.

Bush I's war on Iraq, Desert Storm, was justified because Saddam was taking "our" oil and oil is extremely important to America, with our huge distances. We also had to go after bin Laden, though that was direly messed up since we stayed in Afghanistan long years after bin Laden left that first year, pointlessly. We should have found out where he was and made war on that country: Pakistan. If possible!  I agree that was a difficult problem, but making a forever war on an empty sandpit was just dumb, and we've lost, as ever. 

No war ever, ever, ever, ever for any reason except defense or defensive retaliation against open aggression. During WWII we were out of the fight: correctly. Then Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the same week Hitler declared war on us. Okay ---------- that became a justified defensive war! I can think of a few others, too, smaller issues: the Cuban missile crisis, and the Grenada militarism build up by Cuba. One does have to defend the country. 

But the wars in Serbia? Mogodishu? Iraq II? Libya? Vietnam? Korea? No, no justification for any of them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Skull Pilot said:


> How Vietnam ended
> 
> With the deaths of 58,000 American soldiers and 1.1 million NVA soldiers and 1.2 million injured over absolutely nothing.



well for greedy evil people like the banksters and corporations it wasnt absolutely nothing sadly.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Circe said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we did in fact win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actual lesson we should have learned in Vietnam was that you shouldn't fight wars unless you intend to win.[/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we should have learned in Vietnam that we should not fight wars we don't intend to win.
> 
> But I certainly do not agree we have done anything but lost, lost, lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Got driven out, in fact. Same as in Vietnam.
> 
> It's a failed warmaking model, and I do not understand why they keep using it.
> 
> These perpetual wars are the greatest danger to our nation's stability, because war is what bankrupts societies most often so that they collapse, and we keep waging these long, far away, incredibly expensive wars and never getting ANYthing out of them except huge deficits and the world hating us.
Click to expand...


the bankers,the corporations want wars because war means big business for the big businesses and corporations.

they are the ONLY ones that win in these mindless wars.

Its disgusting the american sheople never leanred anything from vietnam and they STILL ignorantly put on that uniform and line themselves up for slaughter all in the ignorance thinking they are dying for a great cause and sering their country when in reality,they are only serving the purposes of the bankers and the corporations with them laughing at their stupidity while they profit over it.


----------



## numan

'
Yes, it is sad that the American people are so brainwashed that they cannot perceive the simple and obvious fact that these evil wars are run by and for the benefit of War Profiteers, who will stop at nothing to swill at the public trough and destroy and bankrupt the American people.

Ever since the Second World War, the War Profiteers and the Military-Industrial Complex have been the *REAL* enemies of America !!

.


----------



## Gadawg73

numan said:


> '
> Yes, it is sad that the American people are so brainwashed that they cannot perceive the simple and obvious fact that these evil wars are run by and for the benefit of War Profiteers, who will stop at nothing to swill at the public trough and destroy and bankrupt the American people.
> 
> Ever since the Second World War, the War Profiteers and the Military-Industrial Complex have been the *REAL* enemies of America !!
> 
> .



Maybe the policy is lobbied for by defense manufacturers but your claim that the wars are run by them is absurd. 
Politics ran the Nam war and the defense corporations got their asses burned at the end of it and from there NO war has had any corporate influence as a result of the Nam fuck up.
Nice conspiracy theory sound bite but nothing true in any of it.
Today's military got their asses burned in the Nam war and the "never again" mentality sticks to this day.
Note the casualty rates and see the truth as well as command tenure.


----------



## Auteur

Circe said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military action should be an absolute last resort, after all else has failed. Unfortunately, this is a concept that has still not caught on, and the geopolitical games (and bitter defeats) continue, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say not a "last resort" but war justified on purely defensive grounds. Military action is a "last resort" for a lot of desirable political goals: the Iraq adventure, No. 2, was a last resort for dealing with problem dictators who seem to get a Fountain of Youth out of sanctions and last forever -- Qaddafi, Castro, Kim, etc. Rumsfeld decided to try out "regime change" as a way to scare them into better behavior. Okay, maybe that was a last resort, but it sure didn't work out! We got bogged down and no dictator was scared by it.
> 
> Bush I's war on Iraq, Desert Storm, was justified because Saddam was taking "our" oil and oil is extremely important to America, with our huge distances. We also had to go after bin Laden, though that was direly messed up since we stayed in Afghanistan long years after bin Laden left that first year, pointlessly. We should have found out where he was and made war on that country: Pakistan. If possible!  I agree that was a difficult problem, but making a forever war on an empty sandpit was just dumb, and we've lost, as ever.
> 
> No war ever, ever, ever, ever for any reason except defense or defensive retaliation against open aggression. During WWII we were out of the fight: correctly. Then Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the same week Hitler declared war on us. Okay ---------- that became a justified defensive war! I can think of a few others, too, smaller issues: the Cuban missile crisis, and the Grenada militarism build up by Cuba. One does have to defend the country.
> 
> But the wars in Serbia? Mogodishu? Iraq II? Libya? Vietnam? Korea? No, no justification for any of them.
Click to expand...


Kennedy risked nuclear war over the indignation of having missiles based nearby, although the US enjoyed the reverse situation with Russia, and they were expected to suck it up. It came awfully close. Later research has shown Russia had tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba, and at least one submarine skipper came close to firing a nuclear torpedo at a US destroyer. A modest geopolitical imbalance hardly seems worth the end of the world as we know it. And at any rate, even at that time, technology was overtaking events. Russia soon had regular patrols of subs with strategic nuclear weapons off the coast of the US- and there was no getting around it.

Grenada? The Cubans were building an airport. This was nothing but Reagan's grandstanding for political purposes. The US could have normal relations with Cuba, but for the fact of US fixation on communism.


----------



## numan

Auteur said:


> The US could have normal relations with Cuba, but for the fact of US fixation on communism.


More of a fixation on regaining the lost property of Mafioso kingpins in Havana and the rest of Cuba.

.


----------



## numan

Gadawg73 said:


> Maybe the policy is lobbied for by defense manufacturers but your claim that the wars are run by them is absurd.


What is absurd is your making out that *WAR manufacturers* were not making hundreds of billions of dollars in profits all during the ten long years of that, otherwise meaningless, war!!

With "logic" like yours, I can't imagine you won many cases as a lawyer.

But then, perhaps you saved your logic, as the war manufacturers did, only for what directly profited you.
.

P.S. I duly noted your lawyerly equivocation about who "runs" wars!
A lawyer like you can make out that it is the government that "runs" the wars -- while sedulously avoiding the facts of who runs the government!!
Shame on you!!
.


----------



## Mad Scientist

War IS Hell but look at all the good paying jobs it creates that we eventually send to China.


----------



## Gadawg73

American Communist said:


> War IS Hell but look at all the good paying jobs it creates that we eventually send to China.



Take a look at your shoes.
Made in China
YOU sent that job to China.
And so be it. That is a good thing.
A dumb ass with a 3rd grade education can be taught how to make the shoes you wear.
I would hope you and your neighbors could do better than 3rd grade remedial labor.


----------



## numan

'

Considering the state of "education" in the USA, I think your hope is delusory.

.


----------



## Gadawg73

numan said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the policy is lobbied for by defense manufacturers but your claim that the wars are run by them is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> What is absurd is your making out that *WAR manufacturers* were not making hundreds of billions of dollars in profits all during the ten long years of that, otherwise meaningless, war!!
> 
> With "logic" like yours, I can't imagine you won many cases as a lawyer.
> 
> But then, perhaps you saved your logic, as the war manufacturers did, only for what directly profited you.
> .
> 
> P.S. I duly noted your lawyerly equivocation about who "runs" wars!
> A lawyer like you can make out that it is the government that "runs" the wars -- while sedulously avoiding the facts of who runs the government!!
> Shame on you!!
> .
Click to expand...


Viet Nam war "hundreds of billions"??? 
LOL.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about all those people that were protesting the war.  I believe they had a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt most of them did.  Protesting was a social event and a good way to get laid for the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it just a moment's thinking and you'd realize how utter silly that statement is.
> 
> Remember the DRAFT?
> 
> People were paying attention to VietNam because about half of us were worried about getting out asses sent there or aready had friends and relatives who were in county.
> 
> Remember that at one point we have over one half million troops stationed there.
> 
> People, especdially those protesting that war knew far more about that nation and its history than most of CONGRESS apparently did.
Click to expand...


thats old school for you.He is sure consistant in his ignorance.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

NoNukes said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communist's were responsible for Kent State?  I'd REALLY like to hear your explanation of THAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. It was the "protesters"-led by communists and communist sympathizers- who started and escalated the violence at Kent State and this time they got the violent  response they wanted and martyrs to the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total bullshit from someone who was not there and not involved.
Click to expand...


thats the understatement of the year






Dante said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a leader in the anti war movement, and WE had no such intentions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard the term "Useful Idiots"?
> 
> They didn't want to use your real name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, it is PoliChic who is a useful idiot of the Boat People and Conservatives bullshit
Click to expand...


that ALSO is the understatement of the year.

Are you still claiming that was a "winnable" war?  Maybe if we just threw more money at it? Do you believe the American Revolutionaries would have lost had the Brits just threw more money at it? 
__________________
knowing her,im sure she indeed thinks it was a winnable war.


There is no excuse for National Guard presence at Kent state.

There is no justification for their carrying loaded weapons.

There is no justification for firing indiscriminately into a crowd of students.

There is no justification for those who killed that day not to be at least in prison. 

this post has so much logic,common sense and rational thinking in it dude,that you will overload and fry her brain with it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9thIDdoc said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE lost in South VeitNam and still
> 
> no dominos fell.​
> Instead we have become a valued trading partner with the communists that we _so feared._
> 
> Which means people my age knew one fuck of a lot of our generation who
> 
> died for a lie​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia.
> 
> *"died for a lie"? *That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.
Click to expand...


dude your in denial.He is totally correct.

The american people did not want that war,many of them wisely defected to canada because they knew it was a fake and phony war.what you dont get is that wars mean big buiness for corporations which is why we have the wars going on in the middle east.He hit the nail right on the head.vietnam was an unnessary war and Johnson and Nixon were the ones thta murdered all those 58,000 bothers of yours,not the NVA or vietcong.They are tha mass murderers of them whether you want to face it or not.


----------



## Gadawg73

9/11 inside job said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE lost in South VeitNam and still
> 
> no dominos fell.​
> Instead we have become a valued trading partner with the communists that we _so feared._
> 
> Which means people my age knew one fuck of a lot of our generation who
> 
> died for a lie​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia.
> 
> *"died for a lie"? *That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude your in denial.He is totally correct.
> 
> The american people did not want that war,many of them wisely defected to canada because they knew it was a fake and phony war.what you dont get is that wars mean big buiness for corporations which is why we have the wars going on in the middle east.He hit the nail right on the head.vietnam was an unnessary war and Johnson and Nixon were the ones thta murdered all those 58,000 bothers of yours,not the NVA or vietcong.They are tha mass murderers of them whether you want to face it or not.
Click to expand...


Your claims are all over the map.
I work in a field with many Viet Nam vets and many stayed on in the military and their voices were heard as to the mistakes of that war. Many changes were made.
You are a complete fool to believe that the men that fought over there and saw their friends die DID NOT initiate total change in the military and the operations and strategy of war time. Of course there have been times when the President did not listen to boots on the ground such as Iraq II but it was not from some corporation making the decisions.
We know, we work in the field and many of my colleagues were there and other places and the boots on the ground NOW tell us what you claim is total bull shit.
So should I believe YOU or a 27 year old Marine Captain in the field in with THE FIFTH MARINE REGIMENT, 1ST MARINE DIVISION?


----------



## numan

'

I will certainly trust 9/11 IJ over you, or your Marine captain, or anyone else who supports an out-of-control military murder-machine run by and for satanic war profiteers.

.


----------



## Auteur

Gadawg73 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia.
> 
> *"died for a lie"? *That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude your in denial.He is totally correct.
> 
> The american people did not want that war,many of them wisely defected to canada because they knew it was a fake and phony war.what you dont get is that wars mean big buiness for corporations which is why we have the wars going on in the middle east.He hit the nail right on the head.vietnam was an unnessary war and Johnson and Nixon were the ones thta murdered all those 58,000 bothers of yours,not the NVA or vietcong.They are tha mass murderers of them whether you want to face it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims are all over the map.
> I work in a field with many Viet Nam vets and many stayed on in the military and their voices were heard as to the mistakes of that war. Many changes were made.
> You are a complete fool to believe that the men that fought over there and saw their friends die DID NOT initiate total change in the military and the operations and strategy of war time. Of course there have been times when the President did not listen to boots on the ground such as Iraq II but it was not from some corporation making the decisions.
> We know, we work in the field and many of my colleagues were there and other places and the boots on the ground NOW tell us what you claim is total bull shit.
> So should I believe YOU or a 27 year old Marine Captain in the field in with THE FIFTH MARINE REGIMENT, 1ST MARINE DIVISION?
Click to expand...


There's little doubt that the military analyzed its position after Vietnam, and reached some constructive conclusions. The broader question is, how much has the political leadership of the US, and the population at large learned from such events? History repeats itself- the often quoted cliche goes, but in the case of the last few conflicts, this certainly applies.

In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has basically been a rerun of past history. Geopolitical gain is imagined, imperial adventure is desired, and the wheels set in motion, with little regard of expert advice, or even a glance at a history text. What politicians seemed to have learned from the past is that marketing is much more important than previously thought. Drafting millions of kids into the army, and giving the public a shabby and transparent cover story for the reason they are coming home in plastic bags is not going to cut it in the future. And so in stead of changing the concept of war, they have changed to concept of marketing it.

High numbers of casualities are no longer acceptable, and so technology is recruited to do as much work as possible. The current Drone program is a good example. No matter the number of innocent deaths on the "other" side, they can be spun in the media much more effectively than the deaths of US servicemen.

And the draft of course, is out. Vietnam proved that a majority, or at least a very large plurality of the public has a limited amount of patience for war, and most certainly for foolish wars. Drafting their kids to do the dirty work could provoke rebellion. The work would have to be left to volunteers, who at least notionally have the idea of supporting such national policies. Or, better yet, privatize war, and leave it for "employees". This moves  things further out of the national consciousness, further buries unpleasantness from the media, and leaves the currently favourable impression that the market is taking care of things. The risk of such things is great for these folks, but they are getting paid in compensation that matches the danger-so the story goes.

For a public that has already- in large measure- lost interest in following world affairs, and have allowed intellectual pursuits to sink to a low priority, the assignment of war to a small minority, who have "chosen" their occupation anyway, further lulls the senses, and precludes the sort of masses in the streets protests seen during the Vietnam era.


----------



## Gadawg73

numan said:


> '
> 
> I will certainly trust 9/11 IJ over you, or your Marine captain, or anyone else who supports an out-of-control military murder-machine run by and for satanic war profiteers.
> 
> .



I fully believe you would trust the judgment that believes 9/11 was caused by the American government by the many posts I have read from you in the past.
You are bat shit crazy.


----------



## Gadawg73

Auteur said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude your in denial.He is totally correct.
> 
> The american people did not want that war,many of them wisely defected to canada because they knew it was a fake and phony war.what you dont get is that wars mean big buiness for corporations which is why we have the wars going on in the middle east.He hit the nail right on the head.vietnam was an unnessary war and Johnson and Nixon were the ones thta murdered all those 58,000 bothers of yours,not the NVA or vietcong.They are tha mass murderers of them whether you want to face it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims are all over the map.
> I work in a field with many Viet Nam vets and many stayed on in the military and their voices were heard as to the mistakes of that war. Many changes were made.
> You are a complete fool to believe that the men that fought over there and saw their friends die DID NOT initiate total change in the military and the operations and strategy of war time. Of course there have been times when the President did not listen to boots on the ground such as Iraq II but it was not from some corporation making the decisions.
> We know, we work in the field and many of my colleagues were there and other places and the boots on the ground NOW tell us what you claim is total bull shit.
> So should I believe YOU or a 27 year old Marine Captain in the field in with THE FIFTH MARINE REGIMENT, 1ST MARINE DIVISION?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's little doubt that the military analyzed its position after Vietnam, and reached some constructive conclusions. The broader question is, how much has the political leadership of the US, and the population at large learned from such events? History repeats itself- the often quoted cliche goes, but in the case of the last few conflicts, this certainly applies.
> 
> In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has basically been a rerun of past history. Geopolitical gain is imagined, imperial adventure is desired, and the wheels set in motion, with little regard of expert advice, or even a glance at a history text. What politicians seemed to have learned from the past is that marketing is much more important than previously thought. Drafting millions of kids into the army, and giving the public a shabby and transparent cover story for the reason they are coming home in plastic bags is not going to cut it in the future. And so in stead of changing the concept of war, they have changed to concept of marketing it.
> 
> High numbers of casualities are no longer acceptable, and so technology is recruited to do as much work as possible. The current Drone program is a good example. No matter the number of innocent deaths on the "other" side, they can be spun in the media much more effectively than the deaths of US servicemen.
> 
> And the draft of course, is out. Vietnam proved that a majority, or at least a very large plurality of the public has a limited amount of patience for war, and most certainly for foolish wars. Drafting their kids to do the dirty work could provoke rebellion. The work would have to be left to volunteers, who at least notionally have the idea of supporting such national policies. Or, better yet, privatize war, and leave it for "employees". This moves  things further out of the national consciousness, further buries unpleasantness from the media, and leaves the currently favourable impression that the market is taking care of things. The risk of such things is great for these folks, but they are getting paid in compensation that matches the danger-so the story goes.
> 
> For a public that has already- in large measure- lost interest in following world affairs, and have allowed intellectual pursuits to sink to a low priority, the assignment of war to a small minority, who have "chosen" their occupation anyway, further lulls the senses, and precludes the sort of masses in the streets protests seen during the Vietnam era.
Click to expand...


"imperial adventure"
If you are a career officer on the ground would you rather have an army of volunteers that want to be there or draftees that don't? 
No brainer there. Volunteer military is always better trained, educated, skilled and motivated than a draftee military.
Which also leads to MORE career officers and MORE up the chain ideas, complaints, FUBAR advice, SNAFU preparedness and LESS decision making by government, politicians, bureaucrats and everyone and anyone else that is not in line with military strategy, planning and control.
Of course there are exceptions to that as military strikes are not predictable nor are the reasons why. 
I do agree that most Americans sit here on their ass and Monday morning QB every move the military and government makes and they do not understand the reasons, sacrifices, commitments and numerous alliances and treaties we have.


----------



## numan

Gadawg73 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will certainly trust 9/11 IJ over you, or your Marine captain, or anyone else who supports an out-of-control military murder-machine run by and for satanic war profiteers.
> 
> 
> 
> I fully believe you would trust the judgment that believes 9/11 was caused by the American government by the many posts I have read from you in the past.
> You are bat shit crazy.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are not able to make a rational rebuttal of what I wrote.

Thank you for making that clear.


----------



## Auteur

Gadawg73 said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims are all over the map.
> I work in a field with many Viet Nam vets and many stayed on in the military and their voices were heard as to the mistakes of that war. Many changes were made.
> You are a complete fool to believe that the men that fought over there and saw their friends die DID NOT initiate total change in the military and the operations and strategy of war time. Of course there have been times when the President did not listen to boots on the ground such as Iraq II but it was not from some corporation making the decisions.
> We know, we work in the field and many of my colleagues were there and other places and the boots on the ground NOW tell us what you claim is total bull shit.
> So should I believe YOU or a 27 year old Marine Captain in the field in with THE FIFTH MARINE REGIMENT, 1ST MARINE DIVISION?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's little doubt that the military analyzed its position after Vietnam, and reached some constructive conclusions. The broader question is, how much has the political leadership of the US, and the population at large learned from such events? History repeats itself- the often quoted cliche goes, but in the case of the last few conflicts, this certainly applies.
> 
> In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has basically been a rerun of past history. Geopolitical gain is imagined, imperial adventure is desired, and the wheels set in motion, with little regard of expert advice, or even a glance at a history text. What politicians seemed to have learned from the past is that marketing is much more important than previously thought. Drafting millions of kids into the army, and giving the public a shabby and transparent cover story for the reason they are coming home in plastic bags is not going to cut it in the future. And so in stead of changing the concept of war, they have changed to concept of marketing it.
> 
> High numbers of casualities are no longer acceptable, and so technology is recruited to do as much work as possible. The current Drone program is a good example. No matter the number of innocent deaths on the "other" side, they can be spun in the media much more effectively than the deaths of US servicemen.
> 
> And the draft of course, is out. Vietnam proved that a majority, or at least a very large plurality of the public has a limited amount of patience for war, and most certainly for foolish wars. Drafting their kids to do the dirty work could provoke rebellion. The work would have to be left to volunteers, who at least notionally have the idea of supporting such national policies. Or, better yet, privatize war, and leave it for "employees". This moves  things further out of the national consciousness, further buries unpleasantness from the media, and leaves the currently favourable impression that the market is taking care of things. The risk of such things is great for these folks, but they are getting paid in compensation that matches the danger-so the story goes.
> 
> For a public that has already- in large measure- lost interest in following world affairs, and have allowed intellectual pursuits to sink to a low priority, the assignment of war to a small minority, who have "chosen" their occupation anyway, further lulls the senses, and precludes the sort of masses in the streets protests seen during the Vietnam era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "imperial adventure"
> If you are a career officer on the ground would you rather have an army of volunteers that want to be there or draftees that don't?
> No brainer there. Volunteer military is always better trained, educated, skilled and motivated than a draftee military.
> Which also leads to MORE career officers and MORE up the chain ideas, complaints, FUBAR advice, SNAFU preparedness and LESS decision making by government, politicians, bureaucrats and everyone and anyone else that is not in line with military strategy, planning and control.
> Of course there are exceptions to that as military strikes are not predictable nor are the reasons why.
> I do agree that most Americans sit here on their ass and Monday morning QB every move the military and government makes and they do not understand the reasons, sacrifices, commitments and numerous alliances and treaties we have.
Click to expand...


I believe we are mis-communicating here. Of course, a volunteer force is more efficient than draftees. My point is that the more a military force is divorced from the mass of society, the easier it is for politicians to pursue whatever self-serving or divergent geopolitical escapades they want, for whatever short-term narrow interest they want. If  Private Johnny doesn't come marchin' home, questions will be asked across the land. If  Contractor Johnny doesn't come  marchin' home, because he signed up with Blackwater, made a shit-load of money, and then his luck ran out, much, much fewer questions are going to be asked. And that suits the aims of numerous folks in the US today.

If Vietnam had been run by a mix of a 40% volunteer military force, and 60% contracted civilians (highly paid), how differently do you think things may have turned out? The answer to that question strongly informs the policies of today.


----------



## Gadawg73

Auteur said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's little doubt that the military analyzed its position after Vietnam, and reached some constructive conclusions. The broader question is, how much has the political leadership of the US, and the population at large learned from such events? History repeats itself- the often quoted cliche goes, but in the case of the last few conflicts, this certainly applies.
> 
> In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has basically been a rerun of past history. Geopolitical gain is imagined, imperial adventure is desired, and the wheels set in motion, with little regard of expert advice, or even a glance at a history text. What politicians seemed to have learned from the past is that marketing is much more important than previously thought. Drafting millions of kids into the army, and giving the public a shabby and transparent cover story for the reason they are coming home in plastic bags is not going to cut it in the future. And so in stead of changing the concept of war, they have changed to concept of marketing it.
> 
> High numbers of casualities are no longer acceptable, and so technology is recruited to do as much work as possible. The current Drone program is a good example. No matter the number of innocent deaths on the "other" side, they can be spun in the media much more effectively than the deaths of US servicemen.
> 
> And the draft of course, is out. Vietnam proved that a majority, or at least a very large plurality of the public has a limited amount of patience for war, and most certainly for foolish wars. Drafting their kids to do the dirty work could provoke rebellion. The work would have to be left to volunteers, who at least notionally have the idea of supporting such national policies. Or, better yet, privatize war, and leave it for "employees". This moves  things further out of the national consciousness, further buries unpleasantness from the media, and leaves the currently favourable impression that the market is taking care of things. The risk of such things is great for these folks, but they are getting paid in compensation that matches the danger-so the story goes.
> 
> For a public that has already- in large measure- lost interest in following world affairs, and have allowed intellectual pursuits to sink to a low priority, the assignment of war to a small minority, who have "chosen" their occupation anyway, further lulls the senses, and precludes the sort of masses in the streets protests seen during the Vietnam era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "imperial adventure"
> If you are a career officer on the ground would you rather have an army of volunteers that want to be there or draftees that don't?
> No brainer there. Volunteer military is always better trained, educated, skilled and motivated than a draftee military.
> Which also leads to MORE career officers and MORE up the chain ideas, complaints, FUBAR advice, SNAFU preparedness and LESS decision making by government, politicians, bureaucrats and everyone and anyone else that is not in line with military strategy, planning and control.
> Of course there are exceptions to that as military strikes are not predictable nor are the reasons why.
> I do agree that most Americans sit here on their ass and Monday morning QB every move the military and government makes and they do not understand the reasons, sacrifices, commitments and numerous alliances and treaties we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe we are mis-communicating here. Of course, a volunteer force is more efficient than draftees. My point is that the more a military force is divorced from the mass of society, the easier it is for politicians to pursue whatever self-serving or divergent geopolitical escapades they want, for whatever short-term narrow interest they want. If  Private Johnny doesn't come marchin' home, questions will be asked across the land. If  Contractor Johnny doesn't come  marchin' home, because he signed up with Blackwater, made a shit-load of money, and then his luck ran out, much, much fewer questions are going to be asked. And that suits the aims of numerous folks in the US today.
> 
> If Vietnam had been run by a mix of a 40% volunteer military force, and 60% contracted civilians (highly paid), how differently do you think things may have turned out? The answer to that question strongly informs the policies of today.
Click to expand...


Someone correctly stated that no army wins a war of attrition in Asia. Viet Nam is the perfect example. I believe it was 15 year olds and 350,00 of them that were drafted each year in North Viet Nam from 1966 forward. An unending wave of fodder.
The military despises most of the contractors. Contractors in country do make a pant load and brag about their junkets to Dubai. The average MP and/or uniform security makes about $36,000 a year in country. Contractor doing about the same job makes 5 times that. In country uniform would not let contractors eat the pea nuts out of their shit. However, with 65%+ veterans now applying for and in most cases receiving long term "disability" payments upon discharge contractors pay ends up being less in the long run. 
I agree with your thesis but the me first society we live in here today is the problem, not whether the military is drafted or not. People are ignorant.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Spoonman said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory.  what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists.    and were they ever right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning, they were counting on free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control. which is most of the universities and the media.
> 
> 
> yea free speech. you know where journalists visited the POW's in Hanoi and reported how well the criminals were being treated but neglected to mention they were being tortured and killed.
Click to expand...


No surprise there.got to remember,the CIA has agents that work in the mainstream news,hense why they never reported the autrocities being done to them.

but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control. which is most of the universities and the media. 

SPOONMAN here understands that the media is just a TOOL for the government.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Gadawg73 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> I will certainly trust 9/11 IJ over you, or your Marine captain, or anyone else who supports an out-of-control military murder-machine run by and for satanic war profiteers.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully believe you would trust the judgment that believes 9/11 was caused by the American government by the many posts I have read from you in the past.
> You are bat shit crazy.
Click to expand...


according to YOUR logic,all these high credible experts are bat shit crazy and you are not.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

so according to your warped logic you have.all these high credible experts in their fields,architects and engineers who know about the collapses of high rise buildings due to fires,all these experts in the military,all these expert pilots in the world who have  said they could not fly an airliner into a pentagon like the government says the highjackers allegedly did,all these firemen experienced in the sounds of explosives along with demolition experts,ALL of them are wrong and all our corrupt government institutions despite the fact they have a long hisotry of corruption going back decades of lying to the people,THEY are right and those experts are wrong? gotcha.

according to YOUR warped logic you have,nobody should listen to an expert mechanic who knows everything there is about a car and how it needs to be repaired,dont trust him,but trust your wife in what SHE says even though she has never looked under the hood of a car before.priceless,you should start a comedy club.


----------



## usmcstinger

March 28, 1973 all US troops were gone from Vietnam and the Vietnam Service Medal was no longer issued. This date was the real end of the Vietnam War.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

usmcstinger said:


> March 28, 1973 all US troops were gone from Vietnam and the Vietnam Service Medal was no longer issued. This date was the real end of the Vietnam War.



thanks to the american people who finally got fed up with that fake and phony war of course.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Spoonman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control.  which is most of the universities and the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where you need an education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an education consists of presenting facts and only facts and letting you form your own opinion.  What you support is refered to as an indoctrination
Click to expand...


that is defenitely what is going on in our corrupt school systems and is currently going on now.the schools wont let you present the facts of what really happened in our american history classes.for instance this is a true story.

I woke up to how evil our government is after i saw the movie JFK. when i started reading other books afterwards and books that supported the magic bullet theory,i came to the conclusion stones movie was 100 times more accurate to the truth on what actually did happen that the warren commission.

a few years later after I saw JFK at the theaters and started doing research on it,I confronted one of my american history terachers and asked him point blank-Mr Evans,you always taught us in your classes that oswald killed JFK.that was a lie,the CIA did it.how come you never told us that? and he said-Oh I never did believe that.and i replied with-what that the CIA did it or that oswald did it? and he said-that oswald did it.

I then said to him-well then how come you never told us that and told the lie that oswald did it? and he came back with an answer that shocked me saying-well just between you and me,if i had told you what I REALLY believed back then,I wouldnt be here teaching now.I would have been fired back then.

and I have no ill grudge towards him on that for telling the lie that he was forced to tell because that was his livilood and that was all he knew how to make a living ,same with all thse other american history teachers.if they tell the truth,they lose their jobs.

Like he said,thats indoctrination.thats not america,where we are SUPPOSE to have free speech and be able to give our opinions.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bornright said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bornright said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was there in 1970.  Thought of going back to see the changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's when I got there too, and went straight to I Corps where I stayed.
> 
> I'd like to go back too.  In the meantime, you oughta check out Google Earth.  You can see the changes, which are many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have looked at the Google Earth and it is unbelievable.
> 
> Check out Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall - The Virtual Wall (TM) it is a site that not only list kia's but also has stories from family members on some.  I found it interesting.
Click to expand...


that again,is the list on the wall  of all our brothers that LBJ and DICK Nixon murdered.


----------



## numan

Gadawg73 said:


> I agree with your thesis but the me first society we live in here today is the problem, not whether the military is drafted or not. People are ignorant.


Perhaps it is ignorant to imagine that our society could be anything but a "me-first society" -- considering the very low culture, intelligence, and characters of the people who purportedly "lead" us -- people who would never _dream_ of sacrificing _their_ children to the military meat-grinder.

In any organization, if the people at the top are seen to be vicious, exploitative, criminal scoundrels, the people in positions  below those "leaders" will very likely think that they would be fools to be better than those above them, and that they should "get theirs while the getting is good." 

Eventually, this attitude works its way down the entire food chain, and at some point the organization, government or society collapses.

I think people like you are quite naive. When they hear J.F. Kennedy's :

*"Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask rather what you can do for your country"*

they hear a clarion call for noble action and patriotism and self-sacrifice.

When people like myself, who are very aware of the corruption of our society from top to bottom,  hear such stuff, we know quite well that it is a cynical ploy by corrupt leaders, meaning :

*"Ask not what I can do for you -- ask rather what you can do for me."*
______________________________________

*It is not reasonable that a wise man should hazard himself for his country, and endanger wisdom for a set of fools.*
---_Theodorus of Cyrene_
.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

there4eyeM said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.
> 
> And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?
> 
> The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.
Click to expand...


you have way too much logic,common sense,and rational thinking for this thread starter to comprehend.her head is about to explode the way you overloaded her with all that common sense.hee hee.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Auteur said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:
> 
> WASTED.
> 
> And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
> Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All who are sent to fight in the military should know exactly what they are doing, and why. Otherwise, they simply become automatons, lethal weapons under the control and direction of others; "good Germans" who obey orders without question.
> 
> This was one of the bitter lessons of Vietnam. Sending draftees off to sacrifice themselves for political gamesmanship was no longer going to be a viable option. The population, or at least a significant portion of it, recognized the madness of sending kids to their deaths for a- completely wrong headed, as it turned out- global great game.
> 
> Military action should be an absolute last resort, after all else has failed. Unfortunately, this is a concept that has still not caught on, and the geopolitical games (and bitter defeats) continue, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.
Click to expand...


You obviously have no idea how a military is-or should be-run. Nor did Vietnam teach you a damn thing. You might also note that we won the "global great game" (the Cold War). We accomplished what we set out to do in Iraq and Afghanistan and they were obvious wins of battles in the War Against Terror. Your determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory does you no credit.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

9/11 inside job said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Vietnam ended
> 
> With the deaths of 58,000 American soldiers and 1.1 million NVA soldiers and 1.2 million injured over absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well for greedy evil people like the banksters and corporations it wasnt absolutely nothing sadly.
Click to expand...


Nor was it "over absolutely nothing" for anyone with a brain and even a limited ability to use it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"Its disgusting the american sheople never leanred anything from vietnam and they STILL ignorantly put on that uniform and line themselves up for slaughter all in the ignorance thinking they are dying for a great cause and sering their country when in reality,they are only serving the purposes of the bankers and the corporations with them laughing at their stupidity while they profit over it." ___________________

You must be one of those ignorant american sheople to be ignorant of the fact our troops fight for, and at the command of, the American people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9thIDdoc said:


> _"Its disgusting the american sheople never leanred anything from vietnam and they STILL ignorantly put on that uniform and line themselves up for slaughter all in the ignorance thinking they are dying for a great cause and sering their country when in reality,they are only serving the purposes of the bankers and the corporations with them laughing at their stupidity while they profit over it." ___________________
> 
> You must be one of those ignorant american sheople to be ignorant of the fact our troops fight for, and at the command of, the American people.



No your just too ignnorant to figure it out that war means big business for the corporations and bankers,which is why we have the wars going on in the middle east. if the american people had not protested the war like they did,it would not have ended like it did  to say that the american people did not force them to end the war is being very ignorant.


----------



## Auteur

9thIDdoc said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All who are sent to fight in the military should know exactly what they are doing, and why. Otherwise, they simply become automatons, lethal weapons under the control and direction of others; "good Germans" who obey orders without question.
> 
> This was one of the bitter lessons of Vietnam. Sending draftees off to sacrifice themselves for political gamesmanship was no longer going to be a viable option. The population, or at least a significant portion of it, recognized the madness of sending kids to their deaths for a- completely wrong headed, as it turned out- global great game.
> 
> Military action should be an absolute last resort, after all else has failed. Unfortunately, this is a concept that has still not caught on, and the geopolitical games (and bitter defeats) continue, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have no idea how a military is-or should be-run. Nor did Vietnam teach you a damn thing. You might also note that we won the "global great game" (the Cold War). We accomplished what we set out to do in Iraq and Afghanistan and they were obvious wins of battles in the War Against Terror. Your determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory does you no credit.
Click to expand...


And your point is that the military _should_ be run with compulsory service, with draftees who don't know why they are supposed to be killing people, or do know and adamantly disagree? That they should ask no questions if told to deport Jews, or shoot up a village of civilians? Nonsense. That _is _the lesson of Vietnam.

The cold war ended because the Soviet Union collapsed, because of internal corruption and ineffeciency. Otherwise, it would still be going on today, and indeed it still is to an extent, with a reduced Russia and a renewed China as possible arms race partners and advisaries. We have simply gone from two superpowers to a bi-polar world.

And so the US set out to kill 80k plus or minus Iraqis, plus many thousands of Americans, stir up sectarian violence, increase Iran's influence in the region, and then have to evacuate the country, leaving behind bases worth millions to construct, and ceed oil contracts to China, and other countries, alienate most allied countries, and destroy the moral credibility of the US? In that case it was a  success.

The US succeeded in destroying "training bases", ie barracks, classrooms, and storage sheds probably already abandoned in Afghanistan. All smoke and mirrors of course, because terrorists train anywhere and everywhere. That't the whole point- hiding is what enables them to survive. Wouldn't be much point in picking a base out in the desert, in view of satellite and air surveillance, and painting a big x on it, now would there? In the case of 9/11, the essential training was done at flight schools in Florida, and planning done in Germany and Saudi Arabia.

The mission then changed to nation building, ie getting rid of tribalism. It was a complete failure. As we speak, negociations are underway with the Taliban to allow their return in some shape or form. As in Vietnam, an implicite side agreement will probably insist on a "decent interval" from the time of US withdrawal to the time of reversion to the past status quo, in order to not outrage the (short memoried) US public too much.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_And your point is that the military should be run with compulsory service, with draftees who don't know why they are supposed to be killing people, or do know and adamantly disagree? That they should ask no questions if told to deport Jews, or shoot up a village of civilians? Nonsense. That is the lesson of Vietnam._

Strawmen. I neither said-nor intended to say-anything remotely like what you are trying to attribute to me. Talking to yourself is suspicious, holding a full-blown argument with yourself is an indication that you need to seek help.

_And so the US set out to kill 80k plus or minus Iraqis, plus many thousands of Americans, stir up sectarian violence, increase Iran's influence in the region, and then have to evacuate the country, leaving behind bases worth millions to construct, and ceed oil contracts to China, and other countries, alienate most allied countries, and destroy the moral credibility of the US? In that case it was a success._

That was/is true only in your fevered little mind.


----------



## Mad Scientist

9thIDdoc said:


> We accomplished what we set out to do in Iraq and Afghanistan* and they were obvious wins of battles in the War Against Terror.* Your determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory does you no credit.


Oh that's just too funny!


----------



## numan

American Communist said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We accomplished what we set out to do in Iraq and Afghanistan* and they were obvious wins of battles in the War Against Terror.* Your determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory does you no credit.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's just too funny!
Click to expand...

You're right. What a fruit loop that guy is !!

Or maybe he is just a senile Jingoist.

Of course, if he had written that "we" war profiteers and contractors, "we" looters of the American people, accomplished what we set out to do, then I would find no fault with him.

.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Oh no! Mindless disagreement from idiots! I'm crushed!


----------



## NYcarbineer

There was no good reason for us to be involved in a Vietnamese civil war.  

There is actually proof that the war was not necessary to our vital interests...

...*the fact that North Vietnam won*,  but as a consequence,

NONE of our vital interests were in any way damaged.


----------



## numan

NYcarbineer said:


> There was no good reason for us to be involved in a Vietnamese civil war.
> 
> There is actually proof that the war was not necessary to our vital interests...
> 
> ...*the fact that North Vietnam won*,  but as a consequence,
> 
> NONE of our vital interests were in any way damaged.


But the War Profiteers made grotesque profits off the American people for ten long years, didn't they?

So the War served its purpose.

.


----------



## Mad Scientist

9thIDdoc said:


> Oh no! Mindless disagreement from idiots! I'm crushed!


The War has been over for many years now, why can't you just admit it was all a mistake? Robert McNamara did.

You think that YOUR service over there legitimized that whole shooting match? Well it didn't. No more than MY service legitimized the whole Military Industrial Complex itself.

You think it would be disgraceful if you admitted it? Not at all.


----------



## NYcarbineer

numan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no good reason for us to be involved in a Vietnamese civil war.
> 
> There is actually proof that the war was not necessary to our vital interests...
> 
> ...*the fact that North Vietnam won*,  but as a consequence,
> 
> NONE of our vital interests were in any way damaged.
> 
> 
> 
> But the War Profiteers made grotesque profits off the American people for ten long years, didn't they?
> 
> So the War served its purpose.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And the Vietnam war was only over a few years when we got a new order from the defense lobby,

spend billions on a buildup to "win" the Cold War...

...Cold War ends, supposedly, in the late eighties,  and next thing you know Saddam Hussein is the new Adolph Hitler,

and the profiteers order up a war in the Middle East.  That drags out for the last 20 years or so, but now that's winding down...

...what's next?  

Trump up the threat of China?  Resurrect the missile defense cash cow?


----------



## numan

'

Yes, the War Profiteer vampires will never fail to drum up "enemies" in order to drain the life's blood of the American people.

But one would have thought that they could do better than a few rag-head religious fanatics!! Hardly up to the standards of the Soviet Union and vast nuclear armaments!!

I suppose they feel that there is no end to the gullibility of the American people -- provided there is enough "Shock and Awe" and unceasing propaganda.

One is struck, yet again, by the Truth that :

*"History repeats itself -- the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."*

.


----------



## Gadawg73

numan said:


> '
> 
> Yes, the War Profiteer vampires will never fail to drum up "enemies" in order to drain the life's blood of the American people.
> 
> But one would have thought that they could do better than a few rag-head religious fanatics!! Hardly up to the standards of the Soviet Union and vast nuclear armaments!!
> 
> I suppose they feel that there is no end to the gullibility of the American people -- provided there is enough "Shock and Awe" and unceasing propaganda.
> 
> One is struck, yet again, by the Truth that :
> 
> *"History repeats itself -- the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."*
> 
> .



Shock and Awe was against "a few rag-head religious fanatics"?

You ARE a dumb ass and a fooL.
Hussein's military and government WERE SECULAR YOU DUMB FUCK.
And had over 100,000 troops.
Does your mama know about the stupid shit you post?


----------



## numan

''

If you had any brains at all, you would realize that the *REAL* "Shock and Awe" was aimed at the American people on 9/11, in order to traumatize and frighten a whole nation into believing nonsense and submitting to rule by a totalitarian junta.

.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Friends said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've identified you a stupid, America-hating liar.....
> 
> ....that's not enough?
> 
> But,...you must be used to it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of insulting me, try to refute my argument. Why was the War in Vietnam morally justified? Why was it in America's national interest? Why did the United States have the right to devastate Vietnam in order to prevent the ascension of a leader as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese wanted?
> 
> I was raised to be very patriotic. I thrilled to the sight of the American flag, the National Anthem, "rocks and rills," "woods and templed hills," and all that. The War in Vietnam took that away from me. I never got it back. Appeals to American nationalism fill me with cold disgust.
Click to expand...

I see you've noticed that about her as well that she can only insult when she cant refute facts.lol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bornright said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how preposterous the War in Vietnam was. A young man did not need a genius level IQ to figure out that the War was unworthy of his life, and the life of anyone he might kill over there. It seemed to help, however. Anti war sentiment was strongest at the best universities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anti war sentiment was strongest in Universities where the children that attended it were most spoiled.
Click to expand...


speaking of that,when you do your research on politicians and war,they never send their children off to fight these wars.They would never be so eager for a war if it meant THEIR children had to go off and fight in them like all other americans do.


how preposterous the War in Vietnam was. A young man did not need a genius level IQ to figure out that the War was unworthy of his life, and the life of anyone he might kill over there. It seemed to help, however. Anti war sentiment was strongest at the best universities.
 [/quote]

Anti war sentiment was strongest in Universities where the children that attended it were most spoiled.[/QUOTE]

Anti war sentiment was strongest where the average IQ was highest. The War in Vietnam was immoral and not in America's national interest for reasons I have explained in this thread. No one has even tried to refute my argument.[/QUOTE]



so very true on ALL your points.


You're a liar....you have no argument beyond that.
What have I said that is not true?  
 such hypocrisy from her as always,she needs to look in the mirror when calling someone a liar.


President Eisenhower is the best authority on the popularity of Ho Chi Minh. The war could have ended as soon as the United States decided to stop interfering in the internal affairs of Vietnam and withdraw. 

amen to that brother.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

American Communist said:


> I wish I was born about 10 years earlier so I could have fought for the Military Industrial Complex in Vietnam, that would have been really cool.
> 
> I was in during Grenada, Panama and Gulf War I but was never deployed. Damn!



yeah thats americas REAL enemy.the military industrial complex that Eisenhower tried to warn the american people to be aware of in his farewell address speech.Too bad the american sheeple did not listen to him and heed his warning.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Circe said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in training at RTC Sdiego when this boroadcast was made. we jumped for joy
> 
> Lyndon Johnson - Remarks on Decision to not seek Reelection - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a graduate students dorm TV room. Everyone leaped to their feet as one person and cheered and screamed.
> 
> I would say LBJ was the worst president in my lifetime, and I include Nixon.
Click to expand...


Naw DICK Nixon was worse.He put a dictator in power who murdered millions of people.amazing how our history classes conveintly leaves out those details and pretends that his worst crimes were lying about watergate isnt it?

 Talk about indoctrination.Thats what our corrupt schools have done with americans their whole lives.our country is no different than the communists.you cant even give a version different than the governments without getting murdered.


----------



## numan

'
The best comment on the Vietnam War that I know came from a South Vietnamese grunt drafted into the American puppet army.

It could also have been said with equal truth and justice by any American draftee forced to fight and risk his life for the bank accounts of war profiteers.

The South Vietnamese draftee avoided going into a dangerous firefight. An American military "advisor" berated him for his "cowardice."

The South Vietnamese soldier replied calmly,

*"Why should I die for you?"*

.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Gadawg73 said:


> My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:
> 
> WASTED.
> 
> And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
> Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.



so very true.they were fighting that war to line the pockets of politicians and bankers and corporations.nothing more.All those 58,000 plus men on the wall in washington listed as killed in action were all murdered by the hands of Johnson and DICK Nixon.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Gadawg73 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mississippi National Guard could have gone into Serbia and won with air support.
> Clinton never served, he publicly "loathed the military".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's what we always, always say.
> 
> "Lindsey Lohan's bellybutton lint could go into [Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Mogadishu, etc., etc.] and win in a few days!!!!" we brag.
> 
> And it's never, never true.
> 
> Clinton at least had the sense to understand THAT.
> 
> Clinton probably shouldn't have bothered, especially since we were bombing on behalf of Muslims, but at least he didn't get us bogged down in a ten-year losing war with no point whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was true in Serbia and that is all I stated was true.
> Many historians label Clinton's involvement there "The Blowinsky Deflection".
> For those of us that have a clue about military capabilities and logistics the cast dates back to Tito post WWII. Albanian nationalism led to this cluster fuck. Add in the League of Communists of Kosovo and the cocktail for disaster begins. Throw in Milosevic becoming President of Serbia and the brew cooks. He rallies all of the above.
> Aircraft flew 40,000 combat missions.
> Norwegian and British special forces brokered back room deals for a peace agreement.
> Boy Scout Troop 401 from Hahira, Ga. could have come in and cleaned up after 40,000 combat mission air strikes.
Click to expand...


Clintons hypocrisy is revolting,he wouldnt fight in the vietnam war yet that bastard sent many americans to die off in a foreign country because just like you said,he was trying to divert everybodys attention away from the Blowinsky scandal so just like Nixon started a war in cambodia to get everybodys attention away from watergate,Clinton did the same thing.two birds of a feather.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

regent said:


> But if we don't go to war for whatever reason, every so often, what happens to our John Wayne America? Do new generations coming along need a war every twenty or thirty years or so? Even Teddy Roosevelt apologized for the size and scope of the Spanish American War. Who makes our wars for us, politicians, genetics, the military, egos, bar room talk, fear, what? Wars are the one constant of history.



thats exactly who makes our wars for us,these corrupt and bought off politicans,and the american sheople even after vietnam STILL sadly havent leanred anything yet and like the gullible idiots they are,line up to go over to the middle east and die to line the pockets of all these politicians,bankers and corporations.


----------

