Zone1 Time to accept Jane Fonda's apology? Maybe.......

[San Souci]

Are you fucking kidding me? More soldiers died in Vietnam AFTER Nixon took over than before. Nixon "sorted it out" by escalating the violence, only to sign a treaty that threw the Saigon Regime under the bus.

Those soldiers died because Nixon would rather send more poor people into a meat grinder than just admit a defeat. All this "Peace with Honor" bullshit that prolonged the war for years and cost thousands of American and Vietnamese lives.



I guess, if you need to believe in an afterlife to assuage your fear of death, you do you, man.



Uh, guy, not really. We were funding the Saigon Regime up until the day Saigon fell. The US had committed $700 million in additional weapons to the RVN in FY1975. (In addition to the tens of billions of dollars in weapons we left behind) This is part of the "Stabbed in the Back" myth I was talking about earlier.

Nixon and Kissinger knew the Saigon regime would fall after the US pulled out, because it had no popular support.

Here's where you can educate yourself.

The Myth That Congress Cut Off Funding for South Vietnam

Since partisans have turned the April 30, 1975, Communist takeover of South Vietnam into a political weapon, I’m going to spend the anniversary doing a little myth-busting.

historynewsnetwork.org

Mel Laird, Richard Nixon’s defense secretary, started the modern myth that “Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off funding for our ally in 1975” in a 2005 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.

It wasn't true, but that never stopped a meme.

$700 Million

A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million.

Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid.

Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon. Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation.

Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973.

Political Spin Nixon crafted this secret strategy to foster the illusion that his public strategy of "Vietnamization and negotiation" worked. Vietnamization was supposed to train the South Vietnamese army to defend itself so the American army could come home; negotiations were supposed to produce a settlement guaranteeing the South's right to choose its own government by election. Nixon privately realized that Vietnamization and negotiation would not work as he said they would.

"South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway," he said in private, but never in public. To conceal Vietnamization's failure, Nixon timed the withdrawal of U.S. forces to the 1972 election. This way, California Governor Ronald Reagan could welcome delegates to the Republican National Convention in 1972 with the perfect words to launch the President's reelection campaign: "The last American combat team is on its way home from Vietnam."

To get the North Vietnamese to accept a settlement that, on paper, guaranteed the South's right to free elections, Nixon assured them, through the Soviet Union and China, that if they waited a "decent interval" of a year or two before taking over South Vietnam, he would not intervene. The Communists accepted Nixon's settlement terms because they knew that they didn't have to abide by them and the would get a clear shot at overthrowing the South Vietnamese government if they waited approximately 18 months after Nixon withdrew the last U.S. ground forces. Nixon wanted this "decent interval" to make it look like Saigon's fall wasn't his fault.

Your motherfucker LBJ got into that war for MONEY. Give it a rest ,ya goddam Red.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Um, who are "there own people" exactly. You keep using these vague terms,

there is nothing vague about that "term"...nothing at all

but the reality is when the North finally won, they were pretty benevolent.

Now that's vague...TRANSLATION: White liberals celebrated their "victory" cuz some of "their people" survived.

Let's keep in mind that when the US won the War of Independence, hundreds of thousands of people fled to Canada

^This/that^ just does not make sense on any level...after fighting for independence in America they-[is that too vague?] then decided the peace was insufferable and moved to canada? is that the claim here? do you find the claim "hundreds of thousands of people" to be vague?

and there were horrific reprisals against Native Americans who sided with the British.

they sided with the folks who invaded their land?

 

[Care4all]

Don't push your gods on other people. And I'm not an atheist

How was that pushing, snowflake?

 

[toobfreak]

Time to accept Jane Fonda's apology?​

No. There are just some people and actions, like those of Bowe Bergdahl (or Jane Fonda) cutting at the most fundamental quality of allegiance to one's own country and people that you just don't ever forgive.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. My Maternal Grandfather, Father and two Uncles served in Vietnam. Jane Fonda can burn in hell.

Never. Hanoi Jane should have been executed. I served in 'Nam. Friends of mine DIED there. May that bitch rot in Hell.

Okay, going to ask you two idiots the same question I've asked everyone else.

Is there anyone at this point who argues the war in Vietnam was a good idea?

No whining about the "way veterans feel", just a simple question. because at the time Fonda did this, Nixon was desperately looking for a way to sell Saigon out and withdraw the troops. So even Nixon didn't still think it was a good idea.

 

[JoeB131]

Your motherfucker LBJ got into that war for MONEY. Give it a rest ,ya goddam Red.

LBJ got us into that war because he didn't want a second round of Republicans screaming "Who Lost Vietnam?" the way they had screamed "Who lost China" a decade before.

There was no "money" to be made, just a politician who felt he needed to fight a war because the alternative was to give the opposition political ammo. Just like Obama and Trump dragged their feet on pulling out of Afghanistan until Biden had to pull the bandage off the wound.

So Nixon got elected because he said he had a secret plan to get us out of the war. Turns out it was so secret, even he didn't know what it was. His strategy was to convince the Vietnamese he was a madman by bombing the North's infrastructure, expanding the war to Laos and Cambodia, (Causing their governments to also fall to the Communists) all to get an agreement to not topple the South for a year after he pulled out troops.

So let's be fair. Both LBJ and Nixon were reprehensible in how they handled the war and the misery they inflicted on both American servicemen and Vietnamese civilians.

But you are still here hating on Jane Fonda. Interesting.

 

[JoeB131]

No. There are just some people and actions, like those of Bowe Bergdahl (or Jane Fonda) cutting at the most fundamental quality of allegiance to one's own country and people that you just don't ever forgive.

Uh, okay, let's look at Bowe Bergdahl. Bowe Bergdahl is what happens when you lower your standards. The man had been kicked out of the Coast Guard on a psych discharge. The Army, desperate to keep up recruitment numbers, took him anyway, dropped him in Afghanistan, and then wondered why he wandered off base in a delusional state because he only had a tenuous grasp on reality.

But it gets better. Instead of admitting they enlisted a mental patient who wandered off his post, the Army straight up lied and said he had been taken POW. They also continued to promote him while in captivity, which is why he was an E-5 when the Taliban returned him. And the right wing ninnies all screamed, "Why aren't you doing more to rescue this man?"

Of course, the truth came out when he was returned, and then the whining is why did we return five Taliban leaders for this "Deserter". (Oddly, the same people said nothing when Trump released 5000 Taliban hard cases in 2020 as part of the Doha Accords.)

So there was nothing "political" about Bergdahl, just someone who never should have been in that situation to start with.

 

[Blues Man]

You really want to use that as an example, the Ents eventually joined with the Hobbits and Gondor in fighting Saruman.

So what?

I am not now and will never be affiliated with any scheming, conniving, gutless politician of the corrupt duopoly.

 

[Blues Man]

How was that pushing, snowflake?

Save your sermons for someone who cares

 

[JoeB131]

So what?

I am not now and will never be affiliated with any scheming, conniving, gutless politician of the corrupt duopoly.

You are the one who picked a "Lord of the Rings" clip to emphasize your not taking sides. But if you watched that movie, you'd find that the Ents who didn't take sides were still destroyed by Saruman, so they had to pick a side.

But you do go on with the rest of your analogy.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you spend time on a political forum if you don't care about politics.

 

[Blues Man]

You are the one who picked a "Lord of the Rings" clip to emphasize your not taking sides. But if you watched that movie, you'd find that the Ents who didn't take sides were still destroyed by Saruman, so they had to pick a side.

But you do go on with the rest of your analogy.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you spend time on a political forum if you don't care about politics.

FYI Treebeard went after Saruman for killing his trees he did not join the war against Sauron.

You don't seem to know the story very well.

 

[JoeB131]

FYI Treebeard went after Saruman for killing his trees he did not join the war against Sauron.

You don't seem to know the story very well.

Saruman was Sauron's ally. So, um, yeah, they kind of did.

 

[Blues Man]

Saruman was Sauron's ally. So, um, yeah, they kind of did.

Motive matters.

Treebeard was on his own side and when the battle at Isengard was over he disengaged.

 

[Catman51]

Um, who are "there own people" exactly. You keep using these vague terms, but the reality is when the North finally won, they were pretty benevolent.

Let's keep in mind that when the US won the War of Independence, hundreds of thousands of people fled to Canada and there were horrific reprisals against Native Americans who sided with the British.

You just can't stick to the subject, can you? This proves that you have no point or knowledge in discussing this subject. You seem to be sharing the brain of your namesake, which is to say no brains at all.

If anything I say is "vague" it is because you are to stupid to understand anything except what you spew.

History is full of examples of how people behaved in the distance past with no relevance to today.

All you are doing is bleating to try and make yourself seem concerned when in fact you have nothing and know nothing about this threads purpose. That is a polite way of saying that you are and continue to be useless.

 

[Mac-7]

Uh, okay, let's look at Bowe Bergdahl. Bowe Bergdahl is what happens when you lower your standards. The man had been kicked out of the Coast Guard on a psych discharge. The Army, desperate to keep up recruitment numbers, took him anyway, dropped him in Afghanistan, and then wondered why he wandered off base in a delusional state because he only had a tenuous grasp on reality.

But it gets better. Instead of admitting they enlisted a mental patient who wandered off his post, the Army straight up lied and said he had been taken POW. They also continued to promote him while in captivity, which is why he was an E-5 when the Taliban returned him. And the right wing ninnies all screamed, "Why aren't you doing more to rescue this man?"

Of course, the truth came out when he was returned, and then the whining is why did we return five Taliban leaders for this "Deserter". (Oddly, the same people said nothing when Trump released 5000 Taliban hard cases in 2020 as part of the Doha Accords.)

So there was nothing "political" about Bergdahl, just someone who never should have been in that situation to start with.

Everyone except obama knew that bergdahl was a flake

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Okay, going to ask you two idiots the same question I've asked everyone else.

Is there anyone at this point who argues the war in Vietnam was a good idea?

No whining about the "way veterans feel", just a simple question. because at the time Fonda did this, Nixon was desperately looking for a way to sell Saigon out and withdraw the troops. So even Nixon didn't still think it was a good idea.

Didn't say it was a good idea, protest are a Constitutional right in this country, but what Fonda did was way beyond fucked up and you are as much as a piece of shit for defending her as she is. It's likely that gun she's happily posing by shot down and killed US Airmen so go fuck yourself.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Um, who are "there own people" exactly. You keep using these vague terms, but the reality is when the North finally won, they were pretty benevolent.

Let's keep in mind that when the US won the War of Independence, hundreds of thousands of people fled to Canada and there were horrific reprisals against Native Americans who sided with the British.

SEE BELOW QUOTE:

The number of boat people leaving Vietnam and arriving safely in another country totaled almost 800,000 between 1975 and 1995. Many of the refugees failed to survive the passage, facing danger from pirates, over-crowded boats, and storms. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, between 200,000 and 400,000 boat people died at sea

liberal handywork..."800,000 displaced, 200,000-400,000 died fleeing"...Vietnamese boat people awaiting rescue.

Just another day at the office for the left

 

[Mac-7]

Okay, going to ask you two idiots the same question I've asked everyone else.

Is there anyone at this point who argues the war in Vietnam was a good idea?

No whining about the "way veterans feel", just a simple question. because at the time Fonda did this, Nixon was desperately looking for a way to sell Saigon out and withdraw the troops. So even Nixon didn't still think it was a good idea.

Without the vietnam war thailand, burma, malaysia, indonesia, and the phillipines might have been overrun by communism also

 

[JoeB131]

You just can't stick to the subject, can you? This proves that you have no point or knowledge in discussing this subject. You seem to be sharing the brain of your namesake, which is to say no brains at all.

If anything I say is "vague" it is because you are to stupid to understand anything except what you spew.

History is full of examples of how people behaved in the distance past with no relevance to today.

All you are doing is bleating to try and make yourself seem concerned when in fact you have nothing and know nothing about this threads purpose. That is a polite way of saying that you are and continue to be useless.

No, guy, you made claim that the North Vietnamese were horrible when they won. True, a few Quislings got sent to reeducation camps, but there weren't mass slaughters in Vietnam. (Cambodia is another story.=, but the Vietnamese actually liberated those people. )

Today, all these American companies can't wait to open plants in Vietnam.

 

[JoeB131]

Without the vietnam war thailand, burma, malaysia, indonesia, and the phillipines might have been overrun by communism also

What do you base that on?
In fact, the only reason why Laos and Cambodia went Communist is that we destabilized their government.