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

[Spoonman]

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.

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?

 

[there4eyeM]

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?

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

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]

what a load of simplistic bullshit

Are you denying that there is any truth here?

there is always a kernel of truth in every successful lie

Must be a shitload of truth in that then.

 

[Spoonman]

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?

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?

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

 

[NoNukes]

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.

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.

 

[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]

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.

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.

 

[there4eyeM]

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

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

And killing unnecessarily. That's good, too.

 

[Spoonman]

"...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]

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.

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

 

[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.

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

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]

"...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.

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]

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

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

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]

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.

where were they in WWI WWII, Korea?

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

 

[bornright]

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."

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?

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]

hating on the French...another great American tradition

well that and facts don't lie

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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]

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.'