| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eris" |
| Date: |
31 May 2004 08:36:44 PM |
| Object: |
Do fundies have scruples? |
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
.
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
31 May 2004 08:19:47 PM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
No, the Moonies would lie and cheat but not that.
Are you confusing the Moonies with David Berg's Children of God cult?
Baghead Ratneesh followers were into sex too.
Cheerful Charlie
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
01 Jun 2004 02:12:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
01 Jun 2004 03:05:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
01 Jun 2004 07:26:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
01 Jun 2004 11:39:10 PM |
|
|
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
Not YEARS. 2 years, if that. We pullled most of our forces in '73. The
American puppet regime held out only until '75, despite massive US
military and foreign aid. There was never a regime in the South that
ever had any stability or real popular support, and the ARVN fought like
pussies when the burden fell on them. There were no actual American
interests at stake. The war was, in its most active phase, primarily
about preventing LBJ from looking soft on communism. I don't know that
it's being spun by the religious right, per se, but certainly by the
right these days.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
We won all the big battles. The fact remains that we lost the "hearts
and minds", and never controlled any ground the grunts weren't actually
standing on at the time. Therefore, Westmoreland and co. began
proferring the meaningless statistic of body counts as evidence of
"success". The prospect for our continuing involvement in Vietnam was an
ongoing pissing away of money and lives that would never result in a
viable state in the South. There are records in LBJ's archives that
indicate that many people in the administration understood this by '67.
There are some unfortunate parralells to the present situation in Iraq,
from a strategic standpoint. The opposition to the war at home was in
fact correct, although led by people in many ways hopelessly politically
naive.
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
02 Jun 2004 09:32:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:39:10 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
Not YEARS. 2 years, if that.
That is YEARS. That is an extremely long time to have none of our
troops on the ground for us to have been driven out by the North.
We pullled most of our forces in '73.
No -- we pulled the last of our forces out in by March of 1973. Most
of our forces were pulled out, for instance, prior to the famous girl
in the photo taken in June of 1972.
The
American puppet regime held out only until '75, despite massive US
military and foreign aid.
Oh yes -- MASSIVE! No ground troops, but massive nonetheless.
There was never a regime in the South that
ever had any stability or real popular support, and the ARVN fought like
pussies when the burden fell on them. There were no actual American
interests at stake. The war was, in its most active phase, primarily
about preventing LBJ from looking soft on communism. I don't know that
it's being spun by the religious right, per se, but certainly by the
right these days.
Nevertheless, your assessment is almost pure *****. This was a
civil war between North and South Viet Nam that the South lost to the
North well after we were out of it.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
We won all the big battles. The fact remains that we lost the "hearts
and minds", and never controlled any ground the grunts weren't actually
standing on at the time.
Again, this is *****. "We", meaning the South Viet Namese and
America controlled the South. And the North had no particular support
for their brutal communist regime in the South.
Therefore, Westmoreland and co. began
proferring the meaningless statistic of body counts as evidence of
"success". The prospect for our continuing involvement in Vietnam was an
ongoing pissing away of money and lives that would never result in a
viable state in the South. There are records in LBJ's archives that
indicate that many people in the administration understood this by '67.
There are some unfortunate parralells to the present situation in Iraq,
from a strategic standpoint. The opposition to the war at home was in
fact correct, although led by people in many ways hopelessly politically
naive.
There is absolutely no parallel to Iraq and Viet Nam. We have
unequivocally conquered Iraq. The only parallel is the possibility of
yet another political debacle involving foreign affairs and our
military. What's new? Certainly no Democrat or Liberal can plausibly
act holier than thou about something like that.
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
02 Jun 2004 11:45:05 PM |
|
|
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:39:10 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
Not YEARS. 2 years, if that.
That is YEARS. That is an extremely long time to have none of our
troops on the ground for us to have been driven out by the North.
We pullled most of our forces in '73.
No -- we pulled the last of our forces out in by March of 1973. Most
of our forces were pulled out, for instance, prior to the famous girl
in the photo taken in June of 1972.
The
American puppet regime held out only until '75, despite massive US
military and foreign aid.
Oh yes -- MASSIVE! No ground troops, but massive nonetheless.
There was never a regime in the South that
ever had any stability or real popular support, and the ARVN fought like
pussies when the burden fell on them. There were no actual American
interests at stake. The war was, in its most active phase, primarily
about preventing LBJ from looking soft on communism. I don't know that
it's being spun by the religious right, per se, but certainly by the
right these days.
Nevertheless, your assessment is almost pure *****. This was a
civil war between North and South Viet Nam that the South lost to the
North well after we were out of it.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
We won all the big battles. The fact remains that we lost the "hearts
and minds", and never controlled any ground the grunts weren't actually
standing on at the time.
Again, this is *****. "We", meaning the South Viet Namese and
America controlled the South. And the North had no particular support
for their brutal communist regime in the South.
Therefore, Westmoreland and co. began
proferring the meaningless statistic of body counts as evidence of
"success". The prospect for our continuing involvement in Vietnam was an
ongoing pissing away of money and lives that would never result in a
viable state in the South. There are records in LBJ's archives that
indicate that many people in the administration understood this by '67.
There are some unfortunate parralells to the present situation in Iraq,
from a strategic standpoint. The opposition to the war at home was in
fact correct, although led by people in many ways hopelessly politically
naive.
There is absolutely no parallel to Iraq and Viet Nam. We have
unequivocally conquered Iraq. The only parallel is the possibility of
yet another political debacle involving foreign affairs and our
military. What's new? Certainly no Democrat or Liberal can plausibly
act holier than thou about something like that.
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
Unfortunately, the facts are on my side. Do read some Vietnam history
that doesn't come from Limbaugh and co. Also, conventional wisdom on the
part of Marines I've talked to that fought in 'Nam seems to be that we
got our asses kicked. Hardly the most liberal bunch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
03 Jun 2004 02:49:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:45:05 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:39:10 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:
snip
We pullled most of our forces in '73.
No -- we pulled the last of our forces out in by March of 1973. Most
of our forces were pulled out, for instance, prior to the famous girl
in the photo taken in June of 1972.
snip
Unfortunately, the facts are on my side. Do read some Vietnam history
that doesn't come from Limbaugh and co. Also, conventional wisdom on the
part of Marines I've talked to that fought in 'Nam seems to be that we
got our asses kicked. Hardly the most liberal bunch.
You lie and are bull-shitting. The only "fact" you have presented
thus far -- that we pulled most of our troops out in 73 -- is false.
We pulled most of our troops out in 72. Everything else is a bunch of
personal spinning on the politics in other countries concerning the
war.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
03 Jun 2004 08:18:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:45:05 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:
Unfortunately, the facts are on my side. Do read some Vietnam history
that doesn't come from Limbaugh and co. Also, conventional wisdom on the
part of Marines I've talked to that fought in 'Nam seems to be that we
got our asses kicked. Hardly the most liberal bunch.
I don't know about getting our asses kicked, to me it was a no win
situation, like Iraq, where the enemy has almost unlimited human
resources but not much else. Seems like a winning ticket every time.
We did take some incredible losses for fighting such a small country.
I don't believe there are indesputables facts about Viet Nam anywhere.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
02 Jun 2004 10:32:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:39:10 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
Not YEARS. 2 years, if that. We pullled most of our forces in '73. The
American puppet regime held out only until '75, despite massive US
military and foreign aid. There was never a regime in the South that
ever had any stability or real popular support, and the ARVN fought like
pussies when the burden fell on them. There were no actual American
interests at stake. The war was, in its most active phase, primarily
about preventing LBJ from looking soft on communism. I don't know that
it's being spun by the religious right
Viet Nam always seem to be a religious thing. The Churches were 100 %
behind stopping communism before it spread to all of Asia. Kind of
reminiscent of the stop terrorism in Iraq. Lets face it the religious
right loves a good war, as long as they are not personally at risk, to
include their children.
I don't know how old you are but I remember the popular and highly
sarcastic Kill a commie for Christ.
You men are not killers, you are defenders!
, per se, but certainly by the
right these days.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
We won all the big battles. The fact remains that we lost the "hearts
and minds", and never controlled any ground the grunts weren't actually
standing on at the time. Therefore, Westmoreland and co. began
proferring the meaningless statistic of body counts as evidence of
"success".
Yup one of the generals of one of the divisions built a "Holiday Inn"
and the patrol who recorded the highest body counts got to stay at
this "Holiday Inn" A lieutenant on a patrol I was on said after a
"skirmish" to radio the base camp that we had 16 kills. I looked
around and asked where did he see 16 kills and he claimed to be able
to see enough blood for 16 kills. I didn't see any blood.
The prospect for our continuing involvement in Vietnam was an
ongoing pissing away of money and lives that would never result in a
viable state in the South.
I was told by the villagers that they didn't care who the government
was, the government ended at the province gate.
Their current regime at that time, was probably as ruthless as the
communist.
There are records in LBJ's archives that
indicate that many people in the administration understood this by '67.
There are some unfortunate parralells to the present situation in Iraq,
from a strategic standpoint. The opposition to the war at home was in
fact correct, although led by people in many ways hopelessly politically
naive.
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
01 Jun 2004 07:47:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:26:13 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
I was busy screaming like a woman and begging a God I did not believe
in, to make it stop during the big Tet offensive of 1968 and not able
to test the political opposition to the "Police Action" in south Viet
Nam.
It just stopped after a while and no one informed me who won and I am
pretty sure that the Viet Cong cadre were able to spin the whole thing
in a positive way, because there where various other offensives that
also caused me to scream like a woman.
You sound like a decent person, but I am unable to resist. Please rent
the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield and fast forward to
the scene where the intelligent coed explains the Viet Nam war to Sam
Kennison. I hope this is the correct movie.
When I got home sentiment was divided between those under 30 and those
over 30.
Anyway "Kill a Commie for Christ."
So as a participant in the 1968 Southeast Asia war games (Second
Place) I get upset when nonparticipating play mind games with the
"Police Action"
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
Still Polarized. And along religious lines I suspect
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
01 Jun 2004 09:00:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:47:28 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:26:13 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
I was busy screaming like a woman and begging a God I did not believe
in, to make it stop during the big Tet offensive of 1968 and not able
to test the political opposition to the "Police Action" in south Viet
Nam.
It just stopped after a while and no one informed me who won and I am
pretty sure that the Viet Cong cadre were able to spin the whole thing
in a positive way, because there where various other offensives that
also caused me to scream like a woman.
Well that is all well and good. Nevertheless, the facts remain the
same. If you think the Tet offensive was some big military victory
for the North, then you are simply an idiot.
You sound like a decent person, but I am unable to resist. Please rent
the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield and fast forward to
the scene where the intelligent coed explains the Viet Nam war to Sam
Kennison. I hope this is the correct movie.
You sound like a bullshitter to me. I think you are a sixteen year
old boy trying to act like "you were there". What you do not realize
is that the facts so brazenly contradict your "expert assessment" of
the Viet Nam war that no one that actually knows them thinks you are
anything other than full of *****.
But I will grant you...
that is a small minority of people...
When I got home sentiment was divided between those under 30 and those
over 30.
Anyway "Kill a Commie for Christ."
So as a participant in the 1968 Southeast Asia war games (Second
Place) I get upset when nonparticipating play mind games with the
"Police Action"
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
Still Polarized. And along religious lines I suspect
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
01 Jun 2004 09:36:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:00:40 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:47:28 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:26:13 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
I was busy screaming like a woman and begging a God I did not believe
in, to make it stop during the big Tet offensive of 1968 and not able
to test the political opposition to the "Police Action" in south Viet
Nam.
It just stopped after a while and no one informed me who won and I am
pretty sure that the Viet Cong cadre were able to spin the whole thing
in a positive way, because there where various other offensives that
also caused me to scream like a woman.
Well that is all well and good. Nevertheless, the facts remain the
same. If you think the Tet offensive was some big military victory
for the North, then you are simply an idiot.
You sound like a decent person, but I am unable to resist. Please rent
the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield and fast forward to
the scene where the intelligent coed explains the Viet Nam war to Sam
Kennison. I hope this is the correct movie.
You sound like a bullshitter to me. I think you are a sixteen year
old boy trying to act like "you were there". What you do not realize
is that the facts so brazenly contradict your "expert assessment" of
the Viet Nam war that no one that actually knows them thinks you are
anything other than full of *****.
But I will grant you...
that is a small minority of people...
When I got home sentiment was divided between those under 30 and those
over 30.
Anyway "Kill a Commie for Christ."
So as a participant in the 1968 Southeast Asia war games (Second
Place) I get upset when nonparticipating play mind games with the
"Police Action"
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
Still Polarized. And along religious lines I suspect
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
01 Jun 2004 09:47:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:00:40 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:47:28 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:26:13 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
I was busy screaming like a woman and begging a God I did not believe
in, to make it stop during the big Tet offensive of 1968 and not able
to test the political opposition to the "Police Action" in south Viet
Nam.
It just stopped after a while and no one informed me who won and I am
pretty sure that the Viet Cong cadre were able to spin the whole thing
in a positive way, because there where various other offensives that
also caused me to scream like a woman.
Well that is all well and good. Nevertheless, the facts remain the
same. If you think the Tet offensive was some big military victory
for the North, then you are simply an idiot.
As I clearly stated, there was no award ceremony for winning the Tet
offensive. As I also stated I was thoroughly demoralized by the Tet
offensive.
I don't think a small country like Viet Nam could win a war with a
super power like the US. Could they, I think that they realized this
and just tried to demoralize us with attacks.
You sound like a decent person, but I am unable to resist. Please rent
the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield and fast forward to
the scene where the intelligent coed explains the Viet Nam war to Sam
Kennison. I hope this is the correct movie.
I don't feel bad anymore please rent the movie, please!
You sound like a bullshitter to me. I think you are a sixteen year
old boy trying to act like "you were there".
Machs nix mestucke
What you do not realize
is that the facts so brazenly contradict your "expert assessment" of
ooooh mealy words
the Viet Nam war that no one that actually knows them thinks you are
anything other than full of *****.
Facts, there are no stinking facts about Viet Nam.
Where do you get facts?
What unit were you in?
But I will grant you...
that is a small minority of people...
Who are these people. Everyone "expert" who has appeared has been
discredit by other "Experts"
When I got home sentiment was divided between those under 30 and those
over 30.
Anyway "Kill a Commie for Christ."
So as a participant in the 1968 Southeast Asia war games (Second
Place) I get upset when nonparticipating play mind games with the
"Police Action"
And why is that? Because of a particularly weird form of bull *****
that surrounds any public discussions about Viet Nam
Still Polarized. And along religious lines I suspect
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
02 Jun 2004 10:02:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 22:47:31 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:00:40 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:47:28 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:26:13 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
I was busy screaming like a woman and begging a God I did not believe
in, to make it stop during the big Tet offensive of 1968 and not able
to test the political opposition to the "Police Action" in south Viet
Nam.
It just stopped after a while and no one informed me who won and I am
pretty sure that the Viet Cong cadre were able to spin the whole thing
in a positive way, because there where various other offensives that
also caused me to scream like a woman.
Well that is all well and good. Nevertheless, the facts remain the
same. If you think the Tet offensive was some big military victory
for the North, then you are simply an idiot.
As I clearly stated, there was no award ceremony for winning the Tet
offensive. As I also stated I was thoroughly demoralized by the Tet
offensive.
I don't think a small country like Viet Nam could win a war with a
super power like the US. Could they, I think that they realized this
and just tried to demoralize us with attacks.
Well, of course, that is the incredible genius of General Giap, don't
you know. He could clearly see how the ***** politics would
coalesce into the US exiting the conflict.
Ironically, I think that Saddam truly did at least hope for this if
not bank on it happening in Iraq. Of course, he found out just how
ridiculous a bet that was. And, I doubt that without the history of
Viet Nam and a number of other debacles after that, that General Giap
could have possibly imagined that his tactics would have led to
political movements he couldn't begin to understand in a country he
knew nothing about that would lead to that country withdrawing from
Viet Nam. Rather, he sincerely believed that the Tet Offensive would
spark the revolutionary spirit in the inhabitants of the South whom he
imagined were just oppressed masses that deep down inside truly saw
the righteousness of communism and his regime. This is typical
communist *****.
You sound like a decent person, but I am unable to resist. Please rent
the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield and fast forward to
the scene where the intelligent coed explains the Viet Nam war to Sam
Kennison. I hope this is the correct movie.
I don't feel bad anymore please rent the movie, please!
You sound like a bullshitter to me. I think you are a sixteen year
old boy trying to act like "you were there".
Machs nix mestucke
What you do not realize
is that the facts so brazenly contradict your "expert assessment" of
ooooh mealy words
the Viet Nam war that no one that actually knows them thinks you are
anything other than full of *****.
Facts, there are no stinking facts about Viet Nam.
Where do you get facts?
It is a matter of public record.
-snip-
And, this is what I find so bizarre about this subject. It is like
some big brother mind *****. And yet the facts are readily available.
Normally, history would look back on all of this and see at least the
simple facts. But, it seems like people are still just buying into
the *****.
As you say, we could have conquered Viet Nam several times over. We
could have done it the most efficient way -- by bombing the North into
the stone ages (which they were not far from -- just like most of the
middle east I might add). Or we could have done it with "one arm tied
behind our back" with traditional ground troop assaults. Or anything
in between -- like with the invention of attack helicopters, through
some sort of modern day type of special forces approach, and so on.
The reason we left Viet Nam without making sure the South won their
war was and can only have been because of political reasons at home.
We had to leave sometime. When would that be? Would it take Viet Nam
being another state in the union before we call it a "victory"? It
was a ***** military and political debacle -- we didn't "lose"
anything -- that is just another part of the popular *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
02 Jun 2004 10:27:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 03:02:05 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 22:47:31 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:00:40 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:47:28 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:26:13 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
I was busy screaming like a woman and begging a God I did not believe
in, to make it stop during the big Tet offensive of 1968 and not able
to test the political opposition to the "Police Action" in south Viet
Nam.
It just stopped after a while and no one informed me who won and I am
pretty sure that the Viet Cong cadre were able to spin the whole thing
in a positive way, because there where various other offensives that
also caused me to scream like a woman.
Well that is all well and good. Nevertheless, the facts remain the
same. If you think the Tet offensive was some big military victory
for the North, then you are simply an idiot.
As I clearly stated, there was no award ceremony for winning the Tet
offensive. As I also stated I was thoroughly demoralized by the Tet
offensive.
I don't think a small country like Viet Nam could win a war with a
super power like the US. Could they, I think that they realized this
and just tried to demoralize us with attacks.
Well, of course, that is the incredible genius of General Giap, don't
you know. He could clearly see how the ***** politics would
coalesce into the US exiting the conflict.
I do not think General Giap was a genius, his job was to harass the
expeditionary forces until they got tired of all the ***** and
left. Something that the English experienced in 1776.
Plus he was harassing a military force that was trying to be nice
guys, and not engage in wholesale slaughter.
Facts, there are no stinking facts about Viet Nam.
Where do you get facts?
It is a matter of public record.
And where does the public record come from. The forces in the field
who were led by and officer corp that was more interested in career
advancement then giving accurate information to the Commanding
Officers.
So that would make the public record base on ***** from the field.
Garbage in garbage out.
And, this is what I find so bizarre about this subject. It is like
some big brother mind *****. And yet the facts are readily available.
Opinions are readily available, where do you find indisputable facts,
in the public record. I am really curious to find out what happened on
May 5, 1968 at ten thirty PM local time, at Ton Son Nuit.
Normally, history would look back on all of this and see at least the
simple facts. But, it seems like people are still just buying into
the *****.
And the truth can be found ...
As you say, we could have conquered Viet Nam several times over. We
could have done it the most efficient way -- by bombing the North into
the stone ages (which they were not far from -- just like most of the
middle east I might add).Or we could have done it with "one arm tied
behind our back" with traditional ground troop assaults. Or anything
in between -- like with the invention of attack helicopters, through
some sort of modern day type of special forces approach, and so on.
The reason we left Viet Nam without making sure the South won their
war was and can only have been because of political reasons at home.
We had to leave sometime. When would that be? Would it take Viet Nam
being another state in the union before we call it a "victory"? It
was a ***** military and political debacle -- we didn't "lose"
anything -- that is just another part of the popular *****.
We weren't fighting a war and how do you win a police action?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
03 Jun 2004 02:56:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:27:11 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 03:02:05 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 22:47:31 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:00:40 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:47:28 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:26:13 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:05:03 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:36:44 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
Of course not they will say or do anything to get their God given
dominion over you and me. Lying for Gawd is no sin. Remember the
prostitutes for Jesus arm of the Sung Young Moon church?
We can not really call them neo cons because the actual neo cons are
quite intelligent and use religion to get the religious
fundamentalists to do their bidding.
Anyway they are now spinning Viet Nam to serve their own purposes.
Anyone who was actively against the war in the 1970's were true heroes
and patriots. Now the religidiot are saying that the protesters cause
our defeat in Viet Nam. They quote General Vo Nguyen Giap as saying
that it was the protestors in America that kept the Viet Cong going.
Folks if you look through the writing and speech or religidiot's over
the last 72 years you find that according to them General Vo Nguyen
Giap is the only communist that doesn't lie.
What a hoot, all of these religidiot's armchair commando's and green
beret's telling us how support back home torpedoed the war effort in
Viet Nam.
To the truly decent religious fundamentalist, this of course does not
apply to you. But you must admit your religion does attract a fair
amount of kooks.
This is well known to be true by anyone that knows the facts. It is
only the political posturing and media spinning that says otherwise.
And you are hearing that from a string atheist. Frankly, I don't see
what religion has to do with Viet Nam. And, in any case, perhaps you
should shut your mouth until you are talking about a subject you
actually know something about.
Excuse me?
The religious right is spinning the Viet Nam war nine ways to
purdition. This whole eclection seems to be a religious war between
the religots and us.
No. What has happened with the Viet Nam war is that it isn't
important enough for the current generation (Gen Xers) who were mostly
children to really know the truth. So that leaves the last generation
(Baby Boomers) to spin it however they wish. So, you get this really
weird big brotheresque revision of history.
Viet Nam was a civil war between North and South. The South only fell
YEARS after the American troops were removed from Viet Nam. South
Viet Nam "lost the war". And the reason it was a debacle for America
was because of a whole lot of various political reasons.
And, it is in fact true that a lot of the reason we pulled out was
merely because of political opposition to our involvement. The Tet
Offensive -- the great "turning point" of the war -- for instance, was
a miserable failure for general Giap (the Viet Kong). What it did was
change American sentiment from bad to worse because even to this day
everyone acts like it was some sort of a big military victory for
Giap.
I was busy screaming like a woman and begging a God I did not believe
in, to make it stop during the big Tet offensive of 1968 and not able
to test the political opposition to the "Police Action" in south Viet
Nam.
It just stopped after a while and no one informed me who won and I am
pretty sure that the Viet Cong cadre were able to spin the whole thing
in a positive way, because there where various other offensives that
also caused me to scream like a woman.
Well that is all well and good. Nevertheless, the facts remain the
same. If you think the Tet offensive was some big military victory
for the North, then you are simply an idiot.
As I clearly stated, there was no award ceremony for winning the Tet
offensive. As I also stated I was thoroughly demoralized by the Tet
offensive.
I don't think a small country like Viet Nam could win a war with a
super power like the US. Could they, I think that they realized this
and just tried to demoralize us with attacks.
Well, of course, that is the incredible genius of General Giap, don't
you know. He could clearly see how the ***** politics would
coalesce into the US exiting the conflict.
I do not think General Giap was a genius, his job was to harass the
expeditionary forces until they got tired of all the ***** and
left. Something that the English experienced in 1776.
Plus he was harassing a military force that was trying to be nice
guys, and not engage in wholesale slaughter.
Facts, there are no stinking facts about Viet Nam.
Where do you get facts?
It is a matter of public record.
And where does the public record come from. The forces in the field
who were led by and officer corp that was more interested in career
advancement then giving accurate information to the Commanding
Officers.
So that would make the public record base on ***** from the field.
Garbage in garbage out.
And, this is what I find so bizarre about this subject. It is like
some big brother mind *****. And yet the facts are readily available.
Opinions are readily available, where do you find indisputable facts,
in the public record. I am really curious to find out what happened on
May 5, 1968 at ten thirty PM local time, at Ton Son Nuit.
Normally, history would look back on all of this and see at least the
simple facts. But, it seems like people are still just buying into
the *****.
And the truth can be found ...
Oh please. You talk like it was some clandestine CIA mission. Yes --
no one knows what REALLY happened -- they didn't know, for instance,
that you were picking lint out of your belly-button on May 5, 1968 at
ten thirty PM local time, at Ton Son Nuit, while your commanding
officer was picking his nose!
They didn't know THAT now DID THEY!
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
05 Jun 2004 02:46:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:56:11 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Incoherent unsubstantiated babble ..
Oh please. You talk like it was some clandestine CIA mission. Yes --
no one knows what REALLY happened -- they didn't know, for instance,
that you were picking lint out of your belly-button on May 5, 1968 at
ten thirty PM local time, at Ton Son Nuit, while your commanding
officer was picking his nose!
They didn't know THAT now DID THEY!
snip
OK, what do they know?
You did get me thinking. Is your spin that the media did not play up
the "fact" that the Viet Cong lost big in the 1968 Tet offensive?
I don't think capturing Saigon was General Giap's main plan. He would
have been annihilated shortly after capturing Saigon.
I think his plan was to keep up the harassment until the US left South
Viet Nam. Which we did. Point and match to General Giap, whether he is
an idiot or a genius.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
02 Jun 2004 05:40:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
string atheist
Two questions
1. what is a string atheist.
2. I don't know anyone named adrian are you male or female.
No mock, just don't know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do fundies have scruples? |
02 Jun 2004 09:32:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:40:59 -0400, Eris <Vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:12:44 GMT, Adrian
<adriansdurham@houston.rr.com> wrote:
string atheist
Two questions
1. what is a string atheist.
2. I don't know anyone named adrian are you male or female.
No mock, just don't know.
It is a typo -- I am a strong atheist. And I am male.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
